# The Abbott Government



## Calliope

I can't wait to see Bronwyn Bishop installed as Speaker by the Coalition. She has a lot of old scores to settle, especially with Anthony Albanese. He will probably be expelled from the chamber at the first sitting.



> Perhaps the most symbolic appointment Abbott will make in his first six months will be selecting the next Governor-General. Given it will cover the period that marks the centenary of the Anzac landing at Gallipoli, General Peter Cosgrove is a hot favourite.
> 
> One of other big jobs will be the Speaker of the House of Representatives. That is a very prestigious and well-paid job and might help Abbott find space in his frontbench. Some have tried to shift Kevin Andrews into the post but he's expected to be Families Minister. Bronwyn Bishop may be in line.




http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...right-experience/story-fni0fheo-1226712362490


----------



## drsmith

Wyatt Roy spoke impressively in a short interview he gave this morning.

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...013-live-september-6-2013-20130906-2t8u8.html

Perhaps a bit young still for a senior role in Tony Abbott's first term, but definitely one to watch out for in an Abbott second term.


----------



## sydboy007

Lets hope he does what he says in regards to the public service.

Just look at the small Govt public service levels of the Howard Govt   He really had the after burners running hot.

Reminds me of the graphs for house price inflation under Howard.


----------



## bellenuit

drsmith said:


> Wyatt Roy spoke impressively in a short interview he gave this morning.
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...013-live-september-6-2013-20130906-2t8u8.html
> 
> Perhaps a bit young still for a senior role in Tony Abbott's first term, but definitely one to watch out for in an Abbott second term.




+1 I agree.


----------



## Calliope

sydboy007 said:


> Lets hope he does what he says in regards to the public service.




Yes, he would be well advised to do as Rudd says and "cut cut cut" the Public Service to "the bone". There's plenty of fat there.


----------



## drsmith

The trend in public service numbers in Tony Abbott's first term I suspect will more reflect John Howard's first term than his last.


----------



## Calliope

drsmith said:


> The trend in public service numbers in Tony Abbott's first term I suspect will more reflect John Howard's first term than his last.




No Government since WW 2 has managed to reduce the size of Government. He will have to start early and be prepared to cop the flak from the nay-sayers like Newman has copped, mainly from the unions.

*



While Mr Abbott recognises the nexus between smaller government and economic growth, he has been less forthcoming on the fiscal imperative to cut government spending. It is understandable that Mr Abbott might be unwilling to announce any policies that hint of austerity in an election such as this, but we take heart from his commitment to a comprehensive audit of commonwealth spending should the Coalition win office. Yet we sincerely hope that Mr Abbott and his team are prepared for the scale of the task ahead. They must achieve what no administration has been able to do since World War II and reduce the size of government. The task will be made harder by the Coalition's politically expedient pre-commitment to the school and disability reform packages, not to mention Mr Abbott's private political indulgence of paid parental leave. Each may be justified in policy terms, but they represent recurrent spending liabilities that will have to be offset by cutting programs elsewhere.

Click to expand...


*
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...ational-interest/story-e6frg71x-1226712357716


----------



## drsmith

Calliope said:


> No Government since WW 2 has managed to reduce the size of Government. He will have to start early and be prepared to cop the flak from the nay-sayers like Newman has copped, mainly from the unions.



Judging by the trend from 1998 to 1999, John Howard must have at least given it a nasty shake in his first term. Another factor could be that since WW2, most governments have been elected for multiple terms.

There's no doubt though that an Abbott government is going to face an interesting fiscal challenge made even more interesting by some of their policy mix.


----------



## sydboy007

Calliope said:


> Yes, he would be well advised to do as Rudd says and "cut cut cut" the Public Service to "the bone". There's plenty of fat there.






drsmith said:


> The trend in public service numbers in Tony Abbott's first term I suspect will more reflect John Howard's first term than his last.




I hope it's not at he bottom end.  Over the last 2 decades the front line to management ratio has fallend from 4:1 to 2.4:1

So in theory they could remove a lot of expensive managers without having to great an effect on service delivery.

Whether he has the cajones to do this, will be interesting.

I dare say natural attrition will not remove many at the managerial level.


----------



## wayneL

drsmith said:


> ...made even more interesting by some of their policy mix.




I find it interesting that Abbott is considered right wing and/or conservative, Seems more along the lines of a social liberal IMO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism or perhaps some way between that and neoliberalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism


----------



## sydboy007

wayneL said:


> I find it interesting that Abbott is considered right wing and/or conservative, Seems more along the lines of a social liberal IMO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism




More along the lines of social populist?

Maybe the "blackhole" he'll discover in a few months will give him the fig leaf to do what needs to be done.

How he argues for the cuts required when he's fought against most of Labors will be interesting.  I can see some of his arguments being used against him, especially after his car FBT howls of outrage.


----------



## wayneL

sydboy007 said:


> More along the lines of social populist?




We live in a society where the self interested plebs must be bribed for votes. Just the way it is. 

There is no way that anyone with a fiscally responsible program will get elected.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> Maybe the "blackhole" he'll discover in a few months will give him the fig leaf to do what needs to be done.



That's what usually happens and it won't matter who's in office. The black hole is there regardless.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> That's what usually happens and it won't matter who's in office. The black hole is there regardless.




The issue I have with the blackhole is a budget is a forecast.  The politicians like to make out they're written in stone, but it's just the best guess as to how things will pan out.

Personally I think treasury is still being wildly optimistic with the amount of revenue that will be coming in.

The true test of Abbott will be if the new forecasts are actually more in line with recent history or not.  If not then i can see too many more deficits rolling through.

Anyone who believes the "golden" years of Howard will return after tomorrow are in for a rude awakening.  Households can't take on any more debt, so I don't see the Federal Govt being able to save too much if the household sector is deleveraging, or at best is holding still.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> Anyone who believes the "golden" years of Howard will return after tomorrow are in for a rude awakening.



As Labor discovered in office.


----------



## wayneL

sydboy007 said:


> The issue I have with the blackhole is a budget is a forecast.  The politicians like to make out they're written in stone, but it's just the best guess as to how things will pan out.
> 
> Personally I think treasury is still being wildly optimistic with the amount of revenue that will be coming in.
> 
> The true test of Abbott will be if the new forecasts are actually more in line with recent history or not.  If not then i can see too many more deficits rolling through.
> 
> Anyone who believes the "golden" years of Howard will return after tomorrow are in for a rude awakening.  Households can't take on any more debt, so I don't see the Federal Govt being able to save too much if the household sector is deleveraging, or at best is holding still.




I think the Abbott team are fully cognizant of this point, however I repeat my earlier point, the plebs will not vote for those who tell the truth.

The successful coalition gu'mint will have to engage in some clever subterfuge in rehabilitating the economy while placating pork barrellees.

A tough gig.


----------



## sails

wayneL said:


> ...The successful coalition gu'mint will have to engage in some clever subterfuge in rehabilitating the economy while placating pork barrellees.
> 
> A tough gig.




Clearly the reason the libs have retained the Better Schools program and the NDIS. But only time will tell if they can rehabilitate the economy while keeping these large ticket items including their own PPL.

But then, what's the point of paying off too much debt?  Labor will one day get back in and go on another massive spending spree - at least that seems to be the cycle.


----------



## Calliope

One advantage of having a conservative government is that people will be more optimistic and start spending again. As a self-funded retiree I have a personal interest in bank deposit interests getting back to levels where taxes and rates don't cancel out the earnings. The official interest rates and bank interest rates are at record lows. Low interest rates are indicative of a faltering economy.

People in my situation don't have mortgages and hopefully an improvement in the economy will lead to a rise in interest rates.


----------



## sydboy007

Calliope said:


> One advantage of having a conservative government is that people will be more optimistic and start spending again. As a self-funded retiree I have a personal interest in bank deposit interests getting back to levels where taxes and rates don't cancel out the earnings. The official interest rates and bank interest rates are at record lows. Low interest rates are indicative of a faltering economy.
> 
> People in my situation don't have mortgages and hopefully an improvement in the economy will lead to a rise in interest rates.




I hope you're right, but looking at the current momentum in the economy, I think we'll at best see a small sugar hit, then the continual downward trend unless the rest of the world picks up.  We are price takers for pretty much all our exports.

Once the ToT of starts falling again the negative income shock is going to be quite deflationary, which is what we've been seeing over the last 18-24 months.  GDP looks OK (per capita is looking sad on a real basis at 0.1% last qtr) but GNI has been stagnant for quite some time (real per capita GNI has been falling).

There's little the Govt can do about this, thought they like to pretend they have some magical ability to "control" a piddly small economy from a global perspective.  We had an overvalued currency for an extended period of time that has decimated local manufacturing and domestic sectors, and now we'll face ever escalating petrol prices as the $ has to overshoot on the way down to compensate for the high cost country we've become.  It's not a recipe for above trend economic growth.

I fear a bleak future in that we will have to accept living within our means for at least the next decade.  It's something neither party has had to deal with for a long time.  It hopefully wont be as bad as Europe or the USA, but for a lot of people it will feel like it simply because they're not "equity mate" propping up their exorbitant lifestyles.


----------



## noco

Calliope said:


> I can't wait to see Bronwyn Bishop installed as Speaker by the Coalition. She has a lot of old scores to settle, especially with Anthony Albanese. He will probably be expelled from the chamber at the first sitting.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...right-experience/story-fni0fheo-1226712362490




+ 1 Calliope, she would be a good speaker and she appears to know the constitution backwards.


----------



## wayneL

Calliope said:


> One advantage of having a conservative government is that people will be more optimistic and start spending again. As a self-funded retiree I have a personal interest in bank deposit interests getting back to levels where taxes and rates don't cancel out the earnings. The official interest rates and bank interest rates are at record lows. Low interest rates are indicative of a faltering economy.
> 
> People in my situation don't have mortgages and hopefully an improvement in the economy will lead to a rise in interest rates.



Agree with the sentiment... fully. Mum in the same boat.

But the economy is caught between a rock and a hard place in that regard... can't see substantially rising interest rates without economic Armageddon.


----------



## Julia

Calliope said:


> I can't wait to see Bronwyn Bishop installed as Speaker by the Coalition. She has a lot of old scores to settle, especially with Anthony Albanese. He will probably be expelled from the chamber at the first sitting.



If she is elected Speaker, I hope she will not be about 'settling old scores'.  For the sake of the parliament, we need a Speaker who is objective and independent, not someone who is acting out of spite.
Despite Peter Slipper's obvious problems, he was a good Speaker in this respect.


----------



## Calliope

Julia said:


> If she is elected Speaker, I hope she will not be about 'settling old scores'.  For the sake of the parliament, we need a Speaker who is objective and independent, not someone who is acting out of spite.
> Despite Peter Slipper's obvious problems, he was a good Speaker in this respect.




I'm delighted to hear that you don't believe in settling old scores. I am a great believer in schadenfreude. I am sure that Christopher Pyne as Manager of Business (replacing Albanese) will have a ball.


----------



## Ves

Calliope said:


> schadenfreude.



Translation for those who don't speak German:  the concept attributed to those who have no self-esteem of their own enjoying others fail.


----------



## Smurf1976

Regardless of whether the next government is Liberal, Labor, Greens, Palmer or anyone else.....

1. The debt is there and it's real. Private debt is at huge levels and this acts as a brake on consumer spending. 

2. Government debt has also increased and current deficits are significant. Any measures to address this situation, other than those which result in less money flowing overseas, have the effect of dampening the Australian economy in the process. Love them or hate them, public servants spend their pay in private businesses just like everyone else. Yes Labor has borrowed a fortune, but they've been artificially propping up GDP in doing so - you can't just take that out suddenly without consequences.

3. The AUD is still at a level that's killing manufacturing and indeed most industries. Even mining is increasingly uncompetitive at these levels.

4. A fall in the AUD will however fuel inflation, most immediately and noticeably via petrol prices. A rise in the price of petrol seems to impact consumer confidence disproportionately to the actual impact in pure financial terms. That is, there's a significant psychological impact in addition to the actual cost as such.

5. Manufacturing is so far gone in most cases that it won't quickly rebound following a drop in the AUD. The tipping point has already passed - you can't increase production from a factory that has already been turned into flats, a warehouse for distributing imported products or outright demolished. It's gone and won't be coming back - at best we might be able to establish that industry again on a new site some years into the future if, and only if, the AUD and business costs went to a level far lower than anyone wants to contemplate at present. But that implies going through one hell of a lot of pain before seeing any real improvement.

We can't really ramp up car production when Nissan and Mitsubishi are already gone and Ford is committed to going too. We can't ramp up consumer electronics manufacturing when Philips and others have already closed or gone into niche markets only. We can't make more paper when the Pulp is now literally a pile of rubble being carted off to the tip. We can't make more tools when the factory that once made them is now a warehouse for unrelated businesses. And so on. At most, we might be able to restart a blast furnace or two and things like that - but anything more significant won't happen without massive investment taking place first.

6. We've already had a housing boom, debt boom and a mining boom so there's no "magic bullet" which can be quickly ramped up to create another boom, at least not without impacting the government's finances in the process (eg big tax cuts would likely achieve a result in terms of consumer spending, but that doesn't fix the budget).

7. The number of people who missed the house price boom is steadily increasing due to natural aging of people. Over time, a fall in house prices shifts from being a political problem to becoming desirable as the number of "priced out" voters increases relative to those who actually benefit from high prices (which for the majority of people is really only those looking to downsize or sell up). But a fall in house prices brings many other economic problems with it, at least in the short term. The saying "painting yourself into a corner" comes to mind with this one.

8. I hear that mortgage rates in the USA are now trending upward. In due course, what happens overseas tends to arrive here eventually. Massive debts and rising rates - ouch.

9. The imminent surge in natural gas prices isn't going to help household budgets or business in the Eastern states (which in this context means the whole country except WA and NT).

10. The weather has been favourable to agriculture in recent times. But as sure as rain follows drought, so too drought follows rain. Always has done and always will. It's hard to see things improving in terms of production volumes at least in non-irrigated areas.

So to be blunt, there would seem to be a lot of headwinds to any real improvement economically and that is true regardless of who is in power. In the absence of something unforeseen, we'll likely "muddle through" with modest growth much like we've seen in the past few years - there's no quick fix that I can see. Slowly but surely, we're heading into the same mess that much of the world faces - and we've been doing that under both Labor and Coalition governments for many years now so that's not a political outcome as such, only the details really change but the big picture doesn't.


----------



## drsmith

The three likely independent senators post election appear to be in favour of abolishing the carbon tax meaning that Labor and the Greens would have to retain the balance of power in the senate to defend it.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3843258.htm


----------



## drsmith

Smurf1976 said:


> So to be blunt, there would seem to be a lot of headwinds to any real improvement economically and that is true regardless of who is in power. In the absence of something unforeseen, we'll likely "muddle through" with modest growth much like we've seen in the past few years - there's no quick fix that I can see. Slowly but surely, we're heading into the same mess that much of the world faces - and we've been doing that under both Labor and Coalition governments for many years now so that's not a political outcome as such, only the details really change but the big picture doesn't.



One difference hopefully between this government and the next is that we won't see the dysfunction and volume of poor policy outcomes that have plagued this government.


----------



## Calliope

Ves said:


> Translation for those who don't speak German:  the concept attributed to those who have no self-esteem of their own enjoying others fail.




Wrong again as usual.



> schadenfreude
> German word, original translation loosely comes out as 'malicious joy'. In English, it's thought of 'malicious enjoyment from the suffering of another'. As there is no succinct English version of the word, English-speaking peoples have approximated this word and use it whenever they see people like corrupt CEOs get dragged off to jail.


----------



## Ves

Calliope said:


> Wrong again as usual.



Boy oh boy.   Imagine if I could post a picture of a fisherman reeling one in. Maybe the humour was a bit dry for you.


----------



## Calliope

Ves said:


> Boy oh boy.   Imagine if I could post a picture of a fisherman reeling one in. Maybe the humour was a bit dry for you.




Ves humour... now there's an oxymoron for you.


----------



## Ves

Calliope said:


> Ves humour... now there's an oxymoron for you.



Any way.

Don't let the bed bugs bite.   You have a dictionary - but it can only tell you so much, usually it only fills in part of what we call reality.

http://www.livescience.com/17398-schadenfreude-affirmation.html



> Those with low self-esteem (assessed at the study's start) were both more likely to be threatened by the overachieving student, and to experience schadenfreude. However, the researchers found that regardless of self-esteem, those who felt more threatened by this student also felt more schadenfreude.


----------



## Calliope

Ves said:


> Any way.
> 
> Don't let the bed bugs bite.   You have a dictionary - but it can only tell you so much, usually it only fills in part of what we call reality.
> 
> http://www.livescience.com/17398-schadenfreude-affirmation.html




:topic


----------



## Ves

Calliope said:


> :topic



Not until tomorrow night!

In any event,  you were wrong - I love the irony (or is it schadenfreude?) in that.  Thank you for the humble apology.    Don't drink too much champers tomorrow night, huh?


----------



## Calliope

Ves said:


> Not until tomorrow night!
> 
> In any event,  you were wrong - I love the irony (or is it schadenfreude?) in that.  Thank you for the humble apology.    Don't drink too much champers tomorrow night, huh?




Never mind, you backed a loser. It's now time for  me to be gracious in accepting your humility



> TONY Abbott is well on track to become prime minister today as Labor faces a wipeout in western Sydney, fuelling a national loss of up to 32 seats and with the ALP being reduced to less than 50 MPs in the next parliament.
> 
> The Coalition is on course to gain at least 22 seats and up to 32 in the worst case for Labor, including the seat of Treasurer Chris Bowen, and with Kevin Rudd's Brisbane seat of Griffith at risk




Schadenfreude. :


----------



## sydboy007

Smurf1976 said:


> Regardless of whether the next government is Liberal, Labor, Greens, Palmer or anyone else.....
> 
> 1. The debt is there and it's real. Private debt is at huge levels and this acts as a brake on consumer spending.




Great summation of the many headwinds we face.

Probably the biggest one you missed was the age quake rolling through the economy.  The dependency ratio is going south pretty quickly too.  Less tax payers and more wishing to decide what those taxes are used for without actually funding the spending.

I hate to think what petrol will cost when the AUD is at 70c US.  This issue is always glossed over by those who want the AUD to drop like a stone to some magical renaissance target.


----------



## Julia

Calliope said:


> Ves humour... now there's an oxymoron for you.



FWIW I liked Ves's definition.  Pretty much on the money imo.


----------



## Calliope

Julia said:


> FWIW I liked Ves's definition.  Pretty much on the money imo.




FWIW and imo, it's :topic and childish


----------



## Calliope

Tony Abbott's victory speech leaked.


----------



## dutchie

Congratulations to Prime Minister Tony Abbott and the Coalition.


----------



## drsmith

I was once very sceptical about Tony Abbott and to some extent I'm still a little cautious. 

I don't agree with all his policies such as his PPL scheme, but in terms of discipline as a politician both in himself and strategy, he has very much stood the test of time. 

He will face even tougher challenges as PM but if he is broadly true to his word, he will be an outstanding PM.

Congratulations to Tony Abbott and the Coalition on a well earned victory.


----------



## sptrawler

drsmith said:


> I was once very sceptical about Tony Abbott and to some extent I'm still a little cautious.
> 
> I don't agree with all his policies such as his PPL scheme, but in terms of discipline as a politician both in himself and strategy, he has very much stood the test of time.
> 
> He will face even tougher challenges as PM but if he is broadly true to his word, he will be an outstanding PM.
> 
> Congratulations to Tony Abbott and the Coalition on a well earned victory.




Couldn't have said it better doc.

Abbott has taken more flack and press scutiny than any other opposition leader.
The majority of the press have been bagging him for ages.
He has won despite them, because the majority are nauseous at the thought of another term of Labor.lol
How could Labor stuff up so bad, well because it was about them, not Australia. Believe it or not.


----------



## Dowdy

What I found funny was the reaction from my facebook friends. 

Since they are all gen y, the hatred was hilarious with all the memes to the swearing.

If only they understood anything about economics. 

I hope he starts running the government like a business and remove all the crap and waste, which looks to be the case
Lets hope the only promise he breaks is that stupid maternity leave bonus - that's going to be rorted like no tomorrow, i can see, especially with bosses hiring spouses


----------



## dutchie

The best and most consistent performers for the Abbott government over the last 9 years or so has been Latham, Gillard and Rudd (and of course the faceless men).


----------



## springhill

Dowdy said:


> What I found funny was the reaction from my facebook friends.
> 
> Since they are all gen y, the hatred was hilarious with all the memes to the swearing.
> 
> If only they understood anything about economics.
> 
> I hope he starts running the government like a business and remove all the crap and waste, which looks to be the case
> Lets hope the only promise he breaks is that stupid maternity leave bonus - that's going to be rorted like no tomorrow, i can see, especially with bosses hiring spouses




In youth you think based on ideology, in age you think with sensibility.


----------



## starwars_guy456

springhill said:


> In youth you think based on ideology, in age you think with sensibility.




Friend passed on a quote from a university lecturer of his. Similar to your quote:

_"When you vote Liberal when you're young, you have no heart. When you vote Labor when you're old, you have no brain."
_


----------



## Calliope

It looks like in the Senate that Coalition + Others will outnumber Labor + Greens. This may be a positive.



> The man behind the rise of Australia's micro-parties believes the Senate will have 18 members from outside the major parties from July next year.
> Political consultant Glenn Druery, mastermind behind the Minor Parties Alliance, said the two-party state was now history in Australia.
> "This is one of the biggest goals the minor parties have ever kicked," he told AAP on Sunday.
> "To say that minor parties can't and shouldn't get elected is the same as saying the Coles-Woolies duopoly is best."
> "These people are reasonable people," he said.
> "I don't believe they will be holding the country to ransom in the way the Labor-Greens have.
> "They all have their own issues they want to deal with and that will be between them and the coalition government."
> *Yet given the policies of the micro-parties and their opposition to the carbon tax, it is unlikely the coalition will have to call a double-dissolution election to remove any blockage.*



 (my bolds)


Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...te/story-e6frfku9-1226714678455#ixzz2eH6kz0lp


----------



## wayneL

An interesting insight on Abbott by someone who seems to know the man, rather than the political starwman:

http://www.news.com.au/opinion/greg-craven-the-tony-abbott-i-know/story-fnh4jt54-1226714687111


----------



## Julia

That description by Greg Craven echoes the sentiments of others who know Tony Abbott well.

So different from any remarks about Kevin Rudd by anyone who actually knows him or has attempted to work with him.


----------



## Gringotts Bank

Thanks for that article.  Craven describes Abbott as "one of the most complex individuals ever to hold supreme political office in Australia".  'Complex' is a strange way to describe someone who holds so many obviously contradictory views.  I would have used the word "conflicted" to describe someone who doesn't know his own mind.  It's obvious Craven supports Tony only for his religious affiliations.  He has then devised a way to justify to himself why he taken this position - the best he could come up with was to call Tony 'complex'.  Aside from this, Craven's English expression is abysmal.


----------



## Calliope

An interesting photo gallery of Abbott in The Age;

http://www.theage.com.au/photogalle...ny-abbott-20130908-2tdf6.html?selectedImage=1


----------



## springhill

Calliope said:


> An interesting photo gallery of Abbott in The Age;
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/photogalle...ny-abbott-20130908-2tdf6.html?selectedImage=1




That headline from the Oxford mail would have people tearing the house down these days. Very un-PC.


----------



## sydboy007

Tony Abbott election promises - He said they were commitments "you can trust me to keep".

These are some of the election promises Tony will hopefully see as "core"

* Stop the boats
Measurement: No boats arriving after january 2015 - this gives Abbott well over a year to implement an effective policy.

* $1 billion reduction in Business compliance costs
measurement: Cumulative reduction of $1B by the next election of business compliance costs.

* PPL Scheme 
Measurement: Scheme fully operational by July 2015, with evidence to show it has increased the participation rate and productivity (Abbott mentions this criteria as justification for his policy) by the next election

* Public Service headcount reduction of 12000 with NO FORCED REDUNDANCIES
Measurement: A 12000 reduction in headcount via natural attrition only.

* New roads "Work on the WestConnex in Sydney, the East West Link in Melbourne, the Gateway upgrade in Brisbane, the North-South Road in Adelaide, and the Swan Bypass in Perth will be substantially underway.  The Pacific Highway duplication will finally be in sight and work will have begun on the Midland Highway in Tasmania and the Range Crossing at Toowoomba."
Measurement: A bit tricky but I'd say fair to think construction on all the above projects to have been underway for at least 12 months since he's used "substantially underway".

* Choosing of site for a second Sydney Airport
Measurement: New site announced, preferably with funding commitments and schedule for when construction will commence.

* 2 million new jobs over a decade / 1 million over 5 years
Measurement: I take this commitment to mean new as in over and above the usual level of job creation in the economy.  Over the last decade on average 18,249 new jobs per month were created.  Over the last 10 years in Australia 2,189,986 jobs were created.  So the way I see it the Coalition would need to see over 4 Million new jobs over a decade, or 2 million over 5 years.  Since these things take time to start rolling out lets say employment should be some 1M higher than the current 11.66 Million ie 12.66M people employed by the next election.

I think the above is reasonably objective criteria on which to measure the Abbott Govt performance.  Others might want to add to the above list.


----------



## drsmith

Syd, you forgot one. 

* No carbon tax under a government I lead.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> Syd, you forgot one.
> 
> * No carbon tax under a government I lead.




Will be very interesting to see how he goes about that as I don't see a DD allowing him to get there.

Would be quite interesting to know what the new senate may have looked like if we'd just had a DD.  People might be shocked / happy depending on their perspective.


----------



## Julia

sydboy007 said:


> Will be very interesting to see how he goes about that as I don't see a DD allowing him to get there.
> 
> Would be quite interesting to know what the new senate may have looked like if we'd just had a DD.  People might be shocked / happy depending on their perspective.



The threat of a DD will probably soon occur to the disparate band of new senators due to take their places in July 2014.  If they have any sense, they will quickly realise that many of them got there as a result of public confusion about how the preferences were to be allocated, and if it were to go to a DD election then they'd almost certainly be out.

That should be sufficient to encourage them to support the Coalition's legislation.


----------



## Knobby22

Julia said:


> The threat of a DD will probably soon occur to the disparate band of new senators due to take their places in July 2014.  If they have any sense, they will quickly realise that many of them got there as a result of public confusion about how the preferences were to be allocated, and if it were to go to a DD election then they'd almost certainly be out.
> 
> That should be sufficient to encourage them to support the Coalition's legislation.




True, also Abbott only needs 6 of them out of 8 to pass, and many of them are on the right side of politics anyway. I don't think there will be too many problems.


----------



## Calliope

Knobby22 said:


> True, also Abbott only needs 6 of them out of 8 to pass, and many of them are on the right side of politics anyway. I don't think there will be too many problems.




That's right. A double dissolution would create more problems than it would solve, following the apparent ease of manipulation of preferences to micro parties in the election. There will be no DD.



> The main reason that it is unlikely that a double dissolution would be held is that it would be likely to make it even harder for the Coalition to negotiate bills through the Senate. Because 12 senators would be elected in a state, rather than six, the quota for winning a seat would be lower. This makes it much easier for micro parties and independents to win seats. Given the high vote for micro parties at this half-Senate election, *the likely outcome of a double dissolution in the next six months would be to increase the number of crossbenchers holding the Senate balance of power.*





http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ul-double-d-poll/story-e6frgd0x-1226716373881


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> The threat of a DD will probably soon occur to the disparate band of new senators due to take their places in July 2014.  If they have any sense, they will quickly realise that many of them got there as a result of public confusion about how the preferences were to be allocated, and if it were to go to a DD election then they'd almost certainly be out.
> 
> That should be sufficient to encourage them to support the Coalition's legislation.




They've got a year to decide, and if they do go with Abbott he has to decide if he repeals the tax after the start of a new financial year?  Could make things a bit tricky, or does he wait for the repal to start from July 2015, but then that leaves the tax in place for 3 years and if the economy hasn't been destroyed with the $100 lamb roasts then more people might start to question what all the angst was about.

Some of these micro parties might be thinking along the lines that a DD increases their chances of gaining more seats, especially if they do their preferences "right", though angst against the major parties may have subsided a bit by then which could encurage more direct voting to them.  Makes for an interesting year.  Lets hope the pork is kept to a minimum with the vote buying.  maybe PUP as resource minister


----------



## Calliope

I hope Rudd stays, despite many Labor members calling on him to resign. He is the smelly albatross around their neck. They spawned him. They deserve him and Griffith deserves him. It would be a sad day if any of his progeny ever make it into parliament. It's in the genes...like in North Korea.


----------



## noco

From different interviews today with Nick Champion and Richard Myles, I get the impression Labor is softening its stand on the CARBON TAX.

I believe they have seen the light that to delay Abbotts mandate to scrap it will have long term consequences for the Labor Party and will surely be used against them at the next election.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> From different interviews today with Nick Champion and Richard Myles, I get the impression Labor is softening its stand on the CARBON TAX.
> 
> I believe they have seen the light that to delay Abbotts mandate to scrap it will have long term consequences for the Labor Party and will surely be used against them at the next election.




If someone voted for the ALP or Greens after hearing that they would NOT rollover and WOULD vote against the repeal of the carbon ETS, then don't these voters have the right to expect those they voted for to do what they said they would do?

As Tony said in 2007 - The elected Opposition also has a "mandate" to keep it's election commitments.

To think otherwise would seem to mean we live in a democracy once each election day, then a totalitarian regime where the victor has absolute control till the next election.


----------



## Julia

noco said:


> From different interviews today with Nick Champion and Richard Myles, I get the impression Labor is softening its stand on the CARBON TAX.
> 
> I believe they have seen the light that to delay Abbotts mandate to scrap it will have long term consequences for the Labor Party and will surely be used against them at the next election.



It's only a few days since the election result and the post election vows from everyone in Labor that they will stop talking about themselves and cease having their discussions in public.
But, lo, here they are already having a public brawl about whether or not to oppose the Coalition's legislation to abolish the carbon tax.

Even without Kevin to muddy the waters with his ego, they still just can't seem to help themselves engaging in self indulgent infighting.  



sydboy007 said:


> If someone voted for the ALP or Greens after hearing that they would NOT rollover and WOULD vote against the repeal of the carbon ETS, then don't these voters have the right to expect those they voted for to do what they said they would do?



Doesn't matter what they voted for now.  They lost.  End of story.



> As Tony said in 2007 - The elected Opposition also has a "mandate" to keep it's election commitments.
> 
> To think otherwise would seem to mean we live in a democracy once each election day, then a totalitarian regime where the victor has absolute control till the next election.



That might be one of Mr Abbott's many statements which he would now like to take back.
The Coalition went to the election on two fundamental issues:  abolishing the carbon tax and stopping the boats.
They won.  Seems to me that gives them a reasonable expectation to be able to enact legislation accordingly.

Consider Labor's platform, if elected, to get rid of Workchoices.  They won.  The Coalition rolled over and went along with the abolition of Workchoices.


----------



## bunyip

Julia said:


> It's only a few days since the election result and the post election vows from everyone in Labor that they will stop talking about themselves and cease having their discussions in public.
> But, lo, here they are already having a public brawl about whether or not to oppose the Coalition's legislation to abolish the carbon tax.
> 
> Even without Kevin to muddy the waters with his ego, they still just can't seem to help themselves engaging in self indulgent infighting.



And more signs of Labor disunity with the latest fracas – publicly discussed as per usual – over the issue of choosing a replacement leader under the new rules that Rudd introduced. Labor are said to be in ‘furious disagreement’ over the issue. Steven Conroy has attacked Rudd  and labeled his new rules a farce, saying they’ve made Labor a laughing stock and could result in them being without a leader for a month.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-...ls-new-labor-leadership-rules-a-farce/4952532


----------



## Julia

bunyip said:


> And more signs of Labor disunity with the latest fracas – publicly discussed as per usual – over the issue of choosing a replacement leader under the new rules that Rudd introduced. Labor are said to be in ‘furious disagreement’ over the issue. Steven Conroy has attacked Rudd  and labeled his new rules a farce, saying they’ve made Labor a laughing stock and could result in them being without a leader for a month.



Yes.  Such a short time ago that they all breathlessly rushed to go along with any demands Kevin made as conditions of his return to save them, the above being one.   Another example of short term thinking.
A party without a leader for more than a month if it goes to a ballot.  Terrific.


----------



## MrBurns

Just watched 20 seconds of the Bill Shorten press conference on the ABC , that was enough, I hope he gets the job because Labor will never get back in if he does,


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> Doesn't matter what they voted for now.  They lost.  End of story.
> 
> 
> That might be one of Mr Abbott's many statements which he would now like to take back.
> The Coalition went to the election on two fundamental issues:  abolishing the carbon tax and stopping the boats.
> They won.  Seems to me that gives them a reasonable expectation to be able to enact legislation accordingly.
> 
> Consider Labor's platform, if elected, to get rid of Workchoices.  They won.  The Coalition rolled over and went along with the abolition of Workchoices.




The what do you think an opposition is legitimately able to oppose?

It took the coalition quite a while to decide to not oppose the removal of workchoices, and I dare say it had a lot less support in the community than the carbon ETS.

How much do me neuter the right of an opposition to oppose?


----------



## Calliope

MrBurns said:


> Just watched 20 seconds of the Bill Shorten press conference on the ABC , that was enough, I hope he gets the job because Labor will never get back in if he does,




Shorten says Tanya Plibersek will be his deputy if he gets up. Here she is rehearsing her first misogyny speech.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> If someone voted for the ALP or Greens after hearing that they would NOT rollover and WOULD vote against the repeal of the carbon ETS, then don't these voters have the right to expect those they voted for to do what they said they would do?
> 
> As Tony said in 2007 - The elected Opposition also has a "mandate" to keep it's election commitments.
> 
> To think otherwise would seem to mean we live in a democracy once each election day, then a totalitarian regime where the victor has absolute control till the next election.




Gillard had no mandate to introduce a carbon tax in 2010 

"THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER A GOVERNMANT I LEAD".

Perhaps you have a short memory.

Tony Abbott went to the 2013 election "I WILL SCRAP THE CARBON TAX".

NOW TELL ME WHO HAS AND WHO HAS NOT GOT A MANDATE?


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Gillard had no mandate to introduce a carbon tax in 2010
> 
> "THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER A GOVERNMANT I LEAD".
> 
> Perhaps you have a short memory.
> 
> Tony Abbott went to the 2013 election "I WILL SCRAP THE CARBON TAX".
> 
> NOW TELL ME WHO HAS AND WHO HAS NOT GOT A MANDATE?




So Tony was wrong to say "The elected Opposition also has a "mandate" to keep it's election commitments"?  It was his justification for saying no so often over the last 3 years.

If a political party goes to an election saying they will maintain X in Government or oppose it's repeal in opposition, does it lose any right to oppose if in opposition?

I could accept what you're saying if the Coalition received > 2/3 of the primary vote, but they didn't even receive 50% of the votes, and as many have said on this forum they didn't vote for him because they liked ALL his policies, so of his primary vote how many actually voted for him and wouldn't mind to see the carbon tax remain?

Your argument means no opposition should be considered against DA or PPL either, or are they not high enough up the policy ladder.  How "major' does a policy have to be before it's 'wrong" to oppose it?  Do we use Tony's time in opposition to see what the limits of acceptable opposition are?


----------



## drsmith

I note the headless Labor opposition is already flip-flopping over the carbon tax.

This must be the greatest policy albatross either major party has saddled upon itself in Australian political history.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> So Tony was wrong to say "The elected Opposition also has a "mandate" to keep it's election commitments"?  It was his justification for saying no so often over the last 3 years.
> 
> If a political party goes to an election saying they will maintain X in Government or oppose it's repeal in opposition, does it lose any right to oppose if in opposition?
> 
> I could accept what you're saying if the Coalition received > 2/3 of the primary vote, but they didn't even receive 50% of the votes, and as many have said on this forum they didn't vote for him because they liked ALL his policies, so of his primary vote how many actually voted for him and wouldn't mind to see the carbon tax remain?
> 
> Your argument means no opposition should be considered against DA or PPL either, or are they not high enough up the policy ladder.  How "major' does a policy have to be before it's 'wrong" to oppose it?  Do we use Tony's time in opposition to see what the limits of acceptable opposition are?




Abbott has demolished the Labor Party with an extra 31 seats so far and has left the Labor Party in chaos.
 No leader and no shadow ministers for 4 to 8 weeks.

Albo and Shorten are already saying  NO...NO...NO...NO. but many of their cohorts are saying YES...YES...YES...
and these are the members of the Labor Party with any brains.


----------



## drsmith

noco said:


> Abbott has demolished the Labor Party with an extra 31 seats so far and has left the Labor Party in chaos.



The ABC is now forecasting a difference between the two major parties of 34. 

It could be more. The pre-polls have been firmly in favour of the Lib candidates for the seats in doubt at least with two Labor seats in Queensland now on the Coalition side of the ledger. 

Even Sophie Mirabella is still not completely out of the question in Indi despite that miscount.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/results/electorates/#seats-in-doubt


----------



## stewiejp

Let's be honest, it wasn't Abbott who left Labor "demolished" - they did that all by themselves... if the Libs had a charismatic leader, the margin would have been greater IMO.


----------



## bunyip

Given the LNP’s barnstorming win in the election last week, I couldn’t resist posting the link below which contains some hilarious predictions from a bloke who should have kept his political opinions to himself back in 2007.

I was particularly amused by his declaration that Rudd’s 2007 election victory ‘__
Just as comical was his statement about the ‘_unity’_ between Rudd and Gillard.

This galah must still be wiping the egg off his face - he has about as much credibility as that intrepid doyen of climate change, Tim Flannery (aka Captain Bulls**t)

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...dailytelegraph/comments/reality_reversed/P40/


----------



## bunyip

stewiejp said:


> Let's be honest, it wasn't Abbott who left Labor "demolished" - they did that all by themselves... if the Libs had a charismatic leader, the margin would have been greater IMO.




I can’t agree that Labor ‘_did that all by themselves’_. Certainly they gave the Libs plenty of help by in-fighting, lying, reckless spending, the boat people debacle and all their other cockups. 
But credit where credit is due – the Libs ran a far superior campaign to Labor, they’ve committed to fixing  Labor’s mistakes, and they’ve spent the last three years presenting a united front. It was these factors, combined with Labor’s mistakes, that swept the LNP to power.

I agree that their winning margin would have been even bigger if they had a charismatic leader.


----------



## bunyip

bunyip said:


> Given the LNP’s barnstorming win in the election last week, I couldn’t resist posting the link below which contains some hilarious predictions from a bloke who should have kept his political opinions to himself back in 2007.
> 
> I was particularly amused by his declaration that Rudd’s 2007 election victory ‘__




The underlined statemnt above was meant to have the words below in red attached to it.

*may mark the end of the Liberal Party*

Somehow these words got wiped out of my original post.


----------



## Whiskers

bunyip said:


> But credit where credit is due – the Libs ran a far superior campaign to Labor, they’ve committed to fixing  Labor’s mistakes, and they’ve spent the last three years presenting a united front.




One thing to commit to something, quite another to deliver. 

Don't count your chickens... or bask in your glory as government (or staunch LNP supporter) until the job is done... they could easily get egg on their face yet too... if the Indonesian response to their boat policy is any indication.

The LNP is just as capable of imploding as Labor. Here in Qld we've seen plenty of it in the past and it seems the west is experiencing a bit of angst atm. They have the Nationals with increased representation and no doubt looking for more say and power, which potentially would be a moderating force on the far right of the Libs.


----------



## IFocus

Ves said:


> Boy oh boy.   Imagine if I could post a picture of a fisherman reeling one in. Maybe the humour was a bit dry for you.




LOL  I believe thats "Snap"


----------



## IFocus

sydboy007 said:


> The what do you think an opposition is legitimately able to oppose?




For Abbott it was every thing why would it be different for Labor

If the Coalition do not hold the majority in the senate then their mandate is to introduce and pass policy to the lower house thats it nothing more Labor didnt get elected Abbott did its up to him convince the senate he has good policy everyone knows the move from a market based carbon scheme is rubbish if he wishes to scrap the whole cabon deal then do so but thats not what he said during the election.

A wink and a nod wont do it.

- - - Updated - - -



Whiskers said:


> One thing to commit to something, quite another to deliver.
> 
> Don't count your chickens... or bask in your glory as government (or staunch LNP supporter) until the job is done... they could easily get egg on their face yet too... if the Indonesian response to their boat policy is any indication..





Yep long way to go to see whats been elected



> The LNP is just as capable of imploding as Labor. Here in Qld we've seen plenty of it in the past and it seems the west is experiencing a bit of angst atm. They have the Nationals with increased representation and no doubt looking for more say and power, which potentially would be a moderating force on the far right of the Libs




You would be talking about the Liberal minority goverment then


----------



## Whiskers

IFocus said:


> You would be talking about the Liberal minority goverment then




Definitely!

I have plenty of memories of the Nationals imploding on themselves and really getting their back up when the Libs try to tell them to sit down and shut up in their coalition. 

So, it's worth remembering that this is a marriage of convenience as was, albeit more informally, Labor and Greens. However, atm it's a much more amicable and mutual policy position, but not entirely based on common ground. 

With Barnaby's rise in power and popularity and now deputy leader of the Nationals, the relationship is going to be stretched a bit. He does strike me as standing on his principles more than Abbott who took somewhat of a hollow man position, largely adopting similar policies to Labor for politicial expediency and leaving himself a small political target.

As is often the case, these marriages of convenience are put to the test when in power and especially when the ratio of the elected MP's becomes more disproportionate. I'd guess the Nationals are on the rise atm at the expense of both Labor and Libs. Wait until the policy not to stand candidates against each other breaks down across the whole country again.

People should remember in the early days Barnaby earnt the respect of voters in the senate and overtook Boswell (a Lib rubber stamp) in popularity, but the party refused to promote him and often attempted to gag him.


----------



## Julia

IFocus said:


> For Abbott it was every thing why would it be different for Labor



Nonsense.  There were many many bills which received the Coalition's assent.  It's only those over which dissent arise that the media bring to our attention.
Try to remember that the main focus when the Coalition lost power was Workchoices.  They accepted that they had lost the election which was largly fought on this issue, and went along with its abolition.
Try not to rewrite history, IFocus.



> its up to him convince the senate he has good policy everyone knows the move from a market based carbon scheme is rubbish if he wishes to scrap the whole cabon deal then do so but thats not what he said during the election.



Is there any chance of your writing in sentences?
To say "everyone knows the move from a market based carbon scheme is rubbish" is simply a reflection of your own wishes, absolutely not a reflection of the broad view across much of the electorate.
He won wide support for scrapping the ridiculous tax which has made Australia non-competitive with most of its trading partners, caused adversity to business, and achieved nothing in terms of 'climate change'.


----------



## Julia

This 'letter to Joe Hockey' by Jessica Irvine seems right on target to me.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...l&utm_content=418858&utm_campaign=kgb&modapt=


----------



## bunyip

Whiskers said:


> One thing to commit to something, quite another to deliver.



I expressed no opinion on whether he’ll be able to deliver on his commitments.
My comments were in relation to the factors which, in my opinion, helped Abbot to win the election. One of these was that he committed to fixing Labor’s stuff-ups such as the carbon tax and the illegal boat people debacle.




Whiskers said:


> Don't count your chickens...



I’m not counting any chickens – I’ve seen enough governments come and go to know that they deliver on some of their promises, fail to deliver on others. Abbot will be no different.



Whiskers said:


> or bask in your glory as government (or staunch LNP supporter) until the job is done...



The only glory I’m basking in is the defeat of the incompetent, lying, dysfunctional Labor government that has plagued Australia for the last six years.


----------



## sydboy007

Thumbs up to Mrs Bishop deciding not to overspend taxpayers money on her upcoming trip to NYC.

Why a Govt department would even think you need to send someone in first class is beyond me.  The quality of J class these days is good enough for pretty much anyone, and most Govt ministers gain access to the QF Chairmans lounge as well so the majority of the perks of an F fare would be pointless.

Lets hope this is a taste of Government showing it's serious about living within its means.


----------



## Whiskers

A note on so called "Mandates" that politicians and their supporters often get carried away with.

It's easy to get carried away with populism after an election. Rudd, Gillard and Abbot (or at least his supporters) have made much hype about their 'mandate'. While Rudd and Abbott at least won a majority of the lower House, Gillard couldn't even achieve that but felt she had a mandate to do what she considered without discussing with the electorate and even reversing her stated policy, in the best interests of all of us... all self serving self-righteousness. 

But even an outright win in the lower house is not a mandate for the senate to rubberstamp legislation... more so when the senate is not won outright.

The fundamental duty of the Senators is to represent the best interests of their states and control or moderate any excesses of the lower house.  

I understand there is at least one LNP senator from Qld who is under investigation by the CMC and not yet officially endorsed by the state.

_Mr Newman's office would not comment last night on whether the Premier would force Mr O'Sullivan to withdraw if the CMC failed to meet the deadline.

The delay follows years of animosity between Mr Newman's parliamentary team and the LNP organisation led by president Bruce McIver and Mr O'Sullivan, who has been criticised internally as chairman of the party's candidate vetting committee._​http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...r-waiting-on-cmc/story-fn9qr68y-1226718044238​
But, even then a party does not have a blank cheque, to do what it believes or construes to be it's public mandate. There is a little thing called the constitution which the GG in conjunction with the senate is entrusted to oversee. While not often used to any significant degree, it is still a powerful obligation to represent the best interests of the people as opposed to a political party or politician.


----------



## IFocus

Julia said:


> Nonsense.  There were many many bills which received the Coalition's assent.  It's only those over which dissent arise that the media bring to our attention.
> Try to remember that the main focus when the Coalition lost power was Workchoices.  They accepted that they had lost the election which was largly fought on this issue, and went along with its abolition.
> Try not to rewrite history, IFocus.




The nonsence is yours and your memory selective.

It was coalition policy (Howard took it to an election.....remember) to have a carbon price set by a market.

As for work non choices the Coalition were rightly punished it was dumped for election expediency.




> Is there any chance of your writing in sentences?




Currently in deepest darkest Indonesia time and resouces are limited.




> To say "everyone knows the move from a market based carbon scheme is rubbish" is simply a reflection of your own wishes, absolutely not a reflection of the broad view across much of the electorate.
> He won wide support for scrapping the ridiculous tax which has made Australia non-competitive with most of its trading partners, caused adversity to business, and achieved nothing in terms of 'climate change'.




I am not a strong supporter of a carbon tax or scheme but if you wish to have a method (polling shows Australians want some thing its coalition policy remember) then a market based one is surely the way a coalition would go they would be the market based politcal party ........... wouldnt they?
 To hand over money as the coalition proposes is just bigger goverment largess.


----------



## sails

Whiskers, I don't see a winning party having a blank cheque just because they win. Mind you, it seems this last labor givernment had that mentality to spend massively on any thought bubble that wafted out  but that doesn't make it right.

However, I do think there is a mandate especially for major policy which has been made clear pre-election by the winning party.

In 2007 I feel Rudd had a mandate to overturn work choices and the libs respected that mandate allowing it through the senate.  Gillard had a mandate not to introduce a carbon tax and it seems she chose to thumb her nose at that mandate.  Abbott clearly has a mandate to repeal carbon tax, stop the boats, build roads and stop the waste.   They were his main pre-election policies. But that doesn't give him a blank check for whatever he wants and I agree with you on that issue.  

However it would show respect for democracy if the senate respects the will of he majority for the mandate they have given this new government.


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> The nonsence is yours and your memory selective.
> 
> It was coalition policy (Howard took it to an election.....remember) to have a carbon price set by a market.
> 
> As for work non choices the Coalition were rightly punished it was dumped for election expediency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Currently in deepest darkest Indonesia time and resouces are limited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a strong supporter of a carbon tax or scheme but if you wish to have a method (polling shows Australians want some thing its coalition policy remember) then a market based one is surely the way a coalition would go they would be the market based politcal party ........... wouldnt they?
> To hand over money as the coalition proposes is just bigger goverment largess.




IF. If only you could tell the truth on the Coalition considering an ETS you should be open in explaining that Howard would have entertained it had all major countries became involved. The fact is they didn't and that is the reason Howard and the coalition dropped the ETS.

Howard was not as stupid as the Labor Party who thought they had the World in their hands and would convert every Nation around the World into their way of thinking.

That ding bat Combet lied about the Nations who had an emmsiion trading schemes and he specifically mentiond China, but he did not tell the voters of Australia that  China's scheme was $1.5 per tonne...........a big difference to his $23 per tonne.

Further more Combet never ever mentioned that !0% of the carbon tax collected went into the UN Climate Chamge committee coffers of whom the notorious Mr. Rudd is a member. He also did not mention the $599,000 donated to the UN Climate Change after the Can Cun meeting in Mexico


----------



## wayneL

IFocus said:


> I am not a strong supporter of a carbon tax or scheme but if you wish to have a method (polling shows Australians want some thing its coalition policy remember) then a market based one is surely the way a coalition would go they would be the market based politcal party ........... wouldnt they?
> To hand over money as the coalition proposes is just bigger goverment largess.




A market implies that assets or production is being traded. A carbon market is neither of these, it is simply a floating tax, cloaked in complexity and free market terminology.

It has nothing to do with liberal economics.


----------



## Julia

IFocus said:


> The nonsence is yours and your memory selective.
> 
> It was coalition policy (Howard took it to an election.....remember) to have a carbon price set by a market.



Noco has correctly pointed out that Mr Howard suggested Australia could fall in with the rest of the world if a global scheme were to be established.  It wasn't.  The policy was not proceeded with.

This is in complete contrast to Gillard's clear statement that 'there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead" and her then putting in place a carbon tax with a price that was crazily too high.  We've been all through this and you know it.



> As for work non choices the Coalition were rightly punished it was dumped for election expediency.



It was not dumped for 'election expediency'. They took it to the election.  The electorate rejected it.
The Coalition then went along with the legislation put up by the new government to get rid of it.

Might be good to return to putting most of us on Ignore, IF.  It becomes somewhat tedious responding to your fiction.



sails said:


> Whiskers, I don't see a winning party having a blank cheque just because they win. Mind you, it seems this last labor givernment had that mentality to spend massively on any thought bubble that wafted out  but that doesn't make it right.
> 
> However, I do think there is a mandate especially for major policy which has been made clear pre-election by the winning party.
> 
> In 2007 I feel Rudd had a mandate to overturn work choices and the libs respected that mandate allowing it through the senate.  Gillard had a mandate not to introduce a carbon tax and it seems she chose to thumb her nose at that mandate.  Abbott clearly has a mandate to repeal carbon tax, stop the boats, build roads and stop the waste.   They were his main pre-election policies. But that doesn't give him a blank check for whatever he wants and I agree with you on that issue.
> 
> However it would show respect for democracy if the senate respects the will of he majority for the mandate they have given this new government.



+1.   Anyway, it probably matters little, as Mr Abbott may simply have to wait for the more friendly Senate come July next year.  Or go to a DD election entirely on the basis of abolishing the carbon tax.  If that happens, it's my bet Labor will be completely demolished.  

Especially after we have yet another month of Labor talking about themselves, with yet another campaign between Albanese and Shorten.  Out of the entire Australian population, only about 40,000 people are rusted on Labor members toward whom much pleading will be directed by both Shorten and Albanese.  They might be thrilled about having a say in the leadership, but the rest of Australia has had an absolute bellyfull of Labor and their internal machinations.
Add a DD election in a few months' time, and I don't think the average Australian is going to be too kind to Labor.


----------



## sptrawler

You're wasting your time Julia, IFocus and SC will continue to talk up Labor losers, even if the coalition improve Australia's position.
One eyed rusted on die hards, they can't even give Abbott 6 months to see how it pans out.

Yet they supported six year of the goon show with blind faith, just shows how out of step with mainstream Australia they are.
Wan't this election Labors worst primary vote, ever?
Also Bill Shorten says, the result is better than it would have been under Gillard.


----------



## Whiskers

sails said:


> Whiskers, I don't see a winning party having a blank cheque just because they win. Mind you, it seems this last labor givernment had that mentality to spend massively on any thought bubble that wafted out  but that doesn't make it right.




We tend to forget the other big mandate Rudd won from the electorate... to lead the Labor Government without undue influence from unions and factions bosses.

Because of his stated position to be PM free of union and faction bosses influence, this was also an implicit reciprocal mandate for Rudd, to saying no to the demands of the far right of Lib and industry for extreme workplace reform... WorkChoices.

While Rudds power and popularity went to his head and has been blamed for a lot of things by many, he may not have turned out so badly, but for ([meant in it's legal defence test interpretation) his own disgruntled power broking union and factional backbenchers who seem to have quite successfully made so much noise about what they wanted to portray... a-la-NSW to partly destroy their own party in the guise of crap leadership, for the sake of perpetuating corrupt union and faction bosses maintaining control.  


Gillard, in-her-own-mind felt she had a mandate to act like god because she knew what was best for us. 

What else can one say about Julia, Shorten and Richo etc, except...
“Save your skin from the corrosive acids from the mouths of toxic people. Someone who just helped you to speak evil about another person can later help another person to speak evil about you.” 
― Israelmore Ayivor​



> However it would show respect for democracy if the senate respects the will of he majority for the mandate they have given this new government.




I personally don't see any net benefit from carbon pricing unless as has been mentioned, Howard said he would consider a scheme if the whole (or substantial part of) world joined. Having said that, I'm not sure what all the 'Other' senators policy was on the carbon tax. 

It seems the LNP have 34, Labor and greens have 35 and there is another 7. 

Not sure what to make of any mandate in the senate atm, BUT...



Julia said:


> +1.   Anyway, it probably matters little, as Mr Abbott may simply have to wait for the more friendly Senate come July next year.  Or go to a DD election entirely on the basis of abolishing the carbon tax.  If that happens, it's my bet Labor will be completely demolished.




... while it's possible and maybe probable the new senate could be 'negotiated' to abolish the carbon tax (it might just mean a healthy grant for some off road 4x4 dirt project down south) I doubt the LNP would be in a big hurry to test a double dissolution, and...



> Especially after we have yet another month of Labor talking about themselves, with yet another campaign between Albanese and Shorten.  Out of the entire Australian population, only about 40,000 people are rusted on Labor members toward whom much pleading will be directed by both Shorten and Albanese.  They might be thrilled about having a say in the leadership, but the rest of Australia has had an absolute bellyfull of Labor and their internal machinations.
> Add a DD election in a few months' time, and I don't think the average Australian is going to be too kind to Labor.




...I suspect the LNP think tanks will be watching closely how the Labor reforms settle out. 

In the larger scheme of things a month to cool off and sort out its leadership issues is a small price to pay if they get it right and win back public confidence and accountability to their membership. The payback of taking the time to set out a better business model and plan will be to increase party membership and their intellectual and financial resources.

Abbott, I suspect, is aware that it took a long time and lot of self control to shake off the persona of chief head kicker for the Libs and win some degree of voter trust as a PM. The last thing we need is for another PM to loose the plot. 

There are some administrative decisions that they can focus on to maintain and build on public trust before getting too excited about trying to force their hand with legislative matters and DD's.


----------



## Calliope

Whiskers said:


> ...Abbott, I suspect, is aware that it took a long time and lot of self control to shake off the persona of chief head kicker for the Libs and win some degree of voter trust as a PM. The last thing we need is for another PM to loose the plot.
> 
> There are some administrative decisions that they can focus on to maintain and build on public trust before getting too excited about trying to force their hand with legislative matters and DD's.




You are right Whiskers, and there will be no Double Dissolution for reasons I gave earlier. It would be madness, now that the micro parties have discovered how to manipulate preferences



> The main reason that it is unlikely that a double dissolution would be held is that it would be likely to make it even harder for the Coalition to negotiate bills through the Senate. Because 12 senators would be elected in a state, rather than six, the quota for winning a seat would be lower. This makes it much easier for micro parties and independents to win seats. *Given the high vote for micro parties at this half-Senate election, the likely outcome of a double dissolution in the next six months would be to increase the number of crossbenchers holding the Senate balance of power.*


----------



## IFocus

Fact

Howard took a policy of a carbon trading scheme to his last election. 

Fact

Rudd won an election on the policy of having a carbon trading scheme

Fact

Coalition (Abbott) opposed said policy.........wasnt there a mandate?



And yes it is a market based scheme and has every thing to do with a polictal party that runs the we are the better manages of the economy.

But then handing out largess is surly not a Abbott thing...........Minchin anyone


----------



## drsmith

Not much fodder from the Coalition for the ABC's insiders to talk about today. The sacking of Steve Bracks, the foreign ownership of land were briefly discussed and an even briefer reference to Indonesia in relation to asylum policy and that was it.

They had to spend most of their time talking about Labor for which there is still no shortage of material.


----------



## sails

IFocus said:


> Fact
> 
> Howard took a policy of a carbon trading scheme to his last election.
> 
> Fact
> 
> Rudd won an election on the policy of having a carbon trading scheme
> 
> Fact
> 
> Coalition (Abbott) opposed said policy.........wasnt there a mandate?
> 
> 
> 
> And yes it is a market based scheme and has every thing to do with a polictal party that runs the we are the better manages of the economy.
> 
> But then handing out largess is surly not a Abbott thing...........Minchin anyone




why do you omit one election. IF?

*FACT*:
Gillard took a promise of no carbon tax to the 2010 election effectively changing labor's previous mandate. Even Rudd admitted recently labor did NOT have a mandate to introduce carbon tax in this last term.

*FACT:*
Now, in 2013, the majority have voted AGAIN for no carbon tax.

Sounds like a mandate to me no matter how you try to spin that...   Mandates are based on the most recent election - surely even you understand that, IF?

Methinks labor will never understand what makes the electorate tick.


----------



## noco

sails said:


> why do you omit one election. IF?
> 
> *FACT*:
> Gillard took a promise of no carbon tax to the 2010 election effectively changing labor's previous mandate. Even Rudd admitted recently labor did NOT have a mandate to introduce carbon tax in this last term.
> 
> *FACT:*
> Now, in 2013, the majority have voted AGAIN for no carbon tax.
> 
> Sounds like a mandate to me no matter how you try to spin that...   Mandates are based on the most recent election - surely even you understand that, IF?
> 
> Methinks labor will never understand what makes the electorate tick.




Sails, you could pour a litre of water in some peoples ears and it would run right out the other side because there is nothing in the middle.

I for one, have already quoted the reason why Howard and the coalition dropped the idea of an ETS and it was because the major part of the rest of the world were not interested. Simple as that.

Rudd tried to pull the wool over our eyes by saying he would scrap the carbon tax of $25 per tonne but later qualified his lie by saying he would bring in an ETS one year earlier which could rise to $38 by 2020.

Rudd dropped the idea of an ETS in 2007/8 after being promted by Gillard. Gillard goes to an election in 2010 with "THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER A GOVERNMENT I LEAD".

DING....DING....I wonder if IF gets it now?


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> Not much fodder from the Coalition for the ABC's insiders to talk about today. The sacking of Steve Bracks, the foreign ownership of land were briefly discussed and an even briefer reference to Indonesia in relation to asylum policy and that was it.
> 
> They had to spend most of their time talking about Labor for which there is still no shortage of material.




Thats what has been happening for months?

You only just noticed?


----------



## IFocus

Howard did not drop the ETS...........if he had won the last election we would likely have one WTF are you all smoking.

BTW Labor ............Rudd won an election with a ETS policy Abbott opposed the mandate


----------



## wayneL

Things have changed IF, specifically, the purported science for a catastrophic warming scenario has fallen off a cliff.

Any workable policies to deal with the likely effects of any modest warming will not include a tax on CO2, and will deal with mitigation.


----------



## sails

IFocus said:


> Howard did not drop the ETS...........if he had won the last election we would likely have one WTF are you all smoking.
> 
> BTW Labor ............Rudd won an election with a ETS policy Abbott opposed the mandate




If I recall correctly, Abbott opposed it because public opinion was changing on the issue.   If the majority were favourable, Gillard would not need to have lied about her carbon tax only a few months later.

And  Rudd decided against a double dissolution.  If Aussies really wanted an ETS, that would have shown up in labor's internal polling and he would more likely have gone for the DD.

And, don't forget Labor had already been in power for two years when Abbott blocked it.  It's not like that was immediately following an election when mandates are usually legislated and two years gives people a lot more time to educate themselves.

A good politician will always listen to the majority.  Something Gillard failed to do with her carbon tax.


----------



## sails

Here you go IFocus - an article from 18th December, 2009 - bold is mine:



> Today, Abbott is Leader of the Opposition opposing an ETS as a "massive tax", Rudd is fighting on all sides in Copenhagen after being attacked for doing secret deals, hypocrisy and walking away from the Kyoto Protocol. The Prime Minister is talking about Australia's national interest not moral imperatives, and there is little likelihood of the early election on climate change that Turnbull feared.
> 
> *Indeed, the politics of climate change have so dramatically turned around that Abbott is daring the Government to "bring on an election" *and Labor is drastically altering its election schedule and strategy.




Full article here: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...s-ets-early-poll/story-e6frg6zo-1225811525228


----------



## Whiskers

sails said:


> And  Rudd decided against a double dissolution.  If Aussies really wanted an ETS, that would have shown up in labor's internal polling and he would more likely have gone for the DD.




That's a very pertinent point Sails.

We all got caught up to some extent in the toxic finger pointing going on in Labor... and some still have trouble seeing through the toxic veneer spurled out by a few... but in the cool light of hindsight, I'm becoming more of the opinion that Rudd was more pragmatic, sensitive to and maliable by public opinion than any of the other key players who had links to and behaved similarly to the extremely toxic NSW party. 

It was a smart political move to distance himself from all those corrupting influences in Labor from the beginning of his leadership campaign... something that leaves room for him to keep reviving himself in the ultimate court of public appeal. The stigma of domineering (in that toxic Labor caucus) and chaotic can potentially wash off relatively easy when cleansed by a fresh reform... as opposed to the more permanent stain of toxic, crony and corrupt of many others.   

As you say Rudd had the option to go to a DD, but chose not too... it seems for good ideological reason and smart political tactics. He was prepared to change his position, to water it down. Again looking at the strong unmoved position of many of his colleagues on the carbon tax issue, it's apparent they resented his weakening the gov position. 

At the risk of being branded a Rudd loyalist, I would also suggest from a tactical position he would not be in a hurry to vacate his seat as some of his colleagues have demanded and hand it over to the coalition or and independent...the sacrificial lamb power play of his more toxic power opponents such as approving a naÃ¯ve or ignorant (of the back room deals) leader and killing them off later (esp NSW) if they don't march to their tune.

Similarly, he and many politicians have changed their position re gay marriage in the hope of earning a few more easy votes. I'm not convinced he (and some others) has a strong position on it, rather sees a political expedient advantage in trading away something on the lower end of his moral and ethical fabric for a bit of a political edge...

...which brings me back to that phrase that many detest, a leadership revival. I noted previously that while he undertook not to contest the current leadership ballot... he hasn't categorically ruled out recontesting in the future. 

What would be the circumstances where he would recontest?! Firstly consider Gillards comment http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-14/julia-gillard-slams-labors-leadership-rules/4957886...
"These rules literally mean that a person could hang on as Labor leader and as prime minister even if every member of cabinet, the body that should be the most powerful and collegiate in the country, has decided that person was no longer capable of functioning as prime minister,"​when referring to Rudds new ballot rules. 

At this point it's worth musing on the meaning of collegiate - _Of, relating to, or held to resemble a college_... removing any doubt in-her-mind the crony, toxic club of cabinet members should be most powerful and untouchable by other mere MP's and party membership. 

There is one little detail that I'm not clear on atm, ie whether the ballot tally will be released detailing the membership and caucus component... for transparency, so the membership can see which MP's are supporting whom. I expect the current corrupted or at least tainted (by pre-selection process) caucus to do some horse trading as usual and not wish to reveal their voting position. That may prompt Rudd to demand disclosure at some time, particularly if the polls decline and or fail to win next election. 

Their own membership is a litmus test of the wider public. The logic is that if the Labor membership doesn't strongly support caucus, how do the caucus realistically expect the wider voting public to support them. 

If further election losses or political embarrassment, as from manipulating the leadership process, can remove more dead wood from Labor, I'd suggest it's in Rudds nature to announce the party has been purged of his dreaded union, factional bosses and "faceless men", he has reformed, changed some policy positions and can again unite Labor to overtake Abbott. How's that for a prediction!!!

Who would Abbott fear most as Labor leader? I ask that as if in a substantially reformed labor caucus as I expect no one in contention there would concern Abbott too much atm.


----------



## DB008

How the people are portraying the new Government.


----------



## Tink

The Prime Minister-elect, Tony Abbott, has announced the composition of his first ministry.

The new executive has 30 members. The Cabinet has 19 members, the Outer Ministry 11, and there are 12 Parliamentary Secretaries.

Announcing the ministry at a press conference in Canberra, Abbott said: “This is the team to provide strong and stable government. It builds on a strong, cohesive and united opposition.

Stability and calm were Abbott’s themes during the announcement. He said he wanted a ministry that would “methodically and calmly implement our commitments and respond intelligently to the events of the day”.

Abbott said he had attempted to avoid the proliferation of grandiose titles. Most ministers now have brief titles such as “Minister for Education”.

Most members of the outer ministry are designated Assistant Ministers. “I’m determined to have clear lines of authority and a back-to-basics approach,” Abbott said.

The key figures in the ministry are largely unchanged from the days of opposition. They include Joe Hockey as Treasurer, Julie Bishop as Foreign Minister, Christopher Pyne in Education, Peter Dutton in Health, Malcolm Turnbull in Communications and George Brandis as Attorney-General. 

The winners from the announcement are Mathias Cormann (Finance), Arthur Sinodinos (Assistant Treasurer), Jamie Briggs (Infrastructure), Michaelia Cash (Immigration) and Fiona Nash (Health).

Abbott has dropped six members of his shadow ministry: Senator Ian MacDonald, Teresa Gambaro, Andrew Southcott, Don Randall, John Cobb and Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, who becomes a parliamentary secretary.

Andrew Robb has been moved sideways from Finance to become Minister for Trade and Investment. For the first time in living memory, the Nationals have lost the Trade portfolio.

Bronwyn Bishop will become Speaker of the House of Representatives.

The Father of the House, Philip Ruddock, who clocks up forty years in parliament on September 22, will be Chief Government Whip. Abbott said there will be 30 new coalition members. “I can think of no better person to act as tutor-in-chief,” Abbott said, describing Ruddock as a man of unrivalled experience, judgement, insight and character.

The former Whip, Warren Entsch, will chair a new committee for northern developemnt. “Warren is the embodiment of northern Australia,” said Abbott.

The ministry will be sworn in on Wednesday morning.


----------



## IFocus

No science minister what a drop kick Abbott is 1st time since 1931 great we still have a sports minister FFS


----------



## wayneL

IFocus said:


> No science minister what a drop kick Abbott is 1st time since 1931 great we still have a sports minister FFS




So this is what the left has reduced themselves to? Petulant whining about nomenclature of portfolios and other insignificancies?

Mate, you Fabians are in a bad way, decades of socialist gradualism squandered (thankfully) by a gaggle of whingeing incompetents, supported by an uncritical constituency of acolytes. 

I hope you lot enjoy opposition, because until you grow up, you're gonna be there for the longest time.


----------



## Macquack

wayneL said:


> So this is what the left has reduced themselves to? Petulant whining about nomenclature of portfolios and other insignificancies?
> 
> Mate, you Fabians are in a bad way, decades of socialist gradualism squandered (thankfully) by a gaggle of whingeing incompetents, supported by an uncritical constituency of acolytes.
> 
> I hope you lot enjoy opposition, because until you grow up, you're gonna be there for the longest time.




When are ya gunna speak "Australian", Wayne? 

For a guy who changes tyres on horses, you sure do use a lot of BIG words. 

IFocus makes a very valid point and you just launch into some diatribe that has me scurrying around for a dictionary.


----------



## drsmith

Macquack said:


> When are ya gunna speak "Australian", Wayne?
> 
> For a guy who changes tyres on horses, you sure do use a lot of BIG words.
> 
> IFocus makes a very valid point and you just launch into some diatribe that has me scurrying around for a dictionary.



If you can't address the substance of Wayne's point, why do you bother at all ?


----------



## sydboy007

IFocus said:


> No science minister what a drop kick Abbott is 1st time since 1931 great we still have a sports minister FFS




There will be a creationism minister soon though, most likely with the Holy See of approval


----------



## Macquack

drsmith said:


> If you can't address the substance of Wayne's point, why do you bother at all ?




I will tell you why, Smith. Because WayneL did not address the substance of IFocus's point. Get the picture, Doc.


----------



## basilio

That posting which shows the Ministries that have been removed versus the single new inclusion is very telling as far as what the new Government sees as significant - and not significant.  The whole point of establishing particular ministries is an acknowledgment that a particular issue is worth a particular focus rather than just being part of a super ministry which takes care of everything. 

Having a Minister with focused responsibility for an area gives it a far greater likelihood of attention and action.

So starting with Climate Change going through the Status of Women and finishing with Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research we can see just how many facets of our society will be effectively downgraded or ignored. 

Welcome to the 1950's.


----------



## wayneL

Macquack said:


> When are ya gunna speak "Australian", Wayne?
> 
> For a guy who changes tyres on horses, you sure do use a lot of BIG words.




Well Macquack, a decent farrier must have a working knowledge eguine digit anatomy, morphology, physiology and pathology; as well as metallurgy, physics, mechanics and these days, plastics technology. Not to mention equine psychology and good old fashioned horsemanship.

Then there are the owners... which mostly involves nothing more than a bit leching on my part, but occasionally some pretty fancy people management skills.

A farrier must also be able to converse in veterinary terms, often in my case at university level, having worked with Murdoch, Massey and UQ.

Strine doesn't go down very well when I'm working on a $250,000 dressage horse that's lame and I've been called in to fix it.

But that's why I get the big bucks. :

Of course, after a couple of beers, I'll speak as much Strine as you like. 

- - - Updated - - -



Macquack said:


> I will tell you why, Smith. Because WayneL did not address the substance of IFocus's point. Get the picture, Doc.




Because there was no substantive point Macquack, just negative whining.


----------



## basilio

> So starting with Climate Change going through the Status of Women and finishing with Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research we can see just how many facets of our society will be effectively downgraded or ignored.
> 
> Welcome to the 1950's.




On reflection what would one truly expect from a PM as ultra conservative as Tony Abbott ? I suspect he'll make John Howard look visionary and Malcolm Fraser truly statesman like. 

I wonder what Malcolm Turnballs views would be on this myopic view of government ?


----------



## drsmith

Macquack said:


> I will tell you why, Smith. Because WayneL did not address the substance of IFocus's point. Get the picture, Doc.



I get the picture, but it's one of your attitude towards others and in particular, your attitude towards those who don't agree with your point of view.


----------



## Smurf1976

Is this serious? No Minister for either Resources and Energy or Tourism? In a country where natural resource extraction and tourism are key exporters and employers of national importance?

This seems akin to an airline deciding not to have pilots or a concert without anyone playing music. It's so ridiculous as to be almost unbelievable.


----------



## Julia

basilio said:


> That posting which shows the Ministries that have been removed versus the single new inclusion is very telling as far as what the new Government sees as significant - and not significant.



Exactly.  And it's very deliberate, making clear that the new government will prioritise what it believes is most important.
Good for them.  An excellent way of making their point even more clear.


----------



## drsmith

Labor didn't have a Ministry of Waste by name but they had it by nature.


----------



## basilio

Wayne  IFocus and MacSquak were making a very substantive point about the disappearance of many important facets of modern society from Abbotts new ministry.

I spelt it out  for you in case it was too difficult to understand.

A Government  identifies important issues so they can directly address them.  If one wanta to ignore these issues you begin by taking them off the public face of government and perhaps putting them as the niggly side line of a larger probably conflicting ministry. 

Is that too difficult to understand? Che ?


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Wayne  IFocus and MacSquak were making a very substantive point about the disappearance of many important facets of modern society from Abbotts new ministry.
> 
> I spelt it out  for you in case it was too difficult to understand.
> 
> A Government  identifies important issues so they can directly address them.  If one wanta to ignore these issues you begin by taking them off the public face of government and perhaps putting them as the niggly side line of a larger probably conflicting ministry.
> 
> Is that too difficult to understand? Che ?




Well my unnecessarily obnoxious and obsequiously Fabian friend, Julia has already adequately addressed this point.

Your guys had their chance, screwed it up... badly..... and deservedly lost. Get over it, it's these guy's go now.

Let's give them a chance and see what they do.


----------



## Whiskers

Smurf1976 said:


> Is this serious? No Minister for either Resources and Energy or Tourism? In a country where natural resource extraction and tourism are key exporters and employers of national importance?
> 
> This seems akin to an airline deciding not to have pilots or a concert without anyone playing music. It's so ridiculous as to be almost unbelievable.




A concert without a conductor maybe. Not the best way to conduct business.

Ian Macfarlane had Industry, Tourism and Resources under Howard... and while I can't see any mention of tourism or resources elsewhere in the outer ministry or secretariat, are we to assume Macfarlane has the same duties again?

I have to agree, it's not a good start to not have the signage for two of your biggest industries up on the front door... even if only as a sub title.



Julia said:


> Exactly.  And it's very deliberate, making clear that the new government will prioritise what it believes is most important.
> Good for them.  An excellent way of making their point even more clear.




Interesting to note... 



> Usually allocated to the outer ministry, Minister for Sport Peter Dutton will be sitting on the frontbench in the Abbott government.
> 
> "It's good that sport is represented by a cabinet level minister just as a I think it's good that arts are," Mr Abbott said while announcing his ministry in Parliament House on Monday.
> 
> When asked if he was looking to make more changes to the law following match-fixing concerns in soccer and AFL, Mr Abbott said he would ask Mr Dutton to seek an urgent briefing into the matter.http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/09/16/abbott-unveils-his-frontbench




Not what I was expecting as one of the higher priorities for a new government.

Even though there is not much science required in his main policies... not much of anything actually, just literally to do nothing or toss out... to dump the carbon tax and stop the waste. The boats have largely stopped if he can hold the PNG deal together and not offend the Indonesians too much. 

But surely Science has to be integrated into the forefront of cabinet thoughts for improving and modernising our development, manufacturing and energy infrastructure in particular.

The worse situation than Labor would be for Abbot to turn a blind eye, to revert (backwards intellectually) to open slather uncontrolled mining and industry development, cheap and nasty, for maximum short term revenue. We'll be watching closely to see if this is what he meant by cutting red and green tape.

A hot topic even within his own ranks is largely unregulated CSG for example, that could destroy significant amounts of our water and agricultural resources for a number of lifetimes longer than the CSG development itself. He'd better take notice of Barnaby on this one and other Agriculture issues if he wants to maintain the monopoly on non urban seats and maintain government for more than one term.

Science is such an important aspect of our other historically important rural industries as well if we are to maintain a quality clean, reliable food supply for ourselves and export. 

While the minimalist approach (as indicated for cabinet numbers) is good to a certain extent for efficiency and savings, overdone it will have a suppressive, even retardant effect on our prosperity in the future.


----------



## moXJO

IFocus said:


> No science minister what a drop kick Abbott is 1st time since 1931 great we still have a sports minister FFS




Oh the outrage

Clearly Abbott needs to set up a minister for tissues.
Labors six or seven ministers for small business over six years was a massive fail. I mean why even bother. Hell if we needed a minister for $hitting your pants at the slightest problem then labor has them by the dozen. Imo wait at least three months in before your leftie brains make up scenarios of doom under Abbott. The amount of labor tantrums being thrown online over Abbott is kinda funny. Someone even made a tshirt 'eat **** abbott' or something and was selling them. I think she was a fairfax jorno.


----------



## wayneL

Re - The much ado over nothing:

Chief scientist unfazed by cabinet lineup
From: AAP  September 18, 2013 12:11AM

_AUSTRALIA'S chief scientist Professor Ian Chubb has played down concerns about the incoming coalition government's failure to appoint a dedicated federal science minister.
The move by prime minister-elect Tony Abbott, which will see some areas of science come under the industry portfolio, has drawn community and Labor criticism and even sparked outcry from within the Liberal Party.

But Prof Chubb said supporting the future of science was about more than a ministerial title.

*"If you look at the federal budget, science is spread over 14 portfolios already, so putting another one in there doesn't really make a huge amount of difference," Prof Chubb told ABC TV.
*
He said Aust
_


Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...up/story-e6frfku9-1226721383949#ixzz2fB4eg8kq


----------



## sydboy007

Well, with Policy like this from the resource minister we know the Coalition means business.

“We've got to make sure that every molecule of gas that can come out of the ground does so."

Could be a bit tricky in NSW with the closing down of the CSG industry.


----------



## Whiskers

wayneL said:


> Re - The much ado over nothing:




Maybe... it may be that he will upgrade and revitalise the status of science after the 'Climate Change' and Carbon Tax and their extremists have been whittled away, BUT...



> "*The real benefit is when you have a senior minister with influence and a bit of power, who's passionate about science* and whether they carry the title or not is a separate issue," Prof Chubb said.




and...



> The chief scientist's response was less passionate than that of Western Australian Liberal Dennis Jensen, who said "science is in crisis" and needed expert decision-making at a federal government level.
> 
> "We've got a minister for sport, for God's sake, but we don't have a minister for science," he told ABC TV, taking a swipe at the decision of his own party. Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...up/story-e6frfku9-1226721383949#ixzz2fCVpM8Dl




...suggests concern about his priorities and that if he does have a plan to revive Science post the Climate Change obsession, he appears not to have let even his own party in on it.

I'm a bit loathe to be too critical at such an early stage, but is it more of jobs for the boys in the guise that his mates from the Howard era are more experienced and capable of 'fixing' Australia's woes!? Not a good look Tony! 

Dr Dennis Jensen MP, BAppSci, MSc, PhD, FAIP is the most (scientifically) qualified of all LNP politicians and a climate sceptic to boot. So, it tends to beggar belief why Abbott has not at least maintained the traditional status of science, but curiously why the most capable person in the LNP isn't heading it or apparently not even involved in the ministry at all.

Dr Dennis Jensen seems the ideal person with experience working with the CSIRO to revive and redirect it back to it's former glory and future potential.




> Dr Jensen has made headlines by questioning the scientific consensus that humans are contributing to global warming.
> 
> Dr Jensen believes carbon dioxide is contributing somewhat to global temperatures, but not as much as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is suggesting.
> 
> Moreover, Dr Jensen does not think governments should be taking urgent action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
> 
> "In the climate area there is appeal to authority and appeal to consensus, neither of which is scientific at all," Dr Jensen told Fairfax Media on Thursday.
> 
> "Scientific reality doesn't give a damn who said it and it doesn't give a damn how many say it."
> 
> It was wrong to accept the view of the 97 per cent of climate scientists who agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely caused by human activities, because "the argument of consensus . . . is a flawed argument," Dr Jensen said.
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ce-minister-20130912-2tltt.html#ixzz2fCi1mVYl




From the little I know about Jensen, he seems a straight talking, logical and personable bloke... maybe he just doesn't get along with many of the old guard... or allergic to people pissing in his pocket.


----------



## drsmith

Where's the Ministry of Rudd ?

We can't possible have a future government in Australia without a Ministry of Rudd.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> Where's the Ministry of Rudd ?
> 
> We can't possible have a future government in Australia without a Ministry of Rudd.




Only available to fully ordained members of the Roman Catholic Church via Pontifical appointment.

Don't worry.  Soon the GG will be replaced by a cardinal or bishop with the full blessing of his holiness George Pell.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> Only available to fully ordained members of the Roman Catholic Church via Pontifical appointment.



Did you watch the Kitchen Cabinet episode on ABC in the week before the election that featured Kevin Rudd ?

He believes in Darwinism, but............


----------



## drsmith

Now, we might finally get some long awaited adult government.



> Ten days since they were elected, the Coalition government officially begins work today.
> 
> Mr Abbott says he will immediately instruct the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to prepare legislation to repeal the carbon tax and Treasurer Joe Hockey will also instruct the board of the Clean Energy Corporation to cease operations.
> 
> The Immigration Department will be told to stop granting permanent protection visas to asylum seekers who arrive by boat and begin reintroducing Howard-government-style temporary protection visas instead.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-18/tony-abbott-sworn-in-as-australian-prime-minister/4965104


----------



## Whiskers

drsmith said:


> Now, we might finally get some long awaited adult government.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-18/tony-abbott-sworn-in-as-australian-prime-minister/4965104




Yeah, some electorally justified cut and burn there... but, maybe it's just me, but I'm a bit curious why he hasn't demonstrated a more proactive, than reactive, potential particularly in the selection and make up of the cabinet. 

It doesn't take much to cut and burn the rubbish, but I'd have thought a mature adult that he is, would have made provision in the structure of his government for more ingenuity as opposed to old traditions.


----------



## drsmith

Whiskers said:


> Yeah, some electorally justified cut and burn there... but, maybe it's just me, but I'm a bit curious why he hasn't demonstrated a more proactive, than reactive, potential particularly in the selection and make up of the cabinet.
> 
> It doesn't take much to cut and burn the rubbish, but I'd have thought a mature adult that he is, would have made provision in the structure of his government for more ingenuity as opposed to old traditions.



I'm more interested in what they do than the names of the individual ministries.


----------



## IFocus

basilio said:


> That posting which shows the Ministries that have been removed versus the single new inclusion is very telling as far as what the new Government sees as significant - and not significant.  The whole point of establishing particular ministries is an acknowledgment that a particular issue is worth a particular focus rather than just being part of a super ministry which takes care of everything.
> 
> Having a Minister with focused responsibility for an area gives it a far greater likelihood of attention and action.
> 
> So starting with Climate Change going through the Status of Women and finishing with Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research we can see just how many facets of our society will be effectively downgraded or ignored.
> 
> Welcome to the 1950's.





My point exactly but I didnt want to go into as much detail Basilio anything past a three worded slogan and the Abbott cheer squad here go into a spin reduced to scripted name calling but agree re the 50's.


----------



## Julia

drsmith said:


> I'm more interested in what they do than the names of the individual ministries.



+1.   Anyone would think that, because no individual actually bears the title "Minister for Science" the government has no policies on science.

As already stated above from Ian Chubb: 







> But Prof Chubb said supporting the future of science was about more than a ministerial title.
> 
> "If you look at the federal budget, science is spread over 14 portfolios already, so putting another one in there doesn't really make a huge amount of difference," Prof Chubb told ABC TV.




The reduction in ministerial titles seems to me to be in line with Tony Abbott's general approach of simplifying and paring back.  I'm all for it, until such an approach is demonstrated to be wrong, after the overblown, rhetorical flourishes of Labor.


----------



## drsmith

Out comes the broom,



> The ceremony had barely finished when the Prime Minister's office issued a press release, announcing three departmental secretaries had had their contracts terminated and the Treasury Secretary would stand down next year.
> .



http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-18/abbott-sacks-three-public-service-bosses-as-first-act/4965690

Paul Kelly's view on the new Abbott government,



> TONY Abbott has signalled a new style of Coalition government based on collaborative ties with business, a clearer set of priorities, less frenetic, more predictable and geared to stability, not fashion. For Abbott, the Rudd-Gillard years are his anti-model. He aspires to deliver what he calls "adult government". This is Abbott's version of conservatism. He is not interested in running an exciting, dramatic, high-expectations government, lurching into dysfunction and promising to improve every second aspect of your life. Abbott sees this style as immature and ineffective. In the end, he wants government to do less and people to do more. He believes the public is tired of Labor's egoism, boasting and endless self-obsessions. Announcing his ministry, Abbott said the people wanted a government that was "upfront, speaks plainly and does the essentials well". Decoded, this means cutting the spin, delivering his promises and getting the economy ticking in the teeth of rising unemployment. The challenge in delivering this brand of governance is a long row back. Abbott is going to face fierce opposition from special interests and causes that view him with suspicion at the outset and are sure to have those suspicions confirmed. His values, style and substance are different from Labor. The test is how they translate in practice and how the public responds. Abbott is a modest man but he must deliver more than modest government. He hates embroidery, loathes long ministerial titles, says he won't be talking to the media unless he has something to say and will recall parliament only when the carbon pricing repeal bills are ready. In totality, this outlook is a shock to the system. Abbott should have promoted another woman into his cabinet where Julie Bishop is the only female in 19 ministers. That he declined reveals a stubborness to do things his way. In this case it is counter-productive. While he has five women out of 30 ministers overall, it was a further mistake to have only one woman out of 12 parliamentary secretaries, the typical escalator for promotion. Abbott also is in trouble over contrasting optics: nominating a minister for sport but not a minister for science. The pivotal issue is whether the "back to basics" government he plans is compatible with the noisy, trouble-making real-time media cycle that now drives our politics. It is the clash between Abbott as conservative warrior and the anarchic modern media with its thirst for drama and obsession with gesture. In opposition Abbott was astute in setting the agenda; it is impossible to believe he will abandon this tactic. But he must learn how to set the agenda from office. The heart of this government is its economic team. Abbott is convinced Labor stumbled because of its obstructionist attitude towards big, small and resources-based business. Hence his "open for business" mantra, a message he will sell locally and globally. The team is Joe Hockey as treasurer, Mathias Cormann, a worthy promotion as finance minister, Andrew Robb in his sideways move to the new trade and investment portfolio to sell a pro-foreign investment message and Arthur Sinodinos, promoted into the ministry as assistant treasurer but lacking the immediate higher influence many expected. This is an economic team that is close to Abbott. Its values are pro-market, deregulatory reform and cutting Labor's red and green tape. The aim is to confirm established figures in jobs they have done where they are known to their business constituencies. This is typified by having Bruce Billson in cabinet with exclusive responsibility for small business. Note that Jamie Briggs, a dedicated economic dry, cracks the ministry and Mitch Fifield has an immense job dealing with disability and ageing. Abbott has signalled his pro-foreign investment disposition despite friction with the Nationals. In announcing the appointment of Nationals deputy Barnaby Joyce as agriculture minister, Abbott said his task was to "fulfil Australia's potential as the food bowl of Asia", a brief that demands an outward-looking mindset and close dealing with Hockey and Robb. A looming test is Hockey's decision as treasurer on the proposed foreign takeover of Grain Corp, Australia's largest listed agribusiness. Any flat rejection would ruin the credibility of Abbott's foreign investment message. Environment minister Greg Hunt, highly regarded by Abbott, will be pivotal to the government's early standing. His task is not just the huge job of legislating direct action but overseeing critical reforms - the abolition of Labor's climate change agencies, approving a backlog of resource projects and implementing the highly contentious "one-stop shop" state-based system of new project approvals. These decisions will be vital for Abbott, showing whether he is serious in moving to a more pro-development profile. Failure on this front would be disastrous. Abbott has followed John Howard's technique of a strong balance between conservatives and moderates. The moderates are prominent; witness Bishop, attorney-general George Brandis, education minister Christopher Pyne, communications minister, Malcolm Turnbull among others. It reflects a deeper trend: the unity of the party under Abbott and weakening of once deep divides, a factor vital to his success. Abbott is serious about valuing experience. Consider three familiar faces from the Howard era: Kevin Andrews in social security, Peter Dutton in health and Ian Macfarlane in industry. Abbott expects them to be safe and reliable. But Labor's critique is obvious: stability doesn't necessarily equate with dynamism. Abbott's internal authority is immense. While valuing experience he has been prepared to take tough decisions, demoting a number of people, sending a message of perform or else. The incoming prime minister has assumed within his department responsibility for deregulation and indigenous affairs. Abbott has been far-sighted in some of his parliamentary secretary slots, appointing those two Harvard postgraduates Josh Frydenberg to work with him on deregulation and Alan Tudge, experienced with Noel Pearson in Cape York, to work with him on indigenous issues. Their housemate, Columbia postgraduate Paul Fletcher, becomes parliamentary secretary to Turnbull. The backbench remains flush with potential: Christian Porter, Kelly O'Dwyer and Angus Taylor among others.




The first comment from the article is also a good read,



> Abbott has had to choose from the halls of experience, irrespective of gender. VanStone and Bishop have supported the notion of defying tokenism for stability through experience. Buttrose has described her disgruntlement with the lack of female choice, and extrapolates to broader perceived discrimination on the basis of gender. Abbott would have been damned if he had chosen a candidate based predominantly on gender, and not on experience. Many women would have found this abhorrent in and of itself. We are currently coming to terms with the unfortunate legacy left behind by the Gillard-Wong style of representation. This should not daunt women seeking front bench representation, providing incentive to demonstrate individual experience and capability over gender stigmatisation. Abbott is clearly attempting to restore dignity to government, and faces the gauntlet of societal, opposition and media criticism for his gutsy choice. I concur with "Gimme a break" in that gender is an irrelevant parameter. Tokenism is offensive, as is discrimination. Ken Hay appeals for patience whilst the new government settles into responsibility and deliverance. The rise of the individual is celebrated.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...-back-to-basics/story-e6frg74x-1226721246569#


----------



## IFocus

wayneL said:


> Things have changed IF, specifically, the purported science for a catastrophic warming scenario has fallen off a cliff.
> 
> Any workable policies to deal with the likely effects of any modest warming will not include a tax on CO2, and will deal with mitigation.




I was trying to argue case Abbott hasnt a mandate in the senate just like he argued Labour didnt under Rudd.

As for the world warming it dosent matter just been to Borneo.......we are all well and truey Fu(ked


----------



## drsmith

On science and sport,



> The Prime Minister-elect Tony Abbott announced today during his cabinet unveiling that the science portfolio would be shared between the Industry and Education ministries.
> 
> "Science, as in the CSIRO, will be with industry," Mr Abbott said during the press conference, which means the minister overseeing the sciences will be Ian McFarlane.




http://www.news.com.au/technology/s...r-in-new-cabinet/story-fn5fsgyc-1226720375674

Sport became a stand alone portfolio under the prime-ministership of Kevin Rudd (Wikipedia).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_for_Sport_(Australia)


----------



## Whiskers

drsmith said:


> I'm more interested in what they do than the names of the individual ministries.




Yeah, me too... but from an analytical psychological perspective, eg like conducting an interview of a job applicant, one can usually get a good insight into what their main interests and motivations are and what they are capable of achieving.

To put it another way, the resume of the collective cabinet seems to be lacking for some key qualified and experienced potential, as I mentioned earlier, to transition from a can-do traditional (now getting antique) Howard style as opposed to more innovative and contemporary qualifications and outlook on life for the future.

This is one of the caveats the election result implied in the result, by routing the greens by 1/3 in the senate, but replacing with arguably less principled 'others' as a consequence of the 'traditional' often abused (now better by minority interests) than ever before optional above the line preferential vote.

So, you can see that "tradition", while usually espousing predictability, is often retrograde in terms of contemporary managerial and policy requirements.

Likewise, a poorly articulated resume with ambiguity easily leads to uncertainty and disappointment on perceived policy and managerial style. 

While he tactfully made himself a small target during opposition, Abbott could have done much better in the cabinet selection to more quickly and completely shed his traditional persona of 'shifty' an 'head kicker' and transition to a contemporary leader.

To echo and re-apply the logic of the sentiments of Dennis Jensen MP, appeal to authority and appeal to consensus, especially in the absence of potential for the most qualified and contemporary management is not sound, scientifically, psychologically or administratively if you expect to be respected or more importantly, better respected than the alternative, as a leader of better government. He has to remember he didn't gain the voter support near as much as they chose to protest support the minors against Labor.

In a nutshell, he needs to get it... that he's been put on probation and needs to shine not only up to expectations, but above the alternative to maintain his job. 

The danger he faces is if Labor re-unifies under probably Albanese, (less likely from a voter perspective for Shorton)  he will face a tougher job trying to win over the 'Other' 7 in the senate to achieve anything (including abolishing the carbon tax) than if he stole the march with a smart, progressive and contemporary cabinet in the meantime. It appears the other 7 are probably more inclined to Labor philosophy and a re-unified Labor is more likely to entertain at least some of their key policies... thus providing all the ingredients that started the roundabout leadership uncertainty with Rudd and his frustration with not being confident in winning a DD.

Abbott needs to earn the maximum voter respect he can asap in the event a DD becomes inevitable.


----------



## Whiskers

Julia said:


> +1.   Anyone would think that, because no individual actually bears the title "Minister for Science" the government has no policies on science.




That wasn't my belief. As I suggested it was implied that Macfarlane had the job (based on tradition)... but perception while not paramount, is important in the absence of clarity of the importance of science in a contemporary context.



> The reduction in ministerial titles seems to me to be in line with Tony Abbott's general approach of simplifying and paring back.  I'm all for it, until such an approach is demonstrated to be wrong, after the overblown, rhetorical flourishes of Labor.




I think there are three key points I would make here summarised from my rationale above. 

Firstly, It's unwise to gauge your bar standard against the low standard of the opposition. The voter expects the bar to be as high as possible all the time.

Small government is generally perceived and accepted as a good thing. However, Small and traditional does not fit well for many contemporary voters bearing in mind contemporary has become trendy atm in terms of unfounded extreme beliefs such as climate change. The Cabinet needs to be very capable and effective as well. In the ministry there is an apparent lack of credible and capable scientific expertise to counter the significant climate change (attitudinal) tend perpetuated by elements of Labor. This is probably the most significant deal breaker in terms of which party people believe and respect atm.

Finally, Abbott has won the voter belief for now. He now needs to win their respect as well, hard, right off the bat, so to speak, to maintain his position and spare us more leadership changes. Repeating, the senate may be more difficult to negotiate than previously thought, and more likely to lean to Labor and welcome a DD... or even succeed in a vote of no confidence.​
*Abbott needs to very clearly demonstrate an appreciation of what is his Achilles' heel*... voter dissatisfaction with the prospect of retrogate leadership... not just going back to divided labor, but also ultra conservative LNP trying to force in new laws that have not been fully or accurately presented (eg workchoices).

PS: It would be dangerous to presume the new minority senators would not force a DD this time. It's a very different scenario this time and some of the newer parties in the senate probably fancy their chances of increasing their representation with continued efficient lobbying. 

...as a result of all seats being contested, it is easier for smaller parties to obtain election to the Senate under the Senate proportional voting system: the quota for the election of each senator in each Australian state in a full Senate election is 7.69% (1/(1/(12+1))), while in a normal half-Senate election the quota is 14.28% (1/(1/(6+1))). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_dissolution​


----------



## wayneL

IFocus said:


> As for the world warming it dosent matter just been to Borneo.......we are all well and truey Fu(ked




Totally agree. My consistent point here. And that nonsensical climate alarmism detracts from that demonstrable reality.


----------



## drsmith

Whiskers said:


> Abbott needs to earn the maximum voter respect he can asap in the event a DD becomes inevitable.



That specific point is true, but overall you might be overanalysing.

Give them a chance and see what they do.


----------



## Whiskers

drsmith said:


> You might be overanalysing.
> 
> Give them a chance and see what they do.




Maybe, but as they say;
"A man who misses his opportunity, and monkey who misses his branch, cannot be saved."
 Hindu Proverb​
But seriously, when in a precarious situation it's wise to never squander an irreplaceable opportunity.

I'd be more comfortable if he was more focused on the opportunities of tomorrow rather than the problems of yesterday.


----------



## drsmith

Whiskers said:


> Maybe, but as they say;
> "A man who misses his opportunity, and monkey who misses his branch, cannot be saved."
> Hindu Proverb​
> But seriously, when in a precarious situation it's wise to never squander an irreplaceable opportunity.
> 
> I'd be more comfortable if he was more focused on the opportunities of tomorrow rather than the problems of yesterday.



The Abbott government outlined its priorities from opposition and during the election campaign and that's what the electorate chose over Labor.

Tony Abbott's gone from being deemed unelectable to PM and while his path was helped by a poor performance by Labor in government, he has surprised on the upside. 

There's no doubt that government is a tougher gig than opposition. Getting down to business without too much noise is a good start in my view.


----------



## waza1960

> Abbott needs to earn the maximum voter respect he can asap in the event a DD becomes inevitable.



 Not IMO. All he has to do is what he is doing which is being a stable and no nonsense PM and then the population will realise that the massive scare campaign Labor waged against him was rubbish then he will easily increase the conservative vote


----------



## sydboy007

waza1960 said:


> Not IMO. All he has to do is what he is doing which is being a stable and no nonsense PM and then the population will realise that the massive scare campaign Labor waged against him was rubbish then he will easily increase the conservative vote




Oh, what happens when every little issue is a "crisis", where the nationals agitate for far more restrictive investment laws and start argung with Macfarlane over CSG and access to resources?

Lets see what their first budget does.  If there's not a decent drop in the deficit thn Abott should be recognised as a hypocrite since it was only a few months ago he said we had a budget crisis.  How he plans to acheive meaningful tax reform is beyond me, since he's fought against most of it the last 3 years.  Every rent seeker out there has seen what can be achieved with a small budget and lots of help from the MSM.  There's no money to bribe the loosers of reform.


----------



## Julia

Whiskers said:


> Yeah, me too... but from an analytical psychological perspective, eg like conducting an interview of a job applicant, one can usually get a good insight into what their main interests and motivations are and what they are capable of achieving.
> 
> To put it another way, the resume of the collective cabinet seems to be lacking for some key qualified and experienced potential, as I mentioned earlier, to transition from a can-do traditional (now getting antique) Howard style as opposed to more innovative and contemporary qualifications and outlook on life for the future.
> 
> This is one of the caveats the election result implied in the result, by routing the greens by 1/3 in the senate, but replacing with arguably less principled 'others' as a consequence of the 'traditional' often abused (now better by minority interests) than ever before optional above the line preferential vote.
> 
> So, you can see that "tradition", while usually espousing predictability, is often retrograde in terms of contemporary managerial and policy requirements.
> 
> Likewise, a poorly articulated resume with ambiguity easily leads to uncertainty and disappointment on perceived policy and managerial style.
> 
> While he tactfully made himself a small target during opposition, Abbott could have done much better in the cabinet selection to more quickly and completely shed his traditional persona of 'shifty' an 'head kicker' and transition to a contemporary leader.
> 
> To echo and re-apply the logic of the sentiments of Dennis Jensen MP, appeal to authority and appeal to consensus, especially in the absence of potential for the most qualified and contemporary management is not sound, scientifically, psychologically or administratively if you expect to be respected or more importantly, better respected than the alternative, as a leader of better government. He has to remember he didn't gain the voter support near as much as they chose to protest support the minors against Labor.
> 
> In a nutshell, he needs to get it... that he's been put on probation and needs to shine not only up to expectations, but above the alternative to maintain his job.
> 
> The danger he faces is if Labor re-unifies under probably Albanese, (less likely from a voter perspective for Shorton)  he will face a tougher job trying to win over the 'Other' 7 in the senate to achieve anything (including abolishing the carbon tax) than if he stole the march with a smart, progressive and contemporary cabinet in the meantime. It appears the other 7 are probably more inclined to Labor philosophy and a re-unified Labor is more likely to entertain at least some of their key policies... thus providing all the ingredients that started the roundabout leadership uncertainty with Rudd and his frustration with not being confident in winning a DD.
> 
> Abbott needs to earn the maximum voter respect he can asap in the event a DD becomes inevitable.






Whiskers said:


> That wasn't my belief. As I suggested it was implied that Macfarlane had the job (based on tradition)... but perception while not paramount, is important in the absence of clarity of the importance of science in a contemporary context.
> 
> 
> 
> I think there are three key points I would make here summarised from my rationale above.
> 
> Firstly, It's unwise to gauge your bar standard against the low standard of the opposition. The voter expects the bar to be as high as possible all the time.
> 
> Small government is generally perceived and accepted as a good thing. However, Small and traditional does not fit well for many contemporary voters bearing in mind contemporary has become trendy atm in terms of unfounded extreme beliefs such as climate change. The Cabinet needs to be very capable and effective as well. In the ministry there is an apparent lack of credible and capable scientific expertise to counter the significant climate change (attitudinal) tend perpetuated by elements of Labor. This is probably the most significant deal breaker in terms of which party people believe and respect atm.
> 
> Finally, Abbott has won the voter belief for now. He now needs to win their respect as well, hard, right off the bat, so to speak, to maintain his position and spare us more leadership changes. Repeating, the senate may be more difficult to negotiate than previously thought, and more likely to lean to Labor and welcome a DD... or even succeed in a vote of no confidence.​
> *Abbott needs to very clearly demonstrate an appreciation of what is his Achilles' heel*... voter dissatisfaction with the prospect of retrogate leadership... not just going back to divided labor, but also ultra conservative LNP trying to force in new laws that have not been fully or accurately presented (eg workchoices).
> 
> PS: It would be dangerous to presume the new minority senators would not force a DD this time. It's a very different scenario this time and some of the newer parties in the senate probably fancy their chances of increasing their representation with continued efficient lobbying.
> 
> ...as a result of all seats being contested, it is easier for smaller parties to obtain election to the Senate under the Senate proportional voting system: the quota for the election of each senator in each Australian state in a full Senate election is 7.69% (1/(1/(12+1))), while in a normal half-Senate election the quota is 14.28% (1/(1/(6+1))). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_dissolution​



Um, Whiskers, have you been taking lessons from one K. Rudd in terms of obfuscating language?
All you need to add is his "programmatic specificity" and you'll be right up there with using a huge number of words, the ultimate meaning of which is, at least to me, somewhat unclear.




drsmith said:


> The Abbott government outlined its priorities from opposition and during the election campaign and that's what the electorate chose over Labor.
> 
> Tony Abbott's gone from being deemed unelectable to PM and while his path was helped by a poor performance by Labor in government, he has surprised on the upside.
> 
> There's no doubt that government is a tougher gig than opposition. Getting down to business without too much noise is a good start in my view.



Exactly.   We do not want a repeat of the last six years of overblown language, vast rhetorical promises, and ultimate failure.



waza1960 said:


> Not IMO. All he has to do is what he is doing which is being a stable and no nonsense PM and then the population will realise that the massive scare campaign Labor waged against him was rubbish then he will easily increase the conservative vote



+1.   The government has only been sworn in today.  Yet Whiskers, Sydboy and others are determined to send them down in flames before they've had a chance to do anything.
For heaven's sake, can't you at least give them a chance!


----------



## MrBurns

Julia said:


> .
> +1.   The government has only been sworn in today.  Yet Whiskers, Sydboy and others are determined to send them down in flames before they've had a chance to do anything.
> For heaven's sake, can't you at least give them a chance!




Poor losers, we will beat their hides again next election if they can put a team together by then.


----------



## Tink

drsmith said:


> The Abbott government outlined its priorities from opposition and during the election campaign and that's what the electorate chose over Labor.
> 
> Tony Abbott's gone from being deemed unelectable to PM and while his path was helped by a poor performance by Labor in government, he has surprised on the upside.
> 
> There's no doubt that government is a tougher gig than opposition. Getting down to business without too much noise is a good start in my view.




Agree, drsmith.

Its been very refreshing not seeing Rudd, his selfies and all the other rubbish. 

Great start for Abbott.


----------



## sydboy007

MrBurns said:


> Poor losers, we will beat their hides again next election if they can put a team together by then.




Day one and already they've set up potential sovereign crisis over resources.  Far larger issue for taking the resource off a company than applying a tax to it.

So develop the resource, even if it's not economic to do so, or it provides a lower income to the country by forcing an over supply.

Pure dead brilliant policy by someone who's supposedly a steady hand.  I wonder if the guy who released their internet filtering policy was involved


----------



## Whiskers

Julia said:


> Um, Whiskers, have you been taking lessons from one K. Rudd in terms of obfuscating language?




Absolutely not! In fact Rudd could have used a bit of good holistic advice (like mine ) to be more effective in beating off his own party assassins and maintaining stability of leadership to tone down (or out) some of his policy positions. 

Hmm... obfuscating: _To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand_

Who me!?

Analysis is an integral part of model development involving sensitive data and analytical examination of input parameters to aid in model validation and provide guidance for future decision making. This requires each sensitivity, the required calculation, the sensitivity ranking of parameters, and the relative method performance, include partial derivatives, variation of inputs by standard deviation, a relative deviation of the output distribution, a relative deviation rank correlation coefficients, standardized regression coefficients, rank regression coefficients... : 

Seriously though, on that point, remember I was one of few who foreshadowed Rudds return to the leadership. 

One can live in simple, one step linear dimensions and pray everything will turn out ok... or try to understand the range of possibilities from the given set of limiting parameters and be proactive in fulfilling your goals. The later is the reason why I particularly like people like Dr Dennis Jensen MP,  study of the universe, study of the soul and pretty much everything in between that makes people tick. 

It gives one an inherent advantage to the Nike syndrome... 'Just do it'.



> +1.   The government has only been sworn in today.  Yet Whiskers, Sydboy and others are determined to send them down in flames before they've had a chance to do anything.
> For heaven's sake, can't you at least give them a chance!




Hey, hang on Julia... don't label this innocent looking little goldfish with those who wilfully expose their underwear. I'm clearly different! 

Consider it like a coach on the sideline for Andy Murray. Murray had great potential but he never achieved it until he got a coach who taught him how to control his temperament and focus his thoughts and energy on the damn ball and his strategy. He then got lazy again, expelling his emotions all over the place and his opponents won.

Abbott is NOT the typical complete balanced 'Leader'. That is not to say he can't achieve good things, But just as Rudd and Gillard had unbalanced personalities, Abbott is more vulnerable atm than either of them, BUT for very different reasons, that my ramblings are attempting to convey to his blind-faith-followers. 

Sure they have only be sworn in one day... but is that a critical criteria! They have delayed swearing in for longer than usual, thus exposing them to considerable examination especially re cabinet makeup and it's potential.

I conclude with some more wise old sayings about why proactive choice, not chance determines your destiny and why  you should never give a sucker an even break: 

Shallow men believe in luck or in circumstance. Strong men believe in cause and effect. 
― Ralph Waldo Emerson​
A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.
-- Winston Churchill​
Kevin Rudd can potentially retain leadership of Labor under his new rules and the parties newfound wisdom to accept them... and re-launch a revival akin to Kevin 07 within a year. -- Whiskers​


----------



## Whiskers

MrBurns said:


> Poor losers, we will beat their hides again next election if they can put a team together by then.





I got one for you too Mr Burns... :  

All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure... I think that might have been from Mark Twain. 

Isn't that what Howard, Gillard and Rudd etc also suffered from!

MrBurns, it appears you are making a risky presumption that the next election will be a scheduled full term election. While I hope you are correct, how can you be confident of that and more importantly, not have a contingency plan for a much sooner election such as a DD.

Aren't you also making a second risky assumption that Labor won't be able to regroup within three years? Remember what Rudd achieved from the LABOR leadership roundabout pre 2007. I estimate someone, even Rudd again has the potential to repeat that like Howard and the Lib recycled leadership roundabout in the 90's.

Do you have any logical basis (as opposed to ideological wish list) for writing-off a Labor resurgence any time soon?


----------



## wayneL

Julia said:


> Um, Whiskers, have you been taking lessons from one K. Rudd...




I believe Mr Abbott would have an interesting rhetorical question for this discussion... a bit second hand as he already used it during debate one, but still very apt.


----------



## sydboy007

So another brilliant policy from the Coalition.

They want another million house with solar PV or hotwater over the next 10 years, and are willing to add a cool half billion on top of current schemes to achieve this target.

Got to say, doesn't sound like climate denialist Tony eh.

The only problem is, with the massive cost reduction of solar PV, roughly 500,000 house have had solar PV installled since Jan 2012.

So the Coalition want to achieve in 10 years, at an extra cost of half a billion dollars, what the market with NO SUBSIDY, is likely to achieve in the next 3-4 years.  Maybe they see it as a cheap way to say hey we got a million extra solar houses in 1 term.  Gee aint we great fro the environment.

When Tony says the budget is in crisis why is he looking to spend HALF A BILLION DOLLARS that will achieve nothing, except maybe more cheap and nasty installations using second or third tier panels and cowboy companies that go broke after a year.


----------



## Julia

Whiskers said:


> Absolutely not! In fact Rudd could have used a bit of good holistic advice (like mine ) to be more effective in beating off his own party assassins and maintaining stability of leadership to tone down (or out) some of his policy positions.
> 
> Hmm... obfuscating: _To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand_
> 
> Who me!?
> 
> Hey, hang on Julia... don't label this innocent looking little goldfish with those who wilfully expose their underwear. I'm clearly different!



OK, Whiskers.  I agree that usually you are.  I'd even say you often write thoughtful, interesting posts which I enjoy reading.
I'm just a bit alarmed that you have taken a turn for the incomprehensible and am hoping it's but a temporary abberation.


----------



## wayneL

Syd, if you ever want to knock over people in this forum, just say something positive. I reckon most here would faint on the spot.


----------



## wayneL

Listen to Pravda just now. The question is, after sacking of department heads and disbanding the ludicrous climate commission, is the government off to a good start?

61% yes 39% no.

I'd say that's a pretty stellar endorsement from Pravda listeners.


----------



## IFocus

Coalition goverments manage money better.........ops

State Govt eyes port sales after ratings cut



> Port assets are being eyed for sale by the State Government in a bid to restore WA's AAA credit rating.
> 
> After Standard and Poor's (S&P) downgraded the once-boom state to AA+ yesterday, the Liberal-led government said it would pursue asset sales to boost a balance sheet weighed down by mounting debt




http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/19007307/state-govt-eyes-port-sales-after-ratings-cut/


----------



## sydboy007

wayneL said:


> Syd, if you ever want to knock over people in this forum, just say something positive. I reckon most here would faint on the spot.




My Gosh Wayne, when was the last time you said something positive about the non right side of politics?

I also noticed you're not defending their policy.  Do you agree with spending $500,000,000 on a policy that is not needed?  Do you think if Rudd had proposed that policy that Abbott would have used the words "waste mismanagement" in the same sentence about it?

Get with the program.  Australian politics is all about negativity these days.  It's straight from the Abbott rule book.  Make everyone think that there's a crisis, even though economic growth is at trend, inflation at trend, employment at trend, retail spending increasing roughly in line with income growth, but it's a CRISIS.


----------



## Smurf1976

IFocus said:


> Coalition goverments manage money better.........ops
> 
> State Govt eyes port sales after ratings cut



Politics aside (both Labor and Liberal do much the same in this regard) I fail to see how selling assets which are profitable, or at least self sustaining, brings about an "improvement" in finances.

It's like saying that a landlord with $5 million worth of properties and $2.5 million worth of debt should sell half their properties and repay the debt. That only makes sense if the return on the recoverable value of those assets is less than the interest on the debt which, given current low interest rates, would not generally be the case with public assets held by governments.

There's also the broader economic consequences. Ports, rail, electricity etc in public ownership will usually have a broader focus on economic development and facilitating business. Put them in private ownership and that disappears - it then becomes all about profit maximisation for the asset owner and to hell with the broader economic consequences.

Then there's the inevitable running down of the infrastructure itself, to the point that a government bailout may be required in order to avoid broader economic impacts at a future date. 

The railways in Tasmania are perhaps the best (worst) Australian example - run into the ground under private ownership to the point that it became impossible to simply move a train from one end of Australia's smallest state to the other without it literally coming off the tracks and ending up in a paddock lying on its' side with whatever it was carrying strewn over the surrounding area. Even at snail's pace they couldn't make them run, such was the extent to which the system was run down as profits were stripped out. The state government ended up buying the whole thing back for a small amount (few $ million since that's all it was really worth) and then spent a fortune fixing tracks, rolling stock and locomotives simply so as to have a working rail freight system. Not that they could afford to fix it properly up front - but trains running at 40 km/h and actually getting from A to B is at least better than trains falling off the tracks on a regular basis. Pump in more money each year and eventually they'll get them up to a decent speed - currently they're buying some new locomotives, the track itself having been the first priority.

Trains in Tas are just one example. Much has been said about power generation in recent times, especially the emissions from certain old power plants. The harsh reality is that most electricity in Victoria still comes form the exact same power stations it came from 20 years ago and which were built by the former SECV. The only thing that's changed is a cut in maintenance, less technically efficient operation and a big increase in unplanned mishaps. Piling up shipping containers inside a power station as a "blast wall" in case a faulty turbine ***** itself and flies to pieces at 3000 RPM complete with superheated steam going everywhere is truly Third World stuff (to say the least). Then there's that nice "new" plant just down the road - actually it's simply a relocation of a plant built in the 1960's in NZ which that country subsequently scrapped as obsolete. They'd have relocated another old clunker from India too, if the EPA hadn't stepped in amidst concerns about filling the air with fumes not far from Melbourne itself. 

I'm not against private enterprise, not at all, but I don't see that transferring the ownership of infrastructure from government to private owners is really achieving a benefit. Government gets some cash today but loses forever an ongoing revenue stream and also the ability to influence broader economic and social outcomes. In return, government still carries the risk if the private owners choose to walk away or otherwise mess things up. It's not like a small shop going broke or even the likes of a car manufacturer. If the owners of a port, major power station, transport system etc walk away then there's really no option other than for government to either find a buyer immediately or (more likely) resume ownership and spend a fortune fixing it up and making it work. So as taxpayers, we're privatising the profits but retaining virtually all the risks in public hands.


----------



## Smurf1976

sydboy007 said:


> They want another million house with solar PV or hotwater over the next 10 years, and are willing to add a cool half billion on top of current schemes to achieve this target.
> 
> Got to say, doesn't sound like climate denialist Tony eh.



They are also trying to convince gas companies to "extract every molecule" of gas as quickly as they can, with most of it to be exported overseas.

In all seriousness, this has to be the dumbest policy I've ever heard. What happens 20 years from now when gas production has peaked and practically the whole lot is tied up in export contracts? In short, it spells the end of Australian manufacturing and other gas-using industries that's for sure.

We have 100 years' worth of gas I hear someone say? Not if we massively scale up production we won't. Massively scale up exports, allow for increasing consumption for traditional uses in Australia, now add in the prospect of a broader move to gas powered vehicles (noting that oil is currently a much larger energy source than gas). We'll likely be running short on the stuff well within the lifetime of most Australians living today if we continue down this path.

Exploration will find more? No doubt it will. But then future discoveries are already factored into the activities of the gas industry today. Hence the campaign to gain access to huge areas of agricultural land for CSG production - in short they've pretty much already sold it and now have to actually find the stuff.

WA is the state that will end up most totally stuffed by this in the long term. They rely very heavily on gas for industrial fuel, power generation and so on - what happens when it's all been committed to export and there's nothing left for local use? Going back to coal won't work since that's now being shipped out of WA too (and WA coal reserves aren't exactly huge to start with). 

With all this going on, I can understand very easily why there's a push for solar. It won't power the country, but at least some households will have hot showers and, if they also buy some batteries, be able to keep the lights on.


----------



## wayneL

Syd,

What would you like me to endorse about the last government? Straw man misogyny rants? Pink bats? Massive increase in people smuggling? Blown out deficit? Carbon Tax? Worst of all, dividing this country like never before?

Give me something positive to cling to.....apart from them losing the election.


----------



## craft

Smurf1976 said:


> Politics aside (both Labor and Liberal do much the same in this regard) I fail to see how selling assets which are profitable, or at least self sustaining, brings about an "improvement" in finances.
> 
> It's like saying that a landlord with $5 million worth of properties and $2.5 million worth of debt should sell half their properties and repay the debt. That only makes sense if the return on the recoverable value of those assets is less than the interest on the debt which, given current low interest rates, would not generally be the case with public assets held by governments.
> 
> There's also the broader economic consequences. Ports, rail, electricity etc in public ownership will usually have a broader focus on economic development and facilitating business. Put them in private ownership and that disappears - it then becomes all about profit maximisation for the asset owner and to hell with the broader economic consequences.
> 
> Then there's the inevitable running down of the infrastructure itself, to the point that a government bailout may be required in order to avoid broader economic impacts at a future date.
> 
> The railways in Tasmania are perhaps the best (worst) Australian example - run into the ground under private ownership to the point that it became impossible to simply move a train from one end of Australia's smallest state to the other without it literally coming off the tracks and ending up in a paddock lying on its' side with whatever it was carrying strewn over the surrounding area. Even at snail's pace they couldn't make them run, such was the extent to which the system was run down as profits were stripped out. The state government ended up buying the whole thing back for a small amount (few $ million since that's all it was really worth) and then spent a fortune fixing tracks, rolling stock and locomotives simply so as to have a working rail freight system. Not that they could afford to fix it properly up front - but trains running at 40 km/h and actually getting from A to B is at least better than trains falling off the tracks on a regular basis. Pump in more money each year and eventually they'll get them up to a decent speed - currently they're buying some new locomotives, the track itself having been the first priority.
> 
> Trains in Tas are just one example. Much has been said about power generation in recent times, especially the emissions from certain old power plants. The harsh reality is that most electricity in Victoria still comes form the exact same power stations it came from 20 years ago and which were built by the former SECV. The only thing that's changed is a cut in maintenance, less technically efficient operation and a big increase in unplanned mishaps. Piling up shipping containers inside a power station as a "blast wall" in case a faulty turbine ***** itself and flies to pieces at 3000 RPM complete with superheated steam going everywhere is truly Third World stuff (to say the least). Then there's that nice "new" plant just down the road - actually it's simply a relocation of a plant built in the 1960's in NZ which that country subsequently scrapped as obsolete. They'd have relocated another old clunker from India too, if the EPA hadn't stepped in amidst concerns about filling the air with fumes not far from Melbourne itself.
> 
> I'm not against private enterprise, not at all, but I don't see that transferring the ownership of infrastructure from government to private owners is really achieving a benefit. Government gets some cash today but loses forever an ongoing revenue stream and also the ability to influence broader economic and social outcomes. In return, government still carries the risk if the private owners choose to walk away or otherwise mess things up. It's not like a small shop going broke or even the likes of a car manufacturer. If the owners of a port, major power station, transport system etc walk away then there's really no option other than for government to either find a buyer immediately or (more likely) resume ownership and spend a fortune fixing it up and making it work. So as taxpayers, we're privatising the profits but retaining virtually all the risks in public hands.




ASF needs a thumbs up function for posts like this. Great Job Smurf.

Sad as the TasRail story is I will wager that it will be privatised again one day.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> So another brilliant policy from the Coalition.



I wish you'd post links to your rants.

It might then be easier to verify and consider the substance in the appropriate context.


----------



## Whiskers

Smurf, I'll buy into the Debt, asset and resource issue. Again I agree with your rationale.

There is a litany of conservative and Labor governments who have sold off, even squandered assets to either make up a revenue over expenditure shortfall like Labor under Bligh in Qld, or like Howard to beat his chest about how good a financial manager he was to get back to surplus asap... but people forget how significant the sale of assets including Telstra, arguable too cheap for the second tranche, was to achieving that.

I also believe they both did it for the wrong reasons. People often believed Howard was also one of the most efficient or lowest spending governments. They would be wrong. 

AAA rating (for what it's worth, given the credibility of the credit rating agencies) is not the exclusive province of the conservative side of politics... and even if it was, I agree with Smurfs rationale, it's not sensible to have a pure economic criteria as a hard and fast criteria to judge the merits of our country, it's social standing and overall prosperity without the context of future needs and standards of living.  

Have a look at the IMF report that Rudd could have used to far greater politicial effect if he was not so full of his own importance.

Also, while Clive Palmer has some unusual ways of expressing himself I've seen signs he is also critical of the pure financial goals as the most important short term considerations.

Tony would be wise to lay off the frugality claim to fame... that's not the main reason why he was probationed into PM, it was about stability and predictability of government, stupid!... and focus more on the needs of the social and economic fabric to transition back to a more manufacturing and or scientific research base for our longer term strength.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...oward-era-finds-imf-study-20130110-2cj38.html


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> Coalition goverments manage money better.........ops
> 
> State Govt eyes port sales after ratings cut
> 
> http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/19007307/state-govt-eyes-port-sales-after-ratings-cut/



I don't think you'll find too many defending the current WA state government at the present time.

They've got themselves into a serious pickle with the state's finances with the only thing being on their side now is time before the next election. Even that though may not be enough.

On another topic, I guess it's back to Gaia for uncle Tim.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-19/federal-government-scraps-climate-commission/4968816


----------



## Whiskers

Re: dreaded high government spending.

It's not necessarily a bad thing.



> The IMF study mirrors findings in a 2008 Australian Treasury study that found real government spending grew faster in the final four years of the Howard government than in any four-year period since the 1990s recession.
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...s-imf-study-20130110-2cj38.html#ixzz2fKlLhnKU




It would be hard to find much criticism of the Howard spending... well maybe the baby bonus.

While the Rudd Labor spending copped a bit of flack for some degree of spending inefficiency, mainly blown a bit out of proportion in the cool of hindsight, many economists consider it wasn't all that bad, all things considered. Even if the costs were a bit higher from a wider economic assessment, it kept the cash circulating maintaining a bit more employment as opposed to paying more unproductive unemployment in the economy and if the costs and consequently profits were higher, recouped more back in business and personal tax revenue anyway.

The common theme was to improve the socioeconomic standards of subjects, albeit in different circumstances and points in time.


----------



## Whiskers

Two things that I hope Abbott gets done before he's gone, is dumping of the carbon tax and if possible removal of gay marriage laws. I've previously been a bit partial to civil unions, but upon considerable meditation, their rights are fully met as with defacto relationships.

The former is an indictment on our common intelligence, the latter on our common morality, well maybe more specifically, equity (at law)

If I may rant on about logical reasoning again, the places who have endorsed gay marriage laws, argue the fact that gay (and lesbion) people continue to migrate there to get married is evidence it should be adopted by everywhere else. That's as sound, DUMB... as legalising drug use because people travel out of state to drug havens to buy their drugs.

Whooah, there... before you start flooding me with your emotional wrath... consider the formation of civilisation in the long run. Do we really want to lower moral standards back to the level of Roman times including orgies!

I'm happy to challenge gay marriage on the law of equity as opposed to the illogical nonsense of consensus.

For the uninitiated, Equity Law emerged from Common Law... the unwritten laws (precedents of Court) developing the moral and ethical society that you try to sway a consensus of bleeding hearts and political opportunists for an orgy of you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. 

I might take up the cause in the Gay Marriage thread again.


----------



## Smurf1976

Whiskers said:


> and focus more on the needs of the social and economic fabric to transition back to a more manufacturing and or scientific research base for our longer term strength.



Australia's future must be in something other than mining for the simple reason that, with compound growth, we'll have extracted most of the valuable minerals (possible exception of iron ore) a lot faster than most seem to be expecting.

Take a resource, for example black coal, with a supposedly 200 year reserve or close to it. Now add in compounding growth in production and it gets scary. In 2017, just 4 years from now, the industry projects that we'll be down to 100 years' of reserves. Assuming a continuation of recent growth, that becomes just 28 years by 2027. So in the space of 10 years, reserve life drops from 100 years to just 28 if recent production growth continues. You don't need a degree in mathematics to understand that recent production growth won't actually be sustained beyond the end of this decade. And all of that is, of course, assuming that the somebody actually wants to buy all this coal in the first place. 

Mining is undoubtedly an industry of key importance both economically and strategically at present and in the near term future. But recent growth just can't continue forever, so we need to plan for a future that doesn't rely on growing volumes of mineral exports. Unfortunately the new government seems determined to do the opposite - encouraging miners to get it out of the ground as fast as possible whilst turning our backs on science and technology. That ought to boost short term economic growth for sure, but there's a big price to pay not far into the future.

We're on a path that could best be summed up as "strength through exhaustion". Production is up, GDP looks good. But we're selling off public assets and extracting minerals at an alarming rate to keep the game going. What happens once everything's sold or dug up? Then we're stuffed.....


----------



## Whiskers

Smurf, the other point it appears we should be paying more attention to in the rush to dig it up and sell it mentality, is there are other countries including China and even the USA who seem to appreciate the future need for resources more than we do and have kept significant amounts of oil, gas and some rare earths under wraps in their own country and buy up cheaply offshore while they can. 

Especially China is also tying up availability of offshore resources with strategic alliances for future needs. The USA has potentially huge oil and gas reserves around its shores presently under protection, but available for exploitation if the need arises... presumably, when it's political and military clout wanes and looses strategic middle east sources.

I'm afraid we've become too much of the classic lazy price-taker. I note (for what it's worth) Palmer is advocating more value adding on shore before rushing too sell the stuff. I'd be happier to see some of the cash squandered on trying to fight climate change, to subsiding or even more straight out grants to develop more value adding which would also feed into my belief that Abbott needs to focus more on promoting science and manufacturing.

Also on your project resource life concerns, I have to keep harking about the wisdom, NOT... of unregulated CSG mining where the projected well life is typically 10 to 30 years. 

It's got to be socially economic madness to risk chemical ruination of substantial tracks of good arable land and water reserves for a quick buck and a pat on the back for getting some financial numbers to line up the way you want for political and ideological expediency.


----------



## sydboy007

wayneL said:


> Syd,
> 
> What would you like me to endorse about the last government? Straw man misogyny rants? Pink bats? Massive increase in people smuggling? Blown out deficit? Carbon Tax? Worst of all, dividing this country like never before?
> 
> Give me something positive to cling to.....apart from them losing the election.




* Lowest level of work place deaths n a couple of decades (note there was a slight increase after work chouices was introduced)

* No technical recession

* Trend growth for the last 6 years, chieved with an over vaued AUD for much of that time.

* Inflation contained - certainly a lot better than it was under Howard.

* Unemloyment never went above 6% during the GFC - far better performance that pretty much any other rich country.

A combination of Abbott CRISIS and Labors internal fighting has hidden the fact we've done pretty well the last 6 years.  

If you could trade Australia's economic performance under Labor for another country that we usually compare ourselves to, would you?  USA, no thanks. Europe, pass.  Canada, maybe though their household debt to GDP has shot up to even higher levels than ours.  NZ, don't think so.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> I wish you'd post links to your rants.
> 
> It might then be easier to verify and consider the substance in the appropriate context.




So criticising the Coalition is "ranting" eh.  What do you call it when criticising one of the other political parties?

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/9/19/solar-energy/hunts-dumb-solar-rebate


----------



## wayneL

sydboy007 said:


> * Lowest level of work place deaths n a couple of decades (note there was a slight increase after work chouices was introduced)
> 
> * No technical recession
> 
> * Trend growth for the last 6 years, chieved with an over vaued AUD for much of that time.
> 
> * Inflation contained - certainly a lot better than it was under Howard.
> 
> * Unemloyment never went above 6% during the GFC - far better performance that pretty much any other rich country.
> 
> A combination of Abbott CRISIS and Labors internal fighting has hidden the fact we've done pretty well the last 6 years.
> 
> If you could trade Australia's economic performance under Labor for another country that we usually compare ourselves to, would you?  USA, no thanks. Europe, pass.  Canada, maybe though their household debt to GDP has shot up to even higher levels than ours.  NZ, don't think so.




Take away China and the resources boom Syd and even you would have to admit the picture would be different... don't forget much angst over the resources investment boom coming to an end because of Labor's admin... which now seems more positive that their gone.

Oh, and all those unnecessarily squandered BILLIONS in stimulus that never needed to be blown. 

Your points are mostly due to external factors.


----------



## sydboy007

wayneL said:


> Take away China and the resources boom Syd and even you would have to admit the picture would be different... don't forget much angst over the resources investment boom coming to an end because of Labor's admin... which now seems more positive that their gone.
> 
> Oh, and all those unnecessarily squandered BILLIONS in stimulus that never needed to be blown.
> 
> Your points are mostly due to external factors.




Very true, but why are these points never mentioned about Howards economic management skills?

Between the Resource Boom MK I and asset sales he wasn't much of a saver.

Could it be our politicans like to pretend they have more of an effect on the economy that is reality?

Though I will say people seem so much happier since Abbott stopped trash talking the economy.  Imagine how things might have been if we hadn't been in the Abbott CRISIS for the last 3 years.  An extra 0.5-1% p.a of economic growth and we mightn't have much fo a budget deficit at all.


----------



## Whiskers

Can one of you over in the west get around to Barnett's office with a decent sort of a sock... before he torpedoes LNP and Abbotts credibility and snaps the tiny 1.9% swing thread holding him in office!


----------



## Knobby22

Good work by Tony Abbott..maybe he will be one of our better Prime Ministers?

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has triggered a reshuffle within the state executive of the New South Wales Liberal Party after declaring party members should no longer work as lobbyists.

Two of the state's most powerful conservative lobbyists Michael Photios and Joe Tannous resigned from their party roles just hours after the announcement.

"I am determined to ensure that as far as the new Coalition government in Canberra is concerned that not only is it clean and fair, but it's seen to be clean and fair," he said.

"That's why I'm determined to ensure you can either be a powerbroker or a lobbyist but you can't be both."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-...t27s-lobbyist-integrity-call-prompts-/4969650


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> So criticising the Coalition is "ranting" eh.  What do you call it when criticising one of the other political parties?
> 
> http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/9/19/solar-energy/hunts-dumb-solar-rebate



I can't find any further information on this beyond the above link to see how it fits in overall Coalition policy, but as a matter of general principal, I don't agree with that specific policy. I'm of the view that instillation rebates for solar panels should be reduced rather than increased. The Libs should take a look at what's happening in Europe with solar panels.

I don't agree though with the Green Energy Finance Corporation and the carbon tax that Labor introduced and these are far bigger policy sins in my view.


----------



## drsmith

The $500 rebate for solar panels and solar hot water is part of the Coalition's $2.9bn direct action policy.

Their earlier policy position on this was a $1000 rebate.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-...ct-action-policy-cut-by-24300-million/4952002

An interesting point also in the detail (Climate Spectator link),



> The $500 rebate will be capped at 100,000 installs per year for 10 years, if I have understood the sketchy details of the policy correctly. This compares to annual installation volumes of about 250,000 PV systems and 50,000 solar hot water systems in Australia.




I'll be very surprised if this rebate lasts anywhere near 10 years.


----------



## overhang

drsmith said:


> I don't agree though with the Green Energy Finance Corporation and the carbon tax that Labor introduced and these are far bigger policy sins in my view.




Just curious why you don't support the Green Energy Finance Corporation? Even if one doesn't support the notion of climate change surely you can still see the benefit of using cleaner energy sources that lower pollution and decrease our dependency on fossil fuels and will one day pose sovereignty issues if alternative sources aren't found.  Giving the private sector the incentive and security to invest in clean energy seems practical.
For the record I don't support the ETS.


----------



## drsmith

overhang said:


> Just curious why you don't support the Green Energy Finance Corporation? Even if one doesn't support the notion of climate change surely you can still see the benefit of using cleaner energy sources that lower pollution and decrease our dependency on fossil fuels and will one day pose sovereignty issues if alternative sources aren't found.  Giving the private sector the incentive and security to invest in clean energy seems practical.
> For the record I don't support the ETS.



A lot of taxpayer money has been wasted by governments pouring large sums of money into various private sector support schemes over the years. Home insulation and forestry are two classic example and solar panels I feel will ultimately be judged in the same light. 

IIRC, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (I did mean Clean, not Green) was born as part of Labor's Alliance with the Greens for office after the 2010 election. The Greens would like to have seen an increase the guaranteed funding for the CEFC from $10 billion over five years to $30 billion over ten. Fortunately, only $225m was lent by the Corporation before the Labor Government went into caretaker mode. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Energy_Finance_Corporation

Lending for this sort of stuff is best left to the private sector.


----------



## pixel

drsmith said:


> Lending for this sort of stuff is best left to the private sector.




The private sector is interested in making money. Lots of it and in the shortest possible time.
Unless a forward-planning Government sets targets and legislates direction, the environment will be wrecked.
Conceded that taxpayer-funded "incentives" leave much room for rorts and stuff-ups, I don't believe that the private sector is sufficiently altruistic to forego the easy money, nb: burn coal and gas; increase consumption, no matter how irreplaceable and wasteful!
The example set by axing the CEFC is IMHO tantamount to environmental vandalism.


----------



## Boggo

Whiskers said:


> Can one of you over in the west get around to Barnett's office with a decent sort of a sock... before he torpedoes LNP and Abbotts credibility and snaps the tiny 1.9% swing thread holding him in office!




I think that Pickering accurately sums up the problems in the west...

_“SORRY TONY, I STUFFED UP!”

WA Premier, Colin Barnett, made the same mistake as the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd Government; he believed the mining bubble would never burst and spent accordingly.

A savage S&P credit write-down was due to a ballooning $18 billion in debt (heading for $26 billion) and Mr Barnett believes Abbott will now have to revisit the GST.

Sorry Colin, there is more chance of me turning poofter and marrying a bloke in Canberra this weekend, with my golfing mates as bridesmaids.

Abbott will not do a Gillard and reverse a solemn pre-election commitment for the sake of a Barnett mess of his own making.

Not that Tony could do that, even if he wanted to, because the GST is a States’ tax and all States would have to agree. Not likely with elections looming.

Abbott is preoccupied with Federal cuts and there is still $40 billion of fat still on the bone. But that won’t help Barnett, not without a substantial State’s grant and even that won’t decrease the Premier’s debt.

The perennial headache with Howard’s GST is the carve-up... there is only one cake (with unequal slices) and Barnett wants one of the bigger slices. That can only happen at the expense of other hungry Premiers.

If Abbott either increases or broadens the base of the GST without first taking that proposal to an election, he will become the same subject of ridicule as Gillard and her, “There will be no carbon tax...”.

No, Mr Barnett, you will have to stew in your own mess for a while yet.

The modern economic climate is far too fluid to base infrastructure spending on four-year forward estimates.

Better pray that God looks kindly on China._


----------



## basilio

pixel said:


> The private sector is interested in making money. Lots of it and in the shortest possible time.
> Unless a forward-planning Government sets targets and legislates direction, the environment will be wrecked.
> Conceded that taxpayer-funded "incentives" leave much room for rorts and stuff-ups, I don't believe that the private sector is sufficiently altruistic to forego the easy money, nb: burn coal and gas; increase consumption, no matter how irreplaceable and wasteful!
> The example set by axing the CEFC is IMHO tantamount to environmental vandalism.




Plus 10. IMO sums up the environmental madness of killing the CEFC. 

There is no universe in which we don't have to migrate to clean, renewable energy sources if we are to survive. Doing it sooner rather than when we have exhausted our fossil fuels and ramped up greenhouse gas levels to dangerous heights seems  totally sensible.


----------



## Whiskers

Boggo said:


> Sorry Colin, there is more chance of me turning poofter and marrying a bloke in Canberra this weekend, with my golfing mates as bridesmaids.[/COLOR][/I]




lol... cough, cough! 

Pickering must have read my mind this morning. I wasn't game to say it though.



> The perennial headache with Howard’s GST is the carve-up... there is only one cake (with unequal slices) and Barnett wants one of the bigger slices. That can only happen at the expense of other hungry Premiers.




Quite true! I had a vision when Rudd started making noises about resource tax inequality between states (I commented then about how the states were manipulating investment decisions, federal grants and GST distribution via the state based mining taxes) leading into the botched mining tax decision, that if cleverly done it could integrate standardised state royalties with a formula for the GST and other grants/funding to the states. But it all blew up badly.



> If Abbott either increases or broadens the base of the GST without first taking that proposal to an election, he will become the same subject of ridicule as Gillard and her, “There will be no carbon tax...”.




Yeah... and his tenuous 1.5% election gain some 35ish seats, many on slim margins, could snap back just like that.

When is the first poll out?


----------



## Whiskers

pixel said:


> The private sector is interested in making money. Lots of it and in the shortest possible time.
> Unless a forward-planning Government sets targets and legislates direction, the environment will be wrecked.
> Conceded that taxpayer-funded "incentives" leave much room for rorts and stuff-ups, I don't believe that the private sector is sufficiently altruistic to forego the easy money, nb: burn coal and gas; increase consumption, no matter how irreplaceable and wasteful!
> The example set by axing the CEFC is IMHO tantamount to environmental vandalism.




Pixel, what you say is pretty true, except I would have preferred that Labor let the CSIRO continue to be, and expand it's resources as our premier and well respected scientific research organisation and Abbott divert some of the split off functions back to the CSIRO to regenerate as our principle scientific research and development body. 

It really needs to be fully funded and independently run again, without the need to seek private funding which compromises it's integrity. Labor, really stuffed things up by splitting aspects off and giving them a preconceived rule book on what they were supposed to accept as fact.


----------



## drsmith

Whiskers said:


> Yeah... and his tenuous 1.5% election gain some 35ish seats, many on slim margins, could snap back just like that.
> 
> When is the first poll out?



Tony Abbott won't be slicing his own throat with the GST to save Colin Barnett's political neck and Colin knows it. This is just a distraction to take some of the WA electorate's focus off his own government's woes.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-...calls-from-states-for-increase-to-gst/4970916

If the Coalition does propose to change the GST rate or base in the future, it will be put it to an election as John Howard did with the GST itself. Having correctly described Julia Gillard's carbon tax as the longest political suicide note in history, Tony's hardly going to make the same mistake.


----------



## Whiskers

I know Tony has clearly said no the idea of changing the GST, but just the fact that one of his own brand had the audacity to propose the issue so early in Abbotts term has the potential to dent public confidence a bit... hence someone get over there and shove a ruddy, great sock in it! 

Today is the day, isn't it, close of counting?

We'll know, subject to any recounts, who Abbott has to work with, or take cover from, by tomorrow... Clive, the sport guy, the sex guy and a couple of motoring enthusiasts.


----------



## drsmith

David Suzuki isn't too happy we elected an Abbott government.



> "What the hell kind of government is it that comes into office and the first symbolic act is to shut down a source of information?" Professor Suzuki told AAP.




https://news.google.com/news?ncl=dc2VJwCPaz_fWCMrr6GbMDHjj5mqM&q=david+suzuki&lr=English&hl=en

I heard his full rant on ABC radio and he got stuck into Tony Abbott by name. He left it a bit late for a partisan entry into the election campaign.


----------



## MrBurns

drsmith said:


> David Suzuki isn't too happy we elected an Abbott government.
> 
> 
> 
> https://news.google.com/news?ncl=dc2VJwCPaz_fWCMrr6GbMDHjj5mqM&q=david+suzuki&lr=English&hl=en
> 
> I heard his full rant on ABC radio and he got stuck into Tony Abbott by name. He left it a bit late for a partisan entry into the election campaign.




Dr Suzuki would be in strong defence of anyone in the "consultancy and research" game as he is.

Source of information ? 
They did very little except parrot reports from overseas, nice work if you can get it.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> A lot of taxpayer money has been wasted by governments pouring large sums of money into various private sector support schemes over the years. Home insulation and forestry are two classic example and solar panels I feel will ultimately be judged in the same light.
> 
> Lending for this sort of stuff is best left to the private sector.




I dare say home insulation will be judged pretty well, s it was a one off cost that generates quite significant savings for an extended period of time.

I'd say those who were using 20+ kWh / day would have seen more significant reductions in energy use.


----------



## Whiskers

drsmith said:


> David Suzuki isn't too happy we elected an Abbott government.
> 
> 
> 
> https://news.google.com/news?ncl=dc2VJwCPaz_fWCMrr6GbMDHjj5mqM&q=david+suzuki&lr=English&hl=en
> 
> I heard his full rant on ABC radio and he got stuck into Tony Abbott by name. He left it a bit late for a partisan entry into the election campaign.




I can actually tolerate Prof Suzuki and his right to bring a different view point, controversial as he is sometimes ... BUT, I would rework his commentary a bit. 



> "What the hell kind of government is it that comes into office and the first symbolic act is to shut down a source of information?" Professor Suzuki told AAP.
> 
> "The minute you shut down solid scientific information then you can run it on your ideology.




There is no doubt Labor takes the prize hands down for 'running on ideology' when they set up organisations in the name of science, mandated with a preconception... in this case, that global warming and climate change is entirely man made (and a catastrophic crisis that we must fix) and it's therefore biased starting reference point and whole agenda, forbids it from even considering, let alone presenting any facts that conflicted with their mandated mantra.

*I just hope when all the dust settles, Tony doesn't over compensate while slashing and burning. *

He would come across more appealing to main stream people if he presented more in terms of 'sustainability' and 'recycling' of some of these assets ( Equipment, funding etc) back from whence they originated and are urgently needed.  He will obviously, by necessity have to slash and burn the human resources to decontaminate the scientific knowledge base environment.

A not so large (head count wise) part of his party support, but critical part of the 1.9% strand connecting him to power is rural based and much more savvy of the importance of high quality unbiased local scientific resources like the CSIRO who historically has been probably singularly more responsible than anyone else for our countries rise to strength on the back of agriculture in particular.

Contrary to popular misconception in the city, almost every primary producer now utilises Land Care 'sustainability' practises and many are active members of the Land Care organisation. I personally was in the leading end of the facilitation of the spread of the then popularly labelled 'greenie' organisation into main stream agricultural areas.

The big 'L' Libs (and the oft misinformed and or ignorant 'city-ites') would do well to remember the rural sector is very prone to favour moderate Labor and green philosophy in the context that farmers and rural communities generaly are more acutely aware they depend on the long term sustainability of their practices for their lifestyle and financial survival... contrary to the _laissez faire_  Big L liberals who see everything as a financial resource, to exploit, slash and burn and move on to the next place... which brings me back to the CSG (and recourses generally) issue that Abbott should not cut and slash red and green tape too severely to appease his Big L extremists or he'll soon find himself off side with his minority but critical National party, coalition... and pop goes his tenuous thread on power.


----------



## wayneL

David Suzuki is a category A hypocrite and a toxic left wing poiltical advocate, not worthy of bandwidth. He has no place in Australian political discussion.

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/07/12/david-suzuki-eco-hypocrite/


----------



## IFocus

wayneL said:


> David Suzuki is a category A hypocrite and a toxic left wing poiltical advocate, not worthy of bandwidth. He has no place in Australian political discussion.
> 
> http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/07/12/david-suzuki-eco-hypocrite/




That article is a shocker.

- - - Updated - - -

Well at least Abbott has stopped the boats.

Labor attacks Government's move to end announcements of asylum seeker boat arrivals



> A spokesman for the Immigration Minister Scott Morrison would not say if any boats had arrived





http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-21/labor-attacks-changes-to-announcements-of-asylum-seeker-arrivals/4972760


----------



## sydboy007

Argh.  If Tony truly believes the below - have to think he does since he's said it in his book Battlelines - maybe he needs to get off his bike and out of his Comm Car and onto some public transport in a big city

_“In Australia’s big cities, public transport is generally slow, expensive, not especially reliable and still a hideous drain on the *public purse. Mostly, there just aren’t enough people wanting to go from a particular place to a particular destination at a *particular time to justify any vehicle larger than a car, and cars need roads,” he writes._

I'm amazed at how many people are on the trains at 5am going into the Sydney CBD.  I was amazed that a bus barely a few stops from the beginning of it's route last night on George St going out of the city around 1045 pm was already nearly full.  Weekends the trains are probably 70%+ full most of the day.

Shut down the buses or the trains for a day and lets see how reliable road travel is.  Yes public transport can be a drain on the public purse, especially in a country with cities of low density like Australia, but I bet it's still cheaper than forcing most families to have 2 cars and pay the exorbitant tolls because our state Govts have abrogated their responsibility for providing infrastructure.


----------



## moXJO

sydboy007 said:


> Argh.  If Tony truly believes the below - have to think he does since he's said it in his book Battlelines - maybe he needs to get off his bike and out of his Comm Car and onto some public transport in a big city
> 
> _“In Australia’s big cities, public transport is generally slow, expensive, not especially reliable and still a hideous drain on the *public purse. Mostly, there just aren’t enough people wanting to go from a particular place to a particular destination at a *particular time to justify any vehicle larger than a car, and cars need roads,” he writes._
> 
> I'm amazed at how many people are on the trains at 5am going into the Sydney CBD.  I was amazed that a bus barely a few stops from the beginning of it's route last night on George St going out of the city around 1045 pm was already nearly full.  Weekends the trains are probably 70%+ full most of the day.
> 
> Shut down the buses or the trains for a day and lets see how reliable road travel is.  Yes public transport can be a drain on the public purse, especially in a country with cities of low density like Australia, but I bet it's still cheaper than forcing most families to have 2 cars and pay the exorbitant tolls because our state Govts have abrogated their responsibility for providing infrastructure.




I have been doing a bit of work in the middle of Sydney and have found it easier then 5 years ago. Public transport was a nightmare 20 years ago, you would think it would be sorted out by now.


----------



## drsmith

I think the Abbott's government's policy is to fund a greater proportion of major road projects (80%) thereby leaving states with a greater proportion of their transport infrastructure budget for projects such as urban rail.


----------



## Whiskers

wayneL said:


> David Suzuki is a category A hypocrite and a toxic left wing poiltical advocate, not worthy of bandwidth. He has no place in Australian political discussion.
> 
> http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/07/12/david-suzuki-eco-hypocrite/




While not knowing Suzuki's beliefs extremely well, I tend to agree with IFocus, that article is a shocker.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't the author, Tasha Kheiriddin, our equivalent of a laissez faire Big L liberal I mentioned in previous post? 

Is she not also a "toxic" but right "wing political advocate"?  Despite the limited disclosure at bottom of story her political color is better gleaned elsewhere such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasha_Kheiriddin.

I won't go so far as to say "not worthy of bandwith"... because for the reason I said "I can actually tolerate Prof Suzuki and his right to bring a different view point, controversial as he is sometimes", one needs to entertain all the extremes to appreciate the moderate (in a sociological context) and scientifically, where the fact is not conclusive in it's own right, to eliminate other possibilities.

Suzuki was born in 1936, Tasha Kheiriddin in 1970. Suzuki had his children in the 1960's when the typical dogma was proliferate in population for the economic good of the country, just the Dogma that Big L Liberals pretty much still advocate today.

While age is not the sole province of wisdom, Suzuki at least has considerable more and much more extreme life experience to draw from. 

Kheiriddin does her own critical analytical credentials a great disservice with...

Of course, some Canadians are having lots of kids, including … David Suzuki. He has fathered five children who are both beneficiaries of and (one hopes) future contributors to our social safety net. The hypocrisy of preaching population control while having such a large family is galling, but not unique in his eco-conscious crowd...​
If you cannot see the obvious extreme misuse of context and fact... read again until you do. It's the attention to detail that we all need to learn to pick up on by instinct to be able to more quickly find the nugget of gold in all the muddy water out there.


----------



## Whiskers

IFocus said:


> Well at least Abbott has stopped the boats.
> 
> Labor attacks Government's move to end announcements of asylum seeker boat arrivals
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-...nouncements-of-asylum-seeker-arrivals/4972760




When public perception is sooo important to maintain the momentum of LNP voter approval, this is another NOT A GOOD LOOK. 

It might be another tactic to stop the boats by depriving traffickers and prospective clients of information of arrivals... but it is just as dumb as the going to Indonesia to buy potential smuggling boats idea.

C'mon Tony... you ought to know 'prohibition', state withholding of information and secrecy of stuff that is reasonably not 'secret in the national interest, but political interest, is seed for erosion of trust and credibility.

It may be embarrassing to admit the PNG solution actually put a significant brake on boat arrivals and arrivals actually rose a bit immediately after the election... BUT have the ba!!s to trust the people with the raw facts.


----------



## Country Lad

Elsewhere I posted for those people who were not aware of "Emily's List"



Country Lad said:


> Emily's List is a movements started to encourage and assist more Labor women to stand for parliament.
> 
> Probably a good idea at the time but as happens in the Labor movement personal agendas get in the way.  Once Gillard became deputy Labor leader she and a few others hijacked it for the campaign of personal attacks on Abbott to make him appear "unelectable".
> 
> The Canberra division of this movement is known as "the handbag brigade".




The handbag brigade and the Labor movement has spent 3 years trying to demonise Abbott as some sort of neanderthal trying to make him unelectable.  

In my past life I, and a board I chaired, met with Tony Abbott twice, the first time time was when he was Minister for Workplace Relations and Employment and again about 4 years later when he was Minister for Health.   Included in our board at those meetings were 2 women and everybody's opinion of him was the dead opposite to that image the handbag brigade was trying to project, rather he was more engaging, forthright, open and a decent bloke than a demon.

In fact, to me he came across more as the character portrayed by a friend of his in the  "Conversations with Richard Fidler" program of a few days ago. 

The extract where Cate talks about Abbott's reaction is on  Michael Smith's website.

Cheers
Country Lad


----------



## Macquack

IFocus said:


> Well at least Abbott has stopped the boats.




Got to hand it to Tony "Dynamo" Abbott, magically stopped the boats overnight.

Why didn't the Labor Party think of this brilliant strategy?


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> I think the Abbott's government's policy is to fund a greater proportion of major road projects (80%) thereby leaving states with a greater proportion of their transport infrastructure budget for projects such as urban rail.




Wouldn't it be better to listen to Infrastructure Australia and see what they have determined to give the best bang for buck?

So far none of the road projects Abbott wants to fund have rated as particularly well spent tax payer funds.

If rail provides the best economic return then shouldn't that be where scarce funds are used?


----------



## sails

It looks like information will still be given but it may not be immediate. From what I have heard today they want to limit information for the smugglers. If that helps stop the boats and free up room for the genuinely needy refugees, so be it.

Here's a screenshot I took while watching sky news on the ipad today of a statement by Scott Morrison:


----------



## Smurf1976

Whiskers said:


> Contrary to popular misconception in the city,...
> 
> The big 'L' Libs (and the oft misinformed and or ignorant 'city-ites') would do well to remember the rural sector is very prone to favour moderate Labor and green philosophy in the context that farmers and rural communities generaly are more acutely aware they depend on the long term sustainability of their practices for their lifestyle and financial survival... contrary to the _laissez faire_  Big L liberals who see everything as a financial resource, to exploit, slash and burn and move on to the next place... which brings me back to the CSG (and recourses generally) issue that Abbott should not cut and slash red and green tape too severely to appease his Big L extremists or he'll soon find himself off side with his minority but critical National party, coalition... and pop goes his tenuous thread on power.



Environmental politics has always been a strange beast.

Most of the issues people get so upset about are things which happen outside cities. Agriculture, dams, heavy industry, forestry etc - all either completely or mostly done outside the cities. 

And yet it's the city "industries" which are the ultimate cause of the situation we face with sustainability in the first place. The obsession with "growth" is the crux of it, and to a large extent it's a city-centric thing. Take a look at most cities and note the names on the biggest buildings - most of them are banks or other financial services, the very heart of the growth obsession. There's an awful lot of people employed in this constant growth thing, most of them in cities. And those people are, it seems, the most likely to object to the very thing they are aiming to achieve.

Education is a big part of the problem. It seems there are quite a few people living in cities these days who've never actually been on a farm and have no idea how cement, steel or paper are produced (apart from the latter using trees). Heck, there's people in Melbourne who get upset about brown coal and yet they've never even been to the Latrobe Valley to see for themselves despite it being a fairly easy day trip by car.

We ought to go back to the days of actually educating children as part of the solution. Send them to farms, big dams, power stations, steel works or other big factories and teach them how things are done. Give them the facts, not green bias, and encourage them to think for themselves. Then we'll be rid of silly images of bucket wheel dredgers ripping through forests (yep, I've actually seen that being handed out on leaflets in central Melbourne by someone dressed as a koala opposing a factory in Tasmania) since everyone will know it's not reality. Then we'll be able to have a sensible debate about all this. 

It would likewise be good to see some decent education in matters such as economics etc too. The more people know, the less likely they are to be brainwashed. Any sensible government ought to see the benefits of a broadly educated population. Uni degrees and TAFE yes, but that's not all there is to education about how the world actually works.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> So far none of the road projects Abbott wants to fund have rated as particularly well spent tax payer funds.



I don't know if that's true or not as I haven't looked at that level of detail of either party's transport infrastructure priorities. What you say is in principal correct but it would need to include the state funding components as well. 

Infrastructure projects though have been used as an electoral pork barrel by both major parties. I seem to recall Labor promising big funds for a major urban rail project in Sydney at a past election and failing to deliver. 

As another example, the over-engineered South Road Superway build in Adelaide is another Labor project at both a state and federal level. 

The WA state election in March this year saw pork barrelling by both sides on urban rail.


----------



## Whiskers

Just to elaborate on this...



Smurf1976 said:


> Uni degrees and TAFE yes, but that's not all there is to education about how the world actually works.




... a phenomena often seen especially in nursing in Qld is a complaint from older staff and patients, that new nurse graduates under the Uni qualified system tend to be more aloof and overly endowed with their own self-importance compared to nurses who qualified on the learn as you work model, like apprentices, who are attributed to having a less aloof and more empathetic approach and more integrated relationships with patients and other staff.  

So, yes I agree... life education, as opposed to pure academic education, often produces better understanding and decision making.


----------



## Julia

Country Lad said:


> In my past life I, and a board I chaired, met with Tony Abbott twice, the first time time was when he was Minister for Workplace Relations and Employment and again about 4 years later when he was Minister for Health.   Included in our board at those meetings were 2 women and everybody's opinion of him was the dead opposite to that image the handbag brigade was trying to project, rather he was more engaging, forthright, open and a decent bloke than a demon.



Good to have an opinion from someone who has actually engaged with Mr Abbott, rather than just accepting the media description of him.


----------



## MrBurns

Julia said:


> Good to have an opinion from someone who has actually engaged with Mr Abbott, rather than just accepting the media description of him.




Says more than any media commentary ever could


----------



## sydboy007

Smurf1976 said:


> We ought to go back to the days of actually educating children as part of the solution. Send them to farms, big dams, power stations, steel works or other big factories and teach them how things are done. Give them the facts, not green bias, and encourage them to think for themselves. Then we'll be rid of silly images of bucket wheel dredgers ripping through forests (yep, I've actually seen that being handed out on leaflets in central Melbourne by someone dressed as a koala opposing a factory in Tasmania) since everyone will know it's not reality. Then we'll be able to have a sensible debate about all this.
> 
> It would likewise be good to see some decent education in matters such as economics etc too. The more people know, the less likely they are to be brainwashed. Any sensible government ought to see the benefits of a broadly educated population. Uni degrees and TAFE yes, but that's not all there is to education about how the world actually works.




+1

I'm amazed at how little practical knowledge a lot of people have these days.  We might not be quite as bad as thinking milk comes from cartons and meat is something that comes from the super market in a styrofoam tray, but we're not too far from it.

But then we've moved a long way from the nostalgic farm of cows roaming the pastures with a mix of chickens and ducks and other food crops as well.  Todays farming practices would probably not be recognisable to most people, especially when animals are brought into it.  Farming monocultures are the norm where scale and efficiency is the top priority.

It would be good to integrate some commons maths into the issues of modern day life.  Let students work out that if you have an area of x size and you are allowed y chickens in that area, how much space does each chicken get. Draw it out and actually see what that space is like.  Same goes for various financial contracts.  Why do you need a finance degree to understand a mobile phone contract?  Even better, start getting high school students to understand the age quake rolling through the economy.  Let them determine what the average taxation to each worker will be as the dependency ratio continues its relative decline over the next few decades.  This kind of education might be better money spent than chaplaincy funding.

Then again, I doubt either of the main political parties wants too many of the great unwashed to understand this stuff, otherwise they might start to ask tricky questions and not be blinded by 3 word slogans.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> Infrastructure projects though have been used as an electoral pork barrel by both major parties. I seem to recall Labor promising big funds for a major urban rail project in Sydney at a past election and failing to deliver.




The argument that's been portrayed is the Coalition are superior economic managers.  If they pork barrel like anyone else, then that tends to show the argument is false.

With the lack of revenue, and the age quake starting to bite, we can no longer afford to invest in infrastructure on any basis but the greatest economic return.  Well we can, we just wont maintain the high lifestyle we feel we deserve.

Abbott can show his true colours.  Invest in a way that might garner less votes but provides a greater economic return, or invest for votes and not make much of a return, or even lose money on the investment.  We can't afford too many more Adelaide Darwin rail links.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> The argument that's been portrayed is the Coalition are superior economic managers.  If they pork barrel like anyone else, then that tends to show the argument is false.
> 
> With the lack of revenue, and the age quake starting to bite, we can no longer afford to invest in infrastructure on any basis but the greatest economic return.  Well we can, we just wont maintain the high lifestyle we feel we deserve.
> 
> Abbott can show his true colours.  Invest in a way that might garner less votes but provides a greater economic return, or invest for votes and not make much of a return, or even lose money on the investment.  We can't afford too as many more Adelaide Darwin rail links.



As I've said a number of times before, it's a question of relative merits between the parties.


----------



## sydboy007

http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/abbott-open-for-business-and-multinational-lawsuits/700/

If this is true that Abbott wants to have open slather on  Investor-State Dispute Settlement, or ISDS for new FTAs (A.K.A managed trade deals where Australia generally comes off second best) we're in for a lot of trouble.

For those that don't want to read the whole article:

What this arcane phrase refers to is the right of foreign companies to sue national governments of the signatory countries, not in domestic courts, but in opaque international forums, if they think some element of that government’s policy is harming their interests.

If a mining company, for example, is unhappy with environmental safeguards which inhibit its operations, if a pharmaceutical company is unhappy with the prices it gets for its drugs, if a chemical company is upset with the banning of an agricultural pesticide, if a tobacco company does not like laws restricting cigarette sales, ISDS provisions in trade agreements give them the means to challenge government policy and to seek compensation.

And they do this increasingly often, sometimes claiming enormous amounts of money. According to a report in May 2013 by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, which monitors these things, a record 58 ISDS cases were begun in 2012. In the same year, decisions were made on 42 cases by an assortment of more or less credible international arbiters. Only 31 of these were publicly disclosed, but of those, 70 per cent went in favour of the corporations, at least in part; and nine resulted in significant awards for damages, including one – to an oil company which sued Ecuador – for a record US$1.77 billion.

On the eve of the election, the Coalition released its trade policy, which includes a commitment to “remaining open to utilising investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses as part of Australia’s negotiating position” in future trade deals.

In truth, it appears gung-ho to wrap up as many free-trade agreements as possible, as fast as possible, and to strongly favour inclusion of ISDS provisions. The document cites, for example, the need to quickly complete a deal with South Korea, and blames the current impasse in negotiations on “Labor’s refusal to consider a proposal for an investor-state dispute settlement clause”.

The policy also promises to “fast track the conclusion of free trade agreements with China, South Korea, Japan, India, the Gulf Cooperation Council and Indonesia”, and to “explore the feasibility of free trade agreements with other trading partners including the European Union, Brazil, Hong Kong, Papua New Guinea, South Africa and Taiwan”.

And then there’s the big one, the US-driven Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), now being negotiated between the US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Mexico, Peru, Chile, Singapore, Brunei, Malaysia, Japan and Vietnam; countries with a combined population of nearly 800 million people and a combined GDP of almost US$28 trillion.

The irony is that if Australia does sign up, it does not gain any trade benefits with America over and above those already included in the AUSFTA deal.

The Howard government’s position was not, however, one of blanket opposition to ISDS provisions in trade deals. It maintained the previous, bipartisan position that ISDS provisions should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

This attitude changed, though, under the next, Labor government, following a 2010 inquiry by the Productivity Commission, which found few benefits and “considerable policy and financial risks arising from ISDS provisions”.
In 2011, the Australian government declared it would not agree to ISDS provisions under any circumstances. The wording of a statement from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade was unequivocal.

Emerson cites an example from Canada where, in 2011, the province of Quebec called a moratorium on the controversial gas extraction method called fracking (hydraulic fracturing) while it undertook an evaluation of the possible resulting environmental damage.

Well, a United States company, Lone Pine Resources, which operates out of Calgary but is incorporated in the US tax-haven state of Delaware, decided to take action under the ISDS provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement, (NAFTA), to which Canada, the US and Mexico, are signatories. It sued for C$250 million.

Emerson could equally have pointed to a large number of other actions taken by US corporations against countries with which it has trade pacts involving ISDS. Consider a couple of Canadian cases, for example. There was a C$500 million suit by the giant drug maker Eli Lily in response to a Canadian-court-ordered invalidation of the patents of two of its drugs, Strattera and Zyprexa.

And another action by Dow AgroSciences LLC, for losses allegedly caused by a ban imposed by Quebec on the sale and certain uses of lawn pesticides containing the active ingredient 2,4-D.

Emerson points also to the problems caused by trade deals that Australia has already entered into, such as the action now being pursued by the tobacco company Philip Morris over Australia’s plain-packaging laws for cigarettes, as good reason to eschew such provisions in future.

Less publicised is the fact that having failed in the High Court, the company now is pursuing the matter via a bilateral trade agreement signed between Australia and Hong Kong in the early 1990s, which includes ISDS provisions.

In short, just about every aspect of the system was declared deficient by UNCTAD. Its report canvassing the problems and possible reform measures makes for troubling reading.

Among other things, it notes: “In many cases foreign investors have used ISDS claims to challenge measures adopted by States in the public interest (for example, policies to promote social equity, foster environmental protection or protect public health).”

“A very topical example at the moment is coal seam gas,” the Institute says. “As new information is collected and disseminated governments may want to act to control that activity. Governments would be loath to act if they were liable for massive payouts to foreign companies.


----------



## Whiskers

sydboy007 said:


> +1
> 
> I'm amazed at how little practical knowledge a lot of people have these days.




Definitely, in the basics of sustainable lifestyle. You just have to look around when there's a disaster that cuts transport and electricity for a few days at how many people are completely flabbergasted trying to get hold of some basics that they have come to depend on getting from the supermarket shelf.

How many would know or even consider to hang out a tarp for some fresh water, how to make their own bread or damper, or think of milking a cow, goat, sheep etc that might be around the neighbourhood somewhere.



> Todays farming practices would probably not be recognisable to most people, especially when animals are brought into it.  Farming monocultures are the norm where scale and efficiency is the top priority.




Yes, monoculture is still far too perverse. Many 'family farms' tended to be diversified industries (often more than farming) with mixed cropping, integrated mixed livestock, by-products and things like sustainable timber cutting.

While a certain amount of monoculture was driven by ignorance and misplaced government subsidies such as back when people were encouraged to open up the vast plains to grow wheat etc, the Big L liberal mantra has dominated the business psyche, encouraged and supported the current mega monoculture and monopoly enterprises.

Abbott has talked a lot about supporting small business, but we need to not just support small business as a feed source for big business, but modify the way bid business operated... so, give moderates like Barnaby Joyce a bit of support to reign in these perversely unsustainable practices. It will take legislation to reverse some of these monoculture and monopoly cultures before they do too much damage. 

The damage goes beyond financial and lifestyle to even our health. Consider the flow on effects of mono pest and disease plagues, extra antibiotics in our food, the unbalanced nutritional value of the food produced etc.

On that note the criteria for "free range" labelling of chicken and egg farming in Qld has recently been sensibly redesigned to, while not appeasing the extreme 'Greens', it increased the density of chooks allowed per hectare on a rotational basis which makes it more financially viable to get chooks out of cages and onto real soil in the day while returning to undercover at night.



> Then again, I doubt either of the main political parties wants too many of the great unwashed to understand this stuff, otherwise they might start to ask tricky questions and not be blinded by 3 word slogans.




Yes indeed... a favourite tool of advertising that tend to numb our sensitivity.


----------



## Whiskers

Whiskers said:


> Abbott has talked a lot about supporting small business, but we need to not just support small business as a feed source for big business, but modify the way bid business operated... so, give moderates like Barnaby Joyce a bit of support to reign in these perversely unsustainable practices. It will take legislation to reverse some of these monoculture and monopoly cultures before they do too much damage.




It's worth highlight a point about why Abbott (and many politicians) get labelled 'tricky' and dishonest etc. Too often because we very easily cling to the three word slogans and punch lines when they relate to a topic that resonates strongly with us, we often assume that advocating for small business implies some sort of equilibrium, at least curtailing the power of big business. Not so. 

While I'm not quite sure where Abbott personally stands on the scale of big L to little l liberal... probably we need to keep a close eye on what he does, or does not do, regarding monopoly dominance by big business in Aus.


----------



## IFocus

Country Lad said:


> Elsewhere I posted for those people who were not aware of "Emily's List"
> 
> 
> 
> The handbag brigade and the Labor movement has spent 3 years trying to demonise Abbott as some sort of neanderthal trying to make him unelectable.
> 
> In my past life I, and a board I chaired, met with Tony Abbott twice, the first time time was when he was Minister for Workplace Relations and Employment and again about 4 years later when he was Minister for Health.   Included in our board at those meetings were 2 women and everybody's opinion of him was the dead opposite to that image the handbag brigade was trying to project, rather he was more engaging, forthright, open and a decent bloke than a demon.
> 
> In fact, to me he came across more as the character portrayed by a friend of his in the  "Conversations with Richard Fidler" program of a few days ago.
> 
> The extract where Cate talks about Abbott's reaction is on  Michael Smith's website.
> 
> Cheers
> Country Lad




An interesting point on insiders today

The Coalition has quotas for the Nationals, States for ministerial selection not on merit thats right quotas, for women its only ever merit not quotas!

Looks like a boys club to me.


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> An interesting point on insiders today
> 
> The Coalition has quotas for the Nationals, States for ministerial selection not on merit thats right quotas, for women its only ever merit not quotas!
> 
> Looks like a boys club to me.



You better be careful what you ask for. 

Adam Bandt would have been Prime Minister after the 2010 election if that was based on merit.


----------



## McLovin

sydboy007 said:


> http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/abbott-open-for-business-and-multinational-lawsuits/700/




If that's correct then it is pretty alarming. The idea that we should even contemplate allowing any other body to usurp the power of our own parliament and courts is scary. I'm surprised this isn't getting more traction in the media.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> I don't know if that's true or not as I haven't looked at that level of detail of either party's transport infrastructure priorities. What you say is in principal correct but it would need to include the state funding components as well.




http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/09/questioning-the-coalitions-infrastructure-priorities/

…the Abbott government seems to be even worse than the former government in letting politics – rather than proper cost-benefit analysis – dictate where the money would best be spent…

For example, the Abbott government’s three most expensive promises – for Melbourne’s East-West Link, Sydney’s WestConnex, and Brisbane’s Gateway – are all road projects, which are not among the most justifiable in these states according to Infrastructure Australia’s (IA) latest priority list.

According to IA, while the $8 billion East-West Link has “real potential” as a project, it is not yet deemed “ready to proceed” as it has not yet established itself on cost-benefit grounds as the best solution for the problem it is trying to address – namely transport congestion in this part of the state. Instead, IA judges Melbourne’s Metro Rail as having stronger grounds to proceed, placing it in the “threshold” funding category. Yet strangely, the Federal Government’s funding for that project has been axed.

Similarly, the Coalition is helping fund Queensland’s Gateway Motorway upgrade, and has axed funding for the Brisbane Cross River Rail – even though the latter project is rated by IA as more clearly justifiable and ready to proceed.

…why the Abbott government so prefers road projects over urban rail projects – contrary to the view of infrastructure experts – is strange, and seemingly reflects an ideological bias against promoting public transportation.


----------



## sydboy007

McLovin said:


> If that's correct then it is pretty alarming. The idea that we should even contemplate allowing any other body to usurp the power of our own parliament and courts is scary. I'm surprised this isn't getting more traction in the media.




Seems like Abbotts Operation Sovereign Borders is not about protecting us.  When he's seriously giving up that much sovereignty to the large Multinationals it's rather scary.

To think the Nationals haven't cottoned on to the fact that a lot of the biosecurity laws we have are likely to be challenged at considerable cost to the public.  When making any restrictions on cigarettes or alcohol could be challenged.  pretty much any decision we take in our own interest could end up in some foreign court.  Whether we win or not, the costs are going to be quite large, and once the Govt has to start second guessing if a new law will be challenged we'll be in even a worse situation in terms of anything being done.

Get ready for a massive increase in CSG if Abbott is stoopid enough to allow this with the USA.  get ready for more expensive pharmaceuticals as the PBS is challenged.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> why the Abbott government so prefers road projects over urban rail projects – contrary to the view of infrastructure experts – is strange, and seemingly reflects an ideological bias against promoting public transportation.



Any objective analysis of the priority of major infrastructure projects would have to include the state government transport infrastructure funding components as well. It's not just up to the federal government.

As I said before, both sides pork barrel infrastructure projects. I do think though as a matter of principal that it's better to spend on our infrastructure than increasing foreign aid but I can't comment on the relative merits of the projects you mention because I know nothing about their detail.


----------



## Whiskers

McLovin said:


> If that's correct then it is pretty alarming. The idea that we should even contemplate allowing any other body to usurp the power of our own parliament and courts is scary.




I'd go further, it's crazy to allow multinational organisations to dominate the world. 

Multinational companies sole existence is to make as much profit as soon as possible for their shareholders. 

Governments have an inherent obligation for the social and environmental preservation of their people. Just look at countries like Italy and Greece, once considered the eptimany of contemporary thinking and where laxed government infected with corrupt officials whose loyalties are based in 'private enterprise' eventually led them.  



> I'm surprised this isn't getting more traction in the media.




Not surprising when you consider the media is increasingly owned and influenced by corporations bigger than many governments. That fact alone should concern people. Even our local country or suburban paper is now more often than not part of a conglomerate.

From sydboy's post... 
*On the eve of the election, the Coalition released its trade policy, which includes a commitment to “remaining open to utilising investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses as part of Australia’s negotiating position” in future trade deals.*

Pay close attention to any talk of free trade deals. The US has screwed us down too much already in the name of free trade.


----------



## 13ugs13unny

drsmith said:


> Any objective analysis of the priority of major infrastructure projects would have to include the state government transport infrastructure funding components as well. It's not just up to the federal government.




Strange that transport infrastructure funding using tax payer dollars, to sell to private operators for tolling, to make us pay again & again & again & again to use it is truly remarkable.

Even if the duplication spending on outer city limits roads is free to use, as many clearly are designed as feeders to the tolled structures.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> As I said before, both sides pork barrel infrastructure projects. I do think though as a matter of principal that it's better to spend on our infrastructure than increasing foreign aid but I can't comment on the relative merits of the projects you mention because I know nothing about their detail.




The issue is we can no longer afford pork barrelling.  We no longer have the economic base for it.  We are facing the steady decline in those paying taxes.  We have the erosion of the tax base from too many income tax cuts spending the transitory mining boom.  Any spending on infrastructure that does not increase economy wide revenues by at least as much will cause further harm to the country.

If the Liberals are truly better economic managers, then they should be listening to IA and getting the politics out of these decisions that are worth billions.  From what I've been able to learn about IA they seem to be fairly non partisan.  It's certainly a step in the right direction to have them highlight what will provide the best return for scarce $$$.  The Government of the day can ignore their advice, but hopefully the public will at least start to see how politics is distorting the decision making process.  It's no longer an excuse that both sides do it.  It has to stop

So far the runs on the board are not looking good.  Sub economic infrastructure investment is bad for the economy, and it's bad for all of us as we will suffer the reduced standard of living from it.


----------



## moXJO

Some of the possible reasoning behind the decision.


> The Premier said yesterday the business case for Stage 1 of the freeway is positive. However he won’t release the business case publicly, he says, because that could adversely affect the price the government would have to offer potential private sector participants.
> Voters make many more car trips than public transport trips. Circa 90% of all motorised travel in the Melbourne metropolitan area is by car. Only around 10% is by public transport. An ABS survey found 62% of Melburnians hadn’t used public transport in the preceding four weeks.
> A significant proportion of the risk-bearing funding for the freeway is expected to be sourced from the private sector, helping the government to preserve its AAA credit rating. All of the funding for the rail line would need to come from government.
> Tony Abbott says he’ll provide $1.5 billion for the freeway if he’s elected Prime Minister in September. He’s explicitly said he won’t fund urban public transport. Julia Gillard hasn’t promised funding for either project (although she’s promised $1.5 billion for a new freeway in Sydney).
> New urban public transport investments incur high ongoing subsidies since farebox revenue only recovers about a third of operating costs. Toll roads recover all their operating costs.
> The advantages of rail over roads are mostly in economic costs i.e. externalities. Many of these costs are diffuse and don’t affect the state budget directly, or if they do it’s often well into the future when “it’s somebody else’s problem”.
> The freeway attracts a wide range of interest groups e.g. it will be used for intra-metropolitan freight and non CBD business-to-business trips. These aren’t served as well by rail.
> Although new freeways start to congest in peak periods after a relatively short period due to induced demand, they provide much faster trips in off-peak periods. That benefit is usually sustained for many years.
> The freeway does double-duty – it provides political cover for the government to delay committing to a rail line to Doncaster.
> The cleverly-named East West Link will fill in a “missing link” in the freeway network. Politicians know that emphasising the network effect is an appealing argument.
> There’s opposition to Melbourne Metro from within the ranks of public transport advocates..




http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2013/05/09/why-do-governments-favour-road-over-rail-in-cities/


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> The issue is we can no longer afford pork barrelling.



I'm not defending it, just acknowledging it as part of our political process. 

On election day the choice faced by everyone is one of relativities, not ideals.


----------



## Whiskers

Just when you pure blue bloods thought every thing would transition like clockwork ...

The climate change commission has apparently (according to abc) defied the gov shut down and decided to continue to operate on a voluntary basis.

Well a small number of us while wishing for success, foreshadowed holes in Abbotts policy and strategy.

This is just the sort of short-sightedness that now demands he should have put more emphasis on strengthening the likes of the CSIRO to overshadow the biased climate commission to a side show by comparison.


----------



## drsmith

Whiskers said:


> The climate change commission has apparently (according to abc) defied the gov shut down and decided to continue to operate on a voluntary basis.



Labor wasting taxpayers money on them when they didn't have to.

That'd be right.


----------



## DB008

The Lefties have sunk to a whole new level...

This one is doing the rounds...

https://twitter.com/deedre/status/381706165345734656


----------



## Whiskers

drsmith said:


> Labor wasting taxpayers money on them when they didn't have to.
> 
> That'd be right.




I'll pay the irony on that one... but it demonstrates the point I keep trying to make about you hard core blue bloods being a bit over cocky with your position and underestimating the tenacity of some of the extreme left, hard core red bloods.

Didn't you anticipate some of these old chooks would keep jumping and squawking around for ages even after you cut off their food supply?  

On the overconfidence point again... and listening to Morrison squawking on again about returning to like Howard used to do it... can you suggest why some of this gov are so obsessed with idolising Howard?  

Are they so full of themselves too (the Rudd and Gillard disease) that they are oblivious to how Howard lost government and their persistent squawking about him, feeding concern that this largely old Howard ministry might literally revert back to Howards policies akin to workchoices and a freer reign for big business... and have you back in opposition quicker than you think?


----------



## Julia

drsmith said:


> Labor wasting taxpayers money on them when they didn't have to.
> 
> That'd be right.



+1.  Flannery and co can do what they like if we're not paying for it any more.

I'm sure you'll be right up there with your donation to keep them going, Whiskers.

Meantime, loyal Labor supporter, radio presenter Tony Delroy with his nationwide talkback program tonight has again not only repeated a complete untruth, but exaggerated it beyond what even Kevin Rudd claimed, in saying *90%* of the asylum seekers from Nauru were ultimately settled in Australia.  

The figure was just 43%.
http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-...vin-rudd/how-many-asylum-seekers-ended-austr/


> Our ruling
> 
> In the leaders’ debate, Rudd said 70% of the people who went to Nauru ended up in Australia as permanent residents later.
> 
> We checked the numbers. Rudd should have said 70% of cases were resettled in Australia and other countries (New Zealand making up the majority of the rest). *Only 43% of those taken to Nauru or Manus Island were actually resettled in Australia. *Abbott’s figures were much closer - accurate, when allowing for rounding.
> 
> We rate Rudd’s statement False.




I've just sent an email to Mr Delroy on the above, but will not, of course, receive a reply, and neither will it daunt him in his quest to rubbish the government on every available occasion.


----------



## Whiskers

Julia said:


> +1.  Flannery and co can do what they like if we're not paying for it any more.
> 
> I'm sure you'll be right up there with your donation to keep them going, Whiskers.
> 
> Meantime, loyal Labor supporter, radio presenter Tony Delroy with his nationwide talkback program tonight has again not only repeated a complete untruth, but exaggerated it beyond what even Kevin Rudd claimed...




Julia, what has come over you lately!? 

Struth, are you so p!$$ed out of your mind in celebration, that you have lost all sight of objectivity and reality!?

If you must know... and if you did your research before branding everyone who even asks or makes a critically objective comment, as a Labor supporter in a sneering way, you would notice atm I'm pretty much middle of the road. I've often stated why I prefer Turnbull to Abbott, because he's more moderate and of all the politicans around atm one of the best qualified moderates for future PM in my opinion is Barnaby Joyce. SEE THE BARNABY JOYCE FOR PM THREAD I STARTED!

So if you insist on branding in colours of political persuasion... at least get your colours right... GREEN for Nationals (traditionally nationals are a blend of the best of Lib, Labor and greens) with a tint of blue atm... but I'm not blindly faithful to any of them that I would defend their every move or try to shoot down anyone who has a legitimate concern.

You seem to have missed the main point of that post... about the LNP shooting themselves in the foot by disenfranchising moderate swinging voters if they don't get over Howard and their cult like persistent praise of him... or is that what you took exception too most.


----------



## Whiskers

Just to illustrate my point of obsessive cult like worship of previous leaders, people (other than kiwis expats, maybe ) would remember the Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen era in Qld government (and similar in other states).

Putting aside the debate over his style and his contribution to Qld development... the fact is he eventually abused his political power and suffered the wrath of the voting public.

A dead wood hard core element of the Qld nationals kept praising the virtues of the philosophy and character of Joh Bjelke-Petersen for decades and suffered the persistent voter backlash, voted in for a change from Labor, then out of government promptly, until they were reduced to the minor partner of the coalition and significant periods in opposition.

They only won office in 2012 after a period of un-harmonious uniting the Nationals and Libs (LNP) and bringing in a fresh face (Can-Do Newman) with no connection or even referral to Joh Bjelke-Petersen in his repertoire. 

The LNP has done a bit of a 'Joh Bjelke-Petersen' with Howard. If they don't learn from it you'd better make the most of it for one term (or less) cos they'll get yanked back into opposition by the voter public and well have to suffer more of the least worst, rather than good, stable, predictable government that soo many of us expect and deserve.


----------



## wayneL

I don't see any particular fawning over Howard Whiskers.

For that, we have to go to Labor and their Whitlam idolatry.... and while Labor remain petulantly bitter 'n twisted over their electoral humiliation, I don't see a one term coalition gu'mint as likely. I think Short-one and Angryandsleezy are dreaming there.


----------



## Whiskers

wayneL said:


> I don't see any particular fawning over Howard Whiskers.




Abbott in particular has made quite a few references... but have a listen to Morrisons press release yesterday... in the asylum seeker thread.


----------



## drsmith

The inescapable reality on asylum policy is that the policies of the Howard Government effectively stopped the boats and Labor stuffed it up big time.


----------



## Whiskers

drsmith said:


> The inescapable reality on asylum policy is that the policies of the Howard Government effectively stopped the boats and Labor stuffed it up big time.




You are still missing the point drsmith!

For a swinging voter especially, it's not the good that people remember most... it's the worst of one that leaves the most indelible imprint on peoples psyche... ie the free market and workchoices  philosophy that came to the fore in his latter years.

That's why he was voted out, a lot of former supporters voted big time against him, because he lost their confidence with an extreme change in presented and agreeable policy. 

Labor was voted out because of an unholy mix of un-agreeable policy AND uncertain leadership.


----------



## drsmith

Work Choices (or similar) would only return to the front and centre of the electorate's minds if the current government's policy position changed to reintroduce it.


----------



## Whiskers

drsmith said:


> Work Choices (or similar) would only return to the front and centre of the electorate's minds if the current government's policy position changed to reintroduce it.




Aaah, so you concede that there is still an element that supports that policy in the government. Obviously, there are members who supported it before and a few of them who still hold it as ideological objective, despite publically stating 'the official party line'. 

So, imagine you are an impartial swing voter and balancing the facts with perception (policy position) and occasional praises to a former idol, a conflicting ideological position... I know it might be a bit tough for loyalists, but give it a go. It's not much of a stretch to imagine a shift in power within the party or a bit of overconfidence to creep in and before you know it, someone has got an agenda to fulfil their suppressed ego... the voting public has got wind of it and the damage is done.


----------



## drsmith

Whiskers said:


> Aaah, so you concede that there is still an element that supports that policy in the government.



No. I didn't.

I was commenting on the public perspective.


----------



## Whiskers

drsmith said:


> No. I didn't.
> 
> I was commenting on the public perspective.




So you think policy statement unconditionally equals public perception?


----------



## overhang

drsmith said:


> A lot of taxpayer money has been wasted by governments pouring large sums of money into various private sector support schemes over the years. Home insulation and forestry are two classic example and solar panels I feel will ultimately be judged in the same light.
> 
> IIRC, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (I did mean Clean, not Green) was born as part of Labor's Alliance with the Greens for office after the 2010 election. The Greens would like to have seen an increase the guaranteed funding for the CEFC from $10 billion over five years to $30 billion over ten. Fortunately, only $225m was lent by the Corporation before the Labor Government went into caretaker mode.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Energy_Finance_Corporation
> 
> Lending for this sort of stuff is best left to the private sector.




Sorry about the late reply Drsmith.

It sounds like your issue is how the policy come about rather than the policy itself.  If you want to leave it to private sector then fair enough then how about we get on an even playing field and end coal subsides which would in return enable clean energy to compete in ROI.  I do draw attention to the fact you have pointed out the rather green schemes as the waste of tax payer dollars while completely ignoring these subsides to the coal industry, car industry, Bluescope etc.  This was actually a good green policy and 1 of few I might add.

On a separate matter I thought the coalition policy was to turn back the boats not turn back the media reporting on the boats.  This early into their term and they're already treating the public with contempt.   I don't expect this will be an open and transparent government but then again none ever are.


----------



## drsmith

overhang said:


> Sorry about the late reply Drsmith.
> 
> It sounds like your issue is how the policy come about rather than the policy itself.  If you want to leave it to private sector then fair enough then how about we get on an even playing field and end coal subsides which would in return enable clean energy to compete in ROI.  I do draw attention to the fact you have pointed out the rather green schemes as the waste of tax payer dollars while completely ignoring these subsides to the coal industry, car industry, Bluescope etc.  This was actually a good green policy and 1 of few I might add.
> 
> On a separate matter I thought the coalition policy was to turn back the boats not turn back the media reporting on the boats.  This early into their term and they're already treating the public with contempt.   I don't expect this will be an open and transparent government but then again none ever are.



One of the issues is the range of ways the governments (both state and federal) are supporting so-called Green technologies.

We have direct subsidies for householders such as those for solar panels. We also have a carbon tax and until recently we had the CEFC lending taxpayers money. Of the above we need to first decide which of the above is the best model. Over an above that, we also need to consider the overall benefit relative to the cost to our economy. 

Just because I haven't mentioned subsidies to other industries doesn't mean I necessarily agree with them. On Green though, my view is that from the current complex mix of policies we should go back to the drawing board and abolishing the CEFC is at least a step in that direction as is getting rid of the carbon tax.


----------



## drsmith

overhang said:


> On a separate matter I thought the coalition policy was to turn back the boats not turn back the media reporting on the boats.  This early into their term and they're already treating the public with contempt.   I don't expect this will be an open and transparent government but then again none ever are.



I forgot to address this point.

This has been discussed to some depth in the asylum seeker thread. The short answer is that there will be weekly briefings.


----------



## springhill

I was a commonly known fact that the Labor vessel for illegal arrival announcements 'timed' its release of boat arrivals to avoid prime time news and the Saturday morning newspapers.

They have no credibility in accusing the Coalition of 'hiding' arrivals.

They have no credibility at all, actually.


----------



## noco

springhill said:


> I was a commonly known fact that the Labor vessel for illegal arrival announcements 'timed' its release of boat arrivals to avoid prime time news and the Saturday morning newspapers.
> 
> They have no credibility in accusing the Coalition of 'hiding' arrivals.
> 
> They have no credibility at all, actually.




The Labor Party were masters at diverting attention away from the illegal boat arrivals and the media, especially the ABC helpe them no end.


----------



## Julia

overhang said:


> On a separate matter I thought the coalition policy was to turn back the boats not turn back the media reporting on the boats.  This early into their term and they're already treating the public with contempt.



No need to confect some sort of conspiracy of deceit and silence here, overhang.  The new government is simply changing the reporting process to a weekly announcement, rather than daily.  Hardly a cause for dramatic conclusions, is it?

And on Mr Morrison's suggestion that the public may not necessarily be advised every time a boat is turned back (if indeed any are), that is no different from what happened under John Howard's successful Pacific Solution.
The government never told the public when any boat was turned around, so again, probably no need for assumptions of conspiracies to deceive.


----------



## IFocus

Keep the excuses coming everyone you are going to need plenty more

Coalition heading backwards with first steps



> What a to-do list: sack econocrats guilty of having worked with the enemy, pass an edict against climate change and discourage all discussion of it, stop publicising boat arrivals, build more motorways, move to a cut-price national broadband network and take science for granted.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/coali...first-steps-20130924-2uc1u.html#ixzz2fqUP1DQ2


----------



## moXJO

IFocus said:


> Keep the excuses coming everyone you are going to need plenty more
> 
> Coalition heading backwards with first steps
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/coali...first-steps-20130924-2uc1u.html#ixzz2fqUP1DQ2




That leftist rag has been biatching since libs got in. Even the Australian gave Rudd praise the first few months till everyone realized how terrible he was. Smh comments are full of labor supporters crying like babies. It hasnt even been a month yet and the libs have already started moving in a number of areas. And even though I think libs nbn isnt crash hot at least Tbull is running the numbers on what was a massive labor mess. Labor sucked badly, get over it. I see Shorten measures up to being another labor prick by being rude to the people he is suppose to represent. Thats the way labor supporters vote in another dud.


----------



## overhang

drsmith said:


> One of the issues is the range of ways the governments (both state and federal) are supporting so-called Green technologies.
> 
> We have direct subsidies for householders such as those for solar panels. We also have a carbon tax and until recently we had the CEFC lending taxpayers money. Of the above we need to first decide which of the above is the best model. Over an above that, we also need to consider the overall benefit relative to the cost to our economy.




I agree that there was an overkill in schemes but out of those schemes you mention the worst by far is the direct action coalition policy which is just a brash waste of tax payer money as to give an illusion the coalition care and for a conservative party they should be held accountable for this complete waste of money and resources that will be put into this policy.  Like I say if you want to follow a capitalist model then fine end those subsides on the coal industry and watch clean energy investment become more desirable from the private sector but as it stands the CEFC was the way to bridge this gap without removing the subsidies, ending this scheme shows a lack of foresight from the government.


----------



## overhang

Julia said:


> No need to confect some sort of conspiracy of deceit and silence here, overhang.  The new government is simply changing the reporting process to a weekly announcement, rather than daily.  Hardly a cause for dramatic conclusions, is it?
> 
> And on Mr Morrison's suggestion that the public may not necessarily be advised every time a boat is turned back (if indeed any are), that is no different from what happened under John Howard's successful Pacific Solution.
> The government never told the public when any boat was turned around, so again, probably no need for assumptions of conspiracies to deceive.




Julia I'm referring to the non-disclosure of boats being turned back and I think its quite relevant to know considering it was their policy platform on the refugee issue.  Didn't it later come out that very few boats were ever turned back under the Howard policy?  Now if boats are still coming here but are being turned back I don't consider that a successful policy as people still aren't being deterred to come here.  Now I'm unsure but it seems like a sly way to hide boat arrivals if the boats that are turned back aren't counted towards the arrivals tally.  I don't buy the whole strategic advantage as a reason not to publicize if your policy is actually working as intended.


----------



## MrBurns

overhang said:


> Julia I'm referring to the non-disclosure of boats being turned back and I think its quite relevant to know considering it was their policy platform on the refugee issue.  Didn't it later come out that very few boats were ever turned back under the Howard policy?  Now if boats are still coming here but are being turned back I don't consider that a successful policy as people still aren't being deterred to come here.  Now I'm unsure but it seems like a sly way to hide boat arrivals if the boats that are turned back aren't counted towards the arrivals tally.  I don't buy the whole strategic advantage as a reason not to publicize if your policy is actually working as intended.




This whole operation is akin to a military exercise, you don't have the right to know all the details, it's important to keep some aspects away from the public and the people smugglers, this pathetic outpouring of "we must know" is rubbish.

Just get on with your lives and leave the job of handling this to the Govt, this Govt that WILL do what it can to fix the problem.


----------



## overhang

MrBurns said:


> This whole operation is akin to a military exercise, you don't have the right to know all the details, it's important to keep some aspects away from the public and the people smugglers, this pathetic outpouring of "we must know" is rubbish.
> 
> Just get on with your lives and leave the job of handling this to the Govt, this Govt that WILL do what it can to fix the problem.




That's rather naive mrburns, logically we shouldn't know information like where the boats are intercepted, what deems seaworthy condition etc but the amount if any boats are turned back should be publicly available so the public can actually gauge if it's a fruitful policy.


----------



## sydboy007

MrBurns said:


> This whole operation is akin to a military exercise, you don't have the right to know all the details, it's important to keep some aspects away from the public and the people smugglers, this pathetic outpouring of "we must know" is rubbish.
> 
> Just get on with your lives and leave the job of handling this to the Govt, this Govt that WILL do what it can to fix the problem.




So basically we should just trust the Government of the day.  Sounds not dissimilar to what will come from the Ministry of Truth.

The only way to hold the Government of the day accountable is to be able to measure their performance against what they've promised to do.


----------



## MrBurns

overhang said:


> That's rather naive mrburns, logically we shouldn't know information like where the boats are intercepted, what deems seaworthy condition etc but the amount if any boats are turned back should be publicly available so the public can actually gauge if it's a fruitful policy.




The only thing you need to know is if the flow of boats has been lessened and by how much, you will get weekly reports.



sydboy007 said:


> So basically we should just trust the Government of the day.  Sounds not dissimilar to what will come from the Ministry of Truth.
> 
> The only way to hold the Government of the day accountable is to be able to measure their performance against what they've promised to do.




See above.

If anyone wants to know our exact military capacity and where all our weapons and facilities are located you cant have that info either.


----------



## noco

Has anyone noticed how the grubs are coming out of the wood work since the election?


----------



## MrBurns

noco said:


> Has anyone noticed how the grubs are coming out of the wood work since the election?




I saw Gillard gave an interview.


----------



## drsmith

overhang said:


> I agree that there was an overkill in schemes but out of those schemes you mention the worst by far is the direct action coalition policy which is just a brash waste of tax payer money as to give an illusion the coalition care and for a conservative party they should be held accountable for this complete waste of money and resources that will be put into this policy.  Like I say if you want to follow a capitalist model then fine end those subsides on the coal industry and watch clean energy investment become more desirable from the private sector but as it stands the CEFC was the way to bridge this gap without removing the subsidies, ending this scheme shows a lack of foresight from the government.



I don't agree with the Coalition's direct action policy although that at least is limited to a fixed cost. As I said, in my view we should go back to the drawing board with these so-called environmental subsidies and look critically at the cost/benefit.

I don't have any knowledge on the specifics of coal industry subsidies so I can't comment there. I do however acknowledge that coal is a critical component of our domestic economy, much more critical than the impact of our domestic response to global atmospheric CO2 levels. The latter is an issue for the globe as a whole.


----------



## overhang

MrBurns said:


> The only thing you need to know is if the flow of boats has been lessened and by how much, you will get weekly reports.



Like I said it's completely relevant for the public to know if a certain piece of the coalitions ploy to stop the boats is actually effective, right now it seems they can hide the information on boat arrivals if they're not going to announce when boats are turned back.  If 200 boats come in the next year and 150 are turned back then I believe they will only announce the 50 that weren't turned back, that's deceptive government.  Put yourself in their position and the best possible outcome is tell the public you wont be announcing when boats are turned back, this prevents any possible criticism of the effectiveness of the policy.



noco said:


> Has anyone noticed how the grubs are coming out of the wood work since the election?




If this is referring to me I have no vested interest in either party, I'm just ensuring ignorant souls such as yourself are at least aware of the faults in the current government as you sure loved pointing them out for the past government.  Any non swinging voter must be held accountable for their dogmatic political stance, this goes for left and right.


----------



## Macquack

overhang said:


> If this is referring to me I have no vested interest in either party, I'm just ensuring ignorant souls such as yourself are at least aware of the faults in the current government as you sure loved pointing them out for the past government. * Any non swinging voter must be held accountable for their dogmatic political stance, this goes for left and right*.




Well said overhang.

Some posters on this forum are having withdrawal symptoms after the election as they *no longer have anything to have a whinge about*. 

They now can only have a whinge about anyone critical of their new government, what a turnaround.


----------



## MrBurns

Macquack said:


> Well said overhang.
> 
> Some posters on this forum are having withdrawal symptoms after the election as they *no longer have anything to have a whinge about*.
> 
> They now can only have a whinge about anyone critical of their new government, what a turnaround.




I think everyone's sick to their stomach of politics now, first we had Rudd then Gillard then Rudd. now it's over and Abbott can get on with what has to be done..........


----------



## moXJO

Macquack said:


> Well said overhang.
> 
> Some posters on this forum are having withdrawal symptoms after the election as they *no longer have anything to have a whinge about*.
> 
> They now can only have a whinge about anyone critical of their new government, what a turnaround.




Another thing you can blame Abbott for, losing your job


----------



## Whiskers

:sheep:   what is that noise I'm hearing in the distance...

 :holysheep: ...is it the libs praising the wisdom of... even saying labor (Rudds Plan) has stolen the march on them.

 :luigi: ...that their party ought to embrace better accountability of preselections to their grass roots. 


:thankyou:


“No army can withstand the strength of an idea whose time has come.” 
― Victor Hugo


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> Keep the excuses coming everyone you are going to need plenty more
> 
> Coalition heading backwards with first steps
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/coali...first-steps-20130924-2uc1u.html#ixzz2fqUP1DQ2




Loosen up a bit IFocus.......you are getting your knickers in a knot too soon.


----------



## bunyip

sydboy007 said:


> The only way to hold the Government of the day accountable is to be able to measure their performance against what they've promised to do.




Sounds reasonable to me. But the new government has only been in power for two weeks or so, which is hardly time enough to judge their performance.

Some people seem to be upset that the Abbot government isn’t a carbon copy of the Labor government they replaced.
I couldn’t care less if they don’t give us daily updates on boat arrivals. 
The only measurement of their success on this issue will be whether or not they stop the boats. No reasonable person expects them to do it overnight.


----------



## springhill

The left of the media failed constantly to report the almost daily boat arrivals, deliberately ignoring them as if it was not an issue for the Australian public.

Now that the Coalition is in power they are breaking their necks to report and screaming about lack of information.

One rule for some, and another rule for others.

Hypocrites.


----------



## Whiskers

Whiskers said:


> :sheep:   what is that noise I'm hearing in the distance...
> 
> :holysheep: ...is it the libs praising the wisdom of... even saying labor (Rudds Plan) has stolen the march on them.
> 
> :luigi: ...that their party ought to embrace better accountability of preselections to their grass roots.
> 
> 
> :thankyou:
> 
> 
> “No army can withstand the strength of an idea whose time has come.”
> ― Victor Hugo




Just when the party, (albeit mostly retired) started talking about better accountability of representation of their grass roots membership...

_Prime Minister Tony Abbott admits that he has ordered all ministers contact his office before speaking to the media, saying his government needs to speak with a ‘‘united voice’’.

On Wednesday, an email leaked to the Australian Financial Review, Mr Abbott’s senior press secretary, James Boyce, informed ministerial staff that all requests for interviews, right down to ABC local outlets, must be vetted by Kate Walshe who has taken over leadership of communications in Mr Abbott’s office.

The communications clampdown from Mr Abbott, who once described Kevin Rudd as a ''hyper-control freak'' for his autocratic media management, was issued hours after Education Minister Christopher Pyne revealed in an interview with Fairfax Media the government's agenda to take an axe to the university sector.

It comes less than a week after Immigration Minister Scott Morrison put the announcement of asylum seeker boat arrivals behind a curtain of censorship.
Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/fed...rs-in-check-20130925-2uelx.html#ixzz2fy1pxrjq​_
This is not going to end up well Tony!

What other countries have to seek PM permission before talking to the media?.. Syria maybe!?... probably not even Russia or Indonesia.

Tis better to let people be themselves warts and all so as not to be perceived as harbouring a hidden agenda.

Some early policy blips... the Nationals oppose changes to uni fees and caps and likely have something to say about NBN redesign, foreign investment and no doubt more to come on ideology grounds where the Big L lib power brokers are trying to get their extreme measures in, akin to Labor the other way. 

The Nationals are the moderating force in the LNP and Abbott had better pay attention to the Nationals constituency more than trying to sway their parliamentary reps... because they are likely the significant 1.8% who shifted back to the LNP as opposed to the 4.5% who left Labor and mostly went to others.


----------



## overhang

springhill said:


> The left of the media failed constantly to report the almost daily boat arrivals, deliberately ignoring them as if it was not an issue for the Australian public.
> 
> Now that the Coalition is in power they are breaking their necks to report and screaming about lack of information.
> 
> One rule for some, and another rule for others.
> 
> Hypocrites.




That's ok springhill because we had the right of the media reminding us with this sort of fear mongering.
http://imgur.com/wZimhMg

Seems both sides can be rather hypocritical when it supports their predisposition.  Guess sometimes we see what we want to see.


----------



## springhill

overhang said:


> That's ok springhill because we had the right of the media reminding us with this sort of fear mongering.
> http://imgur.com/wZimhMg
> 
> Seems both sides can be rather hypocritical when it supports their predisposition.  Guess sometimes we see what we want to see.




The left is not chasing this to save babies, they have not mentioned that angle once. It is to punish the Coalition. At least The Herald had the impetus to expose it. Those children were put at risk by previous Government policies, nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## overhang

springhill said:


> The left is not chasing this to save babies, they have not mentioned that angle once. It is to punish the Coalition. At least The Herald had the impetus to expose it. Those children were put at risk by previous Government policies, nothing more, nothing less.




That's because its an incredibly disingenuous card to play,  if you followed the Herald Sun through the campaign you would see they just wanted to smear the Labor governments asylum seekers policy which was fair enough but to do it in this fashion and act like a humanitarian news paper was rather brash journalism.  So no i would hope no other media would play the save the babies card.  I'm also not sure which left press you're referring to as the ABC were always announcing boat arrivals during the hourly news updates by the way.


----------



## springhill

overhang said:


> That's because its an incredibly disingenuous card to play






overhang said:


> Guess sometimes we see what we want to see.




The circle completes itself.


----------



## overhang

springhill said:


> The circle completes itself.




Oh nice try pal, perhaps you should use some examples.  I asked you to list the left media you mention, again I bet you had no problems with the Murdoch press attack during the campaign.


----------



## springhill

overhang said:


> I bet you had no problems with the Murdoch press attack during the campaign.




Putting words in my mouth, now? Making assumptions on my behalf? Based on what, your pre-judgement of me?

That is a fool's game and only fools play it.

I never offered the ABC nor the Herald Sun as examples of anything. You did that.

Nor, do I dance to your tune.

If you wish to lower yourself to petty points scoring, so be it.


----------



## overhang

springhill said:


> Putting words in my mouth, now? Making assumptions on my behalf? Based on what, your pre-judgement of me?
> 
> That is a fool's game and only fools play it.
> 
> I never offered the ABC nor the Herald Sun as examples of anything. You did that.
> 
> Nor, do I dance to your tune.
> 
> If you wish to lower yourself to petty points scoring, so be it.




I asked for examples but instead you made a personal attack.  Perhaps if you had a different prospective you may see things differently but obviously you don't want your position challenged. Carry on with your rant.


----------



## IFocus

Sums it all up quite well


Tony Abbott's incredible disappearing act



> As opposition leader Tony Abbott toured the country, warning day in, day out - his message amplified by the florescent gleam of the inevitable hi-viz vest - of looming crises in border security and the economy, as well as the emergency for families and small businesses confronting first the prospect and then the reality of the carbon tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no time to be lost. An election ... now! That was the top line melody that came daily, against a steady bass of 'stop the boats' and 'abolish the tax'. Day in, week out. For three outraged years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then he was gone: the incredible vanishing Prime Minister. The sudden political calm was greeted by the muted golf clap of the political commentariat, who recognised the dexterity of this political craft work. The discipline. *The sense of ordered, deliberate cunning.*
> 
> Tony Abbott has been Prime Minister now for eight days, a period marked by his sudden withdrawal from public life, part of a broader closing down that clearly aims to remove the sense of urgent emergency that has been the backdrop for our politics since 2010.
> 
> A backdrop Tony Abbott created, of course. *A backdrop manufactured against all the available evidence: of a robust economy, the steady but tiny trickle of hapless refugees, the neutral impact of the carbon tax. By rights then this backdrop is his to remove at will. And again, you've got to admire the skill. The political polish.*
Click to expand...



http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-26/green-tony-abbotts-incredible-disappearing-act/4980664


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> Sums it all up quite well
> 
> Tony Abbott's incredible disappearing act
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-26/green-tony-abbotts-incredible-disappearing-act/4980664



No one could shout about every boat arrival when labor was in office. 

There were too many.


----------



## wayneL

IF

You are even more negative than Albo and Short'un... have you considered running for ALP leadership?


----------



## sptrawler

I think Abbott is behaving true to form, unlike Labor shoot from the hip, right or wrong and be seen on tv every day.
He is taking his time before saying anything, it is a tried and proven part of Abbotts makeup.
He was proven right more times than he was proven wrong, when he was in opposition. However it is more critical now he is the PM. 
I must say it is great to see a PM not rolling over and p+++++++++ on themselves, when another country speaks out. IMO


----------



## Whiskers

Whiskers said:


> :sheep:   what is that noise I'm hearing in the distance...
> 
> :holysheep: ...is it the libs praising the wisdom of... even saying labor (Rudds Plan) has stolen the march on them.
> 
> :luigi: ...that their party ought to embrace better accountability of preselections to their grass roots.
> 
> 
> :thankyou:
> 
> 
> “No army can withstand the strength of an idea whose time has come.”
> ― Victor Hugo






Whiskers said:


> Just when the party, (albeit mostly retired) started talking about better accountability of representation of their grass roots membership...
> 
> _Prime Minister Tony Abbott admits that he has ordered all ministers contact his office before speaking to the media, saying his government needs to speak with a ‘‘united voice’’.
> 
> On Wednesday, an email leaked to the Australian Financial Review, Mr Abbott’s senior press secretary, James Boyce, informed ministerial staff that all requests for interviews, right down to ABC local outlets, must be vetted by Kate Walshe who has taken over leadership of communications in Mr Abbott’s office.
> 
> The communications clampdown from Mr Abbott, who once described Kevin Rudd as a ''hyper-control freak'' for his autocratic media management, was issued hours after Education Minister Christopher Pyne revealed in an interview with Fairfax Media the government's agenda to take an axe to the university sector.
> 
> It comes less than a week after Immigration Minister Scott Morrison put the announcement of asylum seeker boat arrivals behind a curtain of censorship.
> Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/fed...rs-in-check-20130925-2uelx.html#ixzz2fy1pxrjq​_
> This is not going to end up well Tony!
> 
> What other countries have to seek PM permission before talking to the media?.. Syria maybe!?... probably not even Russia or Indonesia.
> 
> Tis better to let people be themselves warts and all so as not to be perceived as harbouring a hidden agenda.
> 
> Some early policy blips... the Nationals oppose changes to uni fees and caps and likely have something to say about NBN redesign, foreign investment and no doubt more to come on ideology grounds where the Big L lib power brokers are trying to get their extreme measures in, akin to Labor the other way.
> 
> The Nationals are the moderating force in the LNP and Abbott had better pay attention to the Nationals constituency more than trying to sway their parliamentary reps... because they are likely the significant 1.8% who shifted back to the LNP as opposed to the 4.5% who left Labor and mostly went to others.






sptrawler said:


> I must say it is great to see a PM not rolling over and p+++++++++ on themselves, when another country speaks out. IMO




But he will be rolled at home with this sort of arrogance and contempt for the moderates of his own party and the Nationals who he relies on to stay in power. 

Didn't Macfarlane get that email... or is this the message Abbott wants to convey? 



> The Federal Minister for Resources, Mr Ian Macfarlane, has slammed as "anarchists" some of the opponents to coal seam gas projects in NSW.
> 
> "They are anarchists, they don't respect people's property, they don't respect people's rights. They don't respect the law of the land.
> 
> "They go out deliberately to break the law."
> 
> The minister said he does not oppose people demonstrating but any opponents but they must respect the law, he said.
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/mini...ys-minister-20130926-2ufja.html#ixzz2fzp8VZDa




The NSW Libs have taken a more moderate position that Labor in NSW and Qld. It has been indicated elsewhere that Macfarlane is applying pressure to relax NSW CSG laws. Good on NSW for not bowing to Big L liberal pressure.


----------



## sydboy007

Tuesday 24th - Pyne - We're going to get rid of student amenities fees

Wednesday 25th - Pyne - We're going to get rid of student amenities fees but it's not a priority

Wednesday 25th - Barnaby / Fiona - strangely silent on the issue

Thursday 26th - Abbott - We have other more important priorities

If it's not a priority then why talk about it 

Pyne says No capping of places or raising HECS fees last August and againt in July, but now it's up for review.  Must have been off the cuff comments ie non core so we shouldn't have believed what we were told.

- - - Updated - - -



IFocus said:


> Sums it all up quite well
> 
> Tony Abbott's incredible disappearing act
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-26/green-tony-abbotts-incredible-disappearing-act/4980664




I have to think that's why we've had a bounce in confidence because Tony had to stop scaring everyone once Rudd was back in.  How much did his 3+ years of the carbon tax sky will fall on our heads cost us? Basically everything he said turned out to be WRONG.  How much higher is unemployment because of his fear mongering?

The silence is welcomed, if hypocritical.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> If it's not a priority then why talk about it



I suspect that little episode from Christopher Pyne is why Tony Abbott office is vetting his ministers media contact.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...o-keep-ministers-in-check-20130925-2uelx.html


----------



## noco

drsmith said:


> I suspect that little episode from Christopher Pyne is why Tony Abbott office is vetting his ministers media contact.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...o-keep-ministers-in-check-20130925-2uelx.html




Well Doc,  Abbott is the Prime Minister and as a leader it is his duty to lead his troops in the right direction. If he were to allow them to wonder off in their own direction, then they deserve to be shot down in flames.

I can only admire the man for showing some discipline and courage in guiding his troops in the right direction.
If he did not take some action, I am sure he would come under intense cirticism from all sides of politics and the media.


----------



## sptrawler

drsmith said:


> I suspect that little episode from Christopher Pyne is why Tony Abbott office is vetting his ministers media contact.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...o-keep-ministers-in-check-20130925-2uelx.html




I think Abbott will prove to be a great PM. 
If Rudd had won, you wouldn't have had his face off the tv, absolute dick.
It is great, not to see a PM on tv, he should be busy getting on with running the country.


----------



## Whiskers

noco said:


> Well Doc,  Abbott is the Prime Minister and as a leader it is his duty to lead his troops in the right direction.




I presume you mean right as in correct to party policy and not right as in the far right, as in big L liberal.

Either way, if his troops who have been together since the Howard years don't know each other and the party position like the back of their hands by now, when will they? 



> If he were to allow them to wonder off in their own direction, then they deserve to be shot down in flames.




Someone has mentioned about certain Nationals not saying much. Remembering Abbotts gov is made of Libs, LNP and Nationals with separate and differing policy positions depending which state they are from... what if the Nationals were more disciplined, had a more moderate position to the Libs and had their two bobs worth behind closed doors after the extreme intentions of the Big L liberals started permeating the media. 

Abbott, would have no choice but to clam down on media comments and slow down his advance in these circumstances. The problem is, that many pure blue bloods keep forgetting and Abbott ought to be aware by now, is the tiny 1.8% swing against by pissed off nationals constituency would see his government have a lot of trouble passing some legislation or completely gone next election.

It's worth repeating... Abbott is trying to lead a coalition of three parties, Libs, LNP and Nationals. He doesn't have the numbers or power to dictate to the whole of his government. From memory there are about 30 of the government members who are NOT Lib, but are LNP or Nat. 

So yes, Tonys strategist must have done his head counting by now and realised he's got big trouble pressing a Big L liberal agenda in the cabinet and electorate and likely to get shot down in flames if he doesn't withdraw his fully trained, eager to go 'Lib' special forces. 



> I can only admire the man for showing some discipline and courage in guiding his troops in the right direction.




It's a question of who is pointing whom in the right direction now.


----------



## wayneL

sydboy007 said:


> I have to think that's why we've had a bounce in confidence because Tony had to stop scaring everyone once Rudd was back in.  How much did his 3+ years of the carbon tax sky will fall on our heads cost us? Basically everything he said turned out to be WRONG.  How much higher is unemployment because of his fear mongering?
> 
> The silence is welcomed, if hypocritical.




Oh please! Your saying Coalition "scaremongering" is damaging to the economy, but Labor scaremongering isn't?

That's kid's stuff Syd.


----------



## Macquack

springhill said:


> *The left of the media failed constantly to report the almost daily boat arrivals*, deliberately ignoring them as if it was not an issue for the Australian public.






overhang said:


> *I'm also not sure which left press you're referring to *as the ABC were always announcing boat arrivals during the hourly news updates by the way.




Springhill, would you like to elaborate on that point with some actual facts?


----------



## IFocus

Ministers cannot speck hilarious megalomaniac in charge sounds familiar LOL.....oh thats right Abbott a good megalomaniac.

Button up: Abbott to keep ministers in check



> The directive jogged memories inside Labor of Mr Abbott blasting Mr Rudd in 2007 after it was revealed that all media releases from government bodies must go through his department.
> 
> ''It seems like an early exercise in hyper-control by the new Prime Minister's office,'' Mr Abbott said at the time. ''A lot of people said before the election that Kevin Rudd would turn out to be a bit of a control freak and this seems to be an interesting suggestion that those fears were quite well grounded.''



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...rs-in-check-20130925-2uelx.html#ixzz2g2DCg9Ky

- - - Updated - - -

Javanese have be doing this for centuries how hopeless and naive are the Coalition committing fraud and telling lies to the Australian public to not understand this fact.

Indonesia's foreign minister warns Abbott government against taking any “unilateral steps” over asylum seekers



> The Indonesians’ release of details of the conversation between the two foreign ministers in New York on Monday is highly unusual in diplomacy, and will raise the temperature further in an already super-heated debate, just days before Tony Abbott meets president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono in Jakarta.
> Not-so-private talks ... A virtual transcript of the asylum seeker talks between Indonesian foreign minister Marty Natalegawa and Australian foreign minister Julie Bishop have been made available by Indonesia.
> 
> Blunt message ... Indonesian foreign minister Marty Natalegawa warned the Australian Government against 'unilateral action' over asylum seekers. Photo: Andrew Meares
> 
> Mr Abbott insisted on Thursday that his government was already “working very well together” with Indonesia, and that “we absolutely respect Indonesia's sovereignty”.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/indonesias-foreign-minister-warns-abbott-government-against-taking-any-unilateral-steps-over-asylum-seekers-20130927-2uhgo.html#ixzz2g2Dt9NOj

- - - Updated - - -

Professionals LOL...... adults LOLRATF

The bush socialist's are running the show 


PM rebukes Pyne over unis



> Prime Minister Tony Abbott has publicly slapped down his Education Minister Christopher Pyne over his comments to scrap university service and amenity fees in a move to head off a damaging split within the Coalition.
> 
> Mr Pyne denounced the fees as ''compulsory student unionism by the back door'' in comments that inflamed old tensions between the Liberals and Nationals.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/pm-rebukes-pyne-over-unis-20130926-2uh2a.html#ixzz2g2EUaBsm

- - - Updated - - -



wayneL said:


> IF
> 
> You are even more negative than Albo and Short'un... have you considered running for ALP leadership?




No I'll never be as negative and couldn't lie to the extent like Abbott ......ever.

 I would simply be no match to Abbott, looks like Abbott will be no different in government.


----------



## sydboy007

wayneL said:


> Oh please! Your saying Coalition "scaremongering" is damaging to the economy, but Labor scaremongering isn't?
> 
> That's kid's stuff Syd.




Seriously?  Have you heard the lies and out right deceptions Abbott has been telling since he had his road to Damascus conversion over climate change to force Turnbull out?

All his outrageous claims, and not one of them has happened.  Gladstone, Whyalla, Olympic Dam (did he didn't he read the report)

His shadow treasure telling everyone the economy is at STALL SPEED - yet we had trend growth at the time.  I don't hear Tony saying the economy is in decline now that growth is below trend.  Actually the Coaltion has not really mentioned to economy much lately over the last few months.  Just compare the way Tony was talking about Austrlia pre July this year against how he behaved from July onward.

Think of Tony's claim that poor pensioners electricity bill had doubled due to the carbon tax.  Maybe you discount all his claims by 90% and don't see it?

It was amazing how we went from a country in crisis, where the budget was in CRISIS Wayne, it's just a crisis everywhere Tony looked, yet once he started to believe it was going to be his responsibility the crisis seemed to evaporate.  The budget CRISIS will be solved by the Coalition doing a rounding error $6B better with something like $1.1T in revenue.  With action like that in a crisis, I truly hope we don't need Tony to stand and deliver in a true national crisis.


----------



## springhill

Macquack said:


> Springhill, would you like to elaborate on that point with some actual facts?




Thank you for pulling me up on that, it actually averages to more than one per day this year.
To June 30th - 196 boats in 181 days.

http://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliam.../pubs/bn/2012-2013/boatarrivals#_Toc347230718

Perhaps you should check your facts before you act the uninformed smarty pants.

Checkmate.


----------



## Whiskers

A good move by Greg Hunt, but seems at odds with ranting's from Ian Macfarlane (Industry minister) wanting to loosen up CSG laws in NSW (in particular) for economic exploitation.

I'll bet Barnaby Joyce in particular has pushed his weight around a bit on this one.

However, It is not clear why three projects were deleted. That will require further investigation

Labor's water trigger laws for 47 mines

APN Newsdesk| 
27th Sep 2013 12:00 PM

THE water trigger laws the former Labor Government brought in before the election will apply to 47 mines and coal seam gas operations across the country, after a decision by Environment Minister Greg Hunt on Thursday. 

Projects sprawled across regional Queensland and New South Wales make up the bulk of the list which will have to be assessed for impacts on water resources. 

Among the projects are numerous proposals for coal mining in central Queensland, including Moranbah South, Springsure Creek, Adani's Carmichael project, Hancock Coal's Kevin's Corner and Waratah Coal's Galilee project. 

Coal seam gas proposals across southern Queensland will also need to be assessed under the water trigger laws, including Santos's GLNG gas project and Arrow Energy's Surat CSG project. 

In New South Wales, the controversial Bulga Coal Mine, Wallarah and Moolarben projects were also on the list for assessment. 

The trigger was introduced by the previous government under pressure from former MP Tony Windsor to up the ante on protection of water resources from large coal mines and CSG projects. 

Earlier this week, Mr Hunt said the 50 projects had been "left in complete limbo" by the previous government, over the procedural decisions. 

He said the decision came after "careful examination" of each project, saying the 47 projects would be assessed for potential impacts on water resources and matters of national environmental significance. 

However, three projects on the list did not make the cut, with Mr Hunt asking for more information about two proposals, including the NSW Mount Penny project. 

That project has been under a cloud since investigation by the ICAC in relation to corruption charges against former Labor MPs in the state. 

One other project, the Pine Dale Coal Mine stage two extension, will not be assessed for impacts on water resources, but no reason was given for that decision.For Water Assessments: 

Waratah Coal: Galilee Mine 

Hancock Coal: Kevin's Corner 

Adani: Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail 

Anglo-American: Moranbah South 

Xstrata: Newlands Coal Extension, Rolleston Open Cut extension 

Cockatoo Coal: North Surat and Baralaba South 

Endocoal Coal: Meteor Downs 

http://www.news-mail.com.au/news/water-trigger-laws-former-labor-government/2033672/​


----------



## Macquack

springhill said:


> Thank you for pulling me up on that, it actually averages to more than one per day this year.
> To June 30th - 196 boats in 181 days.
> 
> http://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliam.../pubs/bn/2012-2013/boatarrivals#_Toc347230718
> 
> Perhaps you should check your facts before you act the uninformed smarty pants.
> 
> *Checkmate*.




What's with the "Checkmate", what a joke.

You did not even answer the question. I was referring to you backing up your statement in relation to "*The left of the media failed constantly to report*..."


----------



## sptrawler

Well, Abbott has turned back a boat, let's see what comes out of his visit to Indonesia.

He has said a lot more with actions, than you lefties have said with words, since he got in.lol


----------



## drsmith

noco said:


> Well Doc,  Abbott is the Prime Minister and as a leader it is his duty to lead his troops in the right direction. If he were to allow them to wonder off in their own direction, then they deserve to be shot down in flames.
> 
> I can only admire the man for showing some discipline and courage in guiding his troops in the right direction.
> If he did not take some action, I am sure he would come under intense cirticism from all sides of politics and the media.






sptrawler said:


> I think Abbott will prove to be a great PM.
> If Rudd had won, you wouldn't have had his face off the tv, absolute dick.
> It is great, not to see a PM on tv, he should be busy getting on with running the country.




To the extent that any clarification is needed, it wasn't my intention to be critical of TA. I was just making an observation.


----------



## sptrawler

Well doc IMO, the difference between a PM always on t.v, as opposed to one not seen.

It shows the difference between a showman and a statesman.

The Laborites had better get the cheap shots in early, I think it will prove more difficult, as time goes by.


----------



## drsmith

sptrawler said:


> Well doc IMO, the difference between a PM always on t.v, as opposed to one not seen.
> 
> It shows the difference between a showman and a statesman.
> 
> The Laborites had better get the cheap shots in early, I think it will prove more difficult, as time goes by.



Every government faces its challenges, but how they handle them is what matters.

Tony Abbott hasn't had much to say, but what he has had to say has been of much more substance than either of the previous two Labor PM's.

Overall, the early signs are good and if it continues, Labor face opposition for a very long time indeed.


----------



## bellenuit

Although it is just one boat, if Abbott can successfully stop the boats or reduce them to a trickle, then I believe he will be willing to call a double dissolution if he doesn't get his way with the carbon tax. I cannot see Labor wanting to go to a new election if Abbott succeeds in his asylum seeker policy. They would be massacred. Who in their right minds would want to go back to Labor and have the influx of refugees happen all over again.


----------



## Julia

+1 bellenuit.  Today's effort came as a welcome surprise.  Good to see Australia taking the initiative for a change instead of passively accepting directions from Indonesia.

The so called 'accident' of the highly confidential transcript between Julie Bishop and her Indonesian counterpart whilst both were in New York being leaked to the media, even when it was clearly labelled "media release", was blatantly obvious in its intent.  They must think we're pretty stupid.


----------



## IFocus

I am shocked, amazed the Abbott love squad here didn't see this 


What you missed: an incredible federal budget outcome



> It's yet another case of politics overshadowing economics: while newbie Treasurer Joe Hockey insinuates otherwise, *the final count for the 2012-13 federal budget is an outstanding achievement*, a monument to a skilled Treasury performance in very difficult circumstances. No, seriously.





Budget crisis ha ha ha and Hockey wont release the numbers before Xmas welcome to Stalinist government.



> And it seems Joe Hockey can't break old habits, fulminating about the final count. If he's not careful he might claim there's a budget crisis, forgetting that he effectively backtracked on that two days before the election.




Just note the bit about a recession.....



> *And what's entirely missed is what an incredible budget 2012-13's proved to be. After a deficit of $43.4 billion the previous year – 2.9 per cent of GDP – it is an unprecedented and utterly amazing fiscal contraction to be able to get it down to about $19 billion, 1.3 per cent of GDP. Thank heavens Wayne Swan didn't succeed in reducing it to zero – that way recession would have laid.*





Oh Coalition politics there is a crisis remember 



> After that exercise, the economy is not strong enough to handle further severe fiscal contraction just yet. And that's why Joe Hockey is letting the deficit run this year, never mind his political rants, *announcing that he will trim the budget by all of 0.4 per cent. Big whoop.*




Then you have Liberal arrogance they do it better than anyone



> In the gap between political promises and achievement, it bodes particularly ill if Parkinson is being flicked as Treasury Secretary. Frank and fearless advice might not be appreciated.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-...get-outcome-20130927-2uik6.html#ixzz2g8YqpoDO


----------



## IFocus

Hate to labour on about a point.......well when its Abbott I can make an exception




> But government spending actually shrank in 2012-13, from $371 billion. Spending has fallen in real terms before (indeed, it did in 2010-11), but hasn't shrunk in cash terms as far back as Treasury's current records go, to the start of the 1970s. Yes, it was aided by plenty of pea-and-thimble tricks involving bringing forward and delaying expenditure, *but the Howard government never came close to hacking expenditure in real terms by 3.2%, as Swan did.*
> 
> *In attacking Labor's fiscal record today (including the downright weird statement that Treasury's nominal GDP forecast was a "promise" by Labor), Treasurer Joe Hockey and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann failed to answer the basic question: what would they have done differently?* Faced with a $17 billion-odd write-down in revenues, should Swan have slashed spending by a further $17 billion on top of the historic cut he'd already inflicted on the budget? And done it when the economy was growing below trend despite the RBA bringing interest rates down to record low levels? How would the economy have fared with another $17 billion ripped out of it? How many jobs would it have cost to address the Coalition's debt'n'deficits rhetoric?
> 
> *And of course there's the other question of where the "budget emergency" is, and why the Coalition isn't rushing to address it with a mini-budget to slash spending and bring Australia's debt under control.* Instead, the government has been making noises about stimulating the economy. Indeed, apparently the government is considering adding to Australia's debt to fund infrastructure construction. If so, the Coalition would be demonstrating a welcome maturity on the issue of government debt -- and *complete hypocrisy.*
> 
> Perhaps, like corporate tax cuts or low interest rates that are bad when Labor's in power, government debt suddenly becomes a good thing when the "adults" are back in charge.


----------



## moXJO

IFocus said:


> I am shocked, amazed the Abbott love squad here didn't see this
> 
> 
> What you missed: an incredible federal budget outcome
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Budget crisis ha ha ha and Hockey wont release the numbers before Xmas welcome to Stalinist government.
> 
> 
> 
> Just note the bit about a recession.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Coalition politics there is a crisis remember
> 
> 
> 
> Then you have Liberal arrogance they do it better than anyone
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-...get-outcome-20130927-2uik6.html#ixzz2g8YqpoDO




The budget that was suppose to be a surplus "come hell or high water"?

Labors method of destroy business, hide figures after a massive spending splurge filters through while taxing everything that moved is why labor shot confidence. The only thing labor knows how to grow is debt and taxes


----------



## drsmith

> And what's entirely missed is what an incredible budget 2012-13's proved to be. After a deficit of $43.4 billion the previous year – 2.9 per cent of GDP – it is an unprecedented and utterly amazing fiscal contraction to be able to get it down to about $19 billion, 1.3 per cent of GDP. Thank heavens Wayne Swan didn't succeed in reducing it to zero – that way recession would have laid.



That little analysis doesn't take into account the creative accounting of offloading costs from 2012/13 to 2011/12 so the original 2012/13 surplus could be forecast in the first place.

Even after stacking the deck, Labor still couldn't come close.


----------



## bunyip

sptrawler said:


> Well, Abbott has turned back a boat, let's see what comes out of his visit to Indonesia.
> 
> He has said a lot more with actions, than you lefties have said with words, since he got in.lol




Yes, it was great to see Abbot help the boat in distress 40 nautical miles from Indonesia, but only on the condition that it was sent back to Indonesia.
Rudd and Gillard would have given it a VIP escort to Christmas Island, further overcrowding the place and costing us big dollars to keep the asylum seekers until they could be processed. Then providing them with free legal representation if they wished to contest any decision in regard to whether or not they could settle in Australia. 

What a great lurk it all was.....the boats would get a day or so from Indonesia and then radio that they were in distress, Indonesia would claim to lack the capacity to deal with the rescue, Australia would come running, and off to Christmas Island would go another boat load of illegals.
The people smugglers and the Indonesian government were playing Rudd and Gillard for the fools they were. They’ll find that Abbot is a much harder man to hoodwink.

Good on Alexander Downer for his frankness about Indonesia's reaction to Abbot’s asylum seeker policy. He summed Indonesia up nicely by stating that it was just ‘pious rhetoric’ on their part, and by pointing out that it’s not Australia who is violating Indonesian sovereignty, it’s Indonesia who is violating _*our*_ sovereignty by allowing Indonesia boats and crews to bring tens of thousands of people illegally to Australian territory.


----------



## MrBurns

It's about time the Indonesians took some action besides being offended all the time.
Find out where the smugglers are and shut them down BEFORE they sail.


----------



## sptrawler

MrBurns said:


> It's about time the Indonesians took some action besides being offended all the time.
> Find out where the smugglers are and shut them down BEFORE they sail.




Indonesia does do something, they charge the asylum seekers a fee for a transit visa.lol


----------



## noco

MrBurns said:


> It's about time the Indonesians took some action besides being offended all the time.
> Find out where the smugglers are and shut them down BEFORE they sail.




These illegals have been a problem for Indonesia for years and they have been quite happy to pass on the problem to Australia by turning a blind eye to the people smugglers. It is also a fact that the Indonesian police are actully assisting the smugglers to load their boats with human cargo.


----------



## Whiskers

MrBurns said:


> It's about time the Indonesians took some action besides being offended all the time.
> Find out where the smugglers are and shut them down BEFORE they sail.




The asylum seeker issue is a big deal for us, but it's just an annoyance to them, but from their more corrupt perspective, they do know where the smugglers are and have found a way to make some money out of it for their inconvenience.

The problem is that Aus is low down on the Indonesian totem pole, behind Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore at least. We are not high on their priority list of foreign affairs. 

Secondly, their economy is growing faster than ours and becoming less dependant on aid handouts than years ago. So while we have been patronising them a bit in the past, they do likewise if there is something in it for them, such as aid or trade. 

Gillard made a right royal mess of one of the trade arrangements that leaned them toward cooperating with Aus more, the live cattle exports about half a billion dollars worth a year to our economy. They went elsewhere to Brazil etc, while our cattle died because of forced overstocking or were sold at a loss before they died from starvation. We are also a drop in the ocean when it comes to their manufacturing and exports.

Hence, my main focus of more subtle negotiations, than taking a big stick to them. If you rile them too much, we and our much smaller population and slower growing country, probably needs them more than they need us... particularly regarding these boat arrivals. 

One needs to be a careful not to cut off our nose to spite our face, like the live cattle fiasco, again.

Translation: The net effect/damage of our foreign affairs and trade relations goes much further than the damn boat people.


----------



## MrBurns

Whiskers said:


> The asylum seeker issue is a big deal for us, but it's just an annoyance to them, but from their more corrupt perspective, they do know where the smugglers are and have found a way to make some money out of it for their inconvenience.
> 
> The problem is that Aus is low down on the Indonesian totem pole, behind Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore at least. We are not high on their priority list of foreign affairs.
> 
> Secondly, their economy is growing faster than ours and becoming less dependant on aid handouts than years ago. So while we have been patronising them a bit in the past, they do likewise if there is something in it for them, such as aid or trade.
> 
> Gillard made a right royal mess of one of the trade arrangements that leaned them toward cooperating with Aus more, the live cattle exports about half a billion dollars worth a year to our economy. They went elsewhere to Brazil etc, while our cattle died because of forced overstocking or were sold at a loss before they died from starvation. We are also a drop in the ocean when it comes to their manufacturing and exports.
> 
> Hence, my main focus of more subtle negotiations, than taking a big stick to them. If you rile them too much, we and our much smaller population and slower growing country, probably needs them more than they need us... particularly regarding these boat arrivals.
> 
> One needs to be a careful not to cut off our nose to spite our face, like the live cattle fiasco, again.
> 
> Translation: The net effect/damage of our foreign affairs and trade relations goes much further than the damn boat people.




Cant argue with any of that.........


----------



## noco

This Indonesian Foreign Minister is obviously pro Labor.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ldsun/comments/yudhoyono_is_abbotts_good_cop/


----------



## Whiskers

noco said:


> This Indonesian Foreign Minister is obviously pro Labor.
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ldsun/comments/yudhoyono_is_abbotts_good_cop/




Yeah... that's the complexity of foreign relations, all right!

You sometimes have to buy a rotten potato under the counter as part of the deal to sell a carrot above.


----------



## MrBurns

noco said:


> This Indonesian Foreign Minister is obviously pro Labor.
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ldsun/comments/yudhoyono_is_abbotts_good_cop/




Labor will be sucking up to him in an attempt make Abbott look bad, they're shameless liars and manipulators to the detriment of this great country.


----------



## sptrawler

Whiskers said:


> The asylum seeker issue is a big deal for us, but it's just an annoyance to them, but from their more corrupt perspective, they do know where the smugglers are and have found a way to make some money out of it for their inconvenience.
> 
> The problem is that Aus is low down on the Indonesian totem pole, behind Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore at least. We are not high on their priority list of foreign affairs.
> 
> Secondly, their economy is growing faster than ours and becoming less dependant on aid handouts than years ago. So while we have been patronising them a bit in the past, they do likewise if there is something in it for them, such as aid or trade.
> 
> Gillard made a right royal mess of one of the trade arrangements that leaned them toward cooperating with Aus more, the live cattle exports about half a billion dollars worth a year to our economy. They went elsewhere to Brazil etc, while our cattle died because of forced overstocking or were sold at a loss before they died from starvation. We are also a drop in the ocean when it comes to their manufacturing and exports.
> 
> Hence, my main focus of more subtle negotiations, than taking a big stick to them. If you rile them too much, we and our much smaller population and slower growing country, probably needs them more than they need us... particularly regarding these boat arrivals.
> 
> One needs to be a careful not to cut off our nose to spite our face, like the live cattle fiasco, again.
> 
> Translation: The net effect/damage of our foreign affairs and trade relations goes much further than the damn boat people.




My guess is Abbott will make a better fist of it than Rudd or Gillard did.
The live cattle fiasco, then following it up with a begging session and offering them $60m bribes.
Tacky, just very tacky, an absolute disgrace.


----------



## sydboy007

From the AFR

_Mr Abbott also welcomed rising property prices._

_“Don’t forget … if housing prices go up, sure that makes it harder to get into the market, but it also means that everyone who is in the market has a more valuable asset,” he said…_

Translation

All those who generally vote Liberal are doing nicely from rising property prices and I'm not going to do anything that would help the younger generation to be able to buy affordable housing and risk my re-election chances.


----------



## sydboy007

So four days before the election Abbott said: no infrastructure projects worth more than $100 million would be funded without a "published cost-benefit analysis".

But now he's providing $1.5B for the east-west link in Melbourne.

Mr Abbott told radio station 3AW that he trusts that the East West Link is a viable project despite not being provided with the full business case, which the state government has refused to make public.

He said he had accepted the judgment of those briefing him on the grounds that the project makes social and economic sense.

"I have given a commitment that we won't spend more than $100 million on any single infrastructure projects without a published cost benefit analysis."

So the Labor version of the NBN was BAD BAD BAD since no CBA done, but a Liberal toll road with no such CBA provided is GOOD GOOD GOOD.

I wonder how many more projects over the $100M threshold will get their funding without a CBA


----------



## sydboy007

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ministers-claimed-costs-for-wedding-trip-20130928-2ul6a.html

Two of Prime Minister Tony Abbott's most high-profile ministers claimed thousands of dollars in taxpayer entitlements for attending the wedding of close friend and Sydney shock jock Michael Smith.

According to travel expenses lodged with the Department of Finance, the duo collectively billed taxpayers nearly $3000 for flights, hire cars and incidental expenses incurred on the trip.
Advertisement

Senator Brandis claimed $1700, including more than $1000 on return flights, $143 on a hire car and the overnight ''official business'' allowance designed to cover accommodation and incidentals.

The federal Department of Finance's guidelines state MPs are allowed to claim travel and accommodation expenses for official business including ''meetings of a government advisory committee or taskforce'' or ''functions representing a minister or presiding officer''. Meeting with journalists is not a purpose sanctioned by the guidelines.

Mr Joyce claimed a flight to Moree the next day and about $500 worth of charges for the use of a Commonwealth car on the day of the wedding. He said he could not recall whether he had other meetings that day but defended the use of public resources to attend the wedding.

''There were, no doubt, lots of people there involved in politics,'' he said. ''It was one of these things where you're noted more by your absence than by your participation.''


----------



## Whiskers

Palmer seems really, really determined to give Newman and Abbot a real pain in the @r$e. At first read I thought he's kidding, BUT when I looked at the perilous state of the Qld ALP reduced to 7 seats, 4 others and LNP 78, it's not too big of a stretch, all things being equal, to give it a damn good shake.

THE state arm of the Palmer United Party will name 90 candidates by the end of January to contest Queensland elections it claims will be held no later than October next year. 

Based on its own polling and federal election analysis, it says it can win every Sunshine Coast seat from the LNP and sufficient statewide to secure government. 

And it argues that without PUP preferencing the way it did at the September 7 Federal Election, the LNP would have lost 11 of the 21 seats it claimed in Queensland including Wide Bay (Warren Truss), Fisher (Mal Brough) and Longman (Wyatt Roy). 

PUP won three Senate spots and is on course to rip Fairfax from the LNP. 
http://www.news-mail.com.au/news/palmers-pup-set-to-dog-newman/2035309/​
...and if the poll in the local paper is any guide he's only going to keep getting more confident and up the ante as time goes by. 

Silvio Berlusconi did it in Italy, two George Bushes in the US... so I suppose we should start to consider the possibility of PM Palmer next federal election!  Seriously!

I think I'm starting to admire this guy, he's got guts!


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> So four days before the election Abbott said: no infrastructure projects worth more than $100 million would be funded without a "published cost-benefit analysis".
> 
> But now he's providing $1.5B for the east-west link in Melbourne.
> 
> Mr Abbott told radio station 3AW that he trusts that the East West Link is a viable project despite not being provided with the full business case, which the state government has refused to make public.
> 
> He said he had accepted the judgment of those briefing him on the grounds that the project makes social and economic sense.
> 
> "I have given a commitment that we won't spend more than $100 million on any single infrastructure projects without a published cost benefit analysis."
> 
> So the Labor version of the NBN was BAD BAD BAD since no CBA done, but a Liberal toll road with no such CBA provided is GOOD GOOD GOOD.
> 
> I wonder how many more projects over the $100M threshold will get their funding without a CBA




Syd if you are going to 'maintain the rage', for the next three years, you will make yourself sick.


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> That little analysis doesn't take into account the creative accounting of offloading costs from 2012/13 to 2011/12 so the original 2012/13 surplus could be forecast in the first place.
> 
> Even after stacking the deck, Labor still couldn't come close.




True and its referred to in the article and the reasons why. 

You seemed to have missed this point



> And of course there's the other question of where the "budget emergency" is, and why the Coalition isn't rushing to address it with a mini-budget to slash spending and bring Australia's debt under control.


----------



## IFocus

oh dear..........wonder if the Coalition will apply the same standards to this pair of dimwit's as they did to Slipper, Gillard and Thompson.

Adults in charge.....more snout, trough etc etc 

Ministers claimed costs for wedding trip



> Two of Prime Minister Tony Abbott's most high-profile ministers claimed thousands of dollars in taxpayer entitlements for attending the wedding of close friend and Sydney shock jock Michael Smith.
> 
> It was a little less than two years ago and Smith had just left 2UE after a falling out over his attempt to raise allegations about then prime minister Julia Gillard's relationship with a former union official and the misappropriation of funds.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...edding-trip-20130928-2ul6a.html#ixzz2gEy3Nkpa


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> True and its referred to in the article and the reasons why.
> 
> You seemed to have missed this point



How many times did Wayne Swan and Julia Gillard say they were going to deliver a surplus in 2012/13 ?

That's right. Wayne Swan actually delivered it, but obviously didn't.

The economic failure of the Gillard/Swan government was not to act earlier in their term and to make matters worse, compromise the budget even more by dealing with the Greens for office.

In 2012/13 they paid the political price.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ministers-claimed-costs-for-wedding-trip-20130928-2ul6a.html
> 
> Two of Prime Minister Tony Abbott's most high-profile ministers claimed thousands of dollars in taxpayer entitlements for attending the wedding of close friend and Sydney shock jock Michael Smith.
> 
> According to travel expenses lodged with the Department of Finance, the duo collectively billed taxpayers nearly $3000 for flights, hire cars and incidental expenses incurred on the trip.
> Advertisement
> 
> Senator Brandis claimed $1700, including more than $1000 on return flights, $143 on a hire car and the overnight ''official business'' allowance designed to cover accommodation and incidentals.
> 
> The federal Department of Finance's guidelines state MPs are allowed to claim travel and accommodation expenses for official business including ''meetings of a government advisory committee or taskforce'' or ''functions representing a minister or presiding officer''. Meeting with journalists is not a purpose sanctioned by the guidelines.
> 
> Mr Joyce claimed a flight to Moree the next day and about $500 worth of charges for the use of a Commonwealth car on the day of the wedding. He said he could not recall whether he had other meetings that day but defended the use of public resources to attend the wedding.
> 
> ''There were, no doubt, lots of people there involved in politics,'' he said. ''It was one of these things where you're noted more by your absence than by your participation.''



George Brandis has promptly put out a media release advising he has refunded his claims from that weekend. 

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/201...bution-to-his-expenses-that-wee.html#comments

That though still leaves the smell of having claimed it in the first place.

I'm not sure what the issue is with Barnaby Joyce's flight from Sydney to Moree the next day is but in his case that still leaves the comcar claim outstanding. According to Michael Smith,



> Barnaby also attended my wedding that day. He didn't claim his accommodation expenses that night. He did have some Commonwealth Car expenses during that day and the next.
> 
> My wife and I paid for Senator Brandis and Senator Joyce's car transfers to and from the wedding - see the correspondence at the bottom of this post.




http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/201...journalists-is-not-a-justifiable-expense.html 

ABC News report,



> Senator Brandis has confirmed he claimed nearly $1,700 on flights, accommodation and a hire car, but says he attended the wedding primarily for work purposes.
> 
> He told Fairfax that he used the wedding as an opportunity to collaborate with Smith over his work covering the Health Services Union scandal involving former MP Craig Thomson.
> 
> Senator Brandis says to resolve any uncertainty he will pay the money back.
> 
> "It is clear that the relevant criterion is the purpose of the travel, not the nature of the event. However, I accept that there can be uncertainty about the circumstances in which attendance at a private function for work-related purposes is within the entitlement," he said.
> 
> Fairfax newspapers reported that the cost of flights, hire cars and incidental expenses were among travel expenses lodged with the Department of Finance.
> 
> Mr Joyce rejected the Fairfax report, saying he may have used a Commonwealth car on the day, but that he did not claim flights or accommodation.
> 
> "The only thing I can see in this, and it was two years ago, was the use of a COMCAR on the same day as the wedding," Mr Joyce said.
> 
> "I will now dig back and do what I can to find out about that and if there's some ambiguity I'll pay it back, but the idea I claimed thousands of dollars is just wrong."




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-...barnaby-joyce-george-brandis-expenses/4987502

My personal view is that I don't like to see this sort of snouts in troughs behaviour from our politicians regardless of whether it's within the guidelines or not, from any side.


----------



## Whiskers

drsmith said:


> My personal view is that I don't like to see this sort of snouts in troughs behaviour from our politicians regardless of whether it's within the guidelines or not, from any side.




Barnaby Joyce is or at least was a CPA, so one would expect he'd know what the law said... or at least what the law allowed you to get away with. 

George Brandis is quite correct in that it's the purpose of the trip, rather than the nature of the function that's the relevant point. The same terminology is used in tax law for claiming expenses. For example the tax office can decide whether a trip is for a business purpose, but they cannot rule on how much you can spend and claim on that purpose.

But I agree the whole charging expenses to the public purse scheme probably needs a good overhaul and deem a lot more of the typical snout in the trough stuff as being provided for in their normal salary and allowances.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Syd if you are going to 'maintain the rage', for the next three years, you will make yourself sick.




No rage, just holding them to the standards they screamed for in opposition.

What's the point of a policy if you don't plan to implement it?  Wasn't the claim not t spend more than $100M on a project without a CBA part of Abbotts claim that the Coalition were better economic managers and they would cut back on the waste and mismanagement?


----------



## 13ugs13unny

drsmith said:


> George Brandis has promptly put out a media release advising he has refunded his claims from that weekend.
> 
> My personal view is that I don't like to see this sort of snouts in troughs behaviour from our politicians regardless of whether it's within the guidelines or not, from any side.






Strange how some MP's get crucified for lying, I just don't understand why others can sweep their transgressions under the rug, and still hold their head up high for 'high' office.


----------



## sydboy007

13ugs13unny said:


> Strange how some MP's get crucified for lying, I just don't understand why others can sweep their transgressions under the rug, and still hold their head up high for 'high' office.




It's more the double standards that gets me.  The witch hunt of Slipper and Thompson and then the I've paid the money back so it's OK.

I just don't understand the reasoning behind going to a friends wedding and looking for some sort of excuse to bill it to tax payers.  Even if there's some small legitimate reason, it's such a bad look

Even worse, there doesn't seem to be anything in place to easily show person X made claim on Y date for this reason.  While Joyce should be able to provide the info, the parliament systems should be able to provide the information easily or it needs to be set up so that it does.  Joyce should have been able to log in and provide the information pretty much instantly.


----------



## bunyip

noco said:


> These illegals have been a problem for Indonesia for years and they have been quite happy to pass on the problem to Australia by turning a blind eye to the people smugglers. It is also a fact that the Indonesian police are actully assisting the smugglers to load their boats with human cargo.





Not just the Indonesian police, the Indonesian army as well apparently......one of the English speaking survivors of the latest boat wreck off Java said that Indonesian soldiers escorted the people on to the boat.

Interesting to hear one of the survivors blaming the Australian government for what happened! 
Why should our navy be expected to come running to the aid of a boat load of illegals that gets into trouble only a short distance out from Indonesia. 
It should be the Indonesian authorities who respond – after all, it’s them who allow the boats to leave Indonesia despite knowing full well that they’re engaged in people smuggling.

Corruption is rife in Indonesia, from the police to the army to government officials. No wonder they object to the Australian government’s moves to put a stop to their lucrative little game. Not only would they lose a nice little money spinner, but the illegal immigrants would become Indonesia’s very expensive problem instead of being able to just palm them off on to us.


----------



## noco

bunyip said:


> Not just the Indonesian police, the Indonesian army as well apparently......one of the English speaking survivors of the latest boat wreck off Java said that Indonesian soldiers escorted the people on to the boat.
> 
> Interesting to hear one of the survivors blaming the Australian government for what happened!
> Why should our navy be expected to come running to the aid of a boat load of illegals that gets into trouble only a short distance out from Indonesia.
> It should be the Indonesian authorities who respond – after all, it’s them who allow the boats to leave Indonesia despite knowing full well that they’re engaged in people smuggling.
> 
> Corruption is rife in Indonesia, from the police to the army to government officials. No wonder they object to the Australian government’s moves to put a stop to their lucrative little game. Not only would they lose a nice little money spinner, but the illegal immigrants would become Indonesia’s very expensive problem instead of being able to just palm them off on to us.




I just posted a similar comment on the thread "ASYLUM IMMIGRANTS-GREEN LIGHT"
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ving_a_boat_now_lying_on_an_indonesian_beach/

- - - Updated - - -



bunyip said:


> Not just the Indonesian police, the Indonesian army as well apparently......one of the English speaking survivors of the latest boat wreck off Java said that Indonesian soldiers escorted the people on to the boat.
> 
> Interesting to hear one of the survivors blaming the Australian government for what happened!
> Why should our navy be expected to come running to the aid of a boat load of illegals that gets into trouble only a short distance out from Indonesia.
> It should be the Indonesian authorities who respond – after all, it’s them who allow the boats to leave Indonesia despite knowing full well that they’re engaged in people smuggling.
> 
> Corruption is rife in Indonesia, from the police to the army to government officials. No wonder they object to the Australian government’s moves to put a stop to their lucrative little game. Not only would they lose a nice little money spinner, but the illegal immigrants would become Indonesia’s very expensive problem instead of being able to just palm them off on to us.




I just posted a similar comment on the thread "ASYLUM IMMIGRANTS-GREEN LIGHT"
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/abbott_blamed_for_not_saving_a_boat_now_lying_on_an_indonesian_beach/


----------



## 13ugs13unny

bunyip said:


> Corruption is rife in Indonesia, from the police to the army to government officials. No wonder they object to the Australian government’s moves to put a stop to their lucrative little game. Not only would they lose a nice little money spinner, but the illegal immigrants would become Indonesia’s very expensive problem instead of being able to just palm them off on to us.




This has occurred because a more compassionate society as we are allowed ourselves to soften the sovereignty of our borders. It was our compassion to help these people that has caused so many deaths at sea, a great deal many of them children.

Regardless on the flip side even if we "allowed" people smuggling to continue many people and children would continue to die at sea as authorities are corrupt enough to want to make a fast buck.

We simply cannot rescue them in time.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> It's more the double standards that gets me.  The witch hunt of Slipper and Thompson and then the I've paid the money back so it's OK.
> 
> I just don't understand the reasoning behind going to a friends wedding and looking for some sort of excuse to bill it to tax payers.  Even if there's some small legitimate reason, it's such a bad look
> 
> Even worse, there doesn't seem to be anything in place to easily show person X made claim on Y date for this reason.  While Joyce should be able to provide the info, the parliament systems should be able to provide the information easily or it needs to be set up so that it does.  Joyce should have been able to log in and provide the information pretty much instantly.



Slipper and Thomson were not witch hunts. They are facing actual problems of their own making.

Labor I suspect won't campaign too hard on this one. It's a potential can of worms for both sides.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ents/shorten_drove_our_dollars_a_lot_further/


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> Slipper and Thomson were not witch hunts. They are facing actual problems of their own making.
> 
> Labor I suspect won't campaign too hard on this one. It's a potential can of worms for both sides.
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ents/shorten_drove_our_dollars_a_lot_further/




There's the hypocrisy from both sides.

From the information that's been provided Brandis broke the rules. There should be more consequences than just paying the money back.

If you mix pleasure and business the ATO expects you to claim proportionately.  Brandis seems to think 10 minutes talking about how to carry on the crusade against Labor, somehow makes up for the hours of fun he had at the wedding.

I don't understand how Joyce could claim a comm car to the hotel he stayed at for the wedding.  It wasn't on any official business.

brandis was the holier than thou of the LNP during their time in opposition.  If this had been someone from the ALP what do you think he'd be saying right now?  i dobut he'd accept paying back the money would be all that is required.


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> Slipper and Thomson were not witch hunts.
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ents/shorten_drove_our_dollars_a_lot_further/




Neither will be the pursuit of Brandis and Joyce resignations from the front bench............


----------



## sydboy007

IFocus said:


> Neither will be the pursuit of Brandis and Joyce resignations from the front bench............




Not sure of the relevance to the comparison between Shorten and Brandis.

Shorten was a minister, Brandis in opposition.  I dare say you compare a lot of Howard ministers against labor opposition and things would look the same.

The simple fact is that the system is broken.  When you can go out of your way to make a dodgy claim, and with the exception of Slipper, never face any consequences but paying it back if the media attention gets a bit hot.


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> Neither will be the pursuit of Brandis and Joyce resignations from the front bench............



Not going to happen.

Acting Labor Leader Chris Bowen has only ventured as far as who should be writing the new ministerial code of conduct.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...er-expense-claim/story-fni0xqrb-1226729856232


----------



## IFocus

sydboy007 said:


> Not sure of the relevance to the comparison between Shorten and Brandis.
> 
> Shorten was a minister, Brandis in opposition.  I dare say you compare a lot of Howard ministers against labor opposition and things would look the same.
> 
> The simple fact is that the system is broken.  When you can go out of your way to make a dodgy claim, and with the exception of Slipper, never face any consequences but paying it back if the media attention gets a bit hot.




I think the damming point is they tried (still trying)to justify the claim rather than ops simple mistake pay it back.


----------



## sydboy007

IFocus said:


> I think the damming point is they tried (still trying)to justify the claim rather than ops simple mistake pay it back.




Very true.  I suppose it's too much to ask for them to admit they stepped over the line.  

It was a bit like Abbott resisted paying back the money he claimed while doing his book signing tour, and that was for quite a bit more than these two parasites claimed.

The parliament expenses system needs to be like the tax system.  Get caught with a fraudulent claim and you start paying interest costs plus penalties.  Might make our Dear Leaders to think whether they should really be claiming the winery tour or wedding party or...


----------



## Calliope

While Indonesian ministers were banging on about our infringement of their sovereignty, the obvious thing for Abbott to do was to tell Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to *stop Indonesian boats infringing on our sovereignty*. Game, Set and Match. 

He chickened out. Apparently his trip was to suck up to them. With this attitude, he hasn't got a hope in hell of stopping the boats. The Indonesians will continue to play on his weakness...and fill the leaky boats.


----------



## sydboy007

Calliope said:


> While Indonesian ministers were banging on about our infringement of their sovereignty, the obvious thing for Abbott to do was to tell Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to *stop Indonesian boats infringing on our sovereignty*. Game, Set and Match.
> 
> He chickened out. Apparently his trip was to suck up to them. With this attitude, he hasn't got a hope in hell of stopping the boats. The Indonesians will continue to play on his weakness...and fill the leaky boats.




Possibly the best way to help ourselves is to help the Indonesians with their problem of being a transit country.  If he help stop the refugees getting to Indonesia, we help stop them trying to get here.

It's basically the regional solution the Indonesians have been saying all along.  Less chest thumping, more looking at the problem from multiple view points, and over time we might get to a solution.

3 words slogans work in opposition, but the reality of international politics is much harder work.

ps.  Why did it surprise you Abbott chickened out?  He did it when he last met SBY in opposition?  He didn't have the cajones - oops _ticker _in Howard speak - to talk about his tow back the boats policy.


----------



## Whiskers

Calliope said:


> While Indonesian ministers were banging on about our infringement of their sovereignty, the obvious thing for Abbott to do was to tell Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to *stop Indonesian boats infringing on our sovereignty*. Game, Set and Match.
> 
> He chickened out. Apparently his trip was to suck up to them. With this attitude, he hasn't got a hope in hell of stopping the boats. The Indonesians will continue to play on his weakness...and fill the leaky boats.




Thankfully, Abbott has a bit more nouse than you Calliope.

It's called political expediency. He had to talk tough to get voter attention here in Aus (albeit a bit lose tongued) but now has to eat a bit of humble pie and suck-up a bit to repair the Indo relations.

He's got the job ahead of him to get any significant results soon. But, he has to start somewhere.


----------



## Calliope

Whiskers said:


> Thankfully, Abbott has a bit more nouse than you Calliope.




Why thankfully? And how can you be sure?


Definition: Nouse 

"Portland Oregon slang term for penis. Derived from Pen-nouse".

(Urban Dictionary) 

It's also a computer mouse operated with the nose.


----------



## banco

Calliope said:


> While Indonesian ministers were banging on about our infringement of their sovereignty, the obvious thing for Abbott to do was to tell Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to *stop Indonesian boats infringing on our sovereignty*. Game, Set and Match.
> 
> He chickened out. Apparently his trip was to suck up to them. With this attitude, he hasn't got a hope in hell of stopping the boats. The Indonesians will continue to play on his weakness...and fill the leaky boats.




LOL at thinking Abbott was going to do anything but suck up to Indonesia once he was in Government.  The macho stuff in opposition was fresh meat for his more gullible and slow-witted followers (like yourself).


----------



## Whiskers

Calliope said:


> Why thankfully? *And how can you be sure?:*rolleyes:
> 
> Definition: Nouse
> 
> "Portland Oregon slang term for penis. Derived from Pen-nouse".
> 
> (Urban Dictionary)
> 
> It's also a computer mouse operated with the nose.




Context... it's elementary! Self evident whether you have nouse or wankin the nouse.

"It’s not where you take things from - it’s where you take them to.”​
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nouse


----------



## Calliope

Whiskers said:


> Context... it's elementary! Self evident whether you have nouse or wankin the nouse.
> 
> "It’s not where you take things from - it’s where you take them to.”​
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nouse




:topic


----------



## Whiskers

banco said:


> LOL at thinking Abbott was going to do anything but suck up to Indonesia once he was in Government.  The macho stuff in opposition was fresh meat for his more gullible and slow-witted followers (like yourself).




Not sure it was a case of "was going" as in pre-planned, so much as had no choice but too, as in misjudged the cultural divide a bit.

This is probably the wisest statement I heard from the trip.



> Mr Yudhoyono welcomed Mr Abbott's assurance on Indonesia's sovereignty, saying both Australia and Indonesia were "victims" of people smuggling
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-...indonesian-sovereignty-asylum-seekers/4989734




Sometimes I think I like this Yudhoyono fella more than any of our lot! 

He always strikes me as being very diplomatic... probably more corrupt and inconsiderate of his great southern neighbour... but very diplomatic about it all none-the-less.

More of a bipartisan approach as opposed to partisan - _of, pertaining to, or carried on by military partisans or guerrillas_... as Abbotts loose tongue policy comments would have come across to the Indo's.

You need to understand their sensitivity of 'military' as in our "military led" border protection campaign & intervention (think East Temor) in their country for intelligence and to buy boats etc. That hits a very raw nerve with them. I suspect it's going to take a bit of time more than anything else to warm back up from that bit of a chill.


----------



## drsmith

Calliope said:


> While Indonesian ministers were banging on about our infringement of their sovereignty, the obvious thing for Abbott to do was to tell Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to *stop Indonesian boats infringing on our sovereignty*. Game, Set and Match.
> 
> He chickened out. Apparently his trip was to suck up to them. With this attitude, he hasn't got a hope in hell of stopping the boats. The Indonesians will continue to play on his weakness...and fill the leaky boats.



You might be jumping to conclusions a little hastily there.

Time will tell.


----------



## sptrawler

drsmith said:


> You might be jumping to conclusions a little hastily there.
> 
> Time will tell.




Agree with you doc, they cut Labor six years slack to stuff it.
Then bag the Coalition if they haven't fixed it in six weeks, absolute dicks.


----------



## sptrawler

Have a read of this article by the SMH.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...00-taxpayerfunded-library-20131001-2upee.html

It is amazing the fine detail they can present on the purchasing of books. 
Yet could find 'sod all' on the purchasing of prostitutes, when Labor politicians where involved.  lol,lol,lol
Here we go, here we go, the press union are on the go.lol

Really we need to move past this garbage and make journalists just report news. 
Good or bad for either side, journalism is meant to inform the public, not push their political agenda.

Also before you jump all over me, I don't watch Bolt, watched him once and thought he was just as bad as Kerry O'Keefe the red headed head banger).
Hope a Labor person responds, as it is important, but without a debate it becomes a rant.


----------



## noco

drsmith said:


> Slipper and Thomson were not witch hunts. They are facing actual problems of their own making.
> 
> Labor I suspect won't campaign too hard on this one. It's a potential can of worms for both sides.
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ents/shorten_drove_our_dollars_a_lot_further/




I guess you could take these events of Brandis and Joyce two ways.

Were they invited as official representatives of the Government or did they receive persoal invitations.

I am not sure where the line should be drawn

Seems a bit of storm in a tea cup when one looks at Shortens Comcar hire.


----------



## Julia

drsmith said:


> You might be jumping to conclusions a little hastily there.
> 
> Time will tell.



Agree.  It seems fairly reasonable that in a 24 hour visit to Indonesia, Mr Abbott should focus on pure diplomacy, a smoothing of the waters or basic establishment of a relationship.

He can't win with many people here.  Had he gone there, all guns blazing, telling the Indonesians to sod off, that he'd send all their damn boats back regardless of what they thought, he would have been blasted by the Left.  He is now being castigated by all sides for either kowtowing to Indonesia or failing to in 24 hours fully enunciate to Indonesia every aspect of Australia's border protection policy.

So unreasonable.




sptrawler said:


> Have a read of this article by the SMH.



I'm rather disappointed in George Brandis, having always regarded him as intelligent, articulate and credible.
It seems almost all politicians just can't resist having their snouts in the trough to the maximum credible (or incredible) extent.

(wish we had an emoticon depicting exasperated sigh!)


----------



## sptrawler

Here is another interesting take.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-30/julia-gillard-opera-house-anne-summers-sexist-attacks/4989210

She revealed that she knew about the offensive material but "chose not to focus on them".

"For my personal liberty, it's probably a good thing that I didn't focus on them," she joked, because they filled her with "murderous rage

Yet her and her governments personal attacks on Abbott over a four year period, were o.k.

Absolute dicks.


----------



## sptrawler

Julia said:


> I'm rather disappointed in George Brandis, having always regarded him as intelligent, articulate and credible.
> It seems almost all politicians just can't resist having their snouts in the trough to the maximum credible (or incredible) extent.
> 
> (wish we had an emoticon depicting exasperated sigh!)




Agree, however when you take note of the books they are quoting, they are of a political bent. 
There is no way I would buy them.lol
Actually if you read the article, all the books sounded fair and reasonable, just a crappy headline for political mudslinging.


----------



## banco

noco said:


> I guess you could take these events of Brandis and Joyce two ways.
> 
> Were they invited as official representatives of the Government or did they receive persoal invitations.
> 
> I am not sure where the line should be drawn
> 
> Seems a bit of storm in a tea cup when one looks at Shortens Comcar hire.




Given they weren't part of the Government at the time would be a bit hard to invite them as representatives of the Government. You'll need to come up with another flimsy excuse for them.


----------



## sptrawler

Why hasn't anyone asked Abbott how he felt about the personal sexist attacks from Labor and the racial attacks instigated by Labor?

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...he-had-fun-as-pm/story-fni0xqrc-1226731129310

It all seems a bit skewed even after the event.

Has anybody interviewed Chris Bowen on the turning back of boats?


----------



## Macquack

banco said:


> Given they weren't part of the Government at the time would be a bit hard to invite them as representatives of the Government. You'll need to come up with another flimsy excuse for them.




Agree. 

The marriage of a two bit shock jock does not constitute a "Royal" wedding. Wake up Noco.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Agree, however when you take note of the books they are quoting, they are of a political bent.
> There is no way I would buy them.lol
> Actually if you read the article, all the books sounded fair and reasonable, just a crappy headline for political mudslinging.




I'd agree with you if they were about areas that Brandis was responsible for in opposition, or that would educate him about issues important to the general public.

I'd love to hear your reasoning for billing tax payers:

The Marmalade Files
Best Australian Political Cartoons
Lazarus Rising
essays on "ice-cream, Obama, Churchill and my mother''

How did those books help Brandis to be a better Senator?

His need to buy A Dictionary of Modern English Usage and an international edition of Roget's Thesaurus shows how far behind the times he is when you could access it online for free and generally faster than a book.

I dare say if it was someone other than Brandis it probably wouldn't be so news worthy, but when you go on witch hunts like he did you better have no stones to throw in the glass house or eventually you will get caught for the odd broken window.

I suppose when you think how long the Coalition let Slipper get away with his shenanigans, it's easy to see how they can start to think this kind of behaviour is acceptable.


----------



## wayneL

sptrawler said:


> Why hasn't anyone asked Abbott how he felt about the personal sexist attacks from Labor and the racial attacks instigated by Labor?
> 
> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...he-had-fun-as-pm/story-fni0xqrc-1226731129310
> 
> It all seems a bit skewed even after the event.




I started to listen to that Labor love-in; thought it might be interesting but couldn't hack continuously having to hold back vomit. 



> Has anybody interviewed Chris Bowen on the turning back of boats?




The less we hear of that hater, the better IMO


----------



## noco

Macquack said:


> Agree.
> 
> The marriage of a two bit shock jock does not constitute a "Royal" wedding. Wake up Noco.




Well, I guess I could say the same thing about you sociaisl left wing Labor supporters.

WAKE UP to your mate Shorten and his use of Comcar use.

Your silence is deafening.


----------



## Calliope

sydboy007 said:


> I suppose when you think how long the Coalition let Slipper get away with his shenanigans, it's easy to see how they can start to think this kind of behaviour is acceptable.




Yes, I agree. They should have realised that when he made so many ComCar trips to Oxford Street and Kings Cross that the grub was up to no good.


----------



## Calliope

drsmith said:


> You might be jumping to conclusions a little hastily there.
> 
> Time will tell.




Yes indeed...time will tell. I'm afraid Doc that we have to face up to realities. Abbott's policy of turning back the boats, with the proviso of "where it's safe to do so" is  dead in the water, because* it will never be safe to do so*. These dilapidated leaky boats are hardly fit for a *one way* trip, They are way past the end of their useful life. 

The rhetoric has now been overtaken by the realisation that the only ones who can stop the boats are the Indonesians. If it is not in their interests why should they do so?

The Indonesian government is corrupt at all levels. Abbott's dilemma now, is how to buy their cooperation.



> He said reporting of some of the Coalition's policies had been overblown - scotching suggestions the Coalition had ever intended to tow back asylum-seeker boats to Indonesia. "Our policy, which we have repeated until we are blue in the face, is that we reserve the right to turn boats around where it's safe to do so. There is a lot of difference between turning boats around in Australian waters and the Australian navy towing them back to Indonesia.




 See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...on-asylum-boats/story-fn9hm1gu-1226731192934?


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Well, I guess I could say the same thing about you sociaisl left wing Labor supporters.
> 
> WAKE UP to your mate Shorten and his use of Comcar use.
> 
> Your silence is deafening.




What is your point?

Are you saying that he made billed tax payers for trips not related to his duties as a minister - similar to Abbott and his book signing tour perhaps?

IF you can show any of the trips he made at taxpayer expense shouldn't have been, then please present your evidence.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Have a read of this article by the SMH.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...00-taxpayerfunded-library-20131001-2upee.html
> 
> It is amazing the fine detail they can present on the purchasing of books.
> Yet could find 'sod all' on the purchasing of prostitutes, when Labor politicians where involved.  lol,lol,lol
> Here we go, here we go, the press union are on the go.lol
> 
> Really we need to move past this garbage and make journalists just report news.
> Good or bad for either side, journalism is meant to inform the public, not push their political agenda.
> 
> Also before you jump all over me, I don't watch Bolt, watched him once and thought he was just as bad as Kerry O'Keefe the red headed head banger).
> Hope a Labor person responds, as it is important, but without a debate it becomes a rant.




I don't seem to remember you criticising the Newscorp Newspapers over the last 6 months for some of the most blatantly biased articles and front pages I've ever seen in Australia.  Strange that it takes a non newscorp article to make you want journalism to focus on the "news".

I sort of agree with you there's too much focus on the little things, and not enough focus on the issues we need to be facing up to.  Governments at all levels have their heads in the sand over the age quake and falling workers to dependants.  There's also not enough scrutiny over what the politicians promise.  A much harder focus on keeping the bastards honest might help.

Still, I'm waiting for someone to tell me where the BUDGET CRISIS disappeared to.  3 years of Abbott screaming CRISIS here and CRISIS there, and now not a peep, not even mini budget to attack the CRISIS.  It just..disappeared


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> Agree.  It seems fairly reasonable that in a 24 hour visit to Indonesia, Mr Abbott should focus on pure diplomacy, a smoothing of the waters or basic establishment of a relationship.
> 
> He can't win with many people here.  Had he gone there, all guns blazing, telling the Indonesians to sod off, that he'd send all their damn boats back regardless of what they thought, he would have been blasted by the Left.  He is now being castigated by all sides for either kowtowing to Indonesia or failing to in 24 hours fully enunciate to Indonesia every aspect of Australia's border protection policy.
> 
> So unreasonable.




Julia, it's probably because he never enunciated a policy before the election.  It was just stop the boats, tow back the boats.  Nothing more to his policy.  He's now caught in the real world where you have to explain how you will do what you promised, along with how you work with others who have differing points of view or face other issues from the same source problem.

If Abbott had been a bit more honest in opposition then he might not be receiving the criticism he has.  I for one am happy he's toned down the rhetoric.  It wasn't doing us any good.

Abbott needed to start thinking and acting like he was in Government long before the election.  He didn't and this wont be the only issue he's faced with u-turning on.  He's already broken his election promise to not fund any infrastructure over $100M.  Malcolm has already changed the goal posts for the NBN review from 60 days on forming government to 60 days after a new NBN board is elected.

If Gillard was a liar over not following her election promise of no carbon tax, doesn't that make any politician a liar if they don't implement the policy they went to the election with?  How many times can Abbott and his ministers not do what they said they will do before we can use the liar term?


----------



## Julia

sydboy007 said:


> Julia, it's probably because he never enunciated a policy before the election.  It was just stop the boats, tow back the boats.  Nothing more to his policy.



"Stop the boats" - yes, he said this repeatedly.  If you can produce a single quote of him saying "Tow back the boats", then I'll be interested to see it.

What he did suggest was that part of the overall policy of stopping the boats (and yes, the phrase is simplistic) could include turning boats around where it was safe to do so.  That is not towing them back into Indonesian waters.  There is a very clear difference.

And in terms of simple fact, the government has already on two occasions, with the obvious co-operation of Indonesia - returned would be asylum seekers to Indonesia.

As I've said on now several occasions, why on earth can we not wait for a while to see how it all works out, rather than this urgent rush to pour scorn on pretty much every breath Mr Abbott takes?  Doesn't seem like an unreasonable expectation to me.


----------



## Calliope

Julia said:


> "
> 
> And in terms of simple fact, the government has already on two occasions, with the obvious co-operation of Indonesia - returned would be asylum seekers to Indonesia.




Indonesian boats in Indonesian waters! What else could they do? The only reason it hasn't occurred before was because our Border Patrol "Ferry Service" had been instructed to bring the smuggled illegals, off Indonesian boats in strife in Indonesian waters, (and in Indonesian Search and Rescue Region) to Christmas island. Abbott has at least stopped this nonsense. I hope.:dunno:

I think we can forget about "turning back the boats". We will have to rely on Rudd's PNG/Nauru "solution" with the threat of no entry to Australia.


----------



## drsmith

Calliope said:


> Yes indeed...time will tell. I'm afraid Doc that we have to face up to realities. Abbott's policy of turning back the boats, with the proviso of "where it's safe to do so" is  dead in the water, because* it will never be safe to do so*. These dilapidated leaky boats are hardly fit for a *one way* trip, They are way past the end of their useful life.
> 
> The rhetoric has now been overtaken by the realisation that the only ones who can stop the boats are the Indonesians. If it is not in their interests why should they do so?
> 
> The Indonesian government is corrupt at all levels. Abbott's dilemma now, is how to buy their cooperation.
> 
> See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...on-asylum-boats/story-fn9hm1gu-1226731192934?



To some extent at least, he is going to have to buy their cooperation, but that's the problem any government faces in attempting to solve this. Even Labor with its attempted political solutions had to ultimately buy the cooperation of PNG, Nauru and also with its attempted Malaysia solution for their implementation.

TA though from what I can tell is looking for a broader, more mutually beneficial relationship with Indonesia than existed under Labor to the benefit of both countries with live cattle being one example. 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ive-cattle-trade/story-fn59nm2j-1226731159137

If he is successful in this broader context, it will help to create a more constructive environment to deal with the asylum seeker problem within Indonesia itself as there will be a broader underlying incentive to do so.

The fault for the boat problem ultimately lies with the Labor idiology that recreated this illegal people smuggling trade in the first place.


----------



## drsmith

Has Fairfax political journalist Mark Kenny finally had a change of heart on Tony Abbott ?

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...tt-had-no-need-of-lplates-20131001-2uqry.html

IIRC, he described the Coalition's asylum policies as a shambles (or something similar of that nature) on the ABC's Insiders show on Sunday.

The Australian's Paul Kelly,



> In Jakarta, Abbott reached out to Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono in a personal, deferential and strategic sense.
> 
> The upshot is a situation once considered improbable. Abbott’s “make or break” pledge to stop the boats has become, in his words, a joint Australian-Indonesian project despite the different outlooks of the two nations…
> 
> Abbott ... said that because of support “over the past 24 hours by every level of the Indonesian government” he felt the boats issue could be solved, a landmark comment. On display in Jakarta is a more subtle and calculating Abbott than many expected. He tells the Australian media there is no change to his policy yet he tells the Indonesians he is prepared to work with them…
> 
> Whether boats will ever be turned is a moot point but the only conclusion from Abbott’s remarks is that operational collaboration will govern such activity…
> 
> The Abbott style as overseas PM was on display for the first time - firm, humble, constructive. It is an interesting mix. He doesn’t pretend to be an Asia expert or the smartest person in the room or morally superior. He knows what he wants but he is adaptable.




http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...he_bungler_in_indonesia_they_falsely_claimed/


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> What is your point?
> 
> Are you saying that he made billed tax payers for trips not related to his duties as a minister - similar to Abbott and his book signing tour perhaps?
> 
> IF you can show any of the trips he made at taxpayer expense shouldn't have been, then please present your evidence.




I said yesterday George Brandis should not have claimed for travel to Michael Smith’s wedding, even if he considered it as business more than pleasure. 

But reader G makes some interesting points: 

It was silly of Brandis, even though from 2 years ago. But the leftist comments of The Insiders yesterday morning were beyond the pale. Likewise, Shorten’s comments. I actually couldn’t get over the 3 minute visual montage that they played in homage to the Labor leadership. It will be very interesting to see who is paying for all these expenses along the way. 

Now, it might be a task for a school researcher, or junior cadet, etc, but the Parliamentary entitlement reports do make for interesting reading, especially the more detailed breakout reports concerning each politician. The most recent of these reports however are through to 31Dec12. 

But just taking the Jul/Dec12 report, for instance, whilst Brandis $0 in the 6 months on printing and communications, Shorten spent $57,700. Brandis spent $13,000 on COMCAR. Shorten spent $22,000. 

*Even on September 7th, Shorten charged a $25 infringement fee notice to the C/W on his private plated vehicle. He was in Melbourne at the time according to his airfare movements. Same day however, he spent $233 in COMCAR costs in 2 separate movements, $40 and $193. *Shorten’s COMCAR use came to $23,000, Brandis’ to $13,000. 

Family use COMCAR for Shorten was $234. For Brandis, it was $0. 

Brandis’ home state is QLD. In the 6 months, he had 5 COMCAR movements >$100 in Brisbane. He had 18 interstate COMCAR movements >$100. Brandis’ Brisbane spending on COMCAR (>$100) was $670 for the period. 

Now, for Shorten. He spent $22,400 in COMCAR costs during the 6 months, including 63 COMCAR movements >$100 each trip. Of these, 41 were within Melbourne, at a cost of $7,800 and 22 were interstate, at a cost of $3,300. 

*$9000 was spent reimbursing Shorten for family travel costs. For Brandis, it was $0.*http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...shorten_drove_our_dollars_a_lot_further/#iit=


----------



## McLovin

I thought Abbott did well in Indonesia. I think it was a master stroke to make trade and investment the theme of the meeting rather than asylum seekers. From Indonesia's perspective it probably showed that Australia's interest in Indonesia extends beyond Bali and boatpeople. When you look at the rising incomes of this enormous country right on our doorstep it is strange indeed that Australian business has hitherto ignored Indonesia.


----------



## Calliope

McLovin said:


> I thought Abbott did well in Indonesia. *I think it was a master stroke to make trade and investment the theme of the meeting rather than asylum seekers.* From Indonesia's perspective it probably showed that Australia's interest in Indonesia extends beyond Bali and boatpeople. When you look at the rising incomes of this enormous country right on our doorstep it is strange indeed that Australian business has hitherto ignored Indonesia.




I agree. At last he realises that he can't stop the boats. Only the Indonesians can do that. Any boat that pulls the plug after entering our waters will have it's cargo of illegals rescued by us and taken to Christmas Island. It has always been thus and will continue to be. Those who don't pull the plug will sail merrily on to be welcomed at the Island...to be on-forwarded to PNG/Nauru. 

One thing that will not happen is that is that any of them will be returning to Indonesia. You have to give the Indonesians credit. They are playing with a stacked deck. Only they, can enable Abbott to keep his top priority election promise.


----------



## sydboy007

McLovin said:


> I thought Abbott did well in Indonesia. I think it was a master stroke to make trade and investment the theme of the meeting rather than asylum seekers. From Indonesia's perspective it probably showed that Australia's interest in Indonesia extends beyond Bali and boatpeople. When you look at the rising incomes of this enormous country right on our doorstep it is strange indeed that Australian business has hitherto ignored Indonesia.




We're VERY luck to have had SBY as the Indonesian president for so long.  i think just about any other leader there would have returned fire more than a few times to the silly domestic oriented political rhetoric.

I worry what the relationship will be like when he steps down as he can't stand for a 3rd term.


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> Has Fairfax political journalist Mark Kenny finally had a change of heart on Tony Abbott ?
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...tt-had-no-need-of-lplates-20131001-2uqry.html
> 
> IIRC, he described the Coalition's asylum policies as a shambles (or something similar of that nature) on the ABC's Insiders show on Sunday.
> 
> The Australian's Paul Kelly,
> 
> 
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...he_bungler_in_indonesia_they_falsely_claimed/




Shorter Paul Kelly: Now that he's in power he can drop the pretense he's going to turn back the boats (for operational reasons of course).


----------



## drsmith

banco said:


> Shorter Paul Kelly: Now that he's in power he can drop the pretense he's going to turn back the boats (for operational reasons of course).



the term "Turn back the boats" was for domestic political purposes.

If there's a better way with Indonesia's cooperation, then so be it. The aim after all is to stop them.


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> the term "Turn back the boats" was for domestic political purposes.
> 
> If there's a better way with Indonesia's cooperation, then so be it. The aim after all is to stop them.




If by "domestic political purposes" you meant it was a policy that he never had any intention of implementing and just put out there to get the more gullible bogans riled up (noco etc.) then I agree.  

He hasn't gotten anything new from Indonesia with regards to cooperation  on asylum seekers so the idea that they've presented him with some fantastic policy to replace his fake turn back the boats policy is silly.


----------



## drsmith

The aim of turning back the boats is to turn back the asylum seekers that are on board them.

We've already had at least two examples of that since the Abbott government was sworn in with the cooperation of the Indonesians.


----------



## fiftyeight

drsmith said:


> the term "Turn back the boats" was for domestic political purposes.
> 
> If there's a better way with Indonesia's cooperation, then so be it. The aim after all is to stop them.




That is one of the worst one sided arguments/defenses I have heard in a long time.

Just deleted a long winded reply, if I need to justify what I said im talking to someone who will never get it anyway


----------



## MrBurns

drsmith said:


> the term "Turn back the boats" was for domestic political purposes.
> 
> If there's a better way with Indonesia's cooperation, then so be it. The aim after all is to stop them.




Exactly but the media are so hell bent on a story they persist with anything that might be remotely controversial, especially the ABC.


----------



## drsmith

fiftyeight said:


> That is one of the worst one sided arguments/defenses I have heard in a long time.
> 
> Just deleted a long winded reply, *if I need to justify what I said im talking to someone who will never get it anyway*



If it was a continuation of attacking the poster, then it obviously wasn't worth reading in any case.

My bolds.


----------



## fiftyeight

I attacked your argument/defense.

I never said you  would not get it.


----------



## drsmith

fiftyeight said:


> I attacked your argument/defense.
> 
> I never said you  would not get it.



Did you save that long winded reply ?

I'm curious as to what can be written and then deleted in a maximum time of 3-minutes.


----------



## Julia

fiftyeight said:


> I attacked your argument/defense.
> 
> I never said you  would not get it.



Um, yes you did.



fiftyeight said:


> That is one of the worst one sided arguments/defenses I have heard in a long time.
> 
> Just deleted a long winded reply, if I need to justify what I said *im talking to someone who will never get it anyway*




Just seems unnecessarily rude.


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> If it was a continuation of attacking the poster, then it obviously wasn't worth reading in any case.
> 
> My bolds.







Julia said:


> Um, yes you did.
> 
> 
> 
> Just seems unnecessarily rude.





LOL good god wouldn't be any thing like the pages and pages directed at me or any one else making a point about Abbotts many faults.

- - - Updated - - -

Speaking of faults

Ministers' muzzling a dangerous strategy in government





> In one of the lighter moments towards the end of the recent presidential-style election campaign, Labor's campaign headquarters issued a press statement configured as a faux police bulletin.
> 
> It said grave fears were held for the whereabouts of once high profile Liberals, Peter Dutton, Sophie Mirabella, and Eric Abetz.
> 
> The respective health, industry, and workplace relations shadow ministers had become almost invisible. Labor was desperate to draw them on to policy terrain usually judged as stronger for the ALP.
> 
> Unsurprisingly, the Coalition was just as desperate to keep them quiet




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/ministers-muzzling-a-dangerous-strategy-in-government-20131003-2utc1.html#ixzz2gbKGuRWA

Abbott broke law with media shutout, say Indonesian journalists



> Tony Abbott has incurred the wrath of Indonesia's journalists by excluding them from a press conference, and even committed a criminal offence, according to the head of the country's journalists' union.
> 
> Local journalists were incensed that, on the Australian Prime Minister's first official visit, he locked them out of his Tuesday morning press conference.
> 
> Indonesian language newspaper Rakyat Merdeka spent a large part of page 10 of its Wednesday edition focused on the snub, saying it was discriminatory.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abbott-broke-law-with-media-shutout-say-indonesian-journalists-20131002-2usnn.html#ixzz2gbKTFKKg


----------



## Whiskers

AEC just confirmed three PUP senators.

Cause & effect! 

Que sera sera

Party back room deals came back to bite em all.

Labor paid their price and moved quickly to reform.

Abbott vacillating...  political price = test of integrity = having to suffer that which he criticized Labor for, a minority government (in Senate) in the meantime and have to deal with product of LNP back room deals feud until he passes test.


----------



## Julia

Whiskers said:


> AEC just confirmed three PUP senators.
> 
> Cause & effect!
> 
> Que sera sera
> 
> Party back room deals came back to bite em all.
> 
> Labor paid their price and moved quickly to reform.
> 
> Abbott vacillating...  political price = test of integrity = having to suffer that which he criticized Labor for, a minority government (in Senate) in the meantime and have to deal with product of LNP back room deals feud until he passes test.



I think you'll find that the new senate will be large right wing and will support the government on many issues.
So maybe reserve your crowing for a while.


----------



## Whiskers

Julia said:


> I think you'll find that the new senate will be large right wing and will support the government on many issues.
> So maybe reserve your crowing for a while.




Not crowing... just noting the irony and 'natural justice' that has settled out from the election.

Essentially, we're in the same position as before in that the balance of the 'actors in the circus ' is a bit to the right of centre. 

Someone has to step up to do what it takes to earn the overwhelming support of the electorate again or we appear to be on track for a lot more minority governments and new 'pups' on the block.

On face value the senate seems more to the right, but especially if Palmer holds his seat in the reps, and given his strategy this election has been more successful than others, it's likely he'll have more effect on the formulation of laws than first thought due to his hostility toward the LNP and his ambition to become the dominant political player. That is we're likely to see him play the man (his arch enemy, the LNP) harder than the ball (merit of laws) for political advantage.

Given Palmer has aligned with Labor on some policy, and what may be the most important issue by next election in terms of the electorate... open scrutiny and grass roots representation, if the LNP does not reform accountability of their party, that may be all that Palmer and the Labor need to dwell on to justify a standoff in law making and set themselves up on a bit higher moral podium to damage the LNP chances of maintaining their 1.8% swing.

The real test is to come, when parliament reconvenes. 

For example, Abbott has an implicit duty to introduce laws to change the AEC act for next election... as 'common sense' demands...  if he does this before the LNP changes it's preselection ways, all these polys that got in on by beating the big parties at their own back room game are likely to play the hypocrite card to good effect... cry moral standards, 'the LNP is only interested in self preservation' all the way to next election all over again with limited good law being passed.

In the end Abbott not only has to do good things, but be seen to be openly accountable to grass roots by next election. By virtue of being the last cab off the reformed party ways rank, there's a contradiction in there that leaves him at a disadvantage.


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> LOL good god wouldn't be any thing like the pages and pages directed at me or any one else making a point about Abbotts many faults.



That's not pages and pages of anything around your feet. 

It's your own feathers.


----------



## Julia

Whiskers said:


> On face value the senate seems more to the right, but especially if Palmer holds his seat in the reps, and given his strategy this election has been more successful than others, it's likely he'll have more effect on the formulation of laws than first thought due to his hostility toward the LNP and his ambition to become the dominant political player. That is we're likely to see him play the man (his arch enemy, the LNP) harder than the ball (merit of laws) for political advantage.



You're omitting his natural political philosophical bias which is to the right.
Yes, he's peeved that he was essentially thrown out of the LNP in Qld and like a kid whose toy has been taken away, will be wanting revenge.  Mr Palmer might be rich, but I doubt he's particularly mature for a person of his age.


----------



## McLovin

Calliope said:


> I agree. At last he realises that he can't stop the boats. Only the Indonesians can do that. Any boat that pulls the plug after entering our waters will have it's cargo of illegals rescued by us and taken to Christmas Island. It has always been thus and will continue to be. Those who don't pull the plug will sail merrily on to be welcomed at the Island...to be on-forwarded to PNG/Nauru.
> 
> One thing that will not happen is that is that any of them will be returning to Indonesia. You have to give the Indonesians credit. They are playing with a stacked deck. Only they, can enable Abbott to keep his top priority election promise.




Hey we're agreeing.


----------



## sptrawler

As per usual, Abbott hasn't gone in guns blazing(contrary to Labor portraying him as the 'mad monk), he again is taking the steady,measured approach.

I find it refreshing, not seeing the prime minister, front and centre on the t.v making another stupid ill thought out announcement.

To me the government should be seen and only heard when there is a problem. 
They aren't elected to be t.v personalities, they're elected to get on with the job of running the country.
Labor couldn't get their heads around that.IMO


----------



## drsmith

It's still early days yet, but since Tony Abbott's visit to Indonesia, there's been no boats.

We'll still get more yet I suspect, but the trend since the Coalition was sworn in is encouraging.


----------



## Whiskers

Julia said:


> You're omitting his natural political philosophical bias which is to the right.
> Yes, he's peeved that he was essentially thrown out of the LNP in Qld and like a kid whose toy has been taken away, will be wanting revenge.  Mr Palmer might be rich, but I doubt he's particularly mature for a person of his age.




I'm thinking the main points are he's peeved and powerful and ambitious too... maybe part of the reason why he won support and Katter didn't, is he stated up front he wanted to be PM. 

Looking through history that's a very volatile political combination that's often underestimated. Think people like Berlusconi in Italy and the turmoil he has caused over a long time.

I'm also thinking Palmer may be more mature than you give him credit for. He's not appearing as bad as Joh Bjelke-Petersen's rantings (yet) and Joh was very calculating and charismatic enough to stay in power for a long time albeit with a little help from a gerrymander.


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> It's still early days yet, but since Tony Abbott's visit to Indonesia, there's been no boats.
> 
> We'll still get more yet I suspect, but the trend since the Coalition was sworn in is encouraging.




yep the Coalition are geniuses.


----------



## bunyip

IFocus said:


> yep the Coalition are geniuses.




I thought the real geniuses were your Labor heroes who inherited no debt and a big budget surplus and quickly turned them into a big debt and a big budget deficit, scrapped the Pacific Solution and let the boats come flooding in at a cost of 12 thousand million dollars, introduced new business-stifling taxes, shut down overnight an export trade worth hundreds of millions of dollars to the national economy, cut funding to essential services, and blew twenty thousand million dollars on stupid, wasteful projects.

Despite all that, not once did I hear you criticize them when they were in power. Not once. Yet since the Libs came to power you've never shut up with your criticism.


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> yep the Coalition are geniuses.



One of the telling differences is the extent to which political news has declined in comparison to Labor in office.

Overall, this Coalition government is off to a good start.


----------



## drsmith

On the failure of the political tactics against Tony Abbott, the following article from The Australian's Chris Kenny is an interesting read.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...gs-of-love-media/story-fn8qlm5e-1226733191836


----------



## Julia

Whiskers said:


> AEC just confirmed three PUP senators.
> 
> Cause & effect!
> 
> Que sera sera
> 
> Party back room deals came back to bite em all.
> 
> Labor paid their price and moved quickly to reform.
> 
> *Abbott vacillating...  political price = test of integrity = having to suffer that which he criticized Labor for, a minority government (in Senate) i*n the meantime and have to deal with product of LNP back room deals feud until he passes test.






Julia said:


> I think you'll find that the new senate will be large right wing and will support the government on many issues.
> So maybe reserve your crowing for a while.






Whiskers said:


> Not crowing... just noting the irony and 'natural justice' that has settled out from the election.



Front page of today's "Weekend Australian", Whiskers,  "Senators line up with PM to axe Taxes":
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...tt-to-axe-taxes/story-fn59niix-1226733284477#
As I'd thought, Mr Abbott will have the numbers in the new Senate to get his carbon and mining taxes repealed.
Still think it's natural justice, Whiskers?


----------



## wayneL

Julia said:


> Still think it's natural justice, Whiskers?




I don't know whether justice is ever natural, but it has been at least poetic in the last little bit


----------



## drsmith

On the carbon tax, the Coalition will be looking to tighten the screws on Labor.



> Coalition frontbencher Jamie Briggs says his party does not want to wait until next year to scrap the tax.
> 
> "This is a major turning point for the Australian Labor Party," he told Sky News.
> 
> "If they back the inner city Greens against their traditional base again on this issue, they are going to face an increasing problem as a political movement.
> 
> "We are going to force them to make these decisions before July next year."




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-05/government-pushes-for-carbon-tax-repeal-by-july/5000692


----------



## noco

bunyip said:


> I thought the real geniuses were your Labor heroes who inherited no debt and a big budget surplus and quickly turned them into a big debt and a big budget deficit, scrapped the Pacific Solution and let the boats come flooding in at a cost of 12 thousand million dollars, introduced new business-stifling taxes, shut down overnight an export trade worth hundreds of millions of dollars to the national economy, cut funding to essential services, and blew twenty thousand million dollars on stupid, wasteful projects.
> 
> Despite all that, not once did I hear you criticize them when they were in power. Not once. Yet since the Libs came to power you've never shut up with your criticism.




Well bunyip, it did not take long for the grubs to come out of the woodwork after the election.

They have all been to sleep for the past 6 years.

- - - Updated - - -



drsmith said:


> On the carbon tax, the Coalition will be looking to tighten the screws on Labor.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-05/government-pushes-for-carbon-tax-repeal-by-july/5000692




Doc, both Sorten and Albo have both said if the carbon tax is scrapped, they will reintruduce it as a policy at the next election.

I think they are "DUMB AND DUMBER"

I believed it was one of the many reason why they lost the 2013 election.


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> Front page of today's "Weekend Australian", Whiskers,  "Senators line up with PM to axe Taxes":
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...tt-to-axe-taxes/story-fn59niix-1226733284477#
> As I'd thought, Mr Abbott will have the numbers in the new Senate to get his carbon and mining taxes repealed.
> Still think it's natural justice, Whiskers?




Does this mean all the subsidies for coal and other fossil fuels will also be removed?  Will wind farms / solar PV and other low emissions technologies get the same level of Govt support as the fossil fuel industry?

http://www.marketforces.org.au/where-your-taxes-go.html

Admittedly not all about the resource industry, but a fair chunk is.  A level playing field is a good start to seeing which industries have a long term future without the need for never ending subsidies.

http://www.acfonline.org.au/sites/default/files/resources/G20_fossil_fuel_subsidies_25-6-10.pdf  shows a more direct level of subsidies to around the $7B a year mark.  I never knew that aircraft attract no import tax, but trains and buses do, so the highest polluting means of transport is tax free.  Why 

All these subsidies mean other taxes are higher than they need to be.  $7B is a decent income tax cut, or funding for metro rail systems on the east cost over a few years.


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> On the failure of the political tactics against Tony Abbott, the following article from The Australian's Chris Kenny is an interesting read.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...gs-of-love-media/story-fn8qlm5e-1226733191836




Its convoluted and bias with a complete disregard of historical fact the usual Murdoch sycophant speal.

- - - Updated - - -



Julia said:


> Front page of today's "Weekend Australian", Whiskers,  "Senators line up with PM to axe Taxes":
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...tt-to-axe-taxes/story-fn59niix-1226733284477#
> As I'd thought, Mr Abbott will have the numbers in the new Senate to get his carbon and mining taxes repealed.
> Still think it's natural justice, Whiskers?




I read a few opinions now from the Labor camp saying Labor should stand aside so that Abbott gets to repeal the Carbon tax so he gets the full effect of the issues surrounding its removal.

- - - Updated - - -



bunyip said:


> Despite all that, not once did I hear you criticize them when they were in power. Not once. Yet since the Libs came to power you've never shut up with your criticism.




Yep and I'll be ripping it up them at every opportunity, given the Coalition front bench was not formed on merit I'll have endless material so toughen up princess's.


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> Yep and I'll be ripping it up them at every opportunity, given the Coalition front bench was not formed on merit I'll have endless material so toughen up princess's.




I'm looking forward to something of substance in your posts, no doubt the opportunity will eventuate.


----------



## drsmith

A new avatar for IF now his lot are in the wilderness.


----------



## sails

bunyip said:


> I thought the real geniuses were your Labor heroes who inherited no debt and a big budget surplus and quickly turned them into a big debt and a big budget deficit, scrapped the Pacific Solution and let the boats come flooding in at a cost of 12 thousand million dollars, introduced new business-stifling taxes, shut down overnight an export trade worth hundreds of millions of dollars to the national economy, cut funding to essential services, and blew twenty thousand million dollars on stupid, wasteful projects.
> 
> Despite all that, not once did I hear you criticize them when they were in power. Not once. Yet since the Libs came to power you've never shut up with your criticism.




Well said, Bunyip!





IFocus said:


> Yep and I'll be ripping it up them at every opportunity, given the Coalition front bench was not formed on merit I'll have endless material so toughen up princess's.




Whatever rocks your boat, IF, but I doubt many are listening.  While Abbott performs so well you will only come across like a sore loser spewing hot air...

Why are you opposing the will of the majority?

Why are you opposed to having our borders secured again?  Why are you opposed to repeal a tax the majority never wanted?  Why are you opposed  to bring our debt under control?  These issues are of concern to Australia.  Or are your political opinions more important than the best interests of this country?


----------



## Whiskers

Julia said:


> Front page of today's "Weekend Australian", Whiskers,  "Senators line up with PM to axe Taxes":
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...tt-to-axe-taxes/story-fn59niix-1226733284477#
> As I'd thought, Mr Abbott will have the numbers in the new Senate to get his carbon and mining taxes repealed.
> Still think it's natural justice, Whiskers?




Absolutely! That's a very superficial and short sighted interpretation, Julia.

It's "natural" and should be of no surprise that Palmer would want to dump these taxes, BUT the "justice" part has a long way to go yet.

You don't think Palmer is going to want something in return for his support as the greens did? You think he's going to just be a yes man for the man he openly wants to remove as PM!? and... 

There are still problems with some states being accused of fiddling their royalties and other charges too high to capitalise on the botched Labor systems and the consequences of it all to fall out in COAG negotiations.

If you read my other posts, I promoted the abolition of the Carbon and mining tax in its present form. 

While I've supported the notion of redesigning the whole tax distribution to states and state levied royalties system for a long time, Labor botched up an opportunity for reform of the much exploited state based royalty system to lure mining to their state by lower royalties and state based taxes and claim higher Fed redistribution of and apportionment of taxes. It's all in the way the formulas are operated.

But it doesn't change the fact of
_
"having to suffer that which he criticized Labor for, a minority government (in Senate) in the meantime and have to deal with product of LNP back room deals feud until he passes test."​_
In English law, natural justice is technical terminology for the rule against bias and the right to a fair hearing. While the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, it has largely been replaced and extended by the more general "duty to act fairly".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_justice​
The horse trading has not started yet. People have just signalled what they want... wait until we hear or just see (in the event of back room deals) the cost (trade offs) of doing business in a minority government... whether that cost will be more or less than Labor's effort.

The real test will come with new initiatives Abbott unveils as time goes by.


----------



## Whiskers

wayneL said:


> I don't know whether justice is ever natural, but it has been at least poetic in the last little bit




Yeah, a bit more jumping to conclusions from shadows... as in the "ABC is political thread" argument... virtue (a foundation of principle) is a bit more substantial than the vice (a fault, a negative character trait, a defect, an infirmity, or a bad or unhealthy habit) of bias. 

As mentioned above, all we are seeing atm is a bit of preliminary shadow boxing. The game (ultimately test) of natural justice has yet to come.  

Poetic justice is a literary device in which virtue is ultimately rewarded or vice punished, often in modern literature by an ironic twist of fate intimately related to the character's own conduct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poetic_justice[1]​


----------



## sydboy007

seems the Coalition certainly know how to milk the tax payers

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...r-mps-bollywood-adventure-20131005-2v0wf.html

I do love the knowledge boom boom Barnaby gained from his single day in Malaysia.  Certainly you couldn't have googled all that he found out within 30 minutes 

It was terrible the way the Labor Minister for Resources didn't think it was appropriate to attend.

Let the justifications begin


----------



## Whiskers

sydboy007 said:


> seems the Coalition certainly know how to milk the tax payers
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...r-mps-bollywood-adventure-20131005-2v0wf.html
> 
> I do love the knowledge boom boom Barnaby gained from his single day in Malaysia.  Certainly you couldn't have googled all that he found out within 30 minutes
> 
> It was terrible the way the Labor Minister for Resources didn't think it was appropriate to attend.
> 
> Let the justifications begin




Certainly not a good look, not that the flimsy criteria for 'study tours' and 'travel expenses' and claimed by 99% (can't recall the odd exception atm) of politicians is anything new...

BUT, this is the natural justice for Abbotts policy of a closed door government... the journos have plenty of spare time on their hands to catch up on some research. 

I'm sure Abbott is familiar with the 50/50 and 80/20 rules of Advertising, but it could be more natural justice that he is unable to do two things at once... run the government as well as control or at least dominate the (political landscape) headlines with proactive content of his making, than reactive at best and negative content like this of a closed door government.

If he doesn't 'feed the chooks' a bit better he may become acutely aware of the consequences, that on average, 8 out of 10 people will read headlines but only 2 out of 10 will read the full story... which is particularly significant in terms of the vulnerability of only a 1.8% swing to the LNP (as in popularity) and most of the swing against Labor going elsewhere, mostly to the man who wants to topple him as PM, Palmer.

This headline is a bit benign, but cumulative negative headlines erode confidence in the absence of counter balancing favourable ones... or is Abbott confident his government has no really dirty linen at all that could be construed into good copy and politically damaging headlines?


----------



## IFocus

sails said:


> Whatever rocks your boat, IF, but I doubt many are listening.  While Abbott performs so well you will only come across like a sore loser spewing hot air...




You would be talking about Abbott for the last 3 years there.

 I wasn't sore or even wildly upset about Labor losing the election the leadership changes and the people involved needed to be sorted and that was never going to happen in government.

Certainly my disappointment is that some one with the past of Abbott and the form (non performance) of the Coalition front bench are now in government.



> Why are you opposing the will of the majority?




Are you suggesting there shouldn't be a discourse over any government elected?



> Why are you opposed to having our borders secured again?




Are they? We (you don't know)



> Why are you opposed to repeal a tax the majority never wanted?




To show what a fraud Abbott is.




> Why are you opposed  to bring our debt under control?




You are kidding me the Coalition are proposing to expand the national Australia Government debt. WA has lost our AAA credit rating due to debt accumulated under a Coalition government is that what you call control?



> These issues are of concern to Australia.  Or are your political opinions more important than the best interests of this country?




I have yet to see how the best interests of Australia are served by an Abbott government, fascinating to see how Abbott had to rush off to Indonesia to patch up a mess of his own making being seen as a great success!

- - - Updated - - -



drsmith said:


> A new avatar for IF now his lot are in the wilderness.





Ah yes the memories when I was much younger....wild and reckless.


----------



## 13ugs13unny

sydboy007 said:


> seems the Coalition certainly know how to milk the tax payers
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...r-mps-bollywood-adventure-20131005-2v0wf.html
> 
> I do love the knowledge boom boom Barnaby gained from his single day in Malaysia.  Certainly you couldn't have googled all that he found out within 30 minutes
> 
> It was terrible the way the Labor Minister for Resources didn't think it was appropriate to attend.
> 
> Let the justifications begin




People will remember what Abbott said almost every day: "WE WILL END THE WASTE, pay back the debt, stop the big new taxes and stop the boats."

To end the waste? LIARS.

[But Barnaby Joyce, Julie Bishop and Teresa Gambaro collectively claimed more than $12,000 in ''overseas study'' allowances to pay for their flights home.]


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> Ah yes the memories when I was much younger....wild and reckless.



In that case, feathers simply haven't come with age.



IFocus said:


> I have yet to see how the best interests of Australia are served by an Abbott government, fascinating to see how Abbott had to rush off to Indonesia to patch up a mess of his own making being seen as a great success!



He'll stop the boats Labor started.

A trip to Indonesia was always intended as an early priority.


----------



## IFocus

Starts at the top


Tony Abbott repays travel costs for wedding in Wangaratta



> EXCLUSIVE: PRIME Minister Tony Abbott charged taxpayers for his travel costs when he attended the wedding of a Liberal MP in Victoria.
> 
> Mr Abbott's office said he had repaid $1094 for a 2006 trip to Wangaratta for the wedding of recently defeated Liberal frontbencher Sophie Mirabella, after questions from the Sunday Herald Sun.




Mind you he is a serial offender yep the adults are in charge!



> It is the second time Mr Abbott has repaid travel entitlements he had claimed from taxpayers.
> 
> In 2010 he repaid $9,400 he had claimed for a 2009 book-tour to promote his book Battlelines.




http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...ng-in-wangaratta/story-fnihslxi-1226733507793


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> He'll stop the boats Labor started.
> 
> .




Hmmm from the Coalition propaganda machine





> But these are early days. The government is sorting out new tactics and new chains of command. It was sobering that Abbott's success in Jakarta and Morrison's stumble at home coincided with the arrival of at least four boats carrying more than 250 people. On every level, Operation Sovereign Borders is a work in progress. -




See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...y-fn59niix-1226733194379#sthash.VcPpOTS5.dpuf


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> Hmmm from the Coalition propaganda machine
> 
> See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...y-fn59niix-1226733194379#sthash.VcPpOTS5.dpuf



Isn't that from the rag that you regard as,



IFocus said:


> convoluted and bias with a complete disregard of historical fact the usual Murdoch sycophant speal.




With two maritime handovers of asylum seekers to Indonesian authorities before TA even went to Indonesia as evidence, I think you'll find the seeds for future success were sewn before the actual visit.


----------



## noco

drsmith said:


> A new avatar for IF now his lot are in the wilderness.




Doc If IF keeps squaking like this he will lose more than his feathers, I think someone will want to ring his neck.

As quoted by IFocus
*"You are kidding me the Coalition are proposing to expand the national Australia Government debt. WA has lost our AAA credit rating due to debt accumulated under a Coalition government is that what you call control?"

*I wonder why he has never criticised the Beattie/Bligh left wing socialist governemnt when Queensland lost its AAA rating.  They 
were borrowing money to pay public servants. Pot calling the kettle black.


No doubt the IF cheer squad will jump on Peter Van Onselen twisted comments about what Abbott has or has not achieved in three weeks...... what will they be like in the next 12 months?

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...d_after_three_weeks_of_not_breaking_promises/


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> seems the Coalition certainly know how to milk the tax payers
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...r-mps-bollywood-adventure-20131005-2v0wf.html
> 
> I do love the knowledge boom boom Barnaby gained from his single day in Malaysia.  Certainly you couldn't have googled all that he found out within 30 minutes
> 
> It was terrible the way the Labor Minister for Resources didn't think it was appropriate to attend.
> 
> Let the justifications begin



Some perspective,

http://www.news.com.au/national-new...ravel-perk-rules/story-e6frfkw9-1225993347272


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> Starts at the top
> 
> 
> Tony Abbott repays travel costs for wedding in Wangaratta
> 
> 
> 
> Mind you he is a serial offender yep the adults are in charge!
> [/url]




Yes at least they are not being investigated by the police and summoned to court, makes a pleasant change to the political climate.


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> Hmmm from the Coalition propaganda machine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...y-fn59niix-1226733194379#sthash.VcPpOTS5.dpuf




Well you have to admit, he has done more in four weeks than Labor did in six years.


----------



## sails

Whiskers said:


> Certainly not a good look, not that the flimsy criteria for 'study tours' and 'travel expenses' and claimed by 99% (can't recall the odd exception atm) of politicians is anything new......




It's never been a good look.  But people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones:



> "Soon-to-be-ex Labor MP Simon Crean is in the news this morning after jetting off on a taxpayer-funded study trip to Europe with his wife. The trip?””?which comes after a sojourn to Cambodia in May, also with his wife?””?could include Italian cooking lessons and a trip to Venice."




Read more:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/07/10...em-on-overseas-sojourns/?wpmp_switcher=mobile


and


Senator Crossin went on a study tour with her spouse to France and the UK *after *she was sacked by Gillard and only weeks before she left parliament:


Read about it here:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...eaves-parliament/story-fnho52jp-1226677303788


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

The Abbott Government will be the best since Menzies.

And it is already proving so.

The Indonesians have been assured that meat will flow to their people, that migration of economic migrants through their country will be arrested and that Australia is a friend, not a rabble of leftie nut jobs.

gg


----------



## MrBurns

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The Abbott Government will be the best since Menzies.
> 
> And it is already proving so.
> 
> The Indonesians have been assured that meat will flow to their people, that migration of economic migrants through their country will be arrested and that Australia is a friend, not a rabble of leftie nut jobs.
> 
> gg




Bloody oath


----------



## noco

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The Abbott Government will be the best since Menzies.
> 
> And it is already proving so.
> 
> The Indonesians have been assured that meat will flow to their people, that migration of economic migrants through their country will be arrested and that Australia is a friend, not a rabble of leftie nut jobs.
> 
> gg




Yes GG, Abbott is like a breath of fresh air.


----------



## basilio

I think it's  clever and good idea for Coalition Ministers to fess up  now on various questionable expenses they have claimed. Coming out together they can disperse  any  credibility hit.  And most importantly there won't be the steady drip, drip, drip of ongoing questions.

The next issue will be how Abbott handles ongoing expense claims. Nick Xenaphon had a refreshing insight on todays radio when he called for all MPS to write at least a couple of lines against claims to explain what they were for. He also suggested that MPS should go economy class for flights under 2 hours and save us a bundle of business flight charges. he pointed out he did this and his  flight costs are half that of similar MPs. He also mentioned that MP's got an extra $50,000 a yeat pay rise in part to replace taxpayer funds O/S trips.

Andrew Hewson has chimed in with similar calls for the Govt to be vigilant with the expense claims of its members if it wants to be regarded as serious in its credentials as  a responsible, careful economic manager.

And then to round it off Peter Reith offers the  following comment



> But former Howard government minister Peter Reith disagrees, describing the wedding expenses scandals as ''petty'' and a*rguing that politicians should be entitled to unlimited travel*. ''I don't understand how you can have a system
> 
> which says that some things that ministers do are part of business and others aren't,'' Mr Reith said.
> 
> ''I think it's ridiculous putting limits on where ministers can go.''
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...t-lift-game-20131006-2v2bf.html#ixzz2gzerFyVe


----------



## dutchie

Mr Reith said ,

''I think it's ridiculous putting limits on where ministers can go.''



What a ridiculous statement!


----------



## 13ugs13unny

sptrawler said:


> Yes at least they are not being investigated by the police and summoned to court, makes a pleasant change to the political climate.




Why not?  If they are obfuscating the truth to the public - using taxpayer money to attend private or personal functions like Craig Thompson did, why should it be any more lenient.

Neither of these events that were attended were official state of national funerals or royal weddings, or official functions like the international fleet review, recently. Certainly no official study you can't poke sarcasm at.

It was not official business, they were private wedding parties. The return trip was to cloak the expense to make it appear as official business to study what exactly in one day? Lets disclose it for what it is, it was to make it appear as official business so the MP would not have to pay from their own pockets.

Its a disgrace that our MP's and elite people like Gina Rinehart are behaving like Russian oligarchs in what appeared to be courting Indian Billionaires at private non state sanctioned functions using taxpayer money on unofficial levels, that may result in business that will affect BHP, RIO or other ASX companies and their shareholders.

Its not a code of behaviour your constituents voted for. IMHO lift your game otherwise not fit to hold an honest office, get out.


----------



## Calliope

13ugs13unny said:


> using taxpayer money to attend private or personal functions like Craig Thompson did, why should it be any more lenient.




I think you will find that Thomson allegedly used Health Service Union funds for "private or personal" functions. This is a union that represents mainly lowly paid health workers. FWA recommended that he be charged with"substantial misuse of members' funds".


----------



## Julia

basilio said:


> I think it's  clever and good idea for Coalition Ministers to fess up  now on various questionable expenses they have claimed. Coming out together they can disperse  any  credibility hit.  And most importantly there won't be the steady drip, drip, drip of ongoing questions.
> 
> The next issue will be how Abbott handles ongoing expense claims. Nick Xenaphon had a refreshing insight on todays radio when he called for all MPS to write at least a couple of lines against claims to explain what they were for. He also suggested that MPS should go economy class for flights under 2 hours and save us a bundle of business flight charges. he pointed out he did this and his  flight costs are half that of similar MPs. He also mentioned that MP's got an extra $50,000 a yeat pay rise in part to replace taxpayer funds O/S trips.
> 
> Andrew Hewson has chimed in with similar calls for the Govt to be vigilant with the expense claims of its members if it wants to be regarded as serious in its credentials as  a responsible, careful economic manager.



I just don't understand any politician, for some paltry sum, risking their credibility and laying themselves open to justifiable attack from the other side.

Bas, it's John Hewson.


----------



## DB008

Doesn't look good for the Libs at all.

1 month in and they have already been caught with their pants down claiming doggy travel expenses...

It's almost like the temptation for some MP's is just too big to pass.

There is also another story floating around of a ALP minister who flew to France (with wife in tow), to watch Le Tour, but claimed it was to do with 'bike roads et al'....


----------



## MrBurns

DB008 said:


> Doesn't look good for the Libs at all.
> 
> 1 month in and they have already been caught with their pants down claiming doggy travel expenses...
> 
> It's almost like the temptation for some MP's is just too big to pass.
> 
> There is also another story floating around of a ALP minister who flew to France (with wife in tow), to watch Le Tour, but claimed it was to do with 'bike roads et al'....




I think those are more oversights, these guys cant keep an eye on everything that goes on, some are claimable some aren't etc Tony Abbott wouldn't cheat for a crummy $1000 on purpose, BUT a lousy low life like Craig Emerson would.


----------



## dutchie

MrBurns said:


> I think those are more oversights, these guys cant keep an eye on everything that goes on, some are claimable some aren't etc Tony Abbott wouldn't cheat for a crummy $1000 on purpose, BUT a lousy low life like Craig Emerson would.




Yes, politicians get so many perks how on earth are they suppose to keep up with them.

I know, reduce the perks!

They are all tarred with the same brush. If they can get away with it they will.

The system lends itself to be abused.


----------



## MrBurns

dutchie said:


> Yes, politicians get so many perks how on earth are they suppose to keep up with them.
> 
> I know, reduce the perks!
> 
> They are all tarred with the same brush. If they can get away with it they will.
> 
> The system lends itself to be abused.




It's so easy for them business merges with private and they just don't even think about it.

We would all be the same, but there are some that are serial rorters and do it on purpose.


----------



## DB008

MrBurns said:


> I think those are more oversights, these guys cant keep an eye on everything that goes on, some are claimable some aren't etc Tony Abbott wouldn't cheat for a crummy $1000 on purpose, BUT a lousy low life like Craig Emerson would.




Does one central figure (person) sign off (authorise) ???

How does the system work? Do they travel, then retro-claim expenses?




dutchie said:


> Yes, politicians get so many perks how on earth are they suppose to keep up with them.
> 
> I know, reduce the perks!
> 
> They are all tarred with the same brush. If they can get away with it they will.
> 
> The system lends itself to be abused.




I think you are right dutchie, the system might need fixing.


----------



## sydboy007

MrBurns said:


> It's so easy for them business merges with private and they just don't even think about it.
> 
> We would all be the same, but there are some that are serial rorters and do it on purpose.




I would say most of us are a lot more careful with the claims we make with the ATO because of the penalties involved with false claims.  It's not hard to proportion between personal and business.  If 70% of the time was spent on business then claim 70%, not 100%.  Seriously, the claims being made show the have a sense of entitlement.

For our politicians, and so far all the Coalition members (except for Mr Slipper who Tony thought was a good sort in 2006 and even by 2010, but not so good in 2011) think they just pay the money back and that's the end of it.  So go have a tax payer funded interest free loan by making a dodgy claim is about the worst of it for them.

I say apply the Slipper Principle and let the AFP determine if there was any attempt to defraud the tax payer.  It would be worth while these people who say they can manage the economy but can't seem to decide if a wedding is or is not an official meeting to explain the process they went about in determining it was OK to make the claim they submitted.

- - - Updated - - -



MrBurns said:


> I think those are more oversights, these guys cant keep an eye on everything that goes on, some are claimable some aren't etc Tony Abbott wouldn't cheat for a crummy $1000 on purpose, BUT a lousy low life like Craig Emerson would.




How many times do they have to pay money back before you'd consider them incompetent at best, or serial fraudsters at worst??


----------



## basilio

Few things to add to this discussion on claiming dodgy expenses.

1) The items that have been paid back date many years ago. The pollie got wind of the fact that Fairfax journalists were askig questions and decided to pay before they weree xposed

2) Under John Howrad Parliament instituted the Minchin principle regarding  suspect claims. Essentially if you made a dodgy claim but manged to pay it back before you were officially caught you got away with it.  As distinct from facing sanctions for misuse of funds ect.

3) Peter slipper got done because he was beaten the the punch in terms of paying for his dodgy claims. Mal Brough made sure the Fereral police had a formal case  against him before he could repay the funds.  That took a lot of quick footwork but of course it meant Peter slipper could be thrown  out of parliament.

Yes it was John Hewson who made the comments. Brain fade !


----------



## MrBurns

sydboy007 said:


> I would say most of us are a lot more careful with the claims we make with the ATO because of the penalties involved with false claims.




Most people will cheat on their taxes if they can........errr make mistakes I mean



> How many times do they have to pay money back before you'd consider them incompetent at best, or serial fraudsters at worst??




There should be someone who looks at these things from time to time, Abbott for instance is not going to sit down and work out how much usage the commonwealth car had running his daughter to work while it just happened to be at the house, all that stuff should be adjusted retrospectively by an auditor.


----------



## sydboy007

MrBurns said:


> Most people will cheat on their taxes if they can........errr make mistakes I mean
> 
> There should be someone who looks at these things from time to time, Abbott for instance is not going to sit down and work out how much usage the commonwealth car had running his daughter to work while it just happened to be at the house, all that stuff should be adjusted retrospectively by an auditor.




So I take it you cheat on your taxes?  No wonder I'm paying $30K a year to keep the country running.

So you think allowing a problem to fester then try to cure it is more efficient that pushing back on the politicians that they should justify the claims they are making?  How about we apply the same principal to welfare recipients?  Full welfare benefits with retrospective adjustment?

Seriously, is it that hard to keep a track of these things?  If it is then set up a system to make it easier.  Obviously the system is fairly easy to bilk with what's coming out.  It nearly seems like you claim with no justification against the claim.  If I was to make a work expense claim to my employer or the ATO I'd have to give a receipt and justification  Why are the politicians not doing the same?

I hear Hockey is off to NYC for a tax payer funded trip.  Ostensibly it's to have a chat with the rating agencies to see how they'll go about the AAA rating if he starts borrowing "good debt" but keeps "bad debt" under control.  Why you can't do this via Telephone or say a Cisco Telepresence setup I don't know.  My previous employer saved in 1 year the annual travel budget across the Tasman by installing a Cisco Telepresense system at both sides.  

I think we beed to chk the socialite calendar for NYC weddings perhaps.  Seems it's the rort of choice by the Coalition members


----------



## MrBurns

sydboy007 said:


> So I take it you cheat on your taxes?  No wonder I'm paying $30K a year to keep the country running.




No I pay what I need to no more but people tend to claim as much as possible and why not.



> So you think allowing a problem to fester then try to cure it is more efficient that pushing back on the politicians that they should justify the claims they are making?  How about we apply the same principal to welfare recipients?  Full welfare benefits with retrospective adjustment?




I prefer the PM to be attending to matters of state not filling in his car usage book.


----------



## wayneL

sydboy007 said:


> So I take it you cheat on your taxes?  No wonder I'm paying $30K a year to* keep the country running.*




That ain't what your 30k is doing syd.


----------



## MrBurns

wayneL said:


> That ain't what your 30k is doing syd.




That only pays for prostitutes for Craig Thompson or a month of Gillard retirement benefits.


----------



## banco

MrBurns said:


> I think those are more oversights, these guys cant keep an eye on everything that goes on, some are claimable some aren't etc Tony Abbott wouldn't cheat for a crummy $1000 on purpose, BUT a lousy low life like Craig Emerson would.




Funny to see all the partisan hacks on here defending Abbott etc. when we know if the shoe was on the other foot they'd be putting the boot in.


----------



## MrBurns

banco said:


> Funny to see all the partisan hacks on here defending Abbott etc. when we know if the shoe was on the other foot they'd be putting the boot in.




I meant Craig Thompson...........

You're right, Abbott only became PM so he could nick $1000 from the system, some people will do anything for money.


----------



## Crows

All I ask of Abbot is that he doesn't do something typically stupid like the other Lib leaders have done in the past. That is, selling off assets the Australian public own, all for a short term cash boost which makes the balance look good on paper, but in the long run it's just plain stupid.. Like a bloke I knew who sold his house to an investor who then rented it back out to him!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Can I say that many LNP members will be asking some very pointed questions at their next branch meetings about MHR and MLA entitlements and claims.

Democracy is too important to have ambiguity at best and greed at worst staining it's noble cause.

I am sure many ALP members would agree with me on this.

Unacceptable.

gg


----------



## Julia

sydboy007 said:


> I would say most of us are a lot more careful with the claims we make with the ATO because of the penalties involved with false claims.  It's not hard to proportion between personal and business.  If 70% of the time was spent on business then claim 70%, not 100%.  Seriously, the claims being made show the have a sense of entitlement.
> 
> For our politicians, and so far all the Coalition members (except for Mr Slipper who Tony thought was a good sort in 2006 and even by 2010, but not so good in 2011) think they just pay the money back and that's the end of it.  So go have a tax payer funded interest free loan by making a dodgy claim is about the worst of it for them.
> 
> I say apply the Slipper Principle and let the AFP determine if there was any attempt to defraud the tax payer.



That seems entirely reasonable to me.  Mr Slipper has a justifiable complaint in view of these recent revelations.

The whole matter serves to underline the hypocrisy and general grubbiness of politicians.  They rarely make points on the basis of genuine concerns, rather they grab every opportunity to smear their opponents.
It seems to apply pretty equally to both sides and confers shame on all of them imo.  Just pathetic that they feel the need to wring every last dollar out of the taxpayer, many of whom they are criticising for having a sense of entitlement!



basilio said:


> Yes it was John Hewson who made the comments. Brain fade !



Don't feel bad about the memory lapse, bas.  I read it and thought vaguely "there's something wrong with that name" but actually had to google Hewson to remember what his first name was.


----------



## McLovin

Julia said:


> That seems entirely reasonable to me.  Mr Slipper has a justifiable complaint in view of these recent revelations.
> 
> The whole matter serves to underline the hypocrisy and general grubbiness of politicians.  They rarely make points on the basis of genuine concerns, rather they grab every opportunity to smear their opponents.
> It seems to apply pretty equally to both sides and confers shame on all of them imo.  Just pathetic that they feel the need to wring every last dollar out of the taxpayer, many of whom they are criticising for having a sense of entitlement!




+1

Something I suggested at the pub this evening (don't tell the gf; refer other thread) was that the benchmark should be, would the ATO allow the deduction. It seems a more workable solution than allowing those with their snouts in the trough to decide when they're done.


----------



## sails

banco said:


> Funny to see all the partisan hacks on here defending Abbott etc. when we know if the shoe was on the other foot they'd be putting the boot in.





Hmmmm... And what about this???


Has Gillard ever repaid her use of the VIP jet to fly to a friend's wedding? Her excuse was that she had other official business, however, I guess all polllie's would have that excuse but have still repaid the money.  



> FRESH from being returned in a farcical leadership spill, Julia Gillard yesterday flew to northern NSW on a taxpayer funded VIP jet for a staffer's wedding and several low key announcements.





Read more: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/julia-jets-off-to-a-vip-wedding/story-e6freuy9-1226603819592

Why doesn't Fairfax and the ABC include this  in  their witch hunt? Or are they so partisan they turn a relatively blind eye to to the much larger expense claims of a labor PM?

And what about Tim's private use of a taxpayer funded car which Gillard did refund to the tune of around $4000 - where is the similar outrage from Fairfax?  Where is the outrage?

Two wrongs don't make it right but it's the pot, kettle, black hypocrisy that is so blatantly obvious.


----------



## sydboy007

Got to hand it to the Abbott Govt, they really know how to stack the deck against themselves in negotiations.

First we had MT saying he expects Telstra to hand over the copper for free, well knowing they only need to stall for a year and MT is in some serious strife and will have to cut a deal.

Now Abbott wants an FTA with China within 12 months.  So basically the Chinese can maintain their current intransigence and wait for Abbott to blink and cave in to cut a deal.  Suppose when you look at Howard's cave in on the FTA with the USA it's not surprising.


----------



## dutchie

sails said:


> Two wrongs don't make it right but it's the pot, kettle, black hypocrisy that is so blatantly obvious.





We had 6 years of that type of hypocrisy, so what's new?


----------



## MrBurns

Headline on ABC web site, scrolling ticker no less - 

*Breaking news - PM Tony Abbott defends claiming travel expenses for ironman, Pollie Pedal trips*

The ABC really are pathetic..............


----------



## 13ugs13unny

sydboy007 said:


> I fear a bleak future in that we will have to accept living within our means for at least the next decade.




I don't see it at least for another couple of years or so. We are drunk on cheap money, high dollar combination, that has given rise to "treasure island", compounded by GST free online out-of-control consumer growth under $1,000k. Continued sell-out to overseas interests will continue unabated & unchecked. 2 trillion dollar super industry including SMSF's will just add fuel to the fire. We dodged the gfc bullet. Liberals seem to want to flood this country with free trade agreements without thinking of the consequences. All we need now is the RBA helicopter to throw money at us, just like bernanke's helicopter. Full steam ahead IMHO. My view make hay while you still can.

But...the Tibetan monks might be right about one thing...."after the ecstasy the laundry" as the saying goes.

That's when it will get interesting.


----------



## McLovin

MrBurns said:


> Headline on ABC web site, scrolling ticker no less -
> 
> *Breaking news - PM Tony Abbott defends claiming travel expenses for ironman, Pollie Pedal trips*
> 
> The ABC really are pathetic..............






What's wrong with that?


----------



## MrBurns

McLovin said:


> What's wrong with that?




Breaking News ? 

I think there are more important issues to deal with than that.


----------



## McLovin

MrBurns said:


> Breaking News ?
> 
> I think there are more important issues to deal with than that.




Oh yeah I forgot. Bias.


----------



## MrBurns

McLovin said:


> Oh yeah I forgot. Bias.




Not bias, common sense


----------



## noco

MrBurns said:


> Headline on ABC web site, scrolling ticker no less -
> 
> *Breaking news - PM Tony Abbott defends claiming travel expenses for ironman, Pollie Pedal trips*
> 
> The ABC really are pathetic..............




I am waiting for this biased ABC to tell us about the 60 odd claims made by ALP pollies in the last 6 years.

But then I guess I will be waiting a long time.


----------



## basilio

So  NOCO why don't you tell  the ABC them all about the dodgy claims for wedding trips that Labour has claimed ?  

I'm sure Bolt has his usual list of BS  stories you can use.

____________________________________________________________________________

I think it is very fortunate for the Liberals that these claims weren't raised before the election. Makes one wonder about how/why journalists (newspapers ?) didn't see fit to open the discussion a few months ago.  In particular it would have been fascinating to see how Tony Abbott handled the question of his claiming taxpayers funds to go to Peter Slippers wedding.

Oh well. We'll  never know..


----------



## sydboy007

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/10/why-abbott-should-dump-ftas/

I strongly suggest Tony take the time to read this, but he seems hell bent on selling us out.


----------



## overhang

As most of us would have guessed the rorting is on both sides of politics as the hypocritical Mark Dreyfus charged tax payers for a ski trip.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ie-ironman-event/story-fn59niix-1226734492117 

This blatant misuse of tax payer money needs to be sorted out once and for all, it's simply not acceptable that questions are raised about the expenses and they simply pay the money back.  There is some real lack of accountability when it comes to white collar crime in Australia and it needs to start at the top.


----------



## basilio

They all have sticky fingers don't they ? It's not surprising to see Labour pollies with equally dubious expense claims.

What is interesting is realising that both  major parties (not the Greens mind you) teamed up to pass legislation that that would hide scrutiny of expenses claims. 

Again it will be interesting to see if Tony Abbott decides that open and accountable government that controls its own costs is in the interest of the community.  (Look at the flying pigs!!!)



> *Expense claims kept secret: a team effort by Labor and the Coalition*
> 
> It took just three minutes for both major parties to exempt three key departments from freedom of information scrutiny
> 
> 
> lee rhiannon
> 'We’re calling on the government to come clean': Lee Rhiannon. Photograph: AAP
> 
> Millions of dollars in expense claims by federal politicians are shielded from public scrutiny, as both major parties passed a law blocking access to information from both houses of parliament in May this year.
> 
> It took just 10 minutes for the Coalition and Labor parties to agree to pass legislation that blocked three crucial government departments – the Department of the House, Department of the Senate and Department of Parliamentary Services – from freedom of information (FoI) laws.
> 
> The office of the Australian information commissioner, which is the watchdog for FoI laws in Australia, issued guidelines in 2012 that said all parliamentary departments were subject to open access laws.
> 
> The commissioner's findings paved the way for the Sydney Morning Herald to obtain documents about the expenses claims of Peter Slipper and other politicians until the act was passed.




http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/08/expense-claims-kept-secret


----------



## sydboy007

overhang said:


> As most of us would have guessed the rorting is on both sides of politics as the hypocritical Mark Dreyfus charged tax payers for a ski trip.
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ie-ironman-event/story-fn59niix-1226734492117
> 
> This blatant misuse of tax payer money needs to be sorted out once and for all, it's simply not acceptable that questions are raised about the expenses and they simply pay the money back.  There is some real lack of accountability when it comes to white collar crime in Australia and it needs to start at the top.




Once you accept we gave up democracy and now live in a plutocracy it all makes sense.

All are equal, just some more equal than others.

Those at the botom face the consequences, those at the top get let off.  Only have to look at the CEO or Gunns selling out his $3M worth of shares using inside knowledge escaping with a paltry fine.  ASIC not bothering to looking into corruption within the RBA or corporations.


----------



## basilio

In the middle of this kerfuffle it's worth remembering how cruelly Peter Slipper was treated for his "crimes".  (which will prove to be no more criminal than the multitude of creative accounting tricks already fessed up.  

The following comments summed this up.



> That's why Slipper was so surprised that Brandis went after him for just $900 in taxi vouchers.
> 
> We need a widespread MP expenses investigation as they had in the UK, like in the UK those who should go to jail need to do so.






> Brandis went after Slipper under orders from his Leader..Abbott.
> It was never about the money.. it was all about exacting revenge... Abbott wanted Slipper crucified for taking on the Speaker's position.
> 
> The gross hypocrisy of Abbott claiming expenses for attending his former friends wedding, and then having him referred to the police for almost the same thing.. is vomit inducing






> abbotts now repayed over 11,000 dollars counting his book tour.i think this qualifies him as a serial rorter.he shouldn't be pm he should be in the dock with his old mate slipper.what a two faced duplicious conniver he is.



http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/08/expense-claims-kept-secret


----------



## Macquack

MrBurns said:


> Headline on ABC web site, scrolling ticker no less -
> 
> Breaking news - PM Tony Abbott defends claiming travel expenses for ironman, Pollie Pedal trips
> *The ABC really are pathetic*




I will tell you who is "pathetic", it is you Burns. The Tough guy who *always took the high moral ground *against any indiscrestion by the Labor Party.

I will give you a tip, Burns, if Tony Abbott is rorting the system, I suggest* YOU KEEP YOUR BIG MOUTH SHUT*.


----------



## sydboy007

basilio said:


> They all have sticky fingers don't they ? It's not surprising to see Labour pollies with equally dubious expense claims.
> 
> What is interesting is realising that both  major parties (not the Greens mind you) teamed up to pass legislation that that would hide scrutiny of expenses claims.
> 
> Again it will be interesting to see if Tony Abbott decides that open and accountable government that controls its own costs is in the interest of the community.  (Look at the flying pigs!!!)
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/08/expense-claims-kept-secret




Plutocracy at work, funded by the great unwashed


----------



## overhang

MrBurns said:


> Headline on ABC web site, scrolling ticker no less -
> 
> *Breaking news - PM Tony Abbott defends claiming travel expenses for ironman, Pollie Pedal trips*
> 
> The ABC really are pathetic..............




The only bias going on there is your* confirmation bias*.  
ABC headline right now- Expenses critic Dreyfus caught up in claims saga.

Have an actual think about it MrBurns, the ABC are reporting Abbott defending himself against the expense claims that were in the tabloids earlier, a bias would be to report the alleged claims against him but fail to report his defense.


----------



## IFocus

So let me get this straight

Abbott gets Slipper to face court over expense claims.

Abbott claims expense's for attending Slippers wedding.

Adults in charge?


----------



## wayneL

zzz...zzz...zzz...

See you nitpicking whingers at the next election. :sleeping:


----------



## 13ugs13unny

Macquack said:


> I will tell you who is "pathetic", it is you Burns. The Tough guy who *always took the high moral ground *against any indiscrestion by the Labor Party.
> 
> I will give you a tip, Burns, if Tony Abbott is rorting the system, I suggest* YOU KEEP YOUR BIG MOUTH SHUT*.




Well you can shut up some of the people some of the time but you can't shut up all of the people all of the time.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/thedrum/

The Rort cat is out the bag. Its going to morph into a scandal especially since slipper is the fall guy, whilst everyone else runs for cover. $100 million dollars of taxpayer money for expenses should be to serve, not self service regardless which side of politics you lean.

I simply don't get it, if you get paid so much and have so many privileges to be able to do your job, then it says more about the individual persons integrity and judgement if they feel the need to put their fingers in the public till for small change. 

Clearly not passing a simple integrity test to demonstrate your fit to hold an honest trustworthy office, that is the message going out to the people of Australia IMHO. 

Maybe some heavy fines and a record just like social security fraud - now lets see the justice system dish out fairly.

Hopefully one day we can re-install proper salutation ' Honourable '  in its true sense for politicians.


----------



## basilio

Yeah Bugs. Very righteous indeed.  Certainly would be turn up for the books to see Honourable people in parliament.

But I take you back to the comments of Peter Reith when this scandal broke a few days ago.



> But former Howard government minister Peter Reith disagreed, describing the wedding expense scandals as ”petty” and *arguing that politicians should be entitled to unlimited travel…*As a minister Mr Reith racked up a $50,000 phone bill at taxpayers’ expense, which he repaid.




And lets remember the role Peter Reith played in the children overboard outcry.  This was the incident upon which the Howard Government built its infamous "we will decide who comes to Australia" slogan.

*It was Peter Reith who produced doctored pictures to say that asylum  seekers had thrown their children overboard.*

That lying piece of merde stood up using fabricated information and demonised and poisoned the whole asylum debate.  He was called out by Virginia Trioli from the ABC  for his misrepresentations (yep that bastion of anti Liberal propaganda) but brazened it out.

Actually he did it the same way he brazened out the $50,000 bill his son ran up on his mobile phone.

And this particular DisHonourable member was given a  plum overseas post after office to repay his special dishonesty.

In case anyone here wants to argue that black is white check out the facts  ( and feel free to deny them anyway.)




> *PM goes overboard with top Euro post for Reith*
> 
> By Mike Seccombe
> April 17 2003
> 
> Loyal . . . Peter Reith. Photo: Wayne Taylor
> 
> *A parliamentary committee labelled him a deceiver*. He quit federal politics as the most scandal-prone member of the Howard administration.
> 
> But loyalty counts for more than notoriety. Yesterday, the Federal Government revealed it had appointed Peter Reith to a plum overseas posting that will pay him $250,000 tax-free a year.
> 
> The Treasurer, Peter Costello, announced Mr Reith had been selected from a shortlist - which included other former Liberal politicians - to be Australian executive director to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The three-year term will start on August 1.
> 
> The position is a handy sinecure - while the Australian Government decides who gets the job, Europe picks up the tab.
> 
> A previous Howard appointment to the post was another controversial former minister, Jim Short, forced out after falling foul of the Prime Minister's code of ministerial conduct.
> 
> Mr Costello said Mr Reith was qualified for the job by virtue of his record as a cabinet minister.
> 
> The Opposition took a slightly different view. Yes, Mr Reith's appointment was due to his former role as a minister. But the real reward was for his role as defence minister in perpetrating an election-winning untruth.
> 
> The Government first claimed children were thrown from a refugee boat near Christmas Island on October 7, early in the 2001 election campaign.
> 
> *In spite of the fact that the naval chain of command quickly concluded no such incident had occurred - and informed Mr Reith or his office of that no fewer than 14 times - Mr Reith did nothing to correct the record.*
> 
> The Prime Minister, John Howard, also continued to make the claim throughout the election campaign, and later told Parliament he had relied on advice from Mr Reith - given as late as November 7, a month after the non-incident - that children were thrown overboard. A Senate inquiry found Mr Reith had "deceived the Australian people", but was unable to establish whether Mr Howard also knew the truth. Mr Reith refused to give evidence.




http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/16/1050172652744.html

www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HdpfesWv7s‎
http://sherylgwyther.wordpress.com/...et-the-lies-of-the-children-overboard-affair/
http://noplaceforsheep.com/2012/06/19/annabel-crabb-and-peter-reith/


----------



## MrBurns

Macquack said:


> I will tell you who is "pathetic", it is you Burns. The Tough guy who *always took the high moral ground *against any indiscrestion by the Labor Party.
> 
> I will give you a tip, Burns, if Tony Abbott is rorting the system, I suggest* YOU KEEP YOUR BIG MOUTH SHUT*.




LOL Macquack, on the piss again getting all brave and self righteous.:alcohol:

Tony Abbott is the Prime Minister Macquack your team of serial rorters and incompetent weaklings have ben tossed out.

The worms at the ABC will beat this up as much as they can, but no ones listening.

Have a cry Macquack


----------



## MrBurns

basilio said:


> Yeah Bugs. Very righteous indeed.  Certainly would be turn up for the books to see Honourable people in parliament.




Children overboard ?

Are you one of the save Albert Park group as well ?, they've been going since 1994, the GP still seems to be there.

Make the caps as big as you like you lost that one and will continue to lose and fail in the grand tradition of Labor and their lemming followers.


----------



## Macquack

MrBurns said:


> LOL Macquack, *on the piss again *getting all brave and self righteous.:alcohol:
> 
> Have a cry Macquack




Your standard response to anyone who questions you, is that, they must be drinking. 

Is that your best response?

Laughs on you Burns, "pathetic".


----------



## MrBurns

Macquack said:


> Your standard response to anyone who questions you, is that, they must be drinking.
> 
> Is that your best response?
> 
> Laughs on you Burns, "pathetic".




No the standard response to how you react to criticism, you remind me of the Tasmanian Devil in the Road Runner comics.


----------



## sptrawler

overhang said:


> As most of us would have guessed the rorting is on both sides of politics as the hypocritical Mark Dreyfus charged tax payers for a ski trip.
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ie-ironman-event/story-fn59niix-1226734492117
> 
> This blatant misuse of tax payer money needs to be sorted out once and for all, it's simply not acceptable that questions are raised about the expenses and they simply pay the money back.  There is some real lack of accountability when it comes to white collar crime in Australia and it needs to start at the top.




Absolutely, I hope this rorting is exposed to the point that the government is forced to apply the same rules the ATO apply to everyone else.
Lax rules encourage corruption and deception.IMO
I'm a bit suprised this information wasn't brought to light earlier, when the Slipper issue was current.


----------



## drsmith

MrBurns said:


> No the standard response to how you react to criticism, you remind me of the Tasmanian Devil in the Road Runner comics.




Tassie at his finest.



With regard to an earlier comment about why the travel claim issue didn't appear in the media before the election, it simply wouldn't have made any difference. It may in fact end worse for Labor.



> FORMER attorney-general Mark Dreyfus says he will repay $466 he charged taxpayers for a two-night skiing trip, amid growing pressure on Tony Abbott over his entitlements claims.
> 
> The Labor MP, who earlier today called for an investigation into Coalition expenses, confirmed to The Australian he claimed travel allowance for staying two nights in Canberra in August 2011, when he was in fact at Perisher Valley.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...e-ironman-event/story-fn59niix-1226734492117#

As those who have taken a politically partisan view have discovered, it's not limited to one side of politics.


----------



## MrBurns

Seems.fairly clear 

Abbott says his expenses were legit, he's up front about it so let someone make a decision, if he's wrong he pays it back, simple.
The APEC summit has been completely overshadowed by this hissy fit of triviality by the ABC

There's a big difference between claiming expenses you genuinely believe are legitimate and deliberate cheating.


----------



## basilio

MrBurns said:


> Children overboard ?
> 
> Make the caps as big as you like you lost that one and will continue to lose and fail in the grand tradition of Labor and their lemming followers.




Absolutely correct Mr Burns.  Peter Reiths lies managed to swing the debate and save the government. 
But clearly I was referring not to the political outcome but the disgraceful way Peter Reith conducted himself  at the time.

But who cares? After all the only thing that matters is winning Government and making sure you can keep you nose the trough and your millionaire mates well fed doesn't it ?  

In that sense Peter Reith articulates the "real politic" approach that he ran and believes in - everything I do as a politician is work and I'm entitled to claim for the lot.

_____________________________________________________________________

OK that was a bit of a rant. But if you think about it one of the features we try to feel proud of in Australia is a relatively non corrupt political system.  In fact we often make pointed comments about the corruption in other countries where politicians make billions from deals and trash the country into the bargain. 

From the publics point of view its also important to half believe their representatives are honest and *have the publics interest at heart*.  In that sense that is why  all of them try to look honest.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Absolutely, I hope this rorting is exposed to the point that the government is forced to apply the same rules the ATO apply to everyone else.
> Lax rules encourage corruption and deception.IMO
> I'm a bit suprised this information wasn't brought to light earlier, when the Slipper issue was current.




It will depend on Labor.  They have as much to loose politically and financially about any crack down.  Hopefully we will see similar changes as when Howard was forced to change the politicians super scheme.

When you let the foxes run the chicken coop, well we're seeing how that works out eh.


----------



## MrBurns

I knew a of a council mayor years ago who was on the take from developers
He ran a consultancy, he would push any developments they were involved in
I checked his list of pecuniery interests and nothing was listed.

I witnessed him sitting in the public gallery in a council meeting dozing off till a matter came up that was in the interests of one of his clients

He tore strips off the resident who made an objection.

He went on to become a Lib politician in Vic and held high office.

I tried to warn the party but nothing was done as far as I could gather, nothing public anyway.

While the system can be rorted by worms such as this there is little hope of honest Govt in Australia.

I think we would all be shocked if we knew the true extent of it.

What Abbott is accused of is trivial by comparison and is only being promoted by the ABC for political reasons.


----------



## basilio

News.com has a very good overview of the current state of play with travel claims by politicians. The article also includes the rules politicians are supposed to follow.

Apparently Tony Abbott has claimed at least $10,000 on travel trips with his family to sporting events, concerts ect.



> *Prime Minister Tony Abbott claimed over $10,000 for family travel in 2012*
> 
> Gemma Jones and Jessica Marszalek
> News Limited Network
> October 08, 2013 10:00PM
> 
> Tony Abbott says it's legitimate for the public to pay for his expenses relating to charity events.
> 
> 
> THE Parliamentary expenses saga continues to widen, with news that Tony Abbott claimed expenses to take his family to sporting events, and Labor MPs also caught up in the scandal.
> 
> Former Trade Minister Richard Marles claimed flights to Labor MP Michael Danby's 2008 Parliament House wedding but said he had meetings in Canberra the next day.




http://www.news.com.au/national-new...y-travel-in-2012/story-fncynjr2-1226735051089


----------



## basilio

MrBurns said:


> I knew a of a council mayor years ago who was on the take from developers
> He ran a consultancy, he would push any developments they were involved in
> I checked his list of pecuniery interests and nothing was listed.
> 
> I witnessed him sitting in the public gallery in a council meeting dozing off till a matter came up that was in the interests of one of his clients
> 
> He tore strips off the resident who made an objection.
> 
> He went on to become a Lib politician in Vic and held high office.
> 
> I tried to warn the party but nothing was done as far as I could gather, nothing public anyway.
> 
> While the system can be rorted by worms such as this there is little hope of honest Govt in Australia.
> 
> I think we would all be shocked if we knew the true extent of it.
> 
> What Abbott is accused of is trivial by comparison and is only being promoted by the ABC for political reasons.



The politicians  you are talking about sounds like the scandals of the late 70's which resulted in the Labour party coming to power through John Cain. (see reference below)

Unfortunately the corruption of politicians by developers is notorious. It seems to be more prevalent on the Conservative side of politics but there have been plenty of Labour pollies on the take as well.

To me it seems as if the adage "its just business"  is allowed to explain almost anything. Perhaps a few terms in jail for corruption would straighten up politicians and developers alike. (Fat chance here)

The question of appropriate use of public funds to reimburse politicians goes beyond Tony Abbotts claims. It will never be black and white but it would not be hard to have a more open and transparent overview.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/previous series/lcj/1-20/wayward/ch13.html (Chapter 13: The Victorian land scandals 1973-82


----------



## basilio

There is an excellent article in The Age by Tony Wright which brings back memories of how John Howard initially demanded high standards from his Ministers. The same standards also resulted in Labour Ministers being sacked.

In the context of 2013 they seem trivial but the principles of honesty in office were on the table.



> *Rorting rules unchanged, and behaviour much the same
> *
> Date
> October 9, 2013
> 
> 36 reading now
> Comments 28
> 
> Tony Wright
> Tony Wright
> 
> ANALYSIS
> PM defends expense claims
> 
> Tony Abbott comes under further pressure over his expenses claims as one of his own MPs calls for more transparency.
> 
> The words ''travel rorts'' in Australian political vernacular are a signpost to a road that can end in disaster for those who take it, and Prime Minister Tony Abbott would know it better than most.
> 
> In 19 years in Parliament, he has witnessed up close some of the most spectacular casualties among those who have been judged, or merely accused, as rorters.
> John Howard.
> 
> There was, of course, the Labor turncoat and champion rorter Mal Colston, and now Liberal defector Peter Slipper, both pursued relentlessly by former colleagues furious at being jilted. But Mr Abbott doesn't have to merely consider the ruin that can afflict defectors.
> 
> *Three years after entering Parliament, he watched as political patron John Howard took just three days in September 1997 to sack three ministers over what became known as the ''travel rorts affair''.
> 
> Howard's code of conduct demanded everything a minister did should be ''calculated to give the public value for its money'' and that they did not abuse any of their privileges.
> 
> That high-minded code has long been discarded, which is fortunate for Abbott. He'd likely have to sack himself and several of his new wedding-frolicking ministers under its severe prescriptions.*




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ch-the-same-20131008-2v6eg.html#ixzz2hAiAwicw


----------



## MrBurns

The example I gave above is just a small sample.

What goes on overseas is major crime in many countries, Indonesia, Italy and on and on it goes.

Even in Sydney the police force was knee deep in corruption some time back and politicians likewise.

NSW is rotten to the core.

It seems to go with the territory..........I wish the media would go full bore into the real corruption and stop pussy footing around with what they're doing now, yes it's worth looking into but it's just hardly the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## noco

I don't know why the Labor Party and the media are pounding Abbotts expenses claim business when the Labor party should be explaining some of their own rorts like Simon Crean travelling at tax payers expense to attend Bob Hawkes 80th birthday party.

Wayne Swan is in Washington as we speak attending soem economic conference at tax payers expense....To what benifit will this be for Australia...OMG.


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...any_labor_mps_claimed_to_watch_bobs_stripper/


----------



## MrBurns

noco said:


> I don't know why the Labor Party and the media are pounding Aboots expenses clam business when the Labor aparty should be explaining some of their own rorts like Simon Crean travelling at tax payers expense to attend Bob Hawkes 80th birthday party.
> 
> Wayne Swan is in Washington as we speak attending soem economic conference at tax payers expense....To what benifit will this be for Australia...OMG.
> 
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...any_labor_mps_claimed_to_watch_bobs_stripper/




This needs to be cleared up and in particular the HAVE to try to weed the deliberate cheats from those who claim what they believe to be legitimate expenses.

The media go for the lowest common denominator and the ABC is disappointing in this regard, they should be above that.


----------



## basilio

Whistle blowing corruption ? What a great idea !!

Perhaps someone should set up a way for people to safely expose corrupt practices (making sure of course the charges have evidence to back up the claims)

Thats right. Didn't Julian Assange set up Wikileaks for that express purpose ? I seem to remember he got lots of praise for it -  until he  got a bunch of  files from inside the US government and was called a spy and is now on the CIA hit list.

Good idea though: as long your guys don't get tripped up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks


----------



## basilio

MrBurns said:


> This needs to be cleared up and in particular the HAVE to try to weed the deliberate cheats from those who claim what they believe to be legitimate expenses.
> 
> The media go for the lowest common denominator and the ABC is disappointing in this regard, they should be above that.




I disagree with you on this one Mr Burns. The challenging of all uses of parliamentary travel entitlements and reimbursements is not small change either financially or ethically. The initial focus on Tony Abbott and other Ministers doesn't mean everyone else is not having a  very careful look at what they have been claiming.

Its a bit like getting the letter from the ATO asking you to provide documentation for all those tax deductions you made in the last 3 years...

In terms of misrepresentation though I think News Ltd has scraped the bottom of the barrel again in its attack on Labour MPs coming to Canberra to elect the new leader.

Its a joke isn't it ? For once a political party has to actually consult its membership and have a public debate on the  qualities of its new leader. Regardless of the party one would think this was an improvement of the current political process and worth supporting.

In this case the party members have to go to Canberra on clearly political business. And yet the Murdoch press attempts to tar this cost with the same brush as the questionable  personal travel claims by politicians.

Pathetic.


----------



## MrBurns

basilio said:


> Whistle blowing corruption ? What a great idea !!
> 
> Perhaps someone should set up a way for people to safely expose corrupt practices (making sure of course the charges have evidence to back up the claims)
> 
> Thats right. Didn't Julian Assange set up Wikileaks for that express purpose ? I seem to remember he got lots of praise for it -  until he  got a bunch of  files from inside the US government and was called a spy and is now on the CIA hit list.
> 
> Good idea though: as long your guys don't get tripped up.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks




The trouble is the people you're complaining to are also corrupt in many cases.


----------



## sydboy007

MrBurns said:


> The example I gave above is just a small sample.
> 
> What goes on overseas is major crime in many countries, Indonesia, Italy and on and on it goes.
> 
> Even in Sydney the police force was knee deep in corruption some time back and politicians likewise.
> 
> NSW is rotten to the core.
> 
> It seems to go with the territory..........I wish the media would go full bore into the real corruption and stop pussy footing around with what they're doing now, yes it's worth looking into but it's just hardly the tip of the iceberg.




From my perspective it's the top and their attitude - only have too look at Reith's comments to see what I mean - and that 'greying" of acceptable behaviour allows the next level down to get away with a bit more and so on.

All the claims of expense by politicians should be open to public scrutiny, but if what someone posted earlier is true then it seems the Coalition and Labor worked together to stop us from being able to see what they spend OUR money on any more.

Maybe we need something along the lines of the Parliamentary Integrity Committee with at least someone from every party in the lower and upper houses sitting on it.  Quarterly reports, ALL information freely available to the public in a timely manner, with justification from the person claiming the expense.

I dare say just the extra exposure will kill off most of these dodgy claims.

Then hopefully the politicians will stop ASIC from being a wimp and set it up to vigorously weed out corruption at all levels of business.

We are so close to being a plutocracy with the way things stand it's not funny!


----------



## overhang

noco said:


> I don't know why the Labor Party and the media are pounding Abbotts expenses claim business when the Labor party should be explaining some of their own rorts like Simon Crean travelling at tax payers expense to attend Bob Hawkes 80th birthday party.
> 
> Wayne Swan is in Washington as we speak attending soem economic conference at tax payers expense....To what benifit will this be for Australia...OMG.
> 
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...any_labor_mps_claimed_to_watch_bobs_stripper/




You need to stop reading that excuse for journalism that is Bolt noco, only good for kitty litter.  How about all politicians have some explaining to do, this isn't a matter of left or right this is about blatant abuse of political perks from both sides and everyone of them should be exposed. 
As to Wayne Swan well that would depend on the capacity that he is there for, is he representing Australia or representing himself?


----------



## noco

overhang said:


> You need to stop reading that excuse for journalism that is Bolt noco, only good for kitty litter.  How about all politicians have some explaining to do, this isn't a matter of left or right this is about blatant abuse of political perks from both sides and everyone of them should be exposed.
> As to Wayne Swan well that would depend on the capacity that he is there for, is he representing Australia or representing himself?




Yes I agrre with you that it is happening on both sides of politics and why shouldn't they all come under scrutiny.

But I disagree with you that I should stop ready Bolt....why should I?....that is my perogative AND I DON'T HAVE TO TOLD BY YOU OR ANYONE ELSE what I can read. So please mind your own business.


----------



## chiff

On fraud and corruption.We bought a block of land in a Victorian shire.The land agent gave verbal assurances and provided extensive plans sited on the block that he claimed had been approved by the shire.Attempts to verify with the shire did not get a cogent response.It turned out that the neighbour worked for the shire as a planning officer and appealed against any applications to build on the block next door.Others including us, have been scammed by this fraud and corruption and probably never knew.We are going thru legal processes at the moment.
The planning officer has been moved on without penalty.An attempt at damage control from the shire,no doubt.Who knows what other corruption was going on ?Attempts were made to intimidate and harass us ,and no doubt do what everyone else that bought this block did.. sell and scam the next sucker.
We have got legal people from outside the area.We only found out the full tote odds when the shire inadvertently revealed more than they should have.


----------



## overhang

noco said:


> Yes I agrre with you that it is happening on both sides of politics and why shouldn't they all come under scrutiny.
> 
> But I disagree with you that I should stop ready Bolt....why should I?....that is my perogative AND I DON'T HAVE TO TOLD BY YOU OR ANYONE ELSE what I can read. So please mind your own business.




Fair enough but don't expect it to hold any credibility, Bolt lost that a long time ago.  I guess some people like being fed propaganda...


----------



## drsmith

Andrew Bolt obviously has a bias and obviously needs considered in considering his view. to say though say he has no credibility is wrong. 

While I don't always agree with what he says, Andrew Bolt does raise some good points. He has more credibility than the likes of David Marr in my view.

With political commentary, there's bias on both sides and the best we can hope for overall is a balance.


----------



## overhang

drsmith said:


> Andrew Bolt obviously has a bias and obviously needs considered in considering his view. to say though say he has no credibility is wrong.
> 
> While I don't always agree with what he says, Andrew Bolt does raise some good points. He has more credibility than the likes of David Marr in my view.
> 
> With political commentary, there's bias on both sides and the best we can hope for overall is a balance.




Its funny you should mention Marr, the only way to achieve balance would be to have Marr and Bolt feature on the same page of tabloids.  Reading both is the equivalent to watching Today Tonight or ACA, just leaves you feeling concerned for the mental well being of those that watch it.  I know most journalists do it but with those two you just know that they have cherry picked all around the facts to support their predisposition and its more pronounced than most.


----------



## drsmith

A tabloid journalist is what Andrew Bolt is.

I'm not sure what David Marr is, other than someone who just shows contempt to those who disagree with his own entrenched views. 

Andrew does it too, but not to the same extent as David Marr.

http://australianconservative.com/2009/12/a-defining-moment-in-australian-journalism/


----------



## sails

basilio said:


> News.com has a very good overview of the current state of play with travel claims by politicians. The article also includes the rules politicians are supposed to follow.
> 
> Apparently Tony Abbott has claimed at least $10,000 on travel trips with his family to sporting events, concerts ect.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/national-new...y-travel-in-2012/story-fncynjr2-1226735051089




Bas, this is not limited to one side of politics as you are clearly trying to imply.  If there is serious investigation, I would think some labor MPs would be worried. What About Gillard using the VIP jet to fly to a wedding?  How on many social trips did Tim accompany Gillard?  And what about Rudd's $800,000 photo op in Afghanistan with his wife just weeks before the election?

Yes, bring on an investigation and I think this might just come back to bite labor hard.


Like this... Swan blows $12,000 on a family trip in the VIP jet to *ONE* football game.  Hmmm... I wonder how much he has run up in total.


"WAYNE Swan charged taxpayers more than $12,000 to fly him and his daughter to the AFL Grand final by VIP jet when he was acting prime minister in 2010."



Read more:  Wayne Swan used VIP jet to fly to grand final with his daughter


----------



## drsmith

sails said:


> Yes, bring on an investigation and I think this might just come back to bite labor hard.



I wonder what David Marr is doing today.

Andrew Bolt is being a busy little beaver, 

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...e_have_paid_for_dreyfuss_family_to_go_skiing/


----------



## McLovin

sails said:


> Like this... Swan blows $12,000 on a family trip in the VIP jet to *ONE* football game.  Hmmm... I wonder how much he has run up in total.
> 
> 
> "WAYNE Swan charged taxpayers more than $12,000 to fly him and his daughter to the AFL Grand final by VIP jet when he was acting prime minister in 2010."
> 
> 
> 
> Read more:  Wayne Swan used VIP jet to fly to grand final with his daughter




The actual cost of transporting Wayne Swan's daughter would have been virtually zero. Dreyfus' skiing trip is disgusting and just shows the level of disdain that both sides have for the public purse. Abbott isn't much better, I'm not sure why he feels the taxpayer should be left with the bill for his athletic pursuits. And no, tacking on visit to the local RSL to press the flesh doesn't make it a legitimate travel expense.

They all rort travel entitlements. How can 222 people spend $34m/year on travel? That's ~$155k/Parliamentarian.


----------



## sails

McLovin said:


> The actual cost of transporting Wayne Swan's daughter would have been virtually zero. Dreyfus' skiing trip is disgusting and just shows the level of disdain that both sides have for the public purse. Abbott isn't much better, I'm not sure why he feels the taxpayer should be left with the bill for his athletic pursuits. And no, tacking on visit to the local RSL to press the flesh doesn't make it a legitimate travel expense.
> 
> They all rort travel entitlements. How can 222 people spend $34m/year on travel? That's ~$155k/Parliamentarian.




Agree, it usually doesn't cost much more for family to accompany especially if Swan himself was running that expense up anyway on the VIP jet.

But why should he fleece $12,000 of taxpayers funds to go to a grand final?  That was ONE trip.  And what about all the other things I mentioned where Gillard and Rudd have used taxpayer funds seemingly on their whims?

I agree that the system needs to be tightened up and the rules made much clearer.  But what gets up my nose is the self righteous carry-on of Fairfax, ABC and labor in trying to make Abbott look like the bad boy.  They should check out the rubbish in labor's back yard first, imo.

Do you have no problem with Swan running up $12K to go to a football match?


----------



## sydboy007

I, Tony Abbott who earns at least 4 times the median wage love to do charity work and press the flesh at these events as it shows me to be a good guy while earning lots of kudos with the electorate.

I, Tony Abbott with a $200K+ income at taxpayers expense, feel that when I do charity work, it shouldn't cost me anything in financial terms, but rather tax payers should supplement my already high income to do these "good works."

Comparing this to a guy at work who participated in a charity bike ride last year, our employer paid 50% of his entry fee and also provided a company Jersey to ride in.  Apart from that, all the costs involved were funded by himself.

I certainly know who I have more respect for in terms of their 'charitable" spirit.


----------



## sails

sydboy007 said:


> I, Tony Abbott who earns at least 4 times the median wage love to do charity work and press the flesh at these events as it shows me to be a good guy while earning lots of kudos with the electorate.
> 
> I, Tony Abbott with a $200K+ income at taxpayers expense, feel that when I do charity work, it shouldn't cost me anything in financial terms, but rather tax payers should supplement my already high income to do these "good works."
> 
> Comparing this to a guy at work who participated in a charity bike ride last year, our employer paid 50% of his entry fee and also provided a company Jersey to ride in.  Apart from that, all the costs involved were funded by himself.
> 
> I certainly know who I have more respect for in terms of their 'charitable" spirit.




And what charity work does Swan do?  The hypocrisy here is breathtaking...


----------



## McLovin

sails]And what about all the other things I mentioned where Gillard and Rudd have used taxpayer funds seemingly on their whims?[/QUOTE]

I'm not excusing either side. Like I said before said:


> Do you have no problem with Swan running up $12K to go to a football match?




Not really. It seems reasonable in my opinion for the PM (or acting PM) to attend a grand final. John Howard used to always make sure there was important Commonwealth business in London during the Once you take into account advisers/security detail etc the actual cost is probably similar or even cheaper than flying commercial, especially on GF weekend when seats are rare as hen's teeth. I have a bigger problem with the fact that Qantas maintains a domestic business class service between Sydney and Canberra and Melbourne and Canberra because politicians only fly business class.


----------



## Ijustnewit

sydboy007 said:


> I, Tony Abbott who earns at least 4 times the median wage love to do charity work and press the flesh at these events as it shows me to be a good guy while earning lots of kudos with the electorate.
> 
> I, Tony Abbott with a $200K+ income at taxpayers expense, feel that when I do charity work, it shouldn't cost me anything in financial terms, but rather tax payers should supplement my already high income to do these "good works."
> 
> Comparing this to a guy at work who participated in a charity bike ride last year, our employer paid 50% of his entry fee and also provided a company Jersey to ride in.  Apart from that, all the costs involved were funded by himself.
> 
> I certainly know who I have more respect for in terms of their 'charitable" spirit.




Does anyone know if the cost a Carbon framed bicycle and Carbon Fibre wheelset has gone up since the Carbon Tax was introduced ? Seems that Tony is actually really saving the environment by A. Riding and B. Locking up vast amounts of Carbon in that bike he uses. So really he is doing the planet and charity all a great favour. Good on him , keep pedaling Tony !!!


----------



## sails

McLovin said:


> I'm not excusing either side. Like I said before, there needs to be some system in place to prevent this sort of rorting. In any other job they'd be shown the door.
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. It seems reasonable in my opinion for the PM (or acting PM) to attend a grand final. John Howard used to always make sure there was important Commonwealth business in London during the Once you take into account advisers/security detail etc the actual cost is probably similar or even cheaper than flying commercial, especially on GF weekend when seats are rare as hen's teeth. I have a bigger problem with the fact that Qantas maintains a domestic business class service between Sydney and Canberra and Melbourne and Canberra because politicians only fly business class.




But it's not OK for Abbott to participate in the annual pollie pedal at a much lesser cost?


----------



## McLovin

sails said:


> But it's not OK for Abbott to participate in the annual pollie pedal at a much lesser cost?




Did I say that?


----------



## sails

And why does the taxpayer have to fork out for this?  Surely this is a labor party event. Seems to me that labor have written the hand book on how to extract expenses from the taxpayer:



> TAXPAYERS will fork out up to $200,000 to fly Labor MPs to Canberra so they can vote for a new parliamentary leader.
> 
> As the Opposition ramps up its attack on Tony Abbott over entitlements, News Corp can reveal the public will pay a high price for the ALP's bold leadership experiment.
> 
> And several Labor MPs have expressed disgust at the expense of flying around 80 Caucus members to the national capital - for two separate meetings within the space of a few days.
> 
> With some business class airfares costing around $5,000, Labor MPs will firstly fly to Canberra on Thursday where they will vote in a leadership ballot for Anthony Albanese or Bill Shorten.
> 
> They will then return to parliament on Sunday where the winner will be announced. Labor's new frontbench will then be elected by the Caucus on Monday.
> 
> ALP national secretary George Wright confirmed the Labor Party will not be footing the bill to fly MPs back to Canberra for the first time since the September 7 election.




Read more: Taxpayers slugged $200,000 to fly MPs to Canberra for ALP leadership meetings


----------



## McLovin

sails said:


> It seems you condemn Abbott for it and yet you said it's OK for Swan to travel in the VIP jet for a football game.  My apologies if I got it wrong...




No it was the Iron Man event in Port Macquarie that he shouldn't have expensed, IMO.


----------



## overhang

sails said:


> Agree, it usually doesn't cost much more for family to accompany especially if Swan himself was running that expense up anyway on the VIP jet.
> 
> But why should he fleece $12,000 of taxpayers funds to go to a grand final?  That was ONE trip.  And what about all the other things I mentioned where Gillard and Rudd have used taxpayer funds seemingly on their whims?
> 
> I agree that the system needs to be tightened up and the rules made much clearer.  But what gets up my nose is the self righteous carry-on of Fairfax, ABC and labor in trying to make Abbott look like the bad boy.  They should check out the rubbish in labor's back yard first, imo.
> 
> Do you have no problem with Swan running up $12K to go to a football match?




Not sure if you read further down down on your link but you would have seen that the VIP jet was a requirement because of security which is obviously where the large sum of money went to.  As to if tax payers should be charged for trips to grand finals I'm not sure, PM's have attended grand finals for years that its almost become customary.  How ever as this seems to be more of an advertisement for the AFL then perhaps the AFL should foot the bill if they want the PM there.

I'm unsure of the best process to fix this problem.  Is it the case of creating a bureaucracy to monitor entitlements or would the cost of the bureaucracy exceed the money saved?  Or should tougher penalties be imposed on those that rort the system?  This is essentially tax fraud.


----------



## sails

overhang said:


> Not sure if you read further down down on your link but you would have seen that the VIP jet was a requirement because of security which is obviously where the large sum of money went to.  As to if tax payers should be charged for trips to grand finals I'm not sure, PM's have attended grand finals for years that its almost become customary.  How ever as this seems to be more of an advertisement for the AFL then perhaps the AFL should foot the bill if they want the PM there.
> 
> I'm unsure of the best process to fix this problem.  Is it the case of creating a bureaucracy to monitor entitlements or would the cost of the bureaucracy exceed the money saved?  Or should tougher penalties be imposed on those that rort the system?  This is essentially tax fraud.




They almost need to have their expense claims checked by people who are specifically trained in what is allowable and what is not.  As all pollies attend many functions in the course of being out there with the people, I guess there are many grey areas. Social functions where networking happens I can see would be one such grey area.


----------



## sydboy007

http://www.smh.com.au/business/joe-hockeys-lplates-are-there-for-all-to-see-20131009-2v752.html

Poor poor Joe.  Complaining about the IMF predicting a better unemployment rate than Treasury 

Maybe we'll hear more about the budget CRISIS and other sundry CRISES that seemed to have magically disappeared from the LNP vernacular.


----------



## McLovin

w.t.f.


> ALL Australian victims of terrorism overseas since the September 11 attacks will be able to make claims for compensation within a fortnight.
> 
> Tony Abbott today wrapped up his trip to Indonesia for the APEC summit by visiting the site of the Bali bombings in Kuta, where he announced the compensation offer. It makes good his pre-election pledge that he would address the issue within 100 days of taking office.
> 
> The Prime Minister laid a wreath at the memorial which marks the spot where 202 people - including 88 Australians - were killed in twin bomb attacks in the popular nightclub district.
> 
> Standing alongside Peter Hughes, who was injured in the Bali blast, Mr Abbott said from October 21 all Australian victims of terrorism could make claims for up to $75,000 compensation.



- See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...y-fn59niix-1226735436111#sthash.1GB9i6mN.dpuf

Why is the taxpayer compensating someone who was the victim of a crime outside Australia?

Or put another way, if you're in a country that DFAT says "Do not travel to"/"Avoid travel to" and you are caught up in a terrorist act why should you be compensated?

This entitlement mentality seemingly knows no bounds.


----------



## dutchie

All parties do it and all parties want to continue to do it. 
The public should bring them to account to stop the rorting and waste of our tax money.
Politicians are just doing a job. If they feel that they are not paid enough and need to swindle extra money, then get out and find another job!


from Zanetti:


----------



## noco

overhang said:


> Fair enough but don't expect it to hold any credibility, Bolt lost that a long time ago.  I guess some people like being fed propaganda...




I will trust Andrew Bolt over the biased ABC any day sport.

If any orgasiation has lost credibility it is the ABC. But I guess they are one of your trusted source of information.

I trust the Abbott Government weeds out this nest of socialist left wing personnel that has been planted by Labor.


----------



## Julia

McLovin said:


> w.t.f.
> 
> - See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...y-fn59niix-1226735436111#sthash.1GB9i6mN.dpuf
> 
> Why is the taxpayer compensating someone who was the victim of a crime outside Australia?
> 
> Or put another way, if you're in a country that DFAT says "Do not travel to"/"Avoid travel to" and you are caught up in a terrorist act why should you be compensated?
> 
> This entitlement mentality seemingly knows no bounds.



This was mooted during the election campaign and my reaction at the time contained even more implied expletives than you've indicated above.  I hoped it was just some stupid thought bubble which would disappear, but no, Mr Abbott has made clear it's actually going to happen.

Where on earth is his sense of reality and judgement?  The budget was supposed to be in a state of emergency!

If we're talking about rorting in this thread, the political nonsense will appear insignificant, once a few people get the idea that if they swan about in eg Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan et al,  develop PTSD as a result of the horrors they have witnessed, or better still, cop a bit of shrapnel somewhere, the Australian taxpayer will happily fork out $75,000.
Utter ****ing madness.


----------



## 13ugs13unny

dutchie said:


> All parties do it and all parties want to continue to do it.
> The public should bring them to account to stop the rorting and waste of our tax money.
> Politicians are just doing a job. If they feel that they are not paid enough and need to swindle extra money, then get out and find another job!
> 
> 
> from Zanetti:
> 
> View attachment 54718




My question & complaint is why isn't there any names on the pigs?  Don't they deserve it?


----------



## overhang

noco said:


> I will trust Andrew Bolt over the biased ABC any day sport.
> 
> If any orgasiation has lost credibility it is the ABC. But I guess they are one of your trusted source of information.
> 
> I trust the Abbott Government weeds out this nest of socialist left wing personnel that has been planted by Labor.




The day a Bolt fanatic is satisfied with the balance of ABC reporting is the day the ABC will lose all credibility and any chance of remaining impartial. The fact you use it as some sort of insult speaks volumes about your inability to see things rationally.


----------



## drsmith

On questionable entitlement claims, the following article offers a historical perspective.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...d-behaviour-much-the-same-20131008-2v6eg.html

For those with long memories, it includes references to the Paddington Bear Affair and a colour television before that. 

Standards have certainly slipped since then.


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> This was mooted during the election campaign and my reaction at the time contained even more implied expletives than you've indicated above.  I hoped it was just some stupid thought bubble which would disappear, but no, Mr Abbott has made clear it's actually going to happen.
> 
> Where on earth is his sense of reality and judgement?  The budget was supposed to be in a state of emergency!




Seems the CRISES pre election magically disappeared once they were the responsibility of the L+N parties.

Just wait for the good debt bad debt argument to be rolled out next budget


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> Seems the CRISES pre election magically disappeared once they were the responsibility of the L+N parties.



The boat arrival crisis that Labor created and then nurtured seems to be on the way to disappearing.

It's not magic though Syd.


----------



## wayneL

sydboy007 said:


> Seems the CRISES pre election magically disappeared once they were the responsibility of the L+N parties.




What would you have them do Syd? Declare martial law? 

The crises under Labour magnified insidiously, therefore the right course of action is likewise, process, rather than a calamitous knee jerk reaction.

In addition, the media, particularly the ABC is focusing on the minutia of paltry expense claims.

Let the gu'mint get this show on the road, there will be plenty of time for pathetic carping about insignificancies once Australia is repaired from the socialist misadventure we have endured for six years.


----------



## bellenuit

sydboy007 said:


> Seems the CRISES pre election magically disappeared once they were the responsibility of the L+N parties......




If a reckless immature teenager picks up a loaded gun in a gun store, you have a crisis. If that gun is passed to a responsible adult, the crisis disappears. There is nothing to be confused about.


----------



## sydboy007

wayneL said:


> What would you have them do Syd? Declare martial law?
> 
> The crises under Labour magnified insidiously, therefore the right course of action is likewise, process, rather than a calamitous knee jerk reaction.
> 
> In addition, the media, particularly the ABC is focusing on the minutia of paltry expense claims.
> 
> Let the gu'mint get this show on the road, there will be plenty of time for pathetic carping about insignificancies once Australia is repaired from the socialist misadventure we have endured for six years.




Seriously.

What has changed in the last 3 months in terms of the budget emergency or fiscal crisis?

The ALP had a tax take in the last FY of just 21.6% of GDP, 2.6% less than the "low" taxing Howard Govt of of the 04-06 period.

Can you name 1 country in the world that didn't have a deterioration in the Govt balance sheet since the GFC?  Federal Govt debt of 10.% of GDP.  How many countries do you think would love to have our budget CRISIS?  Aggregate debt level change since 2007 of just 14%.  Once again, how many countries would love to have that CRISIS.  Do you honestly believe Pyne when he says the L+NP would have run budget surpluses since 2007?

Hockey said the 2013-2014 budget is Labors legacy.  There's 8 months left of the FY year.  Surely if there's a budget CRISIS 8 months is plenty of time to react.  Surely Hockey can react now to the CRISIS??  there's precedence for doing a mini budget.  Surely by years end we could have the spending cuts Hockey and Abbott have been calling for?

The 2012-13 Labor budget had record spending cuts.  Govt spending fell 1.1% in nominal terms so more like 3.5% in real terms.  NO LIBERAL Government has ever had the cajones to achieved that.  So lets see what Treasurer Hockey comes up with.  He'll grandstand and blame Labor next year, yet most people would say if you have the decision making power for over 2/3 of the time shouldn't you have done something if you believed there was a CRISIS?

ps  What CRISES under Labor are you referring to?


----------



## sydboy007

bellenuit said:


> If a reckless immature teenager picks up a loaded gun in a gun store, you have a crisis. If that gun is passed to a responsible adult, the crisis disappears. There is nothing to be confused about.




<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/SRIr7c35zuY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I fear this would be Hockey with a gun.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Seriously.
> 
> What has changed in the last 3 months in terms of the budget emergency or fiscal crisis?
> 
> The ALP had a tax take in the last FY of just 21.6% of GDP, 2.6% less than the "low" taxing Howard Govt of of the 04-06 period.
> 
> Can you name 1 country in the world that didn't have a deterioration in the Govt balance sheet since the GFC?  Federal Govt debt of 10.% of GDP.  How many countries do you think would love to have our budget CRISIS?  Aggregate debt level change since 2007 of just 14%.  Once again, how many countries would love to have that CRISIS.  Do you honestly believe Pyne when he says the L+NP would have run budget surpluses since 2007?
> 
> Hockey said the 2013-2014 budget is Labors legacy.  There's 8 months left of the FY year.  Surely if there's a budget CRISIS 8 months is plenty of time to react.  Surely Hockey can react now to the CRISIS??  there's precedence for doing a mini budget.  Surely by years end we could have the spending cuts Hockey and Abbott have been calling for?
> 
> The 2012-13 Labor budget had record spending cuts.  Govt spending fell 1.1% in nominal terms so more like 3.5% in real terms.  NO LIBERAL Government has ever had the cajones to achieved that.  So lets see what Treasurer Hockey comes up with.  He'll grandstand and blame Labor next year, yet most people would say if you have the decision making power for over 2/3 of the time shouldn't you have done something if you believed there was a CRISIS?
> 
> ps  What CRISES under Labor are you referring to?




Let's just take a breath and see what the score is in 6 - 12 months. 
By then, some sort of reliable indicators should be in.
I'm just finding it a breath of fresh air, not to see a Labor PM on t.v, blowing their feet off or explaining another stuff up.
Maybe the coalition won't be any better, but the circus had to be ended.IMO
When 75% of the evening news is taken up with government issues, it is time for change.IMO


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Let's just take a breath and see what the score is in 6 - 12 months.
> By then, some sort of reliable indicators should be in.
> I'm just finding it a breath of fresh air, not to see a Labor PM on t.v, blowing their feet off or explaining another stuff up.
> Maybe the coalition won't be any better, but the circus had to be ended.IMO
> When 75% of the evening news is taken up with government issues, it is time for change.IMO




Fair enough, but at least acknowledge that Labor did reasonably well in terms of the economy.  Unemployment has help up reasonably well, they kep debt pretty well under control compared to most other countries, and no Government is going to willingly cut the budget so much that the economy stalls and unemployment starts to rise quickly.

I'd just like to see the same yardstick that people whacked Labor with applied to the L(n)P.

When the media was reporting about Thomson it was fine, gets the boots out and start the head kicking, but when we read about L(n)P members caught making dodgy claims, it's somehow a left wing media bias.


----------



## wayneL

sptrawler said:


> Let's just take a breath and see what the score is in 6 - 12 months.
> By then, some sort of reliable indicators should be in.




'Zackley

They've been in, what, a month? 

I'me sure there will be real stuff for the left to whine about later, hell, I'll join in, if there IS real stuff to whine about.

Why can't the left stand aside and give the country a chance to come good. Is it the acute embarrassment of screwing up so diabolically?


----------



## MrBurns

sptrawler said:


> Let's just take a breath and see what the score is in 6 - 12 months.
> By then, some sort of reliable indicators should be in.
> I'm just finding it a breath of fresh air, not to see a Labor PM on t.v, blowing their feet off or explaining another stuff up.
> Maybe the coalition won't be any better, but the circus had to be ended.IMO
> When 75% of the evening news is taken up with government issues, it is time for change.IMO




Exactly............



wayneL said:


> 'Zackley
> 
> They've been in, what, a month?
> 
> I'me sure there will be real stuff for the left to whine about later, hell, I'll join in, if there IS real stuff to whine about.
> 
> Why can't the left stand aside and give the country a chance to come good. Is it the acute embarrassment of screwing up so diabolically?




+1

- - - Updated - - -



sydboy007 said:


> Fair enough, but at least acknowledge that Labor did reasonably well in terms of the economy.  Unemployment has help up reasonably well, they kep debt pretty well under control compared to most other countries, and no Government is going to willingly cut the budget so much that the economy stalls and unemployment starts to rise quickly.
> 
> I'd just like to see the same yardstick that people whacked Labor with applied to the L(n)P.
> 
> When the media was reporting about Thomson it was fine, gets the boots out and start the head kicking, but when we read about L(n)P members caught making dodgy claims, it's somehow a left wing media bias.




I seriously believe that any improvements in anything while Labor was in had nothing to do with them, can you name anything they did that helped anyone ?

Don't give me the GFC bulldust that was overdone and wasted billions.


----------



## noco

overhang said:


> The day a Bolt fanatic is satisfied with the balance of ABC reporting is the day the ABC will lose all credibility and any chance of remaining impartial. The fact you use it as some sort of insult speaks volumes about your inability to see things rationally.




What a load of crap you talk......The ABC has lost all credibility in the last 5 or 6 years and this has been well doucmented in the appropriate thread "THE ABC IS POLITICAL"

I suggest you have a look at it...........you might learn something beyond the kindy garden class.


----------



## overhang

noco said:


> What a load of crap you talk......The ABC has lost all credibility in the last 5 or 6 years and this has been well doucmented in the appropriate thread "THE ABC IS POLITICAL"
> 
> I suggest you have a look at it...........you might learn something beyond the kindy garden class.




I think I've fallen for the old trick,  don't argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.


----------



## ChrisJH

noco said:


> What a load of crap you talk......The ABC has lost all credibility in the last 5 or 6 years and this has been well doucmented in the appropriate thread "THE ABC IS POLITICAL"




Sure, if your only measure of credibility is an opinion poll of the members of this forum.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Fair enough, but at least acknowledge that Labor did reasonably well in terms of the economy.  Unemployment has help up reasonably well, they kep debt pretty well under control compared to most other countries, and no Government is going to willingly cut the budget so much that the economy stalls and unemployment starts to rise quickly.
> 
> I'd just like to see the same yardstick that people whacked Labor with applied to the L(n)P.
> 
> When the media was reporting about Thomson it was fine, gets the boots out and start the head kicking, but when we read about L(n)P members caught making dodgy claims, it's somehow a left wing media bias.




Like I said, give it 6 - 12 months the benefit of hindsight will be with us and a valued judgement can be made. Currently it is all inuedo and speculation, time will prove it one way or another.
It may well be proven that some Labor initiatives were well intentioned, but poorly implemented. It wouldn't be the first time that has happened.


----------



## noco

overhang said:


> I think I've fallen for the old trick,  don't argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.




Yes age and experience will always beat inmaturity for as you age you become much wiser to understand what is going on around you..You sure have a few lessons to learn.


----------



## overhang

noco said:


> Yes age and experience will always beat *inmaturity* for as you age you become much wiser to understand what is going on around you..You sure have a few lessons to learn.




You know if you insult someone you might want to make sure your spelling is correct, makes you look even more stupid than you might actually be.


----------



## basilio

overhang said:


> You know if you insult someone you might want to make sure your spelling is correct, makes you look even more stupid than you might actually be.




That could be a challenge ..


----------



## noco

overhang said:


> You know if you insult someone you might want to make sure your spelling is correct, makes you look even more stupid than you might actually be.




Thanks for your correction...yes I hit the wrong button.....the "N" and the "M" are close together and when you get to my age and have to wear bifocal glsses you will understand...in the meantime I hope you enjoyed being able to hang one on me. At least I helped to make your miserable day brighter.


----------



## Whiskers

noco said:


> Yes age and experience will always beat inmaturity for as you age you become much wiser to understand what is going on around you..You sure have a few lessons to learn.




Age and experience does not necessarily equal growing older, wiser... sometimes it just equals Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Then there's the little issue of, belief gets in the way of learning.

As for understanding...

“Those who know, do. Those that understand, teach.” 
― Aristotle

Sometimes though age and experience just translates to... a grumpy old man! :
--------------------------------------------------------------

While hoping for the best, but fearing the worst, Tony seems to have got his patronising and placating wires crossed... Japan is now his best friend in the Asia pacific.


----------



## 13ugs13unny

overhang said:


> You know if you insult someone you might want to make sure your spelling is correct, makes you look even more stupid than you might actually be.




You should know better than to argue with grumpy old men..now get off their lawn and let them enjoy their pet project called abbott and let them reminisce the good old days of 1950's howard and his overgrown eyebrows, like a re-run of happy days and brady bunch!!!

LOL the ceremony of ol' browyn's hair bun getting dragged up on the speakers chair should be a sight to behold. 

Then watch the 65,000 NBN refrigerator node boxes with 18 car batteries each become a bigger scandal than pink batts, poor Malcolm. If these things overheat in london and shut down, imagine what they will do here.

Oh I can't wait to watch another joe hockey public melt down & sweating out a budget emergency. 

Then the count down larger than life PUP dinosaurs thundering in the senate fattening up their own interests like some billionaire Russian oligarchs crushing the underclass sweeping aside global warming like it can be cooled down over a ice cold beer, akin to watching Rome burn in 40 plus degrees heat-waves that started in early spring, that will morph into those summer fire days where 100's of fires burn unchecked in each state without mercy. Hopefully those cyclones the size of the USA might end up further south and give the top end a well deserved break. Similar weather the dinosaurs had back in the day.

I hope they don't forget to email BOM to again expand the highest brown bar on that contour graph 45 – 48C, from purple & pink in 2013 and add a light pink in 2014 or to hell with it and just have a rainbow flag for above 60 deg. and blame the gays for being so smoking hot with their 6 packs, whilst the pollies grow their fat packs.

Sit back relax, pop corn, can ice cold drink, aircond on nice 21deg  and internet live news feed at the ready and enjoy the ol' baby boomers having a go at running the joint not that labor were any better at it.

tongue in cheek of course

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/australia/weather-map-v-prediction-australia-jan14.gif


----------



## Julia

overhang said:


> You know if you insult someone you might want to make sure your spelling is correct, makes you look even more stupid than you might actually be.



I'd have assumed it to be a typo.


----------



## sydboy007

How many BFFs does the Tonster have?

First it was Indonesia, then Malaysia nearly pipped them.

Now Japan is his bestest BFF.  Just picturing Abbott and Abe bedazzling their Akubras together.

Reminds me of his WA GST on a per capita basis, hops onto a plane to Tassie and says no changes to GST that would leave a state worse off.

Seriously, stop trying to please everyone all the time.  You can't do it and all you do is come across as being insincere.  I mean how much grovelling can he do in 1 trip?


----------



## overhang

Julia said:


> I'd have assumed it to be a typo.




I'd normally turn a blind eye as I did with the last posts but when you're personally attacking someone on an academic level it's something you'd want to get right.


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> Andrew Bolt obviously has a bias and obviously needs considered in considering his view. to say though say he has no credibility is wrong.
> 
> While I don't always agree with what he says, Andrew Bolt does raise some good points. He has more credibility than the likes of David Marr in my view.
> 
> With political commentary, there's bias on both sides and the best we can hope for overall is a balance.




When did David Marr get told by a judge that he had no credibility?


----------



## IFocus

McLovin said:


> No it was the Iron Man event in Port Macquarie that he shouldn't have expensed, IMO.




Abbott is serial abuser $20k plus he has repaid in travel expenses, I think $14k for his book battle lines.


----------



## IFocus

13ugs13unny said:


> You should know better than to argue with grumpy old men..now get off their lawn and let them enjoy their pet project called abbott and let them reminisce the good old days of 1950's howard and his overgrown eyebrows, like a re-run of happy days and brady bunch!!!
> 
> LOL the ceremony of ol' browyn's hair bun getting dragged up on the speakers chair should be a sight to behold.
> 
> Then watch the 65,000 NBN refrigerator node boxes with 18 car batteries each become a bigger scandal than pink batts, poor Malcolm. If these things overheat in london and shut down, imagine what they will do here.
> 
> Oh I can't wait to watch another joe hockey public melt down & sweating out a budget emergency.
> 
> Then the count down larger than life PUP dinosaurs thundering in the senate fattening up their own interests like some billionaire Russian oligarchs crushing the underclass sweeping aside global warming like it can be cooled down over a ice cold beer, akin to watching Rome burn in 40 plus degrees heat-waves that started in early spring, that will morph into those summer fire days where 100's of fires burn unchecked in each state without mercy. Hopefully those cyclones the size of the USA might end up further south and give the top end a well deserved break. Similar weather the dinosaurs had back in the day.
> 
> I hope they don't forget to email BOM to again expand the highest brown bar on that contour graph 45 – 48C, from purple & pink in 2013 and add a light pink in 2014 or to hell with it and just have a rainbow flag for above 60 deg. and blame the gays for being so smoking hot with their 6 packs, whilst the pollies grow their fat packs.
> 
> Sit back relax, pop corn, can ice cold drink, aircond on nice 21deg  and internet live news feed at the ready and enjoy the ol' baby boomers having a go at running the joint not that labor were any better at it.
> 
> tongue in cheek of course
> 
> http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/australia/weather-map-v-prediction-australia-jan14.gif




Best post for a long time thanks 13ugs


----------



## IFocus

McLovin said:


> w.t.f.
> 
> - See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...y-fn59niix-1226735436111#sthash.1GB9i6mN.dpuf
> 
> Why is the taxpayer compensating someone who was the victim of a crime outside Australia?
> 
> Or put another way, if you're in a country that DFAT says "Do not travel to"/"Avoid travel to" and you are caught up in a terrorist act why should you be compensated?
> 
> This entitlement mentality seemingly knows no bounds.




I can understand assistance but don't get the straight out payment thought the same WTF.


----------



## noco

I congratulate Andrew Bolt for exposing the Labor left wing socialist party and the unions for the mud racking that is coming out of their slimy mouths.

They are poor losers and just can't help themselves in all their efforts to discredit Abbott......4 weeks in the job and the Geelong Trades Hall are even calling for his assassination....what a grubby lot.....they obviously don't believe in democracy.

Abbott hadn't even been sworn in before a new Facebook site - "Tony Abbott - Worst PM in Australian History" - savaged him as "a misogynist, sexist, homophobic pr---, a bully, a racist, a liar ...". It has 170,000 "likes".

What a pathetic lot.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...to-get-a-fair-go/story-fnj45fvb-1226735703708


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> I congratulate Andrew Bolt for exposing the Labor left wing socialist party and the unions for the mud racking that is coming out of their slimy mouths.
> 
> They are poor losers and just can't help themselves in all their efforts to discredit Abbott......4 weeks in the job and the Geelong Trades Hall are even calling for his assassination....what a grubby lot.....they obviously don't believe in democracy.
> 
> Abbott hadn't even been sworn in before a new Facebook site - "Tony Abbott - Worst PM in Australian History" - savaged him as "a misogynist, sexist, homophobic pr---, a bully, a racist, a liar ...". It has 170,000 "likes".
> 
> What a pathetic lot.
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...to-get-a-fair-go/story-fnj45fvb-1226735703708




You sound like the petulant Abbott.  Why is everyone not focusing on ME on the GREAT stage.  Why are they focusing on politicians abusing tax payer funds to go to weddings and sporting events and V8 racers. WHY WHY WHY!

Didn't Abbott learn from the opposition tactics 101 book he helped write the last 3 years.  Not that labor have needed to do much to keep the issue alive.

Got to say he really knows how to flame the argument by not seeing the voters are not happy with what's been exposed.  At least the Greens and Xenophon have come up with some realistic solutions.  I'd love to see a politicians explain why they can't fly economy for a trip under 2 hours.  That would be fun to watch.

As for the facebook page about Tony, maybe not fair, but then some of what he said about Gillard was pretty disgusting too, never backed up by any facts.  We live in a democracy and if Gillard had to accept Abbott standing in front of Burn the Witch placards, I'm sure the Tonster can survive too.


----------



## MrBurns

sydboy007 said:


> You sound like the petulant Abbott.  Why is everyone not focusing on ME on the GREAT stage.  Why are they focusing on politicians abusing tax payer funds to go to weddings and sporting events and V8 racers. WHY WHY WHY!
> 
> Didn't Abbott learn from the opposition tactics 101 book he helped write the last 3 years.  Not that labor have needed to do much to keep the issue alive.
> 
> Got to say he really knows how to flame the argument by not seeing the voters are not happy with what's been exposed.  At least the Greens and Xenophon have come up with some realistic solutions.  I'd love to see a politicians explain why they can't fly economy for a trip under 2 hours.  That would be fun to watch.
> 
> As for the facebook page about Tony, maybe not fair, but then some of what he said about Gillard was pretty disgusting too, never backed up by any facts.  We live in a democracy and if Gillard had to accept Abbott standing in front of Burn the Witch placards, I'm sure the Tonster can survive too.




Abbott didn't stand in front of those placards the placard holder positioned himself behind him.

I wish you could be transported to another place and have Gillard rule over you for the rest of your pathetic existence, you might learn then but I doubt it.


----------



## noco

MrBurns said:


> Abbott didn't stand in front of those placards the placard holder positioned himself behind him.
> 
> I wish you could be transported to another place and have Gillard rule over you for the rest of your pathetic existence, you might learn then but I doubt it.




+ 1 Mr.Burns.....they make me sick when I see this crap come up on this forum....they just can't help themselves ......they have to stretch the  truth.


----------



## 13ugs13unny

IFocus said:


> Best post for a long time thanks 13ugs




Your welcome. 

just a footnote, we all hope the fines from those that DIDN'T vote in a true & free democratic country where your not forced to do anything you don't believe or trust in -can cover payments due to the parties:

sic[At last month's federal election, each first preference vote was worth around $2.48, with a first payout totalling $56,367,240.38.]sic

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-09/votes-net-clive-palmer-22-million-dollars/5011572

The G̶e̶s̶t̶a̶p̶o̶ ̶  government is busy licking butt overseas and unavailable for comment and labor are busy licking each others to heal their wounds from shafting each other - for so many years.

All in jest of course.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> + 1 Mr.Burns.....they make me sick when I see this crap come up on this forum....they just can't help themselves ......they have to stretch the  truth.




So Abbotts claim about the pensioner electricity bill being double due to the carbon tax was


----------



## sydboy007

MrBurns said:


> Abbott didn't stand in front of those placards the placard holder positioned himself behind him.
> 
> I wish you could be transported to another place and have Gillard rule over you for the rest of your pathetic existence, you might learn then but I doubt it.




Burnsie, I'm fully aware of the good and bad of the previous labor Government.  The fact you can only see negatives is unfortunate.

I don't seem to remember Abbott ever condemning them, so tacit approval at the least eh.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> I don't seem to remember Abbott ever condemning them, so tacit approval at the least eh.




The greatest irony about Ditch-The-Witch is that it was Labor including its own sisterhood that ultimately took it on board.

They weren't game enough to leave it to the electorate.


----------



## Julia

drsmith said:


> The greatest irony about Ditch-The-Witch is that it was Labor including its own sisterhood that ultimately took it on board.
> 
> They weren't game enough to leave it to the electorate.



Zackly.


----------



## IFocus

Nice to see the front bench sticking together


Scott Morrison repays travel entitlement after 'inadvertent claim'



> Scott Morrison and Assistant Minister for Defence Stuart Robert have each repaid $354 claimed as travel allowance. It is believed they were at the wedding of WA Liberal MP Steve Irons.
> 
> Speaking to reporters this afternoon, Mr Morrison was reluctant to give details about the claim but said it was for travel in 2011 and the funds had been repaid.


----------



## IFocus

Barry Cassidy points out the obvious



> OK, let's accept that Barnaby Joyce, George Brandis, Philip Ruddock, Peter Reith and numerous other present and former politicians genuinely believe they are entitled to taxpayer reimbursement for the cost of attending weddings.
> 
> How does that sit with these words on the* "age of entitlement" delivered by Treasurer Joe Hockey* in London in 2012?






> The problem arises ... when there is a belief that one person has a right to a good or service that someone else will pay for. It is this sense of entitlement that afflicts not only individuals but also entire societies. And governments are to blame for portraying taxpayer's money as something removed from the labour of another person.


----------



## Whiskers

> Outgoing US ambassador Jeff Bleich has warned that American taxpayers may tire of footing the bill for global security in a coded plea for Tony Abbott to stick to his promise to boost defence spending.
> 
> Mr Bleich, who ends his four-year stint as Washington's man in Canberra on Thursday, said while he was not telling Australia what it should spend on defence, the US wanted all of its allies to better share the load.
> 
> It is well-known that Washington was concerned about the former Labor government's military budget cuts - which took spending down to levels not seen since 1938 - given strategic uncertainty in Asia.
> 
> http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/fed.../us-diplomat-warns-abbott-20130911-2tkrv.html




Coded plea... or even a bit of an olive stick for, we're broke and you'd better lift your military spending from US... not France, Germany or elsewhere.

No matter that the US stuff is not as good as some of the rest, or that we could, or arguably should get more involved in manufacture of more of our own military needs.  

But how about this...



> Mr Bleich said that all of its allies, Australia included, should share the burden so that US taxpayers did not lose patience.
> 
> ''Philosophically, I think the US is looking to all of our partners to share the burden with the US. Right now US taxpayers are bearing a disproportionate share of the responsibility for the world's security,'' he said




Philosophy... I hope Abbott tells the US sorry, but you made that 'bed' we're not going to lie in it with you.

My information is their new generation planes in particular are not as good as they are cracked up to be and certainly not value for money.


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> Barry Cassidy points out the obvious




Poor Barrie Cassidy is perhaps still coming to terms with the fact that Kevin Rudd isn't a god.


----------



## wayneL

IFocus said:
			
		

> Barry Cassidy points out the obvious
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, let's accept that Barnaby Joyce, George Brandis, Philip Ruddock, Peter Reith and numerous other present and former politicians genuinely believe they are entitled to taxpayer reimbursement for the cost of attending weddings.
> 
> How does that sit with these words on the* "age of entitlement" delivered by Treasurer Joe Hockey* in London in 2012?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem arises ... when there is a belief that one person has a right to a good or service that someone else will pay for. It is this sense of entitlement that afflicts not only individuals but also entire societies. And governments are to blame for portraying taxpayer's money as something removed from the labour of another person.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Oh Lord! You really believe that?

What is not obvious to Cassidy or you is that politicians entitlements are part and parcel of remuneration for their services. The argument is over the nature and scope of those entitlements.

Hockey's age of entitlement refers to welfare "entitlements". 

There is a fundamental and quantum difference between the two, that the Cassidy numbskull has ignored in his rush to petty, petulant, puerile nitpicking.

Intellectual dishonesty at best and imbecilism combined with intellectual dishonesty at worst.

There is no honour is this pathetic slagging.... bad show and well beneath the purported morality of Labor.


----------



## IFocus

I wish real fishing was this easy LOL

Excellent Abbott has his priorities in order 

We'll uphold constitution on marriage: Tony Abbott



> Chief Minister Katy Gallagher says the directive to challenge the ACT's proposed same-sex marriage laws came from Prime Minister Tony Abbott.
> 
> Attorney-General George Brandis confirmed the High Court challenge to the laws on Thursday, after informing the Chief Minister and ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell in a phone call on Wednesday night.




Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act...tony-abbott-20131011-2vcy5.html#ixzz2hPB2q200


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> I wish real fishing was this easy LOL
> 
> Excellent Abbott has his priorities in order
> 
> We'll uphold constitution on marriage: Tony Abbott
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act...tony-abbott-20131011-2vcy5.html#ixzz2hPB2q200




I'm looking forward to you posting something we can debate. 

Apparently the coalition polling has fallen since the election.lol

I hope they call a double dissilution, then we will get a real snapshot.

I don't think Labor, or the minority parties, would like the outcome.


----------



## drsmith

I thought same sex marriage was a priority of Labor's messiah.


----------



## Whiskers

wayneL said:


> Oh Lord! You really believe that?
> 
> What is not obvious to Cassidy or you is that politicians entitlements are part and parcel of remuneration for their services. The argument is over the nature and scope of those entitlements.
> 
> Hockey's age of entitlement refers to welfare "entitlements".




Entitlement is nothing more than a guarantee of access to something.

Welfare, public aid... what's the difference to politicians!



> There is a fundamental and quantum difference between the two, that the Cassidy numbskull has ignored in his rush to petty, petulant, puerile nitpicking.
> 
> Intellectual dishonesty at best and imbecilism combined with intellectual dishonesty at worst.
> 
> There is no honour is this pathetic slagging.... bad show and well beneath the purported morality of Labor.





_Re your comments: ABC is Political 

Not because it is biased the other way, but because it doesn't pretend not to be biased. It's a bit like the American commercial networks, biased as hell, but you know what flavour you're getting. They don't pretend to be anything but.
_.​
Sooo... IF is biased as hell, and you know what you get... so he deserves a dressing down of tongue twisting proportions be..cause he's (apparently) biased to Labor.

As someone else has previously noted, the wrath of the right seems quite disproportionate around here.

“The real test of good manners is to be able to put up with bad manners pleasantly.” 
― Kahlil Gibran

:  :


----------



## noco

drsmith said:


> The greatest irony about Ditch-The-Witch is that it was Labor including its own sisterhood that ultimately took it on board.
> 
> They weren't game enough to leave it to the electorate.




I would not be surprised if the "Ditch the Witch" sign was  put up by Labor just to embarrass Tony Abbott. They would be quite capable of doing it particularly after the Aboriginal riot that was proven to be engineered by Labor.


----------



## Whiskers

sptrawler said:


> I'm looking forward to you posting something we can debate.
> 
> Apparently the coalition polling has fallen since the election.lol




Yeah, apparently Tony shares the honour with Julia... for the only leader (of recent times at least) to fall in the polls after winning government.



> I hope they call a double dissilution, then we will get a real snapshot.




Swing away 1.4%

Hold on, Tony has lost most of his winning swing (1.9%) already. If Labor can recover 1 point with just a stand-in leader it says something for voter support for them as well as a bit of failing to live up to expectations for Abbott... or maybe they are just confused and wish they hadn't voted for the PUP... or maybe more had voted for PUP 

Tony's support: 40% good or very good, but 19% say satisfactory... that's the price... natural justice of not keeping the chooks fed and allowing them time to wander off and scratch around for their own feed.



> I don't think Labor, or the minority parties, would like the outcome.




Actually, I think Labor will cherish that when their new leader is installed with all the fan fare of new-found Ruddy representation of grass roots. Have to give credit where credit due... that was a Ruddy master stroke in terms of perception of stability of leadership for Labor with a bit of grass roots accountability sweetener.

Will be interesting to see the numbers when we know the new leader. My guess is if it's Shorten, probably not much difference, but Albanese likely appeal more to traditional Labor support and although to the left, likely close the gap on Abbott a bit more.  

That motorist fanatic will no doubt go back to labor in the senate.

But what is support for PUP? 

I note he has threatened to not pass any bills, not even abolition of the mining and carbon tax if Tony doesn't give him more resources. This is going to get nastier before it gets better.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

All the above is old, old, news.

The Prime Minister has turned back the boats.

Even the Labor aligned Administrator of Christmas Island, agrees.

Let us move on and finish with the internalised ALP/Green/Shock-Jock bickering.

The PM has been doing a jolly good job since the election. I can detect a mood of optimism in the community.

gg


----------



## IFocus

Whiskers said:


> Yeah, apparently Tony shares the honour with Julia... for the only leader (of recent times at least) to fall in the polls after winning government.
> 
> 
> 
> Swing away 1.4%




A lot of Abbotts vote came from people sick of Labors leadership in fighting and who could blame them, that would seem particularly true when the polling drops during a honeymoon period of new government when there is effectively no opposition. 

Note all the conservatives outraged, excuses and shooting the messengers.


----------



## drsmith

Garpal Gumnut said:


> All the above is old, old, news.
> 
> The Prime Minister has turned back the boats.
> 
> Even the Labor aligned Administrator of Christmas Island, agrees.
> 
> Let us move on and finish with the internalised ALP/Green/Shock-Jock bickering.
> 
> The PM has been doing a jolly good job since the election. I can detect a mood of optimism in the community.
> 
> gg



Where's the bloody applause icon ? 

Best I can do is this . :bananasmi :jump:

That at least beats the monotonous squawk of that featherless parrot.


----------



## IFocus

sptrawler said:


> I'm looking forward to you posting something we can debate.




Lets debate the integrity of this Coalition front bench and its Prime-minister.


----------



## Julia

Whiskers said:


> Philosophy... I hope Abbott tells the US sorry, but you made that 'bed' we're not going to lie in it with you.



So no expectation ever that if Australia is threatened from any source our American allies will step in to help?



wayneL said:


> Oh Lord! You really believe that?
> 
> What is not obvious to Cassidy or you is that politicians entitlements are part and parcel of remuneration for their services. The argument is over the nature and scope of those entitlements.
> 
> Hockey's age of entitlement refers to welfare "entitlements".
> 
> There is a fundamental and quantum difference between the two, that the Cassidy numbskull has ignored in his rush to petty, petulant, puerile nitpicking.
> 
> Intellectual dishonesty at best and imbecilism combined with intellectual dishonesty at worst.
> 
> There is no honour is this pathetic slagging.... bad show and well beneath the purported morality of Labor.



I'm not sure that the public perceives it as nitpicking.  Your average taxpayer is more likely to feel "hell, we pay them plenty with their base salaries, electorate allowances and other benefits:  why on earth would they feel the need to wring from us such paltry sums, the rightness of which is questionable at best?"

I don't think it's about the money at all.  It rather goes to the public perception of politicians being in it for pure self interest, even down to these shameful rip offs of their allowances.  Just completely unnecessary and it further exacerbates the negative image of politicians in the collective eye of the electorate.



Whiskers said:


> That motorist fanatic will no doubt go back to labor in the senate.



Who would know?  He has failed to explain any policy other than an enthusiasm for tramping over the environment in oversized machines. 



> I note he has threatened to not pass any bills, not even abolition of the mining and carbon tax if Tony doesn't give him more resources. This is going to get nastier before it gets better.



Agree.  You made this point earlier, Whiskers, and you're almost certainly correct.
It will be very interesting to see how Mr Abbott handles Mr Palmer.


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> Lets debate the integrity of this Coalition front bench and its Prime-minister.




What as opposed to the integrity of the last government and its front bench, or should I say carousel.

Or maybe the prime ministers, 'jack the knife' or would the be jack and jackie the knife.


----------



## IFocus

Christmas Island administrator believes Labor's PNG deal has discouraged asylum seeker boats



> Christmas Island's administrator Jon Stanhope has credited Labor's Papua New Guinea deal for a dramatic reduction in asylum seeker boat arrivals, even though he is uncomfortable with the policy.
> 
> Mr Stanhope says since the policy was introduced in July, the number of boat arrivals has gone from about five a week to just one.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-...ministrator-believes-png-deal-working/5017306


----------



## Whiskers

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The PM has been doing a jolly good job since the election.




But, he's got to feed the chooks! Can't afford to let the chooks run riot for too long.

Lord knows what damage they'll end up doing.



> I can detect a mood of optimism in the community.
> gg




Apparently not by the poll, gg.

I think it's still the aroma in the air of the Champaign from the fanatical far right parties you can detect.


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> Christmas Island administrator believes Labor's PNG deal has discouraged asylum seeker boats
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-...ministrator-believes-png-deal-working/5017306




WOW!!!! Great News, has anyone told him it's six weeks late.

Funny how it coincides with, Labor imploding chucking out Gillard and everyone and his dog knowing Liberals were coming in. lol

It was six years late.


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> Christmas Island administrator believes Labor's PNG deal has discouraged asylum seeker boats
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-...ministrator-believes-png-deal-working/5017306



He's really compassionate. 

He would rather see more asylum seekers as shark food in preference to stopping the boats.



> But he is highly critical of his own party's handling of the issue and its current policy position, even though it appears to be working.
> 
> "Is that the indicator of success that any asylum seeker that gets to Australia is immediately deported? Or is a key performance indicator or an indicator of success that you acted with compassion, that you acted with humanity?"
> 
> Mr Stanhope says many within Labor are uncomfortable with the party's policy and he is hoping the new leader - to be announced on Sunday - will change tack.




There's also the little issue of Labor wrecking the china shop in the first place and then adopting a partial quick fix totally against their own ideology to suit them in an election campaign.


----------



## IFocus

Is this the future under Abbott I hope not I think its well and truly over stepping the mark.

Queensland Government plans CMC power boost to crack organised crime gangs




> The Queensland Government is under fire for introducing tough new laws that will increase the coercive powers of the state's crime watchdog.
> 
> In the wake of a very public bikie brawl on the Gold Coast, the Government has been talking tough about bikie gangs and vowing to pull out all stops to rid the state of them.
> 
> The LNP Government will introduce a raft of legislative measures to Parliament next week, including a move to beef up the powers of the Crime and Misconduct Commission's so-called star chamber.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-...-boost-to-crack-organised-crime-gangs/5016392


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> Is this the future under Abbott I hope not I think its well and truly over stepping the mark.
> 
> Queensland Government plans CMC power boost to crack organised crime gangs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-...-boost-to-crack-organised-crime-gangs/5016392




Isn't there already a Newman government thread?

You really should keep your powder dry, untill you have something to shoot at. IMO


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

I can detect the last desperate bleatings of the Elites and New Class removed from their top down policies and positions.

It is now time for the workers under a Workers Party , the Coalition , to again find greatness in our country.

Jobs, Housing, Infrastructure and Secure Borders are better than a cirrus of brainfarts from leftie professors parachuted in to a Labor/Green government in 2006.

gg


----------



## drsmith

Sorry GG, but a correction is in order. It was 2007.

It just seemed longer.


----------



## Calliope

Whiskers said:


> I think it's still the aroma in the air of the Champaign from the fanatical far right parties you can detect.




Wrong again.

Champaign is a city in Champaign County, Illinois, United States. The city is located 135 miles south of Chicago, 124 miles west of Indianapolis, Indiana, and 178 mi northeast of St. Louis, Missouri. Wikipedia


----------



## Whiskers

Julia said:


> So no expectation ever that if Australia is threatened from any source our American allies will step in to help?




The US has got too much satellite monitoring and surveillance invested in Aus to allow us to be invaded. Tony just needs to uncross his placating and patronising wires and do a 'Yudhoyono' and she'll be sweet. 




> Who would know?  He has failed to explain any policy other than an enthusiasm for tramping over the environment in oversized machines.




Yeah... I think this guy is literally a ring-in! Just the tonic for people to advocate electoral reform.

With any sort of bounce for Labor it will likely go to them next time... assuming someone does something about the above the line preference thing.

This guy knows he's only here for one term at most and will vote against anything that even smells like electoral reform cos he knows it could get him tossed out sooner than 6 years, esp in a DD. The irony is Tony would welcome that as part of a trigger for a DD to cleanse him and gain control the senate. The problem for Tony is the LNP only needs a swing against them of 1.8% to loose all their new house of reps seats, and maybe a senator or two back to Labor or Greens. 

Abbott has to keep improving his 'popularity' to dictate terms in parliament. He can't afford to go backwards or PUP will have great joy in withholding support, fail to pass any bills, to demand more of what Palmer wants and daring him to call a DD where he'll likely give back some of the marginal seats just gained... if not loose them all if people see that he is not more credible than Labor and or can't stand up to Palmer..

Although the hope from the defeat of Labor was stable predictable government... I fear too many may be celebrating too much, too early.


----------



## drsmith

Whiskers said:


> Although the hope from the defeat of Labor was stable predictable government... I fear too many may be celebrating too much, too early.



What you fear is that they'll do a better job than Labor.

If the early indications on boat arrivals is any guide, they will and by a big margin.


----------



## Whiskers

Calliope said:


> Wrong again.
> 
> Champaign is a city in Champaign County, Illinois, United States. The city is located 135 miles south of Chicago, 124 miles west of Indianapolis, Indiana, and 178 mi northeast of St. Louis, Missouri. Wikipedia




"I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be." 


“Smartass is a latent idiot.” 
― Toba Beta, Master of Stupidity 


“When there is no distraction, there is clarity.” 
― Lorii Myers

:

and..

“Love shouldn’t require Windex to be clear. It either is or it isn’t.” 
― Mandy Hale


----------



## Whiskers

drsmith said:


> What you fear is that they'll do a better job than Labor.
> 
> If the early indications on boat arrivals is any guide, they will and by a big margin.




What I fear is the electorate is saying Abbott is talking the talk, but NOT walking the walk!.. he's a bit of a bull in a china shop... and we'll still have a hell of a ba!!sed up economy as the inevitable slowdown hits us again and quite possibly sending us into recession this time with no capital or income to prop it up for awhile, and the risk of an early election and gift the government back to Shorton!

All the boat arrivals are indicative of is a significant slowing after Rudd did the deal with PNG, and the weather being rough of late as evidenced by the break up of a few boats just out of Indonesia. One needs to read between the lines a bit and give credit where credit is due. I suspect the main reason Abbott is keeping a closed door on the details of boat arrivals is he realises an aggressive approach at sea will reflect in a drop in popularity by albeit a small minority, but enough to change the tide of his poll support. 

What the announcement of a once a week bit-sa briefing did is immediately sent up a red flag... 'watch this space for something we don't want you to know'.

What would be better from a public perspective popularity view is to have left the 'details of arrivals' press or web release as it happens like before and just do what they have to do at sea anyway, quietly, while everyone is absorbing the media releases. He could have done with some tactical advice from the military in how to run covert operations... but I suppose when you have a legacy of talking tough, you just can't help yourself. 

I think you will find a lot of the electorate could live with the boats and carbon tax, with stable Labor leadership, if they feel the alternative is going to be worse, as in morphing into a big L Lib government again.

That's the bottom line, the electorate has never really warmed to Abbott. He got support by default, not charisma. He has to work a bit smarter in government to make peoples lives better to hold onto and gain on that support.


----------



## drsmith

Whiskers said:


> What I fear is the electorate is saying Abbott is talking the talk, but NOT walking the walk!.. he's a bit of a bull in a china shop... and we'll still have a hell of a ba!!sed up economy as the inevitable slowdown hits us again and quite possibly sending us into recession this time with no capital or income to prop it up for awhile, and the risk of an early election and gift the government back to Shorton!
> 
> All the boat arrivals are indicative of is a significant slowing after Rudd did the deal with PNG, and the weather being rough of late as evidenced by the break up of a few boats just out of Indonesia. One needs to read between the lines a bit and give credit where credit is due. I suspect the main reason Abbott is keeping a closed door on the details of boat arrivals is he realises an aggressive approach at sea will reflect in a drop in popularity by albeit a small minority, but enough to change the tide of his poll support.



An early election and gift the government back to Shorten ??

That is wishful thinking.

As for giving Kevin Rudd and credit in relation to asylum policy, that dances on the watery graves of the more than 1000 that drowned at sea under Labor's policies in government. While his 11th hour PNG solution started the process of reducing the boats, for Labor, it was a short term political fix designed to minimise their electoral loss that went totally against their own ideology. The Libs in office have broadened the policy mix including the essential cooperation with Indonesia to finally solve this problem created by the first Rudd administration.



Whiskers said:


> I think you will find a lot of the electorate could live with the boats and carbon tax, with stable Labor leadership, if they feel the alternative is going to be worse, as in morphing into a big L Lib government again.




The above illustrates why Labor is now in opposition. Big failure, big lie, a big fear campaign and the expectation is electorate as a whole to buy all of that. It's true that the Abbott government will need to learn and grow while in office, but Labor much more so will have to do so in opposition if it is to return to government anytime soon.

One area where I feel where Tony Abbott has stumbled a little this week is the entitlements issue. While I don't agree with everything Peter Van Olsen says in the following article, the following point is valid,



> Misuse of entitlements, while often technically legal, is a bipartisan cultural problem. But in government it is now Abbott's problem to fix. If he doesn't - and so far we have not heard a peep out of the minister charged with oversight of entitlements, Special Minister of State Michael Ronaldson - the new PM will have thumbed his nose at the outrage of the voting public. He will have delivered a message that while his government intends to clamp down on rorts in areas such as welfare payments, he isn't prepared to look closer to home at what is going on inside the parliament.




The political judgement will be one of its importance relative to other issues and for now at least, TA has decided it's not a priority. That though will need to change if the issue maintains a media profile.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...-cut-it-any-more/story-fn53lw5p-1226738514720


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

A good mate of mine who left the ALP tells me that the new bunch of polyesters who run the party still believe that everything they espoused during the Rudd Gillard years was correct.

All the proper brainy and astute people have left the parliamentary party, he says.

It is now a sad mob composed equally of acneyed youths, time servers and tribes hoping for a seat.

So please, could we not disabuse the present ALP which now resembles the Greens of the righteousness of their claims on boat arrivals and deaths during their disasterous government. They might actually improve if we do.

The truth is Tony Abbott in opposition and now as PM has stopped the boats.

Rudd unleashed a massive influx of rich migrants to skip the queue and Gillard did nothing, just sat on her hands.

Our present PM has achieved more since elected than the other two did in 6 years.

We can now look to having secure borders again.

gg


----------



## Julia

Whiskers said:


> I think you will find a lot of the electorate could live with the boats and carbon tax, with stable Labor leadership,



And here you demonstrate what you have in common with other loyal Labor supporters:  the total myth that all that was actually wrong with Labor was their internal leadership squabbling.   From the moment the carbon tax was introduced, and soon after Rudd dismantled the successful Pacific Solution, the majority of the electorate was angry.

For the rest of your remarks, drsmith has already more than adequately expressed what I'd have said.


----------



## Whiskers

drsmith said:


> An early election and gift the government back to Shorten ??
> 
> That is wishful thinking.




Hey dr, what I said was that is what I feared (not wishful thinking)... should Abbott not do a better job of winning public support. 

Are you misconstruing comments just to flood the thread with provocatively silly comments... or did you genuinely interpret that from my post? If the former you are not doing the credibility of the pro Abbott cause and good, in fact you are coming across like the dumb blonde 'jokes'... and if the latter, you need to see a psyche doc asap!



> As for giving Kevin Rudd and credit in relation to asylum policy,




Again, what I said is give credit where credit is due, Rudd flipped and flopped on policy... BUT none the less he did do the deal with PNG announcing a policy change that no boat people will ever get visas. What I said in no way endorses or applauds anything else he did as you misrepresent... just that he did the deal with PNG that was similar to the LNP policy to effectively slow boat arrivals. 

The higher moral and credibility ground would be for Abbot (and you) to say you got the system that Rudd back flipped too, to work better. That would help to enhance his objectiveness and trustworthiness that is a major part of his less popular support.


----------



## Whiskers

Julia said:


> And here you demonstrate what you have in common with other loyal Labor supporters:  the total myth that all that was actually wrong with Labor was their internal leadership squabbling.   From the moment the carbon tax was introduced, and soon after Rudd dismantled the successful Pacific Solution, the majority of the electorate was angry.
> 
> For the rest of your remarks, drsmith has already more than adequately expressed what I'd have said.




Julia, you know I'm more Nat than anything else. 

As for dr, are you misconstruing comments just to flood the thread with provocatively silly comments... or did you genuinely interpret that from my post?

How about the context... that the rest of the sentence so clearly provided.

I think you will find a lot of the electorate could live with the boats and carbon tax, with stable Labor leadership,* if they feel the alternative is going to be worse, as in morphing into a big L Lib government again*.​
For someone who often displays pedantic language tendencies... this is a pretty big violation of the formal rules of English literature. 

_The conditional is possible in the future tense:
"I will need to see a doctor tomorrow *If* the flu gets worse.​_


----------



## drsmith

Whiskers said:


> The higher moral and credibility ground would be for Abbott to say you got the system that Rudd back flipped too, to work better.



I wish there was an applause icon.

Finally, you give TA at least a little credit. 

As for the prospect of an early election, you can put your money where your "worries" are and get good odds. Sportsbet is currently paying 4 to 1 on an election in 2014 and 5 to 1 in 2015 and that's only on the timing of the election, not the outcome. 

TA has a demonstrated record of taking from Labor, not gifting and that includes the big prize. He won't be giving it back in a hurry, so relax a little, try not to overanalyse and enjoy the view.


----------



## IFocus

Taxpayers won't quickly forgive the expenses scandal



> *The Coalition was elected to "cut the waste",* but voters have found that this set of pollies is just as prone to *trough-snorting self-serving excess as the mob they replaced*, writes Jonathan Green.
> 
> I'm trying to imagine Sir Robert Menzies whisking up the daughter then flying off to Tamworth for the Country Music Festival, enjoying all that golden guitar madness, then billing his maximum entitlements for the chartered air travel and accommodation to the taxpayer.






> A charter flight to the Tamworth Country Music Festival, which Mr Abbott attended with one of his daughters, last year cost $8800.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-10/green-why-the-expenses-scandal-still-has-legs/5013230


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> Taxpayers won't quickly forgive the expenses scandal
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-10/green-why-the-expenses-scandal-still-has-legs/5013230



A must watch for you tomorrow IF.

The ABC's insiders will have Peter Slipper on.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> A must watch for you tomorrow IF.
> 
> The ABC's insiders will have Peter Slipper on.




Just another reminder how the Coalition MPs were rorting the system eh.

Has anyone checked to see if Slipper billed his wedding to tax payers?  Maybe that's why Coalition MPs think weddings are official business since their all soooooo important.

Hey Gina, when's the next wedding??


----------



## drsmith

Attacking from behind Peter Slipper will be about as effective for the true believers as it ultimately was for Julia Gillard.


----------



## Macquack

drsmith said:


> *TA has a demonstrated record of taking from Labor*, not gifting and that includes the big prize. He won't be giving it back in a hurry, so relax a little, try not to overanalyse and enjoy the view.




You have a short memory, Tony Abbott failed to win the "big prize" at the 2010 election. 

TA couldn't even get past Julia Gillard, he is hardly a thoroughbred.


----------



## sails

Macquack said:


> You have a short memory, Tony Abbott failed to win the "big prize" at the 2010 election.
> 
> TA couldn't even get past Julia Gillard, he is hardly a thoroughbred.




That had more to do with two independents (haha - my ipad was trying to spell that dope dents!) who chose not to represent their majority in their conservative electorates. 

The coalition did  win a higher primary vote than labor  in 2010 and won one more set than labor.  The people did not give labor a win.  Gillard led a minority government but she had a friendly senate which enabled her to push through legislation regardless of the wishes of the people.


----------



## wayneL

Macquack said:


> You have a short memory, Tony Abbott failed to win the "big prize" at the 2010 election.
> 
> TA couldn't even get past Julia Gillard, he is hardly a thoroughbred.




Exactly sails... and Macquack, a tacit admission JG was a dud?


----------



## IFocus

Go Clive, at least Clive will be an interesting wild card and I expect will expose Abbott ever chance he gets.

Clive Palmer says Prime Minister Tony Abbott's mandate is worth 'zero' 



> The Prime Minister has repeatedly said non-Coalition senators should respect that voters had given him a mandate to deliver on promises, such as scrapping the carbon tax, and pass his legislation.
> 
> But Mr Palmer, whose party could control as many as four senators thanks to an alignment with motoring enthusiast Ricky Muir, said that argument had "zero" weight with him.


----------



## drsmith

wayneL said:


> Exactly sails... and Macquack, a tacit admission JG was a dud?




Not only that, it's a judgement passed regardless of how well he demolished Labor's majority in 2010 and how successful he is from that point and that's yet to be fully written.

A featherless duck and a featherless parrot squawking from the same corner.


----------



## 13ugs13unny

IFocus said:


> Go Clive, at least Clive will be an interesting wild card and I expect will expose Abbott ever chance he gets.
> 
> Clive Palmer says Prime Minister Tony Abbott's mandate is worth 'zero'




well that would be true if the recount in WA has him in the drivers seat- and in control of the senate, then he would have all the power to run the country as he sees fit not tony.

Tony failed to achieve a full mandate in the senate as well. His party was only delivered a partial mandate that needs to have bills rubber stamped by the senate - clive palmer - tony will need to lick alot of queensland billionaire butt, and the shameless way he has been doing it overseas has been there for all to see, and will be quite good at it, so we should get things done.

Hopefully the rest of the libs party can make up for this embarrassing short coming.


----------



## Whiskers

drsmith said:


> I wish there was an applause icon.
> 
> Finally, you give TA at least a little credit.




No... the credit is there to be had, but he still hasn't done it!



> TA has a demonstrated record of taking from Labor, not gifting and that includes the big prize. He won't be giving it back in a hurry, so relax a little, try not to overanalyse and enjoy the view.




You confuse giving with taking dr!



Macquack said:


> You have a short memory, Tony Abbott failed to win the "big prize" at the 2010 election.
> 
> TA couldn't even get past Julia Gillard, he is hardly a thoroughbred.




That's the point, Labor was imploding like never before and gifted many seats away. You just have to look at the increase of the independents to see that labor was giving away more to them than to Abbott. 

The fact that those independents put their own interests ahead of the country by warming to Gillard giving rise to them being tossed out and more independent or 'other' parties last election is further proof of dissatisfaction with Labor, giving away, not Abbott taking. Abbott largely got the crumbs, the 1.9% of the 4.5% labor gave away.

The fact, as has been stated sooo many times now, that Abbott couldn't capitalise on everything going as bad as it could for labor, to win a clear majority government in his own right is clear evidence that he is considered the best of a bad bunch, hence... he is on his 'P' plates and as such double demerit points. That's the legacy of his association and ideological fascination of Howard. 

People respect the good policies and wish him well for a sustained period of stable, predictable government, but keep him on a short leash for fear of him going AWOL like his idol/mentor Howard.




drsmith said:


> Not only that, it's a judgement passed regardless of how well he demolished Labor's majority in 2010 and how successful he is from that point and that's yet to be fully written.




Oh, how the veil of romance clouds ones judgement!  



> A featherless duck and a featherless parrot squawking from the same corner.




Maybe, but a 'quack' squawking in the guise of a dr... :


----------



## Knobby22

Whiskers said:


> People respect the good policies and wish him well for a sustained period of stable, predictable government, but keep him on a short leash for fear of him going AWOL like his idol/mentor Howard.




Exactly. I think Abbott might be a good, even great Prime Minister but people don't want to give him total control. 
I know I voted Liberal but after voting a lot of independents in front of them including PUP. I still can't believe what happened to Howard's sanity in his last term. 

If Tony does do well, he can expect to have peoples trust and do better next election. 

People dislike the warriors - look at Sophie Mirabella. It's not tribal warfare, it's running the country to your best ability.

And don't believe you heard the full story about Sophie, you will probably never know because our libel laws are so strong.


----------



## Julia

Whiskers said:


> The fact, as has been stated sooo many times now, that Abbott couldn't capitalise on everything going as bad as it could for labor, to win a clear majority government in his own right is clear evidence that he is considered the best of a bad bunch,



Perhaps be accurate and say that although he has a clear majority in the lower house, he does not in his own right have control of the Senate.

You don't like Mr Abbott, and in another thread you find pretty much everything wrong with Labor's new leader, Mr Shorten.  I'm a little curious about who you'd actually like to be running the show?
Surely not the archetypal populist, the most egocentric politician ever - Kevin Rudd?


----------



## Whiskers

Julia said:


> I'm a little curious about who you'd actually like to be running the show?




For me, the who is not near as important as the what they do, hence my point as so many including you have said, it's a choice of the least worse option at times. 

For anyone who successfully completed their business degree or many other management and leadership courses, the Drucker quote sums up an awful lot of knowledge and understanding in a short sentence. 

_“Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things.” 
― Peter F. Drucker_​
For me it's no different to business or sport. One has to recognise whether another is capable of, in the first instance, and willing to in the second, carry out one's directions in the spirit of the policy guidelines.

Maybe it's a bit harder for women to trust someone they don't like personally, hence the old saying 'hell has no fury like a woman scorned', but for me it's all pragmatism. If he's got the goods and he's the most likely to get the job done, he's got the job... even if it requires a short leash... limiting his authority to spend money etc and checking in on him unexpectedly for a while.

For me, 'like' would be a bonus, not a prerequisite as it is in professions, sport etc generally.

PS: Objectively though, Rudds leadership rule changes and then not contesting the leadership is probably one of the least egocentric things any labor leader has done for a long time.


----------



## Macquack

drsmith said:


> Not only that, it's a judgement passed regardless of how well he *demolished Labor's majority in 2010 *and how successful he is from that point and that's yet to be fully written.




The Coalition only picked up a paltry 7 seats in the 2010 election. A "demolition" would imply that there was nothing left standing and that Tony Abbott had become PM, didn't happen. You need to choose your words more accurately, Smith.


----------



## drsmith

Julia said:


> I'm a little curious about who you'd actually like to be running the show?
> Surely not the archetypal populist, the most egocentric politician ever - Kevin Rudd?






Whiskers said:


> Objectively though, Rudds leadership rule changes and then not contesting the leadership is probably one of the least egocentric things any labor leader has done for a long time.




That answers that question.



Macquack said:


> The Coalition only picked up a paltry 7 seats in the 2010 election. A "demolition" would imply that there was nothing left standing and that Tony Abbott had become PM, didn't happen. You need to choose your words more accurately, Smith.




It's your reading that lacks diligence, not my words.


----------



## Julia

Whiskers said:


> Maybe it's a bit harder for women to trust someone they don't like personally, hence the old saying 'hell has no fury like a woman scorned',



I think you're a bit confused about the origin of that bon mot, Whiskers.  It referred to the desire for revenge by a woman rejected in love:


> *Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned*
> 
> Meaning: A woman rejected in love can be very angry and dangerous.
> 
> Origin: This saying is based on lines from The Mourning Bride by William Congreve (1670-1729):
> 
> Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned,
> Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned.






> PS: Objectively though, Rudds leadership rule changes and then not contesting the leadership is probably one of the least egocentric things any labor leader has done for a long time.



Oh god, remove the scales from your eyes.  Nothing to do with his ego.  Everything to do with the eventual realisation that he has had it, no one wants him, not his ex colleagues, not the electorate.  Even the self deluding Rudd has finally had to acknowledge that - at least until Shorten and all other possible contenders fall over, he has had it.


----------



## drsmith

Julia said:


> - at least until Shorten and all other possible contenders fall over, he has had it.



Is that another dodgy thermostat on the cryogenic freeze ?

Is that a blood stained dagger carelessly left nearby ?

I can't quiet imagine Kevin the humble opposition backbencher.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Just another reminder how the Coalition MPs were rorting the system eh.
> 
> Has anyone checked to see if Slipper billed his wedding to tax payers?  Maybe that's why Coalition MPs think weddings are official business since their all soooooo important.
> 
> Hey Gina, when's the next wedding??




They tell me Simon Crean claimed expenses to fly to Bob Hawkes 80th birthday.

Now I wonder why the lefties ain't talking about that?


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> They tell me Simon Crean claimed expenses to fly to Bob Hawkes 80th birthday.
> 
> Now I wonder why the lefties ain't talking about that?




I think we're sick of all politicians taking advantage of us.

It's not a party issue, it's the general sense of entitlement they have, which probably explains why we have so much middle class welfare as they don't actually see it as welfare but as a basic right for a handout.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> It's not a party issue, it's the general sense of entitlement they have, which probably explains why we have so much middle class welfare as they don't actually see it as welfare but as a basic right for a handout.




This was never a partisan issue from the start despite partisan frothing such as this,



sydboy007 said:


> It's more the double standards that gets me.  The witch hunt of Slipper and Thompson and then the I've paid the money back so it's OK.




In focusing specifically on the government, Fairfax too was very biased in it's initial coverage.


----------



## Knobby22

sydboy007 said:


> I think we're sick of all politicians taking advantage of us.
> 
> It's not a party issue, it's the general sense of entitlement they have, which probably explains why we have so much middle class welfare as they don't actually see it as welfare but as a basic right for a handout.




Yes, its not as if they have any special skills and it's not as if they aren't paid well.

- - - Updated - - -



drsmith said:


> This was never a partisan issue from the start despite partisan frothing such as this,
> 
> In focusing specifically on the government, Fairfax too was very biased in it's initial coverage.




It was News that broke the story. What about the Libs who attacked Slipper (an ex Lib) and then do it themselves?? I think we know the word for that.


----------



## basilio

I'm not impressed with the facts that many politicians have been taking advantage of the truckholes in the various entitlements they can claim. Couple of thoughts however.

1) I think you will find The Greens, Nick Xenophon and probably Rob Oakshott, Andrew Wilkie and Tony Windsor have the least number of dodgy claims. In fact the most sensible comments in the discussion have come from Nick who suggested that  pollies should have to briefly outline the reason for travel and if the trip was under 2 hours go economy rather than business class. 

2) I suggest these politicians have a more public spirited approach to their time in politics. They didn't seem to be in there for the bickies and appear relatively content with the financial renumeration offered by the position.

3) The mainstream politicians would feel like poor cousins against business contemporaries. Essentially business is now paying many multiples of the salaries offered to pollies. 

4) Given the relatively poor wages earned by the mainstream politicians the temptation to crib/dissemble on their expenses to keep up with their business cousins would be very big.  With almost no reason not to crib many have dug deep. After all you would have to be "a Green loser or batty idealist" not to help yourself wouldn't you ?

Couple of ways out ? Check out Nick Xenophens ideas. His last point was very astute. If the politicians do make a mistake they have to pay back double the amount. (At present any claims can be made and if the politician thinks there is an error (ie  a journalist comes looking ) he/she can repay the sum with no other consequences. The Nick Minchin protocol)

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/minchin-protocol-expenses-tony-abbott
http://www.independentaustralia.net...w-finance-defied-protocol-to-crucify-slipper/


----------



## Julia

I agree entirely about Nick Xenophon's sensible suggestions.  He's probably one of the very few politicians who can claim integrity across most matters.

However, the two main parties won't be showing any enthusiasm for Sen. Xenophon's ideas.  Rather, they'll mutually weather this minor storm, wait for it all to die down, and then be back to milking the taxpayer for every last dollar, thus missing a good opportunity to improve their standing in the collective view of the electorate.


----------



## sydboy007

Hockey just gave a cringe worth interview on CNBC.  If this is the economic management credentials of the Abbott Govt then we're in very very deep doo doo.

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/10/in-new-york-hockey-defends-housing-bubble

Hockey Ponzinomics is based on the following essential ingreedients (sic):

* Housing is an "asset class" not for shelter - CHECK

* prop up demand - CHECK (high immigration)

* restrict supply - CHECK (slow supply to market)

* encourage over investment and capitalisation of housing stock - CHECK CHECK CHECK

Then you put some lipstick on the pig of a policy and _"rising house prices in Australia help to make some of the more marginal new housing developments affordable and realistic and deliverable. And in turn, that increase in supply helps to manage the market. So, Australia is a long way from a bubble…"_

All those property developers must love the way Hockey Ponzinomics allows them to "manage the market."

Tony's no better with his statement from last month _“Don’t forget … if housing prices go up, sure that makes it harder to get into the market, but it also means that everyone who is in the market has a more valuable asset”._

So younger Gen X and those that come after, the Great Aussie Dream is all about Asset values and keeping the bubble inflated.  Affordability and the right to reasonably priced shelter is no longer a consideration for Federal Government Housing policy, not that they seem to actually have a policy.

How they justify this _policy _when our excessive house prices already eat up too much of our income - even with some of the lowest mortgage interest rates in the history of the country!!!  Not a lot of income left for the non discretionary sectors.  Productive investment to earn us export income is crimped, high rents also massively reduce our international competitiveness.


----------



## Knobby22

Yes, it's not nice Sydboy. It's sad that first home buyers are seriously being priced out of the market now. So much so, that there percentage of loans is at new lows. Looks like the housing dream is dead for Gen Z, they will all have to be renters as what occurs in Europe.

Labor brought in the stupid rule that you could borrow within tour super to buy houses and relaxed the rules on the Chinese. I was hoping that the coalition would overturn them. No such luck.


----------



## sydboy007

basilio said:


> I'm not impressed with the facts that many politicians have been taking advantage of the truckholes in the various entitlements they can claim. Couple of thoughts however.
> 
> 3) The mainstream politicians would feel like poor cousins against business contemporaries. Essentially business is now paying many multiples of the salaries offered to pollies.
> 
> 4) Given the relatively poor wages earned by the mainstream politicians the temptation to crib/dissemble on their expenses to keep up with their business cousins would be very big.  With almost no reason not to crib many have dug deep. After all you would have to be "a Green loser or batty idealist" not to help yourself wouldn't you ?




Um, if you consider a basic wage of ~$200K as a relatively poor wage then I can understand why the pollies are ripping us off as much as they can.

Once you are a minister or shadow minister or a anything really you income goes up further.  They still get their overseas study trip and quite a few other benefits as well.  No cost to get to and from work either.

Can't remember if it was Oakshott or Windsor but they didn't think to claim their charity work against tax payers like Abbott.  After seeing Abbott defend his claims I've lost a lot of the respect i had for him as an individual outside politics.  Seems he's views it as "work".  So what I viewed as showing a sense of charity from the man seems to be at least partly about grabbing votes.

As the table below shows a single income 2 child political family already has an income better than 80% of households, and when view as a single income earner they are in the top 3-5%.


----------



## basilio

$200k is a decent wage .  My point of comparison however was against the comparable businessmen who politicians mix with  in most cases would be on far better packages.

I also suggest that many Coalition members would have come from higher paid work situations and  thus feel entitled to much more than they are given.

I don't have a problem paying a good wage to effective and honest politicians. And frankly I think the stress and challenges of Cabinet positions and PM are not recompensed by the salaries. But the practice of simply allowing politicians to claim whatever they want with little effective monitoring is not good practice.

*And* it looks really cheap and opportunistic.


----------



## drsmith

Carbon tax repeal to be the first bill considered by the new parliament,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-15/abbott-draft-carbon-tax-repeal/5023826



Knobby22 said:


> It was News that broke the story. What about the Libs who attacked Slipper (an ex Lib) and then do it themselves?? I think we know the word for that.



Regardless of who broke the story, Fairfax was biased by the way it concentrated on Coalition politicians. That doesn't bother me by the way. As we all know, News is biased the other way.

With regard to your comment on Peter Slipper, all that needs to be said is Cabcharge and Suburb-to-suburb. Anyone attacking the coalition from behind him will be about as successful as Julia Gillard ultimately was.


----------



## Julia

basilio said:


> $200k is a decent wage .  My point of comparison however was against the comparable businessmen who politicians mix with  in most cases would be on far better packages.
> 
> I also suggest that many Coalition members would have come from higher paid work situations and  thus feel entitled to much more than they are given.



Not to at all defend any inappropriate claiming by politicians, but if you imagine people employed across business don't access massive tax free entitlements, often on the most flimsy of bases, you're dreaming.


----------



## sydboy007

basilio said:


> $200k is a decent wage .  My point of comparison however was against the comparable businessmen who politicians mix with  in most cases would be on far better packages.
> 
> I also suggest that many Coalition members would have come from higher paid work situations and  thus feel entitled to much more than they are given.
> 
> I don't have a problem paying a good wage to effective and honest politicians. And frankly I think the stress and challenges of Cabinet positions and PM are not recompensed by the salaries. But the practice of simply allowing politicians to claim whatever they want with little effective monitoring is not good practice.
> 
> *And* it looks really cheap and opportunistic.




Our politicans are some of the highest paid in the world, especially when you look at how many they people are in their electorates.

The Australian PM earns more than the US President, though Singapore's PM takes the cake with around a $3M wage plus benefits, oh and they don't have issues with hiring his wife to run their version of the Future Fund (Temasek)

As for CEO pay and performance, time and again studies show there is no statistical correlation between pay and performance.

Australian politicians earn over 2.5 times the average wage, nearly 4 times to median wage, and are in the top ~3% of income earners in the country.  By any measure they are more than well compensated for their work.


----------



## wayneL

sydboy007 said:


> Our politicans are some of the highest paid in the world, especially when you look at how many they people are in their electorates.
> 
> The Australian PM earns more than the US President, though Singapore's PM takes the cake with around a $3M wage plus benefits, oh and they don't have issues with hiring his wife to run their version of the Future Fund (Temasek)
> 
> As for CEO pay and performance, time and again studies show there is no statistical correlation between pay and performance.
> 
> Australian politicians earn over 2.5 times the average wage, nearly 4 times to median wage, and are in the top ~3% of income earners in the country.  By any measure they are more than well compensated for their work.




...and if you think we have rubbish politicians now, imagine if the pay was crap.


----------



## noco

You know this pollie expenses discussion has been hammered now for over a week by the media and all the political parties.

The one thing Abbott has not learned yet is how to divert attention.

The Labor Party were masters at it.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> You know this pollie expenses discussion has been hammered now for over a week by the media and all the political parties.
> 
> The one thing Abbott has not learned yet is how to divert attention.
> 
> The Labor Party were masters at it.




I thought Joe's Hockey Ponzinomics talk show appearance in NYC was a great diversionary tactic.  Red flag meet property specufestors.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> I thought Joe's Hockey Ponzinomics talk show appearance in NYC was a great diversionary tactic.  Red flag meet property specufestors.




But it received little attention really.

If it had been Swan it would have blasted by the media for days after.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> But it received little attention really.
> 
> If it had been Swan it would have blasted by the media for days after.




Oh, I'm sure uncle Rupert would have ensure Hockey Ponzinomics was well known in Australia if it had been a Fox News interview.

I dare say Joe will have some explaining to do when he gets back as to why he was consorting with the enemy in NYC.

If his views on housing are an insight into his level of economic aptitude then we're stuffed.

Suppose I shouldn't be surprised when this is the party that endorses oligopolies and seems to think they're perfect for Australia (Andrew Robb take a bow)


----------



## sydboy007

I hope this isn't true

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/10/is-abbott-about-to-securitise-hecs-debts/

You'd definitely have to offer a pretty big discount to book value of the loans if the interest rate is maintained at CPI.

Looks like we'll head for a Liberal nirvana of students leaving Uni with $100K of loans like in the USA


----------



## wayneL

sydboy007 said:


> If his views on housing are an insight into his level of economic aptitude then we're stuffed.




Of course we're stuffed, but the question is how stuffed to you want to be? Thankfully, we're less stuffed now than we would have been.


----------



## MrBurns

wayneL said:


> Of course we're stuffed, but the question is how stuffed to you want to be? Thankfully, we're less stuffed now than we would have been.




+1


----------



## 13ugs13unny

wayneL said:


> ...and if you think we have rubbish politicians now, imagine if the pay was crap.




Then we would at least have pollies you can call 'honourable'.  

Perhaps we are better off paying peanuts to get monkeys rather than pork barrelling these overgrown self indulgent pigs.


----------



## wayneL

13ugs13unny said:


> Then we would at least have pollies you can call 'honourable'.
> 
> Perhaps we are better off paying peanuts to get monkeys rather than pork barrelling these overgrown self indulgent pigs.




Honourable mates and sheilas... and empty tinnies littering the benches... Maccas and a Dominoes Pizza stalls in the food hall of Parliament house

Yeah, I can just imagine the level of debate.  Threats of double dissolution over the "free beer tattoos for all" bill.


----------



## 13ugs13unny

wayneL said:


> ... and empty tinnies littering the benches... Maccas and a Dominoes Pizza stalls in the food hall of Parliament house




Its only fair to make it look like our suburbs.


----------



## sydboy007

wayneL said:


> Of course we're stuffed, but the question is how stuffed to you want to be? Thankfully, we're less stuffed now than we would have been.




Dun count ya stuffings until they're well and truly stuffed.

Abbott is on a FTA at any cost road, Hockey seems to think restrictive planning laws and high immigration to prop up house prices is good, Robb thinks oligopolies are great for Australia, MT wants to plan an FTTN without doing an audit of the copper CAN to determine if it's actually viable.

Tally HOOOO specufestors, and the rentier class have been given the green light.


----------



## CanOz

You lot are unbelievable...not happy with labor so you vote them out and already you're giving the new government crap when they've just started...

I think you just have nothing better to do than talk politics...why not go to the pub and talk politics?

I would hate to be a politician, but most of all i would hate to be one in Australia!


----------



## DB008

CanOz said:


> ...why not go to the pub and...




Drink beer? I'm literally on my way out the door....


----------



## sydboy007

CanOz said:


> You lot are unbelievable...not happy with labor so you vote them out and already you're giving the new government crap when they've just started...
> 
> I think you just have nothing better to do than talk politics...why not go to the pub and talk politics?
> 
> I would hate to be a politician, but most of all i would hate to be one in Australia!




Considering Labor was continually hounded by the media, seems only fair the L+NP get the same treatment.

PS.  While i was unhappy with the performance of labor, I certainly didn't vote for All the Way with FTA Abbott or Ponzinomics Hockey either.


----------



## sydboy007

Oh My, poor Don Randall.  I have to ask, how does one spend over $5K for an overnight trip to Cairns 

It's starting to make sense how all the rorting has taken place when people like Don sit on the committee that oversees our Dear Leaders privileges.

If his cairns trip was purely for his IP, then he should be referred to the AFP.  Clearly it wasn't an oversight but wilful abuse of OUR MONEY 

Now lets hear from the ASF right about <insert name of union member> but really, graft / corruption / abuse of position should be condemned whoever is doing it.

So Tony doesn't think the system is broken or needs to be changed to stop these abuses happening.  Tick tock Tony.  You're the PM now, running a no excuses Government.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> Now lets hear from the ASF right about <insert name of union member> but really, graft / corruption / abuse of position should be condemned whoever is doing it.




If you recall your own words, you might be able to resist slipping into partisan frothing at the keyboard.



sydboy007 said:


> It's not a party issue, it's the general sense of entitlement they have, which probably explains why we have so much middle class welfare as they don't actually see it as welfare but as a basic right for a handout.


----------



## Julia

sydboy007 said:


> Oh My, poor Don Randall.  I have to ask, how does one spend over $5K for an overnight trip to Cairns
> 
> It's starting to make sense how all the rorting has taken place when people like Don sit on the committee that oversees our Dear Leaders privileges.
> 
> If his cairns trip was purely for his IP, then he should be referred to the AFP.  Clearly it wasn't an oversight but wilful abuse of OUR MONEY



Mr Randall has advised that his above claim was approved by the Department of Finance.
How could they possibly approve that???  Further underlines Nick Xenophon's claim that the whole system needs to be overhauled.  I especially like his idea that any MP making an inappropriate claim should be forced to pay back double the amount concerned.  That should provide a disincentive.


----------



## drsmith

Julia said:


> Mr Randall has advised that his above claim was approved by the Department of Finance.



"Appropriately acquitted" is being reported as the expression he used.

We'll see how appropriately over the next few days I suspect. 

The fundamental question is about the parliamentary business, not the investment property.


----------



## drsmith

Julia said:


> Interesting expression.  Where was it used?  ABC Radio said "approved".






> "In relation to the purchase of books, these were under entitlement and were purchased as gifts for community groups and schools in the electorate," Mr Randall said.
> 
> "The claims relating to travel were appropriately acquitted with the Department of Finance."




http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/19422674/randall-insists-expenses-were-appropriate/



Julia said:


> Just a little bit hard to justify electorate business in FNQ, I imagine.



I think what he's suggesting is that the travel claim was technically within the rules. That remains to be seen. Judging by the vagueness of the response though, it seems he also realises it would fail the common sense test.

I don't know what the DoF approval test is. Don Randall is in some bother I'd suggest if that's what he's relying on for justification judging by some of the other claims.


----------



## Whiskers

Julia said:


> I think you're a bit confused about the origin of that bon mot, Whiskers.  It referred to the desire for revenge by a woman rejected in love:




That's what I meant! Didn't I mention something about women tending to be more emotionally attached.

You tend to gush all over, or frown upon... based more on first appearances. :

Just look at the rest of your comment. Let me try to spell it out again!



> Oh god, remove the scales from your eyes.  Nothing to do with his ego.  Everything to do with the eventual realisation that he has had it, no one wants him, not his ex colleagues, not the electorate.  Even the self deluding Rudd has finally had to acknowledge that - at least until Shorten and all other possible contenders fall over, he has had it.




Julia, you need to get past the superficial first impressions! How many times now have I pointed out my commentary is of predictable behaviour and logical tactics of the players... not what I want. I'll concede though that it's a bit tough for some people to see much past their nose, let alone what's likely around the corner. 

His own caucus might not want him, but that is hardly any indictment on him or Albanese atm. Most people would wear that as a badge of honour atm. I'm thinking A lot of Labor grass roots and even general electorate would be behind him serving it up to get rid of more of this corrupted caucus. 

Shorten will either be uprooted by a revolt and lousy polls possibly with some help from Rudd, for the very same reason that he talked the talk, but did not walk the walk... over reform and accountability of the party. 

You think Rudd was bad... at least he wasn't part of an organised corrupt faction, particularly right faction that is behind all Labors woes including the NSW disaster... now spilling over into Fed Labor after successfully canning reforms to the party. If Shorten has his way, he'll screw the fed ALP and Abbott won't be home free either... the winner will be more other parties or independents, such as PUP.

An abbreviated analysis from the Rudd for PM thread.

I stand corrected if I'm wrong, but aren't all the bad noises and defections atm, Roxon, Burke etc coming from Shortens own right faction? Why? Sour grapes maybe, but none-the-less it highlights betrayed trust in the Snake oil salesman for past loyalty, err votes.

The faceless men from the right are putting in one last gasp to the same determination they did in NSW.

Albanese accused union power brokers of not listening to the electorate. He once said they are "gross self-indulgent rubbish" and they "should care more about the party and less about themselves." It's not hard to see why the membership supported Albanese and not Shorten.

Rudd is probably the only one with enough mongrel in him to serve up the political bastardry necessary to rid Labor of these bigger bastards acting badly sooner, rather than later!​
If Abbott knew what is best for him, he'll be hoping Rudd skittles Shorten so as draw back support away from palmer, so that, providing he (Abbott) doesn't ballz up, he will not have to deal with PUP dictating terms in the senate.


----------



## waza1960

OK Whiskers as a keen Political follower here's my analysis..............

  Rudd although not corrupt was an egomaniac and hopeless PM only exceeded by Julia Gillard & will be out of      parliament before this term is finished.

  Shorten will stay as opposition leader until at least the next election not because he has any substance
  but because he is their best media performer.

  Tony Abbott will increase his majority in the next election as he will prove to be a much better PM than the last two
  in other words all the Labor and left wing smears will be shown to the public to be unfounded.

  The independents will not increase their majority. This only happened in the last election because Labor were so hopeless and divisive and Tony Abbott didn't have high personal popularity. The hung parliament and their machinations promoted widespread discontent of politics amongst the public resulting in a large protest vote against the major parties which ironically should have gone to the independents but most voters didn't make the distinction.

 Abbott is way too experienced politically to be swayed by Palmer. Palmer will back down or we will go to a DD.

 Lets revisit these posts over the next few months and years and we will see how it all pans out :


----------



## waza1960

In the interests of balance my first disappointment with TA is that he could have got on the front foot with the
 expenses issue.
     He could have easily stopped the majority of dodgy claims by simplifying the rules and would have gained
     a lot of political capital with the public.
     But at least he is concentrating on the business of running the government. 
     Can you imagine if the Labor party was still in power Rudd would announce an inquiry,be on TV every 10 mins
     expressing outrage and nothing would be done anyway.


----------



## sydboy007

waza1960 said:


> Tony Abbott will increase his majority in the next election as he will prove to be a much better PM than the last two in other words all the Labor and left wing smears will be shown to the public to be unfounded.




Will depend on how much he sells out Australian interests to seal the FTA with China, Korea and Japan.  The sense of desperation to have them done must be getting the French excited about the increase in Champaign sales when we sign away the farm.

In the immediate future, if he's not brought about an inquiry into the travel rorts and set about changing the whole system within the next 2 weeks, then it will be hard for him to argue about any changes to welfare or other spending cuts that are needed to get the budget back into shape.

It'd just be nice if the L+NP would apply the same standards upon themselves as they were howling for earlier in the year.  Seems all rorters are equal, just some more equal than others.


----------



## Calliope

sydboy007 said:


> Will depend on how much he sells out Australian interests to seal the FTA with China, Korea and Japan.  The sense of desperation to have them done must be getting the French excited about the increase in Champaign sales when we sign away the farm.
> 
> In the immediate future, if he's not brought about an inquiry into the travel rorts and set about changing the whole system within the next 2 weeks, then it will be hard for him to argue about any changes to welfare or other spending cuts that are needed to get the budget back into shape.
> 
> It'd just be nice if the L+NP would apply the same standards upon themselves as they were howling for earlier in the year.  Seems all rorters are equal, just some more equal than others.




Spoken like a "true disbeliever".


----------



## Knobby22

Don Randall should resign. I'm getting sick of pollies abusing our trust.
Feel like borrowing a guillotine from France.


----------



## Julia

Whiskers said:


> You tend to gush all over, or frown upon... based more on first appearances. :



Really?  Show me just one post where I have 'gushed over' any politician.
It will be like your comment a few weeks ago where you asserted I'd had a lot to say about the NBN, whereas in fact I hardly ever even read the thread, let alone comment.  Still waiting for your backing that one up.

I can't be bothered arguing with you, Whiskers.  You approve of Mr Rudd.  Fine.  Your prerogative.
I detest him.  Let's not go round in circles over it.



waza1960 said:


> OK Whiskers as a keen Political follower here's my analysis..............
> 
> Rudd although not corrupt was an egomaniac and hopeless PM only exceeded by Julia Gillard & will be out of      parliament before this term is finished.
> 
> Shorten will stay as opposition leader until at least the next election not because he has any substance
> but because he is their best media performer.
> 
> Tony Abbott will increase his majority in the next election as he will prove to be a much better PM than the last two
> in other words all the Labor and left wing smears will be shown to the public to be unfounded.
> 
> The independents will not increase their majority. This only happened in the last election because Labor were so hopeless and divisive and Tony Abbott didn't have high personal popularity. The hung parliament and their machinations promoted widespread discontent of politics amongst the public resulting in a large protest vote against the major parties which ironically should have gone to the independents but most voters didn't make the distinction.
> 
> Abbott is way too experienced politically to be swayed by Palmer. Palmer will back down or we will go to a DD.
> 
> Lets revisit these posts over the next few months and years and we will see how it all pans out :



Largely agree with your summary above, waza.  On the PUP vote, and yes it's anecdotal only, I've spoken to several people who voted for them as default option because they didn't want to vote for either of the two main parties.  Never expected their vote to actually give them any power.  Now bitterly regret so doing.

Agree also on your following point about Mr Abbott needing to take a stand on the expenses stuff.
Given his minimal personal popularity, I'd have thought he'd jump at any opportunity to elevate this by showing the electorate his disapproval of rorting.


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> Agree also on your following point about Mr Abbott needing to take a stand on the expenses stuff.
> Given his minimal personal popularity, I'd have thought he'd jump at any opportunity to elevate this by showing the electorate his disapproval of rorting.




I think the problem is this issue is nuclear for the mainstream parties.  Any audit over a 5 year period will likely result is enough by-elections we might as well have the DD and get on with things.

Unfortunately Abbott is mimicking Howard's stance over the politicians super.  Can't remember how long he held out, but eventually he had to bring in changes so that they basically have a similar scheme to what we get, though only for those newly elected (2001 or 2004).

I must admit it has been pleasing to see those who shouted the loudest have been caught out as having had their snouts the deepest in the trough.  Seems the same way with those who talk about family values in public tend to be the ones going against what they preach when out of the public eye.


----------



## 13ugs13unny

CanOz said:


> You lot are unbelievable...not happy with labor so you vote them out and already you're giving the new government crap when they've just started...




....and we're just warming up our acidic juices are still brewing and some already busy grinding new and bigger axes.

So far all I see is self serving pigs in parliament at this stage, and abbott somehow believes he has been voted in to serve us free trade agreements. wtf?

Lets start with something really really simple like how are our producers/fisheries going to compete with say 20 cent mangoes flooding the market, or mekong river fish at .50 cents for fish & chips shops??  Who's going to monitor the bio secuirty to protect us? Who is going to test for toxin residues etc? how are manufactures going to compete with very very cheap imported manufactured goods?

A mine field.


----------



## Whiskers

waza1960 said:


> OK Whiskers as a keen Political follower here's my analysis..............
> 
> Shorten will stay as opposition leader until at least the next election not because he has any substance
> but because he is their best media performer.




Well with Roxon coming out with statements like:

"I reckon Bill Shorten and Tanya Plibersek are as close to 'the dream team' as you can get,"​
flying in the face of, and totally ignoring Shorten et al corrupt history and particularly the polls of grass root members, the right faction is certainly going to try to push $h!t uphill and all over the voting public. 



> Rudd although not corrupt was an egomaniac and hopeless PM only exceeded by Julia Gillard & will be out of parliament before this term is finished.




From his personality, I'd say Rudd will be more concerned with ridding Labor of the faceless men and union faction deals before he made another run.

Note he declined to comment on Roxon's remarks, with his office saying "he is focused on policies for Australia's future rather than the internal politics of the Labor Party".

In Rudd speak, I reckon that means he's got an agenda for PM with the plot going something like "Get Shorty".



> Abbott is way too experienced politically to be swayed by Palmer. Palmer will back down or we will go to a DD.




I'd just caution don't pin all your hopes on experience. Experience is often the mother of illusions... no match for ingenuity, the mother of invention, which the minor parties led by PUP now have demonstrated an upper hand atm.   



> Lets revisit these posts over the next few months and years and we will see how it all pans out :




I expect we will anyway.


----------



## drsmith

Whiskers said:


> Note he declined to comment on Roxon's remarks, with his office saying "he is focused on policies for Australia's future rather than the internal politics of the Labor Party".
> 
> In Rudd speak, I reckon that means he's got an agenda for PM with the plot going something like "Get Shorty".



Such early days and noises are already emanating from within the cryogenic freeze.

It will be enough to make Shorty wonder about the warranty on that new thermostat.


----------



## CanOz

I wasn't going to comment and i should be doing other things...but i can't help but wonder why politics attracts such bloody knuckleheads. Big business i guess, seems to get the best and brightest. I mean i have met some brilliant leaders in my career in a big CPG manufacturer. These people were brilliant leaders, smart, articulate, honest and had the highest integrity.

Why is it that politics gets the bottom of barrel? Is it the pay? The pension? 

Why can't pollies do anything right?

Well for starters most of these people are comfortable telling lies...likely a quarter of them are ok with stealing. The rest are likely lawyers and fark knows what they're thinking...


----------



## Knobby22

I personally know some politicians.
The way to the top is simple. 
Join the political club of your choice at Uni.
If you are in Labor, join a Union, council or a Labor law firm. Gain mates higher up in the party who will smooth your way.

If you are Liberal, join a powerbroker group and the young Libs or a Liberal law firm. Become active in a seat. Gain mates higher up in the party who will smooth your way.

Unfortunately if you don't follow this formula, it is very hard to get in otherwise.


----------



## basilio

The rorts story is getting so interesting now that all of the politicians claims have been put online and available for anyone who can add 2 and 2 together.

1) Don Randell has been comprehensively xxrewed with the revelations that he bought thousands of dollars worth of books that appear to have absolutely no relation to parliamentary business.
2) He has been xxrewed again with the exposure of his  tax payer paid flight to Cairns to buy and investment property.
3) Plus more.

Can't respond. Won't respond.

And now the Labour MP Rob Mitchell has asked the AFP to investigate Tony Abbotts  expense claims on the basis 
of "systematic claims that are not even remotely close to being able to be justified''.

Some examples



> Abbott's expenses:
> 2011 Port Macquarie ironman
> Flights: $941
> Travel allowance: $349
> Total: $ 1,290
> 
> 2012 Pier to Pub race in Lorne
> Flights: $1,095
> Travel allowance: $349
> Total: $1,444
> 
> 2012 Coffs Harbour cycle challenge
> Flights: $653
> Travel allowance: $349
> Total: $1,002
> 
> 2012 Wagga Wagga Lake to Lagoon fun run
> Total: $515
> 
> In 2010 Mr Abbott paid back $9,400 used to promote his book Battlelines. Mr Abbott has also repaid about $1,700 he claimed to attend two weddings in 2006.




It's particuarly exciting to watch because Don Randall was one of the more vocal critics of waste in Government.

http://www.mandurahmail.com.au/stor...ned-over-thousands-in-expenses-claims/?cs=294
http://www.mandurahmail.com.au/stor...nvestigate-tony-abbotts-expense-claims/?cs=12
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-08/abbott-has-history-of-claiming-sporting-event-expenses/5010186
http://www.theguardian.com/world/datablog/2013/oct/14/coalition-labor-travel-expenses
http://www.theguardian.com/news/dat...3/oct/10/help-investigate-politician-expenses


----------



## Whiskers

drsmith said:


> Such early days and noises are already emanating from within the cryogenic freeze.



 Just a rumble. Just enough to ooze out a bit of pheromone to keep everyone guessing when and where he will strike next. 



> It will be enough to make Shorty wonder about the warranty on that new thermostat.




What warranty?... oooh, the one he wrote for himself! Worthless eh!

Abbott should not get too focused with Shorty (as I expect he won't) and keep his eye open for a diversion where Shortys team look like someone has stirred the ants in their pants again and starting to look foolish in the public perception... and then check out the flanks for a Ruddy counter attack.


----------



## basilio

It just keeps getting better with "Expensegate".

Turns out that Don Randall who has ripped off the tax payers for 10k plus with his flights to purchase investment properties and creative book buying *also happens to be  part of the parliamentary committee that oversees MPs' entitlements*. 

How convenient for the fox to be in  charge of the hen house.

There has already been a call for him to resign or be sacked. 


> "For him to be on the privileges committee which oversees standards of parliament is the height of hypocrisy. Don Randall should go," Mr Johnson said.




Rob Johnson is a  WA State Liberal MP..

This firestorm  will spread and take half the government and all its credibility with it..
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ys-wa-liberal-mp/story-e6frfku9-1226741725139


----------



## sydboy007

Looks like Labor decided to take the nuclear option.

Maybe they did an audit and decided the Coalition has more to lose than themselves.

Will be interesting to see what the AFP does.  More interesting to see how many more cases get referred to them.

I'd say Tony is starting to regret not taking a strong stance on the issue and setting up a review process to change the system so that it weeds out bogus and dubious claims.

What happens if the AFP decides it has to investigate the PM?


----------



## IFocus

basilio said:


> It just keeps getting better with "Expensegate".
> 
> Turns out that Don Randall who has ripped off the tax payers for 10k plus with his flights to purchase investment properties and creative book buying *also happens to be  part of the parliamentary committee that oversees MPs' entitlements*.
> 
> How convenient for the fox to be in  charge of the hen house.
> 
> There has already been a call for him to resign or be sacked.
> 
> 
> Rob Johnson is a  WA State Liberal MP..
> 
> This firestorm  will spread and take half the government and all its credibility with it..
> http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ys-wa-liberal-mp/story-e6frfku9-1226741725139




Looks like faceless men in the Liberal party at 10 paces as Rob Johnson (total loser) verses (payback) Randall (total loser No 2)

Looking forward to the anger and outrage from the morals squad once the AFP drop the investigation into Abbott rorts.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

sydboy007 said:


> Looks like Labor decided to take the nuclear option.
> 
> Maybe they did an audit and decided the Coalition has more to lose than themselves.




Quite a dangerous assumption on the part of the ALP.

Let us wait and see.

I would imagine rogue claims on both sides.

gg


----------



## DB008

sydboy007 said:


> What happens if the AFP decides it has to investigate the PM?




Gillard or Abbott?

http://www.news.com.au/national-news/mps-including-prime-minister-julia-gillard-tripped-up-by-travel-perk-rules/story-e6frfkw9-1225993347272


----------



## sydboy007

DB008 said:


> Gillard or Abbott?
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/national-news/mps-including-prime-minister-julia-gillard-tripped-up-by-travel-perk-rules/story-e6frfkw9-1225993347272




Don't care.  Until 1 or 2 ends up in jail, or at least kicked out of parliament with the loss of all their wonderful entitlements, the rorts will continue.

The issue wouldn't resonate with me so much except for the holier than thou stance taken by the Coalition over the last 12-18 months.  It's the double standards and hypocrisy that gets me.

Anyone know if MT has made some large money transfers recently?  Could this be his ticket to the big chair 

Can't believe a Nonews article showed more Liberal than Labor rorters.  Uncle Rupert must be very displeased, though no mention of Tony so maybe he's just giving a stern look for now.


----------



## DB008

sydboy007 said:


> Don't care.  Until 1 or 2 ends up in jail, or at least kicked out of parliament with the loss of all their wonderful entitlements, the rorts will continue.
> 
> The issue wouldn't resonate with me so much except for the holier than thou stance taken by the Coalition over the last 12-18 months.  It's the double standards and hypocrisy that gets me.




Fair enough, I just didn't hear you jumping up and down when the ALP were in power rorting the system. Maybe I missed it in another thread?


----------



## drsmith

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Quite a dangerous assumption on the part of the ALP.
> 
> Let us wait and see.
> 
> I would imagine rogue claims on both sides.
> 
> gg



It will come to nothing.

it's just a bit of nonsense from Labor to keep the issue going in the media, not that they needed to with Don Randall's effort.

Our politicians won't ultimately crap in their own nests.


----------



## sydboy007

DB008 said:


> Fair enough, I just didn't hear you jumping up and down when the ALP were in power rorting the system. Maybe I missed it in another thread?




How much jumping up and down were you doing?

You do know the SMHhas gave instructions for anyone who has the inclination to do their own audit of the politicians expense claims?  That's where tey've gotten most of the stories recently.  Maybe people have gone a huntin against the Liberals and nationals, but there's nothing stopping you from doing the same against the ALP.

Think of it as your civic duty to help clean up the system.


----------



## IFocus

Mark Kenny states the obvious, loving the excuses so far. 


Trust-me Tony's' silence on expenses is curious



> When Tony Abbott wasn't casting the election as a referendum on the carbon tax or border security, he was framing it as a referendum on trust.
> 
> Restoring trust in government, voters were assured, was the bare minimum Australians were owed after the multiple breaches of the Rudd/Gillard period.
> 
> Measured against this imperative, the Prime Minister's studied silence on the ongoing expenses scandal ensnaring some of his own MPs is curious.







> Most taxpayers would say attending a wedding is not work under any circumstances. Ditto for attending big sporting events – the kind that many taxpayers cannot afford the entry to let alone the airfares and accommodation they find themselves unwittingly funding.
> 
> The inscrutability of the Government and faux indignation of many MPs that their claims on the public purse are being scrutinised is about the only thing genuinely transparent here.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-is-curious-20131017-2vpjm.html#ixzz2i1KnfuE9


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> It will come to nothing.
> 
> it's just a bit of nonsense from Labor to keep the issue going in the media, not that they needed to with Don Randall's effort.
> 
> Our politicians won't ultimately crap in their own nests.




Labor really haven't had much to say likely because they know there will be rorts in their own ranks but they have said they would look at any changes to clean up the system favourably.

Abbott and others in the Coalition just keep looking the other way waving to the crowd, move along nothing to see here hardly decisive leadership uuummm  ahhhh.


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> Labor really haven't had much to say likely because they know there will be rorts in their own ranks but they have said they would look at any changes to clean up the system favourably.



What they say and what they do. Craig Thomson and Peter Slipper come to mind.

I'm at a loss to understand why the Coalition leadership haven't yet acted. Perhaps that's a political decision.


----------



## IFocus

Some are more equal than others


Senior Abbott staffers furious after being told they will not get pay rise



> Some senior advisers in the Abbott Government are furious after being told by the Prime Minister's chief of staff that they will not be getting a pay rise.
> 
> That is despite their bosses receiving much larger salaries that come with moving from opposition into the ministry.
> 
> Several Coalition staff members have told the ABC's AM program it is another example of the power wielded by Peta Credlin in Tony Abbott's office.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-18/senior-abbott-staffers-furious-over-no-pay-rise/5030372


----------



## drsmith

How are political staffers employed ?

If it's through the APS and their level doesn't change regardless of government or opposition, their pay wouldn't either.


----------



## IFocus

Why isn't Abbott acting on the 'budget emergency'?



> Tony Abbott has wisely left Australia's fiscal settings exactly as they were under Labor, putting the lie to his hysterical pre-election economic rhetoric, writes Stephen Koukoulas.
> 
> Almost two months after a thumping election victory, there is not one hint of any economic policy change from the Abbott Government that will deal with the budget bottom line. Yet until the day before the election, this was painted by the Coalition as an "emergency" or "crisis".
> 
> The reason is obvious. The budget is in triple-A shape and in the complete opposite of an emergency.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-17/koukoulas-budget-emergency-fiction/5028770


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> What they say and what they do. Craig Thomson and Peter Slipper come to mind.
> 
> I'm at a loss to understand why the Coalition leadership haven't yet acted. Perhaps that's a political decision.




I don't think they quite know what to do.  All that time blaming Labor and now it's up to them to make a decision and take action......

ps - Slipper seemed to do a fair amount of his rorting as a Coalition member


----------



## sydboy007

IFocus said:


> Why isn't Abbott acting on the 'budget emergency'?
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-17/koukoulas-budget-emergency-fiction/5028770




Rumours has it Hockey Ponzinomics wants to upgrade the borrowing limit to $400B from the current $300B

Now with the marvellous economic efficiency of the Coalition, and the surplus in their DNA, one has to ask why does Joe need a 33% increase in the borrowing limit??

I'm very worried that Tony "THE CRISIS" Abbot has gone very quiet about the budget.  Where did that budgetary CRISIS disappear to


----------



## Whiskers

sydboy007 said:


> Rumours has it Hockey Ponzinomics wants to upgrade the borrowing limit to $400B from the current $300B
> 
> Now with the marvellous economic efficiency of the Coalition, and the surplus in their DNA, one has to ask why does Joe need a 33% increase in the borrowing limit??
> 
> I'm very worried that Tony "THE CRISIS" Abbot has gone very quiet about the budget.  Where did that budgetary CRISIS disappear to




Contrary to public perception Howard (Tony's idol and mentor) was a big spending government funded largely from asset sales.

It was the big spending that oiled the wheel of Howards electoral popularity, more than the feel-good of balanced budgets.

Watch out for some public entities and large tracts of crown land etc to go private.

Is a modified fast tracked NBN saleable in the medium term?


----------



## IFocus

Seems every one is lining up to stick the boot in even Barny wants a free kick


Randall will come under more heat: Barnett



> West Australian federal MP Don Randall has been warned by Premier Colin Barnett that he will continue to come under scrutiny as he continues to dodge questions over expense claims.
> 
> The MP for Canning has been under huge scrutiny this week for a $5000 travel expense claim for a trip to Cairns dubbed "electorate business" at a time when he was taking possession of an investment property in Queensland.
> 
> Mr Randall initially said his claim was within the rules but, on Thursday, said he would repay the money "due to the ongoing media scrutiny and public interest".
> 
> Other claims, including a trip to Melbourne for a "parliamentary sitting" on the same weekend West Coast were playing there, are still to be explained.




http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/19455091/randall-will-come-under-more-heat-barnett/


----------



## Ferret

Saw Abbott on the news tonight doing his bit fighting the NSW bushfires with his local brigade.  

Good on him!  Great to see him still making time for his community services work although now PM.  Indicates he is really genuine in his community spirit and that it wasn't just something he did to try and win votes.


----------



## Julia

Ferret said:


> Saw Abbott on the news tonight doing his bit fighting the NSW bushfires with his local brigade.
> 
> Good on him!  Great to see him still making time for his community services work although now PM.  Indicates he is really genuine in his community spirit and that it wasn't just something he did to try and win votes.



+1.


----------



## sydboy007

Ferret said:


> Saw Abbott on the news tonight doing his bit fighting the NSW bushfires with his local brigade.
> 
> Good on him!  Great to see him still making time for his community services work although now PM.  Indicates he is really genuine in his community spirit and that it wasn't just something he did to try and win votes.




I can half agree with you, but after finding out he claimed so many of the Charity events he's attended over the years as "work" I lost some of the respect I have for Tony the man outside of politics, especially when you consider some of the independents attended the same charity events and made no claim for tax payer funds.


----------



## MrBurns

sydboy007 said:


> I can half agree with you, but after finding out he claimed so many of the Charity events he's attended over the years as "work" I lost some of the respect I have for Tony the man outside of politics, especially when you consider some of the independents attended the same charity events and made no claim for tax payer funds.




That's a bit low, do you work for the ABC ?

How can you belittle a mans efforts fighting fires as a volunteer by bringing tax into it ? 

Charity event or not a tax deduction is a tax deduction, Abbott contributes more than you I expect and wouldn't cheat on his taxes intentionally, he's too high profile and probably too honest.


----------



## Logique

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-...-in-line-of-fire/story-fngw0i02-1226743492769


> Tony Abbott puts himself in line of fire
> SID MAHER THE AUSTRALIAN OCTOBER 21, 2013
> 
> ...If not for a couple of photos circulating on Twitter, it's a fair chance that Mr Abbott's weekend exploits would have gone unnoticed.
> 
> His office did not issue a statement until the blurry image of the PM giving the thumbs-up from behind the wheel of a fire truck appeared on the social media site...



The fiendish AbbottAbbottAbbott is at it again, having the temerity to serve his community.

Of course as we know, the Coalition stance on AGW caused the bushfires. Or so Adam Bandt and Wendy Harmer say, in between gulps of double ristretto, from the safety of their favourite inner city cafes.


----------



## Calliope

Logique said:


> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-...-in-line-of-fire/story-fngw0i02-1226743492769
> The fiendish AbbottAbbottAbbott is at it again, having the temerity to serve his community.
> 
> Of course as we know, the Coalition stance on AGW caused the bushfires. Or so Adam Bandt and Wendy Harmer say, in between gulps of double ristretto, from the safety of their favourite inner city cafes.




*Bandt and his Greenie activists have never apologised for their role in loss of lives and destruction in the 2009 Victorian bushfires.*

*On February 7, 2009, and in the week that followed, bushfires ignited across Victoria, in Australia. The fires raged through many towns, destroying at least 1,834 homes, and killing at least 209 people, more fatalities than any bushfire in Australian history*

As for the foul mouthed Harmer the less said, the better.



> It wasn't climate change which killed as many as 300 people in Victoria last weekend. It wasn't arsonists. It was the unstoppable intensity of a bushfire, turbo-charged by huge quantities of ground fuel which had been allowed to accumulate over years of drought. *It was the power of green ideology over government to oppose attempts to reduce fuel hazards before a megafire erupts, and which prevents landholders from clearing vegetation to protect themselves.*
> So many people need not have died so horribly. The warnings have been there for a decade. If politicians are intent on whipping up a lynch mob to divert attention from their own culpability,* it is not arsonists who should be hanging from lamp-posts but greenies.
> *



(my bolds)

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/g...e-for-deaths-20090211-84mk.html#ixzz2iJnpA0jL


----------



## Knobby22

What a load of crap Calliope. All hearsay and outright lies.
I would never vote for the Greens but even I know they are *for *fuel burn-offs.

If you are losing an argument e.g. climate change then blame another sector of society for the problem, *first law of propaganda*. 

I noticed that Bolt attacked Bandt today, rightfully in many ways, however he didn't spin his usual stuff about climate change not happening. All the right wing mouthpieces have obviously been told to tow the line. Climate change is now real!

"Hang the greens", what a lot of twaddle to try to make the rednecks and yourself  look the other way.
The truth is all the temperature records have been continually broken all year drying the forests. That is the cause of the fires.

And Calliope, if your only comeback is an insult, then don't bother.


----------



## sails

Calliope said:


> *Bandt and his Greenie activists have never apologised for their role in loss of lives and destruction in the 2009 Victorian bushfires.*
> 
> *On February 7, 2009, and in the week that followed, bushfires ignited across Victoria, in Australia. The fires raged through many towns, destroying at least 1,834 homes, and killing at least 209 people, more fatalities than any bushfire in Australian history*
> 
> As for the foul mouthed Harmer the less said, the better.
> 
> (my bolds)
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/g...e-for-deaths-20090211-84mk.html#ixzz2iJnpA0jL




From Andrew Bolt's site:





http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...sun/comments/more_warmists_exploit_nsw_fires/


----------



## drsmith

The Victorian Greens and prescribed burning,



> Principles
> 
> 6. Fire management including prescribed burns, must be informed by evidence-based
> science and The Precautionary Principle.




http://vic.greens.org.au/sites/vic.greens.org.au/files/policydownloads/Bushfires Policy rev3-w_0.pdf

The precautionary principle,



> The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

In other words, they are against it unless it can be proven it is not harmful to the environment.


----------



## sails

drsmith said:


> The Victorian Greens and prescribed burning,
> 
> 
> 
> http://vic.greens.org.au/sites/vic.greens.org.au/files/policydownloads/Bushfires Policy rev3-w_0.pdf
> 
> The precautionary principle,
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
> 
> In other words, they are against it unless it can be proven it is not harmful to the environment.




When will they realise that not back burning when conditions are safer they are contributing to much worse damage to the environment?  I suppose they will never get it.


----------



## Calliope

Knobby22 said:


> And Calliope, if your only comeback is an insult, then don't bother.




I won't bother responding to *your* insults. I have learned the pitfalls of responding to the provocation of fools.


----------



## CanOz

Calliope said:


> I won't bother responding to *your* insults. I have learned the pitfalls of responding to the provocation of fools.




Let it go fellas....


----------



## basilio

-Temperature records are falling like confetti around Australia and the world.

-The analysis of all climate scientists who know their stuff is that humans are the direct cause of global warming through our excess Co2 emissions.

-Global warming is increasing temperatures which will directly increase the intensity and frequency of bushfires.

-The Greens are the principal political party that has steadfastly seen climate change as a critical problem and one that we have to take responsibility for 


And yet... in the eyes of Bolt and Co The Greens are the ones responsible for the bushfires.

And Calliope and Co cheer wildly from the  grandstand

It tells you how poisoned and debased this debate has become.


----------



## CanOz

The Global Warming debate has its own thread, please take any more discussion in that regard to the allocated thread.


----------



## sydboy007

MrBurns said:


> That's a bit low, do you work for the ABC ?
> 
> How can you belittle a mans efforts fighting fires as a volunteer by bringing tax into it ?
> 
> Charity event or not a tax deduction is a tax deduction, Abbott contributes more than you I expect and wouldn't cheat on his taxes intentionally, he's too high profile and probably too honest.




Did I mention his fire fighting?  Nope.  I doubt he's made it an electoral business expense.

Not sure what your tax deduction argument is all about.  Never claimed Abbott was cheating on his taxes.

Some politicians participate in charity events and pay their own way. Abbot has on many occasions smiled for the cameras and billed the tax payers for the privilege.  I used to believe he was doing the charity events as something of his own personal contribution, but he didn't see it that way, otherwise why bill it as electoral business?

If you're happy for politicians to do charity events and bill it as "work" then maybe it needs to be like for radio and TV presenters where they declare it's a cash for comment, or in this case, electoral work for charity.  That way the public can see the action for what it is - work or real charity.  I dare say a lot of the general public would be quite happy to have all their expenses covered if they did some charity work, though not sure how an iron man contest is considered a charity event.


----------



## wayneL

Oh FFS Syd, our Tones is deserving of a few extra perks. In fact he deserves a medal, perhaps even a Nobel peace Prize... (well.... Obama got one before doing a godamm thing and Al Bore got one for producing mendacious propaganda).


----------



## MrBurns

sydboy007 said:


> Did I mention his fire fighting?  Nope.  I doubt he's made it an electoral business expense.




Yes you did you rode in with your comment on the tail of his firefighting efforts.



> Not sure what your tax deduction argument is all about.  Never claimed Abbott was cheating on his taxes.




You said he was wrongfully claiming expenses, same thing.


----------



## Julia

sydboy007 said:


> Did I mention his fire fighting?  Nope.  I doubt he's made it an electoral business expense.



For god's sake, syd, give it a rest.  How would you go out there fighting fires most of the weekend?
Imo Mr Abbott is leading by example in terms of contributing to his local community, especially in a time of considerable need.
It seems paltry and especially nasty to me that you should, in these circumstances which are dreadful for so many, continue to deride Mr Abbott's contributions.

Your contribution here seems rather like that from Adam Bandt and Christine Milne:  happy to sit in their inner city safety and hurl abuse.  Maybe consider actually getting out there yourself and making a worthwhile contribution to your community instead of incessantly pulling down the efforts of others.


----------



## IFocus

sydboy007 said:


> Did I mention his fire fighting?  Nope.  I doubt he's made it an electoral business expense.
> 
> Not sure what your tax deduction argument is all about.  Never claimed Abbott was cheating on his taxes.
> 
> Some politicians participate in charity events and pay their own way. Abbot has on many occasions smiled for the cameras and billed the tax payers for the privilege.  I used to believe he was doing the charity events as something of his own personal contribution, but he didn't see it that way, otherwise why bill it as electoral business?
> 
> If you're happy for politicians to do charity events and bill it as "work" then maybe it needs to be like for radio and TV presenters where they declare it's a cash for comment, or in this case, electoral work for charity.  That way the public can see the action for what it is - work or real charity.  I dare say a lot of the general public would be quite happy to have all their expenses covered if they did some charity work, though not sure how an iron man contest is considered a charity event.





Abbott has rorted the system but is it for the better good or to further Abbotts ambitions? Still dare run a critique here and the spears start coming.

As for the fire fighting thing I live in a live fire zone my house has sprinklers on the roof two fire pumps with two fire water tanks etc. 

Come a 40 degree + day and a strong north easterly all will go up in flames we get about 2 to 5 occasions of these conditions a year.

Would I want Abbott fighting fires in my area saving my house would it add value?  I think for the vollies it would be a moral boost, for the full time fire fighters they would be cynical.

Fact is I would prefer politicians to be working on funding, equipping and coming up with real strategies on how we can cope with the fires and the fire starters.


----------



## MrBurns

IFocus said:


> Would I want Abbott fighting fires in my area saving my house would it add value?  I think for the vollies it would be a moral boost, for the full time fire fighters they would be cynical.




No firefighter would be cynical of Abbott he has been a volunteer for many years.


----------



## sails

IFocus said:


> ...Fact is I would prefer politicians to be working on funding, equipping and coming up with real strategies on how we can cope with the fires and the fire starters.




Well just maybe his experience as a firefighter for so many years will give him insight that he wouldn't get sitting in his plush office.

Bandt and Milne are happy to sit back and criticise.  But what do they really know about the fires and what needs to be done to help protect life and property in the future?  

Good on Abbott and shame on you lefties for trying to score political points while people are losing everything.  

If a labor PM had done the same thing as Abbott, politics aside, I would commend them.  How about giving a little credit where it is due?  It seems you guys have learned nothing from the last six years and continue to bag Abbott no matter what he does.  How did that work out for you guys in the last election?


----------



## basilio

CanOz said:


> The Global Warming debate has its own thread, please take any more discussion in that regard to the allocated thread.




Wasn't interested  discussing global warming here.  (Waste of time really ? )

Was interested in pointing out the perfidy of trying to pin the bushfire  tragedy on the the only party that tries to take the issue seriously.

But did that go over everyones head ? 


Bye


----------



## basilio

> Fact is I would prefer politicians to be working on funding, equipping and coming up with real strategies on how we can cope with the fires and the fire starters.




Agree. Which is why we elected them in the first place *and is their most important responsibility*.

Nothing wrong (and quite praiseworthy) with TA doing voluntary fire fighting activities. But in the big picture he is elected to manage the country.


----------



## basilio

And lastly.

If we don't believe that gratuitous  insults are good form on this forum why not simply cut them out of the discussion ? 

They trash these conversations and poison the discussion.


----------



## Logique

drsmith said:


> The Victorian Greens and prescribed burning,
> http://vic.greens.org.au/sites/vic.greens.org.au/files/policydownloads/Bushfires Policy rev3-w_0.pdf
> 
> The precautionary principle,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
> In other words, they are against it unless it can be proven it is not harmful to the environment.



Neat trick isn't it. Publicly support management burning, while working privately to undermine it.

Bushfires in the spring season are ecologically catastrophic. Plants are in flower, birds and mammals are breeding. It's been massively destructive over a large area of NSW.


----------



## MrBurns

IFocus said:


> Abbott has rorted the system but is it for the better good or to further Abbotts ambitions? Still dare run a critique here and the spears start coming.
> 
> As for the fire fighting thing I live in a live fire zone my house has sprinklers on the roof two fire pumps with two fire water tanks etc.
> 
> Come a 40 degree + day and a strong north easterly all will go up in flames we get about 2 to 5 occasions of these conditions a year.
> 
> Would I want Abbott fighting fires in my area saving my house would it add value?  I think for the vollies it would be a moral boost, for the full time fire fighters they would be cynical.
> 
> Fact is I would prefer politicians to be working on funding, equipping and coming up with real strategies on how we can cope with the fires and the fire starters.




Ahh sydboy you poor misguided socialist bludger, if you had any sense you'd know better then to try to attack a man who is doing an unselfish public service, he's been a volunteer fire-fighter for at least as long as you have been reaping the benefits of what Liberal Govt's have provided for Australia while you criticize them from behind your latte'

Would do you good to go fight a fire yourself or move to a country where it's being run by the likes of your heros Rudd and Gillard, Afghanistan or North Korea see how you go then.


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> Was interested in pointing out the perfidy of trying to pin the bushfire  tragedy on the the only party that tries to take the issue seriously.




And I was interested in the perfidy of Adam Bandt trying to pin the blame for the current NSW bushfires and future bushfires on Tony Abbott. It's only natural that you would support your party's policies, but as yet no one has tried to blame Bandt's party for *these* fires. Moreover I don't think the eco-nuts hold the same sway in NSW as they did in Victoria in 2009, with disastrous results. 

It will all come out in the wash.


----------



## basilio

Not trashing the Greens regarding the bushfires ?

Really calliope ? Is that why you quoted and *bolded statments* that wanted to see Greenies swinging from lamp posts ?

That is your way of* not * associating Greenies with bushfire disasters? 

Give us a break. You mess your own nest on this discussion. 

____________________________________________________________________________________

And just to quote someone who knows what he is talking about with regard to bushfires in Australia.



> the former rural fire services commissioner Phil Koperberg says this kind of fire emergency in October is unprecedented.
> 
> "It's not the worst, but it is the earliest. We have never had this in October," Koperberg said. "This is a feature of slowly evolving climate. We have always had fires, but not of this nature, and not at this time of year, and not accompanied by the record-breaking heat we've had," he told the Australian



.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-bushfires-and-climate-change-if-not-now-when


----------



## basilio

It's interesting to see Tony Abbott fighting the bush fires.

I suggest it's a good metaphor for how his government will tackle climate change or any other pressing problem that may occur. No reflection of what the causes may be and no planning to limit problems in the future.  They will just attempt to fire fight the immediate issue.


----------



## wayneL

As Canoz said basilio, there is a thread for you climate change evangelism.

Take it there and leave this thread for the purulent and putrid Abbott bashing in general, lest it goes off topic.


----------



## waza1960

Although a TA supporter I don't agree with him fighting fires while he is PM.
This is not to say that his volunteer work over the years is not to be commended just that
 being a PM is a full time job and he should be totally focussed on that.
BTW what happens with his protection detail whilst he is fighting fires do they fight fires as well?


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> As Canoz said basilio, there is a thread for you climate change evangelism.
> 
> Take it there and leave this thread for the purulent and putrid Abbott bashing in general, lest it goes off topic.




Not off topic at all Wayne. Well certainly no more than the usual free wheeling range of conversations we have here.

Analyzing Tony Abbotts penchant for immediate action versus bigger picture analysis is a fair comment on how this government appears to be working. This is a thread to discuss The Abott Government. In what way is it out of line to discuss how the government approaches climate change policy ? 

I also I see some glaring double standards in your comments. There is no way most posters stick to the nominal topics in these forums. But your very quick to have a stab at me if I connect the dots on climate change and how it  will affect our future on any number of topics.


----------



## McLovin

waza1960 said:


> Although a TA supporter I don't agree with him fighting fires while he is PM.
> This is not to say that his volunteer work over the years is not to be commended just that
> being a PM is a full time job and he should be totally focussed on that.
> BTW what happens with his protection detail whilst he is fighting fires do they fight fires as well?




I think it was OK. It was a weekend, and fighting fires probably does a bit more to help the community than going to open a new Westfield.


----------



## wayneL

Basilio, I'll not dignify your conspiracy theory with a response, except to say that it would be better to open a thread on government Cc policies specifically, if you want to discuss that.


----------



## Julia

waza1960 said:


> Although a TA supporter I don't agree with him fighting fires while he is PM.
> This is not to say that his volunteer work over the years is not to be commended just that
> being a PM is a full time job and he should be totally focused on that.



As I understand it, he does it at the weekends which are nominally at least his own free time.
You probably wouldn't object if he spent his weekend at the beach with his family, relaxing, so I don't see why anyone would object if he instead chooses to contribute to his community.

Not directing this remark at you, waza, but I'm just blown away by the level of nastiness directed toward Mr Abbott's fire fighting activities.  He'd be up for less vituperative criticism if he was going to a brothel.

Labor acolytes:  maybe try to at least contain your venom to realistic complaints about the government, rather than the worthwhile community activity of someone who is actually setting a decent example and has been so doing for many years.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Basilio, I'll not dignify your conspiracy theory with a response, except to say that it would be better to open a thread on government Cc policies specifically, if you want to discuss that.




Really Wayne? I would have thought that the thread on The Abott Government would have been *the *right place to discuss the various policy options and activities of the government.

Or are you suggesting that we need to open up specific sub threads under The Abbott Government like
Asylum seekers, Rorts, Economic Management, Foreign affairs, Education, Environment policy ? 

Or does this suggestion  only apply to CC and the effects this might have on the economy, health, goverance, international relations, mining policy ect . ?


----------



## wayneL

Basilio

Climate change has the potential to turn this thread into an argument on.... climate change, which we have a thread on. As it is likely to go off st such a tangent, the existing CC thread or a specific thread would be a better place.


----------



## basilio

Julia lets accept that Tony Abbott is and has been genuine in his volunteer role as a fire fighter.

In the bigger picture  however I think as PM he has bigger responsibilities to cover than spending weekends in this way. 

Consider another possibility. What if TA was really interested in planting trees with a local environment group. Would it be reasonable that he whips on on his weekends as PM plant a few hundred trees with the local scouts ? (Mind you I suggest this just might happen soon.)

Being PM is a huge  24/7 job. I suggest good advice from his staff would be to reconsider his priorities.


----------



## Whiskers

waza1960 said:


> Although a TA supporter I don't agree with him fighting fires while he is PM.
> This is not to say that his volunteer work over the years is not to be commended just that
> being a PM is a full time job and he should be totally focussed on that.
> BTW what happens with his protection detail whilst he is fighting fires do they fight fires as well?




I'm with you on this one wazza. 

For the CEO of an organisation to turn up on the 'factory floor' or 'front line' in the middle of an exceptionally busy, let alone dangerous time, to so called help out, is not appropriate. 

It distracts peoples attention from their primary objective in a busy and dangerous moment. That puts peoples lives at risk. 

It also reflects an inappropriate attention seeking behaviour. Politicians are renowned attention seekers. Beattie was quite the media tart, but Abbott is coming across as quite the busy bee... the busiest person in the world and need for admiration, overworking those around them and interpersonally exploitative, taking advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends... maybe even a bit narcissistic: the pursuit of gratification from vanity, or egotistic admiration of one's own physical or mental attributes, that derive from arrogant pride.

I'd prefer to have seen him put in an appearance in the control centre to help coordinate extra resources such as the military to push fire breaks and help with better access to and supply of resources to the fire fronts etc.

There was and still is a lot that can be done to protect homes or slow and ultimately stop the fire, such as felling trees along fire breaks and around houses in the fire path so that the fire can't leap across tree tops. The tree tops are going to die anyway if the fire hits.

I don't see many people thinking outside the square in this fire event... and Abbott more intent on being seen to be inside the square.


----------



## wayneL

Oh my Lord!

Whiskers, I actually think that post is more of an insight into your psychology than Abbott's.

LMAO


----------



## Whiskers

wayneL said:


> Oh my Lord!
> 
> Whiskers, I actually think that post is more of an insight into your psychology than Abbott's.
> 
> LMAO




Yes, as your post is into your psychology!

Rather than just attempted ridicule, you might like to explain... including whether you can draw from any knowledge or experience you have in rural fire fighting and management of people in crisis situations.


----------



## wayneL

Not relevant.

The relevant point is the absurdity of remote psychoanalysis via ABC/NEWS.

It is indeed ridiculous.


----------



## Whiskers

wayneL said:


> Not relevant.
> 
> The relevant point is the absurdity of remote psychoanalysis via ABC/NEWS.
> 
> It is indeed ridiculous.




So, you don't do a bit of unconscious psychoanalysis before you pass judgement and comment on politics the ABC bias or whatever!?.. of course you do! 

Are you suggesting the NSW fire service, of which he is a member, is above reproach? Their record over the last decade or so leaves a lot to be desired in terms of not only fast action, but preventative action.

Apart from a degree of negligence, one could even make a claim of a bit of the "The Saviour" syndrome, not uncommon in emergency services.

That's where people either negligently avoid fire mitigation or adequate responses, or deliberately light fires as has been the case a few times, so they can be seen as the hero coming to peoples rescue.

The fact that Abbott didn't announce this excursion beforehand doesn't prove he wasn't attention seeking... on the contrary, 'the saviour' never does, but they always pose somewhere to get the attention they seek... as did Abbott for at least a couple of pictures that anyone would be naÃ¯ve beyond belief to think they wouldn't eventually make their way into the public domain.

To get back to my main point though, the position of PM is too important with too many responsibilities to pretend that you can and will perform your usual volunteer duties without detracting from the position of PM or the efforts of the service men and women.

While many Twitter followers praised his volunteering spirit, others questioned the wisdom of the nation's leader putting himself in the line of fire. 

But for Mr Abbott, it was just another day as a volunteer firey with his local brigade, something he has been doing since 2001.

Prior to the election, Mr Abbott, a keen cyclist, runner, surf lifesaver and firefighting volunteer, vowed to continue his community activities should he assume the prime ministership. - See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-...y-fngw0i02-1226743492769#sthash.t8YZvCtG.dpuf​
Hardly just another day as a volunteer firey.


----------



## wayneL

Notwithstanding your opinion about whether Abbott should be out there or not, your analysis is still sheer speculation, tainted by your bias. 

I can speculate about his motivation also, and it would be different to your speculation. We could indulge in internecine warfare about who is more correct... alas I doubt either of us will ever know.


----------



## IFocus

Tell me it cannot be true?

Treasurer Joe Hockey says Commonwealth debt limit being increased to $500 billion



> The Federal Government has announced a $200 billion increase to the Commonwealth debt ceiling and a six-month audit into Government spending in the face of a "deteriorating" budget position.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-22/joe-hockey-announces-commission-of-audit-details/5038314


----------



## sydboy007

MrBurns said:


> Yes you did you rode in with your comment on the tail of his firefighting efforts.




Then you've made an incorrect assumption



MrBurns said:


> You said he was wrongfully claiming expenses, same thing.




Nope.  In the case of the ATO you claim going to wedding or iron man competition as a work related expense you have to prove the claim should the ATO decide to audit you, and wear siginficant financial penalties should you have made a false claim.  Making a dud claim via the politicians expenses is pretty much a slap on the wrist, pay back the money and nothing happens.  The 2 systems couldn't be more different.  I'd love for an ATO  style to be taken with the politicians.  Might make them think twice before making the dodgy claims they're being caught oyut with.



Julia said:


> For god's sake, syd, give it a rest.  How would you go out there fighting fires most of the weekend?
> 
> Imo Mr Abbott is leading by example in terms of contributing to his local community, especially in a time of considerable need.
> It seems paltry and especially nasty to me that you should, in these circumstances which are dreadful for so many, continue to deride Mr Abbott's contributions.




You're like Mr Burns claiming I've attacked Abbott on his fire fighting.  Please point to the post where I did that.

I was attacking Abbott on making claims to charity events and billing his costs to the taxpayer.  Did you know he was claiming his 'costs" to the tax payer when at these events?  I didn't.  I had a lot of respect for the charity work he did, but now that I've found out he views it as work and billed US for it, well I still respect the time he's given for it, but it was quite quid pro quo in that he's gained a lot of community good will for his effort.  How does one claim an Iron Man event is "charity work"???  If Abbott wants to make his claims against the tax payer, fair enough, but be honest and open about it.  I definitely have more respect for a person who does their charity work and bears any costs associated with it, than someone who does the charity work but claims their travel and accommodation costs against the tax payer.



Julia said:


> Your contribution here seems rather like that from Adam Bandt and Christine Milne:  happy to sit in their inner city safety and hurl abuse.  Maybe consider actually getting out there yourself and making a worthwhile contribution to your community instead of incessantly pulling down the efforts of others.




How about to confine your comments to the discussion rather than making broad based assumptions about me.  I probably do more charity work that 90% of the people on this forum.  I've helped to fund and taken an active role in the education of 4 children in Thailand over the last 15 years.  I enjoying seeing the older of the 2 having decent white collar jobs and starting their families and having the kind of life they would never have achieved without my aid.  I also enjoyed helping them with their English, and proofing their assignments over the years.  I happy to have provided these children the kind of opportunities I was lucky enough to gain by living in a wealthy country.

My first job out of university was with a disabilities charity, and I still actively help them out nearly 20 years later, and have gone through the pain of seeing a few of those I worked with pass away due to the shortened life span they face.

- - - Updated - - -



IFocus said:


> Tell me it cannot be true?
> 
> Treasurer Joe Hockey says Commonwealth debt limit being increased to $500 billion
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-22/joe-hockey-announces-commission-of-audit-details/5038314




I hear too much sun exposure has corrupted the surplus DNA of the L+NP


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> Tell me it cannot be true?
> 
> Treasurer Joe Hockey says Commonwealth debt limit being increased to $500 billion
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-22/joe-hockey-announces-commission-of-audit-details/5038314



It's to provide for those Labor surpluses.


----------



## Whiskers

sydboy007 said:


> How about to confine your comments to the discussion rather than making broad based assumptions about me.  I probably do more charity work that 90% of the people on this forum.




Good-on-ya sydboy for keeping a civilised tone in the face of some nasty attacks.

I don't agree with all your reasoning about everything, but I commend you for your focus on the subject matter and willingness to provide detailed explanation with a much greater sense of empathy and humanity about you than a few on here.

I'm amazed at how some people can completely misrepresent what others have written to the extent they do. 



> I hear too much sun exposure has corrupted the surplus DNA of the L+NP




I hoped the LNP would do the right thing, like they portrayed, but feared something worse. Apart from the conflicting messages and actions to now, this is becoming quite a concern, a significant betrayal of trust. 

$200 Billion a very significant increase.

_In May last year, the Coalition attacked the then Labor government's decision to raise Australia's debt ceiling by a further $50 billion to $300 billion, with Tony Abbott describing it as ''really extraordinary''.

On Tuesday, Mr Hockey said he wanted to avoid what had happened recently in the United States – where a Democrat and Republican standoff shut down much of government – and he wanted to ensure that the debt limit issue was never raised again.

“What matters is not the debt limit, it’s the debt,” Mr Hockey told reporters in Canberra, adding that the government needed a “credible” plan to lower debt levels.

“This is a legacy of bad Labor government.”

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...500-billion-20131022-2vyog.html#ixzz2iRjtGJr1​_
Wasn't the plan to cut the waste? What has happened or is likely to happen to require a 66% increase in debt?


----------



## ChrisJH

Whiskers said:


> “What matters is not the debt limit, it’s the debt,” Mr Hockey told reporters in Canberra, adding that the government needed a “credible” plan to lower debt levels.




I am wondering the situation in Australia and the US is even comparable, with regards to the debt limit? It is due to the current nature of their political system that they have these issues with their debt limit.

If Hockey has been able to raise our debt limit by $200 billion just like that, and out of nowhere... than surely we are in a different situation, and don't run the risk of having stand offs over running out of money like in the US?

Does someone with a little more knowledge in this area have a better understanding of this than me? Prefer to keep out discussions of, "Labor did this though, so Liberal did that." Don't care. 

But I am wondering that the situation in Australia is entirely different to that of the US?


----------



## Julia

basilio said:


> Julia lets accept that Tony Abbott is and has been genuine in his volunteer role as a fire fighter.
> 
> In the bigger picture  however I think as PM he has bigger responsibilities to cover than spending weekends in this way.



Exactly how would you like him to spend his weekends (not that it's any of your business)?



> Consider another possibility. What if TA was really interested in planting trees with a local environment group. Would it be reasonable that he whips on on his weekends as PM plant a few hundred trees with the local scouts ? (Mind you I suggest this just might happen soon.)



Yes, absolutely.  Why on earth not if he's so disposed. More than any other party leaders are doing while they snipe from the sidelines. 




Whiskers said:


> It also reflects an inappropriate attention seeking behaviour. Politicians are renowned attention seekers. Beattie was quite the media tart, but Abbott is coming across as quite the busy bee... the busiest person in the world and need for admiration, overworking those around them and interpersonally exploitative, taking advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends... maybe even a bit narcissistic: the pursuit of gratification from vanity, or egotistic admiration of one's own physical or mental attributes, that derive from arrogant pride.



Oh, here we go again with the psychobabble.  What qualifications do you have to provide us with a psychological profile of Mr Abbott, Whiskers?  
He was out there fighting fires long before taking on any leadership position.  It just doesn't seem to occur to you that he might actually be a decent human being, interested in supporting  his local community in whatever way his capacity might allow.

What would you have politicians do in preference to undertaking community activities during their nominal leisure time?



> I'd prefer to have seen him put in an appearance in the control centre to help coordinate extra resources such as the military to push fire breaks and help with better access to and supply of resources to the fire fronts etc.



He apparently considers he has more to offer in a more active capacity.  As it's a volunteer role, it's entirely up to him to choose the role, not for you to tell him what he should be doing.



wayneL said:


> Oh my Lord!
> 
> Whiskers, I actually think that post is more of an insight into your psychology than Abbott's.
> 
> LMAO



+1.



sydboy007 said:


> How about to confine your comments to the discussion rather than making broad based assumptions about me.  I probably do more charity work that 90% of the people on this forum.  I've helped to fund and taken an active role in the education of 4 children in Thailand over the last 15 years.  I enjoying seeing the older of the 2 having decent white collar jobs and starting their families and having the kind of life they would never have achieved without my aid.  I also enjoyed helping them with their English, and proofing their assignments over the years.  I happy to have provided these children the kind of opportunities I was lucky enough to gain by living in a wealthy country.
> 
> My first job out of university was with a disabilities charity, and I still actively help them out nearly 20 years later, and have gone through the pain of seeing a few of those I worked with pass away due to the shortened life span they face.



I'm heartened and delighted to hear it, syd.  Good for you.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> My first job out of university was with a disabilities charity, and I still actively help them out nearly 20 years later, and have gone through the pain of seeing a few of those I worked with pass away due to the shortened life span they face.



I thought that given your passion you were a young bloke but in reality, you're not much younger than me.


----------



## Whiskers

Julia said:


> Oh, here we go again with the psychobabble.  What qualifications do you have to provide us with a psychological profile of Mr Abbott, Whiskers?




Well, you also seem oblivious to it, but as pointed out in response wayneL's attempt to ridicule, (which you endorsed) you are passing a considerable psychoanalysis of Abbott with your passionate endorsement of his actions and belittling of anyone who asks reasonable questions of his judgement. 

It appears you have not noticed that a lot of people, including on twitter where it first broke that he was out there, questioned his judgement. That's the issue, his judgement in his capacity as CEO.

Maybe you would like to address...

_Rather than just attempted ridicule, you might like to explain... including whether you can draw from any knowledge or experience you have in rural fire fighting and management of people in crisis situations.​_
I have actually had experience in both living in a rural residential area and continually plan for and manage fire risk, prevention and occasionally fire fighting. How about you, Julia?

And like when you completely misrepresented what I said in an earlier post, ignoring the conditional "if"... you attack with completely baseless ridicule of sydboy...



> Quote Originally Posted by Julia View Post
> Your contribution here seems rather like that from Adam Bandt and Christine Milne: happy to sit in their inner city safety and hurl abuse. Maybe consider actually getting out there yourself and making a worthwhile contribution to your community instead of incessantly pulling down the efforts of others.




and when confronted with his response, you don't demonstrate any remorse for a completely wrong accusation, but a patronisingly sarcastic...



> I'm heartened and delighted to hear it, syd. Good for you.




If you were a psychoanalyst I wouldn't go within a hundred miles of you!... as are many who are starting to question Abbotts judgement as evidenced by the twitter report.  

Unfortunately, his word is also increasingly coming into question as well!

“Don't raise your voice, improve your argument."
― Desmond Tutu

Just for clarification, improve your argument means improve your analysis, not condemnation of the messenger.


----------



## Whiskers

ChrisJH said:


> I am wondering the situation in Australia and the US is even comparable, with regards to the debt limit? It is due to the current nature of their political system that they have these issues with their debt limit.
> 
> If Hockey has been able to raise our debt limit by $200 billion just like that, and out of nowhere... than surely we are in a different situation, and don't run the risk of having stand offs over running out of money like in the US?
> 
> Does someone with a little more knowledge in this area have a better understanding of this than me? Prefer to keep out discussions of, "Labor did this though, so Liberal did that." Don't care.
> 
> But I am wondering that the situation in Australia is entirely different to that of the US?




The bureaucratic setup in Australia is through the Loans Council which is little heard of, is headed by the fed treasurer and includes all state and territory treasurers and is virtually a rubber stamp for government loans. It can not be blocked by the other side of government per se, except in the event of blocking new legislation in relation to 'supply', a bill that authorizes expenditure of funds on government activities for the financial year.

While not yet explained by the government, the problem seems to be that they maybe don't have enough budgeted funds to get through this financial year. 

A clue is that they said Rudd had not provided funding in the budget past December for the PNG solution. There may be other reasons such as the new governments plans costing more than they led us to believe.

The thing that has me a bit curious is that if there is so much to be saved in government inefficiency, why is it going to take so long to have the reviews and implement any changes?


----------



## wayneL

Whiskers said:


> Well, you also seem oblivious to it, but as pointed out in response wayneL's attempt to ridicule, (which you endorsed) you are passing a considerable psychoanalysis of Abbott with your passionate endorsement of his actions and belittling of anyone who asks reasonable questions of his judgement.
> 
> It appears you have not noticed that a lot of people, including on twitter where it first broke that he was out there, questioned his judgement. That's the issue, his judgement in his capacity as CEO.




You missed that is was actually a successful ridicule as it was truly ridiculous. As for the rest of us, opinion is different to psychoanalysis. 



> I have actually had experience in both living in a rural residential area and continually plan for and manage fire risk, prevention and occasionally fire fighting. How about you, Julia?




Dude, duh! How about living in a rural area AND having a plan for several valuable sport horses. I come from WA, we all fairly regularly had to have a team plan to transport horses at short notice. Big deal.

As for the rest of your points...


----------



## waza1960

> The thing that has me a bit curious is that if there is so much to be saved in government inefficiency, why is it going to take so long to have the reviews and implement any changes?




 Because that's what a responsible government does. Do you expect them to shoot from the hip like Labor?
 Imagine the uproar if the government made huge cuts without justification.

  Whiskers by your comments despite your denials I would swear that your as Labor as Sydboy. You know the saying if it looks like a duck walks like a duck.................


----------



## Whiskers

waza1960 said:


> Because that's what a responsible government does. Do you expect them to shoot from the hip like Labor?
> Imagine the uproar if the government made huge cuts without justification.




Labor was condemned (and rightly so) for having too many inquiries... not knowing what to do themselves and blindly following the advice of stacked inquiries a-la the climate change commission. Often though, a government will totally ignore inquiry recommendations and people ask why they had it in the first place. Typically, these enquiries are stacked with preconceived results via their terms of reference (that we usually don't see) as a political ploy to delay action and or come up with an excuse to break an election promise.

The sort of things I was referring to were the size of the public service (that typically expands under Labor), futile programs like the climate change bureaucracy etc that Abbott promised to cut asap to save heaps of waste.
_
The Abbott government says its restructure of the public service will cut out ''confused responsibilities, duplication and waste''.

Departments and agencies have been abolished, split or ''absorbed'' as the new government moves to reshape the bureaucracy to deliver its policy priorities.

AusAID will be swallowed up by Foreign Affairs and the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government and the Arts will be axed along with the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism.

The new Administrative Arrangements Order, signed by Governor-General Quentin Bryce on Wednesday, packs the biggest shake-up of the Commonwealth public service since 1996.

Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/nat...ector-waste-20130918-2tzzn.html#ixzz2iUH9qYrb​_
True, some things like defence spending requirements need longer detailed study, but it would seem there is not as much to be saved as previously thought and led to believe.




> Whiskers by your comments despite your denials I would swear that your as Labor as Sydboy.




waza, you can swear all you like but you will still be just as wrong! :



> You know the saying if it looks like a duck walks like a duck.................




Yeah, it probably is a... but, it's wise to psychoanalyise a bit to be sure it's not a quail or an attorney mate, a-la Dick Cheney. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney_hunting_incident


----------



## Whiskers

wayneL said:


> You missed that is was actually a successful ridicule as it was truly ridiculous. As for the rest of us, opinion is different to psychoanalysis.




Opinion sure is different. So from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/opinion what is your opinion based upon?

1 a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge:

2 a statement of advice by an expert on a professional matter​
If the former you can understand why your 'opinion' is not respected... the later, you haven't demonstrated any significant understanding. 



> Dude, duh! How about living in a rural area AND having a plan for several valuable sport horses. I come from WA, we all fairly regularly had to have a team plan to transport horses at short notice. Big deal.




It's commendable that you had a plan for your 'valuable sport horses', but what about peoples valuable lives, valuable homes and possessions, valuable trade and business equipment, valuable farming equipment and livestock etc?

An exit plan is only part of a proper plan for fire (and disaster generally) management. What about the prevention and mitigation measures? That's what our political leaders should be focusing more on in these circumstances. There are thousands of people who can work on the front line, BUT there are only a few political leaders who have the power and authority to make decisions about significant mitigation issues that are still in play.

*Are you suggesting there are no more mitigation measures the fed gov can take and the best use of the office of PM is to do a night shift on the  fire front?*

With no significant rain in the foreseeable sight and conditions worsening by the day, I'm interested in your rationale for that.



> As for the rest of your points...




So you use your rapier wit to hide your inner pain.

I grew up in an environment of jokes and sarcasm and puns. I talk that way, so I write that way.
- Allan Sloan

I'm sorry about your sarcasm. I wish you well in dealing with that.


----------



## Whiskers

Another explanation for the substantial debt limit increase, in the face of falling government revenue, maybe to do with the refund of costs attributed to the carbon tax. 

That's the trouble you invariable get into when you over emphasise a problem. When the solution is a simple as reversing the tax or charge increase you attributed to the carbon tax, politicians are loate to apply their same reasoning and act as quickly in reverse such as to council rates etc

When pressed by Opposition Leader Milton Dick at the Brisbane City Council meeting on Tuesday afternoon on whether ratepayers could expect a reprieve, Cr Quirk dismissed the question as "hypothetical".

In a hotly debated move, the council announced in 2012 an ongoing slug to ratepayers of 1.9 per cent per year that it attributed directly to impost of the previous federal government's carbon tax.

It equated to nearly $16 million extra in council coffers this financial year.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott described the repeal of the tax as the first order of business for his government, leading Cr Dick to question the Lord Mayor on what that meant for Brisbane ratepayers.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...ax-reprieve-20131022-2vzcq.html#ixzz2iUfit9xO​
Now, if people don't see prompt notification (or at least intention) of tax and charge decreases to match the maybe exaggerated cost of the carbon tax, they will become understandably more cynical of gov motives and policy and reasonably argue, why should the big end of town get a tax cut and not be passed down the line to us. 

Abbott is facing a credibility crisis... the consequence of it's own successful exaggerating the Labor problem. 

Hence his qualified support by that 1.8% of the 4.5% that swung against Labor to him... is at risk of evaporating. 

Looking forward to the next polls... I'd speculate he'll maintain his lead as preferred PM over Shorten, but with a falling personal and probably two party preferred preference.


----------



## McLovin

They're really digging a deeper hole. How many people in the private sector would jump on a plane (business class of course) for "confidential" "important discussions" with a colleague 3,000km's away, take their wife with them (God knows why she'd need to be there for such a discussion) and then charge their employer and still have a job on Monday morning?

Randall needs to come clean and resign.



> He added that in Mr Randall's view, the confidential conversation could not have taken place on the phone.
> 
> Asked why Mr Randall could not have used a telephone – rather than flying more than 3000 kilometres on business class flights with his wife to the same location as his investment property – the Prime Minister said some discussions were "best done face to face".
> 
> "There are certain things that just have to happen face to face and look, members of Parliament are entitled to travel to have important meetings because teleconferencing is sometimes no substitute for a face-to-face discussion," Mr Abbott said.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...cairns-trip-20131023-2w0aw.html#ixzz2iVGyKJ1n


----------



## Julia

Just one point I'd like to address, as I'm declining to respond to the continuing provocation by one member, and that's this, directed to sydboy:


> but a patronisingly sarcastic...
> 
> "I'm heartened and delighted to hear it, syd. Good for you."



Despite often disagreeing philosophically with you, syd, I have zero personal animosity toward you and appreciate that you don't allow your disagreement to run to aggressive personal attacks on anyone as far as I can see.
I doubt you would have perceived any sarcasm in my comment, as suggested above, and want to underline that none was involved.  

I'm very keen on voluntary activities, for myself and anyone else who finds the same rewards in contributing to others, so am impressed and happy to know what you've been doing over a sustained period.  Good on you.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> I thought that given your passion you were a young bloke but in reality, you're not much younger than me.




Depends what you call young.  My physio asked me last week with an incredulous voice if I was 41 as she noticed my birthday on my notes chart.  I had to laugh and said not many months till 42.  The muscles are certainly less forgiving after a big day or night out, but the mind is still active .  Don't drink, don't smoke, sunscreen on my face half the year, eat fairly healthy, and enough me time to deal with the stresses of life .


----------



## basilio

*Please note:  Change of nomenclature*.

As noted by Wayne L et el it appears to be no longer acceptable to use the phrase "Climate Change" "Global Warming " etc in any discussion on The Abbott Government thread.

This seems to apply to any discussion around the economic, social, environmental consequences of rapid changes in our climate and any comment or reference on the policies or actions of the government on this topic. 

Henceforth all references to the above unacceptable phrases will cease and in its place please use the statement - *"The issue that cannot be discussed"*

Cheers


----------



## sydboy007

So the Abbott Government on it's crusade against waste and mismanagement believes a meeting to hold ''very important discussions'' at a cost of $5259 was money well spent.  At a "good couple of hours" it seems to have been a costly meeting.  More than what half the population earns in a month!

One has to wonder about the urgency of the meeting, and why they cannot at least give a some detail as to what was discussed and why the meeting had to occur at such great cost.

I know some meetings are "best done face to face", but if the difference is a few dollars phone call, or perhaps a free skype chat, to $5259, well I dare say I'd pick the far cheaper option.  I also don't quite understand why Mrs Randall was required to tag along.

It feels like Abbott is trying to defend the indefensible.


----------



## Whiskers

sydboy007 said:


> So the Abbott Government on it's crusade against waste and mismanagement...
> It feels like Abbott is trying to defend the indefensible.




While I personally think it's a problem fairly equally across all political parties, this is another issue where Abbott is facing a credibility crisis... the consequence of it's own successful exaggerating the Labor waste and taking the high moral ground to clean it up.

While he wasn't intending his rhetoric to extend to the expense and allowance scheme, that's the consequence of not feeding the chooks regularly and allowing them ample spare time to scratch around for issues. He has not covered his @r$e adequately and now has to follow up his tough talk with tough action to avoid loosing voter faith. 

I've been offering all the right advice trying to get him on the right track, : but for the life of me, he is more obsessed with campaign like saviour/rescuer from disaster photo shoots with his mates than real urgent action we were led to expect to cut the waste like as in the "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" issues. [Sorry basilio, I know we're on different sides of that topic, but I couldn't help dropping that in. ]

If this survey in the Illawarra Mercury is any guide, the expense rorting issue is not going away any time soon. The first party to take proactive action will undoubtedly win over voter significant support.

I also notice, with regard to his fire fighting escapade, Abbott is saying on the abc news, he will do his best to continue to be a good citizen as well as a good PM. 

Damit Tony, ease off the 'good', 'right thing' and 'cut the waste' pat-me-on-my-own-back clichÃ©s... you are just digging yourself into a deeper hole.

Com'on Tony, we need a full time dedicated PM atm... you've plenty of time be a good citizen again after you've lost the next election.


----------



## Whiskers

Julia said:


> Just one point I'd like to address, as I'm declining to respond to one member




That would be me! 

Com'on Julia, you're just starting to get the 'mongrel' in me warmed up.


----------



## overhang

sydboy007 said:


> So the Abbott Government on it's crusade against waste and mismanagement believes a meeting to hold ''very important discussions'' at a cost of $5259 was money well spent.  At a "good couple of hours" it seems to have been a costly meeting.  More than what half the population earns in a month!
> 
> One has to wonder about the urgency of the meeting, and why they cannot at least give a some detail as to what was discussed and why the meeting had to occur at such great cost.
> 
> I know some meetings are "best done face to face", but if the difference is a few dollars phone call, or perhaps a free skype chat, to $5259, well I dare say I'd pick the far cheaper option.  I also don't quite understand why Mrs Randall was required to tag along.
> 
> It feels like Abbott is trying to defend the indefensible.




Yup Howard and Abbott really are like chalk and cheese, there is no way Howard would try and defend such blatant rorting of tax payer money.  Just so convenient that he happens to take possession of an investment property during the trip, give me a break.


----------



## wayneL

Whiskers said:


> That would be me!
> 
> Com'on Julia, you're just starting to get the 'mongrel' in me warmed up.




Mongrel?

I had a different word in mind 

I guess Julia isn't much into exercises in futility. 

Wise lady.


----------



## Whiskers

wayneL said:


> Mongrel?
> 
> I had a different word in mind




I guess you would, but Julia would be aware of the intended connotation from the "What are your trading objectives?" thread where she had more trouble with interpretation in the bigger picture and context of the conversation. 



> I guess Julia isn't much into exercises in futility.




Normally she isn't into pointless personal ridicule or deliberately misquoting out of context, but she sure seems to be off her game occasionally for some reason.

I don't know what has happened to our Julia... she seems to lose a bit of focus and got stroppy every now and then. Look forward to talking to you again soon Julia.


----------



## Calliope

Wedding gatecrashers.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Much has been made of the expenses rorts by both sides of Parliament.

It is impossible to defend and new measures of accountability and prosecutions if necessary need to be implemented and pursued.

This does detract though from the achievements of the Abbott Government.

The Federal Public Service are on notice that their job is to serve the people not be served.

The review of the ALP Treasury forecasts and a revision of debt.

The attention to Border Security.

The complete disintegration of a business case for people traffickers involved in Illegal entry in to Australia.

Well done the Abbott Government.

gg


----------



## wayneL

Whiskers said:


> Normally she isn't into pointless personal ridicule




From where I sit, it wasn't pointless personal ridicule at all; it seemed to me more like selfless altruism, trying save you the embarrassment of spouting untenable nonsense that serves only your self-delusion of... whatever it is you think you are.

It is the same motivation as me. I am truly and genuinely concerned for you Whiskers. :


----------



## IFocus

McLovin said:


> They're really digging a deeper hole. How many people in the private sector would jump on a plane (business class of course) for "confidential" "important discussions" with a colleague 3,000km's away, take their wife with them (God knows why she'd need to be there for such a discussion) and then charge their employer and still have a job on Monday morning?
> 
> Randall needs to come clean and resign.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...cairns-trip-20131023-2w0aw.html#ixzz2iVGyKJ1n




Not sure why Randall hasn't been pressured into just paying up, Abbott defending is political but given Randall has been in the parliament for 15 years and never even made it to even a secretary job makes you wonder what his leverage is.


----------



## sydboy007

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Much has been made of the expenses rorts by both sides of Parliament.
> 
> It is impossible to defend and new measures of accountability and prosecutions if necessary need to be implemented and pursued.
> 
> This does detract though from the achievements of the Abbott Government.
> 
> The Federal Public Service are on notice that their job is to serve the people not be served.
> 
> The review of the ALP Treasury forecasts and a revision of debt.
> 
> The attention to Border Security.
> 
> The complete disintegration of a business case for people traffickers involved in Illegal entry in to Australia.
> 
> Well done the Abbott Government.
> 
> gg




HAHAHAHA

The budget CRISIS and so far the only action being taken by the Treasure Hockey Ponzinomics is to have a 66% increase in the debt ceiling.  One has to wonder why?  Got any ideas GG?

Considering Tony the CRISIS Abbott and Joe Ponzinomics Hockey both agree that HIGH house prices is good for those already in the market, where restrictive zoning laws and high immigration are supportive of HIGH prices, one has to wonder if they want to leave the country permanently crippled.  Sky high resi and commercial rents are making this country unable to compete.

Got any ideas as to why Malcolm "the man who practically invented the internet" Turnbull is appointing close friends and ex Telstra employees to the NBN?  Jobs for the boys seems to be another great achievement of the Abbott Government.  Not to mention Turnbull is already behind in his 60 day audit of the NBN by moving the goalposts from 60 days after he was sworn in to 60 days after the new CEO was installed.  Abbotts also broken his election promise of not providing funding of more than $100M without a full CBA.  Non core promise out the door thank you very much.

Now if the current Dear Leaders could start facing up to the age quake, get middle class welfare cut right back, cut a few thousand pages of regulations and red tape, then maybe they might have something to be proud of.

I suppose when you've got to spend a few hours in the air each way for an important meeting, it takes time to develop anything of import eh, and that was before they got their lycra clad butts onto the treasury benches.


----------



## DB008

sydboy007 said:


> HAHAHAHA
> 
> The budget CRISIS and so far the only action being taken by the Treasure Hockey Ponzinomics is to have a 66% increase in the debt ceiling.  One has to wonder why?  Got any ideas GG?




What are you saying?

The Libs got into some ~$265-Billion debt, within a month?

ALP have been on a sailors wet dream, coming in from a 6 month deployment, up the 'cross spending money like no tomorrow on booze and hookers...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Syd,

The ALP have left our finances in such dire straits, I would not be surprised at any endeavours taken to balance our books and budget.

Lower cost of living is the aim.

Inflation is the danger.

gg


----------



## MrBurns

DB008 said:


> ALP have been on a sailors wet dream, coming in from a 6 month deployment, up the 'cross spending money like no tomorrow on booze and hookers...




Literally.........


----------



## CanOz

DB008 said:


> What are you saying?
> 
> The Libs got into some ~$265-Billion debt, within a month?
> 
> ALP have been on a sailors wet dream, coming in from a 6 month deployment, up the 'cross spending money like no tomorrow on booze and hookers...





All the Labor Party voters will be quick to forget the ALPs debt spend and then blame the Liberal party no matter what. The same thing happened with the Rebloodlicans blaming the democrats after GWB spent a record amount on unnecessary wars so his mates could get rich building munitions.

How much do y'all wanna bet that in 12 months time the entire Australian deficit will be blamed squarely on the Liberals?

What the hell....They're all crooks...:frown:


----------



## Whiskers

wayneL said:


> From where I sit, it wasn't pointless personal ridicule at all; it seemed to me more like selfless altruism, trying save you the embarrassment of spouting untenable nonsense that serves only your self-delusion of... whatever it is you think you are.
> 
> It is the same motivation as me. I am truly and genuinely concerned for you Whiskers. :




No need for concern as I have been vindicated about the most contentious issue, that has been officially confirmed today... that the army started the biggest fire a week ago on a live fire range. A few houses were lost, considerable resources were diverted to that fire and is still burning uncontrolled. If I was able to find out last weekend that the army was implicated, Abbott should also have been aware before he set off on his cynical good citizen firey excursion. Not a good look Tony!

An angry Blue Mountains mayor wants answers from the Department of Defence after it emerged army explosives training started the massive State Mine bushfire which has stalked his community for a week. http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/10/23/18/26/defence-admits-starting-nsw-fire-report​
Why wasn't the army properly prepared for any fire as a consequence of their unwise practice live fire explosive ordinance in the current conditions? 

More importantly, why was Abbott AWOL from his principle duty as PM... too busy with photo shoots, pretending to be a 'good citizen' in his 'rescuer' role instead of ripping into the military for answers and some serious action to mitigate the damage they caused?

NSW Premier O'Farrell has already said the fire is going to be a considerable drain on the economy for some time. With the precarious nature of the national finances, why wasn't Abbott of a similar mind and action?


----------



## Logique

Whiskers said:


> ...that the army started the biggest fire a week ago on a live fire range...



There will always be ignition sources Whiskers. What comes before, and afterwards, is the point. 

The ABC says it's climate change. They think this canard will pass unnoticed, while the yellow uniforms are out trying to save lives.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Logique said:


> There will always be ignition sources Whiskers. What comes before, and afterwards, is the point.
> 
> The ABC says it's climate change. They think this canard will pass unnoticed, while the yellow uniforms are out trying to save lives.




ABC is Political.

It does not represent Australians or their values.

gg


----------



## MrBurns

Garpal Gumnut said:


> ABC is Political.
> 
> It does not represent Australians or their values.
> 
> gg




And it's getting worse, they are very obvious these days .


----------



## sydboy007

DB008 said:


> What are you saying?
> 
> The Libs got into some ~$265-Billion debt, within a month?
> 
> ALP have been on a sailors wet dream, coming in from a 6 month deployment, up the 'cross spending money like no tomorrow on booze and hookers...




I'm asking why Joe Hockey is requesting a 66% in the debt ceiling?  IF the Liberals are such great economic managers why would they need this HUGE increase?

They've got 8 months to reduce this FY deficit, yet all that's happened in Hockey is doing his best to make the deficit bigger this year by providing the RBA with a cash injection.  I'm sure in future years when the RBA makes a nice profit from a currency fall Mr Ponzinomics wont have any issues ripping out a big dividend.  Howard was raking in RBA dividends of over $1B some years.  In the business world that's called smoothing your profits.

As for you cross analogy, it's the Liberals so they wont be caught in the cross, they just do J class flights to eg Cairns - to pick up the keys to their new investment property.


----------



## sydboy007

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Syd,
> 
> The ALP have left our finances in such dire straits, I would not be surprised at any endeavours taken to balance our books and budget.
> 
> Lower cost of living is the aim.
> 
> Inflation is the danger.
> 
> gg




That I can agree to partially.  What economic actions have you seen the Liberals take, or propose to take, that makes you think they will manage the budget any better?  It seems so long ago that Hockey Ponzinomics had this epiphany of the age of entitlement, but I've yet to hear even the smallest murmur that they plan to make some serious cuts to the wasteful middle class welfare.  PPL is a great example of the entitlement Hockey was supposedly against. 

How do you propose to lower the cost of living when our current leaders see high property prices, and the current extreme increases, as GOOD?  It's the unrealistic land prices that is a major cause of the uncompetitiveness of the economy.  

Compare the great state of Texas with a population HIGHER than Australia's, and yet over the last 10+ years they've had barely a real increase in property prices, with some of the highest population growth in the USA and highest income growth as well.  Australia on the other hand has racked up huge amounts of debt just to keep buying and selling the same houses over and over again.  Crazy, but Abbott aand Hockey don't see this as a problem.

So you believe the current deficit is at dire straits level?  So what does that leave most other countries that are at or over 100% of Govt Debt to GDP levels.  We have less pubic debt than China.

How many Liberal deficits will you blame on Labor?  Are those who have control for 8 months of a 12 month budget more or less responsible for the final outcome?  Where has the budget crisis gone to?  Why are the Liberals not holding a mini budget and making cuts now to get the deficit under control?  If as you say it's in dire straits why wait till May?

- - - Updated - - -



CanOz said:


> All the Labor Party voters will be quick to forget the ALPs debt spend and then blame the Liberal party no matter what. The same thing happened with the Rebloodlicans blaming the democrats after GWB spent a record amount on unnecessary wars so his mates could get rich building munitions.
> 
> How much do y'all wanna bet that in 12 months time the entire Australian deficit will be blamed squarely on the Liberals?
> 
> What the hell....They're all crooks...:frown:




Howard and Costello talked about Labors $90B of debt, yet around $30 was gifted to them by the previous Liberal Howard Govt, so seems the Liberals at least see all debt as the responsibility of the current Govt.


----------



## wayneL

sydboy007 said:


> That I can agree to partially.  What economic actions have you seen the Liberals take, or propose to take, that makes you think they will manage the budget any better?  It seems so long ago that Hockey Ponzinomics had this epiphany of the age of entitlement, but I've yet to hear even the smallest murmur that they plan to make some serious cuts to the wasteful middle class welfare.  PPL is a great example of the entitlement Hockey was supposedly against.
> 
> How do you propose to lower the cost of living when our current leaders see high property prices, and the current extreme increases, as GOOD?  It's the unrealistic land prices that is a major cause of the uncompetitiveness of the economy.
> 
> Compare the great state of Texas with a population HIGHER than Australia's, and yet over the last 10+ years they've had barely a real increase in property prices, with some of the highest population growth in the USA and highest income growth as well.  Australia on the other hand has racked up huge amounts of debt just to keep buying and selling the same houses over and over again.  Crazy, but Abbott aand Hockey don't see this as a problem.




On these two points at least, I am in agreeance with you Syd. I was very disappointed with the coalition's attitude on house prices and middle class welfare has been a burr under my saddle blanket for the longest time.


----------



## Whiskers

sydboy007 said:


> What economic actions have you seen the Liberals take, or propose to take, that makes you think they will manage the budget any better?




What I hope (and was led to believe) was that they would cut the waste, non-productive programs like the 'Climate Change' bureaucracy and excess expansion of the public service. 

Yes, the climate change bureaucracy has got the chop... but almost everything else is deferred to 'committee'... in other words we are being softened up for a major dose of broken policy. 



> So you believe the current deficit is at dire straits level?  So what does that leave most other countries that are at or over 100% of Govt Debt to GDP levels.  We have less pubic debt than China.




High Gov debt?... big scare tactic! Oversold this argument!



> Where has the budget crisis gone to?  Why are the Liberals not holding a mini budget and making cuts now to get the deficit under control?  If as you say it's in dire straits why wait till May?




My point also... Abbott and co OVERSOLD the budget and debt emergency to try to win office. The didn't need to exaggerate all these economic circumstances. Labor was dead in the water because of leadership issues causing instability and uncertainty... full stop. 



> Howard and Costello talked




So lets summarize Howard and Costello's better achievements. They cut the debt (not that the debt in itself was a catastrophe) and returned to surplus budgets.

Now the bad side: They achieved this at the cost of selling off huge amounts of public assets and LESS DISPOSABLE INCOME for most Australians.

The ALARM BELLS are ringing when the gov is unnecessarily beating up a debt ceiling issue like the US! Call me cynical, but I smell a BIG L Liberal stunt, a bit of US Tea Party style antic making huge noises about the debt crisis to GRAB peoples attention, scare people so they loose sight of what's really happening.

The reason I'm feeling betrayed by Abbott & co is because on any significant measure from charts below our total  government expenditure (except under Gillard), debt and budget isn't a major concern. What is a concern is where the spending is allocated. Labor tends to over do the social welfare side and Libs over do the fiscal prudency. 

What is looming as a major concern is broken budget promises and policy change that is very likely to widen the disposable personal income gap for the average citizen to favour the top end of town... the big L Liberals.


----------



## Whiskers

Yep... the great swindle is underway. 

Now we know why they want a huge debt ceiling limit increase. They need more money to sweeten up some asset sales.

It's back to the Howard recipe... but only an adulterated version that is going to 'not rise' to gov popularity simply because of changed economic and sociological circumstances.

Despite the rhetoric of needing smaller government, a- la Howard and despite saying otherwise, Abbott is not going to decrease, but actually increase public spending, but from sale of public assets to feed the BIG L Liberal top end of town. 

I would clarify, I don't oppose some asset sales... but this has got all the wrong sorts of smell for a poor RI for the public. 

_INVESTMENT banks are salivating over the government's move to assess a $4 billion float of Medibank Private, eager for roles on what would be the biggest federal privatisation float since Telstra.  

After The Australian revealed the government would appoint advisers to do a scoping study on Medibank, Prime Minister Tony Abbott yesterday confirmed the plan and said Medibank would return to the private sector "at the right time".

"The only privatisation that we've got slated is Medibank Private," he told Melbourne's Radio 3AW, albeit adding "who knows what the recommendations of the Commission of Audit might be".

"It will be good for Medibank and Medibank's policy holders. Ultimately, good for taxpayers as well, but we've got to maximise the price."

While investment banks have long been hoping Medibank would come to market, the confirmation kicked off the race to win the first of potentially several roles tipped to be hotly sought by all investment banks. Work up for grabs could include the scoping study, advising the government, tending to Medibank and joint lead managing (JLMs) the float. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...dvisers-circling/story-fn91wd6x-1226745578752​_


----------



## noco

If the Rudd/ Gillard government including Swan/ Wong had not wasted so much in the past 6 years we would not be in the predicament we now face.

Geez I hope the Coalition have put a stop to the $900 cheques that Labor were sending out up to the election.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ffer-for-economy/story-fn59nsif-1226745607274


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

noco said:


> If the Rudd/ Gillard government including Swan/ Wong had not wasted so much in the past 6 years we would not be in the predicament we now face.
> 
> Geez I hope the Coalition have put a stop to the $900 cheques that Labor were sending out up to the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ffer-for-economy/story-fn59nsif-1226745607274




Too right noco.

This is a recurring theme.

ALP get in, spend like buggery on useless muck, and near nigh bankrupt the country.

Then the Coalition get caned for trying to balance the books.

People need to harden up.

Australia's budget is like a home budget.

Spend more than you earn and trouble is on the horizon.

The electorate realised this, and elected Tony Abbott and the Coalition to fix things.

gg


----------



## Ferret

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Australia's budget is like a home budget.
> 
> Spend more than you earn and trouble is on the horizon.
> 
> The electorate realised this, and elected Tony Abbott and the Coalition to fix things.
> 
> gg




And I wish he would fix things.  Can't see how it helps things to hand out 6 months pay to mothers and compensation to victims of terrorism attacks that happen beyond our borders ...


----------



## MrBurns

There's a lot to fix - 


> Ex-Reserve Bank board member Warwick McKibbin accuses Wayne Swan of economic vandalism
> 
> A former Reserve Bank board member has accused Wayne Swan, the man once judged the world's greatest treasurer, of economic vandalism




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-24/mckibbin-accuses-swan-of-economic-vandalism/5044474

Rudd's been outed as a bastard now this........as if we didn't already know.


----------



## noco

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Too right noco.
> 
> This is a recurring theme.
> 
> ALP get in, spend like buggery on useless muck, and near nigh bankrupt the country.
> 
> Then the Coalition get caned for trying to balance the books.
> 
> People need to harden up.
> 
> Australia's budget is like a home budget.
> 
> Spend more than you earn and trouble is on the horizon.
> 
> The electorate realised this, and elected Tony Abbott and the Coalition to fix things.
> 
> gg




GG, I watched the ABC 7.30 report tonight and an ex RBA board member Professor Mc Gribbin (I think that is how you spell his name) expressed his opinion of Wayne Swan....It certainly was not very complimentary at all.

Swan robbed the RBA of $500 million to prop up the deficiency in his budget.


----------



## sydboy007

MrBurns said:


> There's a lot to fix -
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-24/mckibbin-accuses-swan-of-economic-vandalism/5044474
> 
> Rudd's been outed as a bastard now this........as if we didn't already know.




Tax free super for those over 60 is probably the biggest piece of economic vandalism this country has seen, and that was when the over 60s made up just 155 of the population.  Give it about another decade and they'll make up close to 30% of the population.  Care to tell me how we can have close to 1 in 3 people in the country NOT PAYING TAX and still afford to provide all the basic services we demand???

- - - Updated - - -



noco said:


> If the Rudd/ Gillard government including Swan/ Wong had not wasted so much in the past 6 years we would not be in the predicament we now face.
> 
> Geez I hope the Coalition have put a stop to the $900 cheques that Labor were sending out up to the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ffer-for-economy/story-fn59nsif-1226745607274




They've been replaced with the PPL scheme - 50% pay cheques mate.  The Libs don't do things by half measure.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

noco said:


> GG, I watched the ABC 7.30 report tonight and an ex RBA board member Professor Mc Gribbin (I think that is how you spell his name) expressed his opinion of Wayne Swan....It certainly was not very complimentary at all.




Agree noco, didn't see 730 tonight.

The dregs of the middle classes, the ALP, like to impose their "vision" on a populace.

Always whenever the ALP elected economic conditions go down.

They know how to spend, when it is not their money.

Then the Coalition have to pick up the tab, get the country moving again and take the pain for unpopular decisions.

It is a shame the ALP did not have more workers in parliament, as opposed to upper middle class professional bludgers.

gg


----------



## sydboy007

wayneL said:


> On these two points at least, I am in agreeance with you Syd. I was very disappointed with the coalition's attitude on house prices and middle class welfare has been a burr under my saddle blanket for the longest time.




Then can people start judging the current Government by their actions, not by some rose tinted belief they are better than Labor?

If Hockey Ponzinomics was hinting at reasonable reform on middle class welfare and taxation, I'd be quite happy and willing to believe we've had a change for the better, but on the current words of wisdom coming from them, it feels like they're hoping for another debt binge similar to 2000-2005 to lift the economy, but the household sector is still too indebted to take on much more.  Australian households have barely deleveraged over the last 5 years, and that's with the savings rate back to 10% after being negative for a few years under Howard .

It's going to be VERY hard to fill in the 6% GDP drop of the mining CAPEX cliff over the next 2.5 years, and there's still a decent level of overcapacity in the economy, so why invest when what we have isn't fully utilised?  We have an over valued dollar, a central bank that thinks macro prudential policy is toxic, financial repression that is probably causing a bigger lose of income since only 1 in 3 households have a mortgage so the rest of us suffer lower incomes to support the over indebted.


----------



## Whiskers

noco said:


> If the Rudd/ Gillard government including Swan/ Wong had not wasted so much in the past 6 years we would not be in the predicament we now face.
> 
> Geez I hope the Coalition have put a stop to the $900 cheques that Labor were sending out up to the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ffer-for-economy/story-fn59nsif-1226745607274




noco, it would be helpful if you copy the text or do a screen shot so I don't have to subscribe to Ruperts biased paper... ohh hang on... that's probably the idea. 

Are you are you a stooge for the Big L top end of town, discretely trying to redistribute the wealth from the masses to the few? 

For what it's worth Swan was not a great treasurer... and who's still getting $900 cheques?


----------



## wayneL

Syd, I am going to give them some time, as such I find your picking unreasonable at this stage.


----------



## Whiskers

Garpal Gumnut said:


> ALP get in, spend like buggery on useless muck, and near nigh bankrupt the country.




Hang on gg, didn't you study the data charts I posted earlier... or do your own search if you don't believe them. 

True, there was some wasteful spending that distracted from some reasonable social welfare reforms, but certainly not bankrupt the country.  

The main issue is our wildly fluctuating balance and terms of trade, not so much the amount of spending, which gets back to my (and Palmers) belief that:

*we need to do more to support a wider variety of manufacturing than just the motor industry and not sell out our manufacturers with poor so called free trade deals. *

The other is the more  restrictive role of our RBA compared to the FED which gives us a hiding when the US goes protectionist. Our RBA should have gone too the limit with rate cuts, (cut more sooner) rather than conservatively.
True, we don't have the clout to dictate to the world, BUT if not for pandering to the corporate interest we should be looking at wider economic reform again such as refurbishing the RBA to better protect us from international currency wars. 



> Then the Coalition get caned for trying to balance the books.
> 
> Australia's budget is like a home budget.
> 
> Spend more than you earn and trouble is on the horizon.




Very few households have zero debt. Quite the contrary they borrow for worthwhile purposes from time to time and enjoy less debt or net savings at others.

Again gg, what's the great need to always balance the books a-la Howard? 

The data and easy visualisation in the charts from earlier clearly shows *the main issue that the wider population will revolt against Abbott over... reduced disposable income.*

That's where this is all heading now. A massive redistribution of wealth from the masses to the few in the top end of town. 

gg


----------



## noco

Whiskers said:


> noco, it would be helpful if you copy the text or do a screen shot so I don't have to subscribe to Ruperts biased paper... ohh hang on... that's probably the idea.
> 
> Are you are you a stooge for the Big L top end of town, discretely trying to redistribute the wealth from the masses to the few?
> 
> For what it's worth Swan was not a great treasurer... and who's still getting $900 cheques?




ALARM over the rising Australian dollar has spurred the Abbott government to develop contingency plans for a global shock amid fears the US will fail to settle its damaging political row on economic policy. 
Cabinet ministers have set on the strategy after being warned that US authorities could continue their monetary stimulus for longer than first thought, renewing the upward pressure on the Australian currency.

The policies will deepen the budget deficit to $40 billion this year and possibly more after Joe Hockey yesterday poured cash into the Reserve Bank to give it the "ammunition" to deal with any shockwaves.

The Australian can reveal the government initially planned to inject roughly $6bn into the central bank and add more over time but changed this to an immediate $8.8bn payment after briefings on the threats to the global economic outlook.

The changes came after the Treasurer and Reserve Bank governor Glenn Stevens returned from a global summit in Washington DC earlier this month that deepened government concerns about a hit to economic growth.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
Recommended Coverage Joe should dampen meltdown fears JOE Hockey has returned from Washington deeply worried that continued instability in the US may precipitate a new global crisis.  Medibank wants to cut red tape MEDIBANK Private has aggressively lobbied the Commonwealth for a series of health insurance reforms.  Environment axings as budget slashed THE Environment Department will cut 150 jobs over the next two months.  End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
Tony Abbott acknowledged the pressure on the budget yesterday as he called for "bold" recommendations from a new Commission of Audit aimed at cutting expenses, conceding there would be changes that people did not like.

The Reserve Bank warned last year of the need for "rebuilding capital" and will reveal in its annual report today that its reserve fund stands at $2.5bn compared with $6.9bn before the global financial crisis. Mr Hockey blamed Labor for taking dividends out of the central bank in recent years when it should have been shoring up its reserves, as he acknowledged his move would widen this year's deficit. "Our institutions must be at their absolute strongest to deal with the challenges in the days, the weeks and the months ahead," the Treasurer said.

"And the Coalition government will not allow our institutions to be in any way weakened - we need all the ammunition in the guns for what's before us, and this is part of that equation."

Former treasurer Wayne Swan lashed out at the comments by insisting he would have transferred funds to the Reserve Bank if it had sought the help, suggesting it had not asked for the cash.

Correspondence released in April under Freedom of Information laws showed the Reserve Bank urged the government to let it keep all its earnings, saying the money was needed to build up the reserve fund.

Mr Swan said it was "not unreasonable" to conclude that Mr Hockey was deliberately increasing this year's deficit to make future budget improvements look more dramatic.

Combined with the federal cabinet decision to lift the commonwealth debt limit to $500bn, the payment to the RBA is aimed at building up the capacity to deal with slower growth and a rising currency.

If nominal growth is slower than expected next year, tax revenue will fall short of forecasts and the deficit will deepen further, forcing the government to borrow more and take gross debt to as much as $450bn over time, according to market analysts.

The government's contingency plans are aimed at preparing for continued monetary stimulus in the world's largest economy as the US Federal Reserve delays the "tapering" of its policies to increase money supply.

The meetings in the US earlier this month, where Mr Hockey and Mr Stevens spoke to finance ministers and central bank governors from the Group of 20 nations, confirmed expectations the monetary stimulus would continue longer than previously thought. A rising currency would hurt local exporters, curb economic growth and increase the budget deficit.

The Australian dollar hit US97.6c yesterday, its highest level since May, following the release of a larger than expected increase in inflation in the June quarter. However, in a day of highly volatile trading, it dropped back to US96.4c following a big fall in the Japanese sharemarket.

Mr Hockey said the Australian economy was "growing as it should be" and emphasised the commonwealth's AAA credit rating, but also expressed concern the US would be unable to fix its domestic dispute over economic policy. While the US congress struck a provisional deal on the debt ceiling to ease fears of a default, it is expected to enter another round of brinksmanship next year ahead of the nation's mid-term elections in November.

"The United States has not resolved its structural issues, it has not resolved them," Mr Hockey said. "They've kicked the can along the road closer to the mid-term elections. I don't see a way forward out of that. We are not going to allow Australia to become in any way as vulnerable as the United States or some other jurisdictions may be over the months and years ahead."

Economists backed the move to increase the Reserve Bank's capacity. "It seems fairly routine, but it does give the RBA more firepower if there was an unexpected event - that's one of the reasons the reserve fund exists," said JP Morgan chief economist Stephen Walters.

Mr Walters noted that his US colleagues had pushed back their estimate of the timing of the first "taper" of the US monetary policy until April, meaning the US dollar would be weaker for longer and there would be more support for the Australian dollar. "Parity against the (US dollar) is possible, but is not our base case," he said.

Westpac chief currency strategist Robert Rennie said the injection would give the Reserve Bank the strongest capital position it has had since the 1970s.

"It looks a lot more like a rainy day fund than it has for much of its last two and a bit years," he said.

Coalition and Labor governments have taken huge dividends from the RBA over the past decade, making it harder to build up the reserves.
23

BTW. the subscription is only about $11 per month


----------



## Julia

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Agree noco, didn't see 730 tonight.



It's worth a look.  Professor Warwick McKibbin was a member of the Reserve Bank Board for ten years, including during the GFC.  During that time he made clear his poor opinion of the Labor government.  As a result, Wayne Swan did not offer him a further term.  He is a plainly spoken, rational person whose comments about Mr Swan and the then government on 7.30 this evening are enlightening indeed.


----------



## Whiskers

noco, thanks for doing that... but there is little new for me in there and nothing that changes my view of the economy, what the gov knew from reasonable market analysis and forecasts as opposed to the over exaggeration they didn't need to make in the election campaign, that will haunt them because they will not be able to do the Howard recipe with the same popular response initially. 

People will be much better informed now, than then and will revolt at the first sign of widening the disposable personal income gap as soon as they see a viable Labor or PUP alternative. 

On the NSW fires the army has apologised for starting the big one a week ago. As a firey Abbott should have been very aware of the risk and jumped up and down to get more done sooner there instead of being the 'rescuer' posing for photo shoots. He should have been a 'good' PM fully on duty ripping it into the army for more action on the day and leave his 'good' citizen escapades for when he's lost government.

Will he offer the people who lost their homes as a result of the army started fire compensation like the compensation for overseas terrorists victims?


----------



## IFocus

sydboy007 said:


> I'm asking why Joe Hockey is requesting a 66% in the debt ceiling?  IF the Liberals are such great economic managers why would they need this HUGE increase?




They cannot even manage their expense accounts or the excuses what hope the budget emergency?

MP's expense scandal: Don Randall's account of his expenditure differs from Tony Abbott's

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ony-abbotts-20131024-2w49b.html#ixzz2ifsta01Q


----------



## waza1960

Careful Whiskers you may become even more critical of the Abbott government than the resident left wingers here.
 Imagine that ..


----------



## Knobby22

No mention of Greg Hunt?
I believe he is a laughing stock in Britain right now in all the newspapers for selectively quoting Wikipedia to the BBC. it's not like he hasn't got a huge department that can give him advice. It reminds me Hacker in Yes Minister.
Where's Garpel saying the BBC should be shut down for asking questions the ABC wouldn't dare ask?

I think its a case of "nothing happening here, look away". 

On another track , Randall is at long last, finally paying back the money for his Cairns escapade, but now there is another rort, going to Melbourne to watch the footy with his wife on the taxpayers credit card. He smells like Mal Colston to me.

My question is why is Tony Abbott not acting and cleaning up this rorting? 

Is there any wonder  trust in our politicians is so low and so many people voted for Palmer?


----------



## waza1960

> My question is why is Tony Abbott not acting and cleaning up this rorting?




 Probably too busy running the country

 Although I agree something should be done


----------



## Whiskers

waza1960 said:


> Careful Whiskers you may become even more critical of the Abbott government than the resident left wingers here.
> Imagine that ..




Well I'm glad someone sees which part of the fence I sit on. 

But, none the less I might become more critical, akin to hell hath no fury like a woman, errr I mean policy supporter, scorned... for delivering up a sausage when I bought into a beef roast. 



Knobby22 said:


> No mention of Greg Hunt?
> I think its a case of "nothing happening here, look away".




I heard that interview and it seems to me that some smart asses are over playing that he mentioned looking up Wikipedia (which I thought was a bit in jest) rather than there is no solid support for climate change being responsible for bushfires. 

I'm not surprised and I don't think he's too concerned because it's par for the political course, that it's often easier to shoot the messenger if you don't have a reasonable argument against the message. 



> My question is why is Tony Abbott not acting and cleaning up this rorting?




While both sides of politics are guilty... this is a golden opportunity for him to practice what he preaches. He made so much noise about waste and endlessly uses the word 'good' as a prefix to just about everything he does, eg good citizen (firey), good PM, good for the country etc.

He has dug himself into quite a potentially devastating popularity hole and needs to do a lot more 'action' in support of the talk pretty soon to dig himself out of it.



> Is there any wonder  trust in our politicians is so low and so many people voted for Palmer?




I actually had a few laughs, like many others, at PUP and KAP before the election, not taking them too seriously. But, I did take Palmers feud with the LNP and his want to become PM seriously. 

I suppose in retrospective psychoanalysis  it's not surprising that he got his foray to power in the senate, where he cannot do any harm directly by administrative decisions, but people can get a look at his style and commitment before next election.

PS: The Lib fed directorate has bitten the hook and stirred the minnows into action. Will the political wing act?
On Wednesday, Liberal Party federal director Brian Loughnane called for a parliamentary review of the voting system, saying the rise of the micros ''did not reflect the will of the people''.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...enate-havoc-20131024-2w4dv.html#ixzz2ihTVvSfM​
Unfortunately, I think they're damned if the do and damned if they don't because of the hypocritical over exaggerated political campaigning.


----------



## Whiskers

The  survey from above post supports my 'psychoanalysis' that Tony is likely as they say... praying to god, but he desperately needs to start rowing pretty hard towards the shore... pretty soon, cos the tide of public opinion is damn hard to turn once you piss them off with deceit.

In this case that the corruptible voting system they exploited for so long to run Australia like a dual party dictatorship is in fact corruptible... ie they got beaten at their own game and like a sore looser are now crying foul.


----------



## IFocus

Julia said:


> It's worth a look.  Professor Warwick McKibbin was a member of the Reserve Bank Board for ten years, including during the GFC.  During that time he made clear his poor opinion of the Labor government.  As a result, Wayne Swan did not offer him a further term.  He is a plainly spoken, rational person whose comments about Mr Swan and the then government on 7.30 this evening are enlightening indeed.




Crikey talks about the man and other issues worth a read

Former RBA member deepens mystery around THAT $9 billion




> McKibbin, an ANU economist, was a serial critic of Labor while it was in office, and strengthened his attacks on the then-government after it declined to renew his RBA term in 2011.






> McKibbin’s track record in attacking Labor and on more general economic matters is decidedly patchy. He dismissed the role of Labor’s fiscal stimulus in preventing a recession during the financial crisis as “relatively small” and complained that the government had failed to adopt his own Byzantine version of an emissions trading scheme. In 2011 he warned of a commodity price bubble far bigger than the US housing bubble that led to the financial crisis. In the middle of last year he said the Australian economy was about to boom and that the RBA needed to lift interest rates.





Talking about bias




> So, McKibbin appears to confirm that at no stage did the RBA ask Swan to top up its capital reserves, even when the ratio of the reserve fund to assets at risk was at 2.1%, nearly half its current level of 3.8%. What McKibbin also does is gloss over the fact that in 2011-12, the RBA paid no dividend to the government at all, unlike all of the Howard years, when dividends of up to $3 billion were paid to government year in, year out.
> 
> As Stephen Koukoulas correctly notes today, if former Liberal treasurer Peter Costello had taken dividends from the RBA at a similar average to Swan ($1.5 billion a year rather than Costello’s average of $3 billion a year), the RBA’s Reserve Fund would be extremely healthy.
> 
> Put another way, if Swan had taken dividends from the RBA at the same level as Costello, the Reserve Fund would now be empty.


----------



## sydboy007

Got to wonder why they're borrowing an extra $8.8B and willing to pay $350M a year in interest for it.

What's the point?  If the RBA gets into the trouble the Govt is going to step in anyways, and if the RBA is in trouble, I doubt $8.8B is going to be sufficient to help them out.

Will Treasurer Ponzinomics commit to not "raiding" the RBA for any dividends during the current coalition Govt?


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Got to wonder why they're borrowing an extra $8.8B and willing to pay $350M a year in interest for it.
> 
> What's the point?  If the RBA gets into the trouble the Govt is going to step in anyways, and if the RBA is in trouble, I doubt $8.8B is going to be sufficient to help them out.
> 
> Will Treasurer Ponzinomics commit to not "raiding" the RBA for any dividends during the current coalition Govt?




I wonder why the government hasn't employed you already? 
You seem to have the answers for the NBN and the fiscal responsibilty of the RBA, appear to be within your scope of abilities.
We just need you to get off night shift and run for parliament.
Bill Shorten could do with young talent, who have all the answers. His last team certainly didn't.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> I wonder why the government hasn't employed you already?
> You seem to have the answers for the NBN and the fiscal responsibilty of the RBA, appear to be within your scope of abilities.
> We just need you to get off night shift and run for parliament.
> Bill Shorten could do with young talent, who have all the answers. His last team certainly didn't.




Sarcasm aside SP, if you disagree with what I say, how about you put a counter argument forward rather than a snide comment?

The Coalition has spent years complaining about waste and mismanagement, and now wants to spend an extra $350M in interest costs.  Does it make economic sense to you, because it doesn't to me.

It makes great political sense as they can inflate this years deficit and blame Labor for it, then any decrease next FY the Coalition will crow about it.  It also makes great sense as they can do the Howard $3B a year withdrawl to improve their budget result.

i also wonder what happened to the sense of CRISIS the Coalition had pre election.  Surely if things were / are as bad as they said they'd have had some policies ready to introduce NOW to cut a few billion off the deficit this year.

Chris Pyne said the Coalition would have run surpluses for the last 5 years, so surely lopping off a few billion from the deficit by June is easy for them?


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Sarcasm aside SP, if you disagree with what I say, how about you put a counter argument forward rather than a snide comment?
> 
> The Coalition has spent years complaining about waste and mismanagement, and now wants to spend an extra $350M in interest costs.  Does it make economic sense to you, because it doesn't to me.
> 
> It makes great political sense as they can inflate this years deficit and blame Labor for it, then any decrease next FY the Coalition will crow about it.  It also makes great sense as they can do the Howard $3B a year withdrawl to improve their budget result.
> 
> i also wonder what happened to the sense of CRISIS the Coalition had pre election.  Surely if things were / are as bad as they said they'd have had some policies ready to introduce NOW to cut a few billion off the deficit this year.
> 
> Chris Pyne said the Coalition would have run surpluses for the last 5 years, so surely lopping off a few billion from the deficit by June is easy for them?




The dust still hasn't settled from the election, calling what is right and what is wrong at this stage is, IMO impossible.
No doubt there are a lot of fiscal and international constraints that the coalition wasn't aware of prior to attaining office.
I feel it is a bit like you going for a promotion, to a position that they sacked someone from, as it is in chaos.
Then four weeks later, you are questioned as to why you are implementing change. 
I'm prepared to give them 6 to 12 months and then judge their performance, to start making judgement after 4 weeks is immature. Just my opinion.
I will jump in when I have seen some runs on the board, at the moment it appears to be people passing wind.

By the way I wasn't being sarcastic, Labor needs young people who do have a selfless approach.


----------



## Whiskers

IFocus said:


> Crikey talks about the man and other issues worth a read
> 
> Former RBA member deepens mystery around THAT $9 billion
> 
> Talking about bias




I distinctly remember this bit:

In 2011 he warned of a commodity price bubble far bigger than the US housing bubble that led to the financial crisis. In the middle of last year he said the Australian economy was about to boom and that the RBA needed to lift interest rates.​
That's a lot of the reason they held the cash rate too high for too long, and stifled household savings and exaggerated the yo yo currency fluctuations damaging confidence, that I've been complaining about. 

Now you won't hear the economists on tv and main media agreeing, because they are largely employed by the top end of town that the RBA was more concerned with looking after to protect their profit margins, as opposed to lowering rates further to spread the wealth. 

It's also conceivable that housing construction, first home owners and some mining development was cut short because of their error of judgement and overly conservative rate cuts. 

It's seems that 'good' ole Tony has not said a word to his defence staff about the dangers of live fire exercises. Another fire at Tin Can Bay in Qld caused by live fire. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...rts-queensland-grass-fire-20131025-2w6z5.html

I just find it amazing that as a 'good' firey Abbott has apparently said and done nothing, and likewise as a 'good' PM, has not seen the extra unnecessary cost to the economy... but I suppose as someone else has said, cynically, Labor is copping the blame for this financial year so who cares.


----------



## sptrawler

Whiskers said:


> I distinctly remember this bit:
> 
> In 2011 he warned of a commodity price bubble far bigger than the US housing bubble that led to the financial crisis. In the middle of last year he said the Australian economy was about to boom and that the RBA needed to lift interest rates.​
> That's a lot of the reason they held the cash rate too high for too long, and stifled household savings and exaggerated the yo yo currency fluctuations damaging confidence, that I've been complaining about.
> 
> Now you won't hear the economists on tv and main media agreeing, because they are largely employed by the top end of town that the RBA was more concerned with looking after to protect their profit margins, as opposed to lowering rates further to spread the wealth.
> 
> It's also conceivable that housing construction, first home owners and some mining development was cut short because of their error of judgement and overly conservative rate cuts.
> 
> It's seems that 'good' ole Tony has not said a word to his defence staff about the dangers of live fire exercises. Another fire at Tin Can Bay in Qld caused by live fire. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...rts-queensland-grass-fire-20131025-2w6z5.html
> 
> I just find it amazing that as a 'good' firey Abbott has apparently said and done nothing, and likewise as a 'good' PM, has not seen the extra unnecessary cost to the economy... but I suppose as someone else has said, cynically, Labor is copping the blame for this financial year so who cares.




Well the commodity price bubble has burst, if you hadn't noticed.
The rest of what you said seems to indicate interest rates should be lower, to increase peoples borrowing ability?

I see interest rates being low as a massive trap, that when sprung, will redistribute wealth from the poor to the wealthy.


----------



## IFocus

sptrawler said:


> The dust still hasn't settled from the election, calling what is right and what is wrong at this stage is, IMO impossible.




They are making statements and taking actions are you saying everyone is wrong to critique those?



> No doubt there are a lot of fiscal and international constraints that the coalition wasn't aware of prior to attaining office.




Nope they have the same information the difference now they are the government and all those lies and fraudulent BS they spouted is....well just that lies and BS. 



> I feel it is a bit like you going for a promotion, to a position that they sacked someone from, as it is in chaos.
> Then four weeks later, you are questioned as to why you are implementing change.
> I'm prepared to give them 6 to 12 months and then judge their performance, to start making judgement after 4 weeks is immature. Just my opinion.
> I will jump in when I have seen some runs on the board, at the moment it appears to be people passing wind.




It will be more like a hurricane by then.




> By the way I wasn't being sarcastic, Labor needs young people who do have a selfless approach.




Your kidding more like the coalition given all the rorts starting at the top.


----------



## IFocus

Julia said:


> It's worth a look.  Professor Warwick McKibbin was a member of the Reserve Bank Board for ten years, including during the GFC.  During that time he made clear his poor opinion of the Labor government.  As a result, Wayne Swan did not offer him a further term.  He is a plainly spoken, rational person whose comments about Mr Swan and the then government on 7.30 this evening are enlightening indeed.




I know I am harping on but Mark Kenny who is usually a conservative backer (for some reason he has been reasoning both sides lately) adds fuel to the deceitful behaviour of the new government (Hockey) and its propagandists (Mckibbin).

Swan took Treasury advice not to shore up RBA fund




> Wayne Swan considered bolstering the Reserve Bank's reserve fund earlier this year, but was formally instructed by the Treasury Department that shoring up its capital holdings could be counter-productive, Fairfax Media has discovered.
> 
> Despite Treasurer Joe Hockey's decision to bolster the RBA to the tune of $8.8 billion this week, an official minute to Mr Swan in April advised the then treasurer not to transfer money from the government to the bank on the grounds there was no legal basis for the request.
> 
> The minute advised that the impression created by doing so could undermine confidence in the central bank's stability and compromise its independence from the government.
> 
> The advice contradicts any suggestion by the new government that Mr Swan had been negligent in allowing the bank's capital buffer to run down, and had acted against the advice of the RBA itself.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...up-rba-fund-20131025-2w7d8.html#ixzz2imOzyCAQ


----------



## basilio

It's possible(arguable) the recent  debt crisis with the American government has fuelled concerns about  economic risks  in Australia. It might be a good idea now to increase  the capital base of the RBA


----------



## sydboy007

basilio said:


> It's possible(arguable) the recent  debt crisis with the American government has fuelled concerns about  economic risks  in Australia. It might be a good idea now to increase  the capital base of the RBA




Surely it should be the RBA making the argument - so far the information being provided seems to indicate the RBA did not believe it was needed, and such a paltry sum would do little in the event of the kind of crisis being used to justify the injection of funds.  NAB had to do a deal with the US Fed for $10B during the GFC.  No diea what the other Aussie banks did.  The small matter of around $350M in interest payments each year has been too easily glossed over by Treasurer Ponzinomics.


----------



## Whiskers

sptrawler said:


> Well the commodity price bubble has burst, if you hadn't noticed.




The boom has peaked, but it was hardly a bubble... and it certainly was not "_far bigger than the US housing bubble that led to the financial crisis_".



> The rest of what you said seems to indicate interest rates should be lower, to increase peoples borrowing ability?




No... well it would, but in the circumstances people were (and still are) not rushing out to borrow... the main effect would be to firstly increase disposable household income, which slows the foreclosure rate, and for the rest helps improve their liquidity, esp by reducing debt and increasing savings. 



> I see interest rates being low as a massive trap, that when sprung, will redistribute wealth from the poor to the wealthy.




That would be the case if you forecast sharp rise in inflation. BUT what I'm saying and the smarter forecasters say and will continue to be proven right... is the commodity boom was always going to cycle back off it's boom to a more modest levels and the risk of recession is greater than inflation. 

Lower interest rates would have helped make the AUD/USD yo yo less extreme. Cutting interest rates sooner and harder would have helped flatten out the extremes of the AUD/USD, which in turn would ease pressure on the RBA cash rate (note their mention of the high exchange rate) and it would be lower atm, thus not being so damaging to business and consumer confidence.

I emphasise confidence rather than temporary gains from cheap imports, because it's confidence that causes people to make long term capital decisions whether in housing, business or mining. It's the lack of confidence about their terms of trade that is halting capital expenditure in a hurry.

The RBA main measure they react to is the CPI. Fuel is a major influence from the rising AUD/USD. Keep the AUD/USD lower and fuel and consequently the CPI would not spike up and there would be no excuse to not lower rates more. 

The other concern often raised but never eventuating is over stimulating property prices. In all the circumstances it NEVER was going to happen, despite extra stimulus like the QLD government $10,000 building boost grant scheme... it hardly raised a ripple. 

The other factor often mentioned in their reasoning for not lowering more was the AUD/USD... concerns about the US ending QE. But, look what happens when they didn't cut... the $ went higher... and keeping all the reasons they should have cut more in play. 

They will have to cut interest rates more to stimulate the economy which has never shown signs of real inflation... ie not induced by other than the exchange rate.


----------



## sptrawler

Whiskers said:


> The boom has peaked, but it was hardly a bubble... and it certainly was not "_far bigger than the US housing bubble that led to the financial crisis_"..




Who said it was bigger than the US housing bubble?
If it wasn't a bubble why are companies like Atlas Iron, Panoramic rescources, Mincor at the lowest levels they have been since the gfc?


Whiskers said:


> No... well it would, but in the circumstances people were (and still are) not rushing out to borrow... the main effect would be to firstly increase disposable household income, which slows the foreclosure rate, and for the rest helps improve their liquidity, esp by reducing debt and increasing savings. .




Yes, as though that helps, house prices are at all time highs 'again'.
 So therefore if you are correct and people aren't rushing out to borrow, it must be investors and overseas purchasers pushing up the prices. Hows does that help Joe average Australian, other than those who own property.lol
I guess you own, or are purchasing a house or houses.





Whiskers said:


> That would be the case if you forecast sharp rise in inflation. BUT what I'm saying and the smarter forecasters say and will continue to be proven right... is the commodity boom was always going to cycle back off it's boom to a more modest levels and the risk of recession is greater than inflation.
> 
> Lower interest rates would have helped make the AUD/USD yo yo less extreme. Cutting interest rates sooner and harder would have helped flatten out the extremes of the AUD/USD, which in turn would ease pressure on the RBA cash rate (note their mention of the high exchange rate) and it would be lower atm, thus not being so damaging to business and consumer confidence.
> 
> I emphasise confidence rather than temporary gains from cheap imports, because it's confidence that causes people to make long term capital decisions whether in housing, business or mining. It's the lack of confidence about their terms of trade that is halting capital expenditure in a hurry.
> 
> The RBA main measure they react to is the CPI. Fuel is a major influence from the rising AUD/USD. *Keep the AUD/USD lower and fuel and consequently the CPI would not spike up and there would be no excuse to not lower rates more*.
> 
> The other concern often raised but never eventuating is over stimulating property prices. In all the circumstances it NEVER was going to happen, despite extra stimulus like the QLD government $10,000 building boost grant scheme... it hardly raised a ripple.
> 
> The other factor often mentioned in their reasoning for not lowering more was the AUD/USD... concerns about the US ending QE. But, look what happens when they didn't cut... the $ went higher... and keeping all the reasons they should have cut more in play.
> 
> They will have to cut interest rates more to stimulate the economy which has never shown signs of real inflation... ie not induced by other than the exchange rate.




Your hyperventilating, as the Aus $ falls the price of fuel rises, it doesn't fall as you suggest. My bolds
Our fuel price is linked to the Singapore fuel price.
http://www.aip.com.au/pricing/facts/Facts_about_Petrol_Prices_and_the_Australian_Fuel_Market.htm


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

I won't go in to all of the above, but I can tell you I sleep better knowing that Abbott/Hockey are running our finances than Gillard/Swan or Rudd/Bowen.

Adults running a household budget.

It ain't brain science.

And no more brainfarts on the expenditure side.

gg


----------



## sptrawler

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I won't go in to all of the above, but I can tell you I sleep better knowing that Abbott/Hockey are running our finances than Gillard/Swan or Rudd/Bowen.
> 
> Adults running a household budget.
> 
> It ain't brain science.
> 
> And no more brainfarts on the expenditure side.
> 
> gg




Well said gg, consumer confidence is rising, that is because we are not seeing "days of our lives" government on tv every day.
The general public likes government to govern not be a bloody soap opera.


----------



## sydboy007

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I won't go in to all of the above, but I can tell you I sleep better knowing that Abbott/Hockey are running our finances than Gillard/Swan or Rudd/Bowen.
> 
> Adults running a household budget.
> 
> It ain't brain science.
> 
> And no more brainfarts on the expenditure side.
> 
> gg




$8.8B to the RBA when they didn't ask for it, didn't need it, but hey what's another $300M+ to the interest bill.

Treasurer Ponzinomics needs some quickeze for that one.

- - - Updated - - -



sptrawler said:


> Well said gg, consumer confidence is rising, that is because we are not seeing "days of our lives" government on tv every day.
> The general public likes government to govern not be a bloody soap opera.




Westfarmers has pretty much said they've not seen a material rise in sales, so while people might SAY they're feeling better they're NOT spending more, so the reality is they're not truly behaving any differently now than before the election.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Yes, as though that helps, house prices are at all time highs 'again'.
> So therefore if you are correct and people aren't rushing out to borrow, it must be investors and overseas purchasers pushing up the prices. Hows does that help Joe average Australian, other than those who own property.lol
> I guess you own, or are purchasing a house or houses.




Tony "The Crisis" Abbott's summation on rising house prices

"If housing prices go up, sure that makes it harder to get into the market, but it also means that everyone who is in the market has a more valuable asset."

Treasurer Ponzinomics take on the situation

"The fact is, we have a very generous immigration program. And we have very slow supply coming in to the market. Now rising house prices in Australia help to make some of the more marginal new housing developments affordable and realistic and deliverable. And in turn, that increase in supply helps to manage the market. So, Australia is a long way from a bubble…

A lot of Australians put a lot of new capital into their homes – renovate their homes, upgrade their homes – and we have the largest homes on average perhaps in the Western World, and the world more generally. So it’s a very different asset class in Australia than in other jurisdictions”.

With economic leadership like this, it really doesn't matter how many paddles you have on that smelly creek.

ps If you can help to explain how rising prices helps to make _new housing developments affordable and realistic and deliverable_ I'll be very grateful..or maybe


----------



## sydboy007

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...isters-who-prefer-vip-air-20131026-2w8h3.html

Senior figures in the Abbott government were among those who enjoyed ''free'' travel on VIP military aircraft to fly to Canberra for parliamentary sitting weeks, amassing a taxpayer bill of more than $2 million, Defence Department records reveal.

Empty military planes, costing taxpayers thousands of dollars each flight, were sent from Canberra to capital cities to pick up the Howard ministers, despite on many occasions regular commercial flights being available.

Beyond prime ministerial travel - including then acting prime minister Wayne Swan's trip to the 2010 NRL and AFL grand finals - Fairfax Media could not find systemic use of VIP jets by Labor MPs during the Rudd and Gillard governments


----------



## Whiskers

sptrawler said:


> Who said it was bigger than the US housing bubble?




The RBA, or at least McKibbin. This is the piece referred to, again:
_In 2011 he warned of a commodity price bubble far bigger than the US housing bubble that led to the financial crisis. In the middle of last year he said the Australian economy was about to boom and that the RBA needed to lift interest rates.​_*The RBA over estimated 'a commodity price bubble' and well and truly over estimated the fear of inflation.*

But was it really over estimated, or just overstated for their political bias objective!



> If it wasn't a bubble why are companies like Atlas Iron, Panoramic rescources, Mincor at the lowest levels they have been since the gfc?




It was a premature slowing of mining investment caused by a fall in confidence from concerns about revenue, capital raising and profitability, mainly driven by the $ exchange rate. Other factors like the carbon and mining tax impacted confidence but their impact is mainly felt when making 'super' profit's, with far less impact on development and 'normal' operations. 

I would add that part of the reason why the mining tax produced so little revenue in it's first year is because it's likely some development costs were expedited to offset against the 'super' profits... thus making profits more modest and appear that the boom was bust, prematurely.

On the contrary, it has set up many companies for more profitable returns when the tax is abolished.



> Yes, as though that helps, house prices are at all time highs 'again'. So therefore if you are correct and people aren't rushing out to borrow, it must be investors and overseas purchasers pushing up the prices.




House prises are not at all time highs everywhere. Where they are back to, or a little above GFC prices, is largely the effect of increased immigration settling around a few capital cities. There is also some tempered organic growth in certain areas due to area specific development, but generally housing prices are far from breaking new highs with any strength Australia wide. 

There is an element of overseas investors, as been discussed maybe on another thread. They have been  encouraged into 'Land Banking'. For the most part they can afford to take a long term position which has resulted in arguably more land, and future housing being tied up undeveloped or sitting on the market at higher reserves, including foreign owned housing, than the market is prepared to pay, hence the patchy increases in certain areas where the asking price is less.



> Hows does that help Joe average Australian, other than those who own property.lol




From what I said:
A more aggressive RBA rate cut would still increase disposable household income, which *slows the foreclosure rate*, and for the rest helps improve their liquidity, esp by reducing debt and increasing savings.​
A significant reason for firmly high rents and low vacancy rates is a slower rate of new housing construction, including investment housing because of above. Add in a bit higher than normal mortgage defaults and you have more upward pressure on rental demand coupled with decreasing rental vacancies, keeping rents higher.  

If the RBA had cut even .5% more when they started cutting we would be in a lot healthier position, with that modest inflation rate more from organic growth than international influences.



> I guess you own, or are purchasing a house or houses.




Certainly intending to be more active as the cycle looks closer to bottoming.



> Your hyperventilating, as the Aus $ falls the price of fuel rises, it doesn't fall as you suggest. My bolds
> Our fuel price is linked to the Singapore fuel price.
> http://www.aip.com.au/pricing/facts/Facts_about_Petrol_Prices_and_the_Australian_Fuel_Market.htm




True fuel is linked to Singapore, BUT the bowser price here is affected by the import cost, the exchange rate. 

Think about the number of times you have heard the Singapore (or world price) has fallen but the oil companies have not passed the saving on at the bowser.

If the RBA cash rate was .5% lower from the start, that would temper (slow or lessen) the flow of funds in and there for out again, causing the AUD to yo yo less severely and not denting investment confidence so badly. Surely you've herd it often complained that some businesses will jump prices at the smell of a reasonable excuse, but never lower prices if the event never eventuates or reverses. The scrapping of the mining tax is a case in point, where Brisbane City Council is failing to guarantee a reduction in rates equivalent to that attributed to the carbon tax.

The high AUD has heavily slowed our economy down via exchange rate exposed industries such as tourism, manufacturing and education. These are the every day bread and butter industries that support and stabilise our economy. They deserved more support from the RBA than the 'super' profits of our banking industry.

Before anyone jumps on that, think about how little the banks passed on from early cuts and the key RBA players, appointed by the Howard government, Glen Stevens (replaced Ian Macfarlane) and Roger Corbett... two very conservative, even Big L Liberal in philosophy... as in more obsessed with a balanced budget, low or no debt and protecting corporate profits. 

If you take a wider look, the RBA (as evidenced by reports) has taken a more conservative bias in it's judgement calls, more favouring the big end of town than the average aussie. 

While certainly not endorsing Labors policy on a number of issues, nor a fan of Swan as treasurer,  you cannot escape the reality of RBA decisions based on Big L Liberal philosophy contributing to making the economic situation 'appear' worse that it actually is as a smoke screen to avoid passing on better rate cuts for the betterment of the average aussie.


----------



## MrBurns

Interesting reply Whiskers, so things aren't as bad as we are led to believe, I think that's borne out by the confidence in all markets at present.
And the Chinese are back in the property market with a vengeance and this time it's not just new arrivals.


----------



## sptrawler

Whiskers said:


> The RBA, or at least McKibbin. This is the piece referred to, again:
> _In 2011 he warned of a commodity price bubble far bigger than the US housing bubble that led to the financial crisis. In the middle of last year he said the Australian economy was about to boom and that the RBA needed to lift interest rates.​_*The RBA over estimated 'a commodity price bubble' and well and truly over estimated the fear of inflation.*
> 
> But was it really over estimated, or just overstated for their political bias objective!
> 
> 
> 
> It was a premature slowing of mining investment caused by a fall in confidence from concerns about revenue, capital raising and profitability, mainly driven by the $ exchange rate. Other factors like the carbon and mining tax impacted confidence but their impact is mainly felt when making 'super' profit's, with far less impact on development and 'normal' operations.
> 
> I would add that part of the reason why the mining tax produced so little revenue in it's first year is because it's likely some development costs were expedited to offset against the 'super' profits... thus making profits more modest and appear that the boom was bust, prematurely.
> 
> On the contrary, it has set up many companies for more profitable returns when the tax is abolished.
> 
> 
> 
> House prises are not at all time highs everywhere. Where they are back to, or a little above GFC prices, is largely the effect of increased immigration settling around a few capital cities. There is also some tempered organic growth in certain areas due to area specific development, but generally housing prices are far from breaking new highs with any strength Australia wide.
> 
> There is an element of overseas investors, as been discussed maybe on another thread. They have been  encouraged into 'Land Banking'. For the most part they can afford to take a long term position which has resulted in arguably more land, and future housing being tied up undeveloped or sitting on the market at higher reserves, including foreign owned housing, than the market is prepared to pay, hence the patchy increases in certain areas where the asking price is less.
> 
> 
> 
> From what I said:
> A more aggressive RBA rate cut would still increase disposable household income, which *slows the foreclosure rate*, and for the rest helps improve their liquidity, esp by reducing debt and increasing savings.​
> A significant reason for firmly high rents and low vacancy rates is a slower rate of new housing construction, including investment housing because of above. Add in a bit higher than normal mortgage defaults and you have more upward pressure on rental demand coupled with decreasing rental vacancies, keeping rents higher.
> 
> If the RBA had cut even .5% more when they started cutting we would be in a lot healthier position, with that modest inflation rate more from organic growth than international influences.
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly intending to be more active as the cycle looks closer to bottoming.
> 
> 
> 
> True fuel is linked to Singapore, BUT the bowser price here is affected by the import cost, the exchange rate.
> 
> Think about the number of times you have heard the Singapore (or world price) has fallen but the oil companies have not passed the saving on at the bowser.
> 
> If the RBA cash rate was .5% lower from the start, that would temper (slow or lessen) the flow of funds in and there for out again, causing the AUD to yo yo less severely and not denting investment confidence so badly. Surely you've herd it often complained that some businesses will jump prices at the smell of a reasonable excuse, but never lower prices if the event never eventuates or reverses. The scrapping of the mining tax is a case in point, where Brisbane City Council is failing to guarantee a reduction in rates equivalent to that attributed to the carbon tax.
> 
> The high AUD has heavily slowed our economy down via exchange rate exposed industries such as tourism, manufacturing and education. These are the every day bread and butter industries that support and stabilise our economy. They deserved more support from the RBA than the 'super' profits of our banking industry.
> 
> Before anyone jumps on that, think about how little the banks passed on from early cuts and the key RBA players, appointed by the Howard government, Glen Stevens (replaced Ian Macfarlane) and Roger Corbett... two very conservative, even Big L Liberal in philosophy... as in more obsessed with a balanced budget, low or no debt and protecting corporate profits.
> 
> If you take a wider look, the RBA (as evidenced by reports) has taken a more conservative bias in it's judgement calls, more favouring the big end of town than the average aussie.
> 
> While certainly not endorsing Labors policy on a number of issues, nor a fan of Swan as treasurer,  you cannot escape the reality of RBA decisions based on Big L Liberal philosophy contributing to making the economic situation 'appear' worse that it actually is as a smoke screen to avoid passing on better rate cuts for the betterment of the average aussie.




Well Whiskers, if you are right and interest rates drop further, pushing house prices higher. You have to feel for the underclass that will be created.
You make referance to the fact house prices are only booming in major population areas, that has always been the case.
You also make referenceto RBA rate cuts increasing disposable income, that is only for those with a home loan.
You also make reference to RBA rate cuts reducing foreclosures and giving them more liquidity. It would appear to me those people are in financial stress and have no liquidity anyway.
If in some way your reasoning is supposed to indicate we are in a great financial state, I'm missing it.

All your assumptions seem to be based on a bouyant housing market, which by your own admission is being proped up by overseas investors.
Housing is non productive debt, once it is built it does nothing for the economy, to make it a lucrative investment vehicle is a recipe for disaster.IMO


----------



## Whiskers

sptrawler said:


> Well Whiskers, if you are right and interest rates drop further, pushing house prices higher. You have to feel for the underclass that will be created.
> You make referance to the fact house prices are only booming in major population areas, that has always been the case.
> You also make reference to RBA rate cuts increasing disposable income, that is only for those with a home loan.
> You also make reference to RBA rate cuts reducing foreclosures and giving them more liquidity. It would appear to me those people are in financial stress and have no liquidity anyway.
> If in some way your reasoning is supposed to indicate we are in a great financial state, *I'm missing it.*
> All your assumptions seem to be based on a bouyant housing market, which by your own admission is being proped up by overseas investors.
> Housing is non productive debt, once it is built it does nothing for the economy, to make it a lucrative investment vehicle is a recipe for disaster.IMO




You're missing it.

I'll post up some more charts tomorrow, but for now... house price rises (in some areas) is driven by  demand for housing from population growth, as evidenced by high rents and low vacancy rates... rather than low interest rates.

If low interest rates was stimulating housing you would see stronger construction as well as other things.

Hence my argument that interest rate should have been much lower to (among other things) stimulate the building and first home owner sector. 

Tomorrows lesson will be on how the RBA is colluding with the top end of town and Big L Libs to squeeze the average aussie for max corporate profits... the 'stuck' (on purpose, as in people reluctant to pay higher prices and rent, or build new homes, tending to stay at home in extensions to existing family homes as Syd mentioned) situation our economy is in atm largely because of the RBA monetary policy.

I'll give you a clue. Think about the Asian Financial Crisis around 1997/8 caused by artificially high interest rates.


----------



## sptrawler

Whiskers said:


> You're missing it.
> 
> I'll post up some more charts tomorrow, but for now... house price rises (in some areas) is driven by  demand for housing from population growth, as evidenced by high rents and low vacancy rates... rather than low interest rates..




Higher rents can only be driven by higher wages, eventually renters on good stable incomes purchase their own house. This leaves the the landlord with looking for a smaller pool of reliable tenants.



Whiskers said:


> If low interest rates was stimulating housing you would see stronger construction as well as other things..



You are only seeing strong price increases in established inner city areas, which supports the arguement that it is investment driven



Whiskers said:


> Hence my argument that interest rate should have been much lower to (among other things) stimulate the building and first home owner sector. .




I dissagree, if the desired outcome was for first home owners, the tax break to investors would have been reduced.
Instead the laws governing SMSF ownership of residential real estate was relaxed, to further prop up prices.



Whiskers said:


> Tomorrows lesson will be on how the RBA is colluding with the top end of town and Big L Libs to squeeze the average aussie for max corporate profits... the 'stuck' (on purpose, as in people reluctant to pay higher prices and rent, or build new homes, tending to stay at home in extensions to existing family homes as Syd mentioned) situation our economy is in atm largely because of the RBA monetary policy.
> 
> I'll give you a clue. Think about the Asian Financial Crisis around 1997/8 caused by artificially high interest rates.




I can't wait, it is great to hear someone with such insight.


----------



## Whiskers

sptrawler said:


> Higher rents can only be driven by higher wages




Wages certainly is not the only thing! 

So why is wages growth still quite strong at over 3% but rents, rental yields and property prices generally slower to flat?

The thing that drives prices higher is higher demand, like increasing population (for the product or service), over the available supply... slower rate of building approvals as indicated in chart. 

You may also have seen reports that in many areas it has been more economical to rent than buy a property for some time, because of the prevailing economic circumstances, resulting in a lower vacancy rate, but not substantially higher prices. 

That says something about the demand side of the equation and monetary policy.

If what you are saying is you are expecting wages growth to improve affordability, I think you will be disappointed by this government.


----------



## sptrawler

Whiskers said:


> Wages certainly is not the only thing!
> 
> So why is wages growth still quite strong at over 3% but rents, rental yields and property prices generally slower to flat?
> 
> The thing that drives prices higher is higher demand, like increasing population (for the product or service), over the available supply... slower rate of building approvals as indicated in chart.
> 
> You may also have seen reports that in many areas it has been more economical to rent than buy a property for some time, because of the prevailing economic circumstances, resulting in a lower vacancy rate, but not substantially higher prices.
> 
> That says something about the demand side of the equation and monetary policy.
> 
> If what you are saying is you are expecting wages growth to improve affordability, I think you will be disappointed by this government.




I'm not saying anything, just questioning your assumptions and reasoning.


----------



## Whiskers

Whiskers said:


> Tomorrows lesson will be on how the RBA is colluding with the top end of town and Big L Libs to squeeze the average aussie for max corporate profits... the 'stuck' (on purpose, as in people reluctant to pay higher prices and rent, or build new homes, tending to stay at home in extensions to existing family homes as Syd mentioned) situation our economy is in atm largely because of the RBA monetary policy.
> 
> I'll give you a clue. Think about the Asian Financial Crisis around 1997/8 caused by artificially high interest rates.






You will recall Labor calling on the RBA to lower rates faster and additionally for the big four banks to pass on more of the cut.

In the Asian financial crisis the key players ( suppliers of most of our imports) were trying to out bid each other for foreign investment. A significant tool they used was higher than normal interest rates.

Have a look at the correlation between the AUD and our RBA rising the cash rate too soon too much in 2009 in relation to all other major economies... it went through the roof. Why? Partly because the AUD is about the no 5 traded currency in the world, but mainly because of foreign investment. Too much of a good thing. It was good for business importing stuff and travelling overseas if you were well heeled after the GFC. 

It's interesting to note it flattened out IN 2011 and threatens to fall back with anticipated rate cuts. So why doesn't the RBA cut to lower the $?... while it may cause some 'imported inflation', the RBA can ignore that, as it is not counted in the core inflation numbers, as more of a one off like the introduction to the GST.

The answer is in the Big L Liberal philosophy of the key RBA decision makers and the contradictory to pre election decisions of Abbott & co, to increase debt and government spending... the means to transfer wealth from the masses to the top end of town again.

Next lesion: How do you know when you've been shafted by a politician? Clue!
Gillard: There will be no mining tax under a government I lead.​


----------



## Whiskers

Well I'm pleased to see Shorten isn't a runaway threat to Abbott. Even Rudd would have done better than that! 

The Greens have picked up a bit and 'others' presumably PUP are stable. Although just one poll that should be more of a concern for Abbott... the fracturing of the big two appearing to be a new fixture in Aus politics.


TONY Abbott is riding a post-election honeymoon high, with nearly half of voters preferring him as prime minister and support for Labor retreating to levels last seen during the party's June leadership crisis.  

In the first Newspoll since the September 7 election, the Prime Minister has recorded his best net satisfaction rating since he took over as Liberal leader in December 2009.

Mr Abbott has also opened a commanding 47 per cent to 28 per cent lead over new Opposition Leader Bill Shorten on the question of who would make the better prime minister, with 25 per cent of voters still uncommitted. He led Kevin Rudd 45 per cent to 43 per cent on the eve of the election. While Mr Abbott has improved his stocks with voters, more than four in 10 have not yet formed a view on whether they are satisfied with Mr Shorten, elected Labor leader just two weeks ago after a month-long contest with Anthony Albanese.

The Newspoll survey, which was conducted exclusively for The Australian at the weekend, reveals Labor's primary vote has slipped to 31 per cent compared with its September 7 election day result of 33.3 per cent. This represents Labor's lowest primary vote survey since the height of the then government's leadership turmoil in June, which ended with Mr Rudd toppling Julia Gillard as prime minister.

After a cautious start, in which Mr Abbott has limited his media appearances and stuck largely to announcing the delivery of key election promises, the Coalition's primary vote has risen to 47 per cent from its 45.6 per cent result on election day.

The latest Newspoll puts the Greens' support on 10 per cent and other minor parties on 12 per cent.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...dslide-newspoll/story-fn59niix-1226748573374#​


----------



## drsmith

Whiskers said:


> Well I'm pleased to see Shorten isn't a runaway threat to Abbott. Even Rudd would have done better than that!
> 
> The Greens have picked up a bit and 'others' presumably PUP are stable. Although just one poll that should be more of a concern for Abbott... the fracturing of the big two appearing to be a new fixture in Aus politics.



You'll be able to keep enjoying the humble pie for a while yet.

The only thing that is a concern for Tony Abbott at the moment is running the country which is much more than could be said for Labor during its time in office. I'd suggest the electorate is simply relieved that those currently in office are more focused on that than governing themselves.

It also seems that Labor is heading towards dumping its biggest albatross,



> Labor is expected to support axing the carbon tax, with senior figures - including leader Bill Shorten - now convinced that its case for action on climate change will be more easily sold if the politically toxic tax is abolished.




http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...t-to-bury-carbon-tax-20131028-2wc8m.html#poll

The day Labor is on its knees to Tony Abbott in the people's house over their carbon tax will be a great day indeed.


----------



## overhang

drsmith said:


> I'd suggest the electorate is simply relieved that those currently in office are more focused on that than governing themselves.



Yes I think you're right but the relief is also that we don't have the continuous negative opposition in our face every day like we did, we also don't have a government having to negotiate support for every piece of legislation with minor parties.  No government would have survived these conditions with the continual bombardment of an opposition hell bent on making life as difficult as possible for the government.  The boats were also a major factor which were in the press every day and Labor had no one but themselves to blame for that.   



drsmith said:


> It also seems that Labor is heading towards dumping its biggest albatross,
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...t-to-bury-carbon-tax-20131028-2wc8m.html#poll
> 
> The day Labor is on its knees to Tony Abbott in the people's house over their carbon tax will be a great day indeed.




  If this is the case then this actually shows great leadership by Shorten, given how Abbott was as an opposition leader I hardly think he would do the same if the shoe was on the other foot.  But Shorten must also vote against the coalition 3 billion dollar waste that is the direct action policy.

*Leading economists have overwhelmingly rejected Tony Abbott's direct action climate change policy and backed carbon pricing.*

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...on-sceptics-20131027-2w9va.html#ixzz2j49VFUxD


----------



## Calliope

overhang said:


> *Leading economists have overwhelmingly rejected Tony Abbott's direct action climate change policy and backed carbon pricing.*




Yes. Direct Action will be just as stupid, futile, wasteful and ineffective in reversing climate change as unilateral carbon pricing has been.


----------



## drsmith

overhang said:


> Yes I think you're right but the relief is also that we don't have the continuous negative opposition in our face every day like we did (As Tony Abbott said, it was a target rich environment), we also don't have a government having to negotiate support for every piece of legislation with minor parties. (Labor's choice.)  No government would have survived these conditions with the continual bombardment of an opposition hell bent on making life as difficult as possible for the government. (See above about a target rich environment.) The boats were also a major factor which were in the press every day and Labor had no one but themselves to blame for that. (And yet there was considerable hyperventilation when the new government moved to weekly briefings which has since died.)




My blue.



overhang said:


> If this is the case then this actually shows great leadership by Shorten, given how Abbott was as an opposition leader I hardly think he would do the same if the shoe was on the other foot.  But Shorten must also vote against the coalition 3 billion dollar waste that is the direct action policy.
> 
> *Leading economists have overwhelmingly rejected Tony Abbott's direct action climate change policy and backed carbon pricing.*
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...on-sceptics-20131027-2w9va.html#ixzz2j49VFUxD



The only thing Bill Shorten knows about leadership is how to skewer his own. Now he finds himself skewered by Tony Abbott's Electricity Bill comment and Labor is panicking accordingly.

As for direct action, I don't think Tony Abbott and the Libs will be too concerned about the fight over the scraps.


----------



## overhang

Calliope said:


> Yes. Direct Action will be just as stupid, futile, wasteful and ineffective in reversing climate change as unilateral carbon pricing has been.



Agreed



drsmith said:


> My blue.
> 
> 
> The only thing Bill Shorten knows about leadership is how to skewer his own. Now he finds himself skewered by Tony Abbott's Electricity Bill comment and Labor is panicking accordingly.
> 
> As for direct action, I don't think Tony Abbott and the Libs will be too concerned about the fight over the scraps.




Perhaps you should give Shorten a chance to see how he leads in the same way we are currently seeing how the government performs, his decision is the right one and you certainly would be complaining if they voted against repealing it.
The reason the 'hyperventilation' has died down over the timing of boat arrivals is merely because the outrage has moved to Abbott's inability to act on these travel rorts.


----------



## trainspotter

*IT would have taken quite a few years to rebuild the central bank's reserves without federal government help, governor Glenn Stevens says.
Treasurer Joe Hockey last week announced the government would inject $8.8 billion into the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) to strengthen its financial position.
The one-off grant followed a request from the RBA for money for its Reserve Bank Reserve Fund, which is used to partly offset assets at risk and enhance its monetary policy and foreign exchange operations.*

http://www.news.com.au/national/bre...-reserve-stevens/story-e6frfku9-1226748873207

I thought I read in here that the RBA did not ask for this money? HUH? What gives? Then there was some palava about Howard taking 3 billion a year in dividends out of the RBA ? I thought it was the RBA's job to dividend back to the Commonwealth?

*"This results in a stronger balance sheet on average, and makes it likely that a regular flow of dividends to the commonwealth can be resumed at a much earlier date than would otherwise have been the case."* Glenn Stevens says.

Sooooooooo Hockey Ponzinomics is in fact impacting on the RBA's ability to enhance its monetary policy and foreign exchange operations? 

Is this a good thing to have such a strong Reserve Bank having control of monetary policy like this? 

*In recent years the fund has been impacted by a high Australian dollar, leading to a decline in the value of the RBA's foreign assets and capital reserves to a level well below that deemed prudent.*

So that's why they dropped interest rates to try and bring down the high Australian dollar. All makes perfect sense now doesn't it?


----------



## drsmith

overhang said:


> Perhaps you should give Shorten a chance to see how he leads in the same way we are currently seeing how the government performs, his decision is the right one and you certainly would be complaining if they voted against repealing it.



Right decision or not, it's a very deep hole they've already dug for themselves on this.

Bill will have to be very good indeed to deliver Labor from the lowest primary vote in 100 years back to office. I can't wait to see the bile from the Greens should Labor ultimately wave through carbon tax repeal.



overhang said:


> The reason the 'hyperventilation' has died down over the timing of boat arrivals is merely because the outrage has moved to Abbott's inability to act on these travel rorts.




That so-called outrage doesn't appear to be reflected against the government in the latest Newspoll. Perhaps the electorate is currently considering a broader perspective than something that taints both major parties when it comes to voting preference.


----------



## overhang

drsmith said:


> Right decision or not, it's a very deep hole they've already dug for themselves on this.
> 
> Bill will have to be very good indeed to deliver Labor from the lowest primary vote in 100 years back to office. I can't wait to see the bile from the Greens should Labor ultimately wave through carbon tax repeal.
> 
> 
> 
> That so-called outrage doesn't appear to be reflected against the government in the latest Newspoll. Perhaps the electorate is currently considering a broader perspective than something that taints both major parties when it comes to voting preference.




So let me get this straight, its the right decision but you still hold a leader who didn't introduce the carbon tax to contempt.  I could only hope you're this critical of the current government but I believe your convictions will hold true to one cause. 

I'm surprised by that result as everyone I've spoken to that has known of the issue has displayed their disappointment at Abbott's inability to act on the issue.  Yes both parties are rorting the system but he is the man who can do something about it.  Don't forget the honeymoon polls Rudd received in 2007, I wouldn't hold your breath.


----------



## drsmith

With regard to the government's recent announcement of an $8.8bn injection into the RBA's reserve fund, the relevant part of Glenn Stevens's speech today is below, 



> The high exchange rate has also had a significant impact on the Reserve Bank's own balance sheet. It led to a decline in the value of the Bank's foreign assets and hence a diminution in the Bank's capital, to a level well below that judged by the Reserve Bank Board to be prudent. This has been a topic of some interest of late. *Our annual reports have made quite clear over several years now that, while this rundown in capital in the face of a very large valuation loss was exactly what such reserves were designed for, we considered it prudent to rebuild the capital at the earliest opportunity. It has been clear that the Bank saw a strong case not to pay a dividend to the Commonwealth during this period, preferring instead to retain earnings, so far as possible, to increase the Bank's capital.* That rebuilding could in fact have taken quite a few years, given the low level of earnings.
> 
> That is the background to the recent decision by the Treasurer to act to strengthen the Bank's balance sheet, in accordance with a commitment he made prior to the election. The effect of this is that instead of it taking many years to rebuild the capital, it will occur in the current year. This results in a stronger balance sheet on average, and makes it likely that a regular flow of dividends to the Commonwealth can be resumed at a much earlier date than would otherwise have been the case.




The RBA last paid a dividend to the government in 2012 ($500m).



> Mr Hockey says the former Treasurer Wayne Swan acted against the RBA's advice and took a $500 million dividend in 2012, effectively depleting the fund.
> 
> But Mr Swan has described the dividend as "modest", and said he would have agreed to top up the fund if a request has been made.




http://www.rba.gov.au/speeches/2013/sp-gov-291013.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-24/rba-annual-report/5042766

My bolds.


----------



## drsmith

overhang said:


> So let me get this straight, its the right decision but you still hold a leader who didn't introduce the carbon tax to contempt.  I could only hope you're this critical of the current government but I believe your convictions will hold true to one cause.



I hold him in contempt over his general trustworthiness. As PM's neither Kevin Rudd nor Julia Gillard could trust him so it's a very big ask for the electorate to do so. More broadly, the same point holds true for Labor over the carbon tax and its alliance with the Greens. Bill will be a fill in leader, nothing more.



overhang said:


> I'm surprised by that result as everyone I've spoken to that has known of the issue has displayed their disappointment at Abbott's inability to act on the issue.  Yes both parties are rorting the system but he is the man who can do something about it.  Don't forget the honeymoon polls Rudd received in 2007, I wouldn't hold your breath.



Well, It doesn't appear to be reflected that way in the latest Newspoll which is perhaps a broader survey than the one you've engaged in.

As for Kevin Rudd, he proved to be a dud and yet Mr Unelectable has obviously proved to be very electable.


----------



## overhang

drsmith said:


> I hold him in contempt over his general trustworthiness. As PM's neither Kevin Rudd nor Julia Gillard could trust him so it's a very big ask for the electorate to do so. More broadly, the same point holds true for Labor over the carbon tax and its alliance with the Greens. Bill will be a fill in leader, nothing more.
> 
> 
> Well, It doesn't appear to be reflected that way in the latest Newspoll which is perhaps a broader survey than the one you've engaged in.
> 
> As for Kevin Rudd, he proved to be a dud and yet Mr Unelectable has obviously proved to be very electable.




Trust and politicians cant be used in the same sentence as the travel rorts have demonstrated, perhaps you should try and be objective in judging Shorten and give him a chance.

Mr unelectable didn't win a election but rather Labor lost it, bit of a Stephen Bradbury.  Hopefully his policy's and team around him can divert from his foot and mouth disease, the one that avoided Q&A for the whole last term.  Now to address the incoming biased ABC reply about the stacked questions well a leader of Abbott's caliber should be able to handle difficult questions.


----------



## Calliope

Surely Abbott should be able *to act now* to de-legitimise the thuggery, lawlessness, stand-over tactics and general bastardy engaged in by the The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy union - the CMFEU, which were legitimised be the Rudd/Gillard government, in the Fair Work Act.

What's he waiting for...another mandate in 2016, for chrissake. A bit of backbone would be a help.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3878777.htm


----------



## drsmith

overhang said:


> Trust and politicians cant be used in the same sentence as the travel rorts have demonstrated, perhaps you should try and be objective in judging Shorten and give him a chance.



It's not a question of whether or not I give him a chance but one of whether the broader electorate does. He's going to find the going very tough there as a consequences of his own political history and that of Labor's toxic policies such as the carbon tax regardless of which way he ultimately turns.



overhang said:


> Mr unelectable didn't win a election but rather Labor lost it, bit of a Stephen Bradbury.  Hopefully his policy's and team around him can divert from his foot and mouth disease, the one that avoided Q&A for the whole last term.  Now to address the incoming biased ABC reply about the stacked questions well a leader of Abbott's caliber should be able to handle difficult questions.



You better stock up your political bunker for the long haul.

I can see you're going to struggle with the idea of an Abbott government for some time.


----------



## overhang

drsmith said:


> It's not a question of whether or not I give him a chance but one of whether the broader electorate does. He's going to find the going very tough there as a consequences of his own political history and that of Labor's toxic policies such as the carbon tax regardless of which way he ultimately turns.
> 
> 
> You better stock up your political bunker for the long haul.
> 
> I can see you're going to struggle with the idea of an Abbott government for some time.




Every government has toxic policies, this one already has the direct action and the paid parental leave policy.

I'll be satisfied if they quit the middle class welfare that the liberals in recent times seem to be renowned for.  If they can reinstall consumer confidence that will hopefully lead to improved retail spending and increase in building approvals.  If they can actually govern without the need to sell off government assets for short term gain. And yes if they can stop the boats to pre 2007 levels.  Sadly I think I will be disappointed about some of the above.


----------



## Whiskers

drsmith said:


> The only thing that is a concern for Tony Abbott at the moment is running the country.




Not quite that simple dr. He's working pretty hard on how to re-spin some promises he is going to break a bit further down the track, such as how he's going to 'cut the waste' and rescue the 'economic crisis'.

But, so long as he puts the abolition of the carbon tax front and centre he will maintain popular support. He needs to get that done asap.



> It also seems that Labor is heading towards dumping its biggest albatross,




I've no doubt Shorten is capable of a complete backflip on the carbon tax. He knows he needs to do that to completely undo the damage from his turncoat support for Gillard. It may even garner him a tiny bit more grass roots labor support.

Although it's only one poll, the fact that it's the same pattern, Labor continues to loose more support than Abbott gains, 2.3 points to 1.4 respectively, for me it spells another labor leadership spill sooner than later. The other number that suggests there will be a grass root Labor revolt is evident in the preferred PM numbers. Shorten got 28%.

Even if you give Shorten a more longer term split of the undecided (25%) along party lines, say half the undecided, 12.5%... guess what, you have about 40%. That's the same number of Labor membership that supported him in the leadership poll. That's a clear enough evidentiary trend for me. 

But as it stands at the moment, Abbott has nothing to fear from Labor led by Shorten, and the Aus public and grass root labor might just gain the abolition of the carbon tax before dispensing with him. That would be a significant first step in natural justice for the embattled voting public.


----------



## MrBurns

Whiskers said:


> Not quite that simple dr. He's working pretty hard on how to re-spin some promises he is going to break a bit further down the track, such as how he's going to 'cut the waste' and rescue the 'economic crisis'.




I think people are over all this now and just want to forget the past and get on with it, well, most people anyway, Tony Jones and the "Children overboard" and "Save Albert Park group" won't let anything go ....ever but no one cares but them.

They've had politics up the their armpits thanks to Rudd and Gillard and just want to be left alone while Abbott gets on with it.


----------



## Whiskers

trainspotter said:


> Is this a good thing to have such a strong Reserve Bank having control of monetary policy like this?
> 
> *In recent years the fund has been impacted by a high Australian dollar, leading to a decline in the value of the RBA's foreign assets and capital reserves to a level well below that deemed prudent.*
> 
> So that's why they dropped interest rates to try and bring down the high Australian dollar. All makes perfect sense now doesn't it?




Not sure exactly what you are saying here TS, but for me while the US FED is behaving more radically like it is, to protect the "US economy', our RBA is either preoccupied with a too narrow interpretation of their charter or as I suggest, just biased to the Big L Lib philosophy, that they are not effectively (for the average Aussie) countering the economic and currency wars led by the US.  

The proof of that will be our (delayed, not avoided) recession or at least slowdown, kicking in when our monetary policy should have done more to generate growth as opposed to just limiting inflation. This is the area I refer to where Abbott is working 'to re-spin some promises he is going to break a bit further down the track, such as how he's going to 'cut the waste' and rescue the 'economic crisis'.


Inflation is made up from a number of different drivers. They are manipulating these drivers to suit their Big L Liberal bias. Maybe I'll do a lesson on the drivers of inflation later. 

--------------

Mr Burns, with regard to politicians... one thing people NEVER do is forget per se. They just go with the flow that sooths the pain the best... or for a few, the flow that reaps them the best rewards... BUT THEY NEVER FORGET a promise made or promise broken!


----------



## drsmith

overhang said:


> Every government has toxic policies, this one already has the direct action and the paid parental leave policy.



Their nowhere near as toxic as Labor's carbon tax.



overhang said:


> I'll be satisfied if they quit the middle class welfare that the liberals in recent times seem to be renowned for.  If they can reinstall consumer confidence that will hopefully lead to improved retail spending and increase in building approvals.  If they can actually govern without the need to sell off government assets for short term gain. And yes if they can stop the boats to pre 2007 levels.  Sadly I think I will be disappointed about some of the above.



Clearly, any government will disappoint in some areas but the decision for the electorate will always be the same, a comparison and on that, Labor's extensive baggage from its last two terms will haunt it for a long time.


----------



## drsmith

Whiskers said:


> But as it stands at the moment, Abbott has nothing to fear from Labor led by Shorten, and the Aus public and grass root labor might just gain the abolition of the carbon tax before dispensing with him. That would be a significant first step in natural justice for the embattled voting public.



On top of that, he'll have to regularly go down to the lowest depths of the Labor bunker to ensure the replacement thermostat on the cryogenic freeze is operating nominally.


----------



## trainspotter

Is wasted around here at times !


----------



## noco

I guess Abbott must be doing something right to have his ratings lifted.

It probably will not make the lefties too happy.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ndslide-newspoll/story-fn59niix-1226748573374


----------



## DB008

_I was at a function on the weekend._

Mostly lefties/greenies.

You should have heard the comments. All the problems, are TA's fault.

Funny how they 'side-step' issues when pressed too. I've noticed this a lot from the lefties. The most common one, 'illegal immigrants'. Broken borders under the ALP, classic response - "More fly in than come on boat". That's not the point. Border protection was broken under the ALP. They don't see it that way.

_I mainly just stayed in the background and drank my beer...._


----------



## Whiskers

noco said:


> I guess Abbott must be doing something right to have his ratings lifted.
> 
> It probably will not make the lefties too happy.
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ndslide-newspoll/story-fn59niix-1226748573374




Been there and done that noco... back at post 800 and my analysis at 815.

_Although it's only one poll, the fact that it's the same pattern, Labor continues to loose more support than Abbott gains, 2.3 points to 1.4 respectively, for me it spells another labor leadership spill sooner than later. The other number that suggests there will be a grass root Labor revolt is evident in the preferred PM numbers. Shorten got 28%.

 Even if you give Shorten a more longer term split of the undecided (25%) along party lines, say half the undecided, 12.5%... guess what, you have about 40%. That's the same number of Labor membership that supported him in the leadership poll. That's a clear enough evidentiary trend for me. 

 But as it stands at the moment, Abbott has nothing to fear from Labor led by Shorten, and the Aus public and grass root labor might just gain the abolition of the carbon tax before dispensing with him. That would be a significant first step in natural justice for the embattled voting public.​_
It's amazing how two (or more) people can look at the same data and see different things.

To feel reassured that Abbott has "his ratings lifted"... is hardly endorsement that "Abbott must be doing something right". From the data pre and continuing trend post election, it's more likely endorsement of the best of a bad bunch... hoping he'd do something right.

While it's clear that Shorten is not going to be a serious threat, it is also evident that Abbott isn't picking up any greater share of the support Labor is loosing... ie the greens and others are stable to slightly revived. That ought to be a concern to Abbott. I'm sure it is and is why he's planning to do quite a build up for the spin to break election promises. 

As far as "Abbott must be doing something right"... the abolition of the carbon tax and the vague but 'good' appeal of his slogans to cut the waste and fix the economic crisis hits a pleasant chord with most people. The problem he has is in exposing the detail of that without offending peoples general perception of how he intended to achieve it. That is likely to be his Achilles' heel. 

That's when the real test of his personal approval rating, as opposed to preferred PM,  will be critical. That would be a typical cue for the PUP to do a bit of grand standing for further support and typically when Rudd or his support base would make their move on the Labor leadership.

Don't forget the expenses rorts and electoral ballot reform are big voter issues, a double edge sword for Abbott, still festering awaiting action.


----------



## drsmith

What's most encouraging about this government it that it is quietly and systematically building the foundations on how it will run the country largely undistracted from the day to day media cycle. 

This is a pleasant change from the chaos of Labor in government and on the area of border protection is already delivering fruit. Other results will come with time and it is from there we can pass broader judgement.


----------



## Whiskers

drsmith said:


> What's most encouraging about this government it that it is quietly and systematically building the foundations on how it will run the country




That's exactly what worries me a bit dr... not automatically encouraging.



> largely undistracted from the day to day media cycle.




Except when he wants to 'appear' to appear discreetly in the media, as the 'good' citizen and 'good' firey etc. 

When one buys a new bull for the herd, it's better to keep him in sight as much as possible until you know he will behave himself and not stray out of his paddock. 



> Other results will come with time and it is from there we can pass broader judgement.




A good cattle dog is a 'watch and guard' dog and will know when the new bull is leading the herd astray and pre-empt his attempts with a counter warning of a nip on the heels or sharp snap on the nose if it tries to ignore him. No smart cattleman would tolerate a dog that waits for the herd to scatter off the beaten track to the paddock before doing anything. 

Likewise your property, if a tradie you didn't really like but was the most appealing available came to your property to do some work and you unwisely left him to work out of sight for too long... and complained bitterly when you found later he stole your family 'chest' and slipped it into his tool box when you were not looking...

Too late to shut the gate after the bull has bolted! Get yourself a good 'watch & guard' dog 'sense'. 

“Complacency delivered us into the hands of evil greedy men like Cheney.” 
― Sonia Rumzi​


----------



## Tink

drsmith said:


> What's most encouraging about this government it that it is quietly and systematically building the foundations on how it will run the country largely undistracted from the day to day media cycle.
> 
> This is a pleasant change from the chaos of Labor in government and on the area of border protection is already delivering fruit. Other results will come with time and it is from there we can pass broader judgement.




I agree with you, drsmith, its been wonderful not seeing them in the media every five minutes and just getting on with the job, so refreshing.

Now, just to give ABC and SBS a shake up.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> What's most encouraging about this government it that it is quietly and systematically building the foundations on how it will run the country largely undistracted from the day to day media cycle.
> 
> This is a pleasant change from the chaos of Labor in government and on the area of border protection is already delivering fruit. Other results will come with time and it is from there we can pass broader judgement.




So the snouts in the trough scandals don't count as in front of the media?  Just wait for Boom Boom Barnaby to blow off over Graincorp / ADM.

Considering Tony's bemused _what should I do_ looks in front of the cameras, what exactly makes you think they're actually doing much besides restricting the information flow on just about everything.  Pretty much every inquiry they're running has been stacked with people who will provide the "correct" answers.  Big business view of the economy - check.  We've got Tony's wacko comments in the USA, along with Treasurer Ponzinomics wonderful belief that rising house prices somehow makes them more affordable.  Wish I could sell a product that is rising in price by double figures, but claim it's helping to make it more affordable.

Don't you think it was the changes made just before the election that has slowed the flow of boats?  If not, what policy action since the election has achieved this?  Surely it's not the 2 star general?



Tink said:


> I agree with you, drsmith, its been wonderful not seeing them in the media every five minutes and just getting on with the job, so refreshing.
> 
> Now, just to give ABC and SBS a shake up.




Except for Brandis, Tony, Joyce, Randall, the VIP jet-setters of the Howard Govt.  So far most of the media time they've had hasn't been too flattering.  Even Calliope, Tony's most ardent follower, isn't too pleased with how Tony is handling the travel rorts.  Tony's been given a golden opportunity to show some leadership and all he's done is try to defend the indefensible.  Surely even you were disgusted over his stumbling explanations for Randall's Cairns trip.

Before you shout left wing media bias, the SMH has published information so that any concerned citizen is able to go and peruse the travel expenses of the politicians and send them any irregularities they've found.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...gate-politicians-expenses-20131009-2v7i8.html

I have no idea if those currently searching through the data have been biased to looking at the conservative side of politics, but if Labor are the huge rorters most in ASF believe then surely you wont need to spend much time to root some out and expose them just as senior members of the current Govt have been.


----------



## drsmith

Jeez Syd,

If you keep this hyperventilation up until Labor are next in office, you'll be able to breathe comfortably at an altitude of 40,000 feet.

A word of warning though. If you wish to debate boat arrivals, there's a separate thread for that.


----------



## noco

Whiskers said:


> Been there and done that noco... back at post 800 and my analysis at 815.
> 
> _Although it's only one poll, the fact that it's the same pattern, Labor continues to loose more support than Abbott gains, 2.3 points to 1.4 respectively, for me it spells another labor leadership spill sooner than later. The other number that suggests there will be a grass root Labor revolt is evident in the preferred PM numbers. Shorten got 28%.
> 
> Even if you give Shorten a more longer term split of the undecided (25%) along party lines, say half the undecided, 12.5%... guess what, you have about 40%. That's the same number of Labor membership that supported him in the leadership poll. That's a clear enough evidentiary trend for me.
> 
> But as it stands at the moment, Abbott has nothing to fear from Labor led by Shorten, and the Aus public and grass root labor might just gain the abolition of the carbon tax before dispensing with him. That would be a significant first step in natural justice for the embattled voting public.​_
> It's amazing how two (or more) people can look at the same data and see different things.
> 
> To feel reassured that Abbott has "his ratings lifted"... is hardly endorsement that "Abbott must be doing something right". From the data pre and continuing trend post election, it's more likely endorsement of the best of a bad bunch... hoping he'd do something right.
> 
> While it's clear that Shorten is not going to be a serious threat, it is also evident that Abbott isn't picking up any greater share of the support Labor is loosing... ie the greens and others are stable to slightly revived. That ought to be a concern to Abbott. I'm sure it is and is why he's planning to do quite a build up for the spin to break election promises.
> 
> As far as "Abbott must be doing something right"... the abolition of the carbon tax and the vague but 'good' appeal of his slogans to cut the waste and fix the economic crisis hits a pleasant chord with most people. The problem he has is in exposing the detail of that without offending peoples general perception of how he intended to achieve it. That is likely to be his Achilles' heel.
> 
> That's when the real test of his personal approval rating, as opposed to preferred PM,  will be critical. That would be a typical cue for the PUP to do a bit of grand standing for further support and typically when Rudd or his support base would make their move on the Labor leadership.
> 
> Don't forget the expenses rorts and electoral ballot reform are big voter issues, a double edge sword for Abbott, still festering awaiting action.




But apart from the expenses "RORT", which you well know has taken palce on both sides of politics and of which the lefties want to keep stirring, what has Abbott done wrong in your eyes?

Give the man a break...he has only been in office for about 52 days....what are you expecting FGS?


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> But apart from the expenses "RORT", which you well know has taken palce on both sides of politics and of which the lefties want to keep stirring, what has Abbott done wrong in your eyes?
> 
> Give the man a break...he has only been in office for about 52 days....what are you expecting FGS?




A bit better understanding of economics for a start.  Coming down as hard on the rorters in his team as he was with Slipper.  Are you impressed with Tony's explanation of Randall's Cairns trip?  The AFP should be investigating it.  Randall should welcome it.  If the AFP clear him he gets his $5K back, if not he's out and no pension or other lucrative perks of office.

A recognition that increasing house prices isn't good for society or the economy.  Increasing property values only makes this economy less competitive.  Forget weekend penalty rates, it's restrictive zoning laws and sky high rents that are crippling the competitiveness of business in Australia.

Hockey somehow thinks rising prices makes new housing more affordable.  Can you please explain to me how that works?  My understanding of economics says rising price = lowered demand, but Treasurer Ponzinomics has a different take on it.

We had 3+ years or economic and budget crisis according to the current Govt.  Supposedly billions in waste and mismanagement and not one proposed budget cut since attaining office.  Surely if things were that bad Treasurer Ponzinomics could have announced a few billion in spending cuts by now.

There's plenty of fat in the middle class welfare basket.  Why the reticence to cut now?  Surely the current Govt can provide a better budget outcome this FY than what Labor was proposing?  They have 8 months to achieve it.


----------



## Calliope

sydboy007 said:


> I have no idea if those currently searching through the data have been biased to looking at the conservative side of politics, but if Labor are the huge rorters most in ASF believe then surely you wont need to spend much time to root some out and expose them just as senior members of the current Govt have been.




When it comes to rorting the taxpayer, the Coalition guys are rank amateurs and have no experience in covering their tracks. Most of the Labor parliamentarians are ex-union officials or lawyers. The are well trained in rorting their membership and employers and the taxpayer ultimately picks up the bill . They are not interested in a trifling few thousand bucks. They aim for hundreds of thousands or even millions in the cases of Bruce Wilson, Michael Williamson and Eddie Obeid and their Labor cronies.

Labor legitimised the brutal, thuggish standover tactics of the CFMEU through the FWA. What possible reason could they have for doing this? And why are they opposing Abbott's proposed bill to make these thugs answerable to the law? There could be only one reason...kickbacks.

You rabbit on a lot about discrimination against minorities and your monotonous diatribes against Abbott, but never a peep from you about your mob discriminating in favor of thugs.

And while your "Electricity Bill" Shorten may may rave on about Abbott's shortcomings on rort control, Abbott's credibility in morals and ethics leaves Shorten's credibility in the gutter.


----------



## overhang

Calliope said:


> And while your *"Electricity Bill*" Shorten may may rave on about Abbott's shortcomings on rort control, Abbott's credibility in morals and ethics leaves Shorten's credibility in the gutter.




Oh irony of Abbott naming Shorten the Electricity Bill when Abbott himself mislead parliament about an electricity bill.  Abbott and credibility are two words that don't align, the man is a snake in the grass.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abbott-suffers-bill-shock-20121010-27dkg.html.


----------



## drsmith

overhang said:


> Oh irony of Abbott naming Shorten the Electricity Bill when Abbott himself mislead parliament about an electricity bill.  Abbott and credibility are two words that don't align, the man is a snake in the grass.
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abbott-suffers-bill-shock-20121010-27dkg.html.



That wasn't a good day for TA and I suspect some very basic homework wasn't done by the Libs on that one.

As for Bill shorten trustworthiness, there's absolutely no doubt. Just ask two former Labor PM's, one of which is till lurking in the depths of the Labor bunker plotting his moment of revenge.


----------



## Calliope

drsmith said:


> As for Bill shorten trustworthiness, there's absolutely no doubt. Just ask two former Labor PM's, one of which is till lurking in the depths of the Labor bunker plotting his moment of revenge.




That takes care of his ethics. And he was sleeping with Chloe while still married to his first wife, and he has not denied the accusation that he got one of his staff pregnant (since aborted) while Chloe looks after the kids at home. That takes care of the morals.

It is not surprising that Abbott sees no conflict of interest with Quentin Bryce remaining G.G. while Shorten is opposition leader. Like most people who know him, she probably despises her son-in-law.

If overhung is looking for a snake-in-the-grass, he need look no further than his dear leader.


----------



## overhang

drsmith said:


> That wasn't a good day for TA and I suspect some very basic homework wasn't done by the Libs on that one.
> 
> As for Bill shorten trustworthiness, there's absolutely no doubt. Just ask two former Labor PM's, one of which is till lurking in the depths of the Labor bunker plotting his moment of revenge.





If we are digging up old interviews there are certainly many more that show Abbott's incompetence when he is put on the spot.  How about the interview with Leigh Sales where Abbott claimed the mining and carbon tax were responsible for BHP canning the upgrade to the Olympic Dam, yet when questioned on why the BHP report stated different reasons Abbott was left red faced admitting to not reading the report.  He then lied about this the next day.

You may very well be right and Shorten too may be incompetent but he has a long way to go to reach Abbott levels.

And the nerve of the man to give the nick name electricity bill when he has in own embarrassing slip up regarding the subject,  the man is nothing but a dodgy car salesman disguised as our PM.


----------



## overhang

Calliope said:


> If overhung is looking for a snake-in-the-grass, he need look no further than his dear leader.




Just because I'm not a right wing nutter doesn't mean I'm endearing towards the Labor party, funnily I also visit a site that has a predominately left wing audience and find myself equally frustrated with their one eyed predisposition.  Extremes from either side are a blight to intelligent conversation.


----------



## Calliope

"intelligent conversation"?

Sorry overhang, but I follow the old adage known as "Fools' Law".

"Never argue with a fool - they will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience".


----------



## drsmith

overhang said:


> If we are digging up old interviews there are certainly many more that show Abbott's incompetence when he is put on the spot.  How about the interview with Leigh Sales where Abbott claimed the mining and carbon tax were responsible for BHP canning the upgrade to the Olympic Dam, yet when questioned on why the BHP report stated different reasons Abbott was left red faced admitting to not reading the report.  He then lied about this the next day.
> 
> You may very well be right and Shorten too may be incompetent but he has a long way to go to reach Abbott levels.
> 
> And the nerve of the man to give the nick name electricity bill when he has in own embarrassing slip up regarding the subject,  the man is nothing but a dodgy car salesman disguised as our PM.



The nerve of Labor to do a dodgy deal with the Greens and independents to introduce the carbon tax it said it wouldn't in the 2010 campaign is what the electorate will remember most when it comes to Labor. The electricity Bill tag will stick if he opposes the Coalition's repeal of the carbon tax and he knows it hence Labor's current wavering on this specific issue.

Bill Shorten will never be PM. Regardless of how you wish to rate him, there's just too much baggage. Unlike Tony Abbott, he's genuinely unelectable. 

I'll also make the point that opposition is about making noise and government is about governing.


----------



## overhang

Calliope said:


> "intelligent conversation"?
> 
> Sorry overhang, but I follow the old adage known as "Fools' Law".
> 
> "Never argue with a fool - they will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience".




Oh Calliope I'm aware intelligent conversation is over your head, its ok you can carry on vegetating.


----------



## overhang

drsmith said:


> The nerve of Labor to do a dodgy deal with the Greens and independents to introduce the carbon tax it said it wouldn't in the 2010 campaign is what the electorate will remember most when it comes to electricity Bill if he sticks by the carbon tax and he knows it hence Labor's current wavering on this specific issue.
> 
> Bill Shorten will never be PM. Regardless of how you wish to rate him, there's just too much baggage. Unlike Tony Abbott, he's genuinely unelectable.
> 
> I'll also make the point that opposition is about making noise and government is about governing.




If we want to get technical then you're talking porkies, Gillard said in an interview the day before the election that if she won she would consider it a mandate to introduce an ETS.  The article was in the Australian and I will dig it up if you wish.  Now I still consider this rather deceitful as she had up to that point denied it and 24 hrs before the election is hardly enough time for the electorate to receive the news.

Agreed Bill Shorten won't ever be PM he is merely a fill in until Labor can hopefully sort their internal disputes out, this may take 6-9 years.

And Abbott was very good at making noise even when he misconstrued the truth many times as I've outlined in previous posts, I don't think Shorten can be that much of a prick.


----------



## Whiskers

noco said:


> But apart from the expenses "RORT", which you well know has taken palce on both sides of politics and of which the lefties want to keep stirring, what has Abbott done wrong in your eyes
> 
> Give the man a break...he has only been in office for about 52 days....what are you expecting FGS? ?




Yes, but he has a lifetime history in politics and never been the 'darling' of his own party let alone the public. Remember, he's always been considered the best of a bad bunch, for PM. 

That ought to... referring to my earlier analogy... cause you to want to keep a close eye on him until he earns his stripes. I don't know if you've ever employed anyone, or let contracts, but an employer worth his salt always keeps tabs on new employees until they have demonstrated, not just said, they are a 'good' citizen, 'good' firey or 'good' PM etc. 

What's that old saying about when the kids are quiet... you can bet they are up to mischief. Particularly relevant here.

Remember his history of kicking heads and doing deals all sorts of dubious deals in back rooms... not too unlike Shorten in that respect. 

Think like a cattle or guard dog. They have more acute senses than humans and never forget bad vibes about animals/people so that when the same animal/person comes around again... they are not fooled by a cheap food reward or uttered reassurance of I'm a 'good' guy, trust me. 

Like I said, I hope he does what he says. But, he's the best of a bad bunch so I know from experience, he will renege given half a chance. A good cattle/guard dog has good senses and doesn't give them half a chance to do as they like.

“when there's an elephant in the room, you can't pretend it isn't there and just discuss the ants. ” 
― Ellen Wittlinger​
or for the indoctrinated...

Love, like a chicken salad or restaurant hash, must be taken with blind faith or it loses its flavour. 
-- Helen Rowland​
I guess the epilogue goes something like... don't say you weren't warned, to look before you leap... not to believe everything that comes out of a politicians mouth.


----------



## trainspotter

Meanwhile back at the camp ......

*Norman Ornstein, an author and political scientist with the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, said he ''winced'' when he read the interview in which Mr Abbott put the boot into the Rudd-Gillard government in unusually strong language for a foreign interview.*

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ct-us-links-20131027-2w9lv.html#ixzz2jB2SXDSW

Spade is a spade in Tony's world ... about time we had a PM who called it like he sees it and not sugar coat the unpalatable message that was the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd catastrophe !


----------



## sydboy007

Calliope said:


> When it comes to rorting the taxpayer, the Coalition guys are rank amateurs and have no experience in covering their tracks. Most of the Labor parliamentarians are ex-union officials or lawyers. The are well trained in rorting their membership and employers and the taxpayer ultimately picks up the bill . They are not interested in a trifling few thousand bucks. They aim for hundreds of thousands or even millions in the cases of Bruce Wilson, Michael Williamson and Eddie Obeid and their Labor cronies.
> 
> Labor legitimised the brutal, thuggish standover tactics of the CFMEU through the FWA. What possible reason could they have for doing this? And why are they opposing Abbott's proposed bill to make these thugs answerable to the law? There could be only one reason...kickbacks.
> 
> You rabbit on a lot about discrimination against minorities and your monotonous diatribes against Abbott, but never a peep from you about your mob discriminating in favor of thugs.
> 
> And while your "Electricity Bill" Shorten may may rave on about Abbott's shortcomings on rort control, Abbott's credibility in morals and ethics leaves Shorten's credibility in the gutter.




So let me see if i understand your argument correctly.

Coalition MPs are caught with questionable expense claims because they're so honest they don't know how to hide their rorting?  labor MPs are so good at rorting it's just too hard to find them?  So the absence of proof is in itself proof of Labor rorting.  You'd have done well at the Salem witch trials Caliope.  If you don't drown / burn you're a witch, and if you do, well sorry but at least your soul was saved.

So new Rudd PM tells ministers to not use the VIP jet as a bus and...not a single MP uses the VIP jet as a bus.

Previous Howard Govt had the VIP jet flying half it's journeys empty and on many an occasion just 1 MP in it.  Not wasteful at all from your perspective?

Union thuggery, like corporate corruption, can be dealt with in the courts.  Federal politicians corruption seems to have no sanctions against it, unless your party so turns against you they somehow force the AFP to investigate.

I see the rorting issues highlighted as Abbott's first true test of leadership and he's failed dismally.  It's up to Abbott to come up with a solution.  He's heading the current Govt, but still acting like he's in opposition.  Maybe uncle Rupert needs to give him some new directives???


----------



## trainspotter

sydboy007 said:


> So let me see if i understand your argument correctly.
> 
> Coalition MPs are caught with questionable expense claims because they're so honest they don't know how to hide their rorting?  labor MPs are so good at rorting it's just too hard to find them?  So the absence of proof is in itself proof of Labor rorting.  You'd have done well at the Salem witch trials Caliope.  If you don't drown / burn you're a witch, and if you do, well sorry but at least your soul was saved.
> 
> So new Rudd PM tells ministers to not use the VIP jet as a bus and...not a single MP uses the VIP jet as a bus.
> 
> Previous Howard Govt had the VIP jet flying half it's journeys empty and on many an occasion just 1 MP in it.  Not wasteful at all from your perspective?
> 
> Union thuggery, like corporate corruption, can be dealt with in the courts.  Federal politicians corruption seems to have no sanctions against it, unless your party so turns against you they somehow force the AFP to investigate.
> 
> I see the rorting issues highlighted as Abbott's first true test of leadership and he's failed dismally.  It's up to Abbott to come up with a solution.  He's heading the current Govt, but still acting like he's in opposition.  Maybe uncle Rupert needs to give him some new directives???




Heard of this guy ... Craig Thomson the federal Labor MP for Dobell? Great guy ... trust him with my credit card? NOPE !

$2 million for VIP military plane flights compared to $2.45 billion on ceiling insulation, a third of which appear to be faulty or dangerous according to a review of almost 14,000 homes earlier this year, taxpayers will be forced to pay another $424 million, if not more, to sort out the dangerous mess.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...t-costly-lessons/story-e6frg71x-1225939909818


----------



## sptrawler

trainspotter said:


> Heard of this guy ... Craig Thomson the federal Labor MP for Dobell? Great guy ... trust him with my credit card? NOPE !
> 
> $2 million for VIP military plane flights compared to $2.45 billion on ceiling insulation, a third of which appear to be faulty or dangerous according to a review of almost 14,000 homes earlier this year, taxpayers will be forced to pay another $424 million, if not more, to sort out the dangerous mess.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...t-costly-lessons/story-e6frg71x-1225939909818




Another interesting aspect, is the people who were running the home insulation businesses, from memory a lot of familiar names were in the paper when the sytem imploded.


----------



## Calliope

sydboy007 said:


> So let me see if i understand your argument correctly.




Of course you don't. You are away with the fairies.



> labor MPs are so good at rorting it's just too hard to find them?




It's because your favourite leftie media...the ABC, SMH, The Age and the Guardian are not outing them of course.

The SMH says;



> Reporters are continuing to examine numerous expense claims made by politicians on both sides of politics, but that doesn't mean you can't contribute also.
> Email us what you find, and please include a link to the specifc report you are referring to, details of what you have found, and how you think it breaches the rules. We will look further into cases that appear to have merit.




They know very well that their readership is not going to dob in Labor rorters. The SMH may as well offer a bonus for each Coalition scalp.


----------



## noco

Calliope said:


> Of course you don't. You are away with the fairies.
> 
> 
> 
> It's because your favourite leftie media...the ABC, SMH, The Age and the Guardian are not outing them of course.
> 
> The SMH says;
> 
> 
> 
> They know very well that their readership is not going to dob in Labor rorters. The SMH may as well offer a bonus for each Coalition scalp.




Yes, the lefty media never talk about the Labor rorts.....What happened to Simon Crean and his expenses rort to fly to Bob Hawkes 80th birthday aparty...did Crean pay it back? ....and Rudds speacial flight to be interviewed by Annabel Crab just to get his face on TV.......and Gillards VIP flight to attend a foot ball match.

A bit one sided if you ask me.

I believe Abbott will bring it up during the next Parliamentry sitting...


----------



## sptrawler

noco said:


> Yes, the lefty media never talk about the Labor rorts.....What happened to Simon Crean and his expenses rort to fly to Bob Hawkes 80th birthday aparty...did Crean pay it back? ....and Rudds speacial flight to be interviewed by Annabel Crab just to get his face on TV.......and Gillards VIP flight to attend a foot ball match.
> 
> A bit one sided if you ask me.
> 
> I believe Abbott will bring it up during the next Parliamentry sitting...




Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't NSW Labor in a bit of poo, over rorting. Also it wasn't many years ago W.A Labor politicians were sent to prison for rorting.
It really should be sorted out, one wonders if the rorts aren't a major enticement for the candidates, which would be a sad situation.


----------



## Whiskers

noco said:


> I believe Abbott will bring it up during the next Parliamentry sitting...




I hope he does. He promised to cut the waste. I know we trusted a generalised slogan, but he made it a high commitment. He'd better not start picking and choosing what he considers waste.

He complained of some $900 cheques that were apparently still being sent so I'd expect him to be just as judicious with the travel and expense rules for both sides of politics.


----------



## sydboy007

trainspotter said:


> Heard of this guy ... Craig Thomson the federal Labor MP for Dobell? Great guy ... trust him with my credit card? NOPE !
> 
> $2 million for VIP military plane flights compared to $2.45 billion on ceiling insulation, a third of which appear to be faulty or dangerous according to a review of almost 14,000 homes earlier this year, taxpayers will be forced to pay another $424 million, if not more, to sort out the dangerous mess.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...t-costly-lessons/story-e6frg71x-1225939909818




Yes.  But it's a right wing conspiracy all the media attention on Thompson, similar to the left wing conspiracy on the travel rorts.  No ssure what we call the attention on Slipper, since he's technically from the right, but it was the right that attacked him the most.  Maybe he's one of the rare bipartisan agreements 

Abbott's PPL is $5B a year, and DA is $3.2B over 7 years, so Abbott has plenty of wasteful spending planned.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Yes, the lefty media never talk about the Labor rorts.....What happened to Simon Crean and his expenses rort to fly to Bob Hawkes 80th birthday aparty...did Crean pay it back? ....and Rudds speacial flight to be interviewed by Annabel Crab just to get his face on TV.......and Gillards VIP flight to attend a foot ball match.
> 
> A bit one sided if you ask me.
> 
> I believe Abbott will bring it up during the next Parliamentry sitting...




So you're saying uncle Rupert isn't able to crowd source a review of Labor's travel expenses and catch them out too?

If you're going to criticise Gillard at the footy then what about your Tony?  He's racked up a few trips there too.

What about Tony's iron man events to get his face in the newspapers and on TV?  Paid for by...drum roll..you and me A.K.A the tax payer.

Both sides do it, no one disagrees.  I just don't understand why Abbott has decided to act like an opposition follower rather than the Government Leader he's supposed to be 

Factor in his rank hypocrisy with what he said about Slipper and his truly dreadful defence of Randall and his credibility is starting to be lost over the issue.

Minchin principal out.  100% fine for amounts < $2000, with anything above that sent to a public review committee that will refer the matter to the AFP if there's even a small hint of rorting behaviour.  Far more detail for each claim to justify it.  All expenses fully itemised and available for public download for free.

Between a financial penalty, and the prospect of a PUBLIC GRILLING and AFP involvement, I bet the travel expenses system will find plenty of savings.

Throw in Y travel for ALL domestic trips, study trips in J instead of F and only after submitting a detailed pre trip plan outlining what you will learn and why you can't learn it in Australia with your report peer reviewed by a member of a different political party where both are up for public viewing (hopefully no more wiki fact downloads for reports and no rubber stamping peer reviewing), and the great unwashed might finally start to believe our Dear Leaders are starting to leave the age of entitlement behind them.


----------



## waza1960

> Minchin principal out. 100% fine for amounts < $2000, with anything above that sent to a public review committee that will refer the matter to the AFP if there's even a small hint of rorting behaviour. Far more detail for each claim to justify it. All expenses fully itemised and available for public download for free.
> 
> Between a financial penalty, and the prospect of a PUBLIC GRILLING and AFP involvement, I bet the travel expenses system will find plenty of savings




 Some good suggestions there Syd +1


----------



## Calliope

I don't think it adds to your credibility syd, for you to use that grub Slipper as your yardstick. It borders on an obsession.:shake:



> Factor in his rank hypocrisy with what he said about Slipper and his truly dreadful defence of Randall and his credibility is starting to be lost over the issue.





> No ssure what we call the attention on Slipper, since he's technically from the right, but it was the right that attacked him the most.





> Coming down as hard on the rorters in his team as he was with Slipper.




Perhaps you could answer these questions, on his behalf, which were put to him by our local newspaper - The Sunshine Coast Daily.



> 1. What was the parliamentary or electoral business that led you to spend more than $6000 of taxpayers' money on taxis during a 15-day period between July and early August in 2009 when parliament was in recess and neither of the committees of which you were a member held any meetings?
> 
> 2. In January 2010, again when parliament was in recess you spent $10,000 on transport at the public's expense.
> That transport included 38 taxi trips in just nine days including 18 in Canberra in three days at a cost of $1948.26. What were you doing to justify charging those costs to the commonwealth?
> 
> 3. Why did you book and then cancel 123 airline tickets for yourself and family members in a single month?
> 
> 4. On October 12, 2010, you ran up a taxi bill for $189 for a fare that started at Parliament House and ended at a Canberra restaurant and took two hours and 19 minutes to complete. What was the parliamentary or electoral business that required the journey?
> 
> 5. On January 30, 2012, you claimed at a press conference that you had been cleared of any wrong doing by a Department of Finance and Deregulation investigation into your entitlement use. Will you table evidence to support that assertion?
> 
> 6. Can you explain why you consider the current legal case against you in relation to your entitlement use is unjust as you have implied in recent media statements?


----------



## Calliope

The G-G, Quentin Bryce is setting the bench mark for rorting the taxpayer.

*G-G spends $280k on lawyers, consultants*

http://www.news.com.au/national/bre...yers-consultants/story-e6frfku9-1226750504328


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> Jeez Syd,
> 
> If you keep this hyperventilation up until Labor are next in office, you'll be able to breathe comfortably at an altitude of 40,000 feet.
> 
> A word of warning though. If you wish to debate boat arrivals, there's a separate thread for that.




There is nothing to debate as hide the boats and now hide the NBN and just dont tell BTW you cannot interview any ministers and Abbott still cannot do hard interviews you're right its very quite.


----------



## IFocus

sydboy007 said:


> Yes.  But it's a right wing conspiracy all the media attention on Thompson, similar to the left wing conspiracy on the travel rorts.  No ssure what we call the attention on Slipper, since he's technically from the right, but it was the right that attacked him the most.  Maybe he's one of the rare bipartisan agreements
> 
> Abbott's PPL is $5B a year, and DA is $3.2B over 7 years, so Abbott has plenty of wasteful spending planned.




You forgot Hockeys $8.8 bil banked under Labors debt to be refunded in divs to prop up future budgets, where is the indignation of the 300 mil a year in interest payments, total BS.


----------



## IFocus

trainspotter said:


> Meanwhile back at the camp ......
> 
> *Norman Ornstein, an author and political scientist with the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, said he ''winced'' when he read the interview in which Mr Abbott put the boot into the Rudd-Gillard government in unusually strong language for a foreign interview.*
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ct-us-links-20131027-2w9lv.html#ixzz2jB2SXDSW
> 
> Spade is a spade in Tony's world ... about time we had a PM who called it like he sees it and not sugar coat the unpalatable message that was the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd catastrophe !
> 
> View attachment 55015




TS  his comments were a disaster and immature like the Hunt interview they are rapidly making laughing stocks out Oz


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> There is nothing to debate as hide the boats and now hide the NBN and just dont tell BTW you cannot interview any ministers and Abbott still cannot do hard interviews you're right its very quite.



It's quiet because they're stopping the boats Labor started and sorting out Labor's NBN fiasco.

In other words, they're running the country instead of failing at running themselves.


----------



## Whiskers

IFocus said:


> There is nothing to debate as hide the boats and now hide the NBN and just dont tell BTW you cannot interview any ministers and* Abbott still cannot do hard interviews *you're right its very quite.




That's a good point.

He needs to be more candid... not always talking in the future tense, such as judge me on what I do not what I say. The 'trust me' approach will only last so long before the electorate will demand to see something or deliver a kick in the guts that he can't afford, popularity wise.

While it's good to see he's not knee jerking into issues like fresh issues of live sheep trade cruelty, the controversial issues are building up and will overwhelm him if he does not start taking a more open and informative approach.

Palmer is now set to give Abbott and Newman a real pain in the @r$e in the Parliament over corrupt officials in government. On that front Palmer does not seem to be able to put a foot wrong so far with his complaints about the AEC in particular. He either knows a bit of what he's talking about or he's very prophetical.

Either way, it's probably more likely he'll continue to gain more support while he rants on about and continues to be proven correct about pretty poor security in the AEC and the integrity of the count.

Abbott had want to have something pretty good up his sleave if he hopes to steal the march back, because with Newman starting to shoot himself in the foot showing extreme right wing tendencies of the Qld LNP trying to dictate half-witted law to the Judiciary and Palmer yet to get fully wound up... and not to mention the possibility of a renewed WA senate election if those lost votes aren't found and favour Palmer. 

The fact they have been lost is prima facie good grounds for someone to petition for a fresh WA senate election... or who knows, given Palmers tenacity could it lead to fresh elections all-round if negligence (of security of votes) and or misconduct by AEC is established. 

Don't dismiss vote rigging in Aus as impossible. There are plenty of party and business lobby 'plants' or just 'overjealous' party supporters in the public service. What has always been conducted as a silent war behind closed doors by the duopoly of political heavy weights is looking likely to be either opened to the public or used as leverage behind closed doors for Palmer to get what he wants. 

But, never forget... Palmer wants Abbotts job. That's the result of the 'falling out' that caused Palmer to go public in the first place. 

So, to suggest as dr does that "they're running the country instead of failing at running themselves" would be wishful thinking. Just because you are not hearing any internal conflict and they close the door to try to stop people looking in doesn't equate to them 'running themselves' with any great degree of success... it just means they are not opening themselves up to scrutiny.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

drsmith said:


> It's quiet because they're stopping the boats Labor started and sorting out Labor's NBN fiasco.
> 
> In other words, they're running the country instead of failing at running themselves.




Agree doc,

Adults in charge, running our country, none of your ALP dysfunction on the taxpayer.

Mr.Abbott is a very good PM.

gg


----------



## IFocus

Reward and applause for the propaganda unit and no doubt the unit received further directions on how to maintain secrecy and perverse the truth.

Tony Abbott's private function an affair for the conservative media faithful

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ia-faithful-20131026-2w8wz.html#ixzz2jLFGCohD


----------



## trainspotter

IFocus said:


> TS  his comments were a disaster and immature like the Hunt interview they are rapidly making laughing stocks out Oz




What? And we weren't before? Publicly elected PM gets rat f@cked by own party to bring in a PM who was elected by faceless men and then the rats bring back the rejected PM ?? Noooooo we were not being laughed at all globally now were we?


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> It's quiet because they're stopping the boats




I will give the Coalition full credit for stopping or slowing the boats takes real genus to hid the information, do nothing and the numbers slow. 



> sorting out Labor's NBN fiasco.




Nope  this is growing into a bigger fiasco on how to screw the punters and MT in one go more genus.



> In other words, they're running the country instead of failing at running themselves.




Admire the religious fever of the faithful just believe and all will be OK praise the Coalition we are all saved LOL.

The political control of information is pretty sickling.


----------



## IFocus

trainspotter said:


> What? And we weren't before? Publicly elected PM gets rat f@cked by own party to bring in a PM who was elected by faceless men and then the rats bring back the rejected PM ?? Noooooo we were not being laughed at all globally now were we?




You might have missed the bit about the current government is the Coalition and they don't improve by raising the leadership mess that wrangled the Labor party.

BTW nice to see you back...........you are still wrong


----------



## trainspotter

IFocus said:


> You might have missed the bit about the current government is the Coalition and they don't improve by raising the leadership mess that wrangled the Labor party.
> 
> BTW nice to see you back...........you are still wrong




Gee ... touched by the show of emotion. But but but Tony was unelectable they all bleated. If its one thing us blue tie brigade knows how to do it is to close ranks mate !!! Loose lips sink ships IFocus.


----------



## Whiskers

One of the first tests for unity in the coalition will be the Grain Corp takeover offer by US Giant Archer Daniels Midland. A lot of people are uneasy about selling off more of our key infrastructure businesses increasing the US monolopy and weakening the marketing strength of one of our main rural exports.

One MP told the AFR the deal would “really test the marriage” of the coalition parties if it is approved.  

Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan has said we don't want countries to come in here with a cheque book instead of an army. We want to control our own destiny. 

For the Big L Libs it's just 'business', corporating of the world. For the Nationals, and most farmers it's their lifestyle and livelihood. 

There are problems with GrainCorp having a near monopoly of Aus grain handling, but the solution is not to sell to another larger international monopoly.  

Hockey has delayed making a decision until 17th Dec.

GrainCorp takeover bid poses questions for Coalition
 1st Nov 2013 3:56 PM

AGRICULTURE Minister Barnaby Joyce has again voiced his opposition to a proposed foreign takeover of Graincorp, as debate over the acquisition heats up in the Coalition. 

After going quiet on the takeover immediately after the election, Mr Joyce made the comments on ABC Radio this week. 

His comments come as senior figures within both the Liberal and The Nationals agitate internally for Treasurer Joe Hockey not to approve the takeover. 

Mr Hockey is due to make a final decision in mid-December, after he hears the concerns of the Foreign Investment Review Board. 

But the issue may come to a head before then, with federal parliamentarians preparing to descend on Canberra for the first parliamentary sittings in two weeks - where the takeover is likely to be raised in party meetings. 

Among those understood to be against the proposal are key Nationals MPs including former agriculture spokesman John Cobb, Mr Joyce, and country-based Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan. 

Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss also voiced his concerns about the takeover before the election. 
http://www.news-mail.com.au/news/abares-red-tape-choking-aussie-agricultural-indust/2071260/​


----------



## drsmith

Whiskers said:


> One of the first tests for unity in the coalition will be the Grain Corp takeover offer by US Giant Archer Daniels Midland. A lot of people are uneasy about selling off more of our key infrastructure businesses increasing the US monolopy and weakening the marketing strength of one of our main rural exports.



National's Leader Warren Truss was quiet frank in his views on this on the ABC's insiders program this morning.


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> National's Leader Warren Truss was quiet frank in his views on this on the ABC's insiders program this morning.





Thought Trust spoke well there was a fair amount of depht to his comments across a wide range of issue no ummms and arrrrs rather than the rubbish you get from the rest of the rabble.

He actually sounded like a deputy PM.


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> Thought Trust spoke well there was a fair amount of depht to his comments across a wide range of issue no ummms and arrrrs rather than the rubbish you get from the rest of the rabble.
> 
> He actually sounded like a deputy PM.



You get two feathers for that. One for commenting positively about someone from the Coalition and a second for finally acknowledging those on the other side of the political fence are a rabble.


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> You get two feathers for that. One for commenting positively about someone from the Coalition and a second for finally acknowledging those on the other side of the political fence are a rabble.





Should have said Coalition rabble


This is a real concern the sheer arrogance of with holding information for political purposes is not a good sign

Silence echoes across Canberra as the Coalition clams up




> What we haven't been told
> 
> - Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop's speech to the Australian Council for International Development conference in Canberra is closed to the media.
> 
> - Treasurer Joe Hockey holds a 10-minute press conference, and refuses to take many questions, announcing the government will almost double the borrowing limit to $500 billion.
> 
> - Treasury refuses to release advice to the new government on the state of the economy and other issues, claiming its release "would interfere with the establishment of an effective working relationship between the Treasury and Treasurer".
> 
> - The capacity at the Manus Island (PNG) and Nauru offshore asylum seeker processing centres and the Christmas Island processing centre.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...on-clams-up-20131102-2wt5k.html#ixzz2jYRJvIuX


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> This is a real concern the sheer arrogance of with holding information for political purposes is not a good sign
> 
> Silence echoes across Canberra as the Coalition clams up




Obviously you prefer a government, like the last one, on t.v every night sprouting, lies and garbage. 
Blaming all and sundry for another massive self inflicted stuff stuff up and trying to BS and spin their way out of their own manure.
The problem the SMH reporters are having is, they are not being fed like "chooks" as they were under Labor.
Now the reporters have to get off their ar$es and do the job they are paid for. They don't want to report 'no boats' last week and they are struggling to find anything to criticise the government for.
IMO they probably have to get up from behind their desk and get out and do some investigating, rather than sitting their waiting for the fax from the government press office, those days are over.lol

There ia a qoute in the article you linked, that sums it up perfectly.


*Abbott's motto is that if you've got something to say, then say it. "But if you don't have something to say, then don't do it. You're just making noise."*
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...on-clams-up-20131102-2wt5k.html#ixzz2jYlaQeOI

It's a breath of fresh air, having a government running the country without getting a blow by blow report in every paper and news broadcast every hour of every day.
Labor just couldn't keep their mouths shut and when they opened it, they blew their feet off.
All it succeeded in doing was to make jounalists lazy.IMO


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> Should have said Coalition rabble.
> 
> This is a real concern the sheer arrogance of with holding information for political purposes is not a good sign
> 
> Silence echoes across Canberra as the Coalition clams up
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...on-clams-up-20131102-2wt5k.html#ixzz2jYRJvIuX



The media's just bored with having a government that's not in constant chaos. They have to fill their sheets with something.

You can keep the second feather. You'll need a lot more than that to survive the long cold Labor winter ahead.


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> Obviously you prefer a government, like the last one, on t.v every night sprouting, lies and garbage.
> Blaming all and sundry for another massive self inflicted stuff stuff up and trying to BS and spin their way out of their own manure.
> The problem the SMH reporters are having is, they are not being fed like "chooks" as they were under Labor.
> Now the reporters have to get off their ar$es and do the job they are paid for. They don't want to report 'no boats' last week and they are struggling to find anything to criticise the government for.
> IMO they probably have to get up from behind their desk and get out and do some investigating, rather than sitting their waiting for the fax from the government press office, those days are over.lol
> 
> There ia a qoute in the article you linked, that sums it up perfectly.
> 
> 
> *Abbott's motto is that if you've got something to say, then say it. "But if you don't have something to say, then don't do it. You're just making noise."*
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...on-clams-up-20131102-2wt5k.html#ixzz2jYlaQeOI
> 
> It's a breath of fresh air, having a government running the country without getting a blow by blow report in every paper and news broadcast every hour of every day.
> Labor just couldn't keep their mouths shut and when they opened it, they blew their feet off.
> All it succeeded in doing was to make jounalists lazy.IMO




+1....Labor had to keep in front of the media all the time to divert attention away from the  daily crisis.

Yes....the Abbott Government is like a breath of fresh air....It has been so good to get away from the Labor pollution.


----------



## IFocus

sptrawler said:


> It's a breath of fresh air, having a government running the country without getting a blow by blow report in every paper and news broadcast every hour of every day.





I think the Coalition Government so far have been excellent at running the ......rorts.   

We actually don't know how they running the country no one will tell us Hockey spending 10 mins and refusing questions is very damming of his incompetence.


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> I think the Coalition Government so far have been excellent at running the ......rorts.
> 
> We actually don't know how they running the country no one will tell us Hockey spending 10 mins and refusing questions is very damming of his incompetence.




Swan never shut up and blew his feet off at every turn, with his incompetence, that didn't seem to bother you.lol

Why get bent out of shape, when Hockey has been in the job for 6 weeks, sounds like you are ranting.


----------



## DB008

sptrawler said:


> Swan never shut up and blew his feet off at every turn, with his incompetence, that didn't seem to bother you.lol
> 
> Why get bent out of shape, when Hockey has been in the job for 6 weeks, sounds like you are ranting.




+1

Spot on.
Go to a forum like Whirlpool, and they are having a whinge because there is bugger all updates on the NBN rollout - aka - the fiasco that the Libs are trying to clean up.


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> I think the Coalition Government so far have been excellent at running the ......rorts.



Rorts ??

I heard nothing of rorts on Insiders today but then I only watched most of it, not quiet 100% all of it.

You lose one of those two feathers. Consider it as means testing.

I can already hear the loud *SQUAWWWK.*


----------



## Logique

Don't wish to hijack the thread, but couldn't find an existing one.

I'd like anyone to tell me why the Fed government should continue to prop up Australian vehicle manufacturers? Isn't this just a tax on the economy? 

The Australian industry is making relatively expensive cars, and the large sedans that people don't want anymore, and most car sales are of imports, I think in the ratio of about about 35:65 of local:imports.

What's the point anymore?


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Westfarmers has pretty much said they've not seen a material rise in sales, so while people might SAY they're feeling better they're NOT spending more, so the reality is they're not truly behaving any differently now than before the election.




Well Syd, Westpac seem to think there is an increase in consumer confidence.


Amid strong growth in the property market, chief executive Gail Kelly said the bank believed higher confidence would lead to increased borrowing by consumers, especially those in NSW.

"There is no doubt that domestically we are seeing a pick-up in consumer confidence which we expect will translate to a gradual increase in credit growth," Mrs Kelly said.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/bank...-71b-profit-20131104-2wvbp.html#ixzz2jdIt7ETs

So as long as the government doesn't do a 'Labor implossion', there may be an orderly recovery in consumer spending.
Rather than a continuation of the mass panic consumer spending freeze we saw under Labor.


----------



## Whiskers

Logique said:


> Don't wish to hijack the thread, but couldn't find an existing one.
> 
> I'd like anyone to tell me why the Fed government should continue to prop up Australian vehicle manufacturers? Isn't this just a tax on the economy?
> 
> The Australian industry is making relatively expensive cars, and the large sedans that people don't want anymore, and most car sales are of imports, I think in the ratio of about about 35:65 of local:imports.
> 
> What's the point anymore?




It seems, despite much past union bashing and claims of low employee productivity, the main problem is more to do with land and construction costs, efficiency in the wider economy.

Alan Kohler:
In a piece in The Drum in August, Phillip Toner of the University of Sydney wrote that productivity in the car industry (value added per worker) was $100,000 per worker compared with $85,000 across the economy.

So it doesn't seem that motor industry productivity is lower than elsewhere and that wages are out of line, or that car industry workers are living the high life.

It's a problem of Australian costs generally - they are too high. That comes down to land and construction costs, which underlie all other costs.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-16/kohler-car-industry/5025360​
This is the other side of the double edge sword of allowing unlimited foreign investment, especially in land. It's pushing our cost of production up and out of competition, from a 'cancer' in the very foundations. High land prices reflects in higher startup cost, higher construction costs (because of accumulated costs starting from land passed on through cost of production of all components and CPI adjusted wages) and higher running costs.

Part of the problem is our RBA hasn't cut rates hard or fast enough to stabilise our currency to protect Aus manufacturing and exports from international trade and currency wars. 

Then the other problem we have is that the more free trade deals we do the worse our problem will become with many asian countries using 'internal excise taxes' and the US and Europe using heavily subsidies and tax concessions for much of their production. That is they devalue the value of our exports by artificially lowering their local base price for the same goods produces there.

This will be an exercise of where Abbott stands... for short term gain culling off the industry all together and continuing the cost of production from the land up aided by uncontrolled foreign investment... or a longer term plan to foster Aus owned manufacturing with suitable subsidies or tax concessions as our competitors. 

It's not too dissimilar to the choice they have to make about the Grain Corp takeover offer by ADM. 

Uncontrolled foreign investment is seen by Big L Liberal type thinking and speculative developers and farmers as good business, and broke farmers as a quick fix to their problems. But the effects are far-reaching.

The US and Germany for example didn't become engineering powerhouses overnight. It took vision and commitment from government to encourage and support that kind of ingenuity in local manufacturing.

Abbotts signature election victory cry of 'Australia is open for business again' will be put to the test to see whether he intends to sell off the family farm literally, or do smarter things to protect the family farm but value add and make better returns from it. To that end the Nationals reflect more sustainable thinking for our future agricultural and manufacturing production.


----------



## Whiskers

sptrawler said:


> Well Syd, Westpac seem to think there is an increase in consumer confidence.
> 
> 
> Amid strong growth in the property market, chief executive Gail Kelly said the bank believed higher confidence would lead to increased borrowing by consumers, especially those in NSW.
> 
> "There is no doubt that domestically we are seeing a pick-up in consumer confidence which we expect will translate to a gradual increase in credit growth," Mrs Kelly said.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/bank...-71b-profit-20131104-2wvbp.html#ixzz2jdIt7ETs
> 
> So as long as the government doesn't do a 'Labor implossion', there may be an orderly recovery in consumer spending.
> Rather than a continuation of the mass panic consumer spending freeze we saw under Labor.




Actually Consumer confidence for Oct was 108.3 down from Sept 110.6. Nov is forecast to be 107.5ish

That epitomises pretty much the big picture problem with Aus and the power of our big four banks... and the RBA thinking more about their best interests than the wider economy.

It's too much about short term gain riding on the back of increased lending to increase property prices. Too much about short term local (economic) consumption to stimulate the economy rather than long term mining (in the first priority) and other value adding or manufacturing sustainability. 

Where are the industry development and sustainability measures from our leaders to meet the other artificial barriers countries put up to blunt our manufacturing and agricultural exports.? After all we do rely very heavily on our exports.


----------



## sptrawler

Whiskers said:


> .
> 
> It's too much about short term gain riding on the back of increased lending to increase property prices. Too much about short term local (economic) consumption to stimulate the economy rather than long term mining (in the first priority) and other value adding or manufacturing sustainability.
> 
> Where are the industry development and sustainability measures from our leaders to meet the other artificial barriers countries put up to blunt our manufacturing and agricultural exports.? After all we do rely very heavily on our exports.




I wouldn't mind a $ for every time I've said that since 1968, I would be a rich person.

Why if W.A is the resource rich state, has our value adding industries been would down ?

BHP were meant to have built a steel smelter at Kwinana in 1980, their blast furnace was shut down in 1980 a smelter was never built.
Since then most of the blast furnaces around Australia have been shut down, the carbon tax would have been the death nell for most of the remainder.
I don't think the coalition will stop the demise of Australian industry, but I think the removal of the carbon tax will slow it down slightly.
Can some of the Labor carbon tax supporters, show me some of the new clean energy technology jobs that were going to spring up and take up the slack from a crippled manufacturing industry.
I think So_Cynical gave the perfect Labor answer on another thread, when he said "I'm alright Jack".
Pretty well sums it up.


----------



## drsmith

My prediction on interest rates is that the next move will be up.


----------



## sptrawler

drsmith said:


> My prediction on interest rates is that the next move will be up.




As long as there are enough plebs on the debt treadmill.
Then workplace reform and social engineering comes to the fore, it's all a bit predictable.


----------



## Whiskers

drsmith said:


> My prediction on interest rates is that the next move will be up.




Why?... a modest increase in consumer spending leading up to Xmas, a slight increase in house prices and building approvals after a slack period?

It had better not be this one!


----------



## sptrawler

Whiskers said:


> Why?... a modest increase in consumer spending leading up to Xmas, a slight increase in house prices and building approvals after a slack period?




The last government was talking about a need to increase productivity, how do you think that is achieved?


----------



## Whiskers

sptrawler said:


> The last government was talking about a need to increase productivity, how do you think that is achieved?




Seriously... you are not suggesting an interest rate increase will increase productivity... are you!?


----------



## sptrawler

Whiskers said:


> Seriously... you are not suggesting an interest rate increase will increase productivity... are you!?




It's amazing what conditions,work practices, entitlements, people will negotiate away, to keep their house and or lifestyles.


----------



## sptrawler

Whiskers said:


> Actually Consumer confidence for Oct was 108.3 down from Sept 110.6. Nov is forecast to be 107.5ish
> 
> That epitomises pretty much the big picture problem with Aus and the power of our big four banks... and the RBA thinking more about their best interests than the wider economy.




Seems like you and Syd are reading the AMWU newsletter, even the AGE doesn't agree with you.lol

http://www.theage.com.au/business/retail/spending-surge-lifts-retailers-20131104-2wxgg.html


----------



## Whiskers

sptrawler said:


> Seems like you and Syd are reading the AMWU newsletter, even the AGE doesn't agree with you.lol
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/business/retail/spending-surge-lifts-retailers-20131104-2wxgg.html




Actually I don't read any AMWU newsletter and my figures came from trading economics data.

Retail sales and consumer confidence are not the same thing, nor does increased retail sales necessarily translate into increased consumer confidence. If you look at retail sales, they are coming off a flat spot in the middle of the year and nothing to get too excited about atm. 

The standout sector was clothing, footwear and personal accessory retailing up 1.3%... could be just seasonal change of wardrobe time for a lot of consumers! the best of the rest was household goods and restaurants/takeaway foods with .4%  

The bottom chart from the ABS shows volume as well as price are not too exciting yet. Certainly nothing like sufficient to pin an interest rate rise on. 

If you want to search the ABS site for the CPI you will see the biggest driver was fuel, electricity and various government charges. All the wrong things to stimulate real economic recovery... and what a dent a different  monetary policy to lower the AUD would have made. We might see some inflationary pressure from longer term sustainable indicators.

The modest rise in real estate in certain areas is eaten up with increased holding costs for both investors and consumers. So that's a false alarm too!

SEPTEMBER KEY POINTS

THE ALL GROUPS CPI
◾rose 1.2% in the September quarter 2013, compared with a rise of 0.4% in the June quarter 2013. 
◾rose 2.2% through the year to the September quarter 2013, compared with a rise of 2.4% through the year to the June quarter 2013.

OVERVIEW OF CPI MOVEMENTS
◾The most significant price rises this quarter were for automotive fuel (+7.6%), international holiday travel and accommodation (+6.1%), electricity (+4.4%), property rates and charges (+7.9%), water and sewerage (+9.9%) and domestic holiday travel and accommodation (+3.5%). 
◾The most significant offsetting price fall this quarter was for vegetables (-4.5%).
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6401.0/​


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> My prediction on interest rates is that the next move will be up.




Not with the AUD still up RBA need a lower AUD for the industrial complex in Australia to pick up and in a hurry as mining comes off.

Still any thing that looks like a housing breakout may change that


----------



## DB008

Article from 'The Age'

*PM stumbling around the international stage*



> Tony Abbott has lurched from one diplomatic disaster to another as he compounds rookie mistakes with our Asian neighbours.
> 
> The making of effective foreign policy always looks easier than it is. As a result, new governments tend to underestimate the task. The Howard and Rudd/Gillard governments each made tentative starts on the international stage. The current government's diplomatic initiation has been worse. Even allowing for inexperience, the Abbott government appears to be setting a new standard for diplomatic ineptitude. The Prime Minister in particular has lurched from one mistake to another, with each episode more ham-fisted than the last.
> 
> Three cases illustrate the point.
> 
> When the Prime Minister left for Indonesia on his first overseas visit, he had a clear set of objectives. He needed agreement on one of three approaches designed to ''stop the boats''. A policy based on turning boats around, buying boats, or buying information about boats had been sold to the Australian public. Now it had to be sold to the country whose sovereignty it threatened to breach. Unsurprisingly, this was a non-starter in Jakarta. After a couple of apologetic speeches, the only thing turned around was Tony Abbott himself.




http://www.theage.com.au/comment/pm-stumbling-around-the-international-stage-20131105-2wz4q.html#ixzz2jqrdBSR6


----------



## noco

DB008 said:


> Article from 'The Age'
> 
> *PM stumbling around the international stage*
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/comment/pm-stumbling-around-the-international-stage-20131105-2wz4q.html#ixzz2jqrdBSR6




My friend I would not put too much credence into what the AGE comes up with as they are very pro Labor and so is the Indonesian Foreign Minister.

One would not expect anything else from them.


----------



## AAA

Written by a former Rudd staffer. Give it as much credibility as anything written my Mark Latham.


----------



## Whiskers

noco said:


> My friend I would not put too much credence into what the AGE comes up with as they are very pro Labor and so is the Indonesian Foreign Minister.
> 
> One would not expect anything else from them.




Forget about the messenger and whoever you perceive them to be biased to... think about the message and what we do know!

Regardless of whether it was Labor, a labor supporter or an Indonesian foreign minister (as it happens, is more aligned with Labor)... the fact is Abbott and Bishop are not striking the right cord with them for harmonious relations or progressing the people smuggler issue. Despite the beat up hype, they really haven't done anything in substance to substantially change or improve on Rudds last minute changes and the PNG solution.

If spying in Indonesia was part of their 'mums the word', secret plan to buy back boats and otherwise disrupt the boat smugglers they may have done irreparable damage to not only Indo relations but general mistrust around the whole region and world... tarred to the same brush as the US

There is undeniably trouble brewing in the coalition with their credibility on foreign relations, the RBA and monetary policy and foreign investment just for starters.

The Libs are showing signs of their previous destructive patterns nationally and especially in Qld with Newman tending to the extreme right at times. The Nationals need to maintain their integrity and hard line on policy issues to distance themselves from the Lib balz-ups and further their credibility and vote come the next election to renegotiate the coalition agreement to stand more National candidates against Libs and take some of the vote that will otherwise go to PUP or others... or even damn Shortens version of Labor, blatantly ignoring he is going to give them another heart attack.


----------



## drsmith

noco said:


> My friend I would not put too much credence into what the AGE comes up with as they are very pro Labor and so is the Indonesian Foreign Minister.



That particular article wants to give all the credit for managing our borders to Kevin Rudd.

That speaks for itself.


----------



## DB008

That article is going viral on the net. It's going bananas on facebook too


----------



## drsmith

DB008 said:


> That article is going viral on the net. It's going bananas on facebook too



About the author,



> Raoul Heinrichs is a scholar, editor of the Lowy Institute’s Strategic Snapshots and former foreign and security adviser to Kevin Rudd while in opposition.




http://wheelercentre.com/events/presenter/raoul-heinrichs/


----------



## Whiskers

drsmith said:


> That particular article wants to give all the credit for managing our borders to Kevin Rudd.
> 
> That speaks for itself.




The problem with Abbot and co is they are going overboard to steal credit for 'good' things they did not do and spiel Labor with all the bad things.

The psychological effect of that is they are inadvertently destroying their own credibility and trust and fostering empathy for Labor once it is revealed they weren't honest up front.

Given Rudd strategist Bruce Hawker will publish his diaries next month, described as "a revealing and fascinating first-hand account of the dramas behind one of the most challenging political campaigns that Australia has ever seen," Abbott could loose more 'face' in the public eye.  

_Described as "a revealing and fascinating first-hand account of the dramas behind one of the most challenging political campaigns that Australia has ever seen," Mr Hawker will argue that the burden of the unpopular Gillard government was too much to overcome.

Mr Hawker played a key role in Labor's decision to allow members and MPs to elect the parliamentary leader. The book will document how this reform adopted in July came about. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...on-rudd-campaign/story-fn59niix-1226731151162​_If third party evidence further discredits Abbotts exaggerated version of condemnation of Rudd and the Labor government, this further alienates him and plays right into the hands of support for Rudd who if not re-running himself, his opinion will be be very influential in a restructured Labor.


----------



## drsmith

Whiskers,

The conclusion I've reached with what you post on politics is that it's largely crap and hence not worthy of response.


----------



## Whiskers

drsmith said:


> Whiskers,
> 
> The conclusion I've reached with what you post on politics is that it's largely crap and hence not worthy of response.




But you just can't resist anyway, eh! 

You're entitled to your opinion, but you remind me of...

“When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.” 
― Mark Twain​
Like him or loathe him, Rudd has been one of the most popular politicians for a long time. As the saying goes, ignore that at your own peril!

Do you not see Hawkers book as a continuation of his strategy to rid rudd of being the scape goat for the Gillard, shorten and backroom deals episode and resuscitate his political life?  

“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” 
― Martin Luther King Jr.​


----------



## noco

drsmith said:


> Whiskers,
> 
> The conclusion I've reached with what you post on politics is that it's largely crap and hence not worthy of response.




+1 Doc.

The voters have spoken loud and clear on the 7th September 2013 and the lefties still won't accept it......Very bad losers.

The majority love Abbott, Abbott, Abbott.


----------



## drsmith

The bank deposit levy Labor proposed is not on the list of 18 tax measures the Coalition are keeping, the 3 they are modifying or the 7 they are not proceeding with.

As for the remaining 64, there's an encouraging sign,



> Assistant Treasurer Arthur Sinodinos, with assistance from the Board of Taxation will undertake consultation with tax experts, including a number drawn from the Board's advisory panel over the next two weeks with a disposition not to proceed with the remaining 64 measures.




http://jbh.ministers.treasury.gov.au/media-release/017-2013/


----------



## Whiskers

noco said:


> +1 Doc.
> 
> The voters have spoken loud and clear on the 7th September 2013 and the lefties still won't accept it......Very bad losers.
> 
> The majority love Abbott, Abbott, Abbott.




What majority?

If you look at the first preference results Labor actually came out on top with 33% just ahead of the libs. 

But the critical point is of the first preference Abbott's libs only got about 1/3rd of the votes Labor lost and not much better after preferences.

They won government with (if you accumulate all the coalition members) abt 45% of the first preference... Still not a majority!

If you can't see the fragility of Abbotts win (in terms of the national vote) and the stupidity of thumbing your nose at THE MAJORITY... then you deserve to get tossed out.

Hence, my fear that Abbott has overrated his electoral support and taken his tenure for granted, as much as some on this forum and completely underestimates his opponents potential to regroup and or the electorate to deal with his going overboard to steal credit for 'good' things they did not do and spiel Labor with all the bad things.



drsmith said:


> The bank deposit levy Labor proposed is not on the list of 18 tax measures the Coalition are keeping, the 3 they are modifying or the 7 they are not proceeding with.
> 
> As for the remaining 64, there's an encouraging sign,




Certainly needed cleaning up, but Mr Hockey is not doing his prospects of longetivity in office any favors by implying that he had inherited 96 tax and superannuation changes that were announced but not legislated... implying it was all Labors legacy of laziness that has left taxpayers confused... when in fact some go back to 2001 and 'the Howard government.

Some, including one aimed at stopping multinationals shifting profits overseas, which reportedly will be watered down, at a cost of $700 million... has potential to come back to bite them in the context of his catch cry 'Aus is open for business again' and decisions re opening us up to more foreign investment and foreign ownership of major infrastructure like Graincorp. If more Lib politicians don't revolt to join the Nationals on this issue, their voters likely will.


----------



## wayneL

Whiskers said:


> The problem with Abbot and co is they are going overboard to steal credit for 'good' things they did not do and spiel Labor with all the bad things.




I suppose this is something they finally learned from Labour.


----------



## waza1960

> The conclusion I've reached with what you post on politics is that it's largely crap and hence not worthy of response.




 +2  Whiskers your living in a different dimension  lol :screwy:


----------



## MrBurns

The media are completely lost now that Labor are gone, they have nothing to talk about , the big story now is an Australian girl found wandering around in Ireland.


----------



## sptrawler

MrBurns said:


> The media are completely lost now that Labor are gone, they have nothing to talk about , the big story now is an Australian girl found wandering around in Ireland.




Yes, it's great to read Laurie Oakes blubbering about the government not feeding him, what a laugh.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-voters-says-laurie-oakes-20131106-2x0p8.html

Now Labors not there, feeding reporters like chooks, they are having to get of their ar$es and earn a living.
All I can say is, it's about time. 
IMO the SMH and the Age were looking like a government funded propoganda unit, under the last government.
It will be great if they can overcome their obvious affiliations and give some decent coverage.


----------



## Julia

> The conclusion I've reached with what you post on politics is that it's largely crap and hence not worthy of response




+3.


----------



## Calliope

drsmith said:


> Whiskers,
> 
> The conclusion I've reached with what you post on politics is that it's largely crap and hence not worthy of response.




+4.  And not only on politics.


----------



## Whiskers

wayneL said:


> I suppose this is something they finally learned from Labour.




Not sure who learned it from whom... BUT not coming clean with the electorate on policy agenda and or detail and telling fibs has led to the downfall of many a politician. Howard's workchoices, Gillards Carbon Tax and Rudds... well maybe Rudd didn't suffer so much from lies as he did from knives in the back and poor decision making. 

It's one thing that Abbott made a big fuss about and the expectation is for him to set a higher moral standard. That's my beef with him... and that a few dumb fibs for cheap political points will likely be his ruination and the coalition government with him.  

“Distance lends enchantment to the view.” 
― Mark Twain​
It's a good thing to step back to check the bigger picture now and then.

Abbott did a good job a getting up in Labors face while still remaining a small target himself during the election campaign. 

The problem now is he has withdrawn too much within his closed door government and allowing not only the media, but wider public to step back and get a better view of a not so 'good' look. You can spin that to a good sign if you are a strident supporter or just happy to live in ignorant bliss... 




waza1960 said:


> +2  Whiskers your living in a different dimension  lol :screwy:




Yep, I don't deny I'm living in a different dimension to many of you guys. :

I did warn about the resurgence of Rudd for PM as soon as he was tossed by Gillard, when sooo many were writing him off... based on a psychoanalysis as opposed to the emotional version that so many people draw false comfort from.

The one thing I do know is some people dwell in the front end of the paradigm shift and some of those have the ability to see ahead of the paradigm shift... a tendancy to be more perceptive.

“What we see depends mainly on what we look for.” 
― John Lubbock​
On the other hand the majority are just happy to go with the flow and ride with the trend in the middle of the paradigm shift... a tendency to be more reflective, looking back to check that they conform.  

“Often it isn't the mountains ahead that wear you out, it's the little pebble in your shoe.” 
― Muhammad Ali​
It's the little things that are going wrong for Abbott already that cumulatively run the risk of stalling his momentum before he gets to the big policy stuff. Remember he still has a hostile senate preventing key policy legislation for another seven months and even then the new senate is not assured of cooperating well. 

Remembering that if as little as 1.5% of his first preference voters desert him (even if only in the weekly/monthly polls), regardless of whether they go to PUP or back to labor, the Coalition government will have a lot of difficulty passing any legislation not the least of which, the abolition of the Carbon Tax.

*The big ticket item that most of us expect him to deliver on is the abolition of Gillards carbon tax.* Apart from the problems passing the legislation, the public statements from industry that they doubt much if any at all of the price rises will be unwound. 

Abbott and some industries and local governments etc made a lot of noise attributing at least 7 to 9% price rises and *the Australian Industry group claim increased costs of 14% as a result of the carbon tax.* http://www.aigroup.com.au/portal/bi...eports/2013/Carbon_price_impacts_Jan_2013.pdf

If you think the voting public will tolerate a fraction or no refunds of those price increases with the abolition of the carbon tax you desperately need a new political analyst. *Abbott really needs to deliver on those price cuts to maintain his integrity. *

PS: Hello Julia and Calliope. Good to see you continuing to read and learn another perspective. Stick with it, it sometimes takes time to get over past prejudices and intolerances  

Just for you guys...

“I don't know why I felt so closed and bitter and threatened by the things I did not like.” 
― Peter Cameron, Someday This Pain Will Be Useful to You​


----------



## trainspotter

The syndrome "God Complex" springs to mind = Rudd and Whiskers  also the word narcissism is in the mix. 

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh goes the media 

But Mr Hockey told ABC Radio on Thursday that Mr Abbott's performance should not be judged by his media activities.

"Given the last few years, I don't think the success or failure of a prime minister should be based on the number of media appearances they make," the Treasurer said.

When asked what Mr Abbott was doing, Mr Hockey replied: "Well, he's ringing up his Treasurer every day. We've spent all day Monday in cabinet meetings ... I can tell you he's been flat out.

*"As prime minister you've got to run the country with your cabinet and that's what we're all doing. We've got our heads down and we're going through all the challenges."*

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...flat-out-to-talk-to-media-20131107-2x2tl.html

Finally we have a government hell bent on governing and not feeding the press gallery tid bits of irrelevant snot.


----------



## Julia

Calliope said:


> +4.  And not only on politics.



Agree.  
Whiskers doesn't seem to have noticed that previously active posters have simply dropped out, in recognition of the futility of attempting any constructive discussion.

The penny might drop when Whiskers is left just talking to himself.


----------



## Macquack

Julia said:


> Agree.
> Whiskers doesn't seem to have noticed that previously active posters have simply dropped out, in recognition of the futility of attempting any constructive discussion.
> 
> The penny might drop when Whiskers is left just talking to himself.




In defence of Whiskers, this forum is not the exclusive domain of those that only kiss Tony Abbott's a*se*.


----------



## Whiskers

trainspotter said:


> The syndrome "God Complex" springs to mind = Rudd and Whiskers  also the word narcissism is in the mix.




Nah, none of that TS... just doing better research than some who are still blind sighted by the election win with their eyes stuck in the rear vision mirror when it comes to the changing dynamics of the electorate landscape. I give myself a muted pat on the back occasionally just to remind people that I do have the courage to stand behind my predictions and not just barack from the sideline for their favourite team.  



> Finally we have a government hell bent on governing and not feeding the press gallery tid bits of irrelevant snot.




But that's all they are giving out, tid bits! 

Labor regularly served up the whole damn smorgasbord. 

Unfortunately though, some of the bits that are leaking from behind closed doors worryingly suggests there is a fair bit of 'snot', as in undesirable festering infectious waste, building up back there.

There is the still unclear Indonesian spying scandal with whatever ramifications of that and the Nats along with some of their own ranks speaking out against foreign investment and takeover issues... just to remind those who are still wearing their rose coloured glasses it not all Hunky-dory back there.



Julia said:


> Agree.
> Whiskers doesn't seem to have noticed that previously active posters have simply dropped out, in recognition of the futility of attempting any constructive discussion.




I'm providing plenty of material for discussion... as distinct from plain derogatory comments and abuse for having a different opinion. 



> The penny might drop when Whiskers is left just talking to himself.




But I'm not alone... you continue to confirm I'm not alone... and keep reading.

So why don't you counter with better research, data or rationale if my point or questions are so wrong? 

One's own opinion is fine, but the collective opinion of the electorate is what really matters.


----------



## trainspotter

Macquack said:


> In defence of Whiskers, this forum is not the exclusive domain of those that only kiss Tony Abbott's a*se*.




In defense of the indefensible again I see Macquack. Government is doing well at keeping the press locked out of running the country by NOT turning it into a popularity contest. Bravo to the blue tie brigade I say as they have this great countrys future at heart and NOT to see themselves on the front page of every tabloid and 6 o'clock news program.


----------



## trainspotter

Whiskers said:


> Nah, none of that TS... just doing better research than some who are still blind sighted by the election win with their eyes stuck in the rear vision mirror when it comes to the changing dynamics of the electorate landscape. I give myself a muted pat on the back occasionally just to remind people that I do have the courage to stand behind my predictions and not just barack from the sideline for their favourite team.




Mebbe you should read some of the palaver you are writing? You were awake at the steering wheel when Rudd/Gillard/Rudd was in FULL swing right?



> [But that's all they are giving out, tid bits!
> 
> Labor regularly served up the whole damn smorgasbord.
> 
> Unfortunately though, some of the bits that are leaking from behind closed doors worryingly suggests there is a fair bit of 'snot', as in undesirable festering infectious waste, building up back there.
> 
> There is the still unclear Indonesian spying scandal with whatever ramifications of that and the Nats along with some of their own ranks speaking out against foreign investment and takeover issues... just to remind those who are still wearing their rose coloured glasses it not all Hunky-dory back there.




Leaking ??? Are you for real ?? What happened to the Labor Party and its leaks ?? There was more water in the boat than underneath it mate !! Negative buoyancy was the culprit.



> I'm providing plenty of material for discussion... as distinct from plain derogatory comments and abuse for having a different opinion.
> 
> But I'm not alone... you continue to confirm I'm not alone... and keep reading.
> 
> So why don't you counter with better research, data or rationale if my point or questions are so wrong?
> 
> One's own opinion is fine, but the collective opinion of the electorate is what really matters.




    Liberal Government was formed by the collective opinion of the voting people of Australia. And that is what really matters.


----------



## Whiskers

trainspotter said:


> In defense of the indefensible again I see Macquack. Government is doing well at keeping the press locked out of running the country by NOT turning it into *a popularity contest*. Bravo to the blue tie brigade I say as they have this great countrys future at heart and NOT to see themselves on the front page of every tabloid and 6 o'clock news program.




Sorry for butting in here Macquack... but I'm learning all the time why some people are a bit bad attituded (if that's a word)... they seem to miss key points like... *government is ALWAYS a popularity contest*. 

Just ask Howard, Rudd and Gillard. I want this gov to succeed in a few things especially removing the Carbon Tax, but if they loose popular support they won't be as effective in swaying others to support them in the senate and run the risk of loosing a double dissolution and changing nothing.


----------



## trainspotter

So policy has nothing to do with it and we are voting on a beauty pageant? There you go again Whiskers with your argumentum ad hominems. Do try and aim for the ball and not the player in future. Crack on then shall we?

P.S. Look up the dictionary about the "loose" and "lose" meanings for me will ya ... a small thing but it will improve your quality of discourse when it comes to such matters.


----------



## Macquack

trainspotter said:


> P.S. Look up the dictionary about the "loose" and "lose" meanings for me will ya ... a small thing but it will improve your quality of discourse when it comes to such matters.




Enough with the spelling lessons, unless you are perfect yourself.

Going back three posts, "countrys" seems to be missing something?


----------



## trainspotter

Macquack said:


> Enough with the spelling lessons, unless you are perfect yourself.
> 
> Going back three posts, "countrys" seems to be missing something?




Nope ... not a plural. Do your homework.  No apostrophe required or "ies" needed. But I could be wrong


----------



## Whiskers

Ok... I'll play along with the 'blue tie brigade'... the rose coloured glasses blue tie brigade that is, for a moment, some of whom must be in contact with party officials.

So it seems the notion of a Labor comeback or a Rudd comeback, is what really irritates you... or is it that Abbott can do no wrong (in your eyes)?

Is it worse to find the thought irritating or worst to actually be the victim of a said comeback because you refused to consider the possibility?

Ok, then what's the best way to see that doesn't happen? A: For Abbott to not take the public popularity for granted or give them reason to withdraw their support... it only needs to be about 2% and he's in big trouble.

So if you are really desirous of more stable government, the first thing Abbott HAS TO DO is win greater public support in the senate... the house of review... the house where the public was not so generous last time. 

What I can guarantee is that no matter how much spin you put on a sales pitch... the customer or voter will remember a broken promise or a lie with vengeance. 

That's why Howard got wiped out of politics in the flash of an eye, how Gillard was forced to leave the political scene... but ironically why Rudd still maintains some degree of integrity with a substantial part of the electorate. He (rightly or wrongly, doesn't matter) was and likely will further deflect a lot of the blame he wore as a result of the leadership disputes and fight with Shortens right faction via Bruce Hawkers book release next month.

TS: I think it needs an apostrophe. I think that's what they call a lame duck defensive argument! 

But I know what you mean and look forward to more discussion to explore your soul. 

So what message do you have to take back to party headquarters to ensure Tony is around for long enough to at least rid us the carbon tax? :


----------



## Ves

trainspotter said:


> Nope ... not a plural. Do your homework.  No apostrophe required or "ies" needed. But I could be wrong



I am fairly sure that you need an apostrophe if you are using a noun (ie. country) in it's possessive form.

Alternatively you could have said "...they have the future of this great country at heart..." instead.


----------



## trainspotter

Ves said:


> I am fairly sure that you need an apostrophe if you are using a noun (ie. country) in it's possessive form.
> 
> Alternatively you could have said "...they have the future of this great country at heart..." instead.




Thanks Ves, you are absolutely correct. I will have myself taken outside and given a right royal rogering. :


----------



## bunyip

Whiskers said:


> Like him or loathe him, Rudd has been one of the most popular politicians for a long time.
> [/INDENT]



And also one of the most unpopular. Detested by most of his own party, so despised by Australian voters that three years ago he would have lost the election in one of the biggest landslides of all time if his own mob hadn’t booted him out and replaced him with Gillard.
And got soundly defeated in the September election despite getting a fairly substantial sympathy vote from the mugs who decided to give the mongrel another go because they felt sorry for him after his knifing by Gillard three years previously.


----------



## IFocus

Lay off the personal attacks everyone is welcome for their opinion Whiskers included. 

These threads are becoming more like a school yard, you are all adults, for gods sake act like it.


----------



## IFocus

Class war at its best


The end of entitlements doesn't apply to the rich



> Treasurer Joe Hockey wants to cut tax concessions for 3.6 million workers on lower incomes, but not those for around 16,000 of Australia's highest earners, writes Leith van Onselen.
> 
> If anyone wants an example of why politics is mostly form over substance, look no further than Joe Hockey's actions on entitlement spending.





http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-06/llewellyn-smith-entitlement-spending/5073642


----------



## trainspotter

IFocus said:


> Lay off the personal attacks everyone is welcome for their opinion Whiskers included.
> 
> These threads are becoming more like a school yard, you are all adults, for gods sake act like it.




"You are arguing with a galah" ... says it all for me. Opined or not the Labor stench will permeate the voting public psyche for few more elections to come. 

How Taxes Work . . . 

This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on ”” it does make you think!! 

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: 

The first four men ”” the poorest ”” would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man ”” the richest ”” would pay $59. 

That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement ”” until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut). 

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00. 

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six ”” the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?" 

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. 

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. 

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man who pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!" 

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too . . . It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!". 

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man, "why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" 

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" 

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that! 

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. 

Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic! 

T. Davies 
Professor of Accounting & Chair, 
Division of Accounting and Business Law 
The University of South Dakota 
School of Business 
414 E. Clark Street 
Vermillion, SD 57069 
Phone: 605-677-5230 
Fax: 605-677-5427


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> Lay off the personal attacks everyone is welcome for their opinion Whiskers included.
> 
> These threads are becoming more like a school yard, you are all adults, for gods sake act like it.



You've found the high perch but the sound is much the same.


----------



## Whiskers

bunyip said:


> And also one of the most unpopular. Detested by most of his own party, so despised by Australian voters that three years ago he would have lost the election in one of the biggest landslides of all time if his own mob hadn’t booted him out and replaced him with Gillard.
> And got soundly defeated in the September election despite getting a fairly substantial sympathy vote from the mugs who decided to give the mongrel another go because they felt sorry for him after his knifing by Gillard three years previously.




I pretty much agree with you there bunyip... but the question is, is he capable of another comeback and is he in fact working on a comeback strategy? Is it wise to ignore him, until it's maybe too late? That's what I fear from the complacency of some.

Looking forward, what if he garners more support, even more sympathy vote, if Hawkers (Rudds personal strategist) book throws some new light on the inner workings of the Labor party to discredit some of his worst critics in Shortens right wing and disgruntled Gillard supporters... as I expect is the whole purpose of him releasing the book. 

It does seem to me that his strongest critics were Gillard supporters and or Shortens right wing. It could be that the last of them might be shamed into quitting as more is revealed, allowing for more fresh blood to enhance voter appeal for Labor. Since it seems Hawker was behind the leadership poll, it stands to reason he has some ideas to clean out faction branch and candidate stacking. That would give Labor deserters from last election a lift and cause to consider voting for them again.

It struck me as significant that Hawker is claiming credit (as I understand from the press report I saw) for putting Rudd up to making the Labor leadership changes. Another snipet indicated the central party strategy committee was aware of policies that Rudd broadcast, despite what some said they knew nothing about. That would be a bit of bad egg wiped off Rudds public perception to soothe a bit more sympathy support.

The only reason I pop up Rudds name occasionally is because he didn't fall on his sword as badly as Howard or Gillard and seems to have endless tenacity to want to come back. Similarly with Palmer. He was barely on my radar until after the election. He's nothing if not tenacious also. 

Palmer and Rudd have tenacity to burn and both want Abbotts job. They may not succeed in getting the top job, but they have the tenacity to cause Abbott some serious damage trying... and leave us burdened with the carbon tax.

I'll elaborate more later, but with the unemployment rate numbers out today up again, on a rising trend and the full time employed falling to lower levels, it's looking a bit dicey for good retail sales over the main season and also for the sustainability of recent modest gains in some realestate. 

The carbon tax will be a drag on the economy until it's removed. Abbott needs to come up with something to offset that in the short term or lean on his Big L Liberal mates in the RBA to cut rates further. They are procrastinating for too long in the guise that the US FED will taper QE to save them cutting again. Employment and Interest rate chart on the XAO Banter thread.


IFocus "The end of entitlements doesn't apply to the rich" is something we need to watch in the context of their whole end product of tax changes, but the appearance of pandering to the top end of town certainly causes concern.

btw, it's pleasing that the one liner critics acknowledge they are on a lower 'perch'. 

TS... if you expect the average Joe Blow, not 'that' Joe Blow... well maybe him too... to understand the philosophy of taxes, you probably just confused them more! :


----------



## drsmith

Existing thread options for Kevin Rudd,

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/search.php?searchid=1200213

I'd start a new one but I don't think the mods would approve.


----------



## bunyip

IFocus said:


> Lay off the personal attacks everyone is welcome for their opinion Whiskers included.
> 
> These threads are becoming more like a school yard, you are all adults, for gods sake act like it.





LOL....Are you referring to me, and if so, what personal attacks would they be, and against whom?

And yes, Whiskers is entitled to his opinion – I’ve never suggested otherwise – just as I’m entitled to add my opinion to his. 
If you don’t like people expressing opinions that disagree with your own,  then push off and find yourself a forum where everyone agrees with you.


----------



## Logique

The CSIRO were doing a strong line on politics.

Now the PM has insisted they go back to doing science, and it's about time.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...zor-taken-to-csiro-20131107-2x4fu.html?skin=m


----------



## noco

trainspotter said:


> "You are arguing with a galah" ... says it all for me. Opined or not the Labor stench will permeate the voting public psyche for few more elections to come.
> 
> How Taxes Work . . .
> 
> This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on ”” it does make you think!!
> 
> Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
> 
> The first four men ”” the poorest ”” would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man ”” the richest ”” would pay $59.
> 
> That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement ”” until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).
> 
> "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.
> 
> The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six ”” the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
> 
> The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
> 
> And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.
> 
> But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man who pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!"
> 
> "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too . . . It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!".
> 
> "That's true!" shouted the seventh man, "why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
> 
> "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
> 
> The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!
> 
> And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.
> 
> Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!
> 
> T. Davies
> Professor of Accounting & Chair,
> Division of Accounting and Business Law
> The University of South Dakota
> School of Business
> 414 E. Clark Street
> Vermillion, SD 57069
> Phone: 605-677-5230
> Fax: 605-677-5427




Thanks TS. That is a good one ......it has been around for quite awhile......But nevertheless ....so good to read it again.


----------



## trainspotter

noco said:


> Thanks TS. That is a good one ......it has been around for quite awhile......But nevertheless ....so good to read it again.




I don't wanna be the one getting beat up cause I pay my taxes !


----------



## McLovin

Such a shame to see the new government continuing with the trend of ripping the guts out of science. If only the muppets in Canberra could see beyond their nose.

The debate about the future, as I've said before, focuses too much on how the revenue pie will be split instead of how to bake a bigger pie. We really risk outsourcing our economic growth to an authoritarian dictatorship, which will soon be so big that we will be like a fly on an elephant's behind. This is a worrying chart, and we should be doing something now to diversify our export base. The idea that we can't manufacture anything in Australia is BS. They still manufacture Faber-Castell pencils, yes PENCILS, in Germany. Personally, I think we are a small enough country, with a name for safety and quality in Asia that we can devote ourselves to developing higher quality manufactured goods and food. A mate of mine has recently started selling Australian beef in Asia, it's all slaughtered and pre-packed in Australia and sold as a premium product. He has no trouble moving it.


----------



## basilio

Just cannot believe that the Abbott government is cutting the CSIRO budget by 25%.

Sheer social and economic madness. If we are going to go anywhere as a country it will be because we develop clever technology and processes. That will not be done by the private sector in any way. Just no money in it.

CSIRO on the other hand has the capacity to do the pure and applied research that then gets turned into innovative  technology by the private sector. 

I think it will/should be the business sector that stands up  for the scientific work of the CSIRO. - in their own interest.


----------



## trainspotter

Can't believe the previous Labor government did not fund the ACCC adequately !!

_Australia's competition watchdog is on track to run out of money within months and Treasurer Joe Hockey is pointing the blame at the previous Labor government.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is charged with regulating national consumer law and is funded by the federal government.

"I've not only been told that the ACCC has been running operational losses for the last four years, I've been advised that this financial year –* because the previous government didn't give it any money* – the ACCC will run out of money in April," Mr Hockey told ABC radio.

"In a meeting with the ACCC they tell me ... they are under-funded for the next four years by over $100 million."_

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/11/7/national-affairs/accc-run-out-money-april-hockey

Hey basilio ... got a link to support your claims?


----------



## Whiskers

McLovin said:


> Such a shame to see the new government continuing with the trend of ripping the guts out of science.




More than a shame... it's economic vandalism for the quiet achievers, the backbone of all the rural enterprises, a large part of the resource industry and even what's left of our manufacturing industry. 



> If only the muppets in Canberra could see beyond their nose.




I'm becoming more cynical of their intentions the more we learn, that I'm concerned they know exactly what they are doing. 



> The debate about the future, as I've said before, focuses too much on how the revenue pie will be split instead of how to bake a bigger pie. We really risk outsourcing our economic growth to an authoritarian dictatorship, which will soon be so big that we will be like a fly on an elephant's behind.




That's the insightful point that people need to get!

Big L Liberal philosophy would be ok with that, but the average Aussie would literally end up being as vulnerable as a marooned sailor on a desert island. 



Logique said:


> The CSIRO were doing a strong line on politics.
> 
> Now the PM has insisted they go back to doing science, and it's about time.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...zor-taken-to-csiro-20131107-2x4fu.html?skin=m




Actually, it is argued that politics from both sides has been doing a strong line on science for too long. The global warming issue really brought it to a head.

It appears Liberal MP Dr Dennis Jensen also has concerns with these cuts.  

The CSIRO has two main divisions, the government and a commercial services division.

The problems with the CSIRO began back in the 1980's with the McKinsey report which essentially restructured it to be driven from the top down rather than from the bottom up. Separate smaller divisions where the division head controlled and knew much about the research going on has morphed to more of what Abbott is doing now, amalgamating divisions controlling them with more corporate influence on the board and directions to seek more commercial funding, at least 30% to probably as much as they can get under these changes. 

The heads of the divisions are now and will increasingly be more about managing the half pregnant corporate identity than a scientific organisation. 

If the cuts were to the top end bureaucracy rather than the scientists, I would not have a problem. The problem with the half pregnant cooperate structure, ie the opening up of the CSIRO to too much commercial funding. A good report of the problems with the CSIRO by Garth Paltridge here: http://www.afr.com/p/lifestyle/review/has_the_csiro_lost_its_way_GQXJkn51cSmSovqKYdMAcI, an extract below.

_New management philosophies emerged. One of them was to form large and geographically dispersed divisions by combining smaller divisions of complementary interests. No doubt there were attractive arguments for this sort of thing, but the outcome was to remove any serious interaction on scientific matters between a division chief and individuals of his research staff. The chiefs became, or were appointed to be, managers rather than scientists. As a consequence they lost much of their power. They became cogs in a machine, with much less ability to influence the scientific direction of their divisions, and much less inclination to question the views expressed by the organisation as a whole.

...the CSIRO operates under a matrix management system that runs into problems even in the engineering world for which it was originally designed. It is more or less bound to maximise both the scale of the management process and the number of its management personnel. Its major characteristic is a diffusion of the lines of responsibility. It has multiple reporting avenues that vastly increase the time a scientist spends on bureaucracy rather than research.​_Garth Paltridge has good standing and credibility.   

In August 2009 he published a book on the global warming debate, The Climate Caper. Paltridge believes that anthropogenic global warming is real, but disagrees with mainstream scientific opinion in that he thinks that the warming will probably be too small to be a threat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garth_Paltridge

So, while I welcome some cuts to the federal bureaucracy, it is not in our long term best interests to extend the heavy commercialisation of the CSIRO and patronise the corporate influence at the top.  

The CSIRO was and still is capable of being the tool to make our country smarter in the agricultural and resources areas in particular to get more value per unit of production. I've mentioned before (and McLovin above) how countries like Germany, which has a large scientific research organisation like us, uses it to much better effect than we are to generate innovative value adding for their industry. It's nothing to do with the size of the population, but the size of the fight and determination in the population. That is the main reason why countries like Germany, even the US and Britain in their day, become economic power houses. 

The capitalists imply we are not smart enough or wealthy enough to better exploit our agricultural and resource industries. Their political tentacles are just tending to become too subservient to the US.

The bottom line; stop the Big L Liberalism stacking the boards of our companies and quango's dumbing them down and trying to steer them away from our sovereign benefit and into multinational control.


----------



## Whiskers

I hate to admit it, but as I have been raising concerns about the psychology of the behaviour of Abbott's Libs since the election I fear many Aussies may come to believe they endorsed a 'lemon' with Abbott.  

More evidence of them talking the talk, but not able to walk the walk. 

_A number of boatloads of asylum seekers have been returned to Indonesia by Aus patrol/war ships...but late on Thursday night a spokesman for Djoko Suyanto, the Indonesian co-ordinating minister for Legal, Political and Security Affairs, told Fairfax Media: “At least for the time being we will not accept them, since we consider them to be asylum seekers”.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...o-indonesia-20131107-2x4qs.html#ixzz2k27jFSrH​_
Heavy handed thuggery and spying are just not in the recipe for good Indonesian relations to stop the people smugglers or improve trade relations.

This is not going to end well for the Libs. I just hope the Nationals and the more moderate Libs get behind the public concern and start throwing plenty of weight up against Abbot, Hockey, Morrison, MacFarlane and the likes to bring them back into line.


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> You've found the high perch but the sound is much the same.





Personalisation of attacks on others comment is always disgusting, I am no virgin either but it needs toning down.


----------



## IFocus

No one has commented on the extra $3 bil plus to the deficit thanks to paying the wealthy more super etc.


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> No one has commented on the extra $3 bil plus to the deficit thanks to paying the wealthy more super etc.




No, not even the SMH.
Or the unions.


----------



## Whiskers

McLovin said:


> ...*The idea that we can't manufacture anything in Australia is BS.* They still manufacture Faber-Castell pencils, yes PENCILS, in Germany. Personally, I think we are a small enough country, *with a name for safety and quality in Asia that we can devote ourselves to developing higher quality manufactured goods and food*. A mate of mine has recently started selling Australian beef in Asia, it's all slaughtered and pre-packed in Australia and sold as a premium product. He has no trouble moving it.




I would also endorse that with a passion.

Aus Agricultural products have a reputation for having much less infectious disease, contamination from impurities, industrial chemicals, hormones, antibiotics etc. That is all put at risk as I've mentioned before, such as with the Citrus Canker disease that wiped out a significant industry at Emerald a few years ago. The orchard where the outbreak started was foreign owned and they secretly imported the infected seedlings around quarantine to save costs. The whole Aus industry paid a heavy price for one dishonest foreign owned farm.

I could also point to many local agricultural properties, including fruit and veg, who with a bit of help from local research, value add things like chile and avacodo paste, some to special requirements for export to places like the middle east. 

A classic example of foreign investment takeovers: Golden Circle was a proud Australian company. It was allowed to be taken over by US Heinz on the premise that it could not compete with imports. Heinz utilises the Aus brand for marketing but... yes, it now imports product to sell under our brand name and leeches the profits back to the US multinational home base. 

We do the hard work to develop the brand and infrastructure, but we allow multinational cooperation's, typically US based to buy the company, use it as a vehicle to import cheap product pushing local producers out of the industry and exploit our brand name to market it to our consumers in the guise of being an 'Australian' product. 

You could well ask why didn't the Aus owners of Golden Circle import product. In this case it started out as a local grower owned cooperative in the 1940's... but as delusion of free trade grew it got ignored in terms of the illusionary 'level playing field' or 'free trade' by government, until certain interests got control and sold their soul for a quick buck.  

This is the sort of work the CSIRO has done over the years to develop and grow our industries, just to have it all exploited by under regulated foreign investment and the financial benefits go overseas.

We really have to get over this inferiority complex that we can't create and run competitive agricultural, mining or manufacturing businesses in Aus. Of course we can. The problem is the short-sightedness of our lazy politicians and unwillingness to protect our small businesses (until they become big enough for economies of size) with subsidies and tax breaks like the countries that we do so called free trade with do, or at least tougher foreign investment laws.


----------



## IFocus

McLovin said:


> A mate of mine has recently started selling Australian beef in Asia, it's all slaughtered and pre-packed in Australia and sold as a premium product. He has no trouble moving it.
> 
> View attachment 55174




My wife and I were eating in a 4 star resort in Bali recently......we were the only whites rest were Balinese or Indos.

Stop over in Jakarta, hotel full of wealthy Indos with money to burn. 

What made us smile is we were eating Asian food and they were all eating steak or western food.


----------



## sptrawler

Whiskers said:


> I would also endorse that with a passion.
> 
> Aus Agricultural products have a reputation for having much less infectious disease, contamination from impurities, industrial chemicals, hormones, antibiotics etc. That is all put at risk as I've mentioned before, such as with the Citrus Canker disease that wiped out a significant industry at Emerald a few years ago. The orchard where the outbreak started was foreign owned and they secretly imported the infected seedlings around quarantine to save costs. The whole Aus industry paid a heavy price for one dishonest foreign owned farm.
> 
> I could also point to many local agricultural properties, including fruit and veg, who with a bit of help from local research, value add things like chile and avacodo paste, some to special requirements for export to places like the middle east.
> 
> A classic example of foreign investment takeovers: Golden Circle was a proud Australian company. It was allowed to be taken over by US Heinz on the premise that it could not compete with imports. Heinz utilises the Aus brand for marketing but... yes, it now imports product to sell under our brand name and leeches the profits back to the US multinational home base.
> 
> We do the hard work to develop the brand and infrastructure, but we allow multinational cooperation's, typically US based to buy the company, use it as a vehicle to import cheap product pushing local producers out of the industry and exploit our brand name to market it to our consumers in the guise of being an 'Australian' product.
> 
> You could well ask why didn't the Aus owners of Golden Circle import product. In this case it started out as a local grower owned cooperative in the 1940's... but as delusion of free trade grew it got ignored in terms of the illusionary 'level playing field' or 'free trade' by government, until certain interests got control and sold their soul for a quick buck.
> 
> This is the sort of work the CSIRO has done over the years to develop and grow our industries, just to have it all exploited by under regulated foreign investment and the financial benefits go overseas.
> 
> We really have to get over this inferiority complex that we can't create and run competitive agricultural, mining or manufacturing businesses in Aus. Of course we can. The problem is the short-sightedness of our lazy politicians and unwillingness to protect our small businesses (until they become big enough for economies of size) with subsidies and tax breaks like the countries that we do so called free trade with do, or at least tougher foreign investment laws.




Agree 100%.


----------



## Caveman

trainspotter said:


> "You are arguing with a galah" ... says it all for me. Opined or not the Labor stench will permeate the voting public psyche for few more elections to come.
> 
> How Taxes Work . . .
> 
> This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on ”” it does make you think!!
> 
> Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
> 
> The first four men ”” the poorest ”” would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man ”” the richest ”” would pay $59.
> 
> That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement ”” until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).
> 
> "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.
> 
> The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six ”” the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
> 
> The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
> 
> And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.
> 
> But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man who pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!"
> 
> "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too . . . It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!".
> 
> "That's true!" shouted the seventh man, "why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
> 
> "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
> 
> The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!
> 
> And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.
> 
> Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!
> 
> T. Davies
> Professor of Accounting & Chair,
> Division of Accounting and Business Law
> The University of South Dakota
> School of Business
> 414 E. Clark Street
> Vermillion, SD 57069
> Phone: 605-677-5230
> Fax: 605-677-5427



Who`s the Galah Mate?
It sounds to me you are comparing income Tax to a GST, consumtion or sales tax etc,its not how tax`s work at all,I mean its just plain silly.


----------



## sails

Whiskers said:


> I hate to admit it, but as I have been raising concerns about the psychology of the behaviour of Abbott's Libs since the election I fear many Aussies may come to believe they endorsed a 'lemon' with Abbott.




Haha... In your dreams...lol. Don't forget the majority voted Abbitt in to fix the mess labor left behind and he's getting on with the job. I think he's doing pretty well so far given the horrific mess they inherited. 



> Heavy handed thuggery and spying are just not in the recipe for good Indonesian relations to stop the people smugglers or improve trade relations.




I understand the spying problem is something that was going on under labor and was not something the libs started.  Why not try to get your facts straight? Or doesnt that suit your propaganda?


----------



## Whiskers

sails said:


> Haha... In your dreams...lol. Don't forget the majority voted Abbitt in to fix the mess labor left behind and he's getting on with the job. I think he's doing pretty well so far given the horrific mess they inherited.




The first point that I've made a number of times is that Abbott did not win a majority, least of all of first preference votes. Labor got more first preference votes, 33.36% to 32%. The coalition didn't even win a majority, about 45%.

The second, they only had a swing to them of abt 2.5% ( abt half that as I recall after preferences) of the 4.5ish that deserted Labor.

Thirdly, do the maths... many of those seat gains are very marginal and it won't take very many voters to change their mind and Abbott is gone. 



> I understand the spying problem is something that was going on under labor and was not something the libs started.  Why not try to get your facts straight? Or doesnt that suit your propaganda?




Yes, spying has always been going on...but without Abbott denying or explaining the allegations made by Indonesia, it seems what they have really taken offence to is some stepping up of operations to secretly find people smugglers and try to seek out boats to buy without Indonesian involvement plus closer collaboration with US intelligence needs  recently. Whether or not it's true, the fact that the Indonesians raise the stakes with such a complaint is proof enough that they are pretty p!ssed off over something and that Abbott is NOT charming them over with 'diplomacy'.

Regardless, Abbott clearly hasn't won the support and cooperation of the Indonesians as he pretends.  

Further, how do you reasonably expect to improve our trade relations such as reinstate live cattle exports for starters, while he's aggravating Indonesia, or don't you think our exports are important?

Is throwing away intelligence cooperation with Indonesia on people smuggling and terrorism a worthwhile trade off as well?


----------



## sails

No point having a discussion with someone who clearly cherry picks data to suit their propaganda.  Over and out...


----------



## IFocus

Budget emergency....sure is one coming with these dimwits seems Hockeys magic calculator wont work in real life.


Extra $300 mil a year in interest payments for a political stunt the arrogance is just stunning.

Federal budget: New report predicts $10 billion deficit blowout



> The PEFO estimated a deficit of $30 billion, but since then the new Coalition Government has scrapped some tax windfalls and handed $9 billion to the Reserve Bank.
> 
> Deloitte's Chris Richardson says those decisions have significantly contributed to the size of the deficit.
> 
> "That is a cost to the budget, it's all fallen this year. It's a lot of dollars," he said.





There will be a surplus every year under a Coalition government..........what a joke, still we can slash the CSIRO funding that will work get rid of some of those lazy public servants. 

We don't need a Science Minister or a future what we need is more creationist belief. 

That will allow us to give money to the rich Coalition superannuates helped by stripping money off the very bottom wage earners sheer brilliance by the time they retire it will cost x 4 these guys are geniuses.  

Hockeys magic calculator still comes up $3 bil short.



> "Unless you see difficult decisions taken in Canberra and announced relatively soon you actually won't see a surplus in the foreseeable future," he said.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-09/new-report-predicts-2410-billion-deficit-blowout/5080820


----------



## IFocus

This will be interesting to see how the front bench go


There's nowhere to hide in Question Time




> Of principal interest will be how the Coalition adapts its low/no information approach to the demands of parliamentary scrutiny. *It's no revelation that very few of the new ministers are strong parliamentary performers. *While it's one thing for the Prime Minister to keep newbie ministers away from the risks of media events and other public appearances, it's more difficult to protect them from a brace of ex-ministers on the opposition benches bristling with knowledgeable questions.





Mean while Kelly O'Dwyer sits on the back bench............faceless men anyone?


----------



## sails

IFocus said:


> Budget emergency....sure is one coming with these dimwits seems Hockeys magic calculator wont work in real life.
> 
> 
> Extra $300 mil a year in interest payments for a political stunt the arrogance is just stunning.
> 
> Federal budget: New report predicts $10 billion deficit blowout
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be a surplus every year under a Coalition government..........what a joke, still we can slash the CSIRO funding that will work get rid of some of those lazy public servants.
> 
> We don't need a Science Minister or a future what we need is more creationist belief.
> 
> That will allow us to give money to the rich Coalition superannuates helped by stripping money off the very bottom wage earners sheer brilliance by the time they retire it will cost x 4 these guys are geniuses.
> 
> Hockeys magic calculator still comes up $3 bil short.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-09/new-report-predicts-2410-billion-deficit-blowout/5080820




Don't forget labor has left a massive financial mess which they created over six and won't be fixed in a few weeks. They have left something like a $12 billion interest bill on their own massive borrowing plus they have left a costly border security problem.  All your galah screeches and name calling will never distract from the huge  fiscal damage inflicted by labor on this country. 

Let's see how the coalition go over this next term as they gradually untangle the mess.  It's way too early yet...


----------



## sails

IFocus said:


> This will be interesting to see how the front bench go
> 
> 
> There's nowhere to hide in Question Time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of principal interest will be how the Coalition adapts its low/no information approach to the demands of parliamentary scrutiny. It's no revelation that very few of the new ministers are strong parliamentary performers. While it's one thing for the Prime Minister to keep newbie ministers away from the risks of media events and other public appearances, it's more difficult to protect them from a brace of ex-ministers on the opposition benches bristling with knowledgeable questions
Click to expand...



Lol - when did labor ever bristle with knowledgeable questions...


----------



## IFocus

See Abbott to busy attending party functions and having photo opportunities (running the country) to face questions from anyone never mind a hard interview.


----------



## trainspotter

Caveman said:


> Who`s the Galah Mate?
> It sounds to me you are comparing income Tax to a GST, consumtion or sales tax etc,its not how tax`s work at all,I mean its just plain silly.




Have a look at IFocus handle for crystallisation on the Galah thingy ! Care to elucidate on your missive Caveman?


----------



## trainspotter

Whiskers said:


> The first point that I've made a number of times is that Abbott did not win a majority, least of all of first preference votes. Labor got more first preference votes, 33.36% to 32%. The coalition didn't even win a majority, about 45%.
> 
> The second, they only had a swing to them of abt 2.5% ( abt half that as I recall after preferences) of the 4.5ish that deserted Labor.
> 
> Thirdly, do the maths... many of those seat gains are very marginal and it won't take very many voters to change their mind and Abbott is gone.
> 
> Yes, spying has always been going on...but without Abbott denying or explaining the allegations made by Indonesia, it seems what they have really taken offence to is some stepping up of operations to secretly find people smugglers and try to seek out boats to buy without Indonesian involvement plus closer collaboration with US intelligence needs  recently. Whether or not it's true, the fact that the Indonesians raise the stakes with such a complaint is proof enough that they are pretty p!ssed off over something and that Abbott is NOT charming them over with 'diplomacy'.
> 
> Regardless, Abbott clearly hasn't won the support and cooperation of the Indonesians as he pretends.
> 
> Further, how do you reasonably expect to improve our trade relations such as reinstate live cattle exports for starters, while he's aggravating Indonesia, or don't you think our exports are important?
> 
> Is throwing away intelligence cooperation with Indonesia on people smuggling and terrorism a worthwhile trade off as well?




Well DERRRRRRRRRR ! That's what preferences are for! By the way ... what happened in the previous election? Hmmmmmm ??? Care to go and get some FACTS about that? Who won the primary vote but some dodgy deals with 4 independents gave the balance of power to whom again?

Before you start cherry picking first of all you must have a cherry to pick.


----------



## trainspotter

IFocus said:


> Budget emergency....sure is one coming with these dimwits seems Hockeys magic calculator wont work in real life.
> 
> Extra $300 mil a year in interest payments for a political stunt the arrogance is just stunning.
> 
> Federal budget: New report predicts $10 billion deficit blowout
> 
> There will be a surplus every year under a Coalition government..........what a joke, still we can slash the CSIRO funding that will work get rid of some of those lazy public servants.
> 
> We don't need a Science Minister or a future what we need is more creationist belief.
> 
> That will allow us to give money to the rich Coalition superannuates helped by stripping money off the very bottom wage earners sheer brilliance by the time they retire it will cost x 4 these guys are geniuses.
> 
> Hockeys magic calculator still comes up $3 bil short.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-09/new-report-predicts-2410-billion-deficit-blowout/5080820




I do not know what you are putting in your bird seed but I would be laying off the hard liquor if I were you !

You do realise that LABOR created this mess and it is the LIBERAL governments job to restock the shelves?

6 years of LABOR raiding the corporate credit card and you expect Hockey to fix this in 6 weeks. Get a grip of ya perch ya silly duffer.


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> Personalisation of attacks on others comment is always disgusting, I am no virgin either but it needs toning down.



Is that the high perch cracking under the weight of self assessed hypocrisy ?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On matters of government,

As the $8.8bn cash injection into the RBA has been raised in this thread again, I refer to the following article which offers some background,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-23/government-gives-rba-one-off-grant/5039848

And today, a policy announcement from the government on entitlement claims,



> Parliamentarians will be forced to pay a loading of 25 per cent on any expenses they incorrectly claim, and face more stringent guidelines under new parliamentary expenses rules announced today.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-...rnment-prepares-to-announce-new-rules/5080914


----------



## IFocus

More Coalition members getting in on the act

WA politicians on the gravy plane



> Taxpayers will be stung with a hefty bill to fly WA-based ministers and Liberal MPs, spouses and children to Canberra on a luxury RAAF jet for next week's opening of Parliament.
> 
> The Weekend West can reveal one of the Government's 737 Boeing business jets has been booked to fly three Abbott Government ministers, six Liberal MPs and seven of their family members to the nation's capital.




http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/19748655/wa-politicians-on-the-gravy-plane/


----------



## Whiskers

trainspotter said:


> Well DERRRRRRRRRR ! That's what preferences are for!




BUT, my point is Abbott doesn't have the luxury of a majority of first preference as some seem to think, in either the reps or senate to get rid of the damn carbon tax. He needs the support of PUP and others to achieve that.

In that respect he's in the same position as the previous government, hogtied in the senate.

If he tends to lose 'popular' support for whatever reason, even a little bit, Palmer and the 'others' will feed off that to demand more for trade offs that they want before agreeing to pass anything. 

The risk that some 'blue bloods' seem to be badly underestimating is that if the Lib popularity falls, their first preference falls and second preferences are less relevant in the reps. They simply won't keep him in government with a small minority of the vote that the senate system throws up.

What was one of the surprises of the 2013 election? Was it not a substantial break from traditional preference flows, not so many going to Abbotts coalition? Why do you think that was so?



> By the way... what happened in the previous election? Hmmmmmm ??? Care to go and get some FACTS about that? Who won the primary vote but some dodgy deals with 4 independents gave the balance of power to whom again?




I'll forgive you for your ignorance, because you've been away and probably haven't researched my previous posts to see that I was a strong critic of those independents supporting Gillard... but as just said, Abbott is facing a similar problem, except that he still doesn't have a majority on first preference.  



> Before you start cherry picking first of all you must have a cherry to pick.




So, lets look at some significant 'cherry' FACTS.  

2010 election: Labor got 38% of first preference, Coalition 43%. Neither got a majority.

2013 election: Labor 33% of first preference, Lib 32% & Coalition 45%. No majority. Abbott got less than half of what left Labor.

So lets look at some sobering FACTS about how preferences can work against you, even when you appear to be far ahead of your competition on first preferences. Think about how Palmer won Fairfax for example.
Labor   : 18.24%
Palmer : 26.49%
LNP     : 41.32%​
So, what would be the lesson about preferences? 

You may have a significant core support, first preference... but if you are more widely disliked or not tolerated, that's about all you'll get.
If you are more widely liked/tolerated, and not on the top of many peoples hate list, you will win the majority on preferences.
The raw bottom line FACT is that Abbott has his minority hard core support, but is not appealing to the rest to get enough of the preferences to win a majority control of government.

To get the carbon tax, the main drag on our economy, gone they need to tred a bit more softly to win over more who supported Labor or others previously, because they obviously thought more of, or tolerated a more socialist approach (despite leadership problems) than Big L Liberalism. 

While the leadership was a significant drag on Labors vote, undoubtedly the Carbon Tax that Gillard introduced and the right faction of Labor ignoring the grass roots (as evidenced by the recent leadership poll) was what tipped most normally Labor voters off to 'others' more than the coalition.

My warning is Labor's more socialist policies are tolerated by more than Big L Liberilism. You are kidding yourself if you think economic rationalism will win them over longer term. What they don't tolerate is unstable leadership especially, corruption and right faction dominance.

I'd even venture to speculate that once the leadership stabilises more will tolerate Labor even with an ETS if they get rid of the carbon tax. That's why I say Abbott needs to tred a bit softly at least until the carbon tax is gone.


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> And today, a policy announcement from the government on entitlement claims,
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-...rnment-prepares-to-announce-new-rules/5080914





Nothing.............


Abbott's expenses crackdown: shades of grey to stay



> Special Minister of State Michael Ronaldson said it best when he was asked how politicians' dodgy travel claims would be investigated under the new, supposedly tough, rules.
> 
> The changes do little to shed light on the grey areas of expense claims.
> 
> "Nothing has changed in that regard," he said.





Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...rey-to-stay-20131109-2x8ec.html#ixzz2k8N1ON5R


----------



## IFocus

Torture

No comment: government silent over fate of asylum seekers



> Fairfax Media attended the weekly media briefing by Immigration Minister Scott Morrison on Friday - now the only opportunity to seek answers from the government on its asylum seeker policy, known as Operation Sovereign Borders. The following is an edited transcript of some of the questions put to Mr Morrison and Lieutenant-General Angus Campbell, the commander in charge of the operation:
> 
> Q: What’s become of that boat of asylum seekers?
> Campbell: "I will not comment further in relation to on-water matters. Thank you."
> Advertisement
> 
> Q: Are they on their way to Christmas island now?
> Morrison: "These matters continue to be dealt with in the practice we have been adopting for the last eight weeks under Operation Sovereign Borders and we'll continue to do it the way we have been doing it."
> 
> Q: Do you consider this to be matter of public importance?
> Morrison: "What is important is that the people who were the subject of our assistance are all accounted for and I'm sure all Australians will be pleased to know that is the case."
> 
> Q: But in terms of making a judgment, if those asylum seekers do come to Australia, doesn't that mean that your turn back the boats policy is…?
> Morrison: "You've made a whole bunch of presumptions there which I'm not about to speculate on."
> 
> Q: Was Australia the first to respond to the asylum seekers' distress call?
> Morrison: "What occurs in these situations is where we get a request for assistance and if we're in a position to do so, we do."




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/no-c...lum-seekers-20131109-2x8a1.html#ixzz2k8O3Xw00


----------



## MrBurns

Oh dear the lefties are in a tiz because Tony is doing such a great job 


1/ The fate of the asylum seekers is non of your business.

2/ Travel claims issue is now being addressed by Abbott, unfortunately he cant expedite justice being administered to the dodgy ex PM Gillard in relation to a number of matters nor recover the countless squillions blown by Rudd on his self promotion tours all over the globe.


----------



## sails

IFocus said:


> Torture
> 
> No comment: government silent over fate of asylum seekers
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/no-c...lum-seekers-20131109-2x8a1.html#ixzz2k8O3Xw00




IF - that was yesterday's press conference. Morrison has spoken again today...


----------



## sails

Whiskers,  Abbott leads a COALITION government and they went to the election as a coalition. You need to add the primary votes of both liberal and national.  Time to stop cherry picking data to suit your propaganda. 

And labor received the lowest primary vote in around 100 years AND the libs won many more seats.
No matter his you spin it, labor were licked at this election and the majority voted for border security to be fixed  and repeal of carbon tax among other things. 

And yet lefties both here and in the media are crowing that the government have had a setback with ONE boat.  What a slap in the face to democracy and the will of the majority.


----------



## drsmith

drsmith said:


> And today, a policy announcement from the government on entitlement claims,
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-...rnment-prepares-to-announce-new-rules/5080914



Labor seem happy,



> Senior Labor MP Richard Marles said the opposition welcomed the tightening of rules.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...new-travel-rules/story-fn59nqld-1226756329640


----------



## Whiskers

sails said:


> Whiskers,  Abbott leads a COALITION government and they went to the election as a coalition. You need to add the primary votes of both liberal and national.




*If you look closely at my post and checked it against the AEC... you would find I did! *

*Please correct me with your actual numbers to support your claim that I got them wrong.*

*If you would read a bit wider you might notice I support more Nationals type policies*... the coalition too. But that doesn't mean I'm going to throw myself under a train to save a leader when they loose the plot... and you might notice there are some pretty serious rifts appearing already between the Nationals, more moderate Libs and the Big L Liberal elements of the Lib party... not to mention the rift Abbott created in foreign relations with Indonesia and the trade, terrorism and regional security implications to follow from that.

Since you think anyone who disagrees with your (and Mr Burns et al) very poor mathematical and analytical skills are a 'lefty'... you must be a 'Rightie' one of those parasitic Big L Liberals who multi-nationalise the world to dictate by cooperation via deceptively infiltrating tentacles into what people thought were their elected representatives of government, to deceive the people and takeover the government. 

God help all us middle of the road Aussies not aligned to or blind sighted by any political party, if you, Mr Burns et al political comments are typical examples of the ability and morality of the Libs membership. You will p!ss off sooo many of those 2% that swung to the coalition with a lot of very marginal seats before your ego has a chance to pop, your arrogance will have us back at the election polls before you know it.


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> Nothing.............
> 
> 
> Abbott's expenses crackdown: shades of grey to stay
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...rey-to-stay-20131109-2x8ec.html#ixzz2k8N1ON5R




I know Dr.Smith has already posted this link but I thought I would just make it special for you in case you did not read it.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...new-travel-rules/story-fn59nqld-1226756329640


----------



## drsmith

noco said:


> I know Dr.Smith has already posted this link but I thought I would just make it special for you in case you did not read it.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...new-travel-rules/story-fn59nqld-1226756329640



One thing I like about it is that time has been taken for a considered response. This is in stark contrast to the instant knee jerk media grab kind of responses to issues we saw under Labor.


----------



## trainspotter

Whiskers said:


> I'll forgive you for your ignorance, because you've been away and probably haven't researched my previous posts to see that I was a strong critic of those independents supporting Gillard... but as just said, Abbott is facing a similar problem, except that he still doesn't have a majority on first preference.




 *white noise*  *monkey poo flinging*  more argumentum ad hominem is what I expected from you. COALITION - Go look it up in the dictionary.


----------



## sails

Whiskers said:


> ...I'll forgive you for your ignorance, because you've been away and probably haven't researched my previous posts to see that I was a strong critic of those independents supporting Gillard...




Good grief - who would actually wade through your extremely verbose posts full of your own bias unless they agreed with your bias?  Pretty rude to expect people to research what you post.  There is no obligation on anyone here to research what anyone posts.

Of course you can post your opinion here but that doesn't mean that others will bother to read such lengthy posts full of your own biases.  But interestingly, you then attack others with whom you do not agree for posting their opinion.

Crazy...


----------



## Whiskers

sails said:


> Good grief - who would actually wade through your extremely verbose posts full of your own bias unless they agreed with your bias?




Well you can't seem to resist!... as confirmed by your very descriptive 'bias'



> Pretty rude to expect people to research what you post.  There is no obligation on anyone here to research what anyone posts.




No, but there is an obligation on you to research your facts if you are going to paint me or others in a certain bias. 



> Of course you can post your opinion here but that doesn't mean that others will bother to read such lengthy posts full of your own biases.




Asked and answered!



> But interestingly, you then attack others with whom you do not agree for posting their opinion.
> 
> Crazy...




Well, talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

It's called communication, dialogue or even debate, if you disagree with me. 

All require a certain amount of communication skill and ability to research to be persuasive. Apparently you can't be bothered putting in the effort!

I'm happy to be corrected on any data if you can show me where I got it wrong.


----------



## sails

Whiskers said:


> .No, but there is an obligation on you to research your facts if you are going to paint me or others in a certain bias...




Wrong...


----------



## Whiskers

trainspotter said:


> *white noise*  *monkey poo flinging*  more argumentum ad hominem is what I expected from you. COALITION - Go look it up in the dictionary.




Well "argumentum" as you call it, but communication, dialogue or even debate is what makes the world go around, gives people depth of perspective and understanding of what makes the world go around.

But one needs to be willing to read to understand, TS. 

If you don't want or won't accept your opinion being critiqued, you have no right expressing one!

If you don't have the attention span, knowledge, skill and willingness to do the research... you have no right to denigrate those who do, without doing similar effort!

Just to paraphrase I detailed the effect of preferences with the "Coatition"... but if you don't get a substantial first preference for the House of Reps, you will have a lot of trouble winning government. What I said was:

*What was one of the surprises of the 2013 election? Was it not a substantial break from traditional preference flows, not so many going to Abbotts coalition? Why do you think that was so?*​
You will also note the coalition is an amalgam of Libs and Nationals in some states and LNP in others. The Coalition while holding atm, is not cast in stone. There has been serious splits in the past and there are certainly rifts in the current coalition not the least of which has caused quite a number of defections to independents taking the majority of the vote with them, and there have even been a couple of offshoots to new parties, such as PUP.

You might have noticed that for the most part these splits are because they disagree with the far right Big L Liberal influence in the LNP. You might also have noticed that they tend to be more middle of the road and willing to support more moderate Labor policies than extreme right Lib policies.

The trouble Abbott (and co) will have is his far right agenda could split off more individual MP's or even state branches back to the original Lib and Nationals base and stand candidates against each other again. That would make it nigh impossible for Abbot and the right wing Big L Libs to secure government.

What about "COALITION"... that's what about the coalition!

Think it can't happen... have a look at the history.  

Think it won't happen... it is happening, with Palmer and the defectors to independents... it's just that you don't see it happening and festering for further rifts in the coalition.


----------



## IFocus

IFocus said:


> More Coalition members getting in on the act
> 
> WA politicians on the gravy plane
> 
> 
> 
> http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/19748655/wa-politicians-on-the-gravy-plane/




Had to laugh at channel 7 trying to interview coalition members of the gravey plane


----------



## sails

IFocus said:


> Had to laugh at channel 7 trying to interview coalition members of the gravey plane




And what about when labor voted for their new leader and it cost around $200,000 to fly labor MPs to Canberra twice so they could vote.

Talk about a gravy plane.  That should have been alp expense.

Why so one sided on expenses, IF?

Taxpayers slugged $200,000 to fly MPs to Canberra for ALP leadership meetings


----------



## trainspotter

Whiskers said:


> Well "argumentum" as you call it, but communication, dialogue or even debate is what makes the world go around, gives people depth of perspective and understanding of what makes the world go around.
> 
> But one needs to be willing to read to understand, TS.
> 
> If you don't want or won't accept your opinion being critiqued, you have no right expressing one!
> 
> If you don't have the attention span, knowledge, skill and willingness to do the research... you have no right to denigrate those who do, without doing similar effort!
> 
> Just to paraphrase I detailed the effect of preferences with the "Coatition"... but if you don't get a substantial first preference for the House of Reps, you will have a lot of trouble winning government. What I said was:
> 
> *What was one of the surprises of the 2013 election? Was it not a substantial break from traditional preference flows, not so many going to Abbotts coalition? Why do you think that was so?*​
> You will also note the coalition is an amalgam of Libs and Nationals in some states and LNP in others. The Coalition while holding atm, is not cast in stone. There has been serious splits in the past and there are certainly rifts in the current coalition not the least of which has caused quite a number of defections to independents taking the majority of the vote with them, and there have even been a couple of offshoots to new parties, such as PUP.
> 
> You might have noticed that for the most part these splits are because they disagree with the far right Big L Liberal influence in the LNP. You might also have noticed that they tend to be more middle of the road and willing to support more moderate Labor policies than extreme right Lib policies.
> 
> The trouble Abbott (and co) will have is his far right agenda could split off more individual MP's or even state branches back to the original Lib and Nationals base and stand candidates against each other again. That would make it nigh impossible for Abbot and the right wing Big L Libs to secure government.
> 
> What about "COALITION"... that's what about the coalition!
> 
> Think it can't happen... have a look at the history.
> 
> Think it won't happen... it is happening, with Palmer and the defectors to independents... it's just that you don't see it happening and festering for further rifts in the coalition.




Like sails said ... Good grief man. You have lost the plot ! DON'T FEED THE TROLL !!!


----------



## IFocus

sails said:


> And what about when labor voted for their new leader and it cost around $200,000 to fly labor MPs to Canberra twice so they could vote.
> 
> Talk about a gravy plane.  That should have been alp expense.
> 
> Why so one sided on expenses, IF?
> 
> Taxpayers slugged $200,000 to fly MPs to Canberra for ALP leadership meetings




Yep and the Coalition can show us all how they are different...........like they said they would adults ..........not.

So still waiting for some one to find the budget emergency


----------



## sails

IFocus said:


> Yep and the Coalition can show us all how they are different...........like they said they would adults ..........not.
> 
> So still waiting for some one to find the budget emergency





Trying to change the subject now?

Don't like being reminded about labor's gravy planes?


----------



## Whiskers

trainspotter said:


> Like sails said ... Good grief man. You have lost the plot ! DON'T FEED THE TROLL !!!




Like sails...

*Well, talk about the pot calling the kettle black!*

It's called communication, dialogue or even debate, if you disagree with me. 

All require a certain amount of communication skill and ability to research to be persuasive. Apparently you can't be bothered putting in the effort!

I'm happy to be corrected on any data if you can show me where I got it wrong.​


sails said:


> Trying to change the subject now?
> 
> Don't like being reminded about labor's gravy planes?




Abbott has taken a step in the right direction with the Allowances issue, but get out of jail free if you repay it quickly after being sprung, before action is taken, or a 25% loading won't come anywhere near the much lauded 'good' everything of Abbott's one line slogans in the court of public appeal. 

He made a rod for his own back by tagging everything he promised with 'good' and 'better government'.

The test of whether it was all imagery; cunningly choosing words to paint a picture of 'good' in the voters mind... or worse still a deceptive symbol, that when the devil in the detail is revealed it was actually representing something else.

I was caught between whether he was actually much smarter than I gave him credit for or he was just playing with words... conning people (as too many politicians do). I'm realising he was not that smart..  got more cunning, but no smarter.

For example his literally 'turn the boats back' had a nice ring to it, BUT now it is revealed that he has nothing new but to keep trying to do what Howard, Gillard and Rudd knew wouldn't work, hence why Howard shifted focus to the pacific solution and Rudd's last minute plea to public support, the PNG solution. 

Similarly, with zero success with buying boats in Indonesia. It seems his old chief head kicker spots haven't disappeared, just faded with age and keeping more in the shadows, being a small target in opposition. Time for the rank and file, especially the more moderate Libs and Nationals to throw some more weight around in the party room and revert to a normal approach, nothing to hide government. 

Abbott drew some strength from Labor airing all their dirty linen in public, but shutting the door on the public and media and pretending he has no dirty linen or dissent and everything is working out fine is more foolhardy.



> Don't like being reminded about labor's gravy planes?




The point is Abbott is in the hot seat now. He can't sustain popularity, let alone support in government with blame for everything Labor did. He has to deliver, to be better than Labor. That's what voters and the media are interest in now... whether he is delivering what he said he would or whether it was all just imagery or deceptive symbolism.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Mr. Abbott thus far has done a very good job as PM.

Stopped the boats just about, giving the Indons a message loud and clear.

Rescued Holden jobs for the moment.

Abandoned all the sandalista Global Warming claptrap and removed us from the pithiness of the Carbon Handcuff.

Is positioning the economy for the leap forward this country needs.

Taken the initiative from the Guardian, Fairfax and the ABC on who runs this country, not they but the Australian people and voters.

I reckon he is a great PM.

gg


----------



## drsmith

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I reckon he is a great PM.


----------



## Whiskers

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Mr. Abbott thus far has done a very good job as PM.
> 
> Stopped the boats just about, giving the Indons a message loud and clear.
> 
> Rescued Holden jobs for the moment.
> 
> Abandoned all the sandalista Global Warming claptrap and removed us from the pithiness of the Carbon Handcuff.
> 
> Is positioning the economy for the leap forward this country needs.
> 
> Taken the initiative from the Guardian, Fairfax and the ABC on who runs this country, not they but the Australian people and voters.
> 
> I reckon he is a great PM.
> 
> gg






drsmith said:


>




No doubt about you two. If I had an army as devoted and loyal as you two, I could conquer the world ... actually a couple of gentlemen about the 1940's did... but they still didn't!

I think their problem had something to do with blind faith and ruthlessly controlling dissenting opinion within and the media without. :

The next week or so will provide valuable insight on how he is going. I've been tipping a fall off in popularity the more he persists with, and as some of his dumb and extreme right policies are exposed as such.

A major catastrophe is looming in rumoured threats of some or all Nationals quitting ministerial positions if the GrainCorp takeover by ADM is approved. This is going to be a bigger test for his 'approval rating' by his own coalition partners, let alone the public.


----------



## Whiskers

Just noticed latest News Poll. 

No surprise Abbotts dissatisfaction was a big mover.

Looking like a pretty short honeymoon for Tony as well!

TS and sails, note the first preference count we discussed. Another little blip of 2% and he's in trouble if a Double Dissolution is triggered. Lets hope he pulls his neck in and listens to his coalition colleagues more. I can't image Shorten winning enough support to win government unless Abbott doesn't learn soon, to change his dumb ways and gifts it to him.


Abbott's support slips: Newspoll

2 hours ago
Politics
National Affairs
By a staff reporter

Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s personal support has fallen slightly ahead of the first sitting week of parliament, while Opposition Leader Bill Shorten’s popularity is on the rise, according to the latest Newspoll.

The survey, published by The Australian, also shows the Coalition holds a two-party-preferred lead of 53 to 47 per cent, essentially the same result as the September election, but has seen its lead halved from 12 points to six over the past two weeks.

The Coalition's primary vote dropped from 47 per cent to 45 per cent - back to where it was at the election - and Labor's rose one point from 31 per cent to 32 per cent, slightly less than the election result, the newspaper said.

The results came as Mr Abbott’s vows to repeal Labor’s carbon tax and stop the inflow of asylum boats were put to the test for the first time.

The Newsproll showed dissatisfaction with Mr Abbott has risen four percentage points from 34 per cent to 38 per cent and satisfaction has fallen from 47 per cent to 45 per cent.

Satisfaction with Mr Shorten rose five percentage points to 37 per cent while dissatisfaction remained unchanged on 24 per cent during the same period.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/11/12/national-affairs/abbotts-support-slips-newspoll​


----------



## AAA

Is this latest newspoll supposed to be good news for labor. Their primary vote is still below their record low primary vote in the recent election.


----------



## wayneL

Whiskers said:


> No doubt about you two. If I had an army as devoted and loyal as you two, I could conquer the world ... actually a couple of gentlemen about the 1940's did... but they still didn't!
> 
> I think their problem had something to do with blind faith and ruthlessly controlling dissenting opinion within and the media without. :




Whiskers, I know you love your fallacious arguments (which is why few can really be bothered too much with you), but I really think your _Reductio ad Hitlerum_ here is a bridge too far. 

Very distasteful IMO.


----------



## Whiskers

AAA said:


> Is this latest newspoll supposed to be good news for labor. Their primary vote is still below their record low primary vote in the recent election.




No... as I've explained in detail earlier, I don't believe Labor will do particularly well while Shorten is leader. The Labor membership didn't favour him for leader so how do they expect the wider public to favour him as PM.

But it does serve as an indicator of Abbotts stubborn persistence with dumb and extreme right wing policies reflecting in increased 'disapproval'.

As I suggest, he would be dumb to think he has a free ride because of Labors recent dysfunctional leadership and policy positions.

I also notice some big swings back to Labor at state levels. Is it that Labor has suddenly improved that much... or that the alternative is not living up to expectations?



wayneL said:


> Whiskers, I know you love your fallacious arguments (which is why few can really be bothered too much with you), but I really think your _Reductio ad Hitlerum_ here is a bridge too far.
> 
> Very distasteful IMO.




Well, I was deliberately anonymous with specifics on that point because my emphasis was clearly on their faithful devotion and unshakable support for their leader and exemplifying their fallacy.

Thanks for beating up a Gillard 'misogyny' style distraction from the main point!

You (and them) on the other hand see the worst and then some in others that you don't agree with, but have incredibly rose coloured glasses and unshakable blind faith in the face of clear public opinion to the contrary, in you and yours.

I don't suppose you've seen polls like for example:

Does the fact Jakarta has twice rejected requests by Scott Morrison to send asylum seekers back to Indonesia indicate that the government's new asylum seeker policy is not working?
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...s-backfires-20131110-2xa56.html#ixzz2kMn9N6q7​
...that show, of 12,368 votes about 87% of people think yes.

Only a fool would try to defend the undefendable. I'm pleased the Nationals are showing enough sense to not jump out in front of this runaway train to save their coalition leader. A self kick in the head might soften him up a bit to see some sense on the GrainCorp takeover and other issues still to come.


----------



## noco

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Mr. Abbott thus far has done a very good job as PM.
> 
> Stopped the boats just about, giving the Indons a message loud and clear.
> 
> Rescued Holden jobs for the moment.
> 
> Abandoned all the sandalista Global Warming claptrap and removed us from the pithiness of the Carbon Handcuff.
> 
> Is positioning the economy for the leap forward this country needs.
> 
> Taken the initiative from the Guardian, Fairfax and the ABC on who runs this country, not they but the Australian people and voters.
> 
> I reckon he is a great PM.
> 
> gg




Make that three gentlemen...


----------



## overhang

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Mr. Abbott thus far has done a very good job as PM.
> 
> Stopped the boats just about, giving the Indons a message loud and clear.
> 
> Rescued Holden jobs for the moment.
> 
> Abandoned all the sandalista Global Warming claptrap and removed us from the pithiness of the Carbon Handcuff.
> 
> Is positioning the economy for the leap forward this country needs.
> 
> *Taken the initiative from the Guardian, Fairfax and the ABC on who runs this country*, not they but the Australian people and voters.
> 
> I reckon he is a great PM.
> 
> gg




Who are you kidding, Murdoch runs this country and always has, the NBN is a great example of this.

Let me say I commend him for taking a stance against the rorts even though I was after tougher action, for example Don Randall's Cairns trip would still be considered work related even though it obviously wasn't.
I'm satisfied thus far with the efforts to stop the boats, it was never going to be an overnight job and I'm pleased they're not bending over for Indonesia as for too long Australia has been the whipping boy.

But its this sort of rubbish that will ensue from a neutral point of view (no doubt many on here wont see it this way) that Abbott will never be a good PM  "the adults are back in charge" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It59KJNPkdI

He still Governs as though he is in opposition.  I want to hear how good you are in government and what you're doing for me and not how bad Labor was as that's in the past now.


----------



## wayneL

Anonymity? 

Oh yeah that was really obtuse. I won't dignify the other drivel.


----------



## trainspotter

wayneL said:


> Whiskers, I know you love your fallacious arguments (which is why few can really be bothered too much with you), but I really think your _Reductio ad Hitlerum_ here is a bridge too far.
> 
> Very distasteful IMO.




Waddayamean a FEW?


----------



## Knobby22

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Mr. Abbott thus far has done a very good job as PM.
> 
> Stopped the boats just about, giving the Indons a message loud and clear.
> 
> Rescued Holden jobs for the moment.
> 
> Abandoned all the sandalista Global Warming claptrap and removed us from the pithiness of the Carbon Handcuff.
> 
> Is positioning the economy for the leap forward this country needs.
> 
> Taken the initiative from the Guardian, Fairfax and the ABC on who runs this country, not they but the Australian people and voters.
> 
> I reckon he is a great PM.
> 
> gg




Quite funny.

Stopped the boats (just about) gave the Indons a clear message (and so they have told us to get stuffed)

Rescued Holden (for the moment) 

And taken control from the Guardian who runs this country (LOL). 

Makes me smile.


----------



## drsmith

wayneL said:


> Whiskers, I know you love your fallacious arguments (which is why few can really be bothered too much with you), but I really think your _Reductio ad Hitlerum_ here is a bridge too far.
> 
> Very distasteful IMO.



Not only that, it also has the amusing characteristic of being from someone who thinks the flawed character that is Kevin Rudd will rise again.


----------



## Whiskers

drsmith said:


> Not only that, it also has the amusing characteristic of being from someone who thinks the flawed character that is Kevin Rudd will rise again.




Oouch... that would count as an own goal for the team!.. the three


----------



## drsmith

Whiskers said:


> Oouch... that would count as an own goal for the team!.. the three



I have to admit , that's no match for Rudd's team of four,

Kev, Kev, Kev and yourself.


----------



## Whiskers

drsmith said:


> I have to admit , that's no match for Rudd's team of four,
> 
> Kev, Kev, Kev and yourself.




Aah, I just adjudicated on what gg played at. I'm the referee in this game, remember ... I'm blowing the whistle on any of them who break a promise or the rules of common sense. 

Hey, did you see Palmers speech today? Made a lot of sense didn't he! Certainly never short of an answer and he works the media really well. Looking forward to seeing if the standing orders get changed to try to shut him up in parliament.

Apparently he's retired from business, just a shareholder collecting dividends and priming his political machine for further assaults on government for the PM job.  

I also heard an opinion (other than him) that he'll get his WA senate seat back.


----------



## trainspotter

Whiskers said:


> Aah, I just adjudicated on what gg played at. I'm the referee in this game, remember ... I'm blowing the whistle on any of them who break a promise or the rules of common sense.
> 
> Hey, did you see Palmers speech today? Made a lot of sense didn't he! Certainly never short of an answer and he works the media really well. Looking forward to seeing if the standing orders get changed to try to shut him up in parliament.
> 
> Apparently he's retired from business, just a shareholder collecting dividends and priming his political machine for further assaults on government for the PM job.
> 
> I also heard an opinion (other than him) that he'll get his WA senate seat back.




There used to be an emoticon for vomit ... no wait ... here it is. :nuts:

Palmer reminds me of another Phil Cleary ... soon to become unstuck by his own buffoonery. :


----------



## drsmith

Whiskers said:


> Aah, I just adjudicated on what gg played at. *I'm the referee in this game*, remember ... I'm blowing the whistle on any of them who break a promise or the rules of common sense.



You clearly have a over inflated opinion of your role in this discussion. You're as much of a referee as I am.

Whilst our views obviously differ, we are both just posters on this forum. Nothing more, nothing less. 

My bolds.


----------



## wayneL

Can a referee ever be self-appointed?


----------



## noco

wayneL said:


> Can a referee ever be self-appointed?




Only according Whiskers you can......but you have to have very high ego to do it.


----------



## basilio

Referee eh ?  Perhaps Whiskers means he has clearer eyes about what the Abbott government is doing with regard to its promises and nominal policies.

I mean almost all of the remaining suspects (Noco, Dr Smith, GG etc)  *just can't accept any possibility that St Tony could ever possibly do anything untoward could he* ?


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Referee eh ?  Perhaps Whiskers means he has clearer eyes about what the Abbott government is doing with regard to its promises and nominal policies.
> 
> I mean almost all of the remaining suspects (Noco, Dr Smith, GG etc)  *just can't accept any possibility that St Tony could ever possibly do anything untoward could he* ?




Myopic is the word you are looking for basilio. Blinded by his own loquaciousness and braggadocio foisting his opines on to the proletariat from his self elevated position of "referee"


----------



## Julia

Whiskers said:


> Hey, did you see Palmers speech today? Made a lot of sense didn't he!



If he did, it was probably in the parts which he plagiarised, unattributed,  from JFK.


----------



## basilio

trainspotter said:


> Myopic is the word you are looking for basilio. Blinded by his own loquaciousness and braggadocio foisting his opines on to the proletariat from his self elevated position of "referee"




I disagree with you Trainspotter.  I don't agree with everything Whiskers says (in fact there is much I would dispute) but IMO he offers more rational, evidence based comment than many others in this forum.

And at least he's more civil than most.

( _Clearly he shouldn't be here.. _)


----------



## wayneL

It depends on your standard for evidence basilio.

Correlation of an opinion and Fabian ideology is not actually evidence.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> I disagree with you Trainspotter.  I don't agree with everything Whiskers says (in fact there is much I would dispute) but IMO he offers more rational, evidence based comment than many others in this forum.
> 
> And at least he's more civil than most.
> 
> ( _Clearly he shouldn't be here.. _)




Only if the last part were true !


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> It depends on your standard for evidence basilio.
> 
> Correlation of an opinion and Fabian ideology is not actually evidence.




My standard of evidence is pretty good Wayne. I use current peer reviewed science,  a  broad observational framework and a willingness to  investigate even the most unlikely possibilities.

Thats why I chase down all the dubious options you throw up - and usually skewer them.


----------



## Whiskers

drsmith said:


> You clearly have a over inflated opinion of your role in this discussion. *You're as much of a referee as I am.*
> 
> Whilst our views obviously differ, we are both just posters on this forum. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> My bolds.




Quite so, BUT...



wayneL said:


> Can a referee ever be self-appointed?




The swing voter (non party aligned) is the referee (or umpire) in politics and by definition, we are self appointed. 

However, when a certain line of belief and behaviour line up as a 'team' such as  did in unison clearly for unqualified support of a political leader, it's a 'game' of politics.

Therefore as I was the only one not aligned with a political party, I'm still a referee, they became players. It's quite elementary my dear... :



Julia said:


> If he did, it was probably in the parts which he plagiarised, unattributed,  from JFK.




Heelloo Julia.

Glad we're back on talking terms. 

Yes, Clive did put his foot in a bit of doo doo there... but he wouldn't be the first and not likely it will weigh very heavily on the minds of voters or many others except some of his protagonists in the media and a couple of politicians silly enough to try to massage it.  

But the thing I'm noticing (since I hardly paid him much attention previously) is where the Libs and Labor have pretty clear bias in media coverage, according to some, Palmer seems to cop it from all sides... but they still can't wait to hang around to see what he has to say and suffer quite a few sixes off their own bowls at trying to catch him out.

Btw, gg estimated Rudd would make his move in abt 18 months. I'd suggest more like 6 or 7 months. 

Abbott has little chance of much success in major legislation passing the senate before July 2014. Rudds strategist, Bruce Hawker is starting to cultivate the ground for Rudds (or anointment) comeback with the book in December. 

Shorten will likely never seriously threaten Abbott in the polls while Palmer is such a charismatic player who seems to be putting more steps right and is responsible for the lions share of the votes away from Labor.

On current form Abbott will not want a double dissolution next July... BUT Palmer seems to be playing his cards and forging ahead with gearing up his party network and could well line up with Labor to block supply and force one to build up his party representation. He skites of his initial success on 8 weeks of preparation so he's thinking he can improve on that exponentially with some agitation in parliament. He's thinking chance of PM in 7 or 8 months.  

Rudd smells an opening and forces Shorten out in the name of not winning back their traditional support base.


----------



## wayneL

Only in the parallel universe of religious catastrophists basilio. Real empirical data does not agree with you.

See the Pielkes, Curry, and a host of others who use resl science over discredited modeling.


----------



## Logique

ABC 7:30 Report, 13 November, PM interviewed.

I like Leigh Sales, who unfortunately is at the pointy end of the usual ABC 'loaded' set of questions, as Tony Abbott pointed out tonight.

The PM was very restrained tonight, but has my permission (he'll be so grateful) to unload on the 7:30 Report in future.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Only in the parallel universe of religious catastrophists basilio. Real empirical data does not agree with you.
> 
> See the Pielkes, Curry, and a host of others who use resl science over discredited modeling.




Your just delusional Wayne.  But I'm sure it helps you sleep well at night.

Dream  on. 
And by the way why are trying to introduce "the topic which cannot be mentioned" into this forum ? Running out of relevant comments for this tread are we ?


----------



## Whiskers

Whiskers said:


> Rudd smells an opening and forces Shorten out in the name of not winning back their traditional support base.




Well... Rudd has just announced he'll quit Parliament.

Sooo... who is going to be the benificery of Hawkers further Labor reforms... who's he going to be strategizing for?


----------



## waza1960

Well Whiskers..........
 You have taken up a lot of space here telling us how Rudd is making a comeback lets see how your other predictions turn out over coming months


----------



## waza1960

Probably another seat for the coalition now there will be a by-election in Rudds' electorate.
 Although I guess Whiskers thinks Clive will win it


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Your just delusional Wayne.  But I'm sure it helps you sleep well at night.
> 
> Dream  on.
> And by the way why are trying to introduce "the topic which cannot be mentioned" into this forum ? Running out of relevant comments for this tread are we ?




Well yes, we are off topic.

Let's take the d1ck measuring to the relevant thread shall we?


----------



## Calliope

waza1960 said:


> Probably another seat for the coalition now there will be a by-election in Rudds' electorate.
> Although I guess Whiskers thinks Clive will win it




Yes he has now switched his allegiance...for what it's worth. I can hardly imagine a more ghastly sight than this, and that would be Whisker's "charismatic" Palmer blubbering.


----------



## Julia

Whiskers said:


> Btw, gg estimated Rudd would make his move in abt 18 months. I'd suggest more like 6 or 7 months.
> 
> Rudds strategist, Bruce Hawker is starting to cultivate the ground for Rudds (or anointment) comeback with the book in December.
> 
> Rudd smells an opening and forces Shorten out in the name of not winning back their traditional support base.



So much for that wisdom.


----------



## drsmith

Calliope said:


> Yes he has now switched his allegiance...for what it's worth. I can hardly imagine a more ghastly sight than this, and that would be Whisker's "charismatic" Palmer blubbering.
> 
> View attachment 55274



From considering staying on as Labor leader after the election loss to that.

Julia Gillard may not have been quiet able to destroy the artificial world in which Kev lived, but now it has finally caved in.

I imagine there will be much relief within Labor.


----------



## Whiskers

waza1960 said:


> Well Whiskers..........
> You have taken up a lot of space here telling us how Rudd* is *making a comeback lets see how your other predictions turn out over coming months




What I said and implied is could, not is! 

Clearly he was considering it, or as I said, anointing someone else. Lose sight of context, the overall theme and you lose your way all together.

There has also been rumors of him shifting to Qld state politics to knock off Newman... to help undermine the coalition government. 

It also puts a lie to the accusations that I was somehow a Rudd or Labor mouth piece. I clearly did not know that was coming although some of you find the best way to try to discredit critique of our politicians is to try to tar them as Labor.

I've been very critical of the the Climate Change industry, Carbon Tax, Gillard's banning Live cattle exports even the botched mining tax that could have been done much better to rationalise the Tax system... BUT I don't recall anyone, Labor or greens, branding me as LNP or National bias, unlike a concerted campaign by Lib supporters to brand any criticism as lefty Labor.

But what has taken up the most space here is dumb Big L Lib propaganda from a few with a superiority complex.

_Having a superiority complex is a psychological personality disorder wherein you feel like you are better than everyone else and above criticism and opinions._​
A superiority complex may be because of abusive behaviour or negative reinforcement in childhood.  

How to Avoid Developing an Inferiority Complex from Abusive People
_Look for any hidden agendas. People who like intimidating others often do so to further their own ends. Keeping someone uninformed or less knowledgeable often helps strengthen their sense of well-being at your expense by trying to make you feel inadequate. 
_​
That is the compulsive behaviour of the far right (similar to the corrupt factions in Labor) that earns you the distrust of so many voters, that you take for fools, that they would rather give their vote and second preference to any other minor party, than the Libs. Remember the Libs only command 32% of the first preference.



waza1960 said:


> Probably another seat for the coalition now there will be a by-election in Rudds' electorate.
> Although I guess Whiskers thinks Clive will win it




Well, I'm not going to be so naive as to rule out the possibility.

Given Palmers short lead time (8 weeks) last time in a strong Labor seat they got a good showing at 4th largest vote, well ahead of all but the ALP, LNP and Greens. 

The point about the importance of a strong first preference and good second preference flow is also highlighted here. While Rudd copped a hit in the first vote last election 40% and the LNP 42%... a significant number of voters couldn not bring themselves to vote for the LNP. ALP 53% LNP 47% after preferences.

Labor picked up more than 2.5 to 1 in preferences. 

That typifies Abbotts problem. As much as people loathe Labor, hard-line conservative voters seem to really detest giving their preference to a third party, they still give a large chunk to Labor. You see the problem looming here! Whereas Palmer and the Greens are favoured second preference by people who prefer Labor.

Remember the conservative movement never really gained any strength until that fateful meeting in Canberra way back when, all the conservatives colluded to combine or form a coalition... thus establishing the 'gentleman's agreement' of not supporting minor parties with preference deals to limit the playing field to a duopoly. 

But as we've seen the minor parties are successfully collaborating to beat the corrupt duopoly. 

There is growing disenchantment with the big two, Lib and Labor as evidenced by the rise of Palmer.
The dissatisfaction factor is going to be the significant issue to watch for Abbott, not the two party preference or preferred PM.
You should also watch primary support for the Greens which has risen from 8.7% at the election to 12%. 
I'll wait to see who the candidates are before speculating on Palmers chances. But Newman isn't doing the LNP chances any favours with a Howard 'workchoices' types of extreme right shift in policy of late. 

The thing the right wing members have to get, to avoid losing government sooner than you expect is the vast majority of people don't see Big L Liberalism as a viable, let alone a preferable alternative to dysfunctional Labor leadership and some bad policies like the carbon tax.


----------



## trainspotter

wayneL said:


> Well yes, we are off topic.
> 
> Let's take the d1ck measuring to the relevant thread shall we?




hahahaaa ~chortle~ I almost spilled me champagne on this retort , touche'


----------



## drsmith

Whiskers said:


> Btw, gg estimated Rudd would make his move in abt 18 months. I'd suggest more like 6 or 7 months.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Rudd smells an opening and forces Shorten out in the name of not winning back their traditional support base.



Well, that fine political forecast barely lasted longer than the keystrokes that went into it. 

The difference between yourself and GG is that I doubt he was being serious.


----------



## trainspotter

Is GG ever serious? Last time I was in Townsville they spoke in hushed tones.


----------



## Whiskers

Julia said:


> So much for that wisdom.




Well I did get his 'move' closer than your pre-eminent Abbott supporter, Garpal Gumnut.

I said: _Btw, gg estimated Rudd would make his move in abt 18 months. I'd suggest more like 6 or 7 months._​
It does also exemplify my better 'wisdom' that Rudd would not just sit idly by on the back bench for so long as gg and maybe more Libs suggested just being an irritation to Shorten supporters.

I said:_ Rudds strategist, Bruce Hawker is starting to cultivate the ground for Rudds (or anointment) comeback with the book in December_.​
This story still has a bit to run yet... especially whether or not he has anointed anyone to take his spot and exactly what he does in the future. 

You will note whereas gg specifically stated Rudd would run for leadership, I was wisely noting that "Rudd (or anointment)" might make a move on Shortens leadership. 

I said:_ Rudd smells an opening and forces Shorten out in the name of not winning back their traditional support base_.​
It's not hard to imagine after the release of Hawkers book, as a private citizen, he... well, lets just say I doubt he'll just go away into a quiet corner and read Hawkers book for the rest of his life.

Hawker has hinted that he still has an interest in public affairs.

Did I also hear that they are calling for a plebiscite for the candidate to replace him?

Certainly sounds like Rudd smelt an opening and is continuing to pull some strings in Labor, against Shorten and his disregard of the rank and file wishes.

All in all my wisdom is still more in the game than yours and like minded.


----------



## Whiskers

drsmith said:


> The difference between yourself and GG is that I doubt he was being serious.




  Well isn't that an indictment to NOT believe anything you lot say! :



trainspotter said:


> Is GG ever serious? Last time I was in Townsville they spoke in hushed tones.




... and further indictment of your secretive, hidden, far right agenda.


----------



## drsmith

Whiskers said:


> Well isn't that an indictment to NOT believe anything you lot say! :
> 
> ... and further indictment of your secretive, hidden, far right agenda.



Go to bed Whiskers. It's after midnight in Qld.

You've had a long and disappointing day finally seeing your messiah fall on his political sword. 

The sun will still rise tomorrow (in your case now, today).


----------



## Whiskers

drsmith said:


> Go to bed Whiskers.




No! :

What's up doc... you want the thread all to yourselves?!

I'm having a quite fruitful day actually. Apart from a bit of economic data, the political scene is unfolding roughly as anticipated. I wisely keep all business (and political) options available until they expire. 

Rather than spending my life parroting off party line or particular business propaganda, I'm busy working on the markets working through the position and range of possibilities and probabilities to be in a better position than drunken sailors looking to their captain for help when the ship hits an iceberg and goes down unexpectedly.

Also, apart from the standing orders getting modified to gag the opposition and especially the cross benches, quite a few gov officials are being gaged and or feverishly frustrating FOI attempts to clarify certain information that could be troublesome to the government.

Remember, I warned them exaggerating and telling fibs would come back to haunt them. 

As if that is not enough concern, some interesting comments about the Commission of Audit have gone quietly under the radar of most because of a preoccupation with the fuss over Indonesia and opening of parliament. 

The Commission of Audit is shaping up to be a report from people with connections, ideology and wish-list going back to Howards workchoices era, the Business Council and right wing Institute of Public Affairs, claiming that ordinary people don't know what's good for them.


----------



## bunyip

It was cringe-worthy listening to members of both the government and the opposition trying to think up something complimentary to say about Rudd The Dud.

Good riddance to the bastard is what I say, and I’m sure that even Rudd's own party feels the same way despite their shallow attempts to speak kindly of him.


----------



## drsmith

As Kevin Rudd now has the pleasure of eating his own heart out, Liberal candidate for Griffith Bill Glasson gets another chance.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2rTJc36mlU


----------



## drsmith

With regard the debt limit, Labor needs to recognise that it was the party responsible for the current debt situation  and that it is now no longer in office.



> The most recent Treasury figures, released before the election, had forecast debt peaking at $370 billion 2015-16.
> 
> Reprising Labor's argument from its time in office, Mr Hockey says the Government also needs a buffer of between $40bn and $60bn.
> 
> But the Opposition wants the Treasurer to release his department's budget update, the Mid-year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO), before it will approve any more than $400 billion.




The attached segment from a Joe Hockey interview on ABC Radio National is also interesting viewing.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-14/hockey-warns-of-us-style-shutdown/5090722


----------



## trainspotter

Whiskers said:


> Well isn't that an indictment to NOT believe anything you lot say! :
> 
> ... and further indictment of your secretive, hidden, far right agenda.




Methinks you need to change the water in your bowl as you are having trouble seeing through the murky waters of your own excrement. 

Not sure if Hockey is walking softly enough but the stick he is carrying is MASSIVE ! To threaten a US style meltdown is farcical at best.



> *He said if Labor and the Greens stopped him from increasing it, he would be forced to slash spending and shut down services to stop Australia breaching the limit.
> 
> "We would need to close down immediately payments for the payment system, payments in relation to welfare. We'd need to close Medicare straight away. We'd need to start closing the government, "Mr Hockey told Parliament *




http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...-over-debt-limit/story-e6frea6u-1226759291243


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> With regard the debt limit, Labor needs to recognise that it was the party responsible for the current debt situation  and that it is now no longer in office.
> 
> 
> 
> The attached segment from a Joe Hockey interview on ABC Radio National is also interesting viewing.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-14/hockey-warns-of-us-style-shutdown/5090722




Seriously, the Howard Government welfare handouts had no impact on the budget?  Tax free super had no impact on the budget? The terms of trade falling with the resulting drop in GNI has no impact on the budget?  Both previous Govts have plenty of responsibility for the current structural deficit of the budget.

So you're saying a 33% increase in the limit is not OK, but a 66% increase is, yet voted for the party that has surplus in it's DNA, would have run surpluses through the GFC, but has yet to announce any decent level of welfare cuts, and doesn't believe it can balance the budget within 3 years.


----------



## drsmith

Syd, 

Labor had 6-years in office.



sydboy007 said:


> So you're saying a 33% increase in the limit is not OK, but a 66% increase is, yet voted for the party that has surplus in it's DNA, would have run surpluses through the GFC, but has yet to announce any decent level of welfare cuts, and doesn't believe it can balance the budget within 3 years.



With regard to the quantum of increase in the debt limit relative to its present level, pls read the ABC article linked above.


----------



## sails

drsmith said:


> Syd,
> 
> Labor had 6-years in office.
> 
> 
> With regard to the quantum of increase in the debt limit relative to its present level, pls read the ABC article linked above.




Maybe if labor refuse to be realistic about the debt ceiling, Hockey should immediately start culling unnecessary public servants and significantly reduce ABC funding for starters.


----------



## basilio

sails said:


> Maybe if labor refuse to be realistic about the debt ceiling, Hockey should immediately start culling unnecessary public servants and significantly reduce ABC funding for starters.




Absolutely.  Lets start out with 50 arbitrary sackings a week for a month until they understand whose in charge. Put everyones name in a barrel and draw out the "winners".

In the second month we can jump this to 100 PS sackings - a couple of summary executions and throw a 1000 random people off the dole. *After all this is a budget emergency isn't it ?*

Like to add some extra fuel to the process ?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Back in the real world I'm still totally mystified on the reasons for the *huge *increase in the debt ceiling. Surely that warrants an explanation of some sort beyond "we want to do it". 
*After all it is our money they want to borrow isn't it ?*


----------



## trainspotter

drsmith said:


> Syd,
> 
> Labor had 6-years in office.
> 
> 
> With regard to the quantum of increase in the debt limit relative to its present level, pls read the ABC article linked above.




You forgot to mention when Rudd/Labor took over our country was DEBT FREE ! Australia’s net Government *debt* was $96 billion in June 1996.  By June 2007, Australia had net financial *assets* (negative debt) of $29 billion.

Oh dear


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Absolutely.  Lets start out with 50 arbitrary sackings a week for a month until they understand whose in charge. Put everyones name in a barrel and draw out the "winners".
> 
> In the second month we can jump this to 100 PS sackings - a couple of summary executions and throw a 1000 random people off the dole. *After all this is a budget emergency isn't it ?*
> 
> Like to add some extra fuel to the process ?
> 
> _____________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> Back in the real world I'm still totally mystified on the reasons for the *huge *increase in the debt ceiling. Surely that warrants an explanation of some sort beyond "we want to do it".
> *After all it is our money they want to borrow isn't it ?*




Didn't hear anyone squawking when Labor rang up the corporate credit card?  No wait ... that was me !


----------



## Whiskers

drsmith said:


> With regard the debt limit, Labor needs to recognise that it was the party responsible for the current debt situation  and that it is now no longer in office.
> 
> 
> 
> The attached segment from a Joe Hockey interview on ABC Radio National is also interesting viewing.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-14/hockey-warns-of-us-style-shutdown/5090722




That article DOES NOT address responsibility for the underlying or structural debt situation. 



sydboy007 said:


> Seriously, the Howard Government welfare handouts had no impact on the budget?  Tax free super had no impact on the budget? The terms of trade falling with the resulting drop in GNI has no impact on the budget?  *Both previous Govts have plenty of responsibility for the current structural deficit of the budget.*
> So you're saying a 33% increase in the limit is not OK, but a 66% increase is, yet voted for the party that has surplus in it's DNA, would have run surpluses through the GFC, but has yet to announce any decent level of welfare cuts, and doesn't believe it can balance the budget within 3 years.




Sydboy, you do hit the right note, highlighted... but lets spread the word straight from the *Parliamentary Budget Office.*

This is part of why I'm really pissed off with these guys (the Big L Libs in control of the coalition) and as I've often mentioned, over exaggeration in opposition continuing to just plain lies and deceit in government.  

As I mentioned last post gov officials are being gaged and or feverishly frustrating FOI attempts to clarify certain information that could be troublesome to the government. The information sought could be overwhelmingly disastrous for Abbott and Hockey in particular once released when seen in context with the underlying structural problem, especially income, that was caused by the Howard Costello era. 

Like many I 'felt good' at the time and took little notice of the 'real state of the books'. The reason I turned against Howard was the over the top Big L Lib policy shift with workChoices.  

*Defining the structural budget balance*
The SBB is the actual budget balance adjusted for cyclical and other temporary factors. It provides a measure of how underlying budgetary trends and discretionary changes in fiscal policy impact on the budget balance.

The economic cycle impacts on tax revenue and government expenditure through the operation of the so called automatic stabilisers, tax revenue and unemployment benefit payments. The cyclically-adjusted budget balance adjusts the actual budget balance for the impact of these factors. Other temporary factors will also influence tax revenue and government expenditure. Such factors might include changes in asset and commodity prices, changes in output composition, and large one-off revenue and expenditure impacts.
http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05 Ab...y Budget Office Stuctural Budget Balance.ashx​
The long and short of it is, Howard and Costello started the structural debt problems on the back of the start of the recource boom with their big tax cuts on top of handouts like the baby bonus that we all loved... that the country couldn't really afford. Labor inherited a falling structural budget balance cyclically adjusted, then we had the GFC... but Labors need to increase tax revenue was the necessary step to avoid disaster sooner and have started to turn it around.

The problem this government has with abolishing so much revenue and maintaining all the welfare handouts, even bettering them is massive.

People get your head around the REAL cause of the structural economy problems before you jump on the wrong bus... and drive us all, yes yourself included, over the 'cliff'.


----------



## drsmith

Whiskers said:


> That article DOES NOT address responsibility for the underlying or structural debt situation.



Labor was happy enough to match the vast majority of Peter Costello's tax cuts announced in the 2007 election campaign to win office and that's only the start. Then in 2010, Julia Gillard crawled into bed with the Greens.

What about the $11bn as a consequence of Labor dismantling the Howard Government's border protection policies ?

I could go on, but the greatest irony is Labor reduced to pursuing the Coalition over border protection, by far Labor's greatest policy failure in office. They really have nothing to contribute to the present political debate whatsoever.  Add to that the fact that your messiah has fallen on his own political sword. Was he even in the house today ?

Bugger it. I will go on.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ry-into-pink-batts-scheme-20131027-2w9bn.html

There's just no end to the mismanagement while Labor was in office and you seek to defend their legacy. 

Have an early night. It will do you good.


----------



## drsmith

basilio said:


> Referee eh ?  Perhaps Whiskers means he has clearer eyes about what the Abbott government is doing with regard to its promises and nominal policies.
> 
> I mean almost all of the remaining suspects (Noco, Dr Smith, GG etc)  *just can't accept any possibility that St Tony could ever possibly do anything untoward could he* ?



The suspects that masquerade as an opposition in Parliament are reduced to banging on about issues that were their greatest weaknesses in office just to have something to say. The state of the budget and border protection.

That says it all.


----------



## Whiskers

Logique said:


> ABC 7:30 Report, 13 November, PM interviewed.
> 
> I like Leigh Sales, who unfortunately is at the pointy end of the usual ABC 'loaded' set of questions, as Tony Abbott pointed out tonight.
> 
> The PM was very restrained tonight, but has my permission (he'll be so grateful) to unload on the 7:30 Report in future.




That wasn't a loaded question. A loaded question is what each party ask their own member in parliament to make an often biased statement or a point. 

A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption. 

The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is a loaded question that presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.​
While in personal relations loaded questions are usually frowned upon as being provocative, not trusting, but for police loaded questions are a basic tool to get to the truth to force people to confirm or deny a point. Similarly for 'constructive' investigative reporters. 

*We don't need reporters to just be mouth pieces for a political or business lobbyists do we?*

Q: Did you know who killed Joe Blow?  Likely answer no, but also likely avoid answer. Little useful information gained.

Q: Why did you mutilate her **** is such a disgusting way with you knife after robbing the shop to feed your drug habit? A refusal to answer could lead to a finding of guilt in a court of law and certainly a court of public opinion. A partial answer could implicate him in the crime especially if certain info was not widely known or deliberately 'faked'. 

*BUT if you knew you were innocent and had a solid alabi, you'd likely disclose it to clear your name AND expose the accuser for making false accusations, ie lying.*

The fact that Abbott could not turn the leaded question around to backfire on the questioner is a sign of weakness and or hiding something. He missed a golden opportunity to win in the court of public appeal. His attempt to attack the questioner for doing their job, only further highlights the determination to hide something or insistence to repaint the facts with his bias, but with increasing venom.

As for the PM being restrained, he lost his restraint by attacking the questioner rather than the question.

*What do you think when people accuse you of doing what they are guilty of themselves?*...or accuse other politicians of doing what they did themselves? just hypocrite? or hum this is aggressive domineering behaviour trying to make you feel responsible and guilty for everything including what they are planning to do.

We depend so much on various media sources for our information. We also trust our financial advisors, accountants, Lawyers, doctors and in some cases, our party officials to tell us the truth. Surely our politicians are on the bottom of the heap of 'trust' and must conform to more scrutiny, even from their own brand followers.

For me, the fundamental test of a sound position or argument is the ability to withstand any scrutiny or questioning with decorum.  

That's why people who have nothing to hide and are confident in their position engage in open dialogue, discussion and critique at leisure. 

The reason why I don't have a problem with loaded questions from the ABC through to Andrew Bolt, is if your case is so strong and you are up to the challenge you can easily exploit it to prove your point, as above.


----------



## Whiskers

drsmith said:


> Bugger it. I will go on.




Are you are loosing your cool, dr! 

You also haven't figured it out yet, the difference between the 'structural' budget balance and the 'actual' budget balance and the things that contribute to each!

The other significant point is WHEN the structural deficit started. You might deny... but the history books clearly document it started in the middle of the Howard Costello era.

It's a sick and suicidal argument for politicians to accuse others of what you are guilty of yourselves.


----------



## drsmith

Whiskers said:


> Are you are loosing your cool, dr!
> 
> You also haven't figured it out yet, the difference between the 'structural' budget balance and the 'actual' budget balance and the things that contribute to each!
> 
> The other significant point is WHEN the structural deficit started. You might deny... but the history books clearly document it started in the middle of the Howard Costello era.
> 
> It's a sick and suicidal argument for politicians to accuse others of what you are guilty of yourselves.



You don't seem very keen to address the substance of Labor's folly.

Peter Costello was right when he said Labor would waste it. I don't think even he could have imagined the extent to which they have, not only in dollar terms but also in the more than 1,000 lives they have sacrificed in the name of pure political ideology and yet that's the very same subject they're reduced to banging on about in parliament in order to say something. It's a very sad legacy indeed.

Go to bed and reflect on that. It will do you good.


----------



## Whiskers

drsmith said:


> Go to bed




No! :



> You don't seem very keen to address the substance of Labor's folly.




It's all been analysed to death dr. BUT it doesn't change the fact that 'structural' budget balance as opposed to  the 'actual' budget balance you are obsessed with for short term political point scoring, was being driven down from Howards term. 

Are you calling the Parliamentary Budget Office a liar?

Regardless of who caused it, what you ought to be concerned about is what are the consequences of another Howard style Big L Lib policy government driving our structural budget position down further!

Why do you think they want to extend the debt limit so much instead of exercising prudent policy to reduce government and cut costs, as they claimed their brilliant economic managers record is?

The short answer is their model (Howard and Costello) was in fact a big spending government and that model won't work because of the different structural nature originating from their previous capitalist gouge. 

When you really understand the economics, you will understand they are doing what Rupert Murdoch and the likes do... strip the guts out of our business for the big end of town and multinationals before dressing up the prostituted shell as a healthy virgin to sell off to the rest of us.


----------



## overhang

trainspotter said:


> You forgot to mention when Rudd/Labor took over our country was DEBT FREE ! Australia’s net Government *debt* was $96 billion in June 1996.  By June 2007, Australia had net financial *assets* (negative debt) of $29 billion.
> 
> Oh dear




Lets put this into prospective because I think it's often forgotten.  The Howard government sold approx $55 billion in public assets to acquire this figure.  Now you didn't but its often said that they inherited $96 billion in debt from Labor but $40 billion of that was from the Fraser government.  My point is any government can make its books look an economical marvel when you sell off public assets.  Don't get me wrong they certainly moved our books in the right direction which undoubtedly helped us get through the GFC better than most countries however it's kind of like paying of the mortgage by selling the car and all furniture.  The Abbott government is already at it looking to sell Medibank. http://www.finance.gov.au/property/asset-sales/past-sales.html

In saying all this though Labor must take responsibility for current debt ceiling.


----------



## IFocus

sydboy007 said:


> Seriously, the Howard Government welfare handouts had no impact on the budget?  Tax free super had no impact on the budget? The terms of trade falling with the resulting drop in GNI has no impact on the budget?  Both previous Govts have plenty of responsibility for the current structural deficit of the budget.
> 
> So you're saying a 33% increase in the limit is not OK, but a 66% increase is, yet voted for the party that has surplus in it's DNA, would have run surpluses through the GFC, but has yet to announce any decent level of welfare cuts, and doesn't believe it can balance the budget within 3 years.




Haven't they found the budget emergency yet? (lets fix it with another 66% of debt increase)

You forgot this bit everyone ignores



> The Gillard/Rudd governments ran an efficient, tight economy. As economist Stephen Koukoulas has noted:
> 
> In its budget settings, the Labor government implemented the largest tightening in fiscal policy ever recorded. The budget tightened by 3 per cent of GDP in a couple of years and 2012-13 saw the largest cut in real government spending ever.




But regardless the Coalition arguments are becoming more convoluted as they are still running in opposition rather than government. 

It remains to be seen how long they can keep saying one thing and doing the exact opposite before the momentum shifts as the argument its all Labor's fault will die out eventually likely some time next year I would think.


----------



## trainspotter

overhang said:


> Lets put this into prospective because I think it's often forgotten.  The Howard government sold approx $55 billion in public assets to acquire this figure.  Now you didn't but its often said that they inherited $96 billion in debt from Labor but $40 billion of that was from the Fraser government.  My point is any government can make its books look an economical marvel when you sell off public assets.  Don't get me wrong they certainly moved our books in the right direction which undoubtedly helped us get through the GFC better than most countries however it's kind of like paying of the mortgage by selling the car and all furniture.  The Abbott government is already at it looking to sell Medibank. http://www.finance.gov.au/property/asset-sales/past-sales.html
> 
> In saying all this though Labor must take responsibility for current debt ceiling.




Well bugger me !


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> You forgot this bit everyone ignores



In that article I note this particular comment on terms of trade,



> It has not been widely reported that over the past two years, the Australian economy confronted a 20-year low for Chinese economic growth. This bad luck (for Australia) obviously dragged the terms of trade lower and the Labor government had to deal with this unfortunate turn of events. In late 2012, it made the prudent decision to let the budget automatic stabilisers to work which of course meant less revenue and a budget deficit, but it kept the economy growing at around a 2.5 per cent pace and as we saw last week, the unemployment rate in September was just 5.6 per cent.



The broader historical context is in the following graph. 

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/terms-of-trade


----------



## trainspotter

IFocus said:


> Haven't they found the budget emergency yet? (lets fix it with another 66% of debt increase)
> 
> You forgot this bit everyone ignores
> 
> But regardless the Coalition arguments are becoming more convoluted as they are still running in opposition rather than government.
> 
> It remains to be seen how long they can keep saying one thing and doing the exact opposite before the momentum shifts as the argument its all Labor's fault will die out eventually likely some time next year I would think.




Funny how these economists come up with these theories. What about this for a theory then?

It was not fiscal stimulus that prevented a technical recession, but a combination of other macroeconomic factors. The evidence can be found in Australia's national accounts.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@...sues&prodno=5206.0&issue=Jun 2013&num=&view=&

The national accounts show it was not fiscal stimulus that prevented recession in the March 2009 quarter, but net exports, boosted by a massive exchange rate depreciation and strong demand from China for Australia's commodity exports. Thank goodness for all those greedy mining companies up in the Pilbara eh?

The RBA sharply lowered the official interest rate which facilitated the exchange rate depreciation, and scope existed for further interest rate reductions.  *However increased government borrowing due to a range of fiscal stimulus initiatives obviated this policy option.* Pink Batts anyone?

_Extra government spending did subsequently add to total spending in the economy_, thinking Gillards "building revolution" but this occurred several quarters after the worst of the GFC had past, and put upward pressure on market interest rates and the exchange rate.

*In turn, this worsened industry competitiveness and contributed to subsequent job losses, not gains, in sectors like manufacturing and tourism.* High Aussie dollar and not many tourists want to come here anymore. Got it?

In other words, fiscal stimulus later weakened the economy by contributing to a strengthening of the exchange rate and generating *policy uncertainty about how the historically high budget deficits would be corrected.*

Who was at the steering wheel at the time? You figure it out. Just a theory I happen to believe in.

Or is that all a bit Keynesian presumptuous of me?


----------



## Whiskers

trainspotter said:


> What about this for a theory then?




Indeed... just your THEORY!

This is the trouble people (including me as explained earlier under Howard) get into when you don't  properly understand the economic numbers... when you trust blind faith in your political advisors.

If you want to avoid us going bankrupt like the US... think carefully before giving the government a blank cheque. 

So lets get the facts... and cause and effect, straightened out. 



> The RBA sharply lowered the official interest rate which facilitated the exchange rate depreciation, and scope existed for further interest rate reductions.




Actually it was the GFC that "facilitated" the RBA to lower interest rates. 

It was the GFC that caused the AUD to crash, which caused the RBA to sharply lower interest rates. See the middle chart that clearly shows interest rates following not leading the RBA cash rate.



> The national accounts show it was not fiscal stimulus that prevented recession in the March 2009 quarter, but *net exports*, boosted by a massive exchange rate depreciation and *strong demand from China for Australia's commodity exports*. Thank goodness for all those greedy mining companies up in the Pilbara eh?




As above, net exports (in $) see top chart, did not offset the other adverse effects of the GFC, collapsing AUD, it just partly compensated for it.

Net exports was not a net "boost" to the economy. 

Second, demand (volume) from China fell flat with the GFC and never fully recovered the previous rate of "strong demand" as the bottom chart shows.

Volume growth in Australian exports to China has slowed in recent years (2009 to 2011), to average just 5 per cent per annum, mainly due to a decrease in export volumes of Fuels (from their 2009 peak) and Manufactures. http://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/stats-pubs/australias-exports-to-china-2001-2011.pdf​


----------



## sydboy007

trainspotter said:


> You forgot to mention when Rudd/Labor took over our country was DEBT FREE ! Australia’s net Government *debt* was $96 billion in June 1996.  By June 2007, Australia had net financial *assets* (negative debt) of $29 billion.
> 
> Oh dear




The budget was in STRUCTIURAL deficit

The Howard Govbt took a fleeting increase in revewnue and set up recurrent speding.  It was all bound to end in tears.

Rudd continued the fantasy with even further tax cuts.

as has been mentioned, the tax cut from the mining boom now total over $30B a year in foregone revenue.

How is that sensible policy?

If things are so dire, why the lack of action?  Surely the over the last 12 months Abbot and Hockey could have come  up with a few billion in cuts to be introduced immediately upon taking office.

My prediction, no cuts to welfare for anyone above the 4th income decile in the next budget.


----------



## sydboy007

Whiskers said:


> Actually it was the GFC that "facilitated" the RBA to lower interest rates.
> 
> It was the GFC that caused the AUD to crash, which caused the RBA to sharply lower interest rates. See the middle chart that clearly shows interest rates following not leading the RBA cash rate.




Actually it was the GFC that crushed the massive spike in inflation that Howard had caused with his fighting the RBA leading up to the 2007 election.

The fast drop in inflation allowed the RBA to dramatically cut interest rates.

Does a good economic manager see demand pull inflation within the economy and say:

* I will cut Govt spending to help slow demand

* I will increase Govt spending / cut taxes to help increase demand.

Seems like people have forgotten mortgage rates peaked at around 9% under Howard because he couldn't stop handing out the candy.


----------



## trainspotter

Whiskers said:


> Indeed... just your THEORY!
> 
> *This is the trouble people (including me as explained earlier under Howard) get into when you don't  properly understand the economic numbers*.. when you trust blind faith in your political advisors.
> 
> If you want to avoid us going bankrupt like the US... think carefully before giving the government a blank cheque.
> 
> So lets get the facts... and cause and effect, straightened out.
> 
> Actually it was the GFC that "facilitated" the RBA to lower interest rates.
> 
> It was the GFC that caused the AUD to crash, which caused the RBA to sharply lower interest rates. See the middle chart that clearly shows interest rates following not leading the RBA cash rate.
> 
> As above, net exports (in $) see top chart, did not offset the other adverse effects of the GFC, collapsing AUD, it just partly compensated for it.
> 
> Net exports was not a net "boost" to the economy.
> 
> Second, demand (volume) from China fell flat with the GFC and never fully recovered the previous rate of "strong demand" as the bottom chart shows.




OOOOOOOOOER Whiskers ..... try googling this man .... Tony Makin is a professor of economics at Griffith University, Queensland. I plaigiarised his "theory" and cross referenced it with this site http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@...sues&prodno=5206.0&issue=Jun 2013&num=&view=& to ensure his "theory" was factual.

So are you saying a professor of economics does not understand the economic numbers? 

Bwahahahahaha *gasp* hahahahaagaaggaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

He also wrote this:-



> For instance, the standard textbook model of an open economy with internationalised capital markets and a floating exchange rate proposes that fiscal stimulus fully crowds out net exports, while another perspective originally suggested by classical economist David Ricardo implies higher public debt stemming from increased government borrowing crowds out private consumption.
> 
> Higher public debt implies higher future taxes not just for households, but for firms.
> 
> Private firms essentially drive the economy, but their share market value languished due to policy induced uncertainty.  Slow asset price recovery in the wake of the financial crisis also reflected weak business and consumer confidence stemming from fiscal overkill.
> 
> Why Australia, an economy highly dependent on foreign borrowing, deployed fiscal stimulus more aggressively than most other G20 economies remains a mystery.




http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-...sep/01/did-labor-save-us-gfc-part-ii-riposte/

Just a professor of economics BUT what would he know?

P.S. BTW I never said it was "my theory" ... I said it was "a theory" I believed in.


----------



## Whiskers

drsmith said:


> In that article I note this particular comment on terms of trade,
> 
> 
> The broader historical context is in the following graph.
> 
> http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/terms-of-trade




Not sure what point you are trying to make dr... but the terms of trade chart basically reflects the change of exchange rate (which was largely out of our control) on our competitiveness.

The large dip in the GFC from late 2008 and from late 2011 reflects the structural problems in our economy in terms of government income from taxation and amplified as a result of a particular leaning in monetary policy.

Hence, the government aught to be swapping carbon and mining tax etc cuts against some other revenue source or equivalent spending cuts... not massively increasing the debt limit and continuing a big spending regime to try to out do Labor's handouts.


----------



## Whiskers

sydboy007 said:


> Actually it was the GFC that crushed the massive spike in inflation that Howard had caused with his fighting the RBA leading up to the 2007 election.
> 
> Seems like people have forgotten mortgage rates peaked at around 9% under Howard because he couldn't stop handing out the candy.




Yes, that too.



trainspotter said:


> P.S. BTW I never said it was "my theory" ... I said it was "a theory" I believed in.




A theory you believe in and put up as an argument with passion is your theory.


----------



## trainspotter

Whiskers said:


> A theory you believe in and put up as an argument with passion is your theory.




I precluded it with this statement _"Funny how these economists come up with these theories."_

So a professor of economics is incapable of understanding the economic numbers as per your statement?

And that ladies and gentlemen is game, set and match. Thank you linesmen, thank you ballboys. Adieu.


----------



## trainspotter

And just for comedy purposes only:-

*As the Reserve Bank notes, "from 2003 to 2011, global prices for Australia’s resource exports (in US dollar terms) increased by more than 300 per cent.*

http://www.rba.gov.au/publications/rdp/2011/pdf/rdp2011-08.pdf

You might want to read this to understand economic numbers.  Or has the RBA got it wrong as well?


----------



## Whiskers

trainspotter said:


> I precluded it with this statement _"Funny how these economists come up with these theories."_
> 
> So a professor of economics is incapable of understanding the economic numbers as per your statement?




You said:
It was not fiscal stimulus that prevented a technical recession, but a combination of other macroeconomic factors. The evidence can be found in Australia's national accounts.​
He would if you showed them to him... he would see the point that you didn't, that I pointed out factual and historical chronological errors in your comment that are not necessarily obvious in the national accounts, but are as I showed.



trainspotter said:


> And just for comedy purposes only:-
> 
> *As the Reserve Bank notes, "from 2003 to 2011, global prices for Australia’s resource exports (in US dollar terms) increased by more than 300 per cent.*
> 
> http://www.rba.gov.au/publications/rdp/2011/pdf/rdp2011-08.pdf
> 
> You might want to read this to understand economic numbers.  Or has the RBA got it wrong as well?




Yes, BUT they volume 'demand' that you referred to did fall flat with the GFC as I showed... and it's the conversion back to AUD that matters most.

You really are just for comedy purposes, TS! :

That is game, set and match...


----------



## trainspotter

So a professor of economics and the RBA is wrong and Whiskers is right? My bad


----------



## Whiskers

trainspotter said:


> So a professor of economics and the RBA is wrong and Whiskers is right?




No what the prof is on about is arguably right, but what he is talking about and what you were talking about are two different things



> My bad




Quite so!


----------



## trainspotter

Whiskers said:


> No what the prof is on about is arguably right, but what he is talking about and what you were talking about are two different things




Go on ... just admit you were wrong and you got monkey trapped.

You do understand what plagiarism means don't you? 

Bwahahahahaha (insert maniacal laugh here) hahahagagahaaaaaaaaaaa

P.S. It was the prof that said this and not me _"It was not fiscal stimulus that prevented a technical recession, but a combination of other macroeconomic factors. The evidence can be found in Australia's national accounts."_

If you clicked on the link and read it you would understand but but but that would require some due diligence now wouldn't it?


----------



## Whiskers

trainspotter said:


> P.S. It was the prof that said this and not me _"It was not fiscal stimulus that prevented a technical recession, but a combination of other macroeconomic factors. The evidence can be found in Australia's national accounts."_




Hence the reason I said "arguably"...because it was a "politicafact" as in political.

I said:
So lets get the facts... and cause and effect, straightened out.​
Your post quoted the prof: The RBA sharply lowered the official interest rate which facilitated the exchange rate depreciation, and scope existed for further interest rate reductions. 

That was clearly a misrepresentation of the historical facts. 

I said:
Actually it was the GFC that "facilitated" the RBA to lower interest rates. 

It was the GFC that caused the AUD to crash, which caused the RBA to sharply lower interest rates. See the middle chart that clearly shows interest rates following not leading the RBA cash rate.

...and further explained in my original post that there was in fact a fall in volume demand which the net demand ($ value) could not fully offset by the exchange rate fall.​
It's a bit of a dud argument when you rely on a quote that is clearly wrong in context.

Who got monkey trapped


----------



## trainspotter

So RBA and the professor of economics is wrong and Whiskers is right? You really do have some issues in comprehension about obvious facts don't you? You have changed the story several times now to cover you glaring mistakes. :





You might need to go and read the RBA link as well for a better understanding of macroeconomics. Or are they wrong as well?


----------



## wayneL

Whatever its imperfections, whatever mistakes is has made or will make, I like this new gu'mint.


The Australian has seen part of the document and it declares that, while Australia will remain “a good international citizen” and remains “committed to achieving the 5 per cent reduction” by 2020 of the 2000 levels of emissions, it will not sign up to any new agreement that involves spending money or levying taxes. - The Australian
The government’s document also says that Australia “will not support any measures which are socialism masquerading as environmentalism”.

The document’s commitment that the government “will review its commitment in 2015 in light of the science and international developments” deliberately allows a range of policy outcomes.

In the unlikely event that all major economies move in a concerted way, Australia could join in. However, the language provides that if the science becomes more unclear, and if nations move away from their earlier enthusiasm for action, then Australia also could wind back its efforts.

The timing of the Warsaw conference on climate change is difficult for the government. It has decided that neither Environment Minister Greg Hunt nor Foreign Minister Julie Bishop will attend.

The Abbott government does not expect any significant progress to occur at the Poland meeting.

Ms Bishop will be at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting while part of the conference is on, and then at the annual AUSMIN talks as the Warsaw conference draws to a conclusion.

The government regards AUSMIN, the annual foreign and defence ministers’ meeting between Australia and the US, as vastly more important.

Mr Hunt will be in parliament supervising the introduction of the legislation to repeal the carbon tax while the Warsaw conference is on. However, the government would most likely not have sent a minister in any circumstances as it does not believe the meeting will be of great significance.

Mr Abbott has been strongly critical of agreements in which Australian funds are used to buy permits that are meant to fund cuts to greenhouse gas reductions in other countries – a key mechanism in the global talks.

The Coalition based its criticism of Labor policy on official forecasts showing Australian emissions would rise over time and that the 5 per cent target was only reached by purchasing overseas permits at an eventual cost of $150bn a year in 2050.

“This is by far the biggest wealth transfer from Australians to foreigners that’s ever been contemplated,” Mr Abbott said of purchasing offshore carbon permits.

Read the full story at - The Australian

 via http://joannenova.com.au/2013/11/au...t-socialism-masquerading-as-environmentalism/

NB I agree with basilio that CC policy should be discussed here, but if we can please limit it to policy and leave science, advocacy and propaganda for the other thread


----------



## trainspotter

I concur. Let's have an accord of decorum.


----------



## Whiskers

trainspotter said:


> So RBA and the professor of economics is wrong and Whiskers is right?
> 
> You might need to go and read the RBA link as well for a better understanding of macroeconomics. Or are they wrong as well?




The RBA link... well it's all in the name, it's just a Research Discussion Paper about THE MINING INDUSTRY: FROM BUST TO BOOM, hardly a definitive commentary on fiscal, let alone monetary policy.

From your link to the prof he opens by stating Richard Holden argued in a post on the site last week that the fiscal stimulus did save us from recession. Your prof claims the opposite but gets his historical facts wrong as I pointed out, just for starters.

Just opinion, typical political spin claiming the evidence (that you don't and can't produce) is in the accounts. Your link to the ABS accounts just shows a list of reports, no quote or chart or particular figures to prove anything.

The facts are in the real reports and data from the ABS, DFAT, Treasury and the Parliamentary Budget Office, that I quoted from, not some politifact analyst that disagrees with someone else over the interpretation of the ABS figures, then can't get his historical facts right to start with.



trainspotter said:


> Funny how these economists come up with these theories. What about this for a theory then?
> 
> It was not fiscal stimulus that prevented a technical recession, but a combination of other macroeconomic factors. *The evidence can be found in Australia's national accounts.*
> 
> http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@...sues&prodno=5206.0&issue=Jun 2013&num=&view=&
> 
> *The national accounts show it was not fiscal stimulus that prevented recession* in the March 2009 quarter, but net exports, boosted by a massive exchange rate depreciation and strong demand from China for Australia's commodity exports. Thank goodness for all those greedy mining companies up in the Pilbara eh?
> 
> The RBA sharply lowered the official interest rate which facilitated the exchange rate depreciation, and scope existed for further interest rate reductions.  *However increased government borrowing due to a range of fiscal stimulus initiatives obviated this policy option.* Pink Batts anyone?
> 
> _Extra government spending did subsequently add to total spending in the economy_, thinking Gillards "building revolution" but this occurred several quarters after the worst of the GFC had past, and put upward pressure on market interest rates and the exchange rate.
> 
> *In turn, this worsened industry competitiveness and contributed to subsequent job losses, not gains, in sectors like manufacturing and tourism.* High Aussie dollar and not many tourists want to come here anymore. Got it?
> 
> In other words, fiscal stimulus later weakened the economy by contributing to a strengthening of the exchange rate and generating *policy uncertainty about how the historically high budget deficits would be corrected.*
> 
> ... *Just a theory I happen to believe in.*



Note the highlights, blue in particular, that you committed to that were completely uninformative, misleading or wrong!



Whiskers said:


> Indeed... just your THEORY!
> 
> This is the trouble people (including me as explained earlier under Howard) get into when you don't  properly understand the economic numbers... when you trust blind faith in your political advisors.
> 
> If you want to avoid us going bankrupt like the US... think carefully before giving the government a blank cheque.
> 
> So lets get the facts... and cause and effect, straightened out.
> 
> Actually it was the GFC that "facilitated" the RBA to lower interest rates.
> 
> It was the GFC that caused the AUD to crash, which caused the RBA to sharply lower interest rates. See the middle chart that clearly shows interest rates following not leading the RBA cash rate.
> 
> As above, net exports (in $) see top chart, did not offset the other adverse effects of the GFC, collapsing AUD, it just partly compensated for it.
> 
> Net exports was not a net "boost" to the economy.
> 
> Second, demand (volume) from China fell flat with the GFC and never fully recovered the previous rate of "strong demand" as the bottom chart shows.
> 
> Volume growth in Australian exports to China has slowed in recent years (2009 to 2011), to average just 5 per cent per annum, mainly due to a decrease in export volumes of Fuels (from their 2009 peak) and Manufactures. http://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/stats-pubs/australias-exports-to-china-2001-2011.pdf​




Do you want to try some more links or references to prove what you happen to believe in?

You will also notice on the earlier post the chart with the Parliamentary Budget Office post 1038, clearly shows the more important point that the Structural Budget Balance was in deficit going down under Howard and regardless the quality of Labor budgeting and spending, the Structural Budget Balance DID turn around.  https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27364&page=52


----------



## Whiskers

wayneL said:


> Whatever its imperfections, whatever mistakes is has made or will make, I like this new gu'mint.




I'll thoroughly support them for the abolition of the Carbon Tax and a few other things if their actual legislation turns out true to advertised policy... BUT, don't you dare think I'm forgiving of them (or Labor) for broken promises and fraudulent policy and legislative positions.


----------



## Whiskers

Just for a bit of credibility, this is the latest Treasury update on the Budget.

See how that reconciles with what your politicians (and their loyal followers) are telling you. My Bolds.

The structural budget balance estimates shown in Chart 3 indicate that, prior to the GFC, underlying cash surpluses were supported by temporary (cyclical) factors, including the high terms of trade, an economy operating above its long-run potential and strong growth in asset prices. The estimates suggest that *the structural budget balance deteriorated from the mid-2000s, with the point estimate of the structural budget balance falling into deficit just prior to the GFC*.
The underlying cash balance moved further into deficit with the onset of the GFC, as the sharp fall in nominal GDP growth and asset prices reduced tax receipts significantly. This coincided with a widening of the structural budget deficit, largely attributable to the Government’s temporary fiscal stimulus measures and some of the factors that drove the large fall in the tax share of GDP in this period. These include the increased share of profits coming from the resources sector (which pays less tax per dollar of economic income than other sectors), and the implementation of policy measures announced earlier, particularly successive large cuts in personal income taxes.7 The fiscal stimulus measures have since been unwound; however, the factors that have reduced the tax share of GDP continue to weigh on the structural budget position.
http://www.treasury.gov.au/Publicat...-budget-balance-for-the-Australian-Government​


----------



## wayneL

Whiskers said:


> BUT, don't you dare think I'm forgiving of them (or Labor) for broken promises and fraudulent policy and legislative positions.




Whiskers, how amusing. 

What makes you think I give a flying f### what you think? 

As far as I am concerned extreme _argumentum verbosium_ here is nothing more than visual pollution and a criminal waste of bandwidth. I only bothered to read the one where you quoted me, the rest I scroll over for possibly interesting content from other members.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Whiskers, how amusing.
> 
> What makes you think I give a flying f### what you think?
> 
> As far as I am concerned extreme _argumentum verbosium_ here is nothing more than visual pollution and a criminal waste of bandwidth. I only bothered to read the one where you quoted me, the rest I scroll over for possibly interesting content from other members.




So Whiskers starts quoting Treasury documents as evidence to show how the underlying budget deficits unfolded.

On the face of it impartial evidence to bring to the discussion that adds (IMO) some value to the discussion.

And you , Wayne deride it as visual pollution and waste of bandwith ?

Want to know why this forum is  now largely  comprised of abusive, no brainers ? Look in the mirror.

____________________________________________________________________
Joe Blow. This is for you while you are trying to work out how to improve the quality of ASF..


----------



## trainspotter

Mea culpa WayneL and other ASFers ... I have been chumming the water, pouring fuel on the fire, stacking the fridge, feeding the monkey, wasting bandwidth and generally taking the piss. Wont happen again. 

The link to the RBA was to evidence that mining exports had risen 300% and that China saved us from a recession and NOT the Labor government fiscal policy of wasting money on pink batts and school halls. Also the economic times assisted Australia through the GFC as we were debt free.

A very obvious position to be in but one that nonetheless was wasted on certain members. Oh well .... back to the batcave Robin.


----------



## IFocus

Mean while back at the ranch the brainless................

Joe Hockey goes a step too far



> There is politics with its usual play-acting and huffing and puffing, and then there's going a step too far. Joe Hockey has taken that step.
> 
> I gave him the benefit of the doubt, thought he couldn't be serious, suspected there was a careful use of weasel words to provide an out – but I checked and apparently the Treasurer means what he said: he'll throw a Tea Party on December 12 and slash government services when the existing $300 billion debt ceiling is reached unless the opposition gives him a $500 billion ceiling now. He won't accept the proffered $400 billion interim offer.
> 
> He told Parliament on Wednesday: “We will stare you down on this because the debt limit is being hit on the 12th of December and I want to know if the Labor Party thinks it is so heroic, so heroic, to go down the path of starting to close down government services because we may need to exceed that debt limit.”



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/joe-hockey-goes-a-step-too-far-20131115-2xll6.html#ixzz2kl3z59Ia


----------



## IFocus

trainspotter said:


> Mea culpa WayneL and other ASFers ... I have been chumming the water, pouring fuel on the fire, stacking the fridge, feeding the monkey, wasting bandwidth and generally taking the piss. Wont happen again.
> 
> The link to the RBA was to evidence that mining exports had risen 300% and that China saved us from a recession and NOT the Labor government fiscal policy of wasting money on pink batts and school halls. *Also the economic times assisted Australia through the GFC as we were debt free.*
> 
> A very obvious position to be in but one that nonetheless was wasted on certain members. Oh well .... back to the batcave Robin.




Just on the bolds the retail sector took us through the GFC the sector didn't shed jobs unlike mining (19%).

If they (retail) had fired 19% of the work force like mining then we would look more like the US regardless of our debt free situation.

Ken Henry acted ahead of the curve "go retail go early" gets little credit for saving Australia from deep recession. 

All you hear is how good a couple of mugs who sold ever thing they could and built a structural budget debt.

Hockey now wants another 66% on the credit card how can that work?


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> Joe Hockey goes a step too far
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/joe-hockey-goes-a-step-too-far-20131115-2xll6.html#ixzz2kl3z59Ia




The problem with the interim offer is that it is inadequate before we even get to MYEFO.



> The most recent Treasury figures, released before the election, had forecast debt peaking at $370 billion 2015-16.
> 
> Reprising Labor's argument from its time in office, Mr Hockey says the Government also needs a buffer of between $40bn and $60bn.
> 
> But the Opposition wants the Treasurer to release his department's budget update, the Mid-year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO), before it will approve any more than $400 billion.


----------



## wayneL

Basilio,

Unsurprisingly, you have missed the point altogether. It is not treasury data at issue, it is, which I repeat for your benefit, the argumentum verbosium and the poisonous,biased subjectivity contained therein..... and the delusion that it counts as any form of valid analysis.

The farcical fallacy of your post highlights the  scientific validity of the canonical wayneL's Law, vis a vis a total absence of objective thought; as is your ability to recognize it as in self evidence in your komrade's ridiculous subjectivity.


----------



## sails

drsmith said:


> The problem with the interim offer is that it is inadequate before we even get to MYEFO.




It is unbelievable that labor, who ran up the majority of this debt with wasteful spending, now refuses to give Australia a sensible financial buffer.

Labor and their supporters clearly have no idea on how to manage a budget in the first place let alone how to fix a budget mess.

The first thing to do is create a buffer to buy some time while bringing spending under control.  It seems Labor simply does not care about the well being of this country and would happily see it trashed if that means trashing the coalition. Shameful stuff...


----------



## trainspotter

So a professor of economics is wrong and the RBA data is wrong and the ABS national accounts evidencing factual information is wrong BUT Whiskers is right.

Yerrrrrr rightio then. Crack on then shall we. :1zhelp:


----------



## McLovin

Just get rid of this stupid debt ceiling nonsense. This isn't America, and no one is going to block supply anyway, so what's the point of wasting time and money debating it. And Hockey is a moron for talking up the possibility of shutting down the public service.


----------



## drsmith

The problem for Labor in terms of their budget management is that it engaged in a range of policy settings that made the budget situation far worse than in needed to be and left itself in a situation where it simply had to become ever more reactionary to the unfolding budget situation during the latter part of its second term.

In short, Labor over promised and under delivered.

As examples of Labor's policy settings, I highlight the following,

1) Labor went along with most of the Coalition's tax cuts as part of the 2007 election campaign simply to get elected. 
2) While some fiscal stimulation was appropriate in response to the GFC, Labor's response was perhaps excessive and some of it clearly ill directed (pink batts for example).
3) The mining tax and associated spending measures were a terrible fiscal miscalculation.
4) Loss of effective border control represent a further serious ideological and fiscal miscalculation.
5) The carbon tax and associated measures. This very policy is designed to slow economic growth and hence revenues.
6) The infighting within Labor itself while in government and the impact that had on the nation's confidence.

It's fair to say the Howard government in its latter years shares some of the blame for the present situation, but they at least were fiscally sound in the early years of their government which is much more than can be said for Labor's 6-years in office.

The lions share of the present budgetary situation lies with Labor and that's clear in the RBA graph above.

The question now is how the new Coalition government responds and to get a clear picture of that, we'll have to wait for its first budget. Some of their present policy settings in my view are not appropriate in the present budget situation (PPL and direct action for example) but we at least now have an administration that appears to be much more purpose driven with the business of actually running the country than Labor was in office.


----------



## drsmith

McLovin said:


> Just get rid of this stupid debt ceiling nonsense. This isn't America, and no one is going to block supply anyway, so what's the point of wasting time and money debating it. And Hockey is a moron for talking up the possibility of shutting down the public service.



Getting rid of the debt ceiling is hopefully what they will do and yes, Joe Hockey doesn't have to come down to Labor's level in this debate although I think he knows as well as Labor does that this is an argument Labor will lose and like many of these policy debates, the detail will matter little in the long run.


----------



## Julia

Chris Richardson's view on the debt ceiling from "The World Today":


> Economist Chris Richardson - from Deloitte Access Economics - dismisses the need for a debt ceiling at all and accuses both sides of playing political games with it.
> 
> CHRIS RICHARDSON: I don't think we need a debt ceiling, full stop. Remember this is a fairly new invention in Australia and it's a dumb one. Parliament already looks closely at every budget. You can ask Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser just how closely we look at budgets.
> 
> We have Parliament passing in effect the expenditure and revenue decisions in the budget. That means they've directly or indirectly already made decisions about debt. If you have another layer of decision, that's dumb. It's asking for trouble as the US has recently proved.
> 
> We'd be much better off having no debt limit. If we've got to have one, let's have a massive increase so that it does not prove to be a problem.
> 
> LOUISE YAXLEY: Do you think then that this is just a political game?
> 
> CHRIS RICHARDSON: Both sides have played political games with debts and deficits in Australia. No side has covered itself with glory in this debate. Either before or after the election.
> 
> For reasons of good governance in Australia, we have already, year in, year out, taken careful decisions around budget spending and revenue. We should not let grandstanding opportunities arise. The US is a good example of the trouble a nation can get into around grandstanding.
> 
> Again, neither side of politics has its hands clean here. Of the available options, yes I would prefer the increase to $500 billion. But only because the sensible option, you know, take the debt ceiling out the back and shoot it.
> 
> ELEANOR HALL: That's economist Chris Richardson ending that report from Louise Yaxley in Canberra.




This is all just the usual political theatrics on both sides.  Labor have nowhere to go on this.  They have tacitly admitted this by asking for justification of the $500billion by Treasury.  Martin Parkinson will be duly wheeled out, will say all the right words, and the whole silly argument will be history.


----------



## Whiskers

wayneL said:


> Whiskers, how amusing.
> 
> What makes you think I give a flying f### what you think?
> 
> As far as I am concerned extreme _argumentum verbosium_ here is nothing more than visual pollution and a criminal waste of bandwidth. I only bothered to read the one where you quoted me, the rest I scroll over for possibly interesting content from other members.




WayneL, since you missed my main point highlighted...

I'll thoroughly support them for the abolition of the Carbon Tax and a few other things if their actual legislation turns out true to advertised policy... *BUT, don't you dare think I'm forgiving of them (or Labor) for broken promises and fraudulent policy and legislative positions.[/B]*​* 

...lets look a what you are really saying. As always I'm open to correction if the strict meaning or statistics are wrong. Just point it out with references. (I'll use Wikipedia here)

Proof by intimidation (or argumentum verbosium) is a jocular phrase...
jocular: fond of or characterized by joking; humorous or playful​Since you are clearly not 'fond' of me, you must be joking, humorous or playfull... good grounds to not believe anything you say. As pointed out previously and demonstrated by TS in particular, immediately prior.

...to refer to a style of presenting a purported mathematical proof by giving an argument loaded with jargon and appeal to obscure results, so that the audience is simply obliged to accept it, lest they have to admit their ignorance and lack of understanding.​
So, firstly, by definition you are heavily implying the 'mathematical proof' the ABS, Treasury, Parliamentary Budget Office and the like is just 'appeal to obscure results'. 

Secondly, this is a case of what I asked people previously... what do you think of people who accuse you of what they are guilty of themselves...  so that the audience is simply obliged to accept it, lest they have to admit their ignorance and lack of understanding

I'm happy to let the people and Joe Blow decide who is "extreme argumentum verbosium here". For me opinion backed up with at least some solid 'official' data is far preferable filling the band with than copious verbal head nodding of approval like behind speakers in parliament and toxic argument.



IFocus said:



			Just on the bolds the retail sector took us through the GFC the sector didn't shed jobs unlike mining (19%).

If they (retail) had fired 19% of the work force like mining then we would look more like the US regardless of our debt free situation.

Ken Henry acted ahead of the curve "go retail go early" gets little credit for saving Australia from deep recession.
		
Click to expand...



Quite true. While the mining boom was and still is very important to us, it is well recognised that commodity prices in USD took a huge hit as the official data shows. 



wayneL said:



			Basilio,

Unsurprisingly, you have missed the point altogether. It is not treasury data at issue, it is, which I repeat for your benefit, the argumentum verbosium and the poisonous,biased subjectivity contained therein..... and the delusion that it counts as any form of valid analysis.

The farcical fallacy of your post highlights the  scientific validity of the canonical wayneL's Law, vis a vis a total absence of objective thought; as is your ability to recognize it as in self evidence in your komrade's ridiculous subjectivity.
		
Click to expand...



WayneL, you know Basilio (and others) and I have have a few significant differences of opinion, BUT we have always maintained a reasonable degree of decorum (behaviour in keeping with good taste and propriety), hence ... is it any wonder we might become "friend", "colleague", or "ally"? 

The concept of the 'common enemy' as a group unifier is something that lobby groups,controlling people and politicians often use to get the numbers to fill the media with their story and pass legislation etc. 

What you might also should know is that in overkill (as I explained the government exaggerating the financial position to win office) it works against you by aligning many of your opponents when it's increasingly obvious you are denying the undeniable and threatening their democratic rights and natural justice. 



McLovin said:



			Just get rid of this stupid debt ceiling nonsense. This isn't America, and no one is going to block supply anyway, so what's the point of wasting time and money debating it. And Hockey is a moron for talking up the possibility of shutting down the public service.
		
Click to expand...



Certainly agree no one is going to block supply, at least not yet. 

But, I'd suggest if the government keeps relating to the US and tries to go down their fiscal and monetary policy road too much and beating their current drum, people will smell a rat and likely rebell. 

Apparently the Greens and Labor, via the senate have demanded the production of:
any documentation relating to “on water operations” that occurred between September 7, 2013 and November 14, 2013 by 12pm on November 18. - See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...y-fn9hm1gu-1226759702635#sthash.ncztJ280.dpuf​
The use of parliamentary process like senate inquiries for transparency and openness could be their undoing if they don't 'get real' pretty soon.



drsmith said:



1) Labor went along with most of the Coalition's tax cuts as part of the 2007 election campaign simply to get elected.

Click to expand...



I have no problem with your summary except for the blue highlights.

That's true, but how do two wrongs make a right? The Coalition are keeping all the welfare handouts for the carbon tax etc and even topping some policies like paid parental leave to 'get elected'.




5) The carbon tax and associated measures. This very policy is designed to slow economic growth and hence revenues.

Click to expand...


Little doubt the carbon tax is a big drain on our economy... although you might surprised how many business leaders believe in global warming and the need for some sort of control.

Actually the mining tax was designed to collect more revenue. I'll find the link, but it's in one of those I've already posted that the mining industry pays less tax than others. 

The problem as I see it was in the design and implementation. There wasn't the desired integration of state royalties with the formula to prevent states exploiting their  low royalties and payroll tax etc attracting business to their state to draw more population which draws more fed funding, GST, grants etc.

You will likely see mining tax revenue pick up since any company manager worth their salt would have brought forward maintenance and development etc to minimise the tax as long as possible.




			It's fair to say the Howard government in its latter years shares some of the blame for the present situation, but they at least were fiscally sound in the early years of their government which is much more than can be said for Labor's 6-years in office.
		
Click to expand...



Good to see you absorbing the data dr, but to be fair the Howard government didn't have a GFC in their face first up. 

So... 




			The question now is how the new Coalition government responds
		
Click to expand...



on balance, is it better to have a government that is open as a book (arguably too open) a bit big on the social welfare side of fiscal policy albeit a bit clumsy, or a skillfull, prudent manager who turns deceptive capitalist 'deliberately' sabotaging the economy just to try to win office again?*


----------



## Whiskers

Julia said:


> Chris Richardson's view on the debt ceiling from "The World Today":
> 
> 
> This is all just the usual political theatrics on both sides.  Labor have nowhere to go on this.  They have tacitly admitted this by asking for justification of the $500billion by Treasury.  Martin Parkinson will be duly wheeled out, will say all the right words, and the whole silly argument will be history.




Ordinarily, one would expect the debt ceiling would not be a big issue except for the tactical blunder I mentioned... overselling an argument for so long that we are in a financial crisis, to condemn debt.

Tactically, given the debt ceiling is there, Labor and the greens have the numbers in the senate to block it. 

If the economy is deteriorating as badly as Abbott and Hockey say, why not lift the gags on public servants and FOI requests for information to clear the air? It can only work in their favour, cant it!?

What would you do if Labor and the greens just laid down and did everything the Libs demanded... and it turns out they pulled the wool over our eyes again deceptively turning our structural budget lower again, like Howard and Costello and like the US? No doubt you'd abuse the hell out of them for dereliction of duty, failing their duty of care, not putting up a spirited opposition... as in a criminal defence, causing the wrong people to be punished due to ineffective council.

Abbott and Hockey have the means to prove this one way or the other... they just have to remove the veil of secrecy to prove it. There are no 'smugglers' or other villains that thrive on the release of this sort of info into the media... except those hidden within.

I would suggest the economy, as in the revenue forecasts is not as bad as they are leading us to believe. They are twisting the old Howard spin... instead of selling off heaps of assets to support big spending, driving the structural Budget down as Howard did, Abbott and Hockey are beating up the 'budget crisis' to try to justify more borrowing to continue a big spending government that would drive the structural budget lower, stripping the guts out of us like the US and much of Europe.


----------



## trainspotter

Does you Mum know you are on the computer again Whiskers? :

You really do not have a clue do you?


----------



## drsmith

Whiskers, 

I don't know if you realise it but the Howard government's fiscal record and how it stands in comparison with Labor after taking office in 2007 has been discussed in detail on this forum in the past.

I will though respond quickly to the following point,



Whiskers said:


> Good to see you absorbing the data dr,........




The summary view I expressed on the Howard government's fiscal record today in this thread and its comparison with Labor is broadly consistent with the views I've expressed in past discussions on that matter.


----------



## wayneL

Whiskers said:


> WayneL, you know Basilio (and others) and I have have a few significant differences of opinion, BUT we have always maintained a reasonable degree of decorum (behaviour in keeping with good taste and propriety),




Here, evidence of delusion and/or duplicity, not to mention a monumental hypocrisy of truly megalithic proportions.

One example: Do really regard your Argumentum Hitlerium on an earlier post as showing either good taste, propriety or decorum? 

In fact you are hoist by your own petard.

That's it, I'll reserve my own verbosity for more mercantile pursuits and consign the remainder of your points to the BS bin.


----------



## Whiskers

drsmith said:


> Whiskers,
> 
> The summary view I expressed on the Howard government's fiscal record today in this thread and its comparison with Labor is broadly consistent with the views I've expressed in past discussions on that matter.



Ok, So... 

*The question now is how the new Coalition government responds *on balance, is it better to have a government that is open as a book (arguably too open) a bit big on the social welfare side of fiscal policy albeit a bit clumsy, or a skillfull, prudent manager who turns deceptive capitalist 'deliberately' sabotaging the economy just to try to win office again? 



wayneL said:


> One example: Do really regard your Argumentum Hitlerium on an earlier post as showing either good taste, propriety or decorum?




Firstly:
_Argumentum Hitlerium is an informal fallacy that consists of trying to refute an opponent's view by comparing it to* a view* that would be held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party ._​
Clearly, I was exemplifying a *cultural and behaviour style *of the followers of the referred to events, not the views of the leaders... I did say two events entailing loyalty to the extreme... suicidal, like under primiarily Emperor Hirohito though.

What is NOT in good taste is you misrepresenting what people say (or, if they are not as articulate as you and I, what they mean) and twisting it around with extreme argumentum verbosium  trying to intimidate them... 



> I'll reserve my own verbosity for more mercantile pursuits and consign the remainder of your points to the BS bin.




What do merchants want to do? Buy and sell things to make a profit. The adjective mercantile describes these kinds of efforts and goals.

Many people have mercantile dreams of opening a store where they can sell things they love and interact with people in their community. Sometimes, however, the word mercantile has negative connotations. Exploiting factory workers, polluting the environment, wasting natural resources? All these reflect the dark side of the mercantile pursuit of profit. https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/mercantile

Soo... it seems we are back where we started... where in the full circle you discuss naught about the 'message' and try your best to shoot down every 'messenger' who dares to critique whom you 'like', with more extreme argumentum verbosium .

Lets start with why you have a problem with the government having to provide treasury forecasts and or their budgetary plan to justify the need to lift the debt ceiling so much. 

Also given you said "_whatever its imperfections, whatever mistakes is has made or will make, I like this new gu'mint_"... what about answering the question to drsmith above. 

It should help clear up which connotation of "mercantile pursuits" you subscribe to, whether you are serious or just jocular... of the deceptive or just not quite so competent type.


----------



## drsmith

trainspotter said:


> Does you Mum know you are on the computer again Whiskers? :



What worries me more than anything is the use of the tablet under the covers after bedtime.


----------



## Julia

Some years ago we had a poster with the nic 'bullmarket'.  He wasn't especially nasty to anyone, neither was he characterised by any particularly vociferous views about anything in particular.
But what he did do that drove everyone else mad was to swamp many threads with his unwanted, meandering pontificating about pretty much anything that others actually wanted to have a genuine discussion about.

After an interminable period of this, he abruptly and decisively disappeared.
Perhaps he suddenly found greener pastures, or perhaps the common sentiment prevailed and he was banned.


----------



## Whiskers

Julia said:


> After an interminable period of this, he abruptly and decisively disappeared.
> Perhaps he suddenly found greener pastures, or perhaps the common sentiment prevailed and he was banned.




Sentiment: A thought, view, or attitude, especially one based mainly on emotion instead of reason.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sentiment

So... correct me if I'm wrong, but (but in the current context) you seem to be implying that Aussie Stock Forums is pro Lib and would bann robust critique from opponents.

Are you also implying Aussie Stock Forums enforces mob rule?

I thought we were all better than that!

But since you raise it... that is the underlying philosophy that I object to with our politicians.

Are you characterising the posts from WayneL, Trainspotter and even drsmith above as "genuine discussion"? 

I'd also add that I have no memory of a "bullmarket" and my comment above is not an endorsement or otherwise of him.


----------



## sails

Sigh... ignore seems to be the only option.

It's like being in a room of people wishing to have a discussion but one person shouts loudly and continuously making it so unpleasant that most people end up leaving.

My


----------



## trainspotter

drsmith said:


> What worries me more than anything is the use of the tablet under the covers after bedtime.




What worries me more is the tablets she gives him before tucking him into bed


----------



## trainspotter

Whiskers said:


> Sentiment: A thought, view, or attitude, especially one based mainly on emotion instead of reason.
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sentiment
> 
> So... correct me if I'm wrong, but (but in the current context) you seem to be implying that Aussie Stock Forums is pro Lib and would bann robust critique from opponents.
> 
> Are you also implying Aussie Stock Forums enforces mob rule?
> 
> I thought we were all better than that!
> 
> But since you raise it... that is the underlying philosophy that I object to with our politicians.
> 
> Are you characterising the posts from WayneL, Trainspotter and even drsmith above as "genuine discussion"?
> 
> I'd also add that I have no memory of a "bullmarket" and my comment above is not an endorsement or otherwise of him.




No Whiskers  ... what WE are telling you is that you are an overbearing prat. Some of your posts are logical and structured whilst others are just ....... well, you get the idea. No problem with your "opinion" ... it is the condescending, bordering on narcissism, approach you bring to the room that pisses people off. Good for you if you are right sometimes .... bad for us to have to read it ... all the time.

I will leave you with this little gem ... _ "Don't knock your neighbor's porch light out to make yours shine brighter." _


----------



## Calliope

trainspotter said:


> No Whiskers  ... what WE are telling you is that you are an overbearing prat. Some of your posts are logical and structured whilst others are just ....... well, you get the idea. No problem with your "opinion" ... it is the condescending, bordering on narcissism, approach you bring to the room that pisses people off. Good for you if you are right sometimes .... bad for us to have to read it ... all the time.




That sums it up nicely TS. His condescending, narcissistic approach is well illustrated in his signature..."Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be Will Be)". He provides a translation for the world's probably most hackneyed phrase, on the assumption that we peasants are too ignorant to know this.

Take my advice;


----------



## Whiskers

sails said:


> It's like being in a room of people wishing to have a discussion but one person shouts loudly and continuously making it so unpleasant that most people end up leaving.




Sails, I agree with the literal word here. 

But...  


> Sigh... ignore seems to be the only option.




... while in the first instance it is often wise to 'ignore', just put it away for awhile until one's sentiment (_A thought, view, or attitude, especially one based mainly on emotion instead of reason_) is displaced with 'reason'. 

let we show you. 

In keeping in the theme of my critique of the former labor government and some aspects of this Lib government, exploring the *intent* of their actions by asking them to clarify statements that appear to contain veiled threats, hidden connotations or maybe just poorly or mistakenly phrased words, by studying their response.

The theme: 

Politicians (and their faithful supporters) accusing others of what they are guilty of themselves.
Does two wrongs make a right?
Is it better to have a government that is more well meaning, but clumsy, more social welfare or a government that is more secretive, very deliberate, with a hidden more capitalist adgenda? 
Further, attempt to address the behaviour (whether intentional or accidental) as opposed to immediately attacking the person. Hence the reason I refer to trolling (reflecting bad behaviour) instead of troll, the individual.

1.  trolling  
Being a prick on the internet because you can. Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it's the internet and, hey, you can.

Guy: "I just found the coolest ninja pencil in existence." 
Other Guy: "I just found the most retarded thread in existence."
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling​
Now, I used the "urban" reference in this case as this appears to be more 'urban' gorilla type behaviour.

I used "thefreedictionary" reference for "Sentiment" as that appeared to be fairly typical 'fight or flight' behaviour, a perceived harmful event, attack, or threat to survival, form more traditional 'suburbia.''

I used Wikipedia for "argumentum verbosium" and  "Argumentum Hitlerium" etc as that appeared a bit more sophisticated behaviour, more 'urbia', cities with dense populations.

I just say "No" to others who tell you to "go to bed".

Then there are some comments that are just so self-incriminating, it's best to just let them standout, untouched.

So in keeping with our democratic process and natural justice, 'whatever will be will be'... I rest for a moment, while* waiting for clarity of intent on substantial open to question, in doubt comments* immediately prior... whether just poorly chosen words as we all do some times, but is easily rectified by rephrasing.

In the mean time, *what is the common denominator of the Howard era, Labor troubles and the current Lib government?*

Beating up a controversy in the name of one thing (Union power and responsible fiscal management, leadership and budget crisis), BUT as a deceptive decoy for secretive agendas (workchoices and structural budget decline, Carbon Tax and faction control, extreme capitalism and more structural budget decline?)


----------



## wayneL

IIRC Whiskers has become "qualified" in "conflict resolution" or some such thing.

My two observations:

1/ the Whiskers post qualification is profoundly different to the pre qual Whiskers. Pre qual Whiskers was pretty much normal, not prone to irritating others especially.

2/ the irony that post conflict resolution qualification, Whiskers is more likely to heighten and augment conflict, rather than resolve.

...and another observation - Whiskers seem to have rather too much time on his hands.

FWIW

PS re the narcissism observation of TS - Yes, bang on.

IMNTBCHO 

BTW Whiskers, for your edification and not to validate your preposterous contention, it is Guerilla, not Gorilla.


----------



## drsmith

Whiskers said:


> I just say "No" to others who tell you to "go to bed".



It's good advice.

Posting late at night results in a loss of beauty sleep.


----------



## trainspotter

*Collective sigh* ... and now we all can get some sleep


----------



## IFocus

Mean while back on the thread topic Abbott sucks up to the Sri Lanka  government ignoring  President Mahinda Rajapaksa tyrant government and human rights abuses.

All over the politics of boat people.

Sad really even Howard didn't hesitate to raise such issues.



> Mr Abbott told reporters in Colombo on Friday that Australia had "good and close co-operation" with the Sri Lankan government and navy.
> 
> "I'll be thanking the Sri Lankans for the co-operation which they have extended to us on this important issue and I will have more to say about this in the next day or so," Mr Abbott said.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...e-smuggling-20131116-2xnhf.html#ixzz2ktg9yeok


Wonder if Abbott will supply more white vans.


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> Mean while back on the thread topic Abbott sucks up to the Sri Lanka  government ignoring  President Mahinda Rajapaksa tyrant government and human rights abuses.
> 
> All over the politics of boat people.



We've given them two retired patrol boats.

Big deal.

What about the human rights abuse that was Labor encouraging people to come to Australia by boat only to have over 1,000 drown ?

As I've said before, you really should avoid commenting on this issue if that's the best you can do.


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> We've given them two retired patrol boats.
> 
> Big deal.
> 
> What about the human rights abuse that was Labor encouraging people to come to Australia by boat only to have over 1,000 drown ?
> 
> As I've said before, you really should avoid commenting on this issue if that's the best you can do.




Abbott praised them for their human rights record and you say big deal...........extraordinary.


----------



## drsmith

IF,

Do you want to see the boats stopped ?

Yes or no ?


----------



## McLovin

IFocus said:


> Abbott praised them for their human rights record and you say big deal...........extraordinary.




It was pretty funny that only a day before he talked about the human tragedy that is people smuggling, only to the next day praise the pseudo-dictator who in no small part is responsible for it.

Politicians are all the same.


----------



## Julia

IFocus said:


> Abbott praised them for their human rights record and you say big deal...........extraordinary.



Did he really?  Perhaps you can post the link showing him actually praising their human rights record.
Of course it's easy to sit on the peaceful sideline of Australia, far away from the bloody actions of the Tamil Tigers and the civil war,  and be an armchair critic of the Sri Lankan government

Mr Abbott could have followed David Cameron into telling Sri Lanka what they should be doing.
This would, however, hardly be conducive to Sri Lanka's co-operation in reducing boat departures for Australia.

Political decisions are always going to be about what is in that politician's best interests, and hopefully the interests of the country he represents.

Mr Abbott has already made clear that  - as a general principle - he doesn't believe in lecturing other countries.
Seems reasonable enough to me.  Do we want other world leaders telling us how we should manage our domestic affairs?  I doubt it.

Might be good to consider giving the government a decent go before passing so much judgement.
They're obviously still in the settling in period, possibly in some instances overcompensating for six years of having no control, but this will likely even out over time.


----------



## drsmith

Tony Abbott confirms Bay-class patrol boats gift to Sri Lanka to combat people smuggling, ABC story with short video segment.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-17/abbott-confirms-sri-lanka-boats-deal/5097580


----------



## trainspotter

To secure the cooperation of the Sri Lankan government to assist in stopping the asylum seeker human traffic I believe is the answer. David Cameron shot himself in the foot with his claims of human rights issues in Sri Lanka (rightly or wrongly) I believe what PM Tony Abbott has facilitated with the donation of 2 retired patrol boats will go a long way to slowing this henieous crime of human cargo being preyed upon by unscrupulous profiteers. Diplomacy I think it is called. Also if you read the link I posted on #2157 in the Green Light thread you will learn that 70% of detainees currently in "our" detention centres are from where again? DYOR.


----------



## Calliope

McLovin said:


> It was pretty funny that only a day before he talked about the human tragedy that is people smuggling, only to the next day praise the pseudo-dictator who in no small part is responsible for it.
> 
> Politicians are all the same.




The McLovins are all the same. Only a McLovin could condemn a government that had to contend with an insurgency as nasty as the Tamil Tigers?



> How an organisation that assassinated two world leaders, carried out suicide bombings that killed hundreds of civilians, murdered scores of non-violent Tamil leaders opposed to its extremist agenda, and has been listed as a terrorist group by more than 30 countries including the US, Britain and India and been described by the FBI as one of the deadliest and most dangerous extremist outfits in the world, can continue to lie under Canberra's anti-terrorist radar is a mystery.



- See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...y-e6frgd0x-1226669728958#sthash.izZPFC5A.dpuf


----------



## Whiskers

wayneL said:


> BTW Whiskers, for your edification and not to validate your preposterous contention, it is Guerilla, not Gorilla.




What if I used a bit of license, a so called "monkey trap" to see who are as smart as they really think they are!
7.  gorilla  
The big goon you take along when you think the other party may want to get rough (or when you are trying to intimidate them). Large, ugly, and not prone to smiling, at least not nicely. Sometimes heard as gorilla up.

_I gotta get my security deposit back from that asshole, he was supposed to split it to all the roommates, so I need to take along a gorilla. 
If you really need to talk to that one, better gorilla up. Sam'll go along if you ask him._
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gorilla&defid=1962724​


IFocus said:


> Mean while back on the thread topic *Abbott sucks up to the Sri Lanka  government ignoring  President Mahinda Rajapaksa tyrant government and human rights abuses.*
> 
> All over the politics of boat people.






drsmith said:


> We've given them two retired patrol boats.
> 
> Big deal.




Goes to the ethical judgement and intent.



> What about the human rights abuse that was Labor encouraging people to come to Australia by boat only to have over 1,000 drown ?




Even if Labor did encourage them... they exercised free will to come. Whereas the former, human rights abuses are against free will.  



McLovin said:


> It was pretty funny that only a day before he talked about the human tragedy that is people smuggling, only to the next day praise the pseudo-dictator who in no small part is responsible for it.




Quite so. 



Julia said:


> Did he really?  Perhaps you can post the link showing him actually praising their human rights record.




Prime Minister Tony Abbott has praised Sri Lanka for its efforts to address human rights issues and allegations of war crimes at the opening of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ogm-opening-20131115-2xmdh.html#ixzz2kuL3wvib​
Well that's the great thing about extending self assessment to Court of Human Rights matters! 



> Of course it's easy to sit on the peaceful sideline of Australia, far away from the bloody actions of the Tamil Tigers and the civil war,  and be an armchair critic of the Sri Lankan government




... as opposed to an armchair what... complimentary, laudatory or praising?

Wouldn't it be best to be impartial: not supporting or helping either side in a conflict, at least until the human rights issues were sorted.

A pretty poor way to deal with an asylum seeker boat people problem by aiding an accused human rights abuser to knock them off before they leave their territorial waters!



> Mr Abbott could have followed David Cameron into telling Sri Lanka what they should be doing.
> This would, however, hardly be conducive to Sri Lanka's co-operation in reducing boat departures for Australia.
> 
> *Political decisions are always going to be about what is in that politician's best interests*, and hopefully the interests of the country he represents.




Quite so! But why just hope when you can investigate and demand disclosure and remove all doubt?



> Mr Abbott has already made clear that  - as a general principle - he *doesn't believe in lecturing other countries*.




Nor do corrupt allies!


----------



## Whiskers

Calliope said:


> The McLovins are all the same. Only a McLovin could condemn a government that had to contend with an insurgency as * nasty* as the Tamil Tigers?
> 
> - See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...y-e6frgd0x-1226669728958#sthash.izZPFC5A.dpuf




Talking about nasty... more nasty attacks from that urban 'gorilla'. 

But since you are prone to quickly point the finger at perceived nasty injustice, lets examine a bit of the history of the Tamil story. The former British colony of Ceylon had two main ethnic groups, Sinhalese and the Tamils. 

in 1944, J.R. Jayawardene moved in the State Council that Sinhala should replace English as the official language.

In 1948 immediately after Independence, yet another controversial law was passed by the Ceylon Parliament, called the Ceylon Citizenship Act which deliberately discriminated against the Indian Tamil ethnic minority by making it virtually impossible for them to obtain citizenship in the country.[31] *Approximately over 700,000 Tamils were made stateless. Over the next three decades more than 300,000 Indian Tamils were deported back to India. [32]It wasn't until 2003, 55 years after independence, that all Indian Tamils living in Sri Lanka were granted citizenship but by this time they only made up 5% of the island's population.[/B]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Civil_War*​*

Not as cut and dried when you look at the bigger picture... from the beginning!

The evidence suggests the ethnic cleansing has just become more discrete.

To suggest that a list of countries declared them as terrorists justifies not fully righting past wrongs is about as bright a 'gorilla' gets. For a record of correcting past 'nasties' you are looking to the wrong party. The Libs nor Abbott has particularly strong credentials by comparison, in that regard.

Just think about our own backyard, how 'we' hunted and slaughtered aborigines, effectively treating them as terrorists in their own land... and we were supposed to be the civilised ones. 

It wasn't until the 1949 Chifley Labor government that passed laws leading to their equality, but effectively the late 1960's before 'we' gave aboriginals full voting rights... let alone full respect.

Abbott, has not demonstrated any substantial ethical standing, apart from several media slogans preoccupied with his doing 'good' ... rather, his legacy is his association with the Howard era deceptive structural budget fraud (driving into deficit) and endorsement of Howard and Costello as 'good' financial managers. Now, that's nasty (very bad or unpleasant)! Why? Because injustice starts with a lie to oneself in the first instance...an ethical vacuum. Then they contaminate others with their tainted beliefs of what is 'good'.*


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> IF,
> 
> Do you want to see the boats stopped ?
> 
> Yes or no ?




Not if it means supporting the abduction, torture and rape of any one who criticises (and I am not talking Tamils here....FFS) a government thats removes such people and opponents in a white vans.

Abbott is the 1st PM that has not raised human rights where abuse is clearly apparent.

When the Indian PM dosent turn up in his own back yard over the same issue what do you think are the chances...........

Stop the boats...........at any cost the Coalition really dosent have a conscience but then nor has Labor?


----------



## IFocus

Julia said:


> Did he really?




Yes he did.

Maybe Abbott knows some thing the Indian and British PMs don't!


----------



## sails

IFocus said:


> Yes he did.
> 
> Maybe Abbott knows some thing the Indian and British PMs don't!




IF, that is your opinion and you have shown you will use anything (even if truth is twisted somewhat) to Abbott bash.


----------



## Knobby22

As a democracy, Sri Lanka is starting to look like a repressive dictatorship.

The president is Mahinda Rajapaksa, one of his brothers runs the defence ministry (and the navy), another is the minister for economic development a third is parliamentary speaker. Anther relative runs the secret police.
Any reporter who criticises them gets killed, 12 so far. The judiciary rules have been changed so judges are no longer independent.


_The decision to hold CHOGM in Colombo was wrong-headed and counterproductive. The Commonwealth’s credibility as an upholder of human rights has been badly damaged. Calls to boycott the event have been heeded only by Canadian prime minister Steven Harper. The least that delegates such as David Cameron can do is to highlight publicly the dangers that Sri Lanka’s creeping authoritarianism poses to the country’s future._

http://theconversation.com/in-rajapaksas-sri-lanka-repression-is-a-family-affair-19675

Tony Abbott's response?

"We are here to praise as much as judge," he told the forum's opening meeting, lauding the ending of Sri Lanka's civil war, and the development in the country since.

For his fealty, he was rewarded. Sri Lanka has vowed to further help Abbott with his number one domestic priority, "stopping the boats" of asylum seekers looking to come to Australia.

The countries' existing co-operation has been extended, with Australia giving Sri Lanka two patrol boats, so that asylum seekers might be intercepted before they leave Sri Lankan waters.

(The inconvenient truth that navy sailors have been arrested and charged with running the biggest people-smuggling ring in the country is being, publicly at least, played down).

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ommonwealth-20131118-2xpmh.html#ixzz2kwTsM0Es


My opinion? It's a matter of judgement. We want them to stop people smuggling which is being run by the navy. We know that once a dictatorship has occurred i.e. as in Singapore, maybe its better to just ignore it and get on with them. It will be many years before the status quo changes and if we support them against Canada and England then we can expect more favours. of course, this helps cement the legitimacy of the new dictatorship.


----------



## McLovin

Calliope said:


> The McLovins are all the same. Only a McLovin could condemn a government that had to contend with an insurgency as nasty as the Tamil Tigers?
> 
> - See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...y-e6frgd0x-1226669728958#sthash.izZPFC5A.dpuf




Canada, led by a conservative government, boycotted the event. Britain, led by a conservative government condemned Sri Lanka's record on human rights and called for an investigation into war crimes. What does Australia do? Give their navy a couple of extra boats and heap praise on them about how much more "freedom" there is since the end of the war. That's in the face of every NGO and plenty of countries saying the exact opposite.


----------



## trainspotter

Not wanting to break this marvelous train of thought ... but would this not be best discussed in the Green Light thread? 







> Opposition Leader Bill Shorten says Treasurer Joe Hockey hasn't made the case for the increase.
> "If the Treasurer of Australia can't make the case to the Australian people, why should they give him a higher debt cap?" he asked.
> "I've noticed a trend with the Abbott government. They were a government in waiting, now they are a government in hiding."




http://www.news.com.au/national/bre...-rise-greens-say/story-e6frfku9-1226762387842

Perhaps if they thought of it like a credit card. You don't have to use all of it at once !


----------



## Julia

IFocus said:


> Yes he did.





> Prime Minister Tony Abbott has praised Sri Lanka *for its efforts* to address human rights issues




To praise 'efforts toward something' is completely different from actually praising that something.
So he did not 'praise their human rights record'.

If a kid comes last in a race, you can still praise his efforts in having a go.

The above is no comment on Sri Lanka's human rights attitudes, something I know little about.

Knobby's comments were realistic imo.

You can ultimately do more by not alienating people.


----------



## trainspotter

Whiskers said:


> What if I used a bit of license, a so called "monkey trap" to see who are as smart as they really think they are!







Just let go ... or admit you were wrong. Either or ... doesn't matter.

An urban *guerrilla* is someone who fights a government using unconventional warfare or domestic terrorism in an urban environment


----------



## wayneL

TS

Whiskers has been emulating  the hindsight traders on ASF... he only realized in hindsight he'd set a monkey trap... After being caught out.


----------



## trainspotter

http://www.news.com.au/national/a-w...bbott-doesnt-use/story-fncynjr2-1226762698863

This is the kind of WASTE that needs to be stamped out of ANY government !!!



> *TAXPAYERS are forking out $3000 a week in rent for a luxury Canberra house that Prime Minister Tony Abbott has chosen not to use.*
> The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) leased the property as a temporary replacement for The Lodge, which is undergoing a major refurbishment.


----------



## Whiskers

Responding to Julia, Post#1090:
_So... correct me if I'm wrong, but (but in the current context) you seem to be implying that Aussie Stock Forums is pro Lib and would bann robust critique from opponents.

Are you also implying Aussie Stock Forums enforces mob rule?

Are you characterising the posts from WayneL, Trainspotter and even drsmith above as "genuine discussion"? _​


trainspotter said:


> Just let go ... or admit you were wrong. Either or ... doesn't matter.




Y'all just keep on "genuine discussion"!

Soo, you are in retreat on the personal attacks front... but can't help a half hearted counter snipe to try to induce a draw that you could twist around to construe as a win for the personal assassins.



> An urban *guerrilla* is someone who fights a government using unconventional warfare or domestic terrorism in an urban environment




That's true... but more specifically, from previous references, an urban 'gorilla' is a goon (someone hired to rough someone up, usually someone big and dumb, generally slow witted).

If you insist on making (half)witted personal attacks, I will continue to deal with the gorilla.

Just focus on the message and, if you start to feel your emotions taking over, starting to go gorilla... take a break, go fishing until you cool off.



wayneL said:


> TS
> 
> Whiskers has been emulating  the hindsight traders on ASF... he only realized in hindsight he'd set a monkey trap... After being caught out.




Soo you acknowledge y'all  got trapped in one of your own silly monkey traps... booby trapped_ (a trap for an unsuspecting person)_ ie only set to trap anyone silly enough to go down the same path again.

From my post #1095:_ Now, I used the "urban" reference in this case as this appears to be more 'urban' gorilla type behaviour._

2.  monkey trap  
When someone is punked(tricked), they have been monkey trapped. Originally from a volleyball play where the attacker baits the opponent to touch the net and end in a point for the other team.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=monkey trap​
...and didn't I emphasise trying to find the intent (a-la net, waiting to see if you'd try to cross the border line again) of people and address the behaviour. 'Good' intent would have led you away from going back down that personal attacks path, AGAIN. 

WayneL, you have shown strong, obsessive attempts to keep going back down the personal attacks path, getting burnt and in this case completely caught out, trying to deny y'all got trapped, by pretending I didn't know I left one of your traps booby trapped, there!

That beautifully exemplifies the folly of Abbott, Hockey and Morrison et all pretending to take the 'good' moral high ground, by over exaggerating the budget crisis and their success with stopping the boats, while actually deceptively trying to hide the real proof, getting burnt putting so much spin on the truth and trying to explain it away as not burnt, because Labor didn't know how well they managed to turn the structural deficit around (despite the GFC), that it was all just luck.  :bad:


----------



## trainspotter

DEAR GOD MAN ... narcissism at it's best ... I gave you the benefit of the doubt but now it is just ignore 





This is an urban gorilla BTW.


----------



## wayneL

Lol delude on buddy.


----------



## sails

trainspotter said:


> http://www.news.com.au/national/a-w...bbott-doesnt-use/story-fncynjr2-1226762698863
> 
> This is the kind of WASTE that needs to be stamped out of ANY government !!!





It appears that this lease was taken out by labor prior to the election and the Coalition are trying to end the unnecessary lease.  



> Senior DPMC official Elizabeth Kelly *said the department signed a 12-month lease on August 31, a week before the September 7 federal election.*




http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/11/18/16/05/3000-a-week-for-house-pm-doesn-t-use


----------



## IFocus

Julia said:


> To praise 'efforts toward something' is completely different from actually praising that something.
> So he did not 'praise their human rights record'.




Cannot find the head line unfortunately I was a bit stunned when I read the piece as Abbott was overly positive. 
But given the recent Colombo record I still think the stand was appalling and in stark contrast to other western leaders all conservative.     




> Knobby's comments were realistic imo.




Knobby comments are always realistic


----------



## trainspotter

IFocus said:


> Cannot find the head line unfortunately I was a bit stunned when I read the piece as Abbott was overly positive.
> But given the recent Colombo record I still think the stand was appalling and in starkg contrast to other western leaders all conservative.
> 
> Knobby comments are always realistic




Not being able to read the PMs praise makes it difficult to comment. A double eged sword. I would be interested to read such an article. From what I have read on the subject matter it was "diplomacy" at its finest ... pity the media did not see it that way (allegedly)


----------



## Whiskers

Well, the proverbial **** has hit the fan now!

Indonesia will call back its ambassador to Australia and "review" Australian diplomatic positions in Jakarta as anger rises in Indonesia over revelations that Australia tapped the phone of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and his wife.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/indones...pying-claim-20131118-2xr5x.html#ixzz2kzVFLsIP​
Given everyone knows a certain amount of spying goes on and... 

Last week during his visit to Canberra, Vice-President Boediono said the Indonesian public was concerned about the previous spying revelations and* called for a truce *on using information gathered by spying against each other.

"I think we must look forward to come to some arrangement which guarantees that intelligence information from each side is not used against the other. There must be a system,"' he said.​
It would seem quite obvious that Abbott and Bishop would not call a truce and promise not to do it again in the future. 

Documents released by whistleblower Edward Snowden reveal that in 2009 Australia's Defence Signals Directorate targeted the personal mobile numbers of both Dr Yudhoyono and his wife, Kristiani Herawati, as well as eight others in the President's inner circle, including the Vice-President.​
So, for the Aus voter, the big unanswered question is who, knew what and when.

Did some sort of covert US intelligence get embedded in our intelligence service during Howards close friendship with George Bush and the war on terrorism, that Labor didn't know about... or is Labor responsible?

Former Coalition government foreign minister Alexander Downer said the revelations were damaging to Australia.

"It's a shocking situation in which Australia will pay a big price," Sky News cited Mr Downer as saying.​
Is Downer speaking from experience and or knowledge?

No doubt it will blow over in time, but why couldn't they come to a truce? Was spying used in the 'turn back the boats' campaign causing that to blow out to be a big a thorn in the side? Not good for trade relations improving any time soon.


----------



## Julia

IFocus said:


> Cannot find the head line unfortunately



I don't suppose you can.
A 10second google search brought up what he really said.


----------



## sails

On the spying issue - it seems the damaging allegations happened in 2009 when Rudd was PM.  Why would Fairfax and the ABC try to pin this on Abbott unless they are trying to undermine any progress Abbott has made on Asylum seekers?  And now it's another massive mess left by labor for the Coalition to clean up.

How labor supporters can tolerate let alone support this sort of behaviour is beyond me.



> The documents reportedly reveal that Australia attempted to listen to Mr Yudhoyono's personal phone calls *on at least one occasion in 2009*.
> 
> The material comes in the form of a slide presentation. One slide entitled "IA Leadership Targets + Handsets" bears the names of the top political figures, the types of phones they own and the network they use – which in all cases is 3G.
> 
> The slide's footer bears an Australian Defence Department slogan: "Reveal their secrets - Protect our own".
> 
> Another slide is titled "Indonesian President Voice Events" and has a graphic of calls *from Mr Yudhoyono's Nokia phone over 15 days in November 2009*




Read more (bold above is mine):
http://www.smh.com.au/world/indones...stralia-over-spying-claim-20131118-2xr5x.html


----------



## Whiskers

sails said:


> It appears that this lease was taken out by labor prior to the election and the Coalition are trying to end the unnecessary lease.
> 
> 
> 
> http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/11/18/16/05/3000-a-week-for-house-pm-doesn-t-use




I would agree with what TS said: "This is the kind of WASTE that needs to be stamped out of ANY government !!!"

BUT, the whole story indicates, even though it was a departmental decision, both Rudd and Abbott knew about the search for a replacement while the Lodge was being refurbished.   

It signed even though neither Mr Abbott nor then Labor prime minister Kevin Rudd had been able to inspect the property due to their election campaign commitments.   

Ms Kelly said the department had wanted to find accommodation "comparable" to The Lodge.

But after the election, Mr Abbott opted instead to stay in a modest flat at the Australian Federal Police training college in Barton.
http://www.news.com.au/national/a-w...bbott-doesnt-use/story-fncynjr2-1226762698863​
Since Abbott was odds on favourite he could have just said hold off signing anything until after the election, or did he just change his mind about staying there after the election?

A bit Rude to pin that one on Labor when Abbott had every opportunity to declare his intentions, that he wasn't going to be needing it and save the expense.

If he changed his mind after the election, then it's clearly a Lib waste.

But you think that's wasteful... try more like $260,000 a month the qld government is paying for vacant offices after Newman (LNP) put the razor through the public service.http://news.domain.com.au/domain/go...a-month-for-empty-offices-20130826-2skfp.html


----------



## sails

Rudd was the PM and had the numbers in both houses.  Abbott had no say in this lease before the election.

This had NOTHING to do with Abbott.


----------



## MrBurns

sails said:


> Rudd was the PM and had the numbers in both houses.  Abbott had no say in this lease before the election.
> 
> This had NOTHING to do with Abbott.




That doesn't stop the ABC promoting it on their web site.


----------



## Whiskers

sails said:


> On the spying issue - it seems the damaging allegations happened in 2009 when Rudd was PM.  Why would Fairfax and the ABC try to pin this on Abbott unless they are trying to undermine any progress Abbott has made on Asylum seekers?  And now it's another massive mess left by labor for the Coalition to clean up.
> 
> How labor supporters can tolerate let alone support this sort of behaviour is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more (bold above is mine):
> http://www.smh.com.au/world/indones...stralia-over-spying-claim-20131118-2xr5x.html




What, Fairfax and the abc trying to pin it on Abbott!?

Someone better have a yarn to Rupert about his papers dareing to run the same story about spying and Indonesia withdrawing their ambassador. Is Rupert and News "trying to undermine any progress Abbott has made on Asylum seekers" too?

http://www.news.com.au/national/jak...er-spying-claims/story-fncynjr2-1226762823093


----------



## drsmith

Spying and some common sense from Andrew Wilkie,



> Federal independent MP Andrew Wilkie, who is a former intelligence officer, was also circumspect in his reaction.
> 
> "Give the agencies a break. Of course they're out there spying. Of course they're out there trying to listen into conversations of important people in other countries," he said.
> 
> "The issue for Australians is whether their rights are being protected by Australia's legislative framework.
> 
> "You know the fact that another country might spy on Australia, we can't tell the other country to stop. We're kidding ourselves if we think we can."




Indonesia's response I suspect will be more than public bluster for domestic political purposes than anything else.

I praise the Abbott Government for not turning something that happened under Labor's watch into a partisan political issue. Labor needs to be careful not to do the same. Unless our government has hard evidence against the Indonesian government, it wants to avoid being publically too honest to minimise responses such as this,



> 'I've got news for you': We don't spy, says Indonesia's foreign minister




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-...by-revelations-australia-spied-on-sby/5100264


----------



## Whiskers

sails said:


> Rudd was the PM and had the numbers in both houses.  Abbott had no say in this lease before the election.
> 
> This had NOTHING to do with Abbott.




Struth, do you think every public servant has to get a vote from parliament before they spend any money or do anything!

It was not a parliamentary decision. This was delegated authority... a standard departmental, delegated authority of the type that departments do every day.

When Abbott (and Rudd) was approached about inspecting before signing the contract, he just had to say that he did not intend to use the house if he won... and the department would/could have delayed the decision for a week.


----------



## bellenuit

sails said:


> Why would Fairfax and the ABC try to pin this on Abbott unless they are trying to undermine any progress Abbott has made on Asylum seekers?




I think you already have your answer. They have been doing everything they possibly can to undermine Indonesian - Australian relations since Abbott took office.


----------



## Whiskers

drsmith said:


> Spying and some common sense from Andrew Wilkie,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You know the fact that another country might spy on Australia, we can't tell the other country to stop. We're kidding ourselves if we think we can."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-...by-revelations-australia-spied-on-sby/5100264
Click to expand...



Yeah, that's the thrust of my earlier point. 

Ordinarily a government wouldn't go making a BIG noise about it unless they were particularly p!ssed off over something... or found it a useful lever to use against you for something.

The inconvenient truth though is that much of the Indo government, present and future seems more partial to Labor than Lib. That's the problem I've recognised from the start... Abbott and his style just isn't getting along very well with them.

I'm thinking a bit of ideological conflict going back to when Howard accepted asylum seekers from West Papua, the last time they withdrew their ambassador and maybe still a bit of nose out of joint over East Timor.


----------



## sails

Even if Abbott was not informed about this lease , I suppose the likes of Whiskers would still blame Abbott.

I guess some people like to live in a world of delusion...


----------



## drsmith

On frankness, this is an interesting insight from Fairfax's Jack Waterford on asylum policy,



sails said:


> There are many people, including me, who want to see our shameful policies fail.



I wonder how willing those same people, including him, would be to volunteer themselves as shark food between the northwest coast of Australia and the Indonesian archipelago.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/political-interference-runs-deep-20131116-2xnh9.html


----------



## Whiskers

sails said:


> Even if Abbott was not informed about this lease , I suppose the likes of Whiskers would still blame Abbott.
> 
> I guess some people like to live in a world of delusion...




No delusion, or "even if"... it was clear that abbott was aware of what was happening. That's all that's matters.

How would it look if Rudd had said no, don't lease another house?

He would have been open to accusations of vindictiveness, interfering in normal departmental decision making to harm and inconvenience Abbott.


----------



## trainspotter

Welcome back Whiskers ... nice to meet the level approach ... yes yes yes... This kind of waste is abhorrent on any stage. SOMEONE knew that if Rabbott got into office it would be prudent IF he would be taking up this lease and if not why or who was in charge of signing this kind of largesse in the taxpayers name ? Heads should roll IMO !!!

Thanks again Whiskers for not knocking out the porch light.


----------



## orr




----------



## sails

Whiskers said:


> No delusion, or "even if"... it was clear that abbott was aware of what was happening. That's all that's matters.
> 
> How would it look if Rudd had said no, don't lease another house?
> 
> He would have been open to accusations of vindictiveness, interfering in normal departmental decision making to harm and inconvenience Abbott.




Then prove that Abbott agreed to this lease when Rudd was still in government or it will be assumed you made it up.  Spin won't cut the mustard either.


----------



## trainspotter

Whiskers said:


> But you think that's wasteful... try more like $260,000 a month the qld government is paying for vacant offices after Newman (LNP) put the razor through the public service.http://news.domain.com.au/domain/go...a-month-for-empty-offices-20130826-2skfp.html




And by sacking the 4000 odd people from the public service saved QLD state payroll how much again? 

These leases were put in place by the previous government which was who again? 

More than one side to a story Whiskers.


----------



## MrBurns

Watching Bill Shorten grovelling to the Indonesians makes you want to throw up, he's not even very good at it, just a crawling little worm.:bad:


----------



## trainspotter

Whiskers said:


> Yeah, that's the thrust of my earlier point.
> 
> Ordinarily a government wouldn't go making a BIG noise about it unless they were particularly p!ssed off over something... *or found it a useful lever to use against you for something.*
> 
> The inconvenient truth though is that much of the Indo government, present and future seems more partial to Labor than Lib. That's the problem I've recognised from the start... Abbott and his style just isn't getting along very well with them.
> 
> I'm thinking a bit of ideological conflict going back to when Howard accepted asylum seekers from West Papua, the last time they withdrew their ambassador and maybe still a bit of nose out of joint over East Timor.




You mentioned trade relations earlier? Australia and Indo are still negotiating terms on the bilateral FTA. 



> Australia is *currently engaged* in nine FTA *negotiations* - five bilateral FTA negotiations: China, Japan, Korea, India and *Indonesia*; and four plurilateral FTA negotiations: the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), the Pacific Trade and Economic Agreement (PACER Plus), and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (RCEP).




http://www.dfat.gov.au/fta/

Indonesia is a significant economic and regional partner for Australia. Two-way trade in goods and services reached $14.6 billion in 2012.

Maybe the "spying" thing is a dose of sabre rattling to improve their standing? I repeat ... Indo's do not like to lose face and for their Foreign Minister to say that Indo is not spying on Australia is a REDONKOLOUS statement !!

Also to lay the blame at Howard's feet is another REDONKOLOUS statement. Politics I think they call it !


----------



## Whiskers

trainspotter said:


> And by sacking the 4000 odd people from the public service saved QLD state payroll how much again?
> 
> These leases were put in place by the previous government which was who again?
> 
> More than one side to a story Whiskers.




Not a matter of how many (political) sides, but the full down-the-line consequences from a particular decision...  the wider sociological and economic effects and who actually wears the cost in the end. 

I had no problems with trimming some of the fat from the Bligh (Labor) public service. It did get quite obese and misdirected. As for the number... and whether a restructure or redeployment of more of the human resources was a better option is the still open question. 

The immediate consequence was saving 4000 wages from the Qld public service payroll BUT just transferring them on the national, Aus government unemployed payroll. 

You see how one can shift at least some of the cost onto someone else. Do you think Newman (or any state government) would sack staff so willingly if they had to pick up the dole payments themselves? Similar story with state payroll taxes and royalties are used to manipulate fed gov GST apportionment back to states.

The problem Abbott is facing now. He has to balance his staff cuts with the full financial and wider economic impact. He was counting on saving heaps from staff cuts to spend elsewhere, BUT, like the turn back and buy back the boats policy, he seems to have misjudged this pretty badly too. 

They did a head count of the number of bums they would have to sack to save $x in their budget. The problem is that it seems he misread the previous budget papers, that Labor was enforcing the efficiency dividend policy (continuing on from Howard and Costello) pretty rigidly. The department heads were given a certain amount of money and were responsible for finding the efficiencies in their departments, with forced redundancies a last resort, but not yet resorted to.

The efficiency dividend, an annual funding reduction for Commonwealth government agencies, has been in place for 25 years. While it is by no means the only mechanism by which the government seeks efficiencies in its operations, the efficiency dividend is ‘the most readily acknowledged across-the-board budget mechanism for promoting improvements in agencies’ efficiency’.
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam..._Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/EfficiencyDividend​
You might have heard about Abbott putting his big public service staff cuts on hold for the moment because there does not seem to be that many spare staff in many departments. (The climate change bureaucracy being an exception) Security and border protection in particular have expressed concerns of a severe drop in capability if there are staff cuts.

But getting back to the lease point, that's the responsibility that you have to wear if you decide to sack as opposed to restructure or redeploy the staff. After all, the contracts were in place... the ability to get out of the contract or the cost of paying them out should be part of the cost benefit of the exercise.


----------



## Whiskers

sails said:


> Then prove that Abbott agreed to this lease when Rudd was still in government or it will be assumed you made it up.  Spin won't cut the mustard either.




If you go back to my earlier post, I didn't say he agreed to the lease... I said he could have influenced them to wait until after the election, tell them straight out that he wasn't intending to stay there if he won.



MrBurns said:


> Watching Bill Shorten grovelling to the Indonesians makes you want to throw up, he's not even very good at it, just a crawling little worm.:bad:




Well, maybe it's just me... but politicians don't get me all coiled up emotionally to "want to throw up". 

I've previously explained, why I don't respect him, why most of his own grass roots and why most voters don't particularly like him. But, while critical of Abbott for a bit of a low ethical radar re Sri linka... I trust Shorten less for the sorts of people and the type of deals he would do. 



trainspotter said:


> You mentioned trade relations earlier? Australia and Indo are still negotiating terms on the bilateral FTA.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.dfat.gov.au/fta/
> 
> Indonesia is a significant economic and regional partner for Australia. Two-way trade in goods and services reached $14.6 billion in 2012.
> 
> Maybe the "spying" thing is a dose of sabre rattling to improve their standing? I repeat ... Indo's do not like to lose face and for their Foreign Minister to say that Indo is not spying on Australia is a REDONKOLOUS statement !!
> 
> Also to lay the blame at Howard's feet is another REDONKOLOUS statement. Politics I think they call it !




Not laying the blame at Howard feet... just pointing out that, Indo has closer affinity to Labor than Lib, and that Howard tested their tolerance (rightly so over Timor) before Abbott... hence my point about the legacy of earlier politics that Abbott seems to have underestimated before 'testing' them again.

Labor seemed to have a better repour and knew how far they could push Indo without sacrificing trade too much... well at least until Gillard lost the plot.


----------



## IFocus

orr said:


> View attachment 55404
> View attachment 55405





LOL Orr seems no one noticed...........

- - - Updated - - -

The Coalition's Big Lie




> The Coalition's characterisation of Labor's economic management as "reckless" and "wasteful" is a big lie that is going to be hard to revise, writes David Hetherington.





http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-18/hetherington-the-coalitions-big-lie/5098544


----------



## drsmith

Indonesia's political leaders all the way to SBY tweet like teenagers throwing a tanty while the true statesman just gets on with the job.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-19/abbott-calls-for-cool-heads-no-apology/5102330

By now they'll realise that Tony Abbott will be no pushover.


----------



## Julia

drsmith said:


> Indonesia's political leaders all the way to SBY tweet like teenagers throwing a tanty while the true statesman just gets on with the job.
> 
> By now they'll realise that Tony Abbott will be no pushover.



The Indonesians view this sort of thing differently.
Mr Abbott doesn't need to be a pushover.  He could, however, imo have handled this more diplomatically rather than fanning the flames when he needs their co-operation.


----------



## drsmith

Julia said:


> The Indonesians view this sort of thing differently.
> Mr Abbott doesn't need to be a pushover.  He could, however, imo have handled this more diplomatically rather than fanning the flames when he needs their co-operation.



He can't really put it "more diplomatically" in the hope there are no further revelations.

I saw another article today where Indonesia allegedly spied on our political leaders in 2004. Who knows what else has gone on, from both sides. 

It's a two way street and a constructive relationship between our two countries has positive benefits for both. That's an important point TA was making. The question for Indonesia's leaders ultimately is how that weighs up against their domestic politics. TA in my view is showing great strength in largely putting domestic politics aside on this particular issue.


----------



## Whiskers

drsmith said:


> He can't really put it "more diplomatically" in the hope there are no further revelations.
> 
> I saw another article today where Indonesia allegedly spied on our political leaders in 2004. Who knows what else has gone on, from both sides.
> 
> It's a two way street and a constructive relationship between our two countries has positive benefits for both. That's an important point TA was making. The question for Indonesia's leaders ultimately is how that weighs up against their domestic politics. *TA in my view is showing great strength in largely putting domestic politics aside on this particular issue*.




Is he?

Isn't it his domestic politics, the hard line against Indonesia to 'turn back' and 'buy' old fishing boats and election policy to use Indonesian 'help' to spy on smugglers and where they source their boats etc... and Indonesia publically telling him to p!ss off, that was the main fuel on the strained relations that he is refusing to back down on?

He is on the weak end of this relationship with, on balance much more to loose for the Aus economy. 

Whereas Indonesia has little to loose economically and plenty of pride to gain by taking this stand.

What are the wider regional security, cooperation and trade ramifications now if we are 'offside' with our closest neighbour? 

There are plenty of regional experts suggesting this could go on until their election... and likely worsen after that with expected more hard-liners coming to office.

Abbott could have made a prompt apology saying he didn't know their president was being phone tapped, similar to Obama with Merkyl. That wouldn't harm or disclose any security stuff, but would help them save face.

But, maybe he knows he cannot smooth over all that has actually gone on between them, that which we are not being told about yet.


----------



## bunyip

This spying business is a storm in a teacup that will soon blow over.

We want trade with Indonesia (but could get by OK without it). 
They want trade with us. They also want the money we throw at them in foreign aid.

After a tense month or two things will return to business as usual.
The media will be most disappointed to lose a relatively trivial issue to blow out of all proportion.


----------



## trainspotter

Anyone considered in July next year that there is a Presidential election to replace Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono as he is constitutionally barred for running for a third term? The Demokrat Party is in sharp decline amongst the voters as they do not have a recognised identity apart from SBY. This sabre rattling will be doing his party no end of good in the polls.

Indonesia will be a good place to stay away from in early July methinks as the PDIP crank up the volume for their man !


----------



## bellenuit

drsmith said:


> He can't really put it "more diplomatically" in the hope there are no further revelations.




A very good point.  I wouldn't trust the ABC/Guardian. They are probably holding back some revelations in the hope that whatever excuse/apology Abbott might give, the new revelations that they have will in someway contradict what he says and sour the relationship even further. 

Not knowing what may be forthcoming, he has to be very careful. Although his stance may be seen as intransigent in the short term, in a way it does cover him somewhat against what else may be revealed. I still think he could have been a bit more diplomatic.

If Indonesia wants to blow this out of all proportion for domestic reasons then it is obvious that they were intent on doing that anyway and this is the "issue" they decided to latch on to.


----------



## orr

IFocus said:


> LOL Orr seems no one noticed...........
> 
> - - - Updated - - -
> 
> The Coalition's Big Lie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-18/hetherington-the-coalitions-big-lie/5098544




I just assumed I was on everyones 'ignore list'

I was going to put up the images as a reply to the last sentence on one of 'Julia's ' posts a page or so back..._" you can ultimately do more by not alienating people"_.... Well; and sometimes you can't.... I have very little truck with moral relativists. Go now and shake the hand that has just dashed-out the brains of a few infants. And console yourself... 'I've done it for good purpose'


----------



## trainspotter

Ermmmm ... the larger photo is TA clearly NOT shaking hands whilst the smaller one is of Alexander Downer trying to shake hands? Not disagreeing with you on the Sri Lankan President ruling with an iron fist during the power struggle with the Tamil Tigers either BUT 



> At the height of their power, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) ran vast swathes of Tamil-dominated northern and eastern Sri Lanka as a virtual mini-state. But they had also turned a struggle for the rights of the island’s Hindu and Christian Tamils into a terrorist campaign involving *suicide bombers and child soldiers ”” assassinating anyone who stood in their way*, including thousands of moderate Tamils, a Sri Lankan president and, in 1991, former Indian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi.
> 
> But after a long stalemate, the Sri Lankan government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa took the war to the Tigers with unprecedented ruthlessness and single-mindedness.
> 
> As the scorched-earth campaign entered its final stages in 2009, it cost tens of thousands of lives ”” a U.N. report called for an investigation into war crimes by both sides, accusing the Tigers of using civilians as human shields and the* Sri Lankan military of indiscriminate shelling and denying civilians access to humanitarian aid*.




http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...2_1_liberation-tigers-tamil-eelam-tamil-tiger

It would appear it is not a dictatorship yet but it is certainly looking like it is heading that way sooner rather than later IMO 



> The economy is one of Asia’s fastest growing, and tourism is booming. But three years after the war ended, human rights groups and opposition leaders warn that *the country is descending toward dictatorship*, with dissent brutally crushed, the media cowed and the minority Tamils, whose insurrection caused the war in the first place, still treated like second-class citizens.


----------



## Knobby22

Julia said:


> The Indonesians view this sort of thing differently.
> Mr Abbott doesn't need to be a pushover.  He could, however, imo have handled this more diplomatically rather than fanning the flames when he needs their co-operation.




He is trying to be more diplomatic now, but the damage is done.


----------



## Calliope

When you look at the calibre and politics of those who think Australia should grovel to Indonesia, then Abbott must be on the right track...ABC commentators, Fairfax commentators, the Greens and now the biggest joke of all, Bob Katter. Even the Opposition (except Shorten) aren't naive enough to ask for an apology.



> Mr Katter called for Prime Minister Tony Abbott to immediately apologise to President Yudhoyono.
> 
> "Tony, geez, if your country, your government, the government of Australia has done something wrong, the onus is upon you to apologise," he said.
> 
> "Think if the Indonesians were tapping the telephones of our prime minister and his wife ... this is not acceptable behaviour.
> 
> "I mean spying on each other, yeah every country does that all the time, but not on the head of state and his wife."




And WHY NOT on the head of state and his wife, if they are silly enough to discuss state secrets on their mobiles?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...p-with-australia/story-fni0xqrb-1226763788127


----------



## drsmith

Julia said:


> Chris Richardson's view on the debt ceiling from "The World Today":
> 
> This is all just the usual political theatrics on both sides.  Labor have nowhere to go on this.  They have tacitly admitted this by asking for justification of the $500billion by Treasury.  Martin Parkinson will be duly wheeled out, will say all the right words, and the whole silly argument will be history.




http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ecretary-martin-parkinson-20131120-2xuzc.html



> $500b debt limit 'prudent': Treasury Secretary Martin Parkinson




The Treasury has gone further, advising the government to consider abandoning Australia's debt limit.


----------



## drsmith

bunyip said:


> This spying business is a storm in a teacup that will soon blow over.
> 
> We want trade with Indonesia (but could get by OK without it).
> They want trade with us. They also want the money we throw at them in foreign aid.
> 
> After a tense month or two things will return to business as usual.
> The media will be most disappointed to lose a relatively trivial issue to blow out of all proportion.



Amongst all the bluster and hyperventilation is this,



> Indonesia's top government ministers are now locked in a meeting with Mr Yudhoyono and the now-recalled ambassador to Australia, discussing the state of the relationship.
> 
> Arriving at the palace, the senior minister responsible for cooperation asylum seekers, Djoko Suyanto, indicated some agreements with Australia may not be reviewed if they are mutually beneficial.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-20/abbott-regrets-indonesias-spy-scandal-embarrassment/5105326

The headline on http://www.abc.net.au/ that links to the above article is,



> Indonesia cutting ties with Australia




Also of interest, Indonesia's Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa was going to appear on the ABC's 7:30 program tonight. That would no doubt be to give our government another serve.

He has since withdrawn.


----------



## noco

Calliope said:


> When you look at the calibre and politics of those who think Australia should grovel to Indonesia, then Abbott must be on the right track...ABC commentators, Fairfax commentators, the Greens and now the biggest joke of all, Bob Katter. Even the Opposition (except Shorten) aren't naive enough to ask for an apology.
> 
> 
> 
> And WHY NOT on the head of state and his wife, if they are silly enough to discuss state secrets on their mobiles?
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...p-with-australia/story-fni0xqrb-1226763788127




Doc, it all a political nonsense by Indonesia who say "we don't spy on Australia"....Of course they do and it has been proven in the past.

Why should Abbott apologise for something that was susposed to have happened in 2009.....It is a political stunt no more and no less in an attempt to embarrass the Abbott Government.....it is a political stunt by the Indonesians in an attempt have Abbott cower to their whims and whinges....Stand your ground TA.


----------



## drsmith

Noco,

I'll assume you meant me although you didn't quote me.



noco said:


> Doc, it all a political nonsense by Indonesia who say "we don't spy on Australia"....Of course they do and it has been proven in the past.



That's the point I was attempting to make in my post above although perhaps I didn't make it clear.

The directly relevant part of the material I quoted above from the ABC news article was as follows,



> Arriving at the palace, the senior minister responsible for cooperation asylum seekers, Djoko Suyanto, indicated some agreements with Australia may not be reviewed if they are mutually beneficial.




Meanwhile, Julie Bishop has also withdrawn from a planned 7:30 interview tomorrow night.


----------



## bunyip

Indonesia is making noises about withdrawing cooperation with Australia.
I’m wondering what ‘cooperation’ that might be?
As far as I can tell they’re not exactly showing much willingness to help us stop the boats. A boat gets into trouble near Indonesia, the Indos stay away and expect Australia to come rushing to the rescue. Then when we go to its aid, the Indos refuse to allow the boat back to Indonesia where it came from.
I wonder how many corrupt police will face lengthy sentences in Indonesian jails for taking bribes from the people smugglers. I wonder if Indonesia has a policy of lengthy jail terms for people smugglers, and burning of their boats.

Why seek their permission anyway to turn back the boats? – Alexander Downer as foreign minister simply gave instruction to our navy to escort the boats back to just outside Indonesian territorial waters and leave them with enough fuel to take them the 20 km to Indonesia.
Then he rang his Indonesian counterpart and advised him of the situation. Maybe that’s what we should be doing this around.


----------



## Knobby22

We all know it is necessary to spy, and in the case of Indonesia it is especially necessary however when information comes out that we are tapping the president etc. we need to let Indonesia save face!

Look how the USA handled Germany! If we don't let them save face then they will do so by attacking us which they have duly done. Now Abbott is making the right noises and the issue is starting to fade.


----------



## Whiskers

Julia said:


> Chris Richardson's view on the debt ceiling from "The World Today":
> 
> 
> This is all just the usual political theatrics on both sides.  Labor have nowhere to go on this.  They have tacitly admitted this by asking for justification of the $500billion by Treasury.  *Martin Parkinson will be duly wheeled out, will say all the right words, and the whole silly argument will be history*.




Well, that didn't quite go to plan.

BUT, beware of a 'sleight of hands' by Big L Libs.

Contrary to some economists dismissing the value of a debt ceiling, if it's good enough for individuals to have limits imposed on their borrowing, why not governments. Surely the GFC and PIIGS debt crisis illustrate the value of a 'check' and balance to justify increases in debt. 

Of course Capitalists (and Big L Libs) would argue the USA is a classic case of why not to... but they don't tell you that they undermine the structural budget to appear to be reducing spending and consequently debt, a sleight of hands like Howard and Costello did and Abbott is trying out now.



drsmith said:


> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ecretary-martin-parkinson-20131120-2xuzc.html
> 
> 
> 
> The Treasury has gone further, advising the government to consider abandoning Australia's debt limit.




They Treasury actually said quite a bit more of particular relevance, esp that a $400bn limit could last until the 2015-16 financial year http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ichael-parkinson/story-fn59nsif-1226764412019

Soo if $400bn could see the gov through to the 2015/16 financial year... why not just accept 400 and get on with the job... unless they want an open cheque book again to con the public into feeling 'good', with more 'baby bonus' style spending increases while driving down the 'structural' budged deficit like Howard and Costello deceptively did, again. 

Interesting that it was the Rudd government that introduced the Debt Limit. Was it all just about self discipline or did they foresee elements of his own party wanting to spend excessively as Gillard did and or the Libs harking on the fiscal management catch cry again in the future... in the slang of far right Lib supporters, set a so called booby trapped, 'monkey trap' for them, if they turned on him.

Rudd has turned out to have quite a bit of a sting in his tail!


----------



## drsmith

Whiskers said:


> Rudd has turned out to have quite a bit of a sting in his tail!



If you go to bed earlier, you might stop having those dreams about Kevin Rudd.


----------



## Whiskers

drsmith said:


> If you go to bed earlier, you might stop having those dreams about Kevin Rudd.




That ain't a dream dr... it's becoming a very painful fact!

Maybe it's because you spend too much time in bed, messing around with all sorts of odd stuff in there : that I'm not familiar with... that you haven't done the homework to learn what actually makes the world go around.


----------



## drsmith

Whiskers said:


> you haven't done the homework to learn what actually makes the world go around.



It's not Kevin Rudd.


----------



## drsmith

Oh dear!

A bit of overreach in this opinion piece by Fairfax political writer Jacqueline Maley,

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...tter-stoush-20131119-2xteo.html#ixzz2l9uZzsWX

The original title of the article was a little different,

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/201...ydney-morning-herald-is-sprung-bull****t.html


----------



## wayneL

I wonder if a Narcissist can possibly know what makes the world go round. I wonder the same thing about trolls.

Listening to the parliament today, I do know that big L Liberals, have a better idea than the Fabian ideological numbskulls opposite.

Just musing, carry on.

BTW, whatever happened to out treason legislation? It strikes me that there have been one or two treasonous acts of late.


----------



## wayneL

Another BTW:

It is interesting that Pravda is implying (by omission more than anything) that our Tones is somehow culpable in the spy controversy.

And Tones has had the good grace not to point out that all this occurred under Labor... not that Dullard/KRudd might have known, but imo there should be so bipartisan cooperation in handling this.


----------



## drsmith

This should at least get the road to resolution on the spying issue out of the public domain,



> Speaking in Jakarta today, an angry Mr Yudhoyono said Indonesia was suspending cooperation on people-smuggling issues, including combined maritime patrols.
> 
> *And he said he was writing to Prime Minister Tony Abbott to demand an official explanation on why Australian spies monitored his phone and those of members of his inner circle, including his wife.
> 
> Mr Abbott later told the House of Representatives that he would be writing back "swiftly, fully and courteously" because "that is overwhelmingly in the interests of both our countries."*




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-20/abbott-regrets-indonesias-spy-scandal-embarrassment/5105326

My bolds.



wayneL said:


> Another BTW:



When listening to the ABC radio news yesterday at the top of the hour (6pm), the SBY spying claims was a significant story but within it there was mention of when.

With regard to QT in Parliament today, I think Labor ran out of questions. They asked the same one three times. It does however look like Bill Shorten has come into line on the spying issue. From the article above,



> Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said he supported Mr Abbott's stance, saying: "This is indeed a 'Team Australia' moment.


----------



## Julia

Anyone thinking they know better than someone as well respected as Chris Richardson, whose view was echoed in Martin Parkinson's comments today should do a bit of research into the background of why the so called debt ceiling is unnecessary.


----------



## Whiskers

wayneL said:


> Another BTW:
> 
> It is interesting that Pravda is implying (by omission more than anything) that our Tones is somehow culpable in the spy controversy.
> 
> *And Tones has had the good grace not to point out that all this occurred under Labor*... not that Dullard/KRudd might have known, but imo there should be so bipartisan cooperation in handling this.




 :bs:

“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.” 
― Adolf Hitler​
Someone :aus: did mention that it did happen while Labor was in office, BUT...



Whiskers said:


> Well, the proverbial **** has hit the fan now!
> 
> Indonesia will call back its ambassador to Australia and "review" Australian diplomatic positions in Jakarta as anger rises in Indonesia over revelations that Australia tapped the phone of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and his wife.
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/indones...pying-claim-20131118-2xr5x.html#ixzz2kzVFLsIP​
> *Given everyone knows a certain amount of spying goes on and...*
> 
> Last week during his visit to Canberra, Vice-President Boediono said the Indonesian public was concerned about the previous spying revelations and* called for a truce *on using information gathered by spying against each other.
> 
> "I think we must look forward to come to some arrangement which guarantees that intelligence information from each side is not used against the other. There must be a system,"' he said.​
> It would seem quite obvious that Abbott and Bishop would not call a truce and promise not to do it again in the future.
> 
> *Documents released by whistleblower Edward Snowden reveal that in 2009 *Australia's Defence Signals Directorate targeted the personal mobile numbers of both Dr Yudhoyono and his wife, Kristiani Herawati, as well as eight others in the President's inner circle, including the Vice-President.​
> *So, for the Aus voter, the big unanswered question is who, knew what and when.*
> 
> *Did some sort of covert US intelligence get embedded in our intelligence service during Howards close friendship with George Bush and the war on terrorism, that Labor didn't know about... or is Labor responsible?*
> 
> Former Coalition government foreign minister Alexander Downer said the revelations were damaging to Australia.
> 
> *"It's a shocking situation in which Australia will pay a big price," Sky News cited Mr Downer as saying*.​
> Is Downer speaking from experience and or knowledge?
> 
> No doubt it will blow over in time, but why couldn't they come to a truce? Was spying used in the 'turn back the boats' campaign causing that to blow out to be a big a thorn in the side? Not good for trade relations improving any time soon.




*That would explain it, if Rudd and Gillard didn't know who was being spied on*... and, WHAT did Downer say!  



sails said:


> On the spying issue - it seems the damaging allegations happened in 2009 when Rudd was PM.  *Why would Fairfax and the ABC try to pin this on Abbott unless they are trying to undermine any progress Abbott has made on Asylum seekers?*  And now it's another massive mess left by labor for the Coalition to clean up.
> 
> How labor supporters can tolerate let alone support this sort of behaviour is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more (bold above is mine):
> http://www.smh.com.au/world/indones...stralia-over-spying-claim-20131118-2xr5x.html






Whiskers said:


> What, Fairfax and the abc trying to pin it on Abbott!?
> 
> Someone better have a yarn to Rupert about his papers dareing to run the same story about spying and Indonesia withdrawing their ambassador. *Is Rupert and News "trying to undermine any progress Abbott has made on Asylum seekers" too?*
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/national/jak...er-spying-claims/story-fncynjr2-1226762823093






Whiskers said:


> Not laying the blame at Howard feet... just pointing out that, Indo has closer affinity to Labor than Lib, and that Howard tested their tolerance (rightly so over Timor) before Abbott... hence my point about the legacy of earlier politics that Abbott seems to have underestimated before 'testing' them again.
> 
> Labor seemed to have a better repour and knew how far they could push Indo without sacrificing trade too much... well at least until Gillard lost the plot.



:thankyou:


----------



## Whiskers

Julia said:


> Anyone thinking they know better than someone as well respected as Chris Richardson, whose view was echoed in Martin Parkinson's comments today should do a bit of research into the background of why the so called debt ceiling is unnecessary.




Could it be that the periodic  wrangling over the debt limit actually saved the US from going broke much sooner!?

Lets get some context: Chris Richardson is a former Treasury official, now a consulting economist. He is in the business of generating consultancy business among other things. 

You would be familiar with many spectacular business and governmental failures from relying on advice they did not understand, from consultants. Think the massive Enron disaster and the problems with our CSIRO from so called management consultant firm McKinsey & Company, the American global management consulting firm. In all these cases the 'consultants' make a motza in fees from persuading people to accept their advice and let them defacto manage your business, but carry none of the financial risk. 

Chris Richardson says because Parliament already approves the budget every year there's no need to separately approve debt. But other governments are considering debt limits because of corrupt and or vested interest permeating some governments and attempts to simply write down or write off the debt when it gets too hard.

Martin Parkinson (treasury) told the senate estimates that "We have seen in the United States the consequence of political process or politics getting in the way of good government. And I just think - so I am expressing an opinion..." 

Sounds more like a political than a sound economic management, audit, accountability or governance opinion. 

Parkinson ALSO said that we did not have a debt limit prior to 2008. That removing the debt limit is clearly an option for Government. Alternatively, if a debt limit is to exist, it could be specified as a share of GDP (Gross Domestic Product), in which case the dollar amount, the limit would rise over time. It could be specified as a dollar amount which was indexed to GDP growth, again which would mean it would rise over time. Or it could be specified as a fixed-dollar term.

Republican, John Boehner, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, said that he considers the debt limit an important part of the democratic process, a way to effect needed change when other methods fail. 

_The U.S. is the only democratic country, besides Denmark, in which Congress has to approve borrowing separately from spending.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...c-country-besides-america-has-a-debt-ceiling/_​
Had the Mediterranean states including Greece (PIIGS) had a debt ceiling maybe they would not have been able to borrow as much as they did and cause Europe and the rest of the world like us, so much economic pain.

_The GAO report found that the United States acted the opposite of most countries because it uses the debt limit to shed light on runaway spending rather than using spending bills to address growing debt.

Germany, for example, approved a constitutional amendment in 2009 that requires their budget to be virtually balanced, only allowing the deficit to be .35 percent of gross domestic product.

*The European Union caps the debt for member countries at 60 percent of GDP.*

Joseph Gagnon, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, argued this measure was “just an indicator, not a hard and fast limit.”

With Greece’s debt expected to peak in 2012 at 161 percent of the country’s GDP, *the EU is talking about creating more stringent enforcement procedures to ensure countries do not break the 60 percent mark in the future*.

But according to Gagnon, the EU will not consider a system like that in the U.S_.​
and then some dude once thought...

_The city of Melbourne is as bustling as ever, its residents apparently quite sure that those clowns in Canberra's decision to not cap the nation's (quite tiny) national debt won't turn the city into a great ball of fire_.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-dont-have-debt-ceilings-and-are-not-on-fire/​

How quickly things can change!


----------



## noco

noco said:


> Doc, it all a political nonsense by Indonesia who say "we don't spy on Australia"....Of course they do and it has been proven in the past.
> 
> Why should Abbott apologise for something that was susposed to have happened in 2009.....It is a political stunt no more and no less in an attempt to embarrass the Abbott Government.....it is a political stunt by the Indonesians in an attempt have Abbott cower to their whims and whinges....Stand your ground TA.




The ABC are certainly not doing Abbott any favours.

They appear to be aiding and abetting the Indons.


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...maging-australia/story-fnj45fvb-1226764657800


----------



## trainspotter

Errmmmmmm Whiskers ... your level of comprehension has escaped you but your circumlocutory powers have gathered strength. Be a good love and take a chill pill.


----------



## trainspotter

Meanwhile back on the Hill ... cant wait for next Tuesday as the repeal of the Carbon Tax gathers momentum 

Should be a door slammer in parliament on that day. I can just see Adam Bandt wringing his hands and blaming TA for the bushfires and super typhoons ! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh !!! he will 

Labors mettle will be tested to the fullest. Like ants under a magnifying glass with the blistering heat of the sun (CO2 free) they will be scurrying for cover and back down their delusional hole that Australia is somehow a super polluter. Let's try 1.34% of the worlds total carbon dioxide emissions shall we. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh !! they will


----------



## trainspotter

Calliope said:


> When you look at the calibre and politics of those who think Australia should grovel to Indonesia, then Abbott must be on the right track...ABC commentators, Fairfax commentators, the Greens and now the biggest joke of all, Bob Katter. Even the Opposition (except Shorten) aren't naive enough to ask for an apology.
> 
> And WHY NOT on the head of state and his wife, if they are silly enough to discuss state secrets on their mobiles?]




Just thinking out loud but I wonder if SBY will stop taking the $540 million in foreign aid we send every year as sign of protest?


----------



## Knobby22

trainspotter said:


> Just thinking out loud but I wonder if SBY will stop taking the $540 million in foreign aid we send every year as sign of protest?




A lot of that aid is tied to our interests. They might refuse it. 

Indonesia were the power that got us into ASEAN despite other parties such as Malaysia not wanting us. 
I wonder if they will be so keen to support us now?
Indonesia will be a top 10 world economy by 2030. We need to be smart about this.

_The problem for Abbott is that US President Barack Obama has already set a standard for how to fix this sort of a mess. He apologised informally but personally to German Chancellor Angela Merkel for tapping her phone, and promised it would not happen again. Indonesia expects Australia will do same, and quickly - within a couple of days according to Indonesia's powerful co-ordinating minister for political and security affairs, Djoko Suyanto. ''Does Australia think it is bigger than America?'' one Indonesian official asked me yesterday._
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/indon...ian-century-20131120-2xvpo.html#ixzz2lEpGm4U3


----------



## Calliope

Knobby22;803495The problem for Abbott is that US President Barack Obama has already set a standard for how to fix this sort of a mess. [B said:
			
		

> He apologised informally but personally to German Chancellor Angela Merkel for tapping her phone, and promised it would not happen again.[/B]




No he didn't.



> Merkel rang Obama herself to berate him,* then the White House released a carefully worded statement, saying: "The President assured the Chancellor that the United States is not monitoring and will not monitor the communications of Chancellor Merkel."Note the present and future tense and the specific reference to Merkel.* The official statement did not refer to any apology. That sprang from leaks from one of the two participants or whoever else was listening in.
> 
> *Abbott has firmly resisted publicly giving Yudhoyono the same assurances Merkel received. If he did he would be asked if it applied to future Indonesian presidents and other leaders in the region.* It is a diabolical situation for any government, especially a new one, and especially after Indonesia had shown an earlier propensity for bloody mindedness.



(My bolds)

- See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...y-fnahw9xv-1226764741362#sthash.5hpCrUR8.dpuf


----------



## trainspotter

It would appear our media is in more of a frenzy over this then theirs?



> MSKY gets $250m to refinance bonds - Jakarta Post
> 2013-11-21T04:13:15Z
> Pay-television provider PT MNC Sky Vision (MSKY) said it has secured US$250 million in loan funds from a banking syndication to be used primarily to refinance bonds issued by its subsidiary. The subsidiary, Aerospace Satellite Corporation ...
> 
> Rain affects matches - Jakarta Post
> 2013-11-21T05:46:18Z
> The weekend’s solitary game escaped the wrath of the weather gods with United Force (UFCC) continuing its dominance in Division-2 of the Apple Coal JCA League, disposing of JAGUAR CC by seven wickets in Cibubur. Taking first lease of the ...
> 
> Ending AIDS is on horizon: UNAIDS - Jakarta Post
> 2013-11-21T05:31:59Z
> The newly established UNAIDS-Lancet Commission is optimistic for an end to the AIDS epidemic by reducing new HIV infections, providing antiretroviral therapy (ART), and reducing stigma and discrimination that prevents people from accessing care.
> 
> Two arrested over bank fraud - Jakarta Post
> 2013-11-21T05:24:50Z
> The City Police have arrested two suspects for allegedly siphoning money off bank customers by stealing their data. The incidents of fraud resulted in losses of Rp 72.5 million (US$6,225) for Bank Central Asia (BCA) and its customers. The police ...




http://www.thepaperboy.com/headlines.cfm?PaperID=925790716

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/

Even the Jakarta Globe has not had THAT much to say on the matter?


----------



## sydboy007

wayneL said:


> Another BTW:
> 
> It is interesting that Pravda is implying (by omission more than anything) that our Tones is somehow culpable in the spy controversy.
> 
> And Tones has had the good grace not to point out that all this occurred under Labor... not that Dullard/KRudd might have known, but imo there should be so bipartisan cooperation in handling this.




So I take it your inferring that no spying by Australia in other countries has never occurred under a Coalition Govt?

Howard is probably lucky Snowden wasn't able to get the details on why he signed us up for the Iraq war on false WMD intel.

Both sides are performing for their local audiences.  How much damage gets done will most likely depend on how much it weakens the moderates in Jakarta.


----------



## drsmith

Some interesting commentary on intelligence gathering from Mahmud Hendropriyono, a former head of the Indonesian intelligence agency Badan Intelijen Negara.

The video is clearly heavily edited, but hopefully that hasn't tainted the context of the interviewee.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/phone-t...rmer-indonesian-spy-chief-20131121-2xxb2.html

Former foreign minister, Alexander Downer,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-20/alexander-downer-on-indonesia-spying/5106674


----------



## banco

trainspotter said:


> It would appear our media is in more of a frenzy over this then theirs?
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.thepaperboy.com/headlines.cfm?PaperID=925790716
> 
> http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/
> 
> Even the Jakarta Globe has not had THAT much to say on the matter?




You're right.  Stories relating to the allegations only occupy the top five spots for most comments on the Jakarta Post site.  Clearly a beatup by those lefties at fairfax and the ABC


----------



## trainspotter

banco said:


> You're right.  Stories relating to the allegations only occupy the top five spots for most comments on the Jakarta Post site.  Clearly a beatup by those lefties at fairfax and the ABC




Quite right banco ! Comments and not news headlines? Also looking at the other Indo rags in Bahasa Indonesian has the same result? No mention of the riots and flag burning at the Oz Embassy in Jakarta?


----------



## banco

It is the top headline at the jakarta post website:

http://www.thejakartapost.com/channel/headlines


----------



## wayneL

sydboy007 said:


> So I take it your inferring that no spying by Australia in other countries has never occurred under a Coalition Govt?
> 
> Howard is probably lucky Snowden wasn't able to get the details on why he signed us up for the Iraq war on false WMD intel.
> 
> Both sides are performing for their local audiences.  How much damage gets done will most likely depend on how much it weakens the moderates in Jakarta.




WTF Syd?

How did you make that leap from my comments? I was inferring no such thing at all. All gu'mints spy. I was just commenting how the ABC is spinning this.

Mate, that was the most ridiculous straw man argument I've seen on these boards!!!

Sheesh


----------



## drsmith

Julia Gillard has also weighed in saying our government should apologise, but it seems Indonesia has already moved on from that specific element.



> Ms Gillard reportedly also encouraged Mr Abbott to apologise to the Indonesian President for the alleged spying




http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...h-ways-says-julia-gillard-20131122-2xzht.html



> President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's foreign affairs spokesman, Teuku Faizasyah, made clear in comments to Fairfax Media what the President's letter demanded of the Prime Minister.
> 
> "It's not a question of apologising, but a question of explaining and clarifying what has happened," Mr Faizasyah said. "That is why we have put emphasis on a new protocol, an agreement to set up co-operation on intelligence gathering in future. Otherwise we cannot consider it's enough."




http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-do-sby-tells-tony-abbott-20131121-2xypu.html


----------



## drsmith

The ABC's take on the above,



> Tony Abbott should promise not to tap Indonesian president's phone in future, Julia Gillard says




How long will it be before Kevin Rudd chips in ? 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-...an-accuses-abbott-of-mishandling-spyi/5109632


----------



## drsmith

drsmith said:


> Julia Gillard has also weighed in saying our government should apologise, but it seems Indonesia has already moved on from that specific element.



The past Labor politicians keep wheeling themselves out to offer advice with Gareth Evans now joining the list.

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/11/22/oz-should-apologize-move.html

I think it would be best if they just said nothing.


----------



## IFocus

So Abbott is still playing domestic politics when he should playing diplomat.

Fancy the Indos behaving like him refusing to lose face. Maybe there is good reason for not playing the game with the Indos what it could be is totally beyond me as clearly bugging the bosses wife and getting caught is a SNAFU all in an election cycle.

Say sorry and get on with it.....still looks way to late now.

Seen a few writings from Expats saying what a poor PM Abbott has been through this giving fuel to the radicals and nationalists in Indonesia.

The nationalists look likely to win the presidency

Mean while keep blaming the ABC for a poor performance by Abbott face it he is so far a dud.


----------



## wayneL

IFocus said:


> So Abbott is still playing domestic politics when he should playing diplomat.
> 
> Fancy the Indos behaving like him refusing to lose face. Maybe there is good reason for not playing the game with the Indos* what it could be is totally beyond me as clearly bugging the bosses wife and getting caught is a SNAFU all in an election cycle.*
> 
> Say sorry and get on with it.....still looks way to late now.
> 
> Seen a few writings from Expats saying what a poor PM Abbott has been through this giving fuel to the radicals and nationalists in Indonesia.
> 
> The nationalists look likely to win the presidency
> 
> Mean while keep blaming the ABC for a poor performance by Abbott face it he is so far a dud.




You realize this all happened in Rudd's tenure... don't you?

Ergo, why doesn't Rudd offer his apologies?

Abbott has been handed a poisoned chalice by your disgraceful Fabian mates IF, all in his first two months. Then you leftist muppets have the temerity to crtiticise as if Abbott is responsible. 

Just appalling behaviour. You lot have no honour and should be ashamed of yourselves.


----------



## Whiskers

drsmith said:


> Whiskers said:
> 
> 
> 
> you haven't done the homework to learn what actually makes the world go around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not Kevin Rudd.
Click to expand...



Humm, what did I say about people accusing one of doing what they do themselves!

Hey doc... you are overplaying the character a bit aren't you... still a bit 'Lost in Space', eh! 

Dr. Zachary Smith: Never fear, Smith is here.  

Dr. Zachary Smith: It's the world behind the world Dr. Robinson. Lie once, cheat twice, and everything becomes clear.​
Yep... that's what makes the world go around! :



drsmith said:


> The ABC's take on the above,
> 
> 
> 
> How long will it be before Kevin Rudd chips in ?
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-...an-accuses-abbott-of-mishandling-spyi/5109632




But so as to shed some light on your dreaming, err obsession with... if he does deny any knowledge... well that just leaves Tones, holding the can... holding out on any prior knowledge.



drsmith said:


> The past Labor politicians keep wheeling themselves out to offer advice with Gareth Evans now joining the list.
> 
> http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/11/22/oz-should-apologize-move.html
> 
> I think it would be best if they just said nothing.




Hey doc... who was the first prominent ex politician to offer advice... Downer by name, Downer by nature, eh!

Dr. Zachary Smith: Evil knows evil.​


----------



## DB008

wayneL said:


> You realize this all happened in Rudd's tenure... don't you?
> 
> Ergo, why doesn't Rudd offer his apologies?
> 
> Abbott has been handed a poisoned chalice by your disgraceful Fabian mates IF, all in his first two months. Then you leftist muppets have the temerity to crtiticise as if Abbott is responsible.
> 
> Just appalling behaviour. You lot have no honour and should be ashamed of yourselves.




Exactly.


----------



## drsmith

Bedtime Whiskers.


----------



## IFocus

wayneL said:


> You realize this all happened in Rudd's tenure... don't you?





You realize Abbott is the PM?


----------



## wayneL

IFocus said:


> You realize Abbott is the PM?




You are catching on...  good. A bit faster than the jokers in parliament.


----------



## sails

IFocus said:


> You realize Abbott is the PM?




Do you have trouble with comprehension, IF?  Or do you choose to be ignorant?

Let me help you...  Rudd was PM when the alleged spying on SBY's and his wife's phone.  Rudd was clearly the one responsible.  Abbott has now been left the mess Rudd and the ABC have caused.

Do I need to make it any simpler?


----------



## Tink

wayneL said:


> You realize this all happened in Rudd's tenure... don't you?
> 
> Ergo, why doesn't Rudd offer his apologies?
> 
> Abbott has been handed a poisoned chalice by your disgraceful Fabian mates IF, all in his first two months. Then you leftist muppets have the temerity to crtiticise as if Abbott is responsible.
> 
> Just appalling behaviour. You lot have no honour and should be ashamed of yourselves.




Agree.

I just happened to turn on the TV and there was Gillard on the evening news saying, he shouldnt do it again.
Why is she even getting air time.

Mind you, Channel 10 should be shot down with the Labor followers in there, no wonder they are going broke.
On the other channels, they cut her short.


----------



## IFocus

This is getting really path.............sigh 

OK, OK Howard never had any spying going on he is a good guy, Abbott would never dream of having any spying under his watch he is also a good guy.

Wait there is more there is no *joint* parliamentary committee that looks at intelligence agencies nothing to do with the Coalition. 

Wait there is even more its all Labors (bad guys) fault that Abbott is incapable of resolving a very basic issue between Australia and the most pro-Australia  administration that we will ever seen in Indonesia.

Its still Labor's fault when SBY telegraphs the steps Abbott can take for it to go away..........what s Abbott move on this.....nothing.

What will happen when we get a real Indonesian administration.

But wait there is more its all the ABC's fault that Abbott is a boof head who cannot get pass being in opposition and lets the above situation spiral out of control and now give credence to radical elements in Indonesia to do harm to Australians. 

Transpotter has been to Indo sounds like no others here have they have a pretty simple set of rules to fix issues..................nothing like the way we do here.

Abbott has failed on all fronts repeat he has failed on all fronts here.


Keep shooting any one who reports the news and call it propaganda........all except the good guys (News )


----------



## Whiskers

Abbott's pre-election rhetoric... the public broadcasting of some dumb policies without discussing it with Indonesia FIRST, ie to turn back the boats, buy fishing boats and intent to enter Indonesia to spy on the smugglers networks (which includes a good chunk of government officials) potentially can... to use Alexander Downers words, cost us very dearly. 

It doesn't take much to join a couple of pretty close dots to realise the Indos thoroughly resented his abuse of their sovereignty and uped the ante with Snowdens spying info. 

Rudd has officially resigned as of yesterday, so we might hear something from him soon. 

Lawmakers to meet with Edward Snowden 

Bagus BT Saragih, The Jakarta Post | National | Fri, November 22 2013, 9:15 AM 

Members of the House of Representatives will fly to Russia to meet with US National Security Agency (NSA) whistle-blower Edward Snowden, who is living in Moscow under temporary asylum, to clarify allegations that Australia had attempted to tap the phones of Indonesian officials, including President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. 

Russian parliamentary leader Nikolai Levichev, who visited the House on Thursday, said the Russian government would allow the lawmakers to meet with Snowden. 

“Through Levichev, Moscow has given us the green light to talk directly with Snowden,” legislator Tantowi Yahya of the House’s Commission I overseeing defense, foreign affair and information, said on Thursday.

Earlier this week, the Australian media published contents of a “top-secret” document, allegedly leaked by Snowden, suggesting that Canberra had tapped the phones of President Yudhoyono, his wife and some of his Cabinet members for at least 15 days in 2009.

Tantowi, however, could not yet disclose exactly when the House delegation would fly to Moscow to meet with Snowden. “We need to work out matters related to the Russian Embassy in Jakarta first. Whenever clear access to Snowden has been given, the Commission I members will be ready [to go to Russia],” he said.

Levichev and a number of members of Russian parliament have been in Jakarta since Wednesday.

House deputy speaker Priyo Budi Santoso, after receiving the Russian guests at his office on Thursday, said their Russian counterparts were there to discuss the ongoing bilateral spat between Jakarta and Canberra over the snooping debacle. 

After the meeting, Levichev told journalists via an interpreter that Russia had denounced the alleged wiretapping by the US and Australia. “It is shameful that the wiretapping was done to the leader of a friendly nation instead of terrorists,” he said, as quoted on the House’s official website dpr.go.id. He added that the tapping not only violated diplomatic protocol, but also violated human rights.

“We have heard a lot of calls from the US for the world to uphold human rights and practice good diplomatic relations,” he said. “But then they committed actions that contradicted their own preaching.”

Other issues discussed with the visiting lawmakers, Priyo said, were the conflict in Syria and the territorial dispute in the South China Sea. “We appreciate Russia’s efforts in helping resolve the tension in Syria. Russia says the future of Syria must be determined by the Syrian people alone without interference from other nations. That is the same as Indonesia’s position on the matter,” Priyo said.

Also on Thursday, Vice President Boediono received Sun Chunlan, the secretary of the Communist Party of China’s Tianjin chapter, at his office.

The two discussed the possibility of cooperation between Indonesia and China, particularly in Tianjin, according to Antara news agency. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/11/22/lawmakers-meet-with-edward-snowden.html​
A noticeable softening tone from Morrison, a bit of a dent in his tough talk in the last feeding of the chooks... probably too little too late though. 

Has Abbott sent back that letter, promptly yet! He probably realises now that since he started telling Indonesia what he was going to come over there and do, via the media... that he needs to choose his words very carefully as his letter will likely end up in the media as well.

Meanwhile, if the Indos do get a private viewing of Snowdens file... wow, that'll likely put a bit more of a dent in his tough talking (to appease domestic politics) armour.

Seems like some pretty cuddly talking going on between Russia and Indo, behind our backs. Must make Abbott and Morrison green with envy! 

What next... Russia doing military training and exercises with Indonesia!


----------



## IFocus

Barry sums it up perfectly some thing you wont get from News a balanced view.

So far, Abbott’s best is not good enough



> A Labor government created the problem with Indonesia, but only the Prime Minister can fix it. So far, he has done nothing other than place fresh impediments in the path of a solution, writes Barrie Cassidy.
> 
> Tony Abbott insists he'll have a foreign policy with a Jakarta focus and not a Geneva focus. To this point, Geneva will be well pleased.
> 
> To be fair, the Prime Minister was placed in a no-win situation by the previous government on the Indonesian spy scandal.
> 
> But that is no excuse for making a bad situation even worse. There were so many options to consider short of an apology, and he took none of them.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-21/mcrae-indonesia/5107232


----------



## IFocus

wayneL said:


> Ergo, why doesn't Rudd offer his apologies?




Just out of interest what would Rudd apologising do as he doesn't represent the Australian government? 


Hint......nothing.


----------



## wayneL

IFocus said:


> Just out of interest what would Rudd apologising do as he doesn't represent the Australian government?
> 
> 
> Hint......nothing.




Mercifully, you are correct, Rudd no longer represents the oz gu'mint. But what puzzling is that having worked that out, you lot can't work out that Abbott was not responsible, just having to clean up the disaster left by your mob of incompetents.


----------



## Logique

On another subject, it's probably time for the 'stick insect' to offer her resignation again. Inappropriate comments, and the office has been damaged.

What was she thinking? What is the Queen supposed to think?


----------



## Calliope

Logique said:


> On another subject, it's probably time for the 'stick insect' to offer her resignation again. Inappropriate comments, and the office has been damaged.
> 
> What was she thinking? What is the Queen supposed to think?




Like another taxpayer funded organisation, the ABC, she is not biased. She just prefers her son-in-law's policies to Abbott's. She obviously sees herself as representing Shorten, rather than the Queen.


----------



## drsmith

wayneL said:


> Mercifully, you are correct, Rudd no longer represents the oz gu'mint. But what puzzling is that having worked that out, you lot can't work out that Abbott was not responsible, just having to clean up the disaster left by your mob of incompetents.



Isn't it interesting that Kevin Rudd announced his resignation from Parliament last week and this week the spying allegation from under his watch emerged.

Coincidence or something more ?


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> Isn't it interesting that Kevin Rudd announced his resignation from Parliament last week and this week the spying allegation from under his watch emerged.
> 
> Coincidence or something more ?




Given the leak came from Snowden's goodies only a feeble minded person would think it was more than a coincidence.


----------



## drsmith

Logique said:


> On another subject, it's probably time for the 'stick insect' to offer her resignation again. Inappropriate comments, and the office has been damaged.
> 
> What was she thinking? What is the Queen supposed to think?



Tony Abbott's letting this one through to the keeper.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...n-appropriate-pm/story-fn3dxiwe-1226766774462

In terms of dealing with Labor's legacy of disasters, it's understandable that this isn't a propriety.

My view is that the GG should have waited until she was out of office before expressing personal opinion on issues that are clearly in the political domain.


----------



## Julia

> Its still Labor's fault when SBY telegraphs the steps Abbott can take for it to go away



I do agree on this.  SBY did everything but put the words he wanted in Mr Abbott's mouth.  He made it entirely clear that he didn't want a full scale rift because of the spying stuff, but that he needed to shore up his dignity and have reassurance of the genuine friendship with Australia via the receipt of - not an apology at all - but even some temporising like "we'll look into what procedures were in place at the time", thus reinforcing the fact that it wasn't the Coalition authorising such personal intrusions.

Seems to me that Mr Abbott, unintentionally, because of his somewhat dismissive "we do not comment on intelligence matters" has ratcheted up the problem, causing genuine personal offence to SBY, along with embarrassing him domestically where it's important for him to look strong.

At the very least, imo he should have phoned SBY and made some mollifying noises instead of confining his rather arrogant sounding response to comments in the Australian parliament.



Logique said:


> On another subject, it's probably time for the 'stick insect' to offer her resignation again. Inappropriate comments, and the office has been damaged.
> 
> What was she thinking? What is the Queen supposed to think?



I couldn't believe this.  Totally inappropriate.  Hell, she only had a few months to wait until she was a private citizen when she can say what she wants.

I'd always quite liked her, but recently have heard her delivering the "Boyer Lectures" on Radio National.
It was a load of self-congratulatory schmultz.


----------



## ghotib

Julia said:


> I do agree on this.  SBY did everything but put the words he wanted in Mr Abbott's mouth.  He made it entirely clear that he didn't want a full scale rift because of the spying stuff, but that he needed to shore up his dignity and have reassurance of the genuine friendship with Australia via the receipt of - not an apology at all - but even some temporising like "we'll look into what procedures were in place at the time", thus reinforcing the fact that it wasn't the Coalition authorising such personal intrusions.
> 
> Seems to me that Mr Abbott, unintentionally, because of his somewhat dismissive "we do not comment on intelligence matters" has ratcheted up the problem, causing genuine personal offence to SBY, along with embarrassing him domestically where it's important for him to look strong.
> 
> At the very least, imo he should have phoned SBY and made some mollifying noises instead of confining his rather arrogant sounding response to comments in the Australian parliament.




+1  

The Australian govt. has come across like a bullying gang of smug thugs with about as much diplomatic finesse as Ja'mie and her gaggle of private school prefects. Just hope they're faster learners.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Mr.Abbott and his Government, seem to be doing quite a good job with the Indonesian kerfuffle with SBY. These days will pass and the phone tapping sorting out will occurr, as it should, off camera and in private.

It's not as if we had charged in to liberate a trodden-under minority, like the Timorese, abandoned to Jakarta, by the ALP, in some very dubious deals. After that intervention, relations with Indonesia returned to normal.

The resignation of Rudd was interesting, and it is difficult to believe it was not tied to Rudd's tapping of SBY and his wife's Nokia phones. The spying allegations surfaced less than a week after Rudd resigned. The ABC and the Guardian spared releasing the details during the election, so as to give Rudd and the ALP a leg-up.

I see Rudd's going, as the first spark of the ALP Bonfire of the Vanities, when all the ALP fudging of vital issues and their mismanagement will be exposed by Tony Abbott, slowly and surely, over the next 3 years.

The Bonfire of the ALP Vanities has commenced, it will flame and grow, and unless they wake up and realise their irrelavent Green policies are anethema, they will not get re-elected for a generation, or two.

It is such a good feeling to have a good Government running the show, secure borders and a realisable plan for the future.

gg


----------



## Whiskers

Logique said:


> On another subject, it's probably time for the 'stick insect' to offer her resignation again. Inappropriate comments, and the office has been damaged.
> 
> What was she thinking? What is the Queen supposed to think?




Abbott seems to have  publically at least, taken it in his stride.

I smell a rat though. Bryce has had a very close affinity for Labor from her Qld days. At her speech opening  parliament, she seemed like she was begrudgingly reading a prepared speech with as much enthusiasm as a child fronting up to the dentist.

Her latest speech must be probably the biggest slap in the face of a PM by a GG since the Kerr Whitlam days. 

Thinking of crises, it would pay to keep an eye peeled for Shorten using his 'connections' to provoke one with the debt limit if Abbott and Hockey don't take the $400bn on offer as it appears the current $300bn limit will be reached abt Dec 12.

It would seem that Abbott will have to back down on this one too, or severely cut spending to keep functioning with current debt limit, or delay or risk loosing the vote on a 'supply' bill  a-la Whitlam and... enter the Shorten back room deals factor, the GG again. The irony is chilling! 

That would not be good for Aus!


----------



## Tink

Agree with you, Logique.

First time in history that a GG has given a slap in the face to a PM.
That must be the thanks you get for asking her to stay and finish her term.

Good on Abbott for taking it in his stride, makes her look the fool.


----------



## orr

Tink said:


> Good on Abbott for taking it in his stride, makes her look the fool.




??? This was a god send for Abbott, there's no one who needed a distraction from the tightening squirrel grip the the serious media had on his budgie smugglers over a balls up of his own making with regard SBY's phone taps. To quote 'Lord Downer' today on the issue ...'a crisis in need of creative solutions'

And good on Governor Quentin for doing little more than stating the bleeding obvious... But I might just have a higher opinion of Australian born kids than the forelock tuggers here.


----------



## AAA

orr said:


> ??? over a balls up of his own making with regard SBY's phone taps..




What has Abbott ballsed up here. What should have Abbott done differently here. I can't think of a single response fron Abbott that is a sure thing to resolve this problem without further repercussions.


----------



## MrBurns

orr said:


> over a balls up of his own making with regard SBY's phone taps.
> .




Oh you mean he should have dropped to his knees in a gesture of grovelling servitude like Rudd would have done ?

I think Abbott is doing the right thing and I think most Australians with any backbone would agree.

As for the GG she did say it ever so nicely, but it shouldn't have been said at all.


----------



## macca

Tink said:


> Agree with you, Logique.
> 
> First time in history that a GG has given a slap in the face to a PM.
> That must be the thanks you get for asking her to stay and finish her term.
> 
> Good on Abbott for taking it in his stride, makes her look the fool.




I would think it may also be the first time in history that a GG has had to swear in a Govt while her son in law leads the opposition. That must have really been irritating


----------



## IFocus

Tink said:


> Agree with you, Logique.
> 
> First time in history that a GG has given a slap in the face to a PM.
> That must be the thanks you get for asking her to stay and finish her term.
> 
> Good on Abbott for taking it in his stride, makes her look the fool.




I think Kerr slapped Whitlam a fair bit harder


----------



## basilio

I thought that was a particularly graceful and astute political move by Tony Abbott to acknowledge that the GG had the right to express a personal view "in a very graceful way ".

It leaves the comments as very much a personal comment by Quentin Bryce and gives Tony Abbott kudos for not expecting every one to automatically fall in line with his views. 

I think it was a good look. (Mind you what he thinks in private and how he decides to go for the next appointment iis another story.)


----------



## sails

IFocus said:


> I think Kerr slapped Whitlam a fair bit harder




Maybe, but he didn't have a son-in-law as leader of the opposition.

Big difference.


----------



## bellenuit

AAA said:


> What has Abbott ballsed up here. What should have Abbott done differently here. I can't think of a single response fron Abbott that is a sure thing to resolve this problem without further repercussions.




I agree. There is little Abbott can do to resolve this issue when Indonesia is hell bent on making a massive fuss about it. From the start, Indonesia had no intention of being satisfied and were going to turn this in to a big issue no matter what. Grovelling to Indonesia would not have solved anything and would make things worse should further disclosures come to light, particularly regarding other countries in our neighbourhood.

Abbott should wait a few months and hope it all dies down, but if Indonesia maintains the rage, then perhaps we should consider whether our relationship with them is worth the bother.


----------



## Calliope

bellenuit said:


> I agree. There is little Abbott can do to resolve this issue when Indonesia is hell bent on making a massive fuss about it. From the start, Indonesia had no intention of being satisfied and were going to turn this in to a big issue no matter what. Grovelling to Indonesia would not have solved anything and would make things worse should further disclosures come to light, particularly regarding other countries in our neighbourhood.
> 
> Abbott should wait a few months and hope it all dies down, but if Indonesia maintains the rage, then perhaps we should consider whether our relationship with them is worth the bother.




Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's hissy fit is for domestic purposes. If he wants to maintain the rage, Abbott should tell him that when Indonesia stops channeling illegals through their country to us, (which is an unfriendly act) then we will stop tapping the Blackberries of him and his missus. God only knows why we did this in the first place. Of what possible interest could it be to us if Mrs SBY texts Mr SBY to pick up a bottle of milk on his way home from the office.?


----------



## wayneL

IFocus said:


> I think Kerr slapped Whitlam a fair bit harder




I have an entirely different memory. 

Sir John saved Australia from a Fabianized Orwellian Dystopia, facilitated by a parliamentary impasse.

For this he should be canonized and eventually Sainted for the miracle of getting Whitlam and his cabal of creepy communists out of power before term's end. 

He was a reluctant hero not a smarmy and dishonourable Fabian white anter like the current GG.


----------



## IFocus

As Keating said during his must watch interviews with Kerry O'Brien it was a coup. 

Keating actually talks about the Whitlam Government great viewing

Kerr was a drunk


----------



## wayneL

IFocus said:


> Kerr was a drunk




So was Churchill. Jesus was famous for turning water to wine.

So what?


----------



## sails

IFocus said:


> ...Kerr was a drunk





And didn't Hawke like his grog too?  I have never heard you hold that against Hawke.


----------



## Whiskers

wayneL said:


> I have an entirely different memory.
> 
> Sir John saved Australia from a Fabianized Orwellian Dystopia, facilitated by *a parliamentary impasse*.
> 
> For this he should be canonized and eventually Sainted for the miracle of getting Whitlam and his cabal of creepy communists out of power before term's end.
> 
> He was a reluctant hero not a smarmy and dishonourable Fabian white anter like the current GG.




The key issue as it relates to today is surely the parliamentary impasse and whether Abbott is aware he might suffer from the same tactic his party introduced to turf out a PM who... what was that again... wants to raise more debt!

While Kerr was maybe aided by a bit of booze in making his choice... Bryce seems very clear minded in who she would choose.

Call me a cynical b@$tard if you like, but how did Shorten come to marry the then Qld GG's daughter who is a... media consultant?

The current 'Government' has all the ingredients for a recipe of a similar constitutional controversy, in the baking.

My point is Abbott should have toned down the exaggerated rhetoric once elected and chose his fights a bit more carefully. He should have ate some humble pie and took the $400bn debt ceiling while it was on offer. Instead he has fuelled up his so called 'national security crisis' into a rather more real foreign affairs crisis as well as a his so called 'budget crisis'.

It Abbott doesn't start toning down pretty soon it won't take much more controversy for Shorten to have enough rope to call in the constitutional crisis card.

Don't say I didn't try to warn you if Abbott trips himself over and we get Shorten PM by default.


----------



## Whiskers

sails said:


> Maybe, but he didn't have a son-in-law as leader of the opposition.
> 
> Big difference.




Not sure there is a big difference. Kerr was considered married to the CIA covert operations division, that was so prolific in manipulating world affairs for US interests, at the time.


----------



## Whiskers

Well I did try to warn ya!

I could make one last plea to, 'tone it down Tony'... but I fear it might be too late now. 

The quite strong swing back to labor (as seen earlier in state based polls in Vic and Qld in particular) could reflect in a hiding for Abbot in the WA re-run senate election. Could it be enough to loose them a senate seat on top of Labor and or greens regaining one?

Constitutional trigger... Double Dissolution... game over for Abbott and heaven help Aus if Shorten becomes PM.

PS: Where the hell are ya now Rudd, the party needs you! Abbott and the Big L Libs are on the nose but Shorten is holding back Labor. GET SHORTY NOW!


----------



## wayneL

If that poll is accurate, it just proves Churchill correct.


----------



## medicowallet

Whiskers said:


> Well I did try to warn ya!
> 
> I could make one last plea to, 'tone it down Tony'... but I fear it might be too late now.
> 
> The quite strong swing back to labor (as seen earlier in state based polls in Vic and Qld in particular) could reflect in a hiding for Abbot in the WA re-run senate election. Could it be enough to loose them a senate seat on top of Labor and or greens regaining one?
> 
> Constitutional trigger... Double Dissolution... game over for Abbott and heaven help Aus if Shorten becomes PM.
> 
> PS: Where the hell are ya now Rudd, the party needs you! Abbott and the Big L Libs are on the nose but Shorten is holding back Labor. GET SHORTY NOW!




The only thing to lose here is an o in the word loose, as has been corrected before for you.

I am not a spelling Nazi, but I can't stand how the youth of today spell lose.  

I cannot believe your type are still calling for that looser Rudd.

MW


----------



## MrBurns

This proves there's something fundamentality wrong with some polls, the electorate just dismissed the Labor Govt who are barely able to function due to their depleted state and lack of direction yet the polls are trying to tell us that they are preferred ?

Sorry I don't buy it.


----------



## Tink

Agree Mr Burns.

Whiskers, I think you are dreaming, and cant believe you are still calling for Rudd.
After 6 years, Australia is still scarred from that rubble.

I dont even know what Labor stands for, the quota party, they have moved so far over that you cant tell the difference between them and the Greens.
They seem to be reading from the same book.


----------



## Whiskers

wayneL said:


> If that poll is accurate, it just proves Churchill correct.




Yes Abbott didn't have a chance to get his pants off before the Indo's twitched and ramped up the truth a bit and it got around the world, but that just reflects poorly on Abbotts strategy... Churchill also said:

“Diplomacy is the art of telling people to go to hell in such a way that they ask for directions.” 
― Winston Churchill​
Abbott certainly got the first part, but didn't understand the second bit. He also should have:

“However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.” 
― Winston Churchill​
and considered:

“Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthuisasm.”
 ― Winston Churchill​
Ole Winston may have been a drunk who suffered depression, but as he would put it, he would sober up in the morning but they would still be ugly.

medicowallet, do you really want to go down that path!?

I have previously explained the problems with the spell checker and auto fill when one starts editing and rearranging posts and for those of us who do not live on the computer or this site and have to go and do other things and sometimes don't notice errors until after the time limit has expired.

I thought I'd just drop in reference to Rudd again to see how some people still fear the influence he has in the non corrupt or factional parts of Labor.

I'm also flattered for the youth of today (which I am certainly not), that you think they are so wise and prophetic. :

Tink, my reference to Rudd was to gather his party colleagues to invoke a trigger to enforce the intent of his membership ballot rule change... to GET SHORTY, Shorten dumped from leader in accordance with the 60% membership vote to be in the best position for people to vote for Labor.

Tink, I think from the detail in the poll, it's not so much a case of voters liking Labor but more disliking how Abbot is handling things. I'm sure if Shorten was not leader of Labor, voters would warm to them much more.


----------



## wayneL

Perhaps Abbott is thinking more of Twain... Rumours etc


----------



## Knobby22

The polling doesn't mean labor would get voted in, it means people want to send a message to the government.

The reasons?
- the Indonesian diplomatic mishandling
- the budget problems and the mention of putting capital gains tax on the family home and increasing the age pension age to 70. 

Maybe an attack dog doesn't make a good guide dog?


----------



## noco

MrBurns said:


> This proves there's something fundamentality wrong with some polls, the electorate just dismissed the Labor Govt who are barely able to function due to their depleted state and lack of direction yet the polls are trying to tell us that they are preferred ?
> 
> Sorry I don't buy it.




+1 Mr. Burns......the poll was taken by the Age and as they are pro Labor I should imagine it would well and truly be rigged.

Most likely the poll was taken in Gillards old electorate which still has about a 60% support for Labor.....The Age do not state how the poll was taken and what qiuestions were asked....I would be very very sus about this one!!!!


----------



## Knobby22

You and your conspiracy theories noco!
it was taken nationally by an independent company.


----------



## Julia

Knobby22 said:


> You and your conspiracy theories noco!
> it was taken nationally by an independent company.




There's never any suggested malarkey when any poll favours one's 'own side'.

Mr Burns and noco:  there is quite widespread disquiet about both the attitude taken by Scott Morrison which is seen by many as arrogant and unreasonable, and now Mr Abbott's  handling thus far of the Indonesian situation is making some people very anxious.

I voted for the Coalition, and am still glad I did, but have reservations about some of their performance so far.
I'm putting it down to them still finding it a bit difficult to switch from Opposition mode to the quite different behaviour needed in government, and hope they'll settle down soon.  Certainly they've been handed a red hot issue with the Indonesian attitude.


----------



## trainspotter

Labor MP's dropping like flies in Victoria. Ann Barker has just chucked in the towel. Meanwhile the Indo press has finally gone too far in it's endeavor to assist diplomatic relations between the two countries.


----------



## IFocus

Knobby22 said:


> The polling doesn't mean labor would get voted in, it means people want to send a message to the government.
> 
> The reasons?
> - the Indonesian diplomatic mishandling
> - the budget problems and the mention of putting capital gains tax on the family home and increasing the age pension age to 70.
> 
> Maybe an attack dog doesn't make a good guide dog?




Certainly reflects IMHO that the people wanted Labor out but were not to keen on Abbott in. If the polling continues it will be the shortest honey moon ever.

On watching the insiders Tanya P must have repeated 4 times how Abbott the very best of advice available to him on the SBY issue.

 I wonder if they (Labor) have heard Abbott has ignored good advice.


----------



## sails

Essential poll:

2pp Coalition 53 to Labor 47

http://essentialvision.com.au/category/essentialreport


----------



## AAA

IFocus said:


> Certainly reflects IMHO that the people wanted Labor out but were not to keen on Abbott in. If the polling continues it will be the shortest honey moon ever.
> 
> On watching the insiders Tanya P must have repeated 4 times how Abbott the very best of advice available to him on the SBY issue.
> 
> I wonder if they (Labor) have heard Abbott has ignored good advice.




What specific advice would you have given to Abbott on handling this situation. What do you think would constitute good advice.


----------



## sails

AAA said:


> What specific advice would you have given to Abbott on handling this situation. What do you think would constitute good advice.




If you are asking IFocus his answer is likely to be whatever might hurt Abbott the most. Happy to be corrected...


----------



## noco

sails said:


> Essential poll:
> 
> 2pp Coalition 53 to Labor 47
> 
> http://essentialvision.com.au/category/essentialreport




I believe that is more like it.


----------



## AAA

sails said:


> If you are asking IFocus his answer is likely to be whatever might hurt Abbott the most. Happy to be corrected...




Maybe. I would just like to hear what those critical of Abbott would have done in this situation. 

That essential vision poll is interesting. Has the coalition ahead of labor on most issues including the environment and handling climate change.


----------



## Whiskers

sails said:


> Essential poll:
> 
> 2pp Coalition 53 to Labor 47
> 
> http://essentialvision.com.au/category/essentialreport




The big difference is the essential poll was reported on the 19th of Nov. It's not clear on what prior days the poll was done on.

The Age/Nielsen Poll was conducted from the 21st to 23rd of November.



noco said:


> I believe that is more like it.




I suppose it would be IF you could make the days in between and the bigger hole Abbott dug for himself, go away... BUT you can't!


----------



## IFocus

AAA said:


> What specific advice would you have given to Abbott on handling this situation. What do you think would constitute good advice.




The advice Tanya Plibersek was talking about would have come from public servants with 30 years plus experience in Indonesian affairs and intelligence gathering.

The fact she repeatedly said it was unusual.

What do I think................don't say how good a friend someone is (SBY is one of the closest friends in Asia we have and has spoken on our behalf more than once) and treat them with contempt simple. 

Bugging his and his wife's phone is personal...............and in an election cycle.

If SBY is our friend Abbott should have picked up the phone and phoned a friend SBY.

What do you suggest that he has taken the best action with out letting SBY save face?

Do you think Abbott saying how embarrassing it must be for SBY was a master stroke?


----------



## noco

Whiskers said:


> The big difference is the essential poll was reported on the 19th of Nov. It's not clear on what prior days the poll was done on.
> 
> The Age/Nielsen Poll was conducted from the 21st to 23rd of November.
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose it would be IF you could make the days in between and the bigger hole Abbott dug for himself, go away... BUT you can't!




What in the hell are you taliking about?

A bit more wishful thinking ha.


----------



## Whiskers

trainspotter said:


> Meanwhile the Indo press has finally gone too far in it's endeavor to assist diplomatic relations between the two countries.
> 
> View attachment 55489




Why do you blame the press?

If Abbott had been more 'diplomatic' they wouldn't have had a story at all, would they?

Soo, are you suggesting our press doesn't do similar cartoons?


----------



## Whiskers

noco said:


> What in the hell are you taliking about?




It's called CONTEXT... sorting the facts, the historical sequence the polls were taken in. 

The essential poll is a week older than the Age/Nielson poll. How difficult is that to comprehend



> A bit more wishful thinking ha.




The only wishful thinking is from fools that portray information out of context, wishing other people would believe it.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/labor-storms-ahead-20131124-2y43r.html

http://essentialvision.com.au/category/essentialreport


----------



## AAA

IFocus said:


> The advice Tanya Plibersek was talking about would have come from public servants with 30 years plus experience in Indonesian affairs and intelligence gathering.
> 
> The fact she repeatedly said it was unusual.
> 
> What do I think................don't say how good a friend someone is (SBY is one of the closest friends in Asia we have and has spoken on our behalf more than once) and treat them with contempt simple.
> 
> Bugging his and his wife's phone is personal...............and in an election cycle.
> 
> If SBY is our friend Abbott should have picked up the phone and phoned a friend SBY.
> 
> What do you suggest that he has taken the best action with out letting SBY save face?
> 
> Do you think Abbott saying how embarrassing it must be for SBY was a master stroke?




Do you think SBY was embarrassed. I think he was. I think Abbott said something along the lines of he regretted the embarrassment cause. Maybe he could have said he regretted the distress it caused. 

You suggest Abbott should have called SBY. Other Labor figures have said he should have followed Obama's example. Well Obama didn't call Merkel. She called him. 

The problem for Abbott is there is no perfect solution for this. Do you think Abbott should have rung, confessed all and promised we will never do it again. 

It would be a fairly meaningless gesture to call SBY and say sorry but we are still going to spy on you.

We could agree to not spy on him but where do we stop. Do we not spy on any members of his government, miltary ect. 

Add to this we don't know what else Snowden is exposing. Are we going to have to fess up and promise to not spy on anyone else. 

Abbott took the time honoured position and refused to talk about our intelligence matters. I believe as do many others this was the best policy. It is not a perfect policy as their are downsides and risks. However I don't see a perfect risk free policy.


----------



## drsmith

Inside tip on the next Essential poll ?



> Reader Gavin H says Peter Lewis of Essential Research has told the ABC that tomorrow’s Essential poll will have the Coalition holding the same 53-47 lead over Labor it’s had for a while.




http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/nielsen_poll_labor_ahead/

Newspoll,



> Based on preference flows at the 2010 election, the Coalition's two-party-preferred lead is now 52 per cent to Labor's 48 per cent a slight narrowing in the past fortnight. At the election, the two-party-preferred result was 53.5 per cent for the Coalition and 46.5 per cent for Labor.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...g-its-poll-glow/story-e6frg6n6-1226768225062#

There's also been no media reports of any boats over the past week that I've seen.


----------



## sails

drsmith said:


> Inside tip on the next Essential poll ?
> 
> 
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/nielsen_poll_labor_ahead/
> 
> Newspoll,
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...g-its-poll-glow/story-e6frg6n6-1226768225062#
> 
> There's also been no media reports of any boats over the past week that I've seen.





Thanks Drsmith - it looks like the essential poll I posted earlier was from last week.  Interesting that they still have the same result this week.


----------



## Whiskers

drsmith said:


> Inside tip on the next Essential poll ?
> 
> 
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/nielsen_poll_labor_ahead/
> 
> Newspoll,
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...g-its-poll-glow/story-e6frg6n6-1226768225062#
> 
> There's also been no media reports of any boats over the past week that I've seen.




Hey doc, why would you contaminate an otherwise reasonable argument with comment from someone like Andrew Bolt?

There will be differences in polls from week to week depending on the issue of the week *and* how the preference count is derived. 

But *the most important point *is that regardless of which poll you prefer, even Newspoll acknowledges *the coalition has lost that tiny 2% swing it got out of the 4.6% swing away from Labor last election on first preferences*, similar to the Age/Nielsen poll below. That alone has the potential to alter the seat count very considerably should an election be sprung unexpectedly.  

..*the Coalition has dropped almost three percentage points *below its September election result of 45.6 per cent to 43per cent. During the same period, Labor's primary vote has risen three points, to 35 per cent the first time it has been above the election-day result of 33.3 per cent. - See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...y-e6frg6n6-1226768225062#sthash.LmInRTAG.dpuf​
*Isn't the two party preference skewed in the Essential poll and Newspoll who both still use a calculated preference flow from the 2010 election.* A lot has changed since then. 

Essential poll: NB. The data in the above tables comprise 2-week averages derived from the first preference/leaning to voting questions.  Respondents who select ‘don’t know’ are not included in the results. The two-party preferred estimate is calculated by distributing the votes of the other parties according to their preferences at the 2010 election.
http://essentialvision.com.au/category/essentialreport​
Whereas the Age/Nielsen poll indicates a more real time basis, calculated by how respondents said they would allocate preferences.

TWO-PARTY PREFERRED BASED ON 139 OUT OF 150 ELECTORATES.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/labor-storms-ahead-20131124-2y43r.html​
Wouldn't it be political suicide for Abbott (and his strident supporters) to rely on a poll with an out dated calculated preference flow from 2010?

Better to tone down the behaviour Tony, than try to twist around and beat up the polls to give a false illusion... or  more importantly, delusion of voter support.


----------



## bunyip

IFocus said:


> What do I think................don't say how good a friend someone is (SBY is one of the closest friends in Asia we have and has spoken on our behalf more than once) and treat them with contempt simple.




I thought the phone bugging took place when your hero Rudd was in power.
If anyone showed contempt for SBY, the culprit was Rudd.


----------



## trainspotter

Whiskers said:


> Why do you blame the press?
> 
> If Abbott had been more 'diplomatic' they wouldn't have had a story at all, would they?
> 
> Soo, are you suggesting our press doesn't do similar cartoons?




*rattle rattle* I am of the opinion that the cartoon has gone too far in picturing Abbott as a peeping Tom, masturbating whilst looking inside a door marked Indonesia. The worst cartoon that I saw from our press was SBY pushing the asylum seekers boats our way. Small difference eh? Play the ball and not the man. Abbott did not orchestrate this mess, Rudd was in power at the time so one can safely assume (for the nth time this has been said) that Tony clearly has nothing to apologise for ! 

I do not see anyone burning the Indonesian flag outside their embassy in protest for the human rights atrocities they have caused? Anyone remember Roger East? Balibo 5 ring any bells? This is SBY and his cronyism government making mileage out of a looming election. Nothing more and nothing less.

We shall await for the SBY response to PM Abbots letter outlining the reason behind the Rudd governments decision to spy on "our dear friend".


----------



## Whiskers

trainspotter said:


> Play the ball and not the man. Abbott did not orchestrate this mess, Rudd was in power at the time so one can safely assume (for the nth time this has been said) that Tony clearly has nothing to apologise for !
> 
> We shall await for the SBY response to PM Abbots letter outlining the reason behind the Rudd governments decision to spy on "our dear friend".




Try this on for size!

Look what News Ltd has revealed. 

Spying row centres on intelligence 'shared' with Jakarta 
 by: Paul Maley and Joe Kelly From: The Australian November 26, 2013 12:00AM 

INTELLIGENCE gathered by Australian spies operating from the embassy in Jakarta , which is at the heart of the most serious diplomatic rift between the two countries in more than a decade, would have been shared with Indonesia once it had been "sanitised". Earlier this month, it emerged Australia had used its network of overseas embassies to conceal eavesdropping equipment capable of intercepting cellphone and radio traffic in host countries, including Indonesia. The country's top expert on signals intelligence, Des Ball, said it was his understanding that some of the intelligence gathered as part of this US-led project, known as Stateroom, would have been passed on to Indonesia, in what he said was a "major exception" to the protocol of never sharing information with a target country. - See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati....eTxESzo1.dpuf

So News has exposed, as I suspected and mentioned from the start, that the spying was conducted out of the Aus embasy. That makes it ILLEGALY obtained by our spies, and this report also confirms my earlier estimation that it was likely US led from the Howard, Bush coalition of the willing war on terrorism era.

Quite likely that Rudd and Gillard were not aware it was going on... but Abbott did. This was his little secret weapon to get the inside info about smuggler activity and Indo politicians, all dressed up in a military operation Sovereign Borders to keep it all hushed up with the media blackout ... but it backfired in his face.


----------



## drsmith

Whiskers said:


> Hey doc, why would you contaminate an otherwise reasonable argument with comment from someone like Andrew Bolt?



You need to get more sleep Whiskers. The tip on Andrew Bolt's blog was spot on.

The latest Essential Report (26/11/2013) has the Coalition at 53% 2PP.

http://essentialvision.com.au/category/essentialreport


----------



## IFocus

AAA said:


> Do you think SBY was embarrassed. I think he was. I think Abbott said something along the lines of he regretted the embarrassment cause. Maybe he could have said he regretted the distress it caused.
> 
> You suggest Abbott should have called SBY. Other Labor figures have said he should have followed Obama's example. Well Obama didn't call Merkel. She called him.
> 
> The problem for Abbott is there is no perfect solution for this. Do you think Abbott should have rung, confessed all and promised we will never do it again.
> 
> It would be a fairly meaningless gesture to call SBY and say sorry but we are still going to spy on you.
> 
> We could agree to not spy on him but where do we stop. Do we not spy on any members of his government, miltary ect.
> 
> Add to this we don't know what else Snowden is exposing. Are we going to have to fess up and promise to not spy on anyone else.
> 
> Abbott took the time honoured position and refused to talk about our intelligence matters. I believe as do many others this was the best policy. It is not a perfect policy as their are downsides and risks. However I don't see a perfect risk free policy.




SBY has backed us then we get busted (publicly) tapping his and his wife's phone.

If he is our friend then Abbott needed to give him a face saving message immediately proving he is a friend this is not just for SBY but for future Indonesian leaders believing Australian politicians wont hang them out to dry. 

But as you say we don't know what else is going to pop up from Snowden.


----------



## IFocus

On a different note nice to see the Coalition reach a new high on hypocrisy with the education funding back down then blame Labor.

Say one thing do another certainly a behavioural pattern with this incoherent ramble.


----------



## sails

IFocus said:


> SBY has backed us then we get busted (publicly) tapping his and his wife's phone.
> 
> If he is our friend then Abbott needed to give him a face saving message immediately proving he is a friend this is not just for SBY but for future Indonesian leaders believing Australian politicians wont hang them out to dry.
> 
> But as you say we don't know what else is going to pop up from Snowden.





Abbott wasn't in power when his phone was tapped. Agree, who knows what else Rudd and Gillard did that will come out from Snowden.

Sadly, labor supporters seem to give the illusion that the phone tapping on 2009 is all Abbott's doing rather than taking responsibility for what went on under their watch.


----------



## trainspotter

IFocus said:


> On a different note nice to see the Coalition reach a new high on hypocrisy with the education funding back down then blame Labor.
> 
> Say one thing do another certainly a behavioural pattern with this incoherent ramble.




Polly want a cracker?



> Opposition Leader *Bill Shorten has refused to answer questions* about the funding shortfall.
> 
> [Journalist:] "The Government is saying that the reason they've got to go back to the drawing board is because some of the agreements that *were signed by you weren't done correctly and, in fact, that you short-funded the schools agreements by more than one billion dollars.* What do you have to say to that?"
> 
> [Shorten:] "Tony Abbott promised before the election that they would be a government of no surprises and no excuses."
> 
> [Journalist:] "So, if Labor had been elected, would you have cut education funding by more than one billion dollars?"
> 
> [Shorten:] "Labor is the party that put needs-based education on the map."




http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/11/26/government-heralds-new-schools-funding-model


----------



## sails

IFocus said:


> On a different note nice to see the Coalition reach a new high on hypocrisy with the education funding back down then blame Labor.
> 
> Say one thing do another certainly a behavioural pattern with this incoherent ramble.




I believe there is a problem with $1.2 billion shortfall in school funding which happened under labor not long before the election.

Have labor deliberately left mess after mess for the coalition so they can throw stones because of the very messes they caused and left for someone else to clean up?


EDIT - see you got to it first TS while I was typing my post...


----------



## banco

sails said:


> I believe there is a problem with $1.2 billion shortfall in school funding which happened under labor not long before the election.
> 
> Have labor deliberately left mess after mess for the coalition so they can throw stones because of the very messes they caused and left for someone else to clean up?
> 
> 
> EDIT - see you got to it first TS while I was typing my post...




"In fact, what happened was the former government was unable to get the conservative governments in Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory to agree to a new funding deal. It had allocated $1.2 billion to funding agreements with these three jurisdictions in its economic statement but they had declined to sign up. Therefore, the money was no longer relevant by the time of the pre-election fiscal and economic outlook. This was widely reported at the time, as was the fact that some, but not all schools, were covered by funding agreements on election day."

http://www.afr.com/p/national/government_of_no_surprises_rewrites_YFgxK864VRKFbRIi44ovzN


----------



## noco

sails said:


> I believe there is a problem with $1.2 billion shortfall in school funding which happened under labor not long before the election.
> 
> Have labor deliberately left mess after mess for the coalition so they can throw stones because of the very messes they caused and left for someone else to clean up?
> 
> 
> EDIT - see you got to it first TS while I was typing my post...




You don't think for one minute that Shorten would admit to his mistakes and **** up on the funding do you?

What is new with the Labor Party when it comes to implimenting these projects. They wouldn't know how to run a chook raffle in a pub.


----------



## IFocus

sails said:


> Abbott wasn't in power when his phone was tapped. Agree, who knows what else Rudd and Gillard did that will come out from Snowden.
> 
> Sadly, labor supporters seem to give the illusion that the phone tapping on 2009 is all Abbott's doing rather than taking responsibility for what went on under their watch.




No one and I mean no one is running that story from Labor or their supporters there is no illusion.

The issue is Abbotts dismissive and lack of urgency to respond.


----------



## wayneL

IFocus said:


> No one and I mean *no one is running that story from Labor or their supporters t*here is no illusion.
> 
> The issue is Abbotts dismissive and lack of urgency to respond.




Camel Dung. The Abbott response has been correct. The only response that has been inappropriate is the leftists zeal to hang it off Abbott.

Oh, and one of your comrades, a person who still has a man-crush on Rudd, a member of ASF, has tried to claim Abbott is directly responsible...

The left's behaviour over this has been absolutely reprehensible.

Team Australia? pfffft


----------



## AAA

I would like Abbott to ask the following question of Shorten or Tanya P in question time. 

Why under the Labor government did our intell people listen in on SBY's phone calls. If you feel there was a valid reason and given normal government practice not to discuss intelligence gathering with the target of such activity you are excused from answering this question. How about now STFU and let us deal with it the best we can.

If there was no valid reason you owe SBY and the Australian people an explanation why this debacle occured on your watch.


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> On a different note nice to see the Coalition reach a new high on hypocrisy with the education funding back down then blame Labor.
> 
> Say one thing do another certainly a behavioural pattern with this incoherent ramble.



I have no doubt Christopher Pyne rubbed his hands together with glee when he saw Labor's funding shortfall.

You Beauty. 

It's clear Labor was never going to honour Gonski as a national scheme at the very least. Kevin Rudd even went as far as dumping the Gonski label from the scheme as part of his re-election campaign. It was Goneski not only under the Coalition as it stands now, but also under Kevin Rudd and the funding and name changes are proof of that.


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> I have no doubt Christopher Pyne rubbed his hands together with glee when he saw Labor's funding shortfall.
> 
> You Beauty.
> 
> It's clear Labor was never going to honour Gonski as a national scheme at the very least. Kevin Rudd even went as far as dumping the Gonski label from the scheme as part of his re-election campaign. It was Goneski not only under the Coalition as it stands now, but also under Kevin Rudd and the funding and name changes are proof of that.




I'll try to explain this to you very slowly: Labor didn't make provision in its economic statement for funding it as a national scheme because WA, NT and Queensland refused to sign up.  Hence it couldn't be a national scheme.


----------



## drsmith

banco said:


> I'll try to explain this to you very slowly: Labor didn't make provision in its economic statement for funding it as a national scheme because WA, NT and Queensland refused to sign up.  Hence it couldn't be a national scheme.



We'll chalk that up as another success for the great negotiator that was Julia Gillard. 

Where does it sit with another one of her negotiating triumphs, the mining tax or better still, her leadership of the Labor Party till the 2013 election ?

If it's not a national scheme then it was a failure. That after all was a primary objective. Funding could have still at least been reflected in the federal budget even where agreements weren't yet reached with some states.


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> We'll chalk that up as another success for the great negotiator that was Julia Gillard.
> 
> Where does it sit with another one of her negotiating triumphs, the mining tax ?
> 
> If it's not a national scheme then it was a failure. That after all was a primary objective. Funding could have still at least been reflected in the federal budget even where agreements weren't yet reached with some states.




They knew it wasn't a national scheme when they agreed to stick with it during the election you dummy. It's not like it's news that WA etc. didn't sign up.


----------



## drsmith

banco said:


> They knew it wasn't a national scheme when they agreed to stick with it during the election you dummy. It's not like it's news that WA etc. didn't sign up.



No need to throw names. That adds nothing to the substance of your argument.

WA was part of the Commonwealth of Australia when I last checked, as was the NT and QLD.


----------



## So_Cynical

Back Flip with triple pike, The Liberals Education Lie.


----------



## sails

banco said:


> They knew it wasn't a national scheme when they agreed to stick with it during the election you dummy. It's not like it's news that WA etc. didn't sign up.





hmmm... just look at where your other three fingers are pointing to find the real dummy...


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> No need to throw names. That adds nothing to the substance of your argument.
> 
> WA was part of the Commonwealth of Australia when I last checked, as was the NT and QLD.




Did they or did they not know prior to the election that WA, NT and Qld hadn't signed up?


----------



## drsmith

So_Cynical said:


> Back Flip with triple pike, The Liberals Education Lie.



Labor gave them the opportunity with their budgetary gymnastics and I'm glad they took it. The Gonski deals negotiated with individual states were almost as badly compromised relative to each other as where Labor stood on border protection. 

A watering down of the NDIS I suspect won't be too far behind.


----------



## drsmith

banco said:


> Did they or did they not know prior to the election that WA, NT and Qld hadn't signed up?



Did Labor advise they had stripped Gonski funding from those states prior to the election ?

That's the real question.


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> Did Labor advise they had stripped Gonski funding from those states prior to the election ?
> 
> That's the real question.




Again you are making plain you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about as if you'd followed this issue at all you'd know the answer to your question is "yes".  The fact that they had removed the $1.2 billion due to WA not signing up was in their pre election budget statement which was  released publicly.


----------



## drsmith

banco said:


> Again you are making plain you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about as if you'd followed this issue at all you'd know the answer to your question is "yes".  The fact that they had removed the $1.2 billion due to WA not signing up was in their pre election budget statement which was  released publicly.



Link ?


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> Link ?




Here you go:

 Gonski hold-out states are saving Canberra $1.2b
By Daniel Hurst
*Aug. 13, 2013*, 1:24 p.m.

The federal government will bank more than $1 billion in budget savings as a result of three conservative leaders failing to sign up to school funding reforms.

Fairfax Media has learnt the pre-election economic and fiscal outlook, to be released on Tuesday, will show Canberra has saved $1.2 billion due to stalled talks with Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory.

http://www.northerndailyleader.com....d-out-states-are-saving-canberra-12b/?cs=3275


----------



## Julia

AAA said:


> Do you think SBY was embarrassed. I think he was. I think Abbott said something along the lines of he regretted the embarrassment cause. Maybe he could have said he regretted the distress it caused.



I don't think SBY had any reason to feel embarrassed.  It is Australia who obviously feels embarrassed about Snowden's revelations, courtesy the ABC and The Guardian.



> It is not a perfect policy as their are downsides and risks. However I don't see a perfect risk free policy.



Yes, you're right.  Whatever Mr Abbott might have done there will be room for criticism.  It needs to have been what least exacerbates the situation imo.



IFocus said:


> SBY has backed us then we get busted (publicly) tapping his and his wife's phone.
> 
> If he is our friend then Abbott needed to give him a face saving message immediately proving he is a friend this is not just for SBY but for future Indonesian leaders believing Australian politicians wont hang them out to dry.
> 
> But as you say we don't know what else is going to pop up from Snowden.






IFocus said:


> The issue is Abbotts dismissive and lack of urgency to respond.






wayneL said:


> Camel Dung. The Abbott response has been correct. The only response that has been inappropriate is the leftists zeal to hang it off Abbott.



I agree with IF on this.  Initially, SBY made it clear he didn't regard the issue as one which would cause a total breakdown in the relationship as long as Mr Abbott gave him some sort of neutralising response.  This probably needed to be only something as simple as "As we were not in government at the time, we'll need to review what the intelligence practices were at that time".

SBY has at no stage that we are aware requested an apology, contrary to much of the hysterical assertions that this had been asked for and refused by Mr Abbott.

Instead Mr Abbott made what could only be seen as a somewhat dismissive comment about the issue in the parliament, failing to contact SBY directly.  This then exacerbated SBY's position domestically and internationally, and genuinely offended him.
Why would the neighbour who continually asserts that they have no greater friend than Indonesia fail to demonstrate that friendship by a phone call to calm the troubled waters?

Now, we await SBY's response to Mr Abbott's letter.  Hopefully the tone of the letter will have mollified some of the hurt feelings which, yes, are over the top, but unless Australia is happy to see thousands per week of boat people arriving here, we just have to accept in this instance imo.


----------



## drsmith

banco said:


> Here you go:



That's just media speculation on the pre-election economic and fiscal outlook.

What did it actually show ?


----------



## drsmith

Julia said:


> Now, we await SBY's response to Mr Abbott's letter.  Hopefully the tone of the letter will have mollified some of the hurt feelings which, yes, are over the top, but unless Australia is happy to see thousands per week of boat people arriving here, we just have to accept in this instance imo.



Indonesia's public banging on about this issue I'd suggest is for domestic political consumption. The issue was never going to be settled in the public domain. There, both leaders catered for their domestic audiences and that aspect I suspect isn't over yet.

We won't see thousands per week of boat people arriving here.


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> That's just media speculation on the pre-election economic and fiscal outlook.
> 
> What did it actually show ?




Page 36 dummy:

http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/...cal Outlook 2013/Downloads/PDF/PEFO_2013.ashx

You are still going to maintain your bull**** position that the Coalition didn't know about the $1.2 billion prior to the election?


----------



## drsmith

banco said:


> http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/...cal Outlook 2013/Downloads/PDF/PEFO_2013.ashx



Not for publication.

We can now see why.


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> Not for publication.
> 
> We can now see why.




I give up.  You can't even admit you were wrong you partisan hack.

Coming back to your original question:

"Did Labor advise they had stripped Gonski funding from those states prior to the election ?"

The answer is yes and you would have known that if you actually had a clue what you were talkign about.


----------



## Julia

drsmith said:


> Indonesia's public banging on about this issue I'd suggest is for domestic political consumption.



And it goes to SBY's standing internationally.  A friend in Canada tells me the squabble has been quite widely covered there.


> The issue was never going to be settled in the public domain.



Which makes Mr Abbott's failure to quickly and personally contact SBY less than helpful.


----------



## Whiskers

drsmith said:


> You need to get more sleep Whiskers. The tip on Andrew Bolt's blog was spot on.
> 
> The latest Essential Report (26/11/2013) has the Coalition at 53% 2PP.
> 
> http://essentialvision.com.au/category/essentialreport




You really ought to stop doing what ever it is you do with those gadgets when you are in bed, doc... so you can get more sleep. You might be able to join up the dots a bit easier. They are pretty close together, and not that hard to join up.

Apart from the Essential poll not indicating on which day the poll was done... AND that it is "2-week averages" ... IT ALSO STATES "Respondents who select ‘don’t know’ are not included in the results".

So, by simple maths... if 40% voted Coalition and 40% voted labour and 20% voted 'don't know'... and you ignore the don't know you get 50, 50. Then spread preferences as from an ancient 2010 distribution rather than actually asking them who their actual second preference is now you probably arrive at a number flattering for the coalition.

BUT WAIT... there's more!

Have a look at the maths in their first preference chart. 

What more does one need to say? No wonder no one in the real world takes that or what Bolt has to say, seriously.

http://essentialvision.com.au/category/essentialreport


----------



## Whiskers

Julia said:


> Which makes Mr Abbott's failure to quickly and personally contact SBY less than helpful.




Good to see you coming around, Julia. If more don't start doing so and leaning on their MP's to tone it down and get real, the government will be gone before they know it.

But, the biggest issue is still to come. It revolves around another financial sleight of hands, trying to emulate the Howard & Costello 'good fiscal managers' myth which was actually an erosion of the structural budget.


----------



## Julia

Whiskers said:


> Good to see you coming around, Julia.



Forget the patronising tone, Whiskers.  Further, my view of the Labor Party's behaviour throughout this mess is beyond comment.  Just woeful.

My view has not changed since we first learned of this situation so I am not 'coming around' at all.

Just appearing on the ABC website is the first sign of a possible decrease in the hostility:


> Indonesian president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has spoken about the Australian spying scandal three days after recieving a letter from Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott.
> 
> Speaking at a meeting convened to discuss the subject, Mr Yudhoyono said in the letter Mr Abbott had committed not to take any action in the future to damage relations between the two countries.
> 
> The Indonesian president called for calm on the issue, but said bilateral cooperation would not resume until the Australian Government signs up to behavioural protocols and a code of ethics.
> 
> Former Army chief Peter Leahy hand-delivered the letter on Saturday, a move the Government labelled a sign of respect, and a presidential spokesman earlier today said the letter was "in accordance to our expectations".
> 
> The president's comments are likely to be welcomed by the Abbott Government, which has come under increasing criticism over its handling of the situation.
> 
> The diplomatic rift erupted following revelations that in 2009 Australian spies tapped Mr Yudhoyono's phone and the phones of those in his inner circle, including his wife's.
> 
> An angry Mr Yudhoyono last week said all military and intelligence cooperation with Australia was on hold until he received a proper explanation.
> 
> The comments are the first positive indications for a way forward on the issue, which has also begun to impact on Australian commercial interests in the country.


----------



## sails

"Yudhoyono tweets this picture of himself studying Abbott’s letter."




http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...magine_if_gillard_had_been_in_charge_instead/


----------



## Whiskers

Julia said:


> Just appearing on the ABC website is the first sign of a possible decrease in the hostility:




Yeah, I've head this and more, including that they are considering withdrawing all trade with Aus including live cattle imports... subject to...

The Indonesian president called for calm on the issue, but said bilateral cooperation would not resume until the Australian Government signs up to behavioural protocols and a code of ethics.​
Don't know the full detail of what they are demanding... but I suspect it's going to be a too bitter pill for Abbott to swallow at least very soon. 

Also, as if there are not enough defections and dictatorial behaviour in coalition ranks around the states, the loss of trade with Indonesia will p!ss off Nationals, no end... that's before you even consider the economic impacts.


----------



## Knobby22

Julia said:


> Just appearing on the ABC website is the first sign of a possible decrease in the hostility:




I agree your view hasn't changed, Julia. 
Good to see the above. I would expect the Foreign Minister to now visit Indonesia to have a heartfelt discussion and get us back on track. I think it may be a bit tough for the economy this time next year and we really don't need this.


----------



## Calliope

Knobby22 said:


> Good to see the above. I would expect the Foreign Minister to now visit Indonesia to have a heartfelt discussion and get us back on track. I think it may be a bit tough for the economy this time next year and we really don't need this.



'
Much to the disappointment of the ABC, Fairfax press. the Greens and Tanya Plibersek it's now only a matter of time before normal relations with Indonesia are resumed thanks to Abbott's diplomacy. Those wishing for ructions with the Nationals over disruption to the live cattle trade will also have to pin their hopes on other things.



> However, Mr Gita made clear Indonesia was not considering any reimposition of quotas on Australian live cattle, citing "the need to maintain stability of prices". Indonesia has issued permits for an additional 120,000 head of Australian cattle to be imported during the current quarter, as the government battles to drive down market prices for beef from near-record levels.



 - See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...y-fn59nm2j-1226769119408#sthash.cviAXWdj.dpuf


----------



## Knobby22

Hmmm, I would use the word "despite' rather than "thanks to".
They are a new government though and this incident will ensure a similar mistake doesn't occur again. 
At least they aren't kowtowing like the previous government.


----------



## AAA

Calliope said:


> '
> Much to the disappointment of the ABC, Fairfax press. the Greens and Tanya Plibersek it's now only a matter of time before normal relations with Indonesia are resumed thanks to Abbott's diplomacy. Those wishing for ructions with the Nationals over disruption to the live cattle trade will also have to pin their hopes on other things.
> 
> - See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...y-fn59nm2j-1226769119408#sthash.cviAXWdj.dpuf




Well done Tony Abbott.


----------



## bunyip

Now SBY wants Australia to sign up to a code of conduct to ensure there won’t be any more phone tapping. 
That might just have some merit – at least it would give the Labor Party some much needed guidance on how to behave should they ever get back into government.


----------



## Calliope

Knobby22 said:


> Hmmm, I would use the word "despite' rather than "thanks to".




Of course you would. You obviously share the Plibersek attitude that Abbott can do nothing right.



> Earlier, Labor frontbencher Brendan O'Connor, an immigration minister under Julia Gillard, said the Abbott government "failed to fully appreciate" the gravity of the scandal.
> 
> "The fact that it's taken so long for Indonesia to respond (to the Abbott letter) is of some concern," Mr O'Connor told Sky News. "Clearly they are disappointed with the government's response."
> 
> His remarks followed similar criticism by Labor's foreign affairs spokeswoman Tanya Plibersek, who on Sunday accused the government of "missteps" in handling of the affair.




- See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...y-fn59nm2j-1226769119408#sthash.3HYTJX0Y.dpuf


----------



## bunyip

AAA said:


> Well done Tony Abbott.




I agree – Abbot has done a good job of handling this Labor-created crisis. 
He didn’t rush in with an apology for something that he and his government had no part in. Nor should he have. 
What he should have done, and what I’m sure he has in fact done in his letter, is express his regret that the Labor Party lowered themselves even further than usual by tapping SBY’s phone. Further, he would have given an assurance that his government won't be copying the lowly behavior of the Labor Party. 
And finally, he would have assured SBY that Australia and Indonesia are friends and important trading partners, and the Australian government is fully committed to continuing this relationship to the mutual benefit of our countries.


----------



## Whiskers

Julia said:


> Forget the patronising tone, Whiskers.  Further, my view of the Labor Party's behaviour throughout this mess is beyond comment.  Just woeful.
> 
> My view has not changed since we first learned of this situation so I am not 'coming around' at all.




I think you misunderstand again, Julia. What I said was;

"_Good to see you coming around, Julia. If more don't start doing so and leaning on their *MP's to tone it down and get real*, the government will be gone before they know it_."​
I was specifically referring to your acknowledgement that; 

_"Which makes Mr Abbott's failure to quickly and personally contact SBY less than helpful_."​
... which reflects a change from previously thinking he was doing a good job and 'hoping' it will turn out ok.

I'm sorry you think I was patronising, but I was not trying to put you down or humiliate you. On the contrary, I was encouraging people like you to get the message to their MP's to tone down the rhetoric, the likes of which got us into this foreign affairs crisis. 



Knobby22 said:


> I would expect the Foreign Minister to now visit Indonesia to have a heartfelt discussion and get us back on track. I think it may be a bit tough for the economy this time next year and we really don't need this.




I would agree with that also, but I refer back to... 

The Indonesian president called for calm on the issue, but said bilateral cooperation would not resume until the Australian Government signs up to behavioural protocols and a code of ethics.​
What that clearly says is that Abbott pushed them too hard, that they at least feel Abbott broke the previous protocols. It might seem odd that a notoriously corrupt country demands a code of ethics, but it's not really... after all there are few code's stronger than for example, honour among thieves. 

It's one thing to have a 'misunderstanding', but it's quite another to completely lose trust.

Given the well known political and cultural sensitivities (including corruption and left wing leanings) in Indonesia and their historical black eyes from Aus (such as East Timor which I already said I agreed with Howard on that), it is not going to be easy to restore recent good cooperation and relations. 

For me, the longer term consequences were foreseeable and avoidable with better diplomacy. For those who believe the attempt to stop every boat was worth the diplomatic showdown... I hope you thought through the consequences of such rift opening Indonesia to closer relations to the 'east' such as Russia and it's allies.

Regarding Calliope's inference that I am "wishing for ructions with the Nationals over disruption to the live cattle trade", just shows his naivety.  

Indonesia are not going to cut off their nose to spite their face as much as Abbott has, but they certainly will change alliances if need be.  Indo won't cut cattle imports completely due to their current high local prices, but they are also looking to India and Brazil for future long term contracts and put the purchase of cattle stations in Aus for the purpose of supplying that trade on hold.

It's easy to soothe oneself and hope... that we can win back their trust again... but how many times do you think we can break their trust and expect them to rebuild the relationship. 

How do you know this wasn't a bridge too far and that Abbott hasn't burnt all his bridges behind him?


----------



## drsmith

banco said:


> I give up.  You can't even admit you were wrong you partisan hack.
> 
> Coming back to your original question:
> 
> "Did Labor advise they had stripped Gonski funding from those states prior to the election ?"
> 
> The answer is yes and you would have known that if you actually had a clue what you were talkign about.



It's perhaps your glasses that need changing.

To repeat, not-for-publication is what is stated against that line item.



> The Better Schools ”” treatment of payments for non-participating States and Territories
> measure was published in the Economic Statement with the* funding not for
> publication (nfp)* as negotiations were continuing at the time of publication. The
> funding profile for this measure is $118.2 million in 2013-14, $222.9 million in 2014-15,
> $352.0 in 2015-16 and $510.2 million in 2016-17.




My bolds.


----------



## Calliope

It is understandable that our Abbott haters are very disappointed at Abbott's adroit handling of the Labor induced Indonesian "crisis". For some bizarre reason they want to see our foreign policies fail, the cattle trade to collapse and the people smugglers to succeed.:screwy:

Plibersek, a Labor greenhorn who is now an "expert" on DFAT matters is typical of these nasties. On the Insiders on Sunday she was critical of Abbott's "misteps" but when pressed on the matter it was obvious she didn't have a clue what she was on about.


----------



## dutchie

Calliope said:


> It is understandable that our Abbott haters are very disappointed at Abbott's adroit handling of the Labor induced Indonesian "crisis". For some bizarre reason they want to see our foreign policies fail, the cattle trade to collapse and the people smugglers to succeed.:screwy:
> 
> Plibersek, a Labor greenhorn who is now an "expert" on DFAT matters is typical of these nasties. On the Insiders on Sunday she was critical of Abbott's "misteps" but when pressed on the matter *it was obvious she didn't have a clue what she was on about.*




Well put Calliope.

My bolds

A common theme among Labor leaders (see Electricity Bills response to Indonesia "crisis",  pro one day against the next) but Plibersek is trying too hard to be the hard liner without the knowledge to back it up.

She continues to be a clueless smartar$e.


----------



## trainspotter

Whiskers said:


> Yeah, I've head this and more, including that they are considering* withdrawing all trade with Aus including live cattle imports*... subject to...
> 
> The Indonesian president called for calm on the issue, but said bilateral cooperation would not resume until the Australian Government signs up to behavioural protocols and a code of ethics.​
> Don't know the full detail of what they are demanding... but I suspect it's going to be a too bitter pill for Abbott to swallow at least very soon.
> 
> Also, as if there are not enough defections and dictatorial behaviour in coalition ranks around the states, the loss of trade with Indonesia will p!ss off Nationals, no end... that's before you even consider the economic impacts.




Good God man you are slow on the uptake when it comes to politics. Bang Bang wants the cattle industry for himself and for it to flourish in Indonesia !!! 



> *The government is encouraging local and foreign investors to invest in Indonesia’s cattle industry* not only in livestock breeding but also in storage and transportation facilities to help cater to the growing demand for meat, a senior official has said.
> 
> In addition to breeding technology, Indonesia still needs more investment to provide modern meat storage and transportation facilities in order to cope with distribution bottlenecks in the vast archipelago, Deputy Trade Minister Bayu Krisnamurthi said in Jakarta on Thursday
> 
> Breeding cattle and providing meat as well as livestock transportation facilities offer promising business opportunities, because the demand for meat in Indonesia is growing rapidly, he said, adding that although the per capita consumption is still relatively low, it is increasing sharply due to the growing middle-class bracket, he said.




http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/11/15/investors-invited-enter-growing-cattle-industry.html



Meanwhile across the Java and East China Sea the sabre rattling is coming thick and fast.



> President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has instructed Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa to demand an explanation from the *Singaporean and South Korean ambassadors over their alleged involvement in wiretapping operations.*




http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/...n-singapore-south-korea-over-wiretapping.html

*sniff sniff*smell familiar? .... is that an election in the air? 

Screwing another trading partner for a better deal perhaps?


----------



## trainspotter

Some journalists know what to write about Bang Bang now don't they !!



> JAKARTA (REUTERS) - *His popularity is sliding in the polls. Accusations of graft are mounting against political allies. The once-powerful economy is limping.*
> 
> As Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono struggles in the twilight of his second term with elections looming next year, this week's diplomatic brawl with Australia offers an opportunity to stoke nationalist sentiment and rebuild support.
> 
> A storm of resentment against Australia has blown up after reports emerged that Canberra spied on top Indonesians including, most sensitive of all, Mr Yudhoyono's wife.
> 
> But the indignation underscores an uncomfortable truth for the president:* his administration is growing increasingly irrelevant* and the nationalist fervour is unlikely to provide enough momentum to *revive his lame-duck presidency*.
> 
> "You can see the people who are out there supporting us in the streets ... *I think our ratings in opinion polls will definitely go up *because everyone is uniting behind the president and behind the Democratic Party because our response has been very firm."




http://www.trust.org/item/20131122075149-bbfht

Oh Oh .... now he is accusing his 2 biggest trading partners of spying as well ....... *yawn*


----------



## Julia

Calliope said:


> Of course you would. You obviously share the Plibersek attitude that Abbott can do nothing right.



No wonder anyone with a remotely non-partisan, moderate view just gives up and leaves this forum.  You regard anyone who doesn't share your uncritical conviction that Mr Abbott can do no wrong as an "Abbott Hater".

Considering this, along with the relentless repetition of spurious advice to everyone from Whiskers who is apparently permitted to harass others with impunity, there's little reason to attempt to contribute.


----------



## Calliope

Julia said:


> No wonder anyone with a remotely non-partisan, moderate view just gives up and leaves this forum.You regard anyone who doesn't share your uncritical conviction that Mr Abbott can do no wrong as an "Abbott Hater".
> 
> Considering this, along with the relentless repetition of spurious advice to everyone from Whiskers who is apparently permitted to harass others with impunity, there's little reason to attempt to contribute.




I clearly defined the Abbott haters as those who "for some bizarre reason they want to see our foreign policies fail, the cattle trade to collapse and the people smugglers to succeed."

If you or any others with a non-partisan moderate view consider that this somehow includes you then I humbly apologise.  It wasn't intended.

Incidently, I don't have an "uncritical conviction that Mr Abbott can do no wrong". To the contrary, but on the Indo situation I can't fault him.


----------



## noco

Calliope said:


> I clearly defined the Abbott haters as those who "for some bizarre reason they want to see our foreign policies fail, the cattle trade to collapse and the people smugglers to succeed."
> 
> If you or any others with a non-partisan moderate view consider that this somehow includes you then I humbly apologise.  It wasn't intended.
> 
> Incidently, I don't have an "uncritical conviction that Mr Abbott can do no wrong". To the contrary, but on the Indo situation I can't fault him.




+1 Calliope.  The left wing socialist don't like any Abbott success...they want him to FAIL...FAIL....FAIL.

What a grubby lot they are.


----------



## Macquack

noco said:


> +1 Calliope.  The left wing socialist don't like any Abbott success...they want him to FAIL...FAIL....FAIL.
> 
> What a grubby lot they are.





You were prolific on ASF, preaching for the failure of both the Rudd and Gillard governments.


What does that make you then, Noco?


----------



## IFocus

banco said:


> Page 36 dummy:
> 
> http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/...cal Outlook 2013/Downloads/PDF/PEFO_2013.ashx
> 
> You are still going to maintain your bull**** position that the Coalition didn't know about the $1.2 billion prior to the election?




Either Dr was / is drunk or messing with your head the funding issue has been well enough covered to show Coalition claims as straight out lying.

It appears now to be a mute point as it appears to be the media's fault for "not understanding"

Still new government likely to make mistakes just these guys appearing be straight out braking promisers (Labors fault) or straight out lying (still Labors fault).

What we are seeing is the result of a populous (deceitful) opposition get elected.


----------



## noco

Macquack said:


> You were prolific on ASF, preaching for the failure of both the Rudd and Gillard governments.
> 
> 
> What does that make you then, Noco?




I did not have to preach the failure of Rudd and Gillard.,....they did that all by themselves and they were failures.

You just can't stand any Abbott success...it really bugs you.


----------



## IFocus

Calliope said:


> I clearly defined the Abbott haters as those who "for some bizarre reason they want to see our foreign policies fail, the cattle trade to collapse and the people smugglers to succeed."
> 
> If you or any others with a non-partisan moderate view consider that this somehow includes you then I humbly apologise.  It wasn't intended.
> 
> Incidently, I don't have an "uncritical conviction that Mr Abbott can do no wrong". To the contrary, but on the Indo situation I can't fault him.




No one I know wants Australia hurt so Abbott can fail certainly no one here on ASF. 

But since you bring it up Abbott banging on about boat people in opposition was inciting smugglers to send more to Australia thats using the current Coalition reasons for not commenting as a guide.


----------



## Calliope

IFocus said:


> No one I know wants Australia hurt so Abbott can fail certainly no one here on ASF.




I appreciate your apparently sincere assurance that everyone you know and all ASF posters want Abbott's boat policies to succeed, and that you are supportive of his actions to restore Australian/Indonesian relations, and regain the trust of SBY, which was jeopardized by intelligence activities during the Rudd regime.


----------



## banco

IFocus said:


> Either Dr was / is drunk or messing with your head the funding issue has been well enough covered to show Coalition claims as straight out lying.




I think he's just one of those Grandpa Simpson types who gets their news from Alan Jones and doesn't actually know or understand anything about Government processes. He still doesn't seem to understand the difference between the the Economic Statement and the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook (which is-hint, hint-published before the election).


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Calliope said:


> I clearly defined the Abbott haters as those who "for some bizarre reason they want to see our foreign policies fail, the cattle trade to collapse and the people smugglers to succeed."
> 
> If you or any others with a non-partisan moderate view consider that this somehow includes you then I humbly apologise.  It wasn't intended.
> 
> Incidently, I don't have an "uncritical conviction that Mr Abbott can do no wrong". To the contrary, but on the Indo situation I can't fault him.






noco said:


> +1 Calliope.  The left wing socialist don't like any Abbott success...they want him to FAIL...FAIL....FAIL.
> 
> What a grubby lot they are.




My contacts in the Jakarta Post tell me all is well with the Australia-Indonesia relationship again.

Consistency and safe hands has won out again for Mr.Abbott.

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/11/27/sby-seems-satisfied-with-abbott-s-response.html



> Although he had indicated that his Australian counterpart had not fully responded to his demand for a full answer concerning wiretapping allegations, as conveyed in his letter to the Australian leader last week, overall President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono felt encouraged by Tony Abbott’s promise that such a practice would not happen in the future.
> 
> Surprisingly, apart from talking about Australia, Yudhoyono also said he had ordered Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa to summon the ambassadors of Singapore and South Korea over media reports that their governments had also engaged in wiretapping here.
> 
> The President also implied that Abbott did not apologize for the bugging of telephone conversations of several top Indonesian officials, including spying on the President himself and First Lady Ani Yudhoyono. Many Indonesians have insisted that Australia apologize for the blatant violation of Indonesia’s trust.
> 
> The President also pointed out that he would send a special envoy to settle all problems caused by the espionage conducted by the Australian intelligence agency, and that further discussions between the two countries were still important to restore the relations between the two members of the G20.




It is not difficult to negotiate when you have sure hands at the tiller such as Tony Abbott and his Cabinet.

Such a change from the instability of the Rudd/Gillard experiment.

gg


----------



## wayneL

Garpal Gumnut said:


> My contacts in the Jakarta Post tell me all is well with the Australia-Indonesia relationship again.
> 
> Consistency and safe hands has won out again for Mr.Abbott.
> 
> http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/11/27/sby-seems-satisfied-with-abbott-s-response.html
> 
> 
> 
> It is not difficult to negotiate when you have sure hands at the tiller such as Tony Abbott and his Cabinet.
> 
> Such a change from the instability of the Rudd/Gillard experiment.
> 
> gg




Indeed,

There is an obscenity about the Labor "pants down 'diplomacy'" where minor economies like Indonesia are invited to figuratively sodomize Australia, while collecting 9 figure cheques.

What?

#### that!!!

We've got the cookie, the aid, the beef, the expertise.

While allowing Bang Bang to retain some dignity, he should have been told to man up and get the #### over it.... hmmm, which is exactly what Abbott has done.

The Indo faux rage is laughable. If I were Abbott I'd be making a big noise about insisting on bilaterality(?) of any code of ethics.... their spies can #### right off as well.


----------



## Calliope

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It is not difficult to negotiate when you have sure hands at the tiller such as Tony Abbott and his Cabinet.
> 
> Such a change from the instability of the Rudd/Gillard experiment.
> gg




Yes, it's certainly a refreshing change.


----------



## MrBurns

This whole charade is just to make SBY look good for their elections, it's a non issue a waste of time and money.


----------



## drsmith

banco said:


> I think he's just one of those Grandpa Simpson types who gets their news from Alan Jones and doesn't actually know or understand anything about Government processes. He still doesn't seem to understand the difference between the the Economic Statement and the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook (which is-hint, hint-published before the election).



If you wish to continue the discussion we were having, perhaps you could respond directly to the post I made rather than endulging in a personal snipe from behind someone else's post.


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> If you wish to continue the discussion we were having, perhaps you could respond directly to the post I made rather than endulging in a personal snipe from behind someone else's post.




I'll try and explain it one more time just for you Doc. You can tell me which facts you disagree with.  At Post #1282 you said:

_"Did Labor advise they had stripped Gonski funding from those states prior to the election ?

That's the real question."_

I pointed you to page 36 of the  Pre-election economic and fiscal outlook where it advises that as WA etc. hadn't signed up to the  Gonski plan $1.2 billion would not be spent.  This is leaving aside the contemporaneous newspaper articles that said the same thing.  Now the pre-election economic and fiscal outlook was released on 5 August and the election was in September.  So unless the Coalition are so sloppy that they don't read the newspapers and they didn't read the pre-election economic and fiscal outlook then they would have known about the $1.2 billion weeks before the election.

Now which parts of the above do you disagree with?


----------



## drsmith

banco said:


> I pointed you to page 36 of the  Pre-election economic and fiscal outlook where it advises that as WA etc. hadn't signed up to the  Gonski plan $1.2 billion would not be spent.



Page 36 doesn't advise it wouldn't be spent. It describes it as funding not for publication (nfp).

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=27364&page=66&p=804244&viewfull=1#post804244


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> Page 36 doesn't advise it wouldn't be spent. It describes it as funding not for publication (nfp).
> 
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=27364&page=66&p=804244&viewfull=1#post804244




No it doesn't.  It says it was NFP in the Economic Statement (which is a completely separate document that was published prior to the  Pre-election economic and fiscal outlook document):

_The Better Schools ”” *treatment of payments for non-participating States and Territories
measure was published in the Economic Statement with the funding not for
publication (nfp)* as negotiations were continuing at the time of publication. The
funding profile for this measure is $118.2 million in 2013-14, $222.9 million in 2014-15,
$352.0 in 2015-16 and $510.2 million in 2016-17. _

Here the the NFP bit on page 57 of the Economic Statement:  http://www.budget.gov.au/2013-14/content/economic_statement/download/2013_EconomicStatement.pdf 

Besides how can it be NFP on page 36 when they've published the figures?


----------



## drsmith

Banco,

Page 36 of the Pre-election economic and fiscal outlook document doesn't advise it wouldn't be spent as you claim and on that note I see little point in us continuing this discussion, agreement or otherwise.


----------



## IFocus

Give up Banco you cannot argue with the right........eous best to just stick to the facts like the ABC  





> Is it surprising that Christopher Pyne - the ink on whose Gonski "unity ticket" promised before the last election is still faintly sticky to the touch - has now declared that he is junking the thing and starting again?
> 
> Not especially. Not when you consider how notoriously susceptible this crucial area of public policy is to extreme political convenience.
> 
> Mr Pyne has abandoned his promise to match Labor’s Gonski package in light, he says, of the post-election discovery that the whole thing is a "Shorten shambles" and to all intents and purposes impossible to implement.
> 
> He still says he'll spend the same as Labor planned to, but *Mr Pyne has reserved to himself the privilege of determining, retrospectively, exactly how much Labor was really planning to spend.*
> 
> He will maintain the same "funding envelope". And it turns out it's a shrinking envelope; $1.6 billion over four years, rather than $2.8 billion.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-...ng-porkies-snow-jobs-and-lame-excuses/5117448


----------



## noco

Labor should now have lots of egg on their faces after this reprot from Greg Sheridan and they justly deserve it. I am sure this is not the outcome Labor would have wanted.

There are 42 comments and 95% were adverse to the Labor Party and the ABC.

Shorten has lost control of his team....they are are a pathetic lot....now they are trying to stir up trouible with Easr Timor.


Greg Sheridan 
Abbott rights the ship of state but choppy waters lie ahead by: Greg Sheridan, Foreign Editor |From: The Australian |November 28, 2013 12:00AM 42
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
PrintEmail 
Share Add to DiggAdd to del.icio.usAdd to FacebookAdd to KwoffAdd to MyspaceAdd to NewsvineWhat are these?
42TONY Abbott's letter to Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has been successful. That judgment is inescapable and incontestable. 
The President, in his formal statement responding to the Prime Minister's letter, has spoken warmly of the relationship with Australia. He has also spoken warmly of Abbott, whom he describes as "my good friend". The President has committed to a process of consultation and negotiation with Australia to come up with a set of agreed protocols to cover intelligence sharing, among other things.

There are complications and troubles aplenty ahead. But so far, Abbott has handled one of the most complex international relations crises you could imagine extremely well. He has been calm throughout. He has stressed the key national interest that Australia has in its relationship with Indonesia. He has been warm and gracious towards the President.

He has also safeguarded Australia's key interests in maintaining its intelligence capabilities. He has stayed away from the obvious political points he could have made against Labor. He has responded to the President quickly, but with serious, indeed intense, deliberation at every stage.

There may still be very challenging days in this relationship to come, but whatever happens, this has been a solid performance by the Abbott government. It should give our allies, and the Australian people, a good deal of reassurance that this is a competent, sensible government fully conscious of the grave responsibilities it must shoulder in national security.

Overall, this was surely the most positive response the Indonesian President, universally known as SBY, could possibly have come up with. There was a great deal of nationalist outrage in Indonesia at the revelations that Australia's Defence Signals Directorate had been tapping the President's phone, and that of his wife and close associates, in 2009.

A lot of players in Indonesian politics were stirring the waters on this. Most big players in Indonesian politics are less internationalist, and more inclined to nationalist paranoia, than is the President himself. Indonesian friends tell me that behind the scenes one of the presidential candidates, former general Prabowo Subianto, was stirring up a great deal of anti-Australian trouble, even though in public Prabowo was fairly quiet.

But this story has a long, long way to run and we could still well be in for choppy waters ahead.

Although the President was extremely gracious and positive in his statement, he wants an agreement with Australia that is pretty specific. He said Abbott had told him Australia would do nothing "that may jeopardise and interfere with Indonesia in the future".

Labor frontbenchers such as Jason Clare and Richard Marles were saying yesterday that this meant Abbott had given SBY an equivalent undertaking to that given by US President Barack Obama to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, that the US would never listen to her phone again.

This is either a dishonest or stupid statement from the Labor frontbenchers. It is clearly inaccurate. It also weakens and undermines Australia's negotiating position in the forthcoming discussions with Indonesia.

Labor's performance throughout this controversy has been ragged and inconsistent. Abbott has passed his first national security test as prime minister pretty well. Bill Shorten has displayed either cynicism or lack of control of his own team throughout. From the second day of the controversy all of Shorten's statements have been to say that Labor completely supports the Abbott government in this matter.

This is sensible in terms of the national interest and also because the alleged spying occurred when Labor was in government and almost certainly involved personal authorisation by senior Labor ministers.

Yet while Shorten was saying that, his deputy and foreign affairs spokeswoman Tanya Plibersek was making partisan attacks on the government over the issue, numerous Labor figures were promoting the false US/Germany parallel, and frontbenchers such as Brendan O'Connor were damning the Abbott government for not taking the issue seriously enough and not responding quickly enough. Either Shorten cannot control his senior colleagues, which would be very bad, or he was intentionally playing a cynical and duplicitous game, of personally pledging total bipartisan support for the government, while instructing senior frontbenchers to go on the attack.

Either way, this has been a poor show from Shorten on national security.

There are three main reasons this story may yet produce drama and trouble ahead. First, the negotiation of the protocols SBY has in mind will be an extremely delicate process, and this is where Labor can damage the national interest from opposition.

Second, there will be huge, further Snowden leaks, almost certainly involving more revelations about Australian activities in Indonesia.

The Guardian itself says that less than 1 per cent of the Snowden material has been used so far. It is an open question whether the ABC will continue to play its devastatingly irresponsible role as the dedicated Australian broadcast network of the Snowden leaks and Guardian campaigns.

But the fact of more trouble from Snowden leaks is inescapable. No doubt they too will be timed to do maximum damage to Australia's interests. It's an open question how deeply the ABC wants to participate in damaging Australia.

And third, the very fact of this controversy having occurred now makes it much more likely that anti-Australian nationalist sentiment will be a feature of the forthcoming series of presidential and parliamentary elections beginning early next year in Indonesia.

There is an underlying reality behind all this as well. Australia has had a lot of these kinds of controversies with Indonesia, and with other Southeast Asian nations, over the decades. But the basic power equation between Southeast Asia and Australia is changing, and it is not changing in Australia's favour.

The controversy also shows that the mere fact that Indonesia is now a working democracy does not immunise the relationship from these very old-fashioned sorts of disputes. Meanwhile, our interests in the rest of Southeast Asia are not travelling all that well either. As a nation, Australia pays very little attention to the region. I suppose these spying controversies may at least change all that.


facebooktwitterlinkedingoogleredditemail42
Increase Text SizeDecrease Text SizePrintEmail Share Add to DiggAdd to del.icio.usAdd to FacebookAdd to KwoffAdd to MyspaceAdd to NewsvineWhat are these?Back to top of page

42 commentsGet LivefyreFAQ NoelEdit profileSign out177 people listening
+ FollowPost comment LinkLoading
Newest | Oldest | Top CommentsThis comment has been deleted

Bruce 5ptsFeatured
1 hour agoThank you Greg, but you are far too generous with the "bipartisan" left. Their historical treachery and treason is well covered in Hal G P Colebatch's book, Australia's Secret War, put out by Quadrant.

FlagShare5LikeReplyTerrance 5ptsFeatured
1 hour agoThat the Power equation is changing is the most important part of this article. However, it is changing because Australian governments, with its myriads of inept advisors and self proclaimed experts, cant grasp the simple fact that as the last outpost of European Heritage/culture we will never be anything other than a geographical part of the region. This is clearly demonstrated by he fact  that we are not included as a member of ASEAN...the Association of Souh East Asian Nations. Australia needs to re-appraise the whole question of relationships with our neighbours with a more inward focus.

FlagShare1LikeReplyJohn 5ptsFeatured
1 hour agoWhat else would one expect from Labor?  Shorten may be learning/growing in the job, but the others including Plibersek especially seem to be slow learners.  TA gets my tick of approval.  One can only hope that Indonesian politicians collectively mature and learn to place their national interests over petty internal politicking and move on from corruption. 

FlagShare2LikeReplyDavid 5ptsFeatured
1 hour agoAbbott has done very well in the total handling of this matter. It is high that Abbott had more respect by the people of this country Abbott a lot smarter than given credit for. As for members of the Labor team on the matter they just do not have the nut and bolts in it leadership of their team for good answer to to spy issue. After all this all happen in the Labor era of Govt.


----------



## drsmith

noco said:


> Labor should now have lots of egg on their faces after this reprot from Greg Sheridan and they justly deserve it. I am sure this is not the outcome Labor would have wanted.
> 
> There are 42 comments and 95% were adverse to the Labor Party and the ABC.
> 
> Shorten has lost control of his team....they are are a pathetic lot....now they are trying to stir up trouible with Easr Timor.



It could also be the case that he ordered his senior members to snipe from behind the shadows while pretending himself to hold Tony Abbott's hand on Indonesian relations. 

His history (especially in relation to his support of leaders before him) has demonstrated he's of poor enough character to do that in my view.


----------



## noco

This Mark Scott has caused untold damage to Australia and has not been in the National interest.

He should resign or be sacked.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...tt-should-resign/story-e6frg7bo-1226768174546

Janet Albrechtsen 
'Why Mark Scott should resign' by: Janet Albrechtsen |From: The Australian |November 26, 2013 12:00AM 235
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
PrintEmail 
Share Add to DiggAdd to del.icio.usAdd to FacebookAdd to KwoffAdd to MyspaceAdd to NewsvineWhat are these?
235 As the ABC's 'editor-in-chief', managing director Mark Scott should take responsibility for the issuing information obtained by Edward Snowden. Picture: James Croucher Source: TheAustralian 
MARK Scott should resign. When the managing director of the ABC chose to publish information criminally obtained by Edward Snowden about Australia's signals intelligence operations in Indonesia, he also chose to undermine Australia's relationship with our most important neighbour. 
He chose to fuel tensions and nationalist sentiments in a fledgling democracy. He also chose to undermine an immigration policy aimed at preventing deaths at sea.

These consequences were entirely foreseeable. Despite Scott's flimsy arguments to the contrary, in the end, the ABC - and Scott - were willing to risk Australia's national interest for no discernible public interest.

The call for Scott to resign is not made lightly. Moreover, I am not the only former ABC board member who believes the managing director of the ABC ought to go or be relieved of his duties for failing to lead the ABC as a responsible editor-in-chief.

When Scott applied for, and was given, the job as MD, he was touted as an effective editor-in-chief, something the national broadcaster had lacked under earlier managing directors.

There are now serious questions about Scott's prudence as an editor-in-chief - whether or not it was his decision to publish.

If the decision were his, he got it badly wrong. By deciding to team up with the left-leaning Guardian Australia, the ABC effectively aided and abetted an online newspaper with minimal reach so the spying allegations would receive maximum reach using the resources of the taxpayer-funded giant.

If the decision to team up with the Guardian to get out in front and air the spying allegations did not come to Scott, it should have. A failure to bring such a serious matter to its managing director would suggest the ABC is run by the staff, not by management.

To be sure, the story about Australia's intelligence operations would have broken and caused damage without the ABC joining up with the Guardian. But that's not the point. The ABC willingly chose to go out in front - and to draw the ABC into a debate the national broadcaster didn't need to be drawn into.

Importantly, the ABC did not even have a genuine scoop or exclusive access to this story. If it had, Scott might have had to agonise over whether to be first to go public. But by acting as a free public megaphone for a commercial outfit, the ABC plainly made a political rather than an editorial decision.

The timing of the leak was also a highly political matter. The Guardian has had this information since May. Its decision not to publish the information before the election when it would have harmed Kevin Rudd, but to sit on it until after the election, when it was designed to damage Tony Abbott, is something the ABC must have considered. Its decision to go ahead showed a blatant political preference.

The seriousness of the ABC's decision to publish criminally obtained information that involved such profoundly damaging and entirely foreseeable risks also raises questions about the ABC board.

Did Scott raise the issue with the board, to whom he is responsible? If not, why not? What about ABC chairman Jim Spigelman? Was he included in the decision? If not, why not? If yes, did he consider the ramifications for the public interest?

What is Spigelman's view about Scott's response to questions in senate estimates last week that it was in the public interest to reveal information about Australian intelligence gathering in Indonesia even though he knew that it would "cause some difficulties with the Australian-Indonesian relationship in the short term". Or did Spigelman do what former ABC chairmen lacking spine have too often done - let the MD and therefore the staff - run the show without prudent board oversight?

So far, the only public comment Spigelman has made has been a letter to The Australian about the "considerable personal distress" this newspaper caused to his executive assistant by publishing an incorrect salary figure. Compared with the breach of national security perpetrated by the ABC, his focus on a matter of staff welfare is a disappointing demonstration of where the chairman's priorities lie. A responsible board must surely have concerns about Scott's stewardship of the ABC on this matter. Scott is appointed by and subject to removal by the board.

As section 13 of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act sets out, the managing director holds office subject to terms and conditions determined by the board. The reckless publication of criminally obtained information with the predictable and escalating consequences now unfolding make his position untenable. In short, the ABC board needs to look at its responsibilities here - and its culpability in this matter.

As a member of the ABC board for five years between 2005 and 2010, I can attest to the fact that it has a disappointing history of being ineffective. I can attest to the fact that information that ought to have been provided to the board was not.

And I can attest to the fact that, unlike commercial boards that work together, the ABC board is too often a numbers game. If you don't have the board numbers then the status quo at the ABC becomes untouchable. Moreover, if the chairman's main aim is to be loved by staff, then the MD is untouchable.

Instead of providing genuine oversight and counsel to management, the board gets bogged down drafting policies, codes of conduct and other fine-sounding documents. It's a management driven make-work gig for board members to make them feel important. It justifies them jumping on planes, travelling business class, checking into nice hotels and turning up for a fine lunch at Ultimo - all at taxpayer expense. Meanwhile the focus is taken off what really matters - the output of the ABC. The output this past week by the ABC has let taxpayers down. Badly. While questions have been raised about the curious timing of this dump of information, consider what we do know about the ABC. The orthodoxy at the ABC has long been to oppose strong border policy and offshore processing as lacking compassion and human decency. You only need to sit on the Q&A panel - as I have done on many occasions - to witness the strength and persistence of that orthodoxy. Never mind that these policies will stop deaths at sea as they did from the time of the Tampa standoff in 2001 until Rudd started to dismantle the immigration policy in 2008.

Just as Abbott's boat policy appeared to deliver results with a 75 per cent decline in arrivals in the past eight weeks, the ABC's handiwork as an activist media organisation has seen Indonesia suspend co-operation.

Just as 300 terrorists are about to be released from Indonesian prisons in the next 12 months - including some involved in bomb attacks against Australians in Jakarta and Bali between 2002 and 2009 - intelligence co-operation between the two countries has been derailed by the spying revelations. Is that in the public interest? Remember, it was joint co-operation between Indonesia and Australia that led to the arrests of the Bali bombers and the dismantling of the Jemaah Islamiah terror network.

In senate estimates last week, Scott likened the ABC's disclosure of Snowden's revelations about Australian intelligence operations in Indonesia to the Australian Wheat Board scandal.

Scott could not be more wrong.

The AWB scandal involved criminal kickbacks to the Saddam Hussein regime. By contrast, as Michael Bohm, the opinion page editor of The Moscow Times, wrote back in August when Russians were hyperventilating about news that the US gathers intelligence in Russia, spying is a sovereign right. All responsible countries spy on friends and foes alike.

Snowden is not a whistleblower. "The type of spying on foreigners that Snowden revealed is not in violation of any international law, treaty or convention," wrote Bohm. The only criminal activity here was Snowden stealing information from the National Security Agency.

Scott also said there would be short-term consequences for Australia; the revelations would "cause some difficulties". Not only was this a reckless understatement, the truth is that Scott cannot know where this will end.

Will the latest reports about spying further inflame hatred of Australia and Westerners? Will terrorists retaliate? Will Australia's ability to use intelligence gathered in Indonesia to identify terrorists and likely terrorist attacks be hampered? Will a critical immigration policy collapse? That is the wish of left-wing Abbott-haters.

Moreover, the ABC's decision has brought into question the propriety of the ABC receiving $223 million to provide Australia with what Scott himself calls "soft diplomacy" in the Asia-Pacific through the government-funded Australia Network.

As another former board member, Keith Windschuttle, tells The Australian, "by publicising illegally obtained information that patently works against Australian interests in the region, the ABC appears to have abrogated its claim to be acting in the spirit of its original submission".

Scott appears to consider it appropriate to take these risks, using taxpayer dollars to indulge his staff in the publication of criminally obtained information.

All week, the ABC has pursued the line that Abbott ought to apologise for actions of the former PM, Rudd. Where is the apology from the ABC for its reckless, irresponsible actions? How can the managing director of the ABC claim with a straight face that the leak of ABC salaries was a serious matter that should not have happened and yet in the same week, publish illegally obtained leaks about Australia's intelligence operations overseas when the known consequences were far more serious to an entire nation?

These are grave questions not only for the ABC board but also for all Australians whose taxes fund the national broadcaster. This dark stain on the professionalism and ethics of the ABC, the managing director and the board will only serve to raise questions about the appropriateness of taxpayers continuing to fund - to the tune of $1.2 billion annually - an organisation that is reckless in its duties as a responsible media organisation.

As former foreign minister Alexander Downer said on Sky News's Australian Agenda on Sunday, you may be free to publish, but you also have an obligation to act responsibly. The ABC, under Scott, has failed to do that. He should go.

Janet Albrechtsen was on the ABC board from 2005 to 2010. Mark Scott was appointed during her tenure in July 2006.
facebooktwitterlinkedingoogleredditemail235
Increase Text SizeDecrease Text SizePrintEmail Share Add to DiggAdd to del.icio.usAdd to FacebookAdd to KwoffAdd to MyspaceAdd to NewsvineWhat are these?Back to top of page

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
Related Coverage MoreCriticism reeks of sour grapes End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
235 commentsGet LivefyreFAQ NoelEdit profileSign out223 people listeningThis conversation is currently closed to new comments.Loading
Newest | Oldest | Top CommentsThis comment has been deleted

Reg 5ptsFeatured
2 days agoLove your gutsy work Janet. You seem to be the only person other than Chris Kenny who have the guts to take on this monster. Turnbull Abbott and the whole Government have a responsibility to ensure this giant costly over staffed over paid public utility is bought into line. Frankly I am sick to death of the way they speak about the Prime Minister. Always referring to him as Abbott. Very poor form when they suck up to the lefties and it's Mister or title always in use.

Sack the board and then give SKY what is rightfully theirs that is the Australia Network. Then amalgamate the ABC with SBS and then put it up for tender. If we do not need Qantas, Telstra or the Commonwealth Bank why do we need the ABC when it is so negligent and putting our security at risk. Irresponsible is how I describe the organisation and the sooner we the taxpayer s are rid of it the better we will be.


FlagShare75LikeChris P Bacon 5ptsFeatured
2 days ago@Reg Well said Reg.  More and more Australians are coming to realise that the ABC is way, way past its use-by date and needs to be privatised. Tony Abbott has to take the lead on this and sell that propaganda outfit as soon as possible.


----------



## Whiskers

trainspotter said:


> Good God man you are slow on the uptake when it comes to politics. Bang Bang wants the cattle industry for himself and for it to flourish in Indonesia !!!




Of course they do... but what does the current high prices over there indicate? They cannot meed demand even with imported livestock. They have got no hope of being completely self sufficient. They just don't have enough available land to breed and fatten the numbers they require. 

If they did why do you think they are still importing and looking for long term contracts. They are increasing their breeder herd, but they will need to import store cattle for fattening for a long time yet. 



> Meanwhile across the Java and East China Sea the sabre rattling is coming thick and fast.
> 
> *sniff sniff*smell familiar? .... is that an election in the air?
> 
> Screwing another trading partner for a better deal perhaps?




And what makes you think our politicians weren't/aren't doing the same?


----------



## trainspotter

Whiskers said:


> Of course they do... but what does the current high prices over there indicate? They cannot meed demand even with imported livestock. They have got no hope of being completely self sufficient. They just don't have enough available land to breed and fatten the numbers they require.
> 
> If they did why do you think they are still importing and looking for long term contracts. They are increasing their breeder herd, but they will need to import store cattle for fattening for a long time yet.
> 
> And what makes you think our politicians weren't/aren't doing the same?




Steak is cheaper in Indo than here ! Relative to their incomes it is expensive for THEM !

There is plenty of land fit for grazing .... Pssssssstttt Indonesia is not Bali and Java ... have a look at West Kalimantan and Jambi in Sumatra. Ideal grazing country and can be intensified UNLIKE the unproductive wasteland of the Northwest of WA and parts of the NT reliant on precipitation.

Our PM has shown leadership in an international crisis whilst the leader of the opposition imitated a teapot.


----------



## Whiskers

noco said:


> This Mark Scott has caused untold damage to Australia and has not been in the National interest.
> 
> He should resign or be sacked.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...tt-should-resign/story-e6frg7bo-1226768174546
> 
> *Janet Albrechtsen*
> 'Why Mark Scott should resign' by: Janet Albrechtsen |From: The Australian |November 26, 2013




Struth noco... that would have to set a record for one of the most verbose posts, using or expressed in more words than are needed, for a long time. Also your team have already run this fallacious argument based on shock jock presentation over on the ABC is political thread, so I'll paraphrase the rebuttal in a bit more professional and comprehendible format than yours. 

*Janet Albrechtsen *has quite a history of misquoting other peoples work without checking the facts first... and not to mention her extreme right wing leanings.

Ironically though in the book _The Liberals and Power_, she is also quoted as saying the Liberals have become preoccupied with dominating the rational low ground, abandoning the high moral ground to the left. 

which brings us to her argument:

_ The seriousness of the ABC's decision to publish *criminally obtained *information that involved such profoundly damaging and entirely foreseeable risks also raises questions about the ABC board. _​
The general collection of information and intelligence gathering is quite legal... BUT with caveats.

We have the right to collect information and intelligence... BUT we don't have the right to break other countries laws, or break our own laws such as to invade the privacy of our own citizens, to get it.

Further, in Law the 'intent' of the person (or government agency) is determinative of what if any crime has been committed.

A Crime for the disclosure of 'Official Secrets' under the Crimes Act Sec 79 is dependent on proving the intention of prejudicing the security or defence of the Commonwealth.
*
There are also exceptions and defences to 'leaking' government secrets under The Crimes Act*, Officials Secrets, subsections 79(2) and (3), such as where there is a duty in the greater public interest to communicate the information to someone else such as the media.

*The government is constitutionally required to act in the public interest, not some private or political interest*, as explained in Attorney‑General (UK) v Heinemann Publishers Australia Pty Ltd. 

_ In Commonwealth v Fairfax [(1980) 147 CLR], the Court considered that the degree of embarrassment to Australia’s foreign relations that would flow from disclosure was not enough to justify protection of the information 

The public interest test set out in Commonwealth v Fairfax places the burden on governments to justify the maintenance of the confidentiality of the information. The reason for this is the importance of freedom of communication and public discussion. http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/...fidelity?print _​
So, why have the government not got an injunction to silence the ABC et all ... because they know they can not get one under the law... the same laws they are bound by in terms of what they can collect in the name of national security.

*But wait, there's more. Look what News Ltd has also revealed. Shouldn't they also be sacked for doing the same thing!*

Spying row centres on intelligence 'shared' with Jakarta 
 by: Paul Maley and Joe Kelly From: The Australian November 26, 2013 12:00AM 

*INTELLIGENCE gathered by Australian spies operating from the embassy in Jakarta *, which is at the heart of the most serious diplomatic rift between the two countries in more than a decade, would have been shared with Indonesia once it had been "sanitised". Earlier this month, it emerged Australia had used its network of overseas embassies to conceal eavesdropping equipment capable of intercepting cellphone and radio traffic in host countries, including Indonesia. The country's top expert on signals intelligence, Des Ball, said it was his understanding that some of *the intelligence gathered as part of this US-led project, known as Stateroom*, would have been passed on to Indonesia, in what he said was a "major exception" to the protocol of never sharing information with a target country. - See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati....eTxESzo1.dpuf​
So News has exposed the more damaging expose, as I suspected and mentioned from the start, that the spying was conducted out of the Aus embasy. That makes it ILLEGALY obtained by our spies, and this report also confirms my earlier estimation that it was likely US led from the Howard, Bush coalition of the willing war on terrorism era.

 Quite likely that Rudd and Gillard were not aware it was going on... but Abbott did. This was his little secret weapon to get the inside info about smuggler activity and Indo politicians... but it backfired in his face.


----------



## trainspotter

Whiskers said:


> Quite likely that Rudd and Gillard were not aware it was going on... but Abbott did. This was his little secret weapon to get the inside info about smuggler activity and Indo politicians... but it backfired in his face.




Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo ... the lunatics are on the grass.


----------



## drsmith

trainspotter said:


> Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo ... the lunatics are on the grass.



Whatever it is, it's recycled.


----------



## drsmith

With support from the Greens, the debt ceiling will likely go leaving Labor out in the cold on this issue.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ceiling-to-break-deadlock-20131128-2yc37.html


----------



## bunyip

IFocus said:


> What do I think................don't say how good a friend someone is (SBY is one of the closest friends in Asia we have and has spoken on our behalf more than once) and treat them with contempt simple.
> 
> Bugging his and his wife's phone is personal...............and in an election cycle.




In that case you should write to your local ALP branch to express your disappointment at their grubby behavior in bugging the phone of SBY – a man who both Rudd and Gillard proclaimed is a good friend of Australia.
Better still, write to ALP head office.


----------



## bunyip

Macquack said:


> You were prolific on ASF, preaching for the failure of both the Rudd and Gillard governments.
> 
> 
> What does that make you then, Noco?




That makes Noco a responsible person in my opinion, for wanting to get rid of a disunified and pathetically incompetent government who had a well documented record of repeated stuff ups.

Just to refresh a few memories, here’s the legacy that Rudd left us with – 

_Left us with a $300+Billion debt after inheriting no debt when he came to office.

Left us with 50,000 illegals, 85% are on the dole after 5 years and that means forever.

Left us with an NBN that at this stage has $900m expenses per year and only $17m income.



$16.1 billion Building the Education Revolution program, failure. 

$3.45 billion pink bat Home Insulation debacle

Mining Tax miss-design, miss-management & lies on tax rates

$38.5 million for a pro-mining tax ad campaign

Climate Change “greatest moral challenge” abandonment

Copenhagen 114 person strong extravaganza & failure

$275 million 31, later 450 GP Super Clinics promised, only three delivered

$90 billion National Broadband white elephant, without a business plan

$2.1 Billion Laptop for every child – without infrastructure

Build 222 childcare centers – abandoned

Industrial relations rollback to pre-Keating era

Grocery Watch

Fuel Watch

Mandatory Internet Filter – dangerous, ineffective, missmanaged

Litigation of Japan whaling – empty PC rhetoric

Commonwealth Health takeover replaced with pretend ‘reform’

Murray Darling River State non-deal

Foreign policy damage– China, Japan, Indonesia, India

Asylum Boat people arrivals explosion & its denial for year

 Wild Rivers legislation support harms aborigines

2020 Summit – staged celebrity talk-fest

Promise to retain universal Private Health rebate broken

Promise to clean up election funding broken

$275 Million Green Loans debacle

Raise the standard of Ministerial responsibility abandoned

Political advertising ombudsman promised then dismantled

$534 Million Solar Panel Rebate sudden withdrawal

Halve homeless by 2020 / by 20% by 2013 – instead rising

Pacific Workers Scheme failure

1 Billion Cash for Clunkers green wash stupidity

Bullying East Timor for our detention center

150 Citizen’s council for Climate stupidity

Pork barreling infra-structure grants to Labor seats – auditor

Opposition to pension increase for non-Labor voting  pensioners

National Security Committee run by ex-bodyguard_

*No wonder responsible Australians wanted to get rid of Rudd/Gillard and Labor.*


----------



## IFocus

Some more balance rather propaganda from the ABC not like the Liberal Party daily aka "The Australian"

See even Bolt is saying its to early for broken promises.....for those that dont know thats Coalition party parlance for lying. 



> A wrecking ball won't help you in government
> 
> rash talk and calculated deception can bring a party to power, but once it is there, these ploys are empty and ultimately self-defeating,
> 
> 
> "There will be no change to school funding under the government I lead."




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-28/green-a-wrecking-ball-wont-help-you-in-government/5121528


----------



## drsmith

> "There will be no change to school funding under the government I lead."



A bit of a stretch comparing it with Labor's carbon tax lie. 

Firstly, the latter was a broad based tax. Secondly, it was Labor that pulled the $1.2bn of Gonski money from the education budget, not the Coalition so if that stuck with the $1.6bn/4yr as opposed to the $2.8bn/4yr that was Labor's Gonski, there would strictly speaking be no change to school funding under the government they lead.

There has since been change in that the non agreement states will be topped up in 2014 ($230m I think), but the way it was subsequently announced made it look like policy on the run.

Where Christopher Pyne has got himself into bother in terms of pre-election commitment was with his commentary in relation to funding for individual schools. Any change to the funding distribution or quantum from what Labor originally promised and that strictly speaking a porky, but it's no where near up there with the carbon tax despite the wishful thinking of some.

The only potential strategic sense I can see in the way Christopher Pyne has handled this is a tough starting point in terms of negotiations with the states over the structure and then concede ground with the funding in return for concessions on structure. Perhaps the belated concession for 2014 to the non-signed states was part of that. Publically though, it looks like policy on the run.


----------



## IFocus

Hang on isn't this the behaviour of a left wing greens socialist party 



> Treasurer Joe Hockey rejects ADM takeover of GrainCorp




Nope its the "Bush Socialist Coalition" or Liberal minority government.

Further poof (Yawn..god this starting to get boring) of say one thing "Yes we are open for business" and do another no you cannot buy into Australia.


Now for the excuses fire away folks


----------



## Calliope

noco said:


> This Mark Scott has caused untold damage to Australia and has not been in the National interest.
> 
> He should resign or be sacked.




On ABC Radio this morning they were quite exultant that the ABC's scheme to destroy Australian/Indonesian relations is back on track.viz.

 . SBY was disappointed with Abbott's letter

 . relations will take years to mend

 . Indonesia will do nothing to deter the passage of illegal immigrants through their country and their embarkation for 
   Australia on Indonesian boats as usual

 . drafting a Code of Conduct is only the beginning. A six step road map will ensure that the process will be drawn out.


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> A bit of a stretch comparing it with Labor's carbon tax lie.




The stretch is yours no one is comparing it to Gillards broken promise.



> Firstly, the latter was a broad based tax. Secondly, it was Labor that pulled the $1.2bn of Gonski money from the education budget, not the Coalition.




Your or Pynes funding argument is not worthy of comment Liberal state premiers aren't buying it.



> Where Christopher Pyne has got himself into bother in terms of pre-election commitment was with his commentary in relation to funding for individual schools. Any change to the funding distribution or quantum from what Labor originally promised and that strictly speaking a porky, but it's no where near up there with the carbon tax despite the wishful thinking of some.




Disingenuous is the best to describe this argument again given the conservative state premiers condemnation they aren't buying it.   

Say one thing, or promise the world and do the opposite, fast track one term movement if they keep this up.

Your worst nightmare  Bill Shorten PM


----------



## IFocus

Calliope said:


> On ABC Radio this morning they were quite exultant that the ABC's scheme to destroy Australian/Indonesian relations is back on track.viz.
> 
> . SBY was disappointed with Abbott's letter
> 
> . relations will take years to mend
> 
> . Indonesia will do nothing to deter the passage of illegal immigrants through their country and their embarkation for
> Australia on Indonesian boats as usual
> 
> . drafting a Code of Conduct is only the beginning. A six step road map will ensure that the process will be drawn out.




More balance from the ABC



> Indonesia never controlled the flow of boats anyway
> 
> ndonesia was already ineffective in preventing asylum seekers from reaching Australia, pouring cold water on claims that its recent diplomatic rebuff will undermine Operation Sovereign Borders, writes Antje Missbach.
> 
> So Indonesia has suspended all joint police and military operations aimed at keeping asylum seekers away from Australia. The move is being interpreted not only as a diplomatic rebuff, but as something that could seriously undermine Prime Minister Tony Abbott's much-repeated promise to "stop the boats".
> 
> But will it? Probably not.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-28/missbach-indonesian-cooperation/5122470


----------



## IFocus

AAhh henm take that back



> Originally Posted by drsmith View Post
> A bit of a stretch comparing it with Labor's carbon tax lie.







> The stretch is yours no one is comparing it to Gillards broken promise.




BC makes some great points more balance and insightful comments from the ABC

The electorate doesn't have buyer's remorse. Yet.



> The backflip on education funding makes one wonder if the Abbott government believes it has some good will to spend. It hasn't, writes Barrie Cassidy.
> 
> They all do it. They always have. Political parties make all sorts of promises and give guarantees in the run up to elections in order to push aside troublesome issues.
> 
> They know full well they might have to renege, and they'll pay a price down the track. But they also see in the middle distance, the spoils of office, and they can't help themselves.
> 
> Julia Gillard's such moment was when she promised there would be no carbon tax "under a government I lead".
> 
> She did go on to say that Labor intended to put a price on carbon and move to an emissions trading scheme. But no matter. It was branded a tax; Gillard ducked the pedantic argument; and the mother of all broken promises took flight.




I wonder if this is just Pynes idea or the party's sheer arrogance. 



> Now, just three months into its first term, the Abbott Government has inexplicably gone down the same path.
> 
> The Education Minister, Christopher Pyne, has walked away from a key election pledge to embrace the previous government's school funding arrangements.
> 
> Is there a better issue to give Bill Shorten, as he tries to build his profile and his popularity, than education funding?




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-29/cassidy-the-electorate-doesnt-have-buyers-remorse-yet/5122458


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> The stretch is yours no one is comparing it to Gillards broken promise.




ABC commentary,



> "There will be no change to school funding under the government I lead."




Julia Gillard,



> "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead."




The attempted connection of magnitude by the ABC is pretty obvious and for you IF, a little reminder.


----------



## sails

bunyip said:


> In that case you should write to your local ALP branch to express your disappointment at their grubby behavior in bugging the phone of SBY – a man who both Rudd and Gillard proclaimed is a good friend of Australia.
> Better still, write to ALP head office.




I think IFocus hasn't yet realised yet  that the tapping of SBY and his wife's phone was in 2009 and under Rudd's watch.  That specific incident had nothing to do with Abbott.


----------



## Calliope

IFocus said:


> More balance from the ABC
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-28/missbach-indonesian-cooperation/5122470






> Indonesia never controlled the flow of boats anyway




Of course they don't. The corrupt Indonesian administration is incapable of regulating anything. As the above article points out the only determinant of the rate of flow of the illegals is through bribery.

I think it is about time we told SBY that he needs us more than we need him. I suspect that most of the aid funds we give to Indonesia are lost in greasing the wheels in the corruption chain anyway.

Now that Julie Bishop has given the Chinese a lecture on how to behave, it should should be an easy matter for her to tell old Bambang to grow up and stop behaving like a spoiled brat.


----------



## trainspotter

IFocus said:


> Hang on isn't this the behaviour of a left wing greens socialist party
> 
> Nope its the "Bush Socialist Coalition" or Liberal minority government.
> 
> Further poof (Yawn..god this starting to get boring) of say one thing "Yes we are open for business" and do another no you cannot buy into Australia.
> 
> Now for the excuses fire away folks




Are you for real? So you would be happy to sell Australia down the path of foreign ownership? Why stop at Graincorp? Let the Chinese takeover the iron ore in the North West, Let the Japs take our whales and fugget ... sell ALL of our uranium to Iran. 



> *Victorian Farmers Federation Grain Group President Brett Hosking, meantime, said Mr Hockey had made the right decision.*
> 
> "The offer brought with it potential risk to growers... certainly our industry needs further investment, further capital, but the risk factor that came with this offer was just too great in light of what was being offered," Mr Hosking said.
> 
> The rejection means grain growers will miss out on a $200 million infrastructure upgrade that ADM was offering.
> 
> "While that extra investment would have been greatly welcomed and vastly appreciated, we're certainly not dealing with a broken down system by any means so business will continue as usual," Mr Hosking said.
> 
> Mr Hosking said despite the rejection, there is scope for foreign investment in the industry.
> 
> *"What we're saying is that foreign investment into our industry needs to be done right and in this instance Mr Hockey's made the right decision,"* he said.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-...rejects-foreign-takeover-of-graincorp/5124262


----------



## Whiskers

drsmith said:


> With support from the Greens, the debt ceiling will likely go leaving Labor out in the cold on this issue.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ceiling-to-break-deadlock-20131128-2yc37.html




Might be wishful thinking on your part again doc.

As with the foreign affairs ba!!zup, the devil is in the detail rather than the headline slogan.

Greens deputy leader Adam Bandt has indicated his party could support a return to the pre-GFC convention of not having a specific debt limit prescribed by parliament, *in exchange for greater transparency in what money is borrowed for and how it is then spent*.​
That's also going to be a bitter pill for hockey and Abbott to swallow. But since they have already got a pretty bruised up ego and a bit of a belly ache from their National colleagues stirring, to force the refusal of the ADM takeover of grainco, he might just concede. 

But my money is still on Labor and the Greens saying 400bn, take it or leave it... or even taking that offer off the table and forcing a constitutional crisis, since numerous polls are showing dissatisfaction with Abbott and Morrison's performance so far.

Anyway, Good-on-ya  Hockey for ultimately making the right decision re ADM, even though you had to be forced into it by the Nationals, for political survival. 

The fact that he brought this decision ahead of schedule is further indication he realises they are in deep ****, needing to settle the turbulence a bit before nailing down the debt limit increase before parliament rises on the 12th.

The rherotic and sleigh of hands about paying the $8bn to the RBA has yet to come back and haunt him yet too. More on that later, but maybe you would like to tell me why you think he paid the RBA the $8bn.


----------



## Calliope

One steely look from Ms Bishop and the tiger will turn into a pussycat.


----------



## trainspotter

What Tony should have said:-



> 1. I was shocked by these revelations.
> 2. I had no idea we had been tapping the phones of Yudhoyono and his wife.
> 3. I cannot reveal operational intelligence matters but such surveillance is not my government's policy.
> 4. The Coalition had nothing to do with this surveillance, undertaken four years ago.
> 5. I apologise, unreservedly, to Yudhoyono and his wife on behalf of Australia.
> 6. I am distressed that Mrs Yudhoyono was involved and can only imagine the impact on my wife if she was told she was being spied on.
> 7. You have my undertaking that such surveillance will not be attempted by my government.
> 8. We are committed to an open relationship with Indonesia, based on trust.
> 9. I will refrain from criticising the Rudd government as intelligence must remain a bipartisan matter.
> 10. We want to improve co-operation on intelligence, policing, border security and counter-terrorism because we face common threats.





Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/tony-...f-this-mess-20131124-2y3se.html#ixzz2lzsaKig0


----------



## IFocus

trainspotter said:


> Are you for real? So you would be happy to sell Australia down the path of foreign ownership? Why stop at Graincorp? Let the Chinese takeover the iron ore in the North West, Let the Japs take our whales and fugget ... sell ALL of our uranium to Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-...rejects-foreign-takeover-of-graincorp/5124262




To be honest I haven't looked to see if the take over is OK or not I am just knocking the Abbott government on saying one thing and doing the exact opposite.

As for selling our mining interests your to late the majority of earnings leave Australia already which makes killing the original mining tax a master stroke.

This decision (graincorp)was driven by the bush socials (Nats) hence my comment about the minority Liberal government.


Ahh here we go Liberal minority government

GrainCorp decision: Joe Hockey caught between national and Nationals' interest



> Just one letter and a tiny apostrophe were all that were missing from Joe Hockey's reasoning when he scotched the bid by the American giant, Archer-Daniels-Midland to swallow up Australia's top listed agri-business, GrainCorp (GNC).
> 
> Whereas the Treasurer explained the 100 per cent take-over was not in the “national” interest, the more pressing concern for the Coalition under *threat of massive internal hemorrhaging over the issue, was that the acquisition was not in the Nationals' interests*. And therefore not in the government's political interests.





Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ls-interest-20131129-2yfw2.html#ixzz2m03qJFUy


----------



## IFocus

This could be building





> Angry education ministers say meeting with Christopher Pyne achieved no certainty
> 
> State and territory education ministers are fuming after meeting federal Education Minister Christopher Pyne on Friday, arguing that the Coalition government is not providing enough certainty around schools funding.
> 
> NSW Education Minister Adrian Piccoli expressed particular concern that the federal government had implied state schools might lose money in a post-Gonski system.





Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...o-certainty-20131129-2yfta.html#ixzz2m031b1l8


----------



## trainspotter

IFocus said:


> To be honest I haven't looked to see if the take over is OK or not I am just knocking the Abbott government on saying one thing and doing the exact opposite.
> 
> As for selling our mining interests your to late the majority of earnings leave Australia already which makes killing the original mining tax a master stroke.
> 
> This decision (graincorp)was driven by the bush socials (Nats) hence my comment about the minority Liberal government.




Errrmmmm NO ... it is not OK for a US company to buy Graincorp for several reasons but when their OWN spokesperson for farmers comes out and says this:- 



> One of the oldest farm organisations in the US earlier this month warned that increased concentration in the industry would be bad news for Australian farmers.
> 
> The National Farmers Union said it had watched the negative impact of foreign takeovers in its own country.
> 
> *"Any time a group of companies, or one or two companies, corner a market and infiltrate it by 40 to 60 per cent, economists will tell you you've lost competition,"* Chandler Goule from the National Farmers Union told the ABC.
> 
> "And as you lose competition, then what happens to your producers is they're limited on who they can sell to, therefore *they get a lower price *and your end users are limited on who they can purchase from."




Last time I looked BHP Billiton is an Anglo Australian multinational mining and petroleum company headquartered in Melbourne, Australia and they pay their taxes here. Gina Rinehart ring a bell? Pretty sure she pays her taxes here? Twiggy ... anyone ... anyone ... Forrest what did he do again? Andrew "Twiggy" Forrest, and his wife Nicola, top the league table of generosity with their $65 million gift to the University of Western Australia, just pipping the $60 million Sydney Arts Fund set up by James Packer. Yep ... lest we forget.

This decision to NOT sell to ADM was for the good of the country and for our farmers. Our farmers vote for the Nationals. If the Nationals had NOT squawked about the sale I would be pretty upset if I was a farmer.


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> To be honest I haven't looked to see if the take over is OK or not I am just knocking the Abbott government on saying one thing and doing the exact opposite.



In relation to Graincorp, what specifically did the Coalition say that was the exact opposite to what they have done?

What was Labor's position prior to the announcement and for the matter, prior to the election? I recall an Insiders interview between Barrie Cassidy and Bill Shorten a few weeks ago where this issue was raised, but while Bill offered a commentary on the Coalition, he didn't say what Labor's position was.


----------



## overhang

drsmith said:


> In relation to Graincorp, what specifically did the Coalition say that was the exact opposite to what they have done?
> 
> What was Labor's position prior to the announcement and for the matter, prior to the election? I recall an Insiders interview between Barrie Cassidy and Bill Shorten a few weeks ago where this issue was raised, but while Bill offered a commentary on the Coalition, he didn't say what Labor's position was.




No of course they wouldn't because then they can't criticize the coalitions policy.  I haven't heard a response yet but no doubt it will be opposed to their decision.  I swear The Age had written two articles allowing for each of the narratives to disagree with the coalitions position.  No matter what they were going to be criticized for which ever way they decided.  I personally fully support Joe's position and believe its integral that we hold on to such important agricultural assets.  Even if the Nationals did twist their arm its still good to see the Nationals representing their voting base,  I hope they can also have some influence on CSG.


----------



## Knobby22

overhang said:


> No of course they wouldn't because then they can't criticize the coalitions policy.  I haven't heard a response yet but no doubt it will be opposed to their decision.  I swear The Age had written two articles allowing for each of the narratives to disagree with the coalitions position.  No matter what they were going to be criticized for which ever way they decided.  I personally fully support Joe's position and believe its integral that we hold on to such important agricultural assets.  Even if the Nationals did twist their arm its still good to see the Nationals representing their voting base,  I hope they can also have some influence on CSG.




I am 100% for this. A good decision, up with the decision of Peter Costello to not let Shell buy out Woodside.
There will be criticism from the free traders just as there was with Woodside.


----------



## noco

bunyip said:


> That makes Noco a responsible person in my opinion, for wanting to get rid of a disunified and pathetically incompetent government who had a well documented record of repeated stuff ups.
> 
> Just to refresh a few memories, here’s the legacy that Rudd left us with –
> 
> _Left us with a $300+Billion debt after inheriting no debt when he came to office.
> 
> Left us with 50,000 illegals, 85% are on the dole after 5 years and that means forever.
> 
> Left us with an NBN that at this stage has $900m expenses per year and only $17m income.
> 
> 
> 
> $16.1 billion Building the Education Revolution program, failure.
> 
> $3.45 billion pink bat Home Insulation debacle
> 
> Mining Tax miss-design, miss-management & lies on tax rates
> 
> $38.5 million for a pro-mining tax ad campaign
> 
> Climate Change “greatest moral challenge” abandonment
> 
> Copenhagen 114 person strong extravaganza & failure
> 
> $275 million 31, later 450 GP Super Clinics promised, only three delivered
> 
> $90 billion National Broadband white elephant, without a business plan
> 
> $2.1 Billion Laptop for every child – without infrastructure
> 
> Build 222 childcare centers – abandoned
> 
> Industrial relations rollback to pre-Keating era
> 
> Grocery Watch
> 
> Fuel Watch
> 
> Mandatory Internet Filter – dangerous, ineffective, missmanaged
> 
> Litigation of Japan whaling – empty PC rhetoric
> 
> Commonwealth Health takeover replaced with pretend ‘reform’
> 
> Murray Darling River State non-deal
> 
> Foreign policy damage– China, Japan, Indonesia, India
> 
> Asylum Boat people arrivals explosion & its denial for year
> 
> Wild Rivers legislation support harms aborigines
> 
> 2020 Summit – staged celebrity talk-fest
> 
> Promise to retain universal Private Health rebate broken
> 
> Promise to clean up election funding broken
> 
> $275 Million Green Loans debacle
> 
> Raise the standard of Ministerial responsibility abandoned
> 
> Political advertising ombudsman promised then dismantled
> 
> $534 Million Solar Panel Rebate sudden withdrawal
> 
> Halve homeless by 2020 / by 20% by 2013 – instead rising
> 
> Pacific Workers Scheme failure
> 
> 1 Billion Cash for Clunkers green wash stupidity
> 
> Bullying East Timor for our detention center
> 
> 150 Citizen’s council for Climate stupidity
> 
> Pork barreling infra-structure grants to Labor seats – auditor
> 
> Opposition to pension increase for non-Labor voting  pensioners
> 
> National Security Committee run by ex-bodyguard_
> 
> *No wonder responsible Australians wanted to get rid of Rudd/Gillard and Labor.*




Thanks Bunyip for your support......I just don't believe a reply is worthy to "NUT CRACKERS" with short memories.

It is good to have sane people back in charge once again.......but history will repeat it self again in 9 or 12 years when things are back on track and the 'DUMBWITS' will be saying it is time for a change of Government and then we will be back to square one again.......Big spending and big debt.


----------



## waterbottle

Achievements of the Abbott Government:

Failing to provide a faster, cheaper and more widely available NBN
Failing at diplomacy
Succeeded at angering the Indonesians
Succeeded at disrupting previous efforts towards the management of climate change
Succeeding at continuing the socioeconomic discrimination that exist in education
Succeeding at remaining as transparent as a brick wall

Vote this mob out,

Cheers.


----------



## bunyip

sails said:


> I think IFocus hasn't yet realised yet  that the tapping of SBY and his wife's phone was in 2009 and under Rudd's watch.  That specific incident had nothing to do with Abbott.




Of course it didn't, which is why Abbot shouldn't have and didn't apologise for it. 
You don't apoligise for something that someone else did. You express regret, and I have no doubt that Abbot did so in his letter to Banger. But you don't and shouldn't apoligise for something that you had no part in.


----------



## wayneL

waterbottle said:


> Achievements of the Abbott Government:
> 
> Failing to provide a faster, cheaper and more widely available NBN
> Failing at diplomacy
> Succeeded at angering the Indonesians
> Succeeded at disrupting previous efforts towards the management of climate change
> Succeeding at continuing the socioeconomic discrimination that exist in education
> Succeeding at remaining as transparent as a brick wall
> 
> Vote this mob out,
> 
> Cheers.




Breaking news:

ASF invaded by Labor Party apparatchiks.


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> Breaking news:
> 
> ASF invaded by Labor Party apparatchiks.




Indeed!!! Lets make them feel welcome in the time honoured way of this thread.

*Put their heads on Pikes. NOW!!!*

Good for a laugh and also warns off anyone else who dares express another view.


----------



## wayneL

Breaking news:

ASF leftists create new category of informal fallacy - _argumentum absurdsupportium_ (appeal to troll).

Logicians are re-writing textbooks as we speak.


----------



## waterbottle

You two are delusional if you think the ALP has hired a team of astroturfers specifically for this forum. Having said that, I wouldn't expect anything less from Abbott's hardcore acolytes.

One term Tony should be kicked out already.

Cheers


----------



## basilio

waterbottle said:


> *You two are delusional *if you think the ALP has hired a team of astroturfers specifically for this forum. Having said that, I wouldn't expect anything less from Abbott's hardcore acolytes.
> 
> One term Tony should be kicked out already.
> 
> Cheers




And indeed thats *exactly* what you'll get from this forum waterbottle. 

This forum has worked long and hard to craft new versions of reality that cannot be imagined by anyone outside our sacred realm. Come on in, sit down and learn how our Lord and Master the Great Tony Abbott (praise his name!!) has saved us from fates worse than death.

The Carbon tax for instance.  One of the most iniquitous devices known to man, destined to destroy Western Civilization as we know it. And now destined for the dungheap of history.

Stroll around and see if you can pick the sentient from the troll; separate truth from delusion: work out who actually believes the drivel they are sprouting versus those who are crazed with anguish at the loss of all hope for  humanity.

I'm going to swing back to my Tower Waterbottle. 

Adieu and farewell.


----------



## wayneL

waterbottle said:


> You two are delusional if you think the ALP has hired a team of astroturfers specifically for this forum. Having said that, I wouldn't expect anything less from Abbott's hardcore acolytes.
> 
> One term Tony should be kicked out already.
> 
> Cheers




Well I'm neither an acolyte or hard core, not even a natural coalition voter. But I'm happy to give Tones a go. A rough start for sure, but already superior to the previous vandals by many magnitudes.


----------



## IFocus

waterbottle said:


> Achievements of the Abbott Government:
> 
> Failing to provide a faster, cheaper and more widely available NBN
> Failing at diplomacy
> Succeeded at angering the Indonesians
> Succeeded at disrupting previous efforts towards the management of climate change
> Succeeding at continuing the socioeconomic discrimination that exist in education
> Succeeding at remaining as transparent as a brick wall
> 
> Vote this mob out,
> 
> Cheers.




You forgot

Succeeding to fail to find the budget emergency but asking for a 66% increase in the credit card.
Succeeding to further sell of the farm and become economic genius's
Succeeding to lied about just about every thing
Succeeding to hold us in the stone age using carrier pigeons.


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> You forgot
> 
> Succeeding to fail to find the budget emergency but asking for a 66% increase in the credit card.
> Succeeding to further sell of the farm and become economic genius's
> Succeeding to lied about just about every thing
> Succeeding to hold us in the stone age using carrier pigeons.




Good to see you're still not getting any traction in the bird droppings.


----------



## Whiskers

drsmith said:


> In relation to Graincorp, what specifically did the Coalition say that was the exact opposite to what they have done?




There was no doubt that Hockey was always going to approve the takeover. The Business Council of Australias's (BCA) position that it should be sold and the high prominence Abbott and Hockey gave to the BCA in their National Commission of Audit underlined Hockeys intentions... ie until the Nationals dug in their heels and Joyce in particular threatened to resign from the cabinet it he didn't change his mind. 

The Nationals clearly knew Hockey's intentions otherwise they wouldn't have taken such drastic action at the risk of exposing the coalition to claims of disunity. 



> What was Labor's position prior to the announcement and for the matter, prior to the election? I recall an Insiders interview between Barrie Cassidy and Bill Shorten a few weeks ago where this issue was raised, but while Bill offered a commentary on the Coalition, he didn't say what Labor's position was.




Personally, I don't consider Shorten can claim to be representative of the majority of Labor grass roots, given his and his colleagues disrespect for the opinion of 60% of their membership and consequently won't hold Labor supporters accountable for his attitude and actions anymore than I would mainstream Lib and Nationals for the clumsy, actions of a few far right Big L Liberals in the government.



overhang said:


> No of course they wouldn't because then they can't criticize the coalitions policy.  I haven't heard a response yet but no doubt it will be opposed to their decision.  I swear The Age had written two articles allowing for each of the narratives to disagree with the coalitions position.  No matter what they were going to be criticized for which ever way they decided.  I personally fully support Joe's position and believe its integral that we hold on to such important agricultural assets.  Even if the Nationals did twist their arm its still good to see the Nationals representing their voting base,  I hope they can also have some influence on CSG.




I would also add that the problem which would arise if the takeover was allowed would be control of key infrastructure. The same problem has been occurring for quite some time with a  few iron ore and coal miners not allowing outside access to their rail or port facilities in WA and Qld. While conditions on the takeover may have overcome that on face value, it still would have left ADM in control and able to wiggle the business to limit or completely negate the effectiveness of the conditions.


----------



## drsmith

Whiskers said:


> There was no doubt that Hockey was always going to approve the takeover. The Business Council of Australias's (BCA) position that it should be sold and the high prominence Abbott and Hockey gave to the BCA in their National Commission of Audit underlined Hockeys intentions... ie until the Nationals dug in their heels and Joyce in particular threatened to resign from the cabinet it he didn't change his mind.
> 
> The Nationals clearly knew Hockey's intentions otherwise they wouldn't have taken such drastic action at the risk of exposing the coalition to claims of disunity.



That doesn't answer the question.

On that specific point, I also note the silence from the author of the original statement.


----------



## Whiskers

wayneL said:


> Well I'm neither an acolyte or hard core, not even a natural coalition voter. But I'm happy to give Tones a go. A rough start for sure,




Well, a rough start indeed!

But did you really have let him have a free reign on 'turn back the boats', and attempt to get into Indonesia to 'spy on smugglers' to 'buy boats' before they could get them, to see how he goes... when the consequence was very predictable. 

Hell, according to some here I'm a dim left wing nutter... but hey, even I could foresee what would happen with that, his bowing to Nationals pressure on the Grainco takeover for political survival... AND his attempting to do what he made such a big noise about and accused Labor of doing, ie promising not to break promises and enter Christopher Pyne on education.



> ...but already superior to the previous vandals by many magnitudes.




Early days yet, but his over exaggeration and heavy handedness has already proven to be quite vandalistic of foreign affairs and state relations. He has had a very short honeymoon in the polls and a wide variety of poll questions show he has already built up a lot of dissatisfaction and distrust in the electorate. Abbott, Hockey and Pyne are going to have to do a lot more backing down yet to restore public confidence and regain election winning voter support.


----------



## drsmith

wayneL said:


> Well I'm neither an acolyte or hard core, not even a natural coalition voter. But I'm happy to give Tones a go. A rough start for sure, but already superior to the previous vandals by many magnitudes.



This government's had a lot thrown at it from Left field.

Firstly there was the Fairfax coverage of travel entitlements. This ensnared both sides of Politics, though the Coalition to a greater extent. with some modest changes, the government's response was methodical, orderly and thought out without being a major distraction to the government itself. As for the media coverage, that in my view was fair enough. That in particular should encourage both sides to lift their game.

Border protection so far has been an outstanding success bearing in mind what has been thrown at it by elements of the press and opposition parties. Scott Morrison in one of his OSB briefings was overly aggressive to the media but has quickly adapted. One other misstep was to be slow to recognise that Indonesia wasn't going to take that boatload rescued by our Navy once it become public before resolution with Indonesia. Overall, he's clearly competent in his role and learning which is a very good sign.

Tony Abbott Too I feel has handled the spying issue well. While there has been criticism that his initial response didn't take the issue seriously enough, I don't know that it was ever as simple as picking up the phone to SBY and saying sorry. This had to be taken out of the public arena and any response well considered by both sides. Letter writing was an effective means of doing this and it wouldn't surprise me if that solution was reach by discussions between diplomats on both sides. The government though has to deal with the cultural political bias within the ABC. Our national broadcaster has clearly demonstrated it cannot make the appropriate judgement in relation to our national interest.

Christopher Pyne over the past week though has been a serious disappointment which could seriously hurt the government unless he quickly grows himself out of the schoolyard. The worst aspect is not that he backed away from the no-school-worse-off promise, that relatively minor in the overall scheme of things. His biggest mistake has been to announce change without putting any material flesh on the changes he would like to make. After 10 weeks in office, he should have had something. If not, he should have kept his yap shut until he did.

An interesting issue in the near future will be the NBN. The Coalition I suspect will walk from it's 2016 25mbps target and more likely settle for 2019 50mbps target only. While it will cop the obvious flak, it shouldn't be a serious problem if handled properly. Christopher Pyne though eroding the government's political capital over the past week won't help.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> An interesting issue in the near future will be the NBN. The Coalition I suspect will walk from it's 2016 25mbps target and more likely settle for 2019 50mbps target only. While it will cop the obvious flak, it shouldn't be a serious problem if handled properly. Christopher Pyne though eroding the government's political capital over the past week won't help.




I dare say that will be a MAJOR vote lose at the next election, and could cause a lot of friction with the nationals depending on if the rollout in non metro areas is slower than what what was planned before.

With the criticism of Labor's NBN, Malcolm may have to stand down as comms minister if you're right.  I mean, only a epic level of ineptitude could cause such an extension.  

Any more policy backflips we should expect?

I get the feeling the Abbott Govt had little political capital.  Labor's antics meant there wasn't much to choose from last election.

Lets just hope they tone down the megaphone diplomacy.


----------



## wayneL

Whiskers said:


> a free reign




I'm sure you'll claim this malapropism/misspell as a double entendre, but it's rein... no g. 

As for the rest, may I suggest Coloxyl and acidophilus. I'm not sure it works with the opposite orifice, but worth a try.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> I dare say that will be a MAJOR vote lose at the next election, and could cause a lot of friction with the nationals depending on if the rollout in non metro areas is slower than what what was planned before.



As much as you hope it will be the case, the Coalition won't be judged by the detail of a plan from Opposition. Labor wasn't.

On this issue, the judgement will primarily be one of how well their rollout is progressing at the time of the next election relative to Labor's at the last one.


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> As much as you hope it will be the case, the Coalition won't be judged by the detail of a plan from Opposition. Labor wasn't.





Labor (Rudd) didn't run such a ruthless campaign against the Howard government lying and promising the world.

Rudd ran a tricky echo campaign while Howard self destructed with non-work choices.

In Abbotts case in opposition he was really nasty which fed joy to the right wing base witness repeated here in these political threads but the middle ground didn't like it reflected by Abbotts approval rating.

Abbott tried to hide that with the adults now in charge statement etc.

The problem for Abbott is now ever time his actions are 180 degrees from what he says he is measured by what he previously said about Labor.

The debt thing is a classic plus the sheer arrogance being portrayed by Pyne this week is stunning. 



> On this issue, the judgement will primarily be one of how well their rollout is progressing at the time of the next election relative to Labor's at the last one.




They will be judged on their promise plus the lack of speed compared to Labors plan. 

The public are about the here and now, trying to explain a roll out being delayed by the other mob is subjective IMHO.


----------



## Whiskers

wayneL said:


> I'm sure you'll claim this malapropism/misspell as a double entendre, but it's rein... no g.




Yeah... you must keep trying.

A rein is something you lead or control a horse with. He didn't strike me as being on a lead or controlled by anyone (quite the contrary) so I wouldn't say he's a horse... although, I did point out, and in hindsight you are slowly coming around to thinking some of his policies and ways of doing things are a "rough start", as ugly as a horse's @rse!

Reign refers to; (attempted) exercise of sovereign power, (a dictatorship of sorts), as by a monarch, and (attempted) dominance or widespread influence (in our region). 

I know what I meant... but I'm happy for you to go with yours. 



> As for the rest, may I suggest Coloxyl and acidophilus. I'm not sure it works with the opposite orifice, but worth a try.




Good luck with what ever it is you guys have with this infatuation with experimenting on you body parts, but I recommend abstaining!


----------



## So_Cynical

Tony Abbott said:
			
		

> "We are going to keep the promise that we actually made, not the promise that some people thought that we made, or the promise that some people might have liked us to make."




That's a hell of a thing to say...i mean saying it with any real conviction, and not feeling like a bit of a dill saying it.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> As much as you hope it will be the case, the Coalition won't be judged by the detail of a plan from Opposition. Labor wasn't.
> 
> On this issue, the judgement will primarily be one of how well their rollout is progressing at the time of the next election relative to Labor's at the last one.




I dare say the focus will be on how well the FTTN rollout is occurring compared to the run rate for the FTTP.  I pretty confident in saying that between now and the next election more P than N connections will have occurred.  Even Ziggy admits not many N connections will have occurred by Christmas 2014.

Throw in the legal letters currently being received by body corps from the likes of TPG telling them to provide access and by the next election people facing the reality that the kind of internet they get in an apartment may very well depend on who got to install their equipment in the basement first.  Malcoms pre election poster child Sydney Park Village currently get the choice of maybe 2 ISPs - OPENetworks currently has just 4 RSPs signed up and none of their plans are terribly competitive with what's being offered on the fibre NBN.

All through the election campaign Abbot and Turnbull claimed the rollout schedule was pretty much set in stone.  None of the issues that are likely to cause delays were unknown to them.  The technical press highlighted many of the issues.  That the Coalition brushed these issues aside and did a _she'll be right mate_ shows either arrogance or a total lack of understanding on how complex a task rolling out a nation wide network is.

I'm just looking forward to the budget.  I'm expecting Ponzi Joe's age of entitlement to be reconfirmed, especially for anyone in the top 3 to 4 income deciles, and pretty much all the attacks are going to occur on the poor and sections of the community that don't mobilise that well.

They can't even reduce PS head count by much because Labor had already done a pretty good job of it, though I dare say they could save a small amount of money by removing a few more of the chiefs and leaving the indians alone.


----------



## wayneL

Whiskers. ==> http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/03/rein-or-reign/

A malapropism is a malapropism, no matter how faulty your logic on the matter, the etymology explained in the link.

And Whiskers, because I am bemused by your man-crush on Rudd and disagree with your unabiding and slavish anti-Abbott views, never means that that I am uncritical of the man, or the administration he leads. However, I think many of the criticisms from the left are unfair at this point in time.

The rough start refers to having been handed a poisoned chalice from Labor. With the benefit of hindsight, everything can be handled better and this government no doubt is on a learning curve, but so far (with caveats which I have already raised elsewhere), I think this government is showing good potential (caveats notwithstanding). Hopefully they will play to the potential I think they have.

Time will tell.

My overriding feeling is elation that the last mob of societal vandals and economic buffoons are in opposition, rather than government. However as with the Howard government, I will not hold back if I think they have screwed up.

Ergo, your analysis is once again fatally flawed by your biases and comprehensive inability.

I am also confident that you will never understand this about yourself. If you cannot admit to a simple malapropism, how can you ever admit to more complex failings?

...unless of course it is as suspected by many here that you are simply trolling?


----------



## Whiskers

*"Last edited by wayneL; Yesterday at 06:35 PM. Reason: add, cause I was on my phone, waiting for missus to try on a dress." *

WayneL, you're a braver man than me... trolling the internet on a Sunday arvo out with your missus, even under some difficulty on a mobile phone, than just relaxing for a bit and paying attention to her and her new dress!!! 

It might have been better to put the impulses aside... to 'ignore' and just gather your thoughts for a more considered response on a better equipped PC, in due course. 

It would also be wise to not rely on those 'stiff-upper-lip' BLOG sites for the meaning of language (or interpretation of the economy, national security or legal points). Language is and always has been a transitional thing, where words and phrases often mean different things to different people depending on their culture, profession/trade etc.

But as I said originally, I know what I meant, but I'm happy for you to go with your interpretation if you must. 

But for me a standard dictionary definition is... 

1reign
 noun \ˈrān\  

: the period of time during which a king, queen, emperor, etc., is ruler of a country

: the period of time during which someone is in charge of a group or organization

: the period of time during which someone or something is the best or the most important, powerful, etc.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reign​
Also, you know what they say when you let your emotions run away... your "overriding feeling is elation" that Abbott took over from Labor. It would appear from the polls that a substantial chunk of the electorate lost that feeling of elation some time ago, or was it just qualified support for the best of a bad bunch.


----------



## Whiskers

So_Cynical said:


> That's a hell of a thing to say...i mean saying it with any real conviction, and not feeling like a bit of a dill saying it.




Hey, where did Tony Abbott go? I want to ask him something! 

Seriously though, that really lifts the art of political 'con' to a whole new dimension.

Can't wait to see how that goes down in COAG, let alone the next round of polls.


----------



## Calliope

So_Cynical said:


> That's a hell of a thing to say...i mean saying it with any real conviction, and not feeling like a bit of a dill saying it.




It is not surprising that Abbott is being so furtive.



> IN politics, trust is hard to earn but easy to lose. The decision by the Abbott government to abandon its commitment to implement Labor's school funding regime has shattered voter confidence.






> Abbott and Pyne are treating voters as if they are mugs. The difference between what they told voters before the election and what they are saying now could not be more different. The voters have been betrayed.
> 
> Worse, they claim that Bill Shorten, when he was education minister, cut funding by $1.2 billion. This funding was cut because Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory did not sign up to the reforms to claim the money.
> 
> This is dangerous territory for a new government. Abbott has undermined one of his core commitments to voters: to be a government of "no surprises" and to restore "trust" in the political process.
> 
> Labor now sees an opportunity to expose this multi-faceted hypocrisy.
> 
> But the Opposition Leader knows he can't say the voters got it "wrong" when they voted Labor out of power. So the opposition has settled on the formulation that "voters did not get the government they voted for".
> 
> Labor, however, doesn't need to lead the attack on the Coalition for breaking its promise to voters on school funding; it has the conservative state governments to do the job for it.




 See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...y-fnbcok0h-1226772527030#sthash.pH3NDIYz.dpuf


----------



## basilio

The Australian  ... calling out TA and Pyne on their reversal of Education Policy.

I don't think any of the Fairfax / ABC/ ect have been as strident in their rejection of this piece of gaslighting by the PM

Be interesting to see how long they can keep up the pretense that they aren't  deliberately  breaking their pre election commitment to a Unity Ticket on the Gonski report.

____________________________________________________________________________

That about face by Tony Abbott on the Gonski report was a brilliant political coup.  They manged to neutralise the issue without giving Labour a second of acknowledgment.

And now they want to rewrite history. 

Ever since Tony Abbott made it clear that he could only be taken seriously on items he has  *actually, specifically spelt* out the Press has been at pains to ensure he has every opportunity to spell out statements so there can be no misunderstandings.

In view of this revision of history that was waste of time wasn't it.


----------



## basilio

A really interesting series of questions for the next News Poll/Nielson Poll would be along the lines of questioning  what voters understood by  Tonys promises to support the Gonski report and the commitment to each schools funding.

Couple that with a question about trust and it would be a very uncomfortable poll for the Government.


----------



## Calliope

"It Can Be Better to Say Something Stupid Than Nothing At All."

Abbott has difficulty in navigating between the two alternatives.


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> A really interesting series of questions for the next News Poll/Nielson Poll would be along the lines of questioning  what voters understood by  Tonys promises to support the Gonski report and the commitment to each schools funding.
> 
> Couple that with a question about trust and it would be a very uncomfortable poll for the Government.




Indeed ! I am thinking the rough end of the pineapple will be applied. The media is making the most of the "Gonski" shambles that Pyne has inherited from Shorten. 1.2 billion taken away from the states and territories schools that had not signed up for their snouts in the trough (read saving?) and then Pyne to come out and say he thought the money would materialise from Treasury? WTF ??? Did he not understand the PEFO and why did Shorten call it a "saving" ??


----------



## drsmith

On school funding, the government got there in the end but as we know, the path was somewhat torturous,



> Tony Abbott is addressing the media with his frontbench colleague, Education Minister Christopher Pyne.
> 
> Pyne has been speaking to states that did not sign up to the so-called Gonski reforms before the election (i.e. WA, NT and Queensland), the PM says.
> 
> The Education Minister has "secured" in-principal funding agreements with WA, NT and Queensland which makes for a "fair and national" system.
> 
> Therefore, the Coalition will also put the $1.2 billion* that it says Labor "ripped" out of the schools funding before the election back into the education envelope.
> 
> "I think the Prime Minister has summed it up well," says Pyne.
> 
> *This was money that Labor had put aside for WA, NT and Queensland for a Gonski deal.




It would obviously have been a lot simpler if they just did that in the first place. Hopefully Christopher Pyne emerges a little wiser from the past week.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...tics-live-december-2-2013-20131202-2ykf3.html


----------



## drsmith

Watching the start of question time, I'm now wondering if there was indeed method in the madness. Bill Shorten's first to questions to the PM were on education funding. It seems he didn't have a question time plan B.


----------



## MrBurns

I'm enjoying watching Tony and the team rip Labor apart, poor old Shorten is underachieving at his very best


----------



## MrBurns

Now they've cut away from question time back to the studio to mount arguments in support of Labor's position.


----------



## drsmith

MrBurns said:


> Now they've cut away from question time back to the studio to mount arguments in support of Labor's position.



That's the ABC I assume.

Forget the national broadcaster. You can watch it from here.

http://www.aph.gov.au/News_and_Events/Watch_Parliament

They're now voting on the amendment to Bill suspension of standing orders motion.

Passed. QT is over now.


----------



## Ijustnewit

MrBurns said:


> Now they've cut away from question time back to the studio to mount arguments in support of Labor's position.




Yes spot on Mr Burns, the ABC 24 just let Latika Bourke unleash a stinging attack on the Abbott Government.
She is meant to be their parliamentary reporter not a frontbencher for Labor.


----------



## basilio

Well that was a close call for the government. When Andrew Bolt  and The Australian start gunning for you on the question of reneging on your promises I think you are in very dangerous waters.

In theory the next election is 3 years away.  In practice of course the Abbott government is keeping its options open for a double dissolution over  the failure of Labour to pass the repeal of the Carbon Tax.  It would have been fun watching TA attempt to prove his credibility on the top of overturning the Gonski report.


----------



## drsmith

MrBurns said:


> I'm enjoying watching Tony and the team rip Labor apart, poor old Shorten is underachieving at his very best



The ABC's view on today's QT,



> The Government's about-face appears to have caught the Labor Party flat-footed, effectively neutralising its attack which was primed for today's parliamentary Question Time.
> 
> The Opposition asked no less than eight questions of the Prime Minister, based on the Government's previous stance that it would not abide by the funding deal.
> 
> Opposition Leader Bill Shorten rounded off the series of questions by asking "when will the Prime Minister stop lying?" - a phrase he was forced to withdraw.
> 
> The questions gave the Prime Minister the opportunity to criticise Labor over its failure to secure a national agreement on schools funding while in government.
> 
> "I want to make it absolutely crystal clear that this Government is cleaning up Labor's mess," Mr Abbott said.
> 
> Mr Shorten then moved the new parliament's first motion of censure in the Prime Minister, "for breaking his promise to parents and children across Australia that no school will be worse off under his Government".
> 
> But the Government used its numbers to instead censure the Opposition Leader for cutting funding to the hold-out states and "failing to achieve a national, fair and needs-based school funding mode".
> 
> The $15.2 billion Better Schools Plan was based on recommendations made by a review panel which was chaired by businessman David Gonski.
> 
> Sixty-five per cent of the additional money was slated to come from federal coffers with the rest contributed by states and territories.



The government clearly outwitted Bill Shorten and the Opposition in QT today, but overall it still would have been better had they not created the problem for themselves in the first place.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-02/abbott-gonski/5129118


----------



## sydboy007

trainspotter said:


> Indeed ! I am thinking the rough end of the pineapple will be applied. The media is making the most of the "Gonski" shambles that Pyne has inherited from Shorten. 1.2 billion taken away from the states and territories schools that had not signed up for their snouts in the trough (read saving?) and then Pyne to come out and say he thought the money would materialise from Treasury? WTF ??? Did he not understand the PEFO and why did Shorten call it a "saving" ??




I suppose money not spent is a saving??  At least when i don't spend money I was thinking to spend i think of it as a saving (unless I decide to spend it on something else)

Now we have the recalcitrant states being rewarded with no strings funding, the other states also probably having their strings cut.

Going to make any economic reform with the states rather difficult now that holding out may not have any negative consequences if you can get a bit of voter backlash working for you.

Lucky for Pyne and Tony Christmas is coming.  Much more yes no maybe no, ah yes would certainly see the political capital severely depleted.

I just can't help but feel they love the media attention


----------



## wayneL

Whiskers said:


> *"Last edited by wayneL; Yesterday at 06:35 PM. Reason: add, cause I was on my phone, waiting for missus to try on a dress." *
> 
> WayneL, you're a braver man than me... trolling the internet on a Sunday arvo out with your missus, even under some difficulty on a mobile phone, than just relaxing for a bit and paying attention to her and her new dress!!!
> 
> It might have been better to put the impulses aside... to 'ignore' and just gather your thoughts for a more considered response on a better equipped PC, in due course.
> 
> It would also be wise to not rely on those 'stiff-upper-lip' BLOG sites for the meaning of language (or interpretation of the economy, national security or legal points). Language is and always has been a transitional thing, where words and phrases often mean different things to different people depending on their culture, profession/trade etc.
> 
> But as I said originally, I know what I meant, but I'm happy for you to go with your interpretation if you must.
> 
> But for me a standard dictionary definition is...
> 
> 1reign
> noun \ˈrān\
> 
> : the period of time during which a king, queen, emperor, etc., is ruler of a country
> 
> : the period of time during which someone is in charge of a group or organization
> 
> : the period of time during which someone or something is the best or the most important, powerful, etc.
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reign​
> Also, you know what they say when you let your emotions run away... your "overriding feeling is elation" that Abbott took over from Labor. It would appear from the polls that a substantial chunk of the electorate lost that feeling of elation some time ago, or was it just qualified support for the best of a bad bunch.




Well duh, yes, we all know what reign means. However we are discussing (on the side) English idiom and your alarmingly Dorrie Evansesque malapropism. Think of the grammar, a reign may be unfettered, vis a vis an unfettered reign, but 'free reign' is an absurd combination that doesn't actually make grammatical sense and looks rather foolish.

Alas, in Whiskers World, Whiskers is the only authority and the Oxford Dictionary et al just of cursory interest. In Whiskers World, Whiskers is happy to both denounce authoritative comment from a dictionary org and simultaneously attempt to use one to support an erroneous, untenable argument.

Cognitive dissonance anyone?

Also, with reference to 'elation', clearly Whiskers is unable to discern hyberbole. Alternatively, this was perhaps the most childish argument I've seen on ASF for some time.

Et Al,

I apologize for feeding the troll, now on to more productive endeavours.


----------



## trainspotter

Apology accepted ... how was the Missus dress btw?


----------



## noco

drsmith said:


> Watching the start of question time, I'm now wondering if there was indeed method in the madness. Bill Shorten's first to questions to the PM were on education funding. It seems he didn't have a question time plan B.




I would say Shorten got caught with his pants down again......A brilliant piece of work by Abbott and Pyne to announce the school funding scheme out side parliament just 20 minutes before question time.

It sure threw a spanner in the works for Labor during question time. There attack questions were all thrown out of kilter.


----------



## IFocus

Surprised at how the education thing evolved.

Abbott / Pyne took a heap of damage to arrive at the point they promised before the election.

I wonder if Pyne will be let off the hook again.

Chaos government run by opinion polls at this stage is surprising.


----------



## trainspotter

IFocus said:


> Surprised at how the education thing evolved.
> 
> Abbott / Pyne took a heap of damage to arrive at the point they promised before the election.
> 
> I wonder if Pyne will be let off the hook again.
> 
> Chaos government run by opinion polls at this stage is surprising.




Ditto ... now just change the names to Gillard/Shorten and wind the clock back and does it look familiar?


----------



## sydboy007

IFocus said:


> Chaos government run by opinion polls at this stage is surprising.




All Tony wants is to be liked.  It's the only explanation for trying to be everything to everyone.  You know, tough on welfare and the boarders, rivers of gold for mothers, infrastructure for all, money for schools in all states even if you originally said no to the money, open for business...except on Fridays at the behest of _"important people"_ (got to love Ponzi Joe's eloquence, but at least he's a bit more honest in admitting the real reason for his decision).



trainspotter said:


> Ditto ... now just change the names to Gillard/Shorten and wind the clock back and does it look familiar?




Hmm.  But aren't the adults supposed to be in charge?  Maybe they're having a mid life crisis.  Anyone know if Tony or Pyne have recently bought a sports car....or for Tony maybe a new Bianchi or Pinarello carbon fibre road bike.


----------



## trainspotter

Just to pour fuel on the fire 

The expression to give *free rein *to is figurative. It means to give a person freedom to act on his own authority. It derives from an equestrian term.

The word *reign *derives from a Latin word for kingship. To reign means to exercise the power of a king. 

Maybe you are referring to conflation? Either way to place the words "free" and "reign" in a sentence is an oxymoron.





I love how the media is headlining a BACKFLIP and a triple BACKFLIPSKI !!

But but but ... there are no strings attached to the funding. They can distribute the money how they like among their schools.



> The latest change has rewarded the Queensland, WA and NT governments for holding out on the Gonski deal - they will now receive extra funding without any conditions. As part of the "no strings" deal, Queensland will escape Labor's original demands that it pledge not to cut its own school budget and match half of the federal boost.




http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...s-gonski-reforms/story-fnihsrf2-1226773762581


----------



## IFocus

trainspotter said:


> But but but ... there are no strings attached to the funding. They can distribute the money how they like among their schools.
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...s-gonski-reforms/story-fnihsrf2-1226773762581




I don't get it that they are handing over money that the states can just suck into general revenue, there is no agreements on how its spent.

Hockey must be exasperated at having been rolled by the Nats and now Pyne has thrown an extra $bil around.

Strange days.


----------



## banco

**** is about to hit the fan with the East Timor spying case.


----------



## drsmith

Paul Kelly's take on the government's Gonski gymnastics,



> THE train wreck over Gonski school funding is a template for the diabolical fiscal dilemma facing the Abbott government -- this was a case of cabinet's Expenditure Review Committee pushing for more savings but falling foul of the Coalition's election pledges. Christopher Pyne was personally given a letter by Tony Abbott that embodied the ERC's deliberations. He was given a tough job but he mishandled it, causing deep agitation within the PM's office. The ERC decided to commit to promised Gonski school funding for one year for the non-signatory states. Pyne's brief was to run a public operation and private negotiation to try to get savings from the total pool of Gonski money given that NSW and Victoria had been generously treated.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ski-train-wreck/story-e6frg6n6-1226774531284#



> Christopher Pyne was personally given a letter by Tony Abbott that embodied the ERC’s deliberations. He was given a tough job but he mishandled it, causing deep agitation within the PM’s office. The ERC decided to commit to promised Gonski school funding for one year for the non-signatory states. Pyne’s brief was to run a public operation and private negotiation to try to get savings from the total pool of Gonski money given that NSW and Victoria had been generously treated…
> 
> It was never going to be realised because it ran into the brick wall of the election campaign pledges made by Abbott.
> 
> When the Prime Minister briefed Pyne, his Education Minister was scarcely happy. It was agreed he would begin by making a political issue of Labor’s removal of $1.2 billion from the pre-election estimates as the prelude to getting a better overall deal for the national government…
> 
> In the end [the Government] was battered into political submission.
> 
> Last Sunday night at a meeting involving Abbott, Julie Bishop, Joe Hockey, Pyne and Peta Credlin the decision was taken to cut their losses.




http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

Meanwhile, Labor has done a backflip of it's own, reversing it's policy in relation to cuts to the university sector at a cost of $2.3bn to the budget.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...on-23bn-savings/story-fn59nlz9-1226774543152#


----------



## trainspotter

IFocus said:


> I don't get it that they are handing over money that the states can just suck into general revenue, there is no agreements on how its spent.
> 
> Hockey must be exasperated at having been rolled by the Nats and now Pyne has thrown an extra $bil around.
> 
> Strange days.




Errrmmmmm NO ! They are given the funding on the proviso that it is spent on education. Labor wanted to impose management plans for states' schools systems, setting up Canberra-based inspectors and gathering extra data in Canberra. So an education system over an education system or an extra layer of incompetence? 



> "I suspect that New South Wales and Victoria will be happy to lose the Canberra command and control elements of those deals but certainly the financial arrangements for the next four years will be absolutely adhered to," he said.
> 
> The Coalition Government wants to "dismantle" the regulations and red tape associated with Labor's deal, saying it does not want to "run public schools out of Canberra".




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-02/abbott-gonski/5129118


----------



## drsmith

Christopher Pyne in Parliament today in response to a question from Kate Ellis,



> This is like being attacked by a pot plant.


----------



## sydboy007

The Abbott Govt must be living in a Steve Jobs style reality distortion field if they thought appointing Don Randall to the parliamentary committee overseeing privileges and members' interests was a sensible decision.

I suppose he does have intimate knowledge of how to game the system.  Surely they had someone else in their ranks who could have been appointed?  Obviously not.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> Christopher Pyne in Parliament today in response to a question from Kate Ellis,




Pyne is probably the only person in parliament who would know, since the potted plant on his desk has been providing him with policy advise.


----------



## sptrawler

It seems crazy, that everyone is upset the government has dumped the Labor parties Gonski school reforms.
The Labor Party were thrown out because of failed initiatives, why the hell would Gonski be any different.
Australia's spending on education has increased consistently over the last decade and the learning outcomes have consistently fallen.
Maybe it is time to stop throwing good money after bad, and look at the curriculum and testing learning outcomes. 
Instead of paying more for the same dismal outcome.IMO
Abbott really needs to think about setting things up for a double dissolution asap.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> It seems crazy, that everyone is upset the government has dumped the Labor parties Gonski school reforms.
> The Labor Party were thrown out because of failed initiatives, why the hell would Gonski be any different.
> Australia's spending on education has increased consistently over the last decade and the learning outcomes have consistently fallen.
> Maybe it is time to stop throwing good money after bad, and look at the curriculum and testing learning outcomes.
> Instead of paying more for the same dismal outcome.IMO
> Abbott really needs to think about setting things up for a double dissolution asap.




The only way that can happen, and it would be a 10 year plus program, is to make people see teaching as a career.

Why would anyone want to be a teacher when teh students disrespect you, lazy parents blame teachers and schools for failing their children when they show little interest in educational outcomes.

Factor in so many public school teachers are not able to get full time work, which makes getting a housing loan difficult.

Directing more money to the private sector isn't going to make things better.

Unless we make teaching a rewarding and viable career for future generations we will keep on falling further and further down the ladder as those countries hungrier than us eat our lunch.  I don't expect either side of politics to present the hard truth to us, but Abbott is the one who supposedly has that responsibility now but is, to use the Howard term, not showing much ticker at this point in time.


----------



## wayneL

sptrawler said:


> It seems crazy...




The politico/journalistic landscape has gone a bit troppo IMO. No sober analysis and watching ho the new gu'mint goes, just non stop sensationalism and totally BS hanging of **** at every opportunity.

I cannot recall such a puerile and poisonous period at the beginning of an administration.

Hell, I'm not agin hanging sh8t off any government and have slagged off both sides at various times, but at this stage of proceeding I find it ridiculous, pointless and societally disappointing.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> The only way that can happen, and it would be a 10 year plus program, is to make people see teaching as a career.
> 
> Why would anyone want to be a teacher when teh students disrespect you, lazy parents blame teachers and schools for failing their children when they show little interest in educational outcomes.
> 
> Factor in so many public school teachers are not able to get full time work, which makes getting a housing loan difficult.
> 
> Directing more money to the private sector isn't going to make things better.
> 
> Unless we make teaching a rewarding and viable career for future generations we will keep on falling further and further down the ladder as those countries hungrier than us eat our lunch.  I don't expect either side of politics to present the hard truth to us, but Abbott is the one who supposedly has that responsibility now but is, to use the Howard term, not showing much ticker at this point in time.




IMO Teaching was a trade as was nursing, they both went down the toilet when the unions got involved and made them a university degree.
To teach requires an understanding and a passion, as does nursing, these are the least valued abilities in the current system.
What is required now is completion of year 12 and the entry mark is lowered to facilitate numbers required.
In years gone by, students who wished to become teachers applied for teachers training college, then were interviewed and assesed.
The new system encourages all year 12 students to select a career path, after they sit exams which rank their retained knowledge. Teaching and nursing are two of the lowest entry requirements. 
Unfortunately you can't offer someone who is going to be teaching children known curriculum, the same monetary reward as someone developing and applying advanced theory.
This boils back to the basic problem of should they be a degree course in the first place?
I'm not talking about university lecturers or medical doctors, I'm talking primary and secondary teachers and nurses.

Our childrens results are falling at year 3, the times table and the alphabet hasn't changed much in the last 100 years. However now because we can't teach the times table, we drop it from the curriculum


----------



## drsmith

Labor's been left outside the limit on the debt limit.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-...eal-with-greens-to-scrap-debt-ceiling/5134972

And that on top of them being left outside with the door firmly shut on permanent visas for boat arrivals.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> Pyne is probably the only person in parliament who would know, since the potted plant on his desk has been providing him with policy advise.



Jeez Sid!

That's a nasty accusation.

I doubt very much that he's ever had Kate Ellis on his desk.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> Jeez Sid!
> 
> That's a nasty accusation.
> 
> I doubt very much that he's ever had Kate Ellis on his desk.




No idea

I do have it on good authority that Cory Bernardi regularly feeds his plant he affectionately named Audrey II


----------



## drsmith

In relation to the debt ceiling, Joe Hockey is right when he says Labor has made itself irrelevant in economic policy.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-...defends-debt-ceiling-deal-with-greens/5135820


----------



## trainspotter

wayneL said:


> The politico/journalistic landscape has gone a bit troppo IMO. No sober analysis and watching ho the new gu'mint goes, just non stop sensationalism and totally BS hanging of **** at every opportunity.
> 
> I cannot recall such a puerile and poisonous period at the beginning of an administration.
> 
> Hell, I'm not agin hanging sh8t off any government and have slagged off both sides at various times, but at this stage of proceeding I find it ridiculous, pointless and societally disappointing.




The paparazzi have no freeze frame moments, the scriveners require ink to be flowing, the blue penciler needs a headline and Rupert is wakening from his slumber. Expect a lot more of this SH!TE to be devoured by the proletariat as gospel


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> They can't even reduce PS head count by much because Labor had already done a pretty good job of it, though I dare say they could save a small amount of money by removing a few more of the chiefs and leaving the indians alone.




Are you referring to this ?



> THE style and timing of the Abbott government’s promise to cut 12,000 public service jobs is being reviewed after it was discovered that the previous Labor government’s policies were estimated to result in 14,500 job losses in the next four years.
> 
> Labor’s projected job cuts could save up to $14.5 billion through to 2016-17 but only a handful of the proposed redundancies were funded and have already pushed some government agencies into operating losses.
> 
> The cost of additional redundancies has the potential to push the budget further into deficit, already expected to be about $50bn in 2013-14. The job loss estimates, lack of funding and broadside manner of the redundancies have further complicated the preparation of the mid-year fiscal and economic outlook because there are now added costs and uncertainty about the timing of the Coalition savings based on an “additional” 12,000 job cuts.
> 
> It’s understood the Coalition government will stick by its target of 12,000 job cuts over the next four years but wants to target the job losses to match the Coalition’s policies and ensure the cuts don’t undermine priority tasks…
> 
> Before the election, Bill Shorten, Penny Wong and Chris Bowen criticised the Coalition’s declared plan to cut 12,000 public service jobs but did not issue a total figure for the impact of Labor’s policies on public service numbers.
> 
> During the election campaign Mr Shorten, now Opposition Leader, said the proposed job cuts were “economic vandalism inspired by conservative ideology” and Labor’s plan was “not to cut to the bone”.




http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/waiting_for_the_cuts/

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-axe-14500-jobs/story-fn59nsif-1226762895135#


----------



## IFocus

Really disappointed about the criticism of our new PM.

 I wonder if its the female thing, I think Peta Credlin is doing a great job as PM given the material she has to work with. 

I also think its disgusting how those wasteful Labor Commies just keep spending wildly even though there is a Coalition government in power. 

What is wrong with Labor when will they stop?


----------



## Logique

I do wonder why senior MPs and Senators are being vetoed on their choice of head of staff, eg Eric Abetz.  

It's like the PMs office is saying, you can only have someone that we can work with. 

I wouldn't be happy either.


----------



## sails

Logique said:


> I do wonder why senior MPs and Senators are being vetoed on their choice of head of staff, eg Eric Abetz.
> 
> It's like the PMs office is saying, you can only have someone that we can work with.
> 
> I wouldn't be happy either.




There is another view point on it here - could it be simply more nasty bias from Fairfax?:



> Here are some of the Fairfax media’s main criticisms lately of Peta Credlin, Tony Abbott’s chief of staff, now a hate figure of the Left that once decried the “misogyny” of critics of Julia Gillard.




Read more: *The case against Peta Credlin - three strikes and Fairfax is out of control*


----------



## banco

sails said:


> There is another view point on it here - could it be simply more nasty bias from Fairfax?:
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: *The case against Peta Credlin - three strikes and Fairfax is out of control*




No need to guess where Bolt sources much of his insider info on the Abbott Government after that post.


----------



## sails

banco said:


> No need to guess where Bolt sources much of his insider info on the Abbott Government after that post.




Hmmm... so where are Fairfax getting their sources?  Obviously not from Morrison.  So, do they make it up?


----------



## sptrawler

sails said:


> Hmmm... so where are Fairfax getting their sources?  Obviously not from Morrison.  So, do they make it up?




You have to give Fairfax credit for still backing losers.
Even after a flogging in the election, they are backing Labor to the hilt, despite the Greens jumping ship.
Labor are wallowing around trying to say the carbon tax`was crap and made no difference, but now we need to adopt their next plan. Give us a break.
Now we have some female politician, making disgracefully sexist coments about a male Liberal politician and it hardly makes a ripple. What a joke for misoginy.
Now the boat influx has dropped from 1000 per week, to 100 per week the silence is deafening from Fairfax.
What a hoot, Qantas loses $300m after paying $100m in carbon tax, then guess what, Bowen says we need to bail them out. That has to be the joke of the year.lol,lol,lol
How the Labor die hards support these idiots is beyond comprehension.


----------



## sptrawler

Here's another classic Faifax report.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/blowout-in-debt-is-governments-work-20131208-2yzem.html

There is mention of everything possible, including the Howard era.
Yet no mention of the Labor six year $300billion blowout, what a dick.lol


----------



## drsmith

sails said:


> Hmmm... so where are Fairfax getting their sources?  Obviously not from Morrison.  So, do they make it up?



There's clearly substance to some of the noises.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ck-off-by-mathias-cormann-20131207-2yy5o.html

The issue here may not be necessarily one of Peta Cedlin, but of the broader cracks in party discipline.


----------



## drsmith

sptrawler said:


> Here's another classic Faifax report.
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/national/blowout-in-debt-is-governments-work-20131208-2yzem.html
> 
> There is mention of everything possible, including the Howard era.
> Yet no mention of the Labor six year $300billion blowout, what a dick.lol



I like the way Labor's policy reversal on spending cuts for higher education is brushed over.



> Labor's surprise decision to use the Senate to block spending cuts for higher education that it had previously proposed will cost $2.3 billion.
> 
> ''It looks like something the last opposition did to the last government, blocking something it shouldn't,'' said Deloitte Access director Chris Richardson.



This goes well beyond Chris Richardson's view about an opposition blocking something it shouldn't. The election result isn't even cold and Labor walked away from its own policy position.

Joe Hockey was right in Parliament last week when he described it as pathetic.


----------



## Calliope

This will test whether Abbott is prime minister material or will he lose his nerve?



> TONY Abbott and the Liberals have lost their three-year carbon tax advantage over Labor, with support for the Coalition dropping to its lowest since 2011 to leave the opposition leading on preferences for the first time since the election of the Gillard government.
> 
> Just three months after being elected, the Abbott government's primary vote support has dropped to 40 per cent while Labor's two-party-preferred support has jumped five percentage points to put the ALP in front 52 per cent to 48 per cent.
> 
> And for the first time since the September 7 election, more voters are dissatisfied with the Prime Minister than satisfied.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-latest-newspoll/story-fn59niix-1226779257233


----------



## Knobby22

Some unfortunate truths about Holden.
Labor promised $500 million a year as a co-investment and then reneged reducing it to $400 million.
The Libs have since reduced it to $200 million. This was the present model. GM have therefore concluded they can't trust Australian politicians to abide by existing agreements.

Word is Holden want $400 mil a year to invest in a new car.
The diesel rebate to mining companies is $3 billion a year.
It cost $5 billion a year to subsidise negative gearing.
That stupid car leasing scheme cost $250 million a year.

Predicted jobs lost will be 45,000 people and reduce national output by $7.3 billion per year.

When the dollar goes back down to 50c, and we have lost our manufacturing industry, we will regret this decision.

I voted Liberal in both the state and federal elections. I believe in Liberal values but I also believe that, as it appears, that if they deliberately sacrifice our car industry, it will be a massive mistake. The debate in the related thread has been of such low quality that I am just shaking my head.

The word is that we will still be able to buy Commodores but they will be made in Korea. Before the dollar rose, cars cost no more to make than they did in Korea. Some Liberals are fighting to keep Holden but they are not in Cabinet.


----------



## drsmith

Knobby22 said:


> Some unfortunate truths about Holden.
> Labor promised $500 million a year as a co-investment and then reneged reducing it to $400 million.
> The Libs have since reduced it to $200 million. This was the present model. *GM have therefore concluded they can't trust Australian politicians to abide by existing agreements.*
> 
> Word is Holden want $400 mil a year to invest in a new car.
> The diesel rebate to mining companies is $3 billion a year.
> It cost $5 billion a year to subsidise negative gearing.
> That stupid car leasing scheme cost $250 million a year.
> 
> Predicted jobs lost will be 45,000 people and reduce national output by $7.3 billion per year.
> 
> When the dollar goes back down to 50c, and we have lost our manufacturing industry, we will regret this decision.
> 
> I voted Liberal in both the state and federal elections. I believe in Liberal values but I also believe that, as it appears, that if they deliberately sacrifice our car industry, it will be a massive mistake. The debate in the related thread has been of such low quality that I am just shaking my head.
> 
> The word is that we will still be able to buy Commodores but they will be made in Korea. Before the dollar rose, cars cost no more to make than they did in Korea. *Some Liberals are fighting to keep Holden but they are not in Cabinet.*



On the issue of trust, the Libs spent a lot of capital on their Gonski funding only to achieve nothing in the end in a budgetary sense.

With regard to Holden, the worst aspect of that politically is that a conflict within the party has spilled into the public arena.

There's shadows of the previous Labor administration on both these two issues and I suspect this is why the government has taken a pummelling in the latest Newspoll.  

Tony Abbott to me also comes across as very tired after a very long political year. This government desperately needs the Xmas break to regroup and refocus. It also needs to work out how it can better politically manage electoral disappointment which has shown up as a clear weakness in strategy.

My bolds.


----------



## sptrawler

Knobby22 said:


> Some unfortunate truths about Holden.
> Labor promised $500 million a year as a co-investment and then reneged reducing it to $400 million.
> The Libs have since reduced it to $200 million. This was the present model. GM have therefore concluded they can't trust Australian politicians to abide by existing agreements.
> 
> Word is Holden want $400 mil a year to invest in a new car.
> The diesel rebate to mining companies is $3 billion a year.
> It cost $5 billion a year to subsidise negative gearing.
> That stupid car leasing scheme cost $250 million a year.
> 
> Predicted jobs lost will be 45,000 people and reduce national output by $7.3 billion per year.
> 
> When the dollar goes back down to 50c, and we have lost our manufacturing industry, we will regret this decision.
> 
> I voted Liberal in both the state and federal elections. I believe in Liberal values but I also believe that, as it appears, that if they deliberately sacrifice our car industry, it will be a massive mistake. The debate in the related thread has been of such low quality that I am just shaking my head.
> 
> The word is that we will still be able to buy Commodores but they will be made in Korea. Before the dollar rose, cars cost no more to make than they did in Korea. Some Liberals are fighting to keep Holden but they are not in Cabinet.




Well, knobby aside from the emotive issue of job loses, on what basis is your support of the car industry founded.
Since the early 1970's, we have lost Leyland/BMC, Chrysler, Nissan and Mitsubishi. 
All of these closed due to small sales volumes and this was during a period of high import tarrifs on imported cars, from memory 57%.
Currently the import tarrif is 5%, the Labor government under Gillard was asked to raise this, when Ford announced it intentions to close, they refused.
 So it's a bit rich for them now to be finger pointing at Abbott, with the help from sections of the press.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-24/actu-calls-for-emergency-talks-on-car-industry/4710100

Continuing on, how far do you go supporting an industry, which is obvuiously in terminal decline, most of which is self inflicted.
It was only about 10 years ago Holden reneged on building the alloytech engine in Australia, prefering to import it, the same as it does with the V8's.
If GM were serious about making its operations here viable, they would be adapting  production facilities to make cars for export.

Not continuing to roll out cars for the local market, in lower and lower numbers, where do you draw the line subsidising an industry that can't compete? 
When they are producing cars, just to take them out the back and crush them, do you stop then? Or just pour more money in.

If Australians are prefering to purchase something other than an Australian car. Then it is upto the manufacturer to either adapt his product or look to expand his market. The idea of public funds being poured in to sustain a model that is failing is crazy.

The justification for the aid is also flawed IMO. 
Why is it sensible to use public funds to prop up a car industry, on the basis of protecting jobs?
Why wasn't the same ideology applied to save our footware, textile and electronics industries, which have gone offshore for the very same reason.

Why not use public funds to prop up all small businesses? Why limit it to automotive related industries?
What about independent petrol stations, we could have a public funded 4c discount card for them, so they can compete with the duopoly.

How many jobs are being lost in small retailing, because they can't price compete with large retailers, my guess a lot more than 50,000. 
So how do we address this, give small business a bigger tax break than large business, or increase the tax impost on large businesses so they have to charge the same prices as small corner shops.

In the end it comes back to the same old story, one way or another, you adapt or you go under. If we are going to support all and sundry, we will need more money, which will mean our costs go up and make us less competitive. Therefore we will need more money and so it goes on. 

GM is the only one that can save Holden, it just depends if they want to. It may have to shut a plant in Germany or Brazil or Korea or South Africa and transfer its production here. Let's see if that happens.
My rant for the day.lol


----------



## bunyip

sptrawler said:


> You have to give Fairfax credit for still backing losers.
> Even after a flogging in the election, they are backing Labor to the hilt, despite the Greens jumping ship.
> Labor are wallowing around trying to say the carbon tax`was crap and made no difference, but now we need to adopt their next plan. Give us a break.
> Now we have some female politician, making disgracefully sexist coments about a male Liberal politician and it hardly makes a ripple. What a joke for misoginy.
> Now the boat influx has dropped from 1000 per week, to 100 per week the silence is deafening from Fairfax.
> What a hoot, Qantas loses $300m after paying $100m in carbon tax, then guess what, Bowen says we need to bail them out. That has to be the joke of the year.lol,lol,lol
> *How the Labor die hards support these idiots is beyond comprehension.*



Not when you consider the mentality of your average Labor voter!


----------



## Knobby22

sptrawler said:


> The justification for the aid is also flawed IMO.
> Why is it sensible to use public funds to prop up a car industry, on the basis of protecting jobs?
> .




It is not about protecting jobs, its about keeping our manufacturing base.
There are many companies that supply components to the car industry that also compete on the world stage supplying niche products.

Once we have lost our  engineering design skill base it is difficult to get it back.

The other point is that running the country involves priorities. The previous governments priorities were wrong. This governments priorities so far appear to be wrong also. We should reduce some of the money paid to the rent seekers and use it to support our industry so it can renew itself once the $A drops. 

Other countries have industry policies. Germany is a great example.  For instance, we in Australia invented ceramic fuel cell technology. Due to government encouragement the factory has been built in Germany! Germany with high wages and 8 weeks holiday a year for workers! You can't tell me we couldn't have built it here, but we have no long term vision.

This stuff about us all being on a flat playing field is rubbish. We all know its not true so lets develop an industry policy and compete!


Good comments Dr Smith. Quite perceptive about it being a long year. A few weeks off with reflection should do a world of good.


----------



## trainspotter

“The people get the government they deserve”. Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821) wrote in 1811: “Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle merite."

Threads have merged as well. Holden vs Ford?  No wait this has happened:



> *Ford Australia says it will close its Australian manufacturing plants in October 2016, with the loss of hundreds of jobs.*




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-23/ford-to-close-geelong-and-broadmeadows-plants/4707960

And not a peep from the proletariat then eh?


----------



## sptrawler

Knobby22 said:


> It is not about protecting jobs, its about keeping our manufacturing base.
> There are many companies that supply components to the car industry that also compete on the world stage supplying niche products.
> 
> Once we have lost our  engineering design skill base it is difficult to get it back.
> 
> .




It is about protecting jobs, if it was worth producing cars here, Ford and GM wouldn't be leaving.
They would be investing in updating their manufacturing facilities, to produce 'world' cars for export.


----------



## McLovin

Knobby22 said:


> It is not about protecting jobs, its about keeping our manufacturing base.
> There are many companies that supply components to the car industry that also compete on the world stage supplying niche products.
> 
> Once we have lost our  engineering design skill base it is difficult to get it back.
> 
> The other point is that running the country involves priorities. The previous governments priorities were wrong. This governments priorities so far appear to be wrong also. We should reduce some of the money paid to the rent seekers and use it to support our industry so it can renew itself once the $A drops.
> 
> Other countries have industry policies. Germany is a great example.  For instance, we in Australia invented ceramic fuel cell technology. Due to government encouragement the factory has been built in Germany! Germany with high wages and 8 weeks holiday a year for workers! You can't tell me we couldn't have built it here, but we have no long term vision.
> 
> This stuff about us all being on a flat playing field is rubbish. We all know its not true so lets develop an industry policy and compete!
> 
> 
> Good comments Dr Smith. Quite perceptive about it being a long year. A few weeks off with reflection should do a world of good.




Yesssss.

The lack of forward thinking, and back-slapping about the last 20 years in Australia is pathetic.

Why is the CSIRO being run into the ground? Why don't we have a top 10 engineering school like an MIT, or Cal Tech?

You're completely right about the need to have an industry policy. I can see what will happen, the money will get flung at Holden, everyone shuts up and goes back to what they were doing and in 5 years time, wash, rinse and repeat.


----------



## AntN




----------



## banco

trainspotter said:


> “The people get the government they deserve”. Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821) wrote in 1811: “Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle merite."
> 
> Threads have merged as well. Holden vs Ford?  No wait this has happened:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-23/ford-to-close-geelong-and-broadmeadows-plants/4707960
> 
> And not a peep from the proletariat then eh?




Maybe you don't read the newspapers but it was a pretty big story.


----------



## trainspotter

banco said:


> Maybe you don't read the newspapers but it was a pretty big story.




"WAS" being the operative word in that sentence. Now "WHERE" is it? 

Surprising none of the media are drawing conclusions/comparisons about "THAT" now is it? Did the government of the day try and save them? Nup ... have some more money to assist in the closure of Ford.



> She said the Federal and Victorian governments would contribute $39 million to help the Geelong and Broadmeadows communities deal with the job losses, and called on Ford to make its own contribution.
> 
> "The fund will work with local communities so that we can source new opportunities for those communities, new work for those communities, new work for people to have in the place where they are proud to work and so happy to live," she said.




The demise of the automobile manufacturing in Australia is a foregone conclusion. And just like Ford it will be yesterdays news.


----------



## banco

trainspotter said:


> "WAS" being the operative word in that sentence. Now "WHERE" is it?
> 
> Surprising none of the media are drawing conclusions/comparisons about "THAT" now is it? Did the government of the day try and save them? Nup ... have some more money to assist in the closure of Ford.
> 
> 
> 
> The demise of the automobile manufacturing in Australia is a foregone conclusion. And just like Ford it will be yesterdays news.




Not for South Australia it won't be.  They will be an economic basket case.


----------



## sptrawler

Well put trainspotter, if GM or Ford was going to make the Australian car industry survive, they would have done so already.
Australian manufactured cars made up 13% of new cars sold last year, that means roughly 130,000 cars between three manufacturers. That's approx 40,000 cars each, as if that's sustainable.lol

If GM or Toyota don't make there production facilities into export orientated producers, they are bound to fail, not if but when.

Maybe we could start up a fund 'car aid Australia" then people could donate to keep it all running.


----------



## trainspotter

banco said:


> Not for South Australia it won't be.  They will be an economic basket case.




South Australian government seems pretty chirpy on their website? Mining, Petroleum, Geothermal Energy.



> South Australia’s economic performance has been steadily improving.
> 
> Along with the rest of Australia, South Australia was in a strong position to maximise opportunities as they emerged after the global financial crisis. Now we are progressively closing the gap between our performance and that of the nation.
> 
> Total employment is 20 per cent higher than a decade ago and unemployment hovers at a low rate.
> 
> Despite the increasing value of the Australian dollar, exports have rebounded strongly, giving us the second fastest growth rate, after Western Australia.
> 
> Our vast mineral and energy resources, coupled with our proximity to the high-growth economies of China and India, place us in a very strong position.




http://www.dmitre.sa.gov.au/why_south_australia/economic_overview

What's this then? A mining boom in South Australia? 15,000 new jobs to be created? Instead of giving millions of dollars of taxpayers money to the communities how about RETRAINING the plant operators at Ford and Holden? 



> According to a new report, South Australian resource companies will require an extra 35,000 employees if 40 new mining and infrastructure projects get off the ground by 2030.
> 
> The preliminary figures of South Australia’s future workforce needs were released today ahead of a full report by resource workforce and skills industry body, the Resources and Engineering Skills Alliance (RESA).
> 
> The report builds on earlier work by RESA which found employment in the sector over the next seven years will approach 15,000 employees, with a small decrease in overall demand for employment between 2015 and 2016, down to around 14,800.




http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/news/35-000-new-mining-jobs-to-be-created-in-south-aust


----------



## sptrawler

McLovin said:


> Yesssss.
> 
> 
> You're completely right about the need to have an industry policy. I can see what will happen, the money will get flung at Holden, everyone shuts up and goes back to what they were doing and in 5 years time, wash, rinse and repeat.




Yes McLovin, spot on, more of the same. Forward thinking seems to be lacking in all our governments. 
Sustainable manufacturing is just that, Germany survives not because it produces cars, but because it invests and develops state of the art car technology. 
They wouldn't survive if their government proped them up to produce the same product year in year out, untill the competition forced it to improve.
Mercedes, Porsche, VW,Audi. These are the vehicles the Japanese and US manufacturers aspire to. 

If GM invested in Australian ingenuity, maybe we would be up their who knows? 
But one thing for sure, when the government is putting more money in than the parent company, it is not a go ahead scenario.
It's a bit like Swiss watches, in the 70's everyone said they were finished, Japan and digital watches was going to wipe them out. Well we all know how that ended.
I supose the comparison with Holden is, if the Swiss had made watches like Holden makes cars, they would be finished, like second tier watchmakers have been.
Like I said the only people who can save the Australian car industry is the Parent companies, they have to decide that it is an opportunity to develop a top quality product that can be exported to the world.
Otherwise it will be just a run down small producer ,that is proped up by a small government, to make a small population feel better about themselves.


----------



## drsmith

Latest Essential poll has the Coalition at 51% 2PP. Their primary support is holding at 44% although Labor's has been slowly climbing in recent weeks.

http://essentialvision.com.au/category/essentialreport

I suspect the real result is currently around 50/50.


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> Latest Essential poll has the Coalition at 51% 2PP. Their primary support is holding at 44% although Labor's has been slowly climbing in recent weeks.
> 
> http://essentialvision.com.au/category/essentialreport
> 
> I suspect the real result is currently around 50/50.




Given that they should still be in the honeymoon period that's a pretty crap result.


----------



## sptrawler

banco said:


> Given that they should still be in the honeymoon period that's a pretty crap result.



Yeh, given that they aren't sending out $1000 cheques in the mail, I suppose it is to be expected.

The last government is a hard act to follow, they were throwing dollars away like confetti.
Now we have to pay the piper, people don't like it.

It is hard for an entitlement society to adjust, say la vie.


----------



## sptrawler

At last there is an awakening, a shame more reporters don't start saying it as it is.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-...-australian-economy-that-needs-saving/5145940


----------



## trainspotter

banco said:


> Given that they should still be in the honeymoon period that's a pretty crap result.




Aaahhhh ... the nature of politics. How soon we forget. Rudd's honeymoon period was even shorter.


----------



## McLovin

sptrawler said:


> Yes McLovin, spot on, more of the same. Forward thinking seems to be lacking in all our governments.
> Sustainable manufacturing is just that, Germany survives not because it produces cars, but because it invests and develops state of the art car technology.
> They wouldn't survive if their government proped them up to produce the same product year in year out, untill the competition forced it to improve.
> Mercedes, Porsche, VW,Audi. These are the vehicles the Japanese and US manufacturers aspire to.




To be fair, sp, the Germans do actually support their car industry. The car industry is a funny beast, because even the top German marques (with the exception of Porsche) don't enjoy super nomral returns on capital, as you'd expect them to. Basically, the Japanese, and now Koreans, have eaten away at any advantage. The car industry is often used as a case study of having a desirable, well respected, premium brand but being unable to leverage it to higher returns.

But I digress. I think we agree, I'm not against government assistance per se, but I'm absolutely against giving an industry a handout just to keep the doors open, ie without any plan on how to get the industry to a profitable self supporting point. 

As I said before, the Germans manufacture pencils and export them. So it's not like it can't be done. One thing Germany has, that we don't, is the Mittelstand. Instead most of our industries are dominated by a few large rent seeking companies, with no incentive to be export orientated.


----------



## Knobby22

Yes, spot on. Well its all history now.
Only Toyota left.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Yeh, given that they aren't sending out $1000 cheques in the mail, I suppose it is to be expected.
> 
> The last government is a hard act to follow, they were throwing dollars away like confetti.
> Now we have to pay the piper, people don't like it.
> 
> It is hard for an entitlement society to adjust, say la vie.




Oh, so $5000 baby bonuses and increased family tax benefits didn't count?

Labor certainly fed the entitlement so many Australians have, but Howard gave the expectations we could cut taxes, increase spending and save money, all the while never worrying about the structural deficit all that increased spending and reduced revenue was leading us into.


----------



## 13ugs13unny

sptrawler said:


> The last government is a hard act to follow, they were throwing dollars away like confetti.
> Now we have to pay the piper, people don't like it.




..and with alot of borrowed money too, we just passed 300 B on way to 500 B...easy ~600B to 1 trillion by next federal election. 

can we afford the repayments?


----------



## DB008

Go about half way down....

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-11/leaked-emails-reveal-aggressive-style-of-john-mcternan/5149158

Surprised?


----------



## drsmith

Labor walks from another one of their own spending cuts.



> LABOR and the Greens will combine in the Senate today to block the Abbott government's proposed freeze on the indexation of the $7500 childcare rebate, despite Labor first proposing the freeze in its last budget.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...hildcare-rebate/story-fn59niix-1226781035439#


----------



## noco

drsmith said:


> Labor walks from another one of their own spending cuts.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...hildcare-rebate/story-fn59niix-1226781035439#




Mr. Shorten has become Mr. NO...NO...NO


----------



## Knobby22

There was also another announcement released at the same time as the Holden one so we all wouldn't notice.

"Hockey allows China control of coal assets."

http://www.theage.com.au/business/yanzhou-free-to-take-control-of-coal-assets-20131211-2z6eq.html


----------



## wayneL

noco said:


> Mr. Shorten has become Mr. NO...NO...NO




He must be channeling Beazley.


----------



## bunyip

Knobby22 said:


> Yes, spot on. Well its all history now.
> Only Toyota left.




And according to the article below, Toyota's days are pretty much numbered as well.
......................................................................................................................................................

Enterprise bargaining with union sealed fate
HOLDEN is going because it is easier to spend $600 million leaving Australia than it is to get out of its enterprise agreement with the union.

Returning workers to the award wage was the only hope. The taxpayer was subsidising each Holden worker to the tune of $50,000 a year, which is, by my calculation, still less than the amount the enterprise agreement adds to the cost of each employee.

PDF: Holden EBA 2011

Yes, to be clear, the employment cost of the Holden enterprise agreement is well more than $50,000 per employee a year. I defy anyone to say that enterprise bargaining with the union didn't sink Holden.

PDF: Toyota EBA Altona 2011

No one ever envisaged enterprise bargaining would produce a crisis of this proportion. Half of the Australian workforce has been bumping along for 20 years on the centralised wage-fixing model; yearly dollar amount increases have produced modest wage growth. The other half of the Australian workforce has been receiving percentage increases of about 4 per cent per annum, compounding, for 20 years.

We are on the cusp of a major crisis, enterprise bargaining wages are now just hitting the violent upswing point in the bell curve, stratospheric wage levels are ahead of us and many of our big companies are going to fall over.

Putting wages aside, productivity inhibitors in agreements cripple the ability of a company to respond to outside pressure. Unions, jaded by constant employer exaggeration about poor finances, are not facing reality. What we are seeing now with Holden and Toyota is only the beginning.

Now that Holden has announced its departure, we need to consider the Toyota situation, which will come to a head with a vote on its enterprise agreement tomorrow. In September 2011, thousands of Toyota workers went on a protracted strike to get a 12 per cent pay rise. The company caved in; a deal with a 13 per cent pay rise between then and March 2015 was given. Base rates for technical and trade workers are in the $65,000 to $97,000 range with generous allowances, loadings and penalties on top.

The Toyota enterprise agreement lists its "purpose" as "to achieve TMCA's success as a Global Company" yet no single business contract could guarantee its failure more. This document, as much as Holden's, reflects an extraordinary level of union control over daily workplace organisation.

When Toyota wants to hire someone, a union (employee) representative must sit in every single job interview as "an observer". Heaven knows what they exactly are looking out for. Perhaps they are scrutinising for union talent or maybe their presence is to convey that Toyota is a totally union-controlled company and union membership is compulsory. A table in the agreement sets out exactly how many union representatives the company has to have in every section of the workplace and 10 paid union training days a year is given to union reps.

Toyota is allowed to hire casuals only from "time to time" and not at all without union agreement, although agreement must not be "unreasonably withheld". Casuals can perform only the "agreed specified tasks" for the "agreed specified period" mandated by the union. "The maximum period for which a Casual Employee can work continuously on a full-time basis is one month" and any casual around for six months must be made a permanent employee.

Contract labour can be hired only after Toyota reaches "agreement with the relevant Union official and Employee (union) Representative". Contractors around for 12 months must be made permanent employees.

This means Toyota can never really have a hiring freeze but are continually bound to a destructive cycle of taking people on before eventually having to make them redundant. In any case, on a monthly basis, "details of all utilisation" of all "employment categories" must be "presented" to the union.

Over-staffing must be a big problem because the agreement mandates one team leader to look after "between 5-7 process workers". Supervisors, whose base rates range from $75,000 to $103,000, are forbidden from helping with workloads. Supervisors can "assist" workers only with their "verbal agreement" in certain circumstances, such as "assistance in performance of heavy/awkward lifting or stock relocation or in the performance of minor adjustments to equipment to overcome malfunctions" and "any manual task performed by a Supervisor" must not exceed "a very limited time period".

If Toyota needs to dismiss someone, an outrageous procedure of at least three years and three months continuous disciplinary action is required before dismissal can occur. This defies belief.

The procedure can technically be shortened by a dismissal if the employee commits misconduct, but any dismissal can be reversed by special arbitration powers Toyota gave the Fair Work Commission to reinstate employees upon union request.

So, Holden versus Toyota: which union enterprise agreement is worse and will the Toyota agreement destroy the company?

Both agreements caused me to repeatedly question my own sanity before briefly wondering whether there should be a special industrial relations prison created for grossly incompetent management types.

Even though Toyota say they can bear the workforce costs as long as flexibility concessions are made, unless the union agreement is dissolved by the Fair Work Commission the company is doomed.


----------



## sydboy007

So we have MT admitting the Govt will break it's pledge to have all households with a minimum 25Mbs Broadband connection by 2016.

I remember this Gem from Tony

“I want our NBN rolled out within three years and Malcolm Turnbull is the right person to make this happen.” - A letter to Australians, 7 September, 2013

or this Gem

http://www.sciencemedia.com.au/downloads/2013-8-13-5.pdf

QUESTION: 

So, all your promises that you're announcing during this election campaign, they will be implemented in full, 
That is a rock solid commitment? 

TONY ABBOTT: 

I will do what I say we will do. I want to be known as someone who under-promises and over-delivers. 

QUESTION: 

The condition of the Budget will not be an excuse for breaking promises? 

TONY ABBOTT: 

Exactly right. We will make - we will keep the commitments that we make. All of the commitments that we 
make will be commitments that are carefully costed and the savings to fund them will all be well-known 
well before people go to the polls on Saturday, September the 7th

Tis going to make any senate election in WA very very interesting


----------



## sptrawler

Knobby22 said:


> There was also another announcement released at the same time as the Holden one so we all wouldn't notice.
> 
> "Hockey allows China control of coal assets."
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/business/yanzhou-free-to-take-control-of-coal-assets-20131211-2z6eq.html




Well we made it loud and clear with the Labor/ green hoo ha and carbon tax, that we don't want to burn it.
The only two coal miners in W.A were sold to China and India about three years ago.
So now it's a big deal when China buys coal mines over East, what a hoot.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> So we have MT admitting the Govt will break it's pledge to have all households with a minimum 25Mbs Broadband connection by 2016.
> 
> I remember this Gem from Tony
> 
> “I want our NBN rolled out within three years and Malcolm Turnbull is the right person to make this happen.” - A letter to Australians, 7 September, 2013
> 
> or this Gem
> 
> http://www.sciencemedia.com.au/downloads/2013-8-13-5.pdf
> 
> QUESTION:
> 
> So, all your promises that you're announcing during this election campaign, they will be implemented in full,
> That is a rock solid commitment?
> 
> TONY ABBOTT:
> 
> I will do what I say we will do. I want to be known as someone who under-promises and over-delivers.
> 
> QUESTION:
> 
> The condition of the Budget will not be an excuse for breaking promises?
> 
> TONY ABBOTT:
> 
> Exactly right. We will make - we will keep the commitments that we make. All of the commitments that we
> make will be commitments that are carefully costed and the savings to fund them will all be well-known
> well before people go to the polls on Saturday, September the 7th
> 
> Tis going to make any senate election in WA very very interesting




Let's wait and see the outcome of the senate election, before making any grandiose statements.


----------



## IFocus

Its been quite am extraordinary start by this minority Liberal / Greens government 

Abbott has burnt political capital and hard cash on nothing issues like there is no tomorrow.

As everyone here knows I think little of Abbott and his lying deceitful false wrecker behaviour but I didn't expect him to reach such lows so early it really has been quite extraordinary. 

The continued sniping at Labor rather than governing is just killing them.

Certainly puts the likely hood of a double dissolution similar to a snow balls chance in hell.

Still gives the cartoonists plenty of material the one the other day about the gay marriage couple having a longer honey moon than Abbott was a classic.

Three more years a trillion or two in debt and there will be nothing left what a mess.


----------



## AAA

IFocus said:


> Its been quite am extraordinary start by this minority Liberal / Greens government
> 
> Abbott has burnt political capital and hard cash on nothing issues like there is no tomorrow.
> 
> As everyone here knows I think little of Abbott and his lying deceitful false wrecker behaviour but I didn't expect him to reach such lows so early it really has been quite extraordinary.
> 
> The continued sniping at Labor rather than governing is just killing them.
> 
> Certainly puts the likely hood of a double dissolution similar to a snow balls chance in hell.
> 
> Still gives the cartoonists plenty of material the one the other day about the gay marriage couple having a longer honey moon than Abbott was a classic.
> 
> Three more years a trillion or two in debt and there will be nothing left what a mess.




IF
What was the labor governments biggest success/achievement in your eyes. I'm struggling to think of anything that was delivered on time and within budget that will or has benefitted Australia. 

It will take time to clean up Labor's mess.


----------



## sydboy007

AAA said:


> IF
> What was the labor governments biggest success/achievement in your eyes. I'm struggling to think of anything that was delivered on time and within budget that will or has benefitted Australia.
> 
> It will take time to clean up Labor's mess.




Stopping a technical recession and the associated rise in unemployment and pretty much rescuing the SME sector from massive bankruptcy.

The debt we have now is smaller than the debt we'd have if we'd followed the rest of the world into recession, which would have happened due to the negative feedback loop of rising unemployment, falling house prices, business bankruptcies and banks probably needing a bailout with large losses in their commercial property loans and probably a souring of their low doc and high LVR loans - 105% loans were starting to take off.

IF only Labor had been as high taxing as Howard we wouldn't have any deficit


----------



## IFocus

AAA said:


> IF
> What was the labor governments biggest success/achievement in your eyes. I'm struggling to think of anything that was delivered on time and within budget that will or has benefitted Australia.
> 
> It will take time to clean up Labor's mess.






sydboy007 said:


> Stopping a technical recession and the associated rise in unemployment and pretty much rescuing the SME sector from massive bankruptcy.
> 
> The debt we have now is smaller than the debt we'd have if we'd followed the rest of the world into recession, which would have happened due to the negative feedback loop of rising unemployment, falling house prices, business bankruptcies and banks probably needing a bailout with large losses in their commercial property loans and probably a souring of their low doc and high LVR loans - 105% loans were starting to take off.
> 
> IF only Labor had been as high taxing as Howard we wouldn't have any deficit





AAA your comment seems to crystallise what's killing Abbott. The public voted Labor out not the Coalition in, they wanted them gone for a number of reasons but the leadership and policy debarkles would have to rated highly.

By continuously comparing the current Coalition ineptitude with Labor's 6 years in power just reminds everyone of the fraud committed by Abbott and his now broken promises.

Throw in removing the debt ceiling (blame Labor) Gonski mess (blame Labor) etc the polls show just how shallow the Coalition have been.

If you talk about stripping money off the poor super funds and paying tax breaks to rich super funds cleaning up the mess then heaven help us.

The Coalition isnt using political capital for serious reform they are throwing it away on piffle.

BTW thanks Syd


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Stopping a technical recession and the associated rise in unemployment and pretty much rescuing the SME sector from massive bankruptcy.
> 
> The debt we have now is smaller than the debt we'd have if we'd followed the rest of the world into recession, which would have happened due to the negative feedback loop of rising unemployment, falling house prices, business bankruptcies and banks probably needing a bailout with large losses in their commercial property loans and probably a souring of their low doc and high LVR loans - 105% loans were starting to take off.
> 
> IF only Labor had been as high taxing as Howard we wouldn't have any deficit




Jeez that is the funniest post you have ever thrown up Syd, I'm impressed.

Everyone has admitted the massive mining construction spend, saved the day. Now they are admitting the post construction boom is causing a massive contraction.
No, Syd says, the batts fiasco, the school canteen fiasco, the send a cheque fiasco saved us.lol,lol
Funny you were pretty critical of the housing stimulus, now it is convenient to rejoyce it.lol

"The debt we have now is less than we would have had if we had followed the rest of the world into recession" 
We were saved, because we didn't have the exposure to U.S toxic CDO's, are you trying to re write history?
You pin our theory on rising unemployment, can't you remember, we were having massive shortfalls of labour and 457's had to be increasede to meet labour demand.
You should write for Fairfax, or Walt Disney.


----------



## AAA

sptrawler said:


> Jeez that is the funniest post you have ever thrown up Syd, I'm impressed.
> 
> Everyone has admitted the massive mining construction spend, saved the day. Now they are admitting the post construction boom is causing a massive contraction.
> No, Syd says, the batts fiasco, the school canteen fiasco, the send a cheque fiasco saved us.lol,lol
> Funny you were pretty critical of the housing stimulus, now it is convenient to rejoyce it.lol
> 
> "The debt we have now is less than we would have had if we had followed the rest of the world into recession"
> We were saved, because we didn't have the exposure to U.S toxic CDO's, are you trying to re write history?
> You pin our theory on rising unemployment, can't you remember, we were having massive shortfalls of labour and 457's had to be increasede to meet labour demand.
> You should write for Fairfax, or Walt Disney.




You have covered it fairly well sp. You did leave out Labors two biggest debacles. Border protection and the NBN. Thee are going to take time to rectify. Already off to a good start with border protection.

As far as Gonski is concerned it will take time to see any results from coalition policy. It's not as if Labor did anything to improve education. It is basically a state issue and is a reflection of poor labor state government policies. It should be remembered state governments until a couple of years ago were predominantly labor.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Jeez that is the funniest post you have ever thrown up Syd, I'm impressed.
> 
> Everyone has admitted the massive mining construction spend, saved the day. Now they are admitting the post construction boom is causing a massive contraction.
> No, Syd says, the batts fiasco, the school canteen fiasco, the send a cheque fiasco saved us.lol,lol
> Funny you were pretty critical of the housing stimulus, now it is convenient to rejoyce it.lol
> 
> "The debt we have now is less than we would have had if we had followed the rest of the world into recession"
> We were saved, because we didn't have the exposure to U.S toxic CDO's, are you trying to re write history?
> You pin our theory on rising unemployment, can't you remember, we were having massive shortfalls of labour and 457's had to be increasede to meet labour demand.
> You should write for Fairfax, or Walt Disney.




Really.  The mining sector were laying of staff at the fastest rate of any sector of the economy.

http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2011/Economic-Roundup-Issue-2

_In the first six months of 2009, in the immediate aftermath of the shock waves occasioned by the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the Australian mining industry shed 15.2 per cent of its employees. Had every industry in Australia behaved in the same way, our unemployment rate would have increased from 4.6 per cent to 19 per cent in six months. Mining investment collapsed; mining output collapsed. So the Australian mining industry had quite a deep recession while the Australian economy did not have a recession.” (Page E17.)
_
I have always been critical of FHB grants because all they do is increase demand without any increase in supply causing house prices to be bid up.  They don't help housing affordability.  Better to direct the funds to the construction of affordable housing, or use it to encourage councils to allow the construction of properties where people want to live.

During the GFC we had 1 qtr of negative growth and barely got a positive result the next qtr, which at least meant newspapers weren't writing article after article about the recession and all the doom and gloom that will follow.

Do you think the demand for labor in the mining industry would have compensated for a recession in the retail and banking sectors?  Job losses at the banks was massive during the GFC, and that was with them all still making profits.  Imagine NAB UK style bad debts on the Aussie loan books of the major banks.  It would have crippled lending for years in the country.

We haven't had a few hundred thousand people lose their jobs and see their skills waste away and later find themselves with a permanently reduced income.

I have my roof bats, a perfectly Coalition acceptable beige mind you, and they've helped cut my energy bills by a significant margin.  I'm going to get year after year of energy efficiency savings.  Seems a pretty good outcome.  Definitely could have been handled better, but it achieved getting the money out into the community pretty fast and at least was better spending than Howard era baby bonuses and assorted middle class welfare.

The schools building funds helped to keep thousands of small business afloat.  Yeah we didn't the best price for the construction, but the 10-15% extra that was spent would have been cheaper than the unemployment benefits that would have been paid out if mass redundancies had ensured in the SME sector of the construction industry.  It's what kept a lot of those companies going.  Shame the owners couldn't have been a bit more civically minded.

Based on the past 100 days of the current Govt, I don't think we'd have gotten through the GFC any better.  I mean, Christopher Pyne swears blind they'd have run budget surpluses through the GFC, yet once in Govt it's all about loading up more debt this year to blame Labor, then try to produce a slightly better deficit outcome by paying more super to the wealthiest people in the country and cutting it for all the low income earners.  Where is the equity in that?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

sydboy007 said:


> Really.  The mining sector were laying of staff at the fastest rate of any sector of the economy.
> 
> http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2011/Economic-Roundup-Issue-2
> 
> _In the first six months of 2009, in the immediate aftermath of the shock waves occasioned by the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the Australian mining industry shed 15.2 per cent of its employees. Had every industry in Australia behaved in the same way, our unemployment rate would have increased from 4.6 per cent to 19 per cent in six months. Mining investment collapsed; mining output collapsed. So the Australian mining industry had quite a deep recession while the Australian economy did not have a recession.” (Page E17.)
> _
> I have always been critical of FHB grants because all they do is increase demand without any increase in supply causing house prices to be bid up.  They don't help housing affordability.  Better to direct the funds to the construction of affordable housing, or use it to encourage councils to allow the construction of properties where people want to live.
> 
> During the GFC we had 1 qtr of negative growth and barely got a positive result the next qtr, which at least meant newspapers weren't writing article after article about the recession and all the doom and gloom that will follow.
> 
> Do you think the demand for labor in the mining industry would have compensated for a recession in the retail and banking sectors?  Job losses at the banks was massive during the GFC, and that was with them all still making profits.  Imagine NAB UK style bad debts on the Aussie loan books of the major banks.  It would have crippled lending for years in the country.
> 
> We haven't had a few hundred thousand people lose their jobs and see their skills waste away and later find themselves with a permanently reduced income.
> 
> I have my roof bats, a perfectly Coalition acceptable beige mind you, and they've helped cut my energy bills by a significant margin.  I'm going to get year after year of energy efficiency savings.  Seems a pretty good outcome.  Definitely could have been handled better, but it achieved getting the money out into the community pretty fast and at least was better spending than Howard era baby bonuses and assorted middle class welfare.
> 
> The schools building funds helped to keep thousands of small business afloat.  Yeah we didn't the best price for the construction, but the 10-15% extra that was spent would have been cheaper than the unemployment benefits that would have been paid out if mass redundancies had ensured in the SME sector of the construction industry.  It's what kept a lot of those companies going.  Shame the owners couldn't have been a bit more civically minded.
> 
> Based on the past 100 days of the current Govt, I don't think we'd have gotten through the GFC any better.  I mean, Christopher Pyne swears blind they'd have run budget surpluses through the GFC, yet once in Govt it's all about loading up more debt this year to blame Labor, then try to produce a slightly better deficit outcome by paying more super to the wealthiest people in the country and cutting it for all the low income earners.  Where is the equity in that?




Syd, where have you been living for the past 6 years?

The batts, schools and NBN were the biggest waste of assets ever expended by Federal government.

A financial crisis is not an excuse for an ALP lack of governance over expenditure of a hard won surplus by a disciplined Coalition.

It comes down to bread and circuses.

Rome fell when the Romans spent more than they earnt.

Australia was close to achieving that under the ALP and would have been bankrupt under another ALP/Green duopoly of the mediocre.

Welfare is not a substitute for jobs, whether it be Centrelink or Holden.

Bugger the polls, I say, and let us make real jobs, not mickey mouse jobs that satisfy the ABC and the New Class to keep workers poor and in their place. 

The Abbott Government will deliver us from this quagmire that the ALP made.

gg


----------



## sptrawler

Sydboy, Malcolm is talking your language, you need to start listening.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/national/a/20292166/focus-on-advanced-manufacturing-turnbull/

We will go down the gurgler, following union hacks and supporting non productive debt ideology.

I think we have said on numerous occassions, if you compete with third world nations, you end up being one.


----------



## sydboy007

Get ready for the great sellout of the national interest in the hope of increased access for our Agricultural products.

http://theconversation.com/update-from-the-latest-trans-pacific-partnership-meeting-21416

_A draft of the intellectual property chapter leaked to Wikileaks in November showed the United States has continued to push for expanded and extended patent protection and exclusive rights over clinical trial data, among other provisions, that could delay access to affordable medicines.

Several countries have put forward a fairer counter-proposal. While Australia was reportedly involved in the early development of this counter-proposal, its current position is unclear.

The Australian government has maintained that it will not accept anything in the agreement that would undermine the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme or the health system.

But on the third day of talks, a leaked memo prepared as an update after the last set of talks in November revealed Australia’s support for the fairer medicines counter-proposal for the intellectual property chapter of the agreement was waning.

The memo also showed Australia had collaborated with the United States and Japan to revise the “healthcare transparency annex”, the part of the agreement that will affect the PBS._

_While he was in Singapore, Trade and Investment Minister Andrew Robb’s office also made it very clear that he was prepared to agree to an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism (ISDS) in the treaty, in exchange for access to other markets._


Since the Abbott Ministry of Truth has declared most Govt sourced information a state secret, what's the bet a deal is done over Christmas and rushed through with little to no community consultation.

How can the Govt even consider allowing ISDS when we've seen what major corporations can do with it - Phillip Morriss is using it via a Hong Kong agreement to challenge the Govt over plain packaging laws.

Labor had a blanket ban on ISDS and rightly so.  It seems to benefit only the very largest of global companies at the expense of national sovereignty!


----------



## Knobby22

Surely Syd they can't be that dumb. It worries me that Andrew Robb is the minister though. 
We did, under Howard,  sign the free trade treaty which cost us heaps, so we are pretty dumb.


----------



## sydboy007

Knobby22 said:


> Surely Syd they can't be that dumb. It worries me that Andrew Robb is the minister though.
> We did, under Howard,  sign the free trade treaty which cost us heaps, so we are pretty dumb.




The mob in power have form on doing deals to get pictures with the great and powerful that do the rest of us little benefit.  The US FTA was so biased against Australia it's not funny.

Just waiting for Abbott and Co to sell us out to the Chinese and the TPPA.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> The mob in power have form on doing deals to get pictures with the great and powerful that do the rest of us little benefit.  The US FTA was so biased against Australia it's not funny.
> 
> Just waiting for Abbott and Co to sell us out to the Chinese and the TPPA.




Would that be after Labor relaxed foreign ownership rules.
http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/08/rudd-hypocrisy-on-foreign-owned-land/

This banter can go on and on.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Would that be after Labor relaxed foreign ownership rules.
> http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/08/rudd-hypocrisy-on-foreign-owned-land/
> 
> This banter can go on and on.




The land is still here.  Giving away the right to enact policy as we see fit is not a good thing for the future.

But hey, if you're happy to support the LN+P in singing us up to FTAs that allow the largest of multinational companies to take us to court in a country of their choosing, evergreen drug patents, force us to enact draconian IP laws, then go for it.  The economy will suffer tremendously.  It may become illegal to grey import products depending on how much we get sold out by the Govt.  

The Australia tax we're charged will be back with a vengeance.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

sptrawler said:


> This on the back of a Labor government that stripped us of our only advantage, cheap energy.
> By enacting a carbon tax, that basicaly ensured our coal was sold to overseas competitors, giving them cheap energy.
> Lets just sit back and see what happens, neither you or I will change what happens.
> You are in a flat spin after 8 weeks of Liberal, I'm glad to see a change after 6 years of Labor.
> There is obviously going to be a hard time comming, as Australia re invents itself.lol
> The young guns can come up with these new technology jobs that Labor were talking about.




Agree sptrawler,

The Abbott government is dealing with much of the scorched earth left by Labor and the Greens, carbon tax brooha, Indon spying, Ford and Holden leaving, and the unfunded promises insisted on now by Shorten.

The government is not getting a fair spin from the media.

The polls will improve in 6 months to a year.

gg


----------



## sptrawler

Not wanting to rub salt in, but Syd, awhile back you held Codan up as a shining light for Australian cutting edge technology.
http://au.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=CDA.AX

I must say I have a Codan HF set.

What I'm getting at, is Labor threw money around on stupid non productive ideas. 
Now $300bn later we have nothing to show for it.
You may see it differently, I'm sure you will, however how many dirty brown coal power station were closed.
Also how many new technology jobs were created?


----------



## IFocus

Really sharp piece by Barrie Cassidy


A weak-Tea Party, anyone?



> There is no equivalent in Australia of the Tea Party that has wreaked havoc upon the Republicans in the United States. Not yet anyway, writes Barrie Cassidy.
> 
> A consequence of several bruising and often toxic political years has been the greater polarisation of opinion and a tendency for elements of the media to back one side against another.
> 
> Never before have so many analysts transparently taken positions, publicly attacking those they disagree with.
> 
> None of this is good for democracy.





http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-13/cassidy-tea-party/5152016


----------



## noco

Given the fact that the Abbott Government has had to wear the shame of the SBY spying and has had to diplomatically smooth out relations with Indonesians, the true fact has now been revealed that in 2009, the then Labor Party cabinet ministers approved the SBY tappings and not only that, but it was also endorsed by Kevin Rudd.

They should hold their heads in shame for allowing Abbott to take the blame and yet Abbott was man enough not to discredit the the previous government but once again, left to clean up the $*** left on the floor by Labor.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...irst-ladys-phone/story-e6frg76f-1226782835747


----------



## drsmith

noco said:


> Given the fact that the Abbott Government has had to wear the shame of the SBY spying and has had to diplomatically smooth out relations with Indonesians, the true fact has now been revealed that in 2009, the then Labor Party cabinet ministers approved the SBY tappings and not only that, but it was also endorsed by Kevin Rudd.
> 
> They should hold their heads in shame for allowing Abbott to take the blame and yet Abbott was man enough not to discredit the the previous government but once again, left to clean up the $*** left on the floor by Labor.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...irst-ladys-phone/story-e6frg76f-1226782835747



If that's true, it puts the timing of Kevin Rudd's retirement from politics again into focus.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Not wanting to rub salt in, but Syd, awhile back you held Codan up as a shining light for Australian cutting edge technology.
> http://au.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=CDA.AX
> 
> I must say I have a Codan HF set.
> 
> What I'm getting at, is Labor threw money around on stupid non productive ideas.
> Now $300bn later we have nothing to show for it.
> You may see it differently, I'm sure you will, however how many dirty brown coal power station were closed.
> Also how many new technology jobs were created?




* What's your point about Codan?  Are you saying their share price performance is a sign that their technology is poor, or could it be partly due to the fall int he price of Gold not so many metal detectors have been sold in Africa?

* You say $300B of debt.  How much of that was unavoidable due to the GFC and how much was due to poor policy by Labor, or to put it in another way, what kind of deficits would the LN+P have run over the last 6 years?

* The high AUD has crippled most manufacturing in Australia.  The RBA made a conscious decision to allow the AUD to increase to a level that would contain inflation.  It also helped to distribute the benefits of the massive increase in the ToT to the non mining sectors of the economy.  Could things have been done differently.  Sure.  Whether we'd be in a better situation or not I don't know.  Macro Prudential rules, broad based land tax, restriction of high LVR housing loans could have allowed lower interest rates without a blowout of debt.

* Electricity consumption has fallen.  Less demand = power station closures.


----------



## sydboy007

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Agree sptrawler,
> 
> The Abbott government is dealing with much of the scorched earth left by Labor and the Greens, carbon tax brooha, Indon spying, Ford and Holden leaving, and the unfunded promises insisted on now by Shorten.
> 
> The government is not getting a fair spin from the media.
> 
> The polls will improve in 6 months to a year.
> 
> gg




GG

What scorched earth?  Unemployment with a 5 in front of it.  The USA and Europe can only dream of that.

GDP growth just below trend, once again the USA and Europe, Japan all can only dream of that.

I certainly believe things could have been much better with the right policy settings by labor, but to say it's been a scorched earth is Abbottesque pensioner power bills doubling hyperbole.  Paid parental leave to me is not a policy to help to maintain our current standard of living.  Actually I can't think of a LN+P policy designed to help maintain our current standard of living.  Can you?

As for not getting a fair spin from the media, even Newscorp papers are being critical of how Abbott handled the expense rorts.  Surely even you found Abotts defense of Randal embarrassing.  His own version of core and non core promises, or the promises Abbott made rather than what people believed he made.  So far he's not living up to the kind of leader he said he would be.

The carbon tax has had minimal impact on the economy.  If you can provide me evidence to the contrary I'll happily read it.  You are against a market based system to price carbon, yet support Abbott's Direct Action policy, a policy that so far no member of the Government has been able to explain how it will work.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Given the fact that the Abbott Government has had to wear the shame of the SBY spying and has had to diplomatically smooth out relations with Indonesians, the true fact has now been revealed that in 2009, the then Labor Party cabinet ministers approved the SBY tappings and not only that, but it was also endorsed by Kevin Rudd.
> 
> They should hold their heads in shame for allowing Abbott to take the blame and yet Abbott was man enough not to discredit the the previous government but once again, left to clean up the $*** left on the floor by Labor.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...irst-ladys-phone/story-e6frg76f-1226782835747




So you're saying that the Howard Govt never engaged on spying in the region?  Just lucky the leaked documents didn't go back far enought to cover the former Howard Govt years.  If 3 people do the _wrong _thing but only 1 is caught, does that mean the other 2 are innocent?

What about Howard getting us involved in Iraq on evidence based on LIES, against the majority of the Australian population?  I'd say that's been a bigger cost to Australia than the current spying brouhaha.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

sydboy007 said:


> GG
> 
> What scorched earth?  Unemployment with a 5 in front of it.  The USA and Europe can only dream of that.
> 
> GDP growth just below trend, once again the USA and Europe, Japan all can only dream of that.
> 
> I certainly believe things could have been much better with the right policy settings by labor, but to say it's been a scorched earth is Abbottesque pensioner power bills doubling hyperbole.  Paid parental leave to me is not a policy to help to maintain our current standard of living.  Actually I can't think of a LN+P policy designed to help maintain our current standard of living.  Can you?
> 
> As for not getting a fair spin from the media, even Newscorp papers are being critical of how Abbott handled the expense rorts.  Surely even you found Abotts defense of Randal embarrassing.  His own version of core and non core promises, or the promises Abbott made rather than what people believed he made.  So far he's not living up to the kind of leader he said he would be.
> 
> The carbon tax has had minimal impact on the economy.  If you can provide me evidence to the contrary I'll happily read it.  You are against a market based system to price carbon, yet support Abbott's Direct Action policy, a policy that so far no member of the Government has been able to explain how it will work.




Much of what you allude to was achieved because of the Howard/Costello Government and it's good governance leading to a surplus.

When the ALP came in they saw not the world as it is, but as they and the Greens would prefer to see it.

Howard's surplus saved Australia, not the irresponsible spending and promises from Rudd, Gillard and then Rudd again, which persisted until the day before the election.

The ALP promised up to 13 years out from now, without due governance on any of their schemes, the Carbon tax and the NBN being prime examples.

The only reason the Carbon tax has had no imact was because it was a boofhead tax in the first place. A tax is supposed to collect revenue and encourage good husbandry and growth in other areas. It achieved none of these.

gg


----------



## sydboy007

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Much of what you allude to was achieved because of the Howard/Costello Government and it's good governance leading to a surplus.
> 
> When the ALP came in they saw not the world as it is, but as they and the Greens would prefer to see it.
> 
> Howard's surplus saved Australia, not the irresponsible spending and promises from Rudd, Gillard and then Rudd again, which persisted until the day before the election.
> 
> The ALP promised up to 13 years out from now, without due governance on any of their schemes, the Carbon tax and the NBN being prime examples.
> 
> The only reason the Carbon tax has had no imact was because it was a boofhead tax in the first place. A tax is supposed to collect revenue and encourage good husbandry and growth in other areas. It achieved none of these.
> 
> gg




* The Howard / Costello Govt were spending like drunken sailors in their last term of office.  They had sent the budget into structural deficit.  This was the team who thought baby bonuses was a good way to spend tax payer funds.

* Are you saying the carbon tax didn't collect revenue?  Are you saying the carbon tax hasn't helped to encourage energy efficiency (husbandry)?  We've had a 6.3% decline in electricity generation carbon emission. 

* I'm sure you'll be happy to know that the fugitive emissions from mining and gas production jumped 11.4 per cent and agricultural emissions were up 2.7 per cent and net deforestation emissions up by 1.5 per cent.  Sectors provided lots of free permits or excluded from the carbon tax.

* The LN+P had a rock solid FTTN plan that Abbot was proud of.  This was back in September mind you.  Look at their policy now.

* So you believe the fiscal stimulus provided by the Rudd Govt had no positive effect on the Australian economy?  Do you remember the mining sector was shedding jobs at a scary rate.  Small businesses were really feeling the down turn.  You believe that the Govt should have provided no support via increased spending during the GFC?

Here's some stats you might like to reflect on:

* Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows in the two years from June 2007 - encompassing the boom and subsequent bust - more than 638,000 Australian businesses shut up shop.

* Unemployment increased from 4.1 percent in February 2008 to 5.8 percent in August 2009

* Aggregate monthly hours worked declined from 1551 million in August 2008 to 1518 million in August 2009

* The household savings rate increased from 1.2 percent in the March quarter of 2008 to 8.5 percent in the December quarter.  That's a massive reduction in economic activity.

Just for interest sake, how many LN+P deficits will you excuse before you believe they should take ownership of them?

From what I've been reading the last 6 months, we don't have spending problem (though there's probably plenty of efficiency gains to be had between Fed and State responsibilities) we have a revenue problem caused by giving the temporary ToT income boom to Govt revenue as permanent tax cuts and increased transfer payments.

Rudd should have never promised to honour the Costello tax cuts before the 2007 election.  The deficits would have been much smaller.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> * The Howard / Costello Govt were spending like drunken sailors in their last term of office.  They had sent the budget into structural deficit.  This was the team who thought baby bonuses was a good way to spend tax payer funds.



This above criticism of the latter yeas of Howard / Costello Govt is not without foundation has been discussed many time in the past, but one has to wonder what Labor would have done if they were in office during above period of revenue largess. If the past 6-years was any guide, it would have been a legacy of ideological waste and mismanagement unconstrained by headline budget deficits. Then the GFC would have hit. 

Peter Costello was right when he said Labor would waste it.


----------



## Chris45

drsmith said:


> If the past 6-years was any guide, it would have been a legacy of ideological waste and mismanagement unconstrained by headline budget deficits. Then the GFC would have hit.



+10! Labor has a "Have money, will spend, ... don't have enough money, will borrow!" mentality.

Which EU country would we be comparing ourselves with now ... Greece, Spain ...?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

sydboy007 said:


> * .....




I won't go in to an item by item argument with you sydboy.

Suffice it to say that economists by and large have adjudicated on the Coalition vs ALP/Greens, and the former come out ahead as better money managers.

Australia has had the liberty in the past to vote in the ALP/Greens following a rescue by the Coalition of the previous ALP/Green mismangement.

No more will this be the case.

I cannot think of a worse 6 years for governance and risk/benefit assessment than that we were subjected to by Rudd , then Gillard and Brown, then Gillard and Milne, and finally by Rudd again.

We are in some strife, and fancy figures comparing us to basket cases such as the USA under Obama and any European country under a Social Democratic Government are specious.

One number such as unemployment does not a summer make.

We are a lucky country but cannot afford muppets such as the ALP or Greens ever again to play hookie with our destiny.

gg


----------



## sydboy007

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I won't go in to an item by item argument with you sydboy.
> 
> gg




Then how many deficits will you blame on Labor before the LN+P has to take ownership of them?

Christopher Pyne believes they're easy peasy to have, even during recessionary levels of economic downturn.

We've already gone from an of the cuff non core promise that they would have a surplus from the first budget, to in their first term, to maybe the first budget of their second term. 

We have a budget in such dire straits that the Government can afford to increase the deficit by another $8 billion for the RBA to buy foreign treasuries that pay a lower interest rate than what those same foreign treasury owners are charging for our debt.  

What indicators do you believe show good Governance then?  If having most people employed, if having real income growth are not valid indicators of successful governance then what is?


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> This above criticism of the latter yeas of Howard / Costello Govt is not without foundation has been discussed many time in the past, but one has to wonder what Labor would have done if they were in office during above period of revenue largess. If the past 6-years was any guide, it would have been a legacy of ideological waste and mismanagement unconstrained by headline budget deficits. Then the GFC would have hit.
> 
> Peter Costello was right when he said Labor would waste it.




Ho hum blaming Labor now for when they were not in power, fact Labor were not in power, if they were then Keating would have been PM, Keating help transform the Australian economy unlike Howard.

As for Costello Keating described him as a mug and a lazy Liberal as per Syds comments clearly Keating was right.


----------



## sydboy007

Chris45 said:


> +10! Labor has a "Have money, will spend, ... don't have enough money, will borrow!" mentality.
> 
> Which EU country would we be comparing ourselves with now ... Greece, Spain ...?




Yet the current Govt is looking at maybe adding another $200B+ to the current debt.  They can't even support changes to novated leases to make people prove the % use for work, though after Abbott's defence of Randall I sort of understand why.  

The current Govt has a $5B PPL scheme that will cost most of the companies paying it more than the dreaded wrecking ball carbon tax.  How does that improve the economic / competitive structure of the economy?

The current Govt has a Direct Action policy that is expensive and as yet not 1 member of the Govt has been able to explain how it will work, who will pick the winners, and how they will stop losing money on projects that don't progress or fail to provide the carbon emission reductions promised.

These are not the policies of a Government trying to contain the budget deficits, nor are they policies that help Australian businesses compete in global markets.

Labor is out of office.  Time to start focusing on the guys who have their butts on the treasury benches.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> This above criticism of the latter yeas of Howard / Costello Govt is not without foundation has been discussed many time in the past, but one has to wonder what Labor would have done if they were in office during above period of revenue largess. If the past 6-years was any guide, it would have been a legacy of ideological waste and mismanagement unconstrained by headline budget deficits. Then the GFC would have hit.
> 
> Peter Costello was right when he said Labor would waste it.




UM, didn't Howard and Costello waste quite a bit of the resource boom?  

So you believe baby bonuses weren't "a legacy of ideological waste", that the lowest rate of capital investment of an Australian Federal Govt wasn't "a legacy of ideological waste" that has caused major inefficiencies in the economy due to the lack of infrastructure.

I think it's quite possible Labor may have directed much more of the resource boom into lasting infrastructure.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> UM, didn't Howard and Costello waste quite a bit of the resource boom?
> 
> So you believe baby bonuses weren't "a legacy of ideological waste", that the lowest rate of capital investment of an Australian Federal Govt wasn't "a legacy of ideological waste" that has caused major inefficiencies in the economy due to the lack of infrastructure.
> 
> I think it's quite possible Labor may have directed much more of the resource boom into lasting infrastructure.




Maybe the 'baby bonus' was introduced to reverse our negative birth rate.

Labor overcame that problem with opening the borders, to mass immigration through Indonesia.

I bet the cost for Labors solution, far outweighs the cost of the baby bonus, both financialy and socialy.

- - - Updated - - -



sydboy007 said:


> * The Howard / Costello Govt were spending like drunken sailors in their last term of office.  They had sent the budget into structural deficit.  This was the team who thought baby bonuses was a good way to spend tax payer funds.
> 
> * Are you saying the carbon tax didn't collect revenue?  Are you saying the carbon tax hasn't helped to encourage energy efficiency (husbandry)?  We've had a 6.3% decline in electricity generation carbon emission.
> 
> * I'm sure you'll be happy to know that the fugitive emissions from mining and gas production jumped 11.4 per cent and agricultural emissions were up 2.7 per cent and net deforestation emissions up by 1.5 per cent.  Sectors provided lots of free permits or excluded from the carbon tax.
> 
> * The LN+P had a rock solid FTTN plan that Abbot was proud of.  This was back in September mind you.  Look at their policy now.
> 
> * So you believe the fiscal stimulus provided by the Rudd Govt had no positive effect on the Australian economy?  Do you remember the mining sector was shedding jobs at a scary rate.  Small businesses were really feeling the down turn.  You believe that the Govt should have provided no support via increased spending during the GFC?
> 
> Here's some stats you might like to reflect on:
> 
> * Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows in the two years from June 2007 - encompassing the boom and subsequent bust - more than 638,000 Australian businesses shut up shop.
> 
> * Unemployment increased from 4.1 percent in February 2008 to 5.8 percent in August 2009
> 
> * Aggregate monthly hours worked declined from 1551 million in August 2008 to 1518 million in August 2009
> 
> * The household savings rate increased from 1.2 percent in the March quarter of 2008 to 8.5 percent in the December quarter.  That's a massive reduction in economic activity.
> 
> Just for interest sake, how many LN+P deficits will you excuse before you believe they should take ownership of them?
> 
> From what I've been reading the last 6 months, we don't have spending problem (though there's probably plenty of efficiency gains to be had between Fed and State responsibilities) we have a revenue problem caused by giving the temporary ToT income boom to Govt revenue as permanent tax cuts and increased transfer payments.
> 
> Rudd should have never promised to honour the Costello tax cuts before the 2007 election.  The deficits would have been much smaller.




So why were they voted out?


----------



## drsmith

sptrawler said:


> So why were they voted out?



That was the electorate's fault.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Maybe the 'baby bonus' was introduced to reverse our negative birth rate.
> 
> Labor overcame that problem with opening the borders, to mass immigration through Indonesia.
> 
> I bet the cost for Labors solution, far outweighs the cost of the baby bonus, both financialy and socialy.




Labor just continued a program that Howard has started ie increased migration.

The majority of the increase in migration was in the skilled category.  We could have probably avoided the need to increase migration by so much if we had bothered to increased the skills of the workforce 10+ years ago, but pretty much failed to do this so it was either accept lower economic growth or much higher inflation.

Maybe less baby bonuses and PPL, more money on TAFE and supporting apprentices on poverty level wages would be a more productive way to spend the funds?  Labor and Coalition are both to blame for this sorry state of affairs.


----------



## drsmith

sptrawler said:


> Labor overcame that problem with opening the borders, to mass immigration through Indonesia.






sydboy007 said:


> Labor just continued a program that Howard has started ie increased migration.



Three cheers for Labor.

We just won't count the dead or the cost.


----------



## waterbottle

CRISIS IN THE LNP!

Infighting between Bernardi and Turnbull. How can the LNP "govern"? We need to elect some adults.

Kick this mob out,

WB.


----------



## trainspotter

waterbottle said:


> CRISIS IN THE LNP!
> 
> Infighting between Bernardi and Turnbull. How can the LNP "govern"? We need to elect some adults.
> 
> Kick this mob out,
> 
> WB.




Just LOL at this one .... 100 days in office and still trying to clean up the mess left behind by Rudd/Gillard/Rudd .... now THERE was some inhouse fighting !! You have another 995 days before the pencil hits the paper and slides into the ballot box. Until then I would suggest you sit back and enjoy the ride.


----------



## trainspotter

*yawn* largesse on both sides without impunity seems the norm these days .....



> TAXPAYERS shelled out more than $1.1 million over six months for near-empty air force planes to pick up politicians and other dignitaries or to return from having dropped them off.
> More than $200,000 was spent for a passenger-less KC-30A transport plane to fly to and from China in April, a Defence report shows.
> *The aircraft was used to fly then-prime minister Julia Gillard, ministers Bob Carr, Craig Emerson and Bill Shorten, staffers, bureaucrats, business delegates and journalists around in China - but it did not transport them to the country from Australia or fly them back.*
> Ms Gillard took a different RAAF plane to and from China for the trade and business trip.
> Journalists on the trip used commercial flights to get to Hainan province, where Ms Gillard started her tour.
> The air force's VIP fleet was also sent to Perth each parliamentary sitting week to bring Western Australian politicians to Canberra.
> Coalition, Labor and Greens politicians all took advantage of the flights.
> Those 10 missions cost taxpayers almost $275,000 - including $151,680 for each of the Canberra-to-Perth legs when there were no passengers.
> RAAF planes were also used to fly politicians home from Canberra after the budget week in May and the final sitting before the election in June.
> These trips cost a total of $75,210.




http://www.news.com.au/national/bre...t-over-1-million/story-e6frfku9-1226784329872


----------



## sydboy007

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxq__3z9zGM

Best summation of the first 100 days of the Abbott Govt I've seen.


----------



## sptrawler

I must admit I found Abbott's stand on the Browse basin extremely disappointing.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/mini...se-onshore-gas-processing-20131216-2zgbv.html

To follow the short sighted view of "better to dig it up and sell it". 
Rather than the long term view, is disappointing, having said that Labor had the same view.
It would appear the Barnett is one of the only politicians with Australia's long term sustainability at heart. 
He certainly appears to be a voice in the wilderness, at the moment.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> I must admit I found Abbott's stand on the Browse basin extremely disappointing.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/business/mini...se-onshore-gas-processing-20131216-2zgbv.html
> 
> To follow the short sighted view of "better to dig it up and sell it".
> Rather than the long term view, is disappointing, having said that Labor had the same view.
> It would appear the Barnett is one of the only politicians with Australia's long term sustainability at heart.
> He certainly appears to be a voice in the wilderness, at the moment.




The disappointing fact is that most levels of Govt are about the NOW and getting re-elected.  There is no sense of doing the "right" thing or genuinely looking at issues from an objective point of view.

Complex issues are either ignored or distilled down to black white either or solutions with no nuance.

As for Barnett, I'm not sure if he has the long term future on his mind or if he's just showing WA parochialism.  I suppose getting the better solution via other motivations would be considered a win in this day and age of politics.


----------



## drsmith

On matters budget, what's going on with general government services ?



> General government services' cost $29.85 Billion in 2006-07 budget year
> 
> http://www.budget.gov.au/2006-07/overview/html/overview_30.htm
> 
> General government services' cost $92.86 Billion in 2010-11 budget year
> 
> http://www.budget.gov.au/2010-11/content/overview/html/overview_37.htm



Other years I imagine would also be available. The above was part of a post response in the following ABC news article,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-17/myefo-paints-dire-picture-of-economy-deficits/5161466


----------



## IFocus

I dont get how the Coalition continues to spend.


Coalition must accept $20bn worth of blame



> FOR all the alerts on the dire state of the nation's finances, both major parties keep adding to the burden on the federal budget. While Joe Hockey went to the election vowing to improve the budget bottom line, his claims are in doubt as he makes his first big statement as Treasurer today.





http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-worth-of-blame/story-e6frgd0x-1226784436804#


----------



## banco

IFocus said:


> I dont get how the Coalition continues to spend.
> 
> 
> Coalition must accept $20bn worth of blame
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-worth-of-blame/story-e6frgd0x-1226784436804#




Because Santamaria's boy committed to keeping big ticket Labor items and insisted on adding some of his own (PPL)?  Not to mention the revenue side isn't looking too healthy.


----------



## orr

Abbott rules out Government Job Sophie Mirabella;

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...a-government-job/story-fni0cx12-1226756465160

Ah!!! but what's this;(exclusive to all news papers, but we'll just link 'Pravda', So the many can believe it's not true)

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...n-board-of-submarine-maintenance-organisation

Obviously something that Tony must only have said, so no sense taking that seriously. 

Perhaps those with a closer, intimately closer, understanding of the ASC Board, can tell us if there's any older gents among the board that Sophie may be able to 'help'.


----------



## >Apocalypto<

Swan Ginger KFud what a bloody disaster... I feel for Abbot what a mess he inherited. will be 3 years cutting just get that disaster to a manageable level.


----------



## trainspotter

IFocus said:


> I dont get how the Coalition continues to spend.




Squawk .. Like Labor didn't? 






This has been done to death.


----------



## sails

trainspotter said:


> Squawk .. Like Labor didn't?
> 
> 
> View attachment 55859
> 
> 
> This has been done to death.




TS - it's called propaganda.  Labor supporters seem to be pretending that the debt didn't happen at all under labor and are trying to make it all look like Abbott's fault.

The supposed spending by the libs in the last 100 days is more likely that labor tried to cover up some of their deficit before the were voted out.  But a rusted on labor voter is never likely to admit any such thing.


----------



## sptrawler

trainspotter said:


> Squawk .. Like Labor didn't?
> 
> 
> View attachment 55859
> 
> 
> This has been done to death.




I don't understand how you could post a disgusting graph like that, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Its not that simple.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> I don't understand how you could post a disgusting graph like that, you should be ashamed of yourself.
> 
> Its not that simple.




You could be right

Could there be some sort of relationship between how much the household and business sector saves and how much the Government is able to save?

It looks like when the household sector was piling on debt during the Howard years that Government debt started falling pretty fast, but nowhere near enough to offset the massive ballooning of economy wide debt.

Once households returned to their more historic savings levels of circa 10% Government debt started to rise again.

Did the Howard Government do anything to encourage household debt?  Possibly the halving of CGT helped to make debt the preferred way to fast track wealth accumulation?

Can you imagine the the outcry if Govt debt had increased by 13% in a single year, yet during Howard's term we had 4 years where household debt increased by more than 10%  If Only Rudd had been able to replicate the Howard years where household debt had increased by another 50% he'd be lauded as an economic miracle worker up there with Howard and Costello.  Rudd might have even lasted long enough to equal Howards DOUBLING of household debt.

I think Australia is certainly on it's way to a debt crisis, but currently it's not the Federal Govt causing it.  With an economy as diverse and large as Australia's, focusing on a small subsection generally doesn't provide a great deal of insight when looked at in isolation.


----------



## McLovin

sydboy007 said:


> Did the Howard Government do anything to encourage household debt?




Yes, it ran large surpluses. It also was also pretty open about its preference for private instead of public debt (Pitchford thesis etc). The relationship is very simple: Private debt + government debt + current account = 0.

In order for the government to run large surpluses, it depended on the private sector to take on debt in order to fund the CAD. When there was a reversal in household spending either the CAD had to shrink, or the government was going to have to fill the gap with deficit spending.

It's simple accounting.


----------



## sydboy007

trainspotter said:


> Squawk .. Like Labor didn't?
> 
> 
> View attachment 55859
> 
> 
> This has been done to death.




Does this factor in the asset sales that Howard embarked on and the foregone revenue streams?

If you have $10B in debt and $10B in assets (that generate a higher rate of income than the debt servicing costs) is it smart to sell the assets to pay off the debt?  Considering the yield on Telstra shares alone, looks like we got dudded a bit, especially now we've got to pay them XX billions to get a functional upgrade to broadband in Australia.

Some of the Government building lease back deals Howard engaged in had the Government loosing money after only a few years, while locked into long term leases.  Great for the initial money grab and debt pay down, not so good that the recurrent expenditure is a long term drain on the budget far in excess of the original debt burden that has been paid back.


----------



## bunyip

IFocus said:


> I dont get how the Coalition continues to spend.
> 
> 
> Coalition must accept $20bn worth of blame




As Hockey says, a government can’t just stop spending completely, even during tough times. 

I didn’t hear you complaining when Labor was going nuts with billions of dollars thrown at stupid projects like unnecessary and overpriced school buildings, pink bats, cash handouts (even to people no longer living in Australia), not to mention all the loot they threw at helping illegal immigrants to invade our country.

I didn't hear you complaining either when Labor was raiding the Reserve Bank for dividends, but your side is doing plenty of complaining now that Hockey replenishes the RB with a cash injection to top up their coffers after Labor's hit and run raiding.


----------



## bunyip

Don’t you just love the way that clown Shorten is swanning around the country, feigning indignation at how the big bad LNP government is supposedly treating Holden workers so shabbily.
As ACTU boss for many years, Shorten bears some of the responsibility for the impossible wages and conditions agreement that Holden was forced to broker with its workforce. In typical union style, the unions think they’ve had a win with these types of agreements, but they’re too dumb to see the detrimental effect on the profitability of the company, and hence on long term job security of union members.
Holden’s impending closure is a good example.

And Shorten was a senior member of the government that introduced the carbon tax which has been a burden on industry, thereby making companies less profitable and in some cases forcing them out of business. 
Another example of the unions and the ALP looking after the best interests of the workers? Yeh right!!
Far from realizing the folly of imposing an additional tax on struggling companies like Holden, Bill the dill is intent on blocking the government's efforts to get rid of this insidious tax that’s killing the competitiveness of our industries, and is doing almost nothing to reduce carbon emissions.
I can’t wait to hear the moaning and whining from Shorten next year when the new senate finally kills the carbon tax.


----------



## trainspotter

sydboy007 said:


> If you have $10B in debt and $10B in assets (that generate a higher rate of income than the debt servicing costs) is it smart to sell the assets to pay off the debt?  .




Show me where the income stream was greater than the interest component?

Without Howard/Costello dumbing down the debt how well do you think we would have gone through the GFC? This is what would have happened :fan We had AAA rating under Costello ..... remember?



> *PETER Costello, the treasurer who restored Australia's AAA rating with Moody's and Standard & Poor's in 2003*, says that if the budget deficit and debt "journey" continues as it has for the past five years, Australia will be at risk of being downgraded again. The former Coalition treasurer said yesterday Australia had lost its AAA credit rating under Paul Keating and it had taken a long time to restore.
> 
> Kevin Rudd has used Australia's AAA credit rating as a defence against criticism of the *budget deficit blowout to $30 billion last Friday and the breaching of the $300bn debt level.*
> 
> Announcing the September 7 election on Sunday, the Prime Minister deflected questions about the* drastic reshaping of the May budget forecasts on rising debt, deficit and unemploymen*t by asking: "If there is a debt and deficit crisis requiring an immediate return to surplus, why did the credit rating agencies provide us with an AAA credit rating?




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-peter-costello/story-fn9qr68y-1226691697171#


----------



## sydboy007

trainspotter said:


> Show me where the income stream was greater than the interest component?
> 
> Without Howard/Costello dumbing down the debt how well do you think we would have gone through the GFC? This is what would have happened :fan We had AAA rating under Costello ..... remember?




I fully agree with you that Howard and Costello did there best with _dumbing _down the understanding of Government debt.  Debt is not bad if it is used to invest in something that produces a rate of return higher than the cost of the debt.  I would also argue that debt is a fairer way to share the cost of infrastructure than tolls, as a Govt can built the infrastructure with the goal to repay the debt over the economic life if the asset, whereas the public sector is looking for 15%+ annual returns on their investment, along with very restrictive terms eg only 1 public bus route allowed to Sydney Airport and most toll roads have restrictions on improved public transport competition (at least in NSW)

We have to remember a 1/3 of the debt that Howard received from the Hawke / Keating Govt was actually from the previous Fraser / Howard Govt.

The assets sold by Howard can be viewed at http://www.finance.gov.au/property/asset-sales/past-sales.html  (it does include some by the previous Labor Govt as well)

Considering the money being made by Telstra and Syd Airport alone, along with the other airport leases sold, I'm pretty confident in saying a lot of the assets were at least breaking even, and probably cash flow positive.

http://www.marketeconomics.com.au/2095-more-facts-behind-the-howard-governments-debt-elimination

_The $96 billion “Labor debt” inherited by the Howard Government in 1996 comprised $39.9 billion of Fraser Government debt that carried through the Hawke/Keating period meaning that the true level of Labor debt in 1996 was $56 billion.  To pay that $56 billion off, the Howard Government sold almost $72 billion of Government assets meaning the move to negative net debt was not really due to any miraculous and bold fiscal settings, but owed everything to a series of asset sales._

We have some of the highest Telecommunications charges in the world, and Syd airport is known globally for the price gouging it engages in, and a Liberal State Govt bequeathed us one of the most expensive Airport rail lines based on KM charging IN THE WORLD!

Howard was no economic miracle worker.  He just presided over a massive consumer debt binge along with a once in a century terms of trade boom and flogged off just about every commonwealth asset he could, while saddling the budget with unsustainable tax cuts and middle class welfare increases.

Tony keeps saying he wants a return to the golden years of Howard, yet I doubt the household sector can really take on much more debt.  Too many households out there are living pay packet to pay packet.  I'm rather happy the household sector has returned to a more prudent lifestyle.  The negative savings rate of the Howard years was unsustainable.  The adjustment back to spending growth inline with income growth is going to be painful, and Tony / Hockey are not going to have fun trying to balance a budget where the private sector is still in savings mode.


----------



## trainspotter

sydboy007 said:


> I fully agree with you that Howard and Costello did there best with _dumbing _down the understanding of Government debt.  Debt is not bad if it is used to invest in something that produces a rate of return higher than the cost of the debt.  I would also argue that debt is a fairer way to share the cost of infrastructure than tolls, as a Govt can built the infrastructure with the goal to repay the debt over the economic life if the asset, whereas the public sector is looking for 15%+ annual returns on their investment, along with very restrictive terms eg only 1 public bus route allowed to Sydney Airport and most toll roads have restrictions on improved public transport competition (at least in NSW)




Ummmmm you might want to do a bit more homework on the subject matter at hand. I concur that debt is good if the income derived from the asset is enough to cover the outgoings/interest/amortisation BUT if it does not then it is time for the asset to be sold to cover the debt. Still waiting on proof rather than assumptions.

The Federal government goal is to no longer in the business of owning public assets. This is for private enterprise who are expecting 15%+ return on their assets.

The public sector refers to the part of the economy concerned with providing basic government services BTW. Police, education, military, healthcare for the poor etc. 

This has been done to death. The thread is about Abbott and his government and as far as I can see we have another 990 days before an election. Good night


----------



## sptrawler

Another back flip, they are now talking about toning down the parental leave promise.

Looks like all the lefties may get what they wanted.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Another back flip, they are now talking about toning down the parental leave promise.
> 
> Looks like all the lefties may get what they wanted.




Glad to know the right were such strong supporters of Abbotts PPL.

Probably after the Graincorp cave in to the nationals Tony had to give something to the economic Liberals in the party.

Shame they're going to water down the FOFA legislation.

How is not requiring a Financial Advisor to tell their long term clients how much they're being charged for services in the best interests of the client?

How is continuing to allow conflicted advised to clients good for them?  GREAT outcome for the industry though.

How is not being required to acting in the clients' best interests good for clients?

Seems the main thrust of the legislation has been removed.  Not sure if there's anything worthwhile left in it.

This Govt will have to take a measure of responsibility for the next version of Storm Financial after making these changes.

Seems all that the Government is worried bout is the costs to the industry, not the general public who need better protections.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/cons...future-20131219-2znxq.html?rand=1387485621027

_...stats compiled by Rice Warner Actuaries this year, commissioned by Industry Super Australia, which estimated that the FOFA reforms would boost Australians' private savings under advice by $144 billion by 2027 and that the average cost of advice would fall from $2046 before the reforms to $1163 after the reforms by 2027._

Another victory to the rentier class!


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Glad to know the right were such strong supporters of Abbotts PPL.
> 
> Probably after the Graincorp cave in to the nationals Tony had to give something to the economic Liberals in the party.
> 
> Shame they're going to water down the FOFA legislation.
> 
> How is not requiring a Financial Advisor to tell their long term clients how much they're being charged for services in the best interests of the client?
> 
> How is continuing to allow conflicted advised to clients good for them?  GREAT outcome for the industry though.
> 
> How is not being required to acting in the clients' best interests good for clients?
> 
> Seems the main thrust of the legislation has been removed.  Not sure if there's anything worthwhile left in it.
> 
> This Govt will have to take a measure of responsibility for the next version of Storm Financial after making these changes.
> 
> Seems all that the Government is worried bout is the costs to the industry, not the general public who need better protections.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/business/cons...future-20131219-2znxq.html?rand=1387485621027
> 
> _...stats compiled by Rice Warner Actuaries this year, commissioned by Industry Super Australia, which estimated that the FOFA reforms would boost Australians' private savings under advice by $144 billion by 2027 and that the average cost of advice would fall from $2046 before the reforms to $1163 after the reforms by 2027._
> 
> Another victory to the rentier class!




Firing from the hip again Syd?
Dr Smith and several Abbott supporters, said they hoped Abbott would water down the PPL and it looks like they will.
Labor/union backed industry super funds, were pushing hard to demonise retail funds. I do agree reform is needed but some form of logical middle ground is required.
I don't use industry or retail funds so really don't have a vested interest either way.
I'll wait untill changes are made, before making a decision one way or the other.


----------



## wayneL

sydboy007 said:


> Glad to know the right were such strong supporters of Abbotts PPL.




I don't know anyone from the right in my circle of friends that supports PPL. I'm centrist and I hate it; I'd like to see it gone altogether.

AFAIC it's bad policy.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Firing from the hip again Syd?
> Dr Smith and several Abbott supporters, said they hoped Abbott would water down the PPL and it looks like they will.
> Labor/union backed industry super funds, were pushing hard to demonise retail funds. I do agree reform is needed but some form of logical middle ground is required.
> I don't use industry or retail funds so really don't have a vested interest either way.
> I'll wait untill changes are made, before making a decision one way or the other.




Sorry, I forgot to put my _/sarcasm_ tag on

Would you want to go to a doctor that had the pharmaceutical industrys' best interests at the fore rather than yours?

Maybe I'm quite upset because when I was younger and more trusting I got rolled by shoddy financial "advice".  The damage went on for over 5 years. I'm probably 10 years behind where I should be with the money I lost and the opportunity cost.

Do you think the roll backs that the Abbott Govt is proposing are a "logical middle ground"?

Do you agree that conflicted advise is acceptable?  Do you support financial advisors being able to hide some of the commissions they're receiving?

As for demonising retail funds, considering the fee gouging many of them have engaged in the last 10+ years, they totally deserve it.  Over $20B a year in fees and counting just for the super industry alone.  Too many ticket clippers and not enough service providers.



wayneL said:


> I don't know anyone from the right in my circle of friends that supports PPL. I'm centrist and I hate it; I'd like to see it gone altogether.
> 
> AFAIC it's bad policy.




Besides Tony and the Greens who really did support the PPL policy?  Definitely none of my centre right or left friends supported it, even a couple who are planning to have their second child were happier with Labors' parental leave policy.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Sorry, I forgot to put my _/sarcasm_ tag on
> 
> 
> Maybe I'm quite upset because when I was younger and more trusting I got rolled by shoddy financial "advice".  The damage went on for over 5 years. I'm probably 10 years behind where I should be with the money I lost and the opportunity cost.
> 
> .




We have all been there, I saw a financial advisor immediately after the 87 crash, I was in my early 30's.
He recommended units in insurance bonds.
Well to cut a long story short, after two years of going nowhere, cashed them in and bought Westpac at $2.50 and ANZ at $3.00, then Woolies at $2.40 when they were spun out of Adelaide Steamships.
Never looked back, since then do it all myself.
The problem with industry funds the governance IMO is suspect, the problem with retail funds is fees.
The answer isn't to crush the retail model, but find a middle ground.
One thing for sure the industry funds will have just as many underlying problems.IMO


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> We have all been there, I saw a financial advisor immediately after the 87 crash, I was in my early 30's.
> He recommended units in insurance bonds.
> Well to cut a long story short, after two years of going nowhere, cashed them in and bought Westpac at $2.50 and ANZ at $3.00, then Woolies at $2.40 when they were spun out of Adelaide Steamships.
> Never looked back, since then do it all myself.
> The problem with industry funds the governance IMO is suspect, the problem with retail funds is fees.
> The answer isn't to crush the retail model, but find a middle ground.
> One thing for sure the industry funds will have just as many underlying problems.IMO




You've avoided defining what you see a logical middle ground.

If you are going to "trust" a financial advisor then there has to be a legislated requirement that the advisor has the clients best interests at the fore.  Currently it doesn't seem to be in many cases.

Labor has tried to make that a requirement.  The current Govt seems to not think it's necessary.  Do you agree with the current Government that conflicted advice is OK?  If not, then the changes they are considering should worry you.

Waiting for the legislation to come out will probably mean it's too late to change it, considering how much effort the FIRE sector has put into watering down the FOFA already.  What Abbott is proposing is like winning Oz Lotto every week of the year for the FIRE sector.

You believe the Industry funds have suspect Governance, yet isn't the high fees paid via the retail funds also an aspect of Governance that has been used to funnel billions of dollars into the big banks and likes of AMP and Macquarie?  Just look at the issues that are coming to light from the Comm Bank allowing their advisors to run riot.  Corruption and greed is not a "union" only problem.  I'd argue retail superfund trustees face more conflicts with their "masters" interests and fund members than the industry funds do.

At least for most of the last 20 years the industry funds have outperformed the retail sector, mainly due to the lower fees.  It's been a great outcome for those in the industry funds, not so great for the profits of the retail sector.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> You've avoided defining what you see a logical middle ground.
> 
> If you are going to "trust" a financial advisor then there has to be a legislated requirement that the advisor has the clients best interests at the fore.  Currently it doesn't seem to be in many cases.
> 
> Labor has tried to make that a requirement.  The current Govt seems to not think it's necessary.  Do you agree with the current Government that conflicted advice is OK?  If not, then the changes they are considering should worry you.
> 
> Waiting for the legislation to come out will probably mean it's too late to change it, considering how much effort the FIRE sector has put into watering down the FOFA already.  What Abbott is proposing is like winning Oz Lotto every week of the year for the FIRE sector.
> 
> You believe the Industry funds have suspect Governance, yet isn't the high fees paid via the retail funds also an aspect of Governance that has been used to funnel billions of dollars into the big banks and likes of AMP and Macquarie?  Just look at the issues that are coming to light from the Comm Bank allowing their advisors to run riot.  Corruption and greed is not a "union" only problem.  I'd argue retail superfund trustees face more conflicts with their "masters" interests and fund members than the industry funds do.
> 
> At least for most of the last 20 years the industry funds have outperformed the retail sector, mainly due to the lower fees.  It's been a great outcome for those in the industry funds, not so great for the profits of the retail sector.




So you think the industry funds don't funnel funds into the Banks Master Funds? Also, you think there isn't any union 'scratch my back' board appointments?

I'm avoiding defining the logical middle ground, because I'm old enough to know, that I don't have the answers.

That's why I run my own investments and SMSF, also why I tend to take advice from older people.
They've seen more than me and lived through more 'once in a lifetime meltdowns', than I have.

Sounds like you should put your money in an industry fund.

I personaly don't give a rats what the outcome is.


----------



## Logique

Ambassador for Women and Girls?

No better candidate could be found than Natasha Scott-Despoja, she of the feminist-leftist orthodoxy, and long time Coalition critic? 

Julie Bishop, what were you thinking.

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...self_inflicted_wounds_an_opening_for_enemies/


----------



## sails

Logique said:


> Ambassador for Women and Girls?
> 
> No better candidate could be found than Natasha Scott-Despoja, she of the feminist-leftist orthodoxy, and long time Coalition critic?
> 
> Julie Bishop, what were you thinking.
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...self_inflicted_wounds_an_opening_for_enemies/





It's crazy. It won't appease the left and will upset conservative supporters. It's a lose:lose, IMO.


----------



## Tink

Yes, agree too, great post, Logique.

I like Miranda's blogs.


----------



## Knobby22

sails said:


> It's crazy. It won't appease the left and will upset conservative supporters. It's a lose:lose, IMO.




Isn't she married to a Liberal now? Let's face it, most of them, they are the political class. They mix in their own circles.


----------



## basilio

How in God's name did Tony Abbott get away with appointing Natasha Scott-Despoya as Ambassador for Women and Girls ?

She's intelligent, articulate and has been an excellent role model for women since joining Federal parliament as a 26year old.  The appointment is far too astute and makes far too much sense to be seen as Tony's work doesn't it ?

Or maybe he has more than one side ?


----------



## Calliope

'Tis the season to be jolly stingy!


----------



## Logique

The government, and the Health Minister in particular, has some explaining to to do. 

Using the festive season to foist one scarey health announcement after another on already stretched consumers.

approves private health premiums up +6%, announced just two days before Christmas
 leaks a 6 month delay of considering the unwinding of the means test on premiums rebate
today leaks the possible intention to charge $5 per visit under Medicare
The holiday season timing is mean spirited, bordering on politically cowardly. 

PM Abbott, your government needs to be better than this.


----------



## McLovin

Logique said:


> The government, and the Health Minister in particular, has some explaining to to do.
> 
> Using the festive season to foist one scarey health announcement after another on already stretched consumers.
> 
> approves private health premiums up +6%, announced just two days before Christmas
> leaks a 6 month delay of considering the unwinding of the means test on premiums rebate
> today leaks the possible intention to charge $5 per visit under Medicare
> The holiday season timing is mean spirited, bordering on politically cowardly.
> 
> PM Abbott, your government needs to be better than this.




Aside from the timing, do you disagree with these proposals?

If people are going to stay in private health care anyway, then it doesn't really make sense for the government to rebate them.


----------



## Logique

Mainly about the timing, but I think $5 per Medicare consultation is politically idiotic, and administerable only with difficulty/extra cost on medical centres.

Initial imposition of the means test was Labor's doing. As predicted, it  has led to people bailing out of private insurance, raising the price for those that remained, and has placed even more pressure on an already groaning public system. 

As with the the asylum seeker policy, it was ideology before practicality for Labor.

The public system is swamped. This is not a situation in which to place more pressure on private health. 

Public + Private makes the health package, not that Labor seems to comprehend it.


----------



## sydboy007

Logique said:


> Mainly about the timing, but I think $5 per Medicare consultation is politically idiotic, and administerable only with difficulty/extra cost on medical centres.
> 
> Initial imposition of the means test was Labor's doing. As predicted, it  has led to people bailing out of private insurance, raising the price for those that remained, and has placed even more pressure on an already groaning public system.
> 
> As with the the asylum seeker policy, it was ideology before practicality for Labor.
> 
> The public system is swamped. This is not a situation in which to place more pressure on private health.
> 
> Public + Private makes the health package, not that Labor seems to comprehend it.




While I don't think a co-payment is a bad thing, I'm not sure how many people get bulk billed these days?  Certainly I'v not been to a doctor that does for over a decade.

As for private health care saving the public system, I'm not convinced that it's money well spent.  Was reading an article a year or two ago that was looking at how the private hospitals tend to over service.  An example they used was for heart stents.  There's 2 types.  In the public system they used the cheaper version in around 90% of patients and the more expensive ones for the remainder who it was determined had a medical requirement for them.  Cost was $8K versus $20K.  In the private hospitals it was something like 70 to 80% of patients had the more expensive stents used, even though there wasn't much of a greater medical need for them.

If private hospitals can perform the various surgeries at the same cost or cheaper than the public system, then it's a good thing to have the competition, but if the cost of the private system combined with PHI means it's a more expensive system, then we might be better off increasing the medicare levy and putting extra funds into the cheaper system.

Now lets hope Abbott isn't stoopid enough to sign the TPP because from what I've read it's nearly guaranteed to cause a blow-out in pharmaceutical costs.  Just what we need with a massive increase in over 65s and giving the green light to big pharma to evergreen their patents and keep the cost of drugs sky high.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

I read somewhere that the number of knee operations in an area is only directly proportional to the number of orthopoedic surgeons in that area.

Not to the number of knackered knees, football teams, or professions at danger of getting knackered knees such as priests. 

So some means of holding down access to unnecessary treatments or tests may be justified. 

Some people are sick a lot. Others not. Some just feel they are sick and free access may be counter-intuitive for them.

$5 is not much, it's about 7 cigarettes.

gg


----------



## waterbottle

Garpal Gumnut said:


> $5 is not much, it's about 7 cigarettes.
> 
> gg





Nah mate, it has actually increased to $6 now. Also it may be extended to emergency room visits.

I don't know about you, but I live in Australia. Not America.

The LNP is a joke.


----------



## CanOz

waterbottle said:


> Nah mate, it has actually increased to $6 now. Also it may be extended to emergency room visits.
> 
> I don't know about you, but I live in Australia. Not America.
> 
> The LNP is a joke.




Its gonna get worse without as many high paid auto workers to contribute taxes....


----------



## sails

CanOz said:


> Its gonna get worse without as many high paid auto workers to contribute taxes....




I'm not sure of the exact figures but I think the taxpayer is funding more than the auto workers would pay in tax. If so, how can it get worse?


----------



## CanOz

sails said:


> I'm not sure of the exact figures but I think the taxpayer is funding more than the auto workers would pay in tax. If so, how can it get worse?




Nah Sails, more of a tongue in cheek comment...the point is that its a liberal government now, less socialist, more user pays type of thing...which i think is good. Australia was always a nice mix somewhere between the US and Canada, clearly they con't continue to spend like the Labor government did....


----------



## sydboy007

CanOz said:


> Nah Sails, more of a tongue in cheek comment...the point is that its a liberal government now, less socialist, more user pays type of thing...which i think is good. Australia was always a nice mix somewhere between the US and Canada, clearly they con't continue to spend like the Labor government did....




Imagine if they'd tried to keep spending like the previous Coalition Govt.

Labors' main fault was allowing treasury to be too optimistic on the revenue side.  Whether they applied pressure on Treasury to pump up the forecasts I don't know.  TBH pretty stupid if they did.

1% of GDP is worth a cool $16B so getting an extra 2% of revenue certainly makes balancing the budget easier.  I'd say the issue is as much the gutting of revenue as over spending.

There's plenty of middle class welfare that can be pared back over a few years, but I don't see Abbott as having the ticker for it.  Too many years on the populist route in opposition and with all the quotes he's provided over the years Labor will have a field day with anything too harsh.

I'm expecting the Coalition will target the poor and sections of the community that lack the organisation to mount an effective campaign against any proposed cuts.


----------



## DB008

i don't think this medicare $5 doctor visit fee is a good thing to start. It leads other governments to jack up the price, and before we know it, its $20 upfront per visit...


----------



## McLovin

Logique said:


> Mainly about the timing, but I think $5 per Medicare consultation is politically idiotic, and administerable only with difficulty/extra cost on medical centres.
> 
> Initial imposition of the means test was Labor's doing. As predicted, it  has led to people bailing out of private insurance, raising the price for those that remained, and has placed even more pressure on an already groaning public system.




Isn't costing the government less though? The number of people who have dropped out is fairly low, 300,000 out of 9-10 million. Which was my point, why subsidise something that people are going to use anyway.

Re the $5 charge, I'd prefer the cuts to spending to come from elsewhere.


----------



## Logique

But McL, even on your figures that's 300k/9,500k = 3.1%, when the latest premium increase is 6.2%. And public health is effectively a subsidy too (if you can access it through the throng).



> *John Glover voices fears GP fee will make poor suffer* - December 31, 2013
> 
> ...A $6 fee for doctor visits would discourage the wrong people from visiting the doctor *while doing nothing to dissuade those who already see their GPs too much*, the director of the public health information development unit at the University of Adelaide, John Glover, said.
> 
> ....The health program director at the Grattan Institute, Stephen Duckett, said the Abbott government would get a "bad policy outcome" if it followed Mr Barnes' advice. "In the healthcare system there's a trade-off between costs and equity," he said.
> By introducing a $6 fee, the government "might save money in the short-term at the cost of equity", Dr Duckett said. *Emergency departments would soon fill up with patients who had delayed seeing their GPs* for preventive medicine.
> "It's the low-income families who are not using healthcare to the extent they should," Dr Duckett said.
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...poor-suffer-20131231-304go.html#ixzz2p5Z0FL1n


----------



## drsmith

Religion and politics are never a good mix.

It's where Cory Bernardi is coming from with his views that worries me the most.



> He said the diminished influence of religion in Australian society had left the country lacking direction.
> 
> "I believe that by stripping God and religious principles from our culture (and our politics) we have become a nation which does not know which port it is sailing to," Senator Bernardi writes.




http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...in-controversial-new-book-20140106-30cob.html


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> Religion and politics are never a good mix.
> 
> It's where Cory Bernardi is coming from with his views that worries me the most.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...in-controversial-new-book-20140106-30cob.html




Maybe he looks at the Muslim countries and wishes the Catholic church could go back to the good old days when it WAS the Government?

Will be very interesting to see what Abbott says.  So far the silence is deafening.  A few days of this and one has to consider at least tacit support for Bernardis' views.

Anyone know if he was wearing a blue tie at the time of his rant?


----------



## JoeDiaz

As a small business owner, I'm worried about how the new budget is going to effect my businesses.  My accountant sent me this videoupdate.me/on-the-money/generic/ video (not too big on the accountant speak but now I have a say when we meet up).  
Pretty clever way my accountant lets me know whats going on.  Eitherway, fingers crossed for the new budget.  Wouldn't mind a few worry-free years.


----------



## McLovin

drsmith said:


> Religion and politics are never a good mix.
> 
> It's where Cory Bernardi is coming from with his views that worries me the most.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...in-controversial-new-book-20140106-30cob.html




Cory Bernardi is a grade-A moron. How a dimwit like that ended up in the senate is unbelievable. Time for some senate reform; if he's getting a seat then there's too many seats.

The Libs need to shut him down, because whatever he may think, his views are at the extreme end of even US Bible belt politics.


----------



## sydboy007

http://www.amazon.com/THE-CONSERVAT...&qid=1389093077&sr=8-1&keywords=Cory+Bernardi

Get your order in, or just have a laugh at the reviews.


----------



## CanOz

> Get your order in, or just have a laugh at the reviews




ROTFLMAO!


----------



## sydboy007

At least Warren Entsch has had the cajones to stand up and give Corgi a serving.

Abbots' effort so far of saying Corgi doesn't represent the position of the Government reminds me of 'Allo 'Allo where the Nazi offices had something for limp celery.

Hey Tony, does Corgi represent your position?

If Corgi is truly representative of Liberal values in this country then Canberra, we have a problem.


----------



## basilio

The Amazon reviews of Corey 's book are beyond measure. priceless in fact!!!  

I just have to share one of the 5 star reviews. TFM !!



> Life with Helen the past 10 years has been pretty good. It wasn’t always easy, and I’m not proud to admit that I had to beat her occasionally in the beginning. Of course, we both understood that I only beat her because I loved her and wanted her to be the best woman she could be. And I’m pleased to say that she’s been a fantastic wife ever since: she keeps a spotless house, she always has a hot dinner cooked for me when I get home from work, and she always makes an effort to look good when we’re in public together (which required the liberal use of concealer at times in the early days!). I haven’t had to raise a hand to her in years. She’s also a fantastic mother to my 8-year-old son, Isaac, although he has developed a weird facial tic and the school counsellor says he’s too scared to use the bathroom by himself. I’m not worried - It’s nothing a bit of schoolyard bullying won’t fix eventually.
> 
> Lately I’ve noticed several worrying trends in Helen’s behaviour. She's been spending too much time on her iPad and I think it’s exposing her to some dangerous ideas. Some days when I get home the house isn’t as neat as it used to be, and last month she seemed less enthusiastic about performing her scheduled “wifely duties” (every second Friday night, when I get home from after-work drinks with the boys) . The other day I walked in and caught her watching Modern Family. She quickly turned the TV off, but we both knew.
> 
> Salvation came last week when I found a copy of Cory Bernardi’s new book, The Conservative Revolution, lying in the gutter next to a train station. Now, I’m not usually much of a reader, but phwoooaar! What a book! It is no stretch to say that The Conservative Revolution is a literary masterpiece, easily on par with “The Meaning of Luck: Stories of Learning, Leadership and Love” by Steve Waugh. It confirmed everything that I already knew about the world as well as some things that I suspected: The “gold standard” for raising children is a marriage between a man and a woman; abortion is a “death industry”; being gay or Islamic is simply wrong. Bernardi seduces the reader with tales of a simpler time, when Australia was uniformly white and women possessed neither the skills nor the social status to survive without a male breadwinner. The 1950s were indeed a golden age and the natural end-point of societal evolution, with all subsequent change being a perversion of the utopian ideal. If only Helen understood this as clearly as Bernardi and me, then she would know her place once again.
> 
> Last Saturday night, after Helen had gone to bed, I had an idea. I put my copy of The Conservative Revolution on the coffee table, positioning it carefully where I knew she’d see it when she got up to make me breakfast before church.
> 
> I awoke on Sunday with a frisson of anticipation, but upon going downstairs saw that something was wrong. Helen was sitting on the couch playing with her iPad. The book was in the exact place I’d left it. She wasn’t even wearing a Sunday dress.
> “What the hell are you wearing?” I asked.
> “My new jeans. I got them online last week. You like them?”
> “But you always wear a nice dress for church…”
> “I’m not sure I really feel like going to church today, honey.”
> My mind was reeling and confused. “Wha… what did you make for breakfast?” I stammered.
> “Oh, I’ve had some cornflakes already. I thought we could make our own breakfasts this morning.”
> 
> With unthinking masculine instinct, I grabbed Bernardi’s book from the coffee table and smacked her across the face with it, hard as I could. Knocked her clean off the couch. Thankfully, Bernardi’s manifesto is in paperback form and comes in at a concise 176 pages, so the damage wasn’t too bad. Still, she had a nice bruise coming up around her left eye. I noticed Isaac peeping in from the hallway, wide-eyed with fear. “Go to your room,” I snarled.
> 
> After a few moments, Helen stopped whimpering and looked up at me from the floor. “I’m… I’m sorry, darling” she said. “I’ll put a nice dress on and make you breakfast.”
> “You might want to do something about your face. can’t take you to church looking like that.”
> She smiled wanly. “I’ll get the concealer.”



http://www.amazon.com/review/R3LUZ9WFROKUPN/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R3LUZ9WFROKUPN


----------



## IFocus

basilio said:


> The Amazon reviews of Corey 's book are beyond measure. priceless in fact!!!
> 
> I just have to share one of the 5 star reviews. TFM !!
> 
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/review/R3LUZ9WFROKUPN/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R3LUZ9WFROKUPN




Classic thanks Basilio the reviews are priceless


----------



## wayneL

This one was on top when I looked.. clever, and apt LOL

FFS this guy belongs with Pauline Hanson's mob.... astonishingly politically stupid.



> By Tim Bell on January 6, 2014
> Let me be upfront from the start: I didn't buy this book.
> 
> It's only 178 pages long, and at the current price of just under $27, it's quite expensive as well. So already one's expectations are for a good quality product, given that it costs over 15 cents per page (or 30 cents per sheet, in other words).
> 
> Just for comparison, my local Woolworths has toilet paper on sale for 20 cents per ONE HUNDRED sheets, or less than 1% the price per sheet of this book!!
> 
> As I confessed at the start, I haven't actually bought this book, so I just have to assume that it's printed on the same kind of paper that most paperbacks are printed on. If you're like me, and have occasionally wiped your nether regions with a sheet of an old Agatha Christie murder mystery, or maybe a Deepak Chopra self-help title, you know that it's a poor substitute for a good-quality piece of toilet tissue. So, without any evidence or claims to the contrary, I have to assume that this paperback is the same, with rough, untextured and single-ply pages that irritate, and (let's be honest) don't actually do as good a job at wiping as proper toilet tissue.
> 
> So that's really all there is to it: it's overpriced, and inferior to competing products, so why would you buy it? The Kleenex and Scott products are much better value for money, more effective, and so much more pleasant to use.


----------



## sydboy007

I just don't understand why conservative political parties are always so worried about what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

I also don't know why they seem to think they are the shinning light and example all should follow.  They're the same in every western country really.  Always have that religous bent to their thinking and seem to want to impose their moralistic views on the rest of the population.

I mean, between slipper at one extreme and corgi at the other, the Coalition really knows how to pick their senators.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> I just don't understand why conservative political parties are always so worried about what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.
> 
> I also don't know why they seem to think they are the shinning light and example all should follow.  They're the same in every western country really.  Always have that religous bent to their thinking and seem to want to impose their moralistic views on the rest of the population.
> 
> I mean, between slipper at one extreme and corgi at the other, the Coalition really knows how to pick their senators.




I haven't followed the macro management of the Government, as yet. 
However the influx of taxi drivers has reduced.
I'm still yet to make a decission on their monetary policy.


----------



## Julia

sydboy007 said:


> I just don't understand why conservative political parties are always so worried about what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.



Why are you taking the silly comments of one senator and conflating these with the view of the whole party?
Mr Abbott has said that Senator Bernardi's comments do not represent party policy.
You just seem to grasp at any opportunity to misrepresent the Coalition.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> I just don't understand why conservative political parties are always so worried about what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.



Is  Cory Bernardi the new political anti-Christ of the Left ?

I thought that was Malcolm Turnbull.

In any case, just because Labor formally married the Greens after the 2010 election, it doesn't mean people can't do what they like in the privacy of their own bedrooms when they're not married.

EDIT: 



Julia said:


> Why are you taking the silly comments of one senator and conflating these with the view of the whole party?
> Mr Abbott has said that Senator Bernardi's comments do not represent party policy.
> You just seem to grasp at any opportunity to misrepresent the Coalition.




You took the words right out of my post.


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> Why are you taking the silly comments of one senator and conflating these with the view of the whole party?
> Mr Abbott has said that Senator Bernardi's comments do not represent party policy.
> You just seem to grasp at any opportunity to misrepresent the Coalition.




I prefer Warren Entschs' reprimand to Tony's limp cellary one.  

Corgi may not represent party policy, but does he represent Tony's views?

Quite often 1 member of the ALP is used to make representations about the entire ALP party.  Just have to see the comments on here about Thomson.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> I prefer Warren Entschs' reprimand to Tony's limp cellary one.
> 
> Corgi may not represent party policy, but does he represent Tony's views?
> 
> Quite often 1 member of the ALP is used to make representations about the entire ALP party.  Just have to see the comments on here about Thomson.




That is probably because Labor reps come through the union ranks.
Maybe you should try applying for Labor preselection.
Then you could post on how it went.


----------



## wayneL

sydboy007 said:


> I just don't understand why conservative political parties are always so worried about what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.
> 
> I also don't know why they seem to think they are the shinning light and example all should follow.  They're the same in every western country really.  Always have that religous bent to their thinking and seem to want to impose their moralistic views on the rest of the population.
> 
> I mean, between slipper at one extreme and corgi at the other, the Coalition really knows how to pick their senators.




That may or may not be true Syd. But I don't think the majority of Liberal parliamentarians are of the religious right at all.

But aren't you being a tad hypocritical? Maybe monumentally, stupendously, gargantuanly hypocritical? The left have always attempted, with varying degrees of success, to be social engineers; to manipulate and sometimes legislate people's very thinking. They have always indulged in 'we know what's good for you better than you' nanny stateism, vis a vis _"seem to want to impose their moralistic views on the rest of the population"._

So come on Syd, we all know Cori does not represent Liberal policy. I think you would find the majority of Liberals would be horrified.


----------



## sydboy007

wayneL said:


> That may or may not be true Syd. But I don't think the majority of Liberal parliamentarians are of the religious right at all.
> 
> But aren't you being a tad hypocritical? Maybe monumentally, stupendously, gargantuanly hypocritical? The left have always attempted, with varying degrees of success, to be social engineers; to manipulate and sometimes legislate people's very thinking. They have always indulged in 'we know what's good for you better than you' nanny stateism, vis a vis _"seem to want to impose their moralistic views on the rest of the population"._
> 
> So come on Syd, we all know Cori does not represent Liberal policy. I think you would find the majority of Liberals would be horrified.




Wont disagree with you on the left Wayne, but the right are just as much trying to control us as well.  It just always seems to be members of right leaning parties that sprout this kind of nonsense.  It's all single parents fault, and just the hypocrisy of saying a woman should not have an abortion, but then also criticising programs that help these same people raise their children by saying you don't want to encourage them being dependant on the state.

It's just the conservatives always coat their social engineering under terms like family values.  You have to admit the enlargement of FTB occurred under a Liberal Government with a PM who thought stay at home mothers was the right way for a family, or our current PM who thinks taxing big business to fund PPL is the right way forward.  If that's not expensive nanny stateism, then what is?

I'd have more confidence in the Liberal party if a few more of them had actually come out and gave Corgi a good serving, but the silence is worrying.  At least another Senator has come out publicly against his statements - Sue Boyce.  I'd feel happier if some of them actually came out in support of separating politics and religion.

When people like Pyne lament that in the USA you can't elected if you don't talk about God, while in Australia you can't get elected if you do, and you add in Corgis' feeling that we're in a sorry state because there's not enough religion in our politics, I worry how many more of their party room members are thinking the same thing?  You have to admit the Christian right is a very powerful faction within the Liberal party.


----------



## Logique

DB008 said:


> i don't think this medicare $5 doctor visit fee is a good thing to start. It leads other governments to jack up the price, and before we know it, its $20 upfront per visit...



Correct. Does anyone really believe it will remain at $5?  It's already gone to $6 while we've been talking about.

They're just undermining Medicare. Alternatively, it may be thought of as the Paid Maternity Leave Tax. From the No Surprises Government.

And we thought the previous government was redistributive!


----------



## medicowallet

At it again like 2 ex lovers going in for some old times sake.  Love it.      Fact is howard cut income tax too far overstimulating the housing bubble and decreasing givt rev on the back of a questionable income stream and rudd and gillard were 2 of the worst economic managers in the history of this country.  Couple that with a very hostile opposition and senate and the overwhelming greens and labor influence in the msm and also the mentality to just increase tax after levy after tax on so called high income earners as the sokution to all our problems.    We are in a bad way


----------



## medicowallet

Logique said:


> Correct. Does anyone really believe it will remain at $5?  It's already gone to $6 while we've been talking about.
> 
> They're just undermining Medicare. Alternatively, it may be thought of as the Paid Maternity Leave Tax. From the No Surprises Government.
> 
> And we thought the previous government was redistributive!




I think this levy is a great idea.   I think generic discounts for pharmacies need to be axed too and gps must prescribe generics.   

This rubbish going around about scrapping the private health rebate instead is more socialist policy.   This country needs to incentivise productivity instead of befoming a massive welfare state on the back of borrowings.   The situation that labor is egging for is financially and socially destructive.


----------



## drsmith

Bill Shorten wants to know what's happening on our borders,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-10/abbott-likens-campaign-against-people-smugglers-to-war/5193546

_No boats over the past week or for the past three weeks for that matter,_

http://www.customs.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/OperationalUpdate10January2014.pdf

He claims we don't know what the Prime Minister is doing.

_Stopping the boats Labor started._

He also asks if the PM has any control over the situation at all.

_See above Bill._


----------



## dutchie

drsmith said:


> Bill Shorten wants to know what's happening on our borders,
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-10/abbott-likens-campaign-against-people-smugglers-to-war/5193546
> 
> _No boats over the past week or for the past three weeks for that matter,_
> 
> http://www.customs.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/OperationalUpdate10January2014.pdf
> 
> He claims we don't know what the Prime Minister is doing.
> 
> _Stopping the boats Labor started._
> 
> He also asks if the PM has any control over the situation at all.
> 
> _See above Bill._





Bill, labor and the Greens are showing the electorate that they still have not got a clue..... (idiots)


----------



## IFocus

You really have to wonder about Pine

Heard him on ABC radio and he just sounded dreadful. 

Teachers warn of 'culture wars' as Christopher Pyne announces back-to-basics curriculum review



> He has asked two critics of the current curriculum - former teacher and ex-Liberal Party staffer Kevin Donnelly, and University of Queensland Professor Ken Wiltshire - to review what is taught in Australian schools.
> 
> "I'm not going to prejudge the outcome of the national curriculum [review], suffice to say there has been criticism of the national curriculum over a lengthy period of time," Mr Pyne told reporters in Adelaide.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-...rriculum-to-focus-on-benefits-of-west/5193804

I am not sure middle Australia are going to wear a full blown class / culture / religious war. In fact I think Abbott will face an increasingly hostile senate as a result.


----------



## sydboy007

Anyone think Tony is going to refer Alex Somlyay to the AFP to investigate paying his wife for services most likely not rendered?

The ATO frowns upon this kind of setup for the rest of us, so why are the politicians allowed to do it?

Tony, please apply the Slipper principle for a change.


----------



## drsmith

dutchie said:


> Bill, labor and the Greens are showing the electorate that they still have not got a clue..... (idiots)



A short video that helps Bill with the answers.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Anyone think Tony is going to refer Alex Somlyay to the AFP to investigate paying his wife for services most likely not rendered?
> 
> The ATO frowns upon this kind of setup for the rest of us, so why are the politicians allowed to do it?
> 
> Tony, please apply the Slipper principle for a change.




If the ATO finds the persons actions illegal, he will be prosecuted, as was Thomson.

Anyone going to take Shorten to task for stupid comments, re keeping Holden going?

Anyone going to hold Labor responsible, for irresponsible border protection policy, or lack thereof?


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> If the ATO finds the persons actions illegal, he will be prosecuted, as was Thomson.




Seems the matter has been referred to the AFP now so will be interesting to see if they dodge it or investigate.  It seems to have similarities with the Slipper case in that Somlyay tried to hide the payments to his wife by using her maiden name.



sptrawler said:


> Anyone going to take Shorten to task for stupid comments, re keeping Holden going?




I thought when the Coalition was in opposition it was Ok to say silly things, like oh, Abbott saying BHP decided not to go ahead with the Olympic Dam expansion due to the carbon price, or the pensioner who's electricity bill had doubled due to the carbon price, or Joe Hockey claiming QLD electricity prices were up 22% due to the carbon price.  Considering the carbon price adds around 10% to an electricity bill can you explain how someone's maths could be so bad to think a 22% or 100% increase could be due to something that causes a 10% increase 



sptrawler said:


> Anyone going to hold Labor responsible, for irresponsible border protection policy, or lack thereof?




They've been held accountable for it, though the harsher stance they'd taken before the election seemed to have been starting to work by the election.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> I thought when the Coalition was in opposition it was Ok to say silly things, like oh, Abbott saying BHP decided not to go ahead with the Olympic Dam expansion due to the carbon price, or the pensioner who's electricity bill had doubled due to the carbon price, or Joe Hockey claiming QLD electricity prices were up 22% due to the carbon price.  Considering the carbon price adds around 10% to an electricity bill can you explain how someone's maths could be so bad to think a 22% or 100% increase could be due to something that causes a 10% increase
> 
> The point wasn't about Shortens stupid comments, just the lack of coverage and critiquing by the press.
> When Abbott was in opposition every opportunity was jumped on by Fairfax and the ABC, they don't seem to have the same lust to get into Bill..








sydboy007 said:


> They've been held accountable for it, though the harsher stance they'd taken before the election seemed to have been starting to work by the election.




Oh you mean the total backflip policy, hastily patched together six weeks before the election. 
Trying to convince the public that they really didn't want as many flooding into the country, unbelievably dumb Government,


----------



## bunyip

Illegal boat arrivals down 80% since the Abbot government came to power, no new boat arrivals in the last three weeks. A stark contrast to the thousands of illegal boat people every month under Labor.
It must be so galling for the opposition and their supporters to realize that the government is going so well in their objective to stop the boats. 
Poor old Shorten hardly ever criticizes the government any more over the boat people issue, except to wrongly say that they’re keeping people in the dark. It’s pretty obvious that poor Bill grudgingly admires the government for achieving such impressibe results. So much so in fact, that he's now trying to give the credit to Labor for the drastic reduction in illegal boat numbers! LOL


----------



## IFocus

Using the gold standard established by the conservative supporters here Abbott has no option but to resign now and call an election..............deafening silence

A







> LP (52.5%) start 2014 with a clear lead over the L-NP (47.5%) in first major public opinion poll of 2014





http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/5371-federal-voting-intention-january-13-2014-201401130606

- - - Updated - - -

Coalition education policy

What an absolute joke

Where Pyne and the neocons went wrong



> Since federal Education Minister Christopher Pyne's launch last week of a two-man curriculum review panel, of conservative educationist Kevin Donnelly and conservatively inclined business academic Kenneth Wiltshire, levels of incredulity, derision and cynicism among educators and political commentators (outside News Corp media) have gone off the Richter scale.
> 
> Pyne might as well have announced he was rearranging the communal henhouse by shoving two foxes through its front door. The curriculum history wars, part of the bigger culture wars that have been blighting the Australian cultural and political landscape for more than a decade, were on again.
> 
> This focus on religiosity by a government in rampant social-engineering mode presents a disturbing trend.
> 
> The history wars are an invention of the political right which sees hidden ''cultural-leftist'' influence at every turn in the government school curriculum, a chimera supported in particular by News Corp's broadsheet The Australian



.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/where-pyne-and-the-neocons-went-wrong-20140115-30v1u.html#ixzz2qYWgNvGY


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> Using the gold standard established by the conservative supporters here Abbott has no option but to resign now and call an election..............deafening silence
> 
> A
> 
> 
> http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/5371-federal-voting-intention-january-13-2014-201401130606
> 
> - - - Updated - - -
> 
> Coalition education policy
> 
> What an absolute joke
> 
> Where Pyne and the neocons went wrong
> 
> .
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/where...-went-wrong-20140115-30v1u.html#ixzz2qYWgNvGY




A bit of journalistic license there Ifocus, most of us qualified our statements regards opinion polls.

Coalition education policy, is probably no different than Labors, to try and improve a rapidly falling standard.
Just because you don't like their policy, is probably as important as me not liking Labors, meaning it isn't important at all.
Labor had their go, now the Coalition gets their go. Labor wanted to throw more money at teachers, Coalition wants to demand we return to teaching the basics.

With regard what the public think, let's see how the Senate vote goes.


----------



## Tink

Well said and agree, sptrawler


----------



## IFocus

sptrawler said:


> Coalition education policy, is probably no different than Labors, to try and improve a rapidly falling standard.




At the moment it looks more like an ideology war fought by Liberal insiders.


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> At the moment it looks more like an ideology war fought by Liberal insiders.




Pyne doesn't sound like he is on an ideological war, to me, it sounds like he is as concerned as the rest of us.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/polit...m-review-christopher-pyne-20140119-312p8.html

Hope you find something to get your teeth into IFocus. You seem to be scratching around at the moment.


----------



## drsmith

sptrawler said:


> Hope you find something to get your teeth into IFocus. You seem to be scratching around at the moment.



Only in his own poo at the bottom of the cage.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> Only in his own poo at the bottom of the cage.




How about keeping things civil.  There's no justification for saying stuff like that!


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> How about keeping things civil.  There's no justification for saying stuff like that!



Look at his avatar and in particular, the little statement above the pic.

Don't take political discussion so seriously all the time.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

drsmith said:


> Look at his avatar and in particular, the little statement above the pic.
> 
> Don't take political discussion so seriously all the time.




There is indeed a loss of civility and humour in intercourse these days.

gg


----------



## sptrawler

Garpal Gumnut said:


> There is indeed a loss of civility and humour in intercourse these days.
> 
> gg




+1 
I was just talking about that, with the missus, this morning.


----------



## sptrawler

It looks as though Abbott will go ahead with a royal commission into unions.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ion-into-union-corruption-20140128-31jmy.html

That should give the newspapers some fodder to work with, also a mini series will follow.


----------



## drsmith

sptrawler said:


> That should give the newspapers some fodder to work with, also a mini series will follow.



First there was Underbelly.

Now there's Under-Labor.

I can imagine more than one. Perhaps Rob Oakeshott has a post-political career starring as himself.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> First there was Underbelly.
> 
> Now there's Under-Labor.
> 
> I can imagine more than one. Perhaps Rob Oakeshott has a post-political career starring as himself.




Not to forget the Howard cronies job boom since the Abbott Govt was elected.

It's been raining contracts and $$ for so many of them since September.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> Not to forget the Howard cronies job boom since the Abbott Govt was elected.
> 
> It's been raining contracts and $$ for so many of them since September.



Jobs for the boys is a characteristic of both sides in government.

Characters though associated with Labor and the union movement seem somewhat more unsavoury.


----------



## bunyip

_*ACTU rejects Government's call for royal commission into construction industry corruption*_

I wonder why? LOL I’ll bet there are some worried people in the unions and the ALP! It’ll be interesting to hear what Shorten has to say about all this – him being a former boss of the ACTU. Poor old Billy will find himself between a rock and a hard place on this one I think.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-...s-call-for-royal-commission-into-cons/5224018


----------



## Calliope

bunyip said:


> _*ACTU rejects Government's call for royal commission into construction industry corruption*_
> 
> I wonder why? LOL I’ll bet there are some worried people in the unions and the ALP! It’ll be interesting to hear what Shorten has to say about all this – him being a former boss of the ACTU. Poor old Billy will find himself between a rock and a hard place on this one I think.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-...s-call-for-royal-commission-into-cons/5224018




Bill's legacy.




	

		
			
		

		
	
.


----------



## sydboy007

Calliope said:


> Bill's legacy.




Yet when Westfield does the same thing to small shop owners it OK, or Coles and Woolworths cliffing suppliers.

Or when the CEO of Gunns is allowed to keep pretty much all the money he made selling out of his shares just before the company went bust.

I'd prefer if ALL FORMS of abuse of power were targeted.


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> Jobs for the boys is a characteristic of both sides in government.
> 
> Characters though associated with Labor and the union movement seem somewhat more unsavoury.




Actually Abbott has been ruthless in appointing cronies, Rudd actually appoint a number of high profile Libs that didn't really rate as the best.


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> Actually Abbott has been ruthless in appointing cronies, Rudd actually appoint a number of high profile Libs that didn't really rate as the best.




That's probably because, he didn't appear to have mates in his own party.
 Comes with the territory when you're a massive narcissist, massive egotist, massive wan#er IMO


----------



## Logique

Have wiser heads prevailed?

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...om-6-gp-fee-20140129-31lzt.html#ixzz2rouusLab



> *Julie Bishop backs away from $6 GP fee*
> 
> January 29, 2014
> 
> The Abbott government is distancing itself from a controversial proposal to charge bulk-billing patients a $6 fee every time they visit their doctor.
> 
> In the strongest comments made so far by a senior minister about the GP fee proposal, Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop said the government had "no plan for co-payments".
> 
> There has been no GP fee proposal to cabinet says Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop...
> 
> ...Ms Bishop described the GP co-payment plan, which was proposed to the Commission of Audit by Tony Abbott's former health adviser Terry Barnes, as "scaremongering on Labor's part".
> 
> "I'm in the cabinet," Ms Bishop said. "This has never been proposed. This is not before the cabinet.
> "It was a submission made to the Commission of Audit by an entity … We have no plan for co-payments".......
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...om-6-gp-fee-20140129-31lzt.html#ixzz2roukLxhf


----------



## sydboy007

Logique said:


> Have wiser heads prevailed?




WA Senate election.  Turn back the Votes


----------



## DB008

Clutching at Straws?

*Somebody call the waaaambulance - the ABC has been mean to Abbott*



> Tony Abbott used to be a working journalist. In fact we worked at the same mag, The Bulletin, home of Banjo Paterson and Henry Lawson, although none of us ever crossed paths.
> 
> Abbott tucked a press ticket into his fedora during the Hawke-Keating era and he could be as bruising in print as he was in the ring at Oxford. About as stylish too.
> 
> There is no record of Tony Abbott, two-fisted reporter, giving the government of the day an easy time of it. No free hits. No benefit of the doubt. He earned his pay cheque honestly, by finding things out and telling stories.
> 
> Like the Jesuit education he turned his back on, he seems to have forgotten a few things about what reporters do, what role they play in a free society.
> 
> Tony Abbott the working reporter, the bloke who paid his bills punching a keyboard, would have laughed in the face of Paul Keating or Bob Hawke if they'd gone whining to their favoured pets in the tame media about not getting the benefit of the doubt, about the press not seeing their interests as being in the national interest. Tony Abbott the journalist would have touched them up good and proper just for the cheek of it.
> 
> Tony Abbott the Prime Minister, though? He makes Hawke's constant calls for the waaaaaambulance because some journo, usually from the ABC was mean to him … well, he makes Hawke look like John Howard.
> 
> You could cut Howard's fingers off and poke him in the eye with them, he wouldn't blink. He wouldn't give you the bloody satisfaction of it. John Howard might have looked like a brylcreemed super nerd but he was a hard nut who could absorb inhuman amounts of damage without flinching, because he'd learnt that to show weakness was to lose. Spectacularly.
> 
> Tony Abbott is no John Howard. His petulant waaaaaambulance call on talkback radio yesterday, whining about the ABC – not individual journalists mind you, the whole institution, thousands of hard working Australians – all of them, his puerile and disgraceful lie that they do not act in the national interest?
> 
> That would have made John Howard shudder. Not because Howard loved the ABC. No Prime Minister since Menzies has. But because Howard knew that, as soon as you start complaining, you're done. You look like a loser. You are a loser. You don't look like a bloke who's got the ticker for the hard work.
> 
> Abbott disgraced himself yesterday, and he disgraced his mentor in doing it.
> 
> Lawson and Paterson would probably be ashamed of him too.




http://www.theage.com.au/comment/blogs/blunt-instrument/somebody-call-the-waaaambulance--the-abc-has-been-mean-to-abbott-20140130-31nt0.html#ixzz2rsLfCIG5


----------



## sptrawler

DB008 said:


> Clutching at Straws?
> 
> *Somebody call the waaaambulance - the ABC has been mean to Abbott*
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/comment/blogs/blunt-instrument/somebody-call-the-waaaambulance--the-abc-has-been-mean-to-abbott-20140130-31nt0.html#ixzz2rsLfCIG5




Yup, they are all running scared, I don't know what of.

Maybe with some good reporting, they can tell me why Abbott has them $hit scared.

At the moment it just looks like a bunch of lazy fat ar$ed reporters, trying to find a story without going out of the office.
Also without stepping on Labors toes, it's a hard life, when you've painted yourself into a corner.
All just my opinion of course.


----------



## DB008

The Left-wing propaganda machine is in full swing....

This one is doing the rounds...


----------



## orr

DB008 said:


> The Left-wing propaganda machine is in full swing....
> 
> This one is doing the rounds...
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 56643




Lucky there's no validity to it...


----------



## drsmith

orr said:


> Lucky there's no validity to it...




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nv-E7vEY0o

I wonder how well it would have went down if TA said that in relation to negative media coverage.

The other issue in relation to the ABC is that it is funded directly by the taxpayer whereas commercial media is not.


----------



## IFocus

orr said:


> Lucky there's no validity to it...





LOL yes none what's so every


----------



## sptrawler

DB008 said:


> The Left-wing propaganda machine is in full swing....
> 
> This one is doing the rounds...
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 56643




Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Gillard government lash out at News Corp for percieved bias?
Also weren't they going to review censorship?

As for dignity, the mysoginy rant against Abbott, was out there.


----------



## drsmith

On second thought, mercy please. 

Living the Gillard experience once was bad enough. I think even Labor would like to erase it from their history as they erased her from leading the party to the polls last year.


----------



## DB008

Now they are running with 'Workchoices" to scare people...

This article is a joke. The CFMEU is corrupt and l'm sure that other unions need a good house cleaning too. 

*Tony Abbott's Royal Commission into unions: It’s all about WorkChoices*



> PM Abbott knows he must significantly weaken the union movement before he can bring back WorkChoices ”” which is why he needs a union witch hunt, writes Sally McManus.
> 
> Prime Minister Tony Abbott and his new Coalition Government have long planned a Royal Commission into the union movement.
> 
> This was not, of course, a policy that the Coalition took to the 2013 election.
> 
> Such a naked attack would have ‘scared the horses’, exposing what the Coalition has been desperate to hide ”” its plan to reinstate WorkChoices.




http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/tony-abbotts-royal-commission-into-unions-its-all-about-workchoices,6115


----------



## So_Cynical

DB008 said:


> The Left-wing propaganda machine is in full swing....
> 
> This one is doing the rounds...
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 56643




So she didn't put up with the most vile media campaign ever...want me to go and dig up some quotes from you guys?


----------



## drsmith

So_Cynical said:


> So she didn't put up with the most vile media campaign ever...want me to go and dig up some quotes from you guys?



Don't forget Bill Shorten's quotes.

He was sure she was right.


----------



## Knobby22

Good article by Amanda Vanstone in today's Age. She espouses a good argument for not helping SPC Ardmona and supports the choice of Peter Cosgrove as governor general then goes onto the attack on Kevin Andrews throwing $20 mil away on marriage counselling.

_Then there is the decision to offer couples a voucher for relationships counselling.

Wanting people to have stronger relationships is a very desirable aim. Achieving that is not necessarily simple. Presumably the government is not writing to all newlyweds offering a voucher. That would be like saying: ''Congratulations, you might think you're happy but we're putting 20 mill on the table that says you won't be.''

This decision has all the hallmarks of a government wanting to be seen to do something. That does not make good policy. Consider this: to get this so-called benefit you need to know about it. Unless the government is about to waste a whole lot of money on an advertising campaign, the most likely place you will learn about it is through a counselling business. That is, you are already in the door as a customer. This then becomes nothing more than an industry subsidy disguised as benefaction._

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/ho...nd-your-20m-20140202-31uwz.html#ixzz2sCdMvQMC

Amanda was a very good minister and I wish she hadn't retired. There are too many B team ministers at the moment. I hope Abbott considers a reshuffle, there is plenty of talent waiting at the wings.


----------



## Calliope

So_Cynical said:


> So she didn't put up with the most vile media campaign ever...want me to go and dig up some quotes from you guys?




Yes please, dig up and put up.


----------



## dutchie

So_Cynical said:


> So she didn't put up with the most vile media campaign ever...want me to go and dig up some quotes from you guys?




It will be impossible to top Gillards' "misogynist" rant for vileness.


----------



## sptrawler

So_Cynical said:


> So she didn't put up with the most vile media campaign ever...want me to go and dig up some quotes from you guys?




You need a reality check.
What would have happened if Abbott's minders had set up a riot against Gillard. 
What would have happened if Abott stood up in parliament and ranted that Gillard is just a man hater. Remember the uproar in the papers when Abbott said to Gillard "you're a piece of work".
Yet the garbage she spewed out without foundation or proof, was hailed as long overdue. 
You need to look back through the SMH, Age and ABC to see what a media campaign looks like.lol

You can tell how bad Labor was in government by the fall in support for a republic. People have seen how bad it could be, if meglamaniacs were given absolute control.


----------



## basilio

It would be impossible to point out to resident fascists how nasty and sustained the campaign was against Julia Gilliard.  You are collectively blind, deaf, dumb and intellectually destitute

For the other 3-4 people who follow this thread who arn't so afflicted a few reminders

1) The chant of Juliar started by the Alan Jones of this world and echoed everywhere.
2) "Put Julia in a chaff bag and drown her at sea"  Another Alan Jones special and widely repeated
3) The abusive slogans and posters used at anti government rallies . Seeing the Honourable Tony Abbott under a Ditch teh Witch sign for instance
*4) Finally. The absolute deliberate refusal of  the Honourable Tony Abbott to say that such personal abuse was inappropriate and should be stopped. That it degraded the office of PM and that discussions should be about policy issues not personal attacks. 
*

The Honourable Tony Abbott let the fires go.  They will come back and burn him.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

And wasn't there a ASF thread on teh abuse of politicians ? Or perhaps you can't remember back that far.


----------



## drsmith

basilio said:


> Finally. The absolute deliberate refusal of  the Honourable Tony Abbott to say that such personal abuse was inappropriate and should be stopped. That it degraded the office of PM and that discussions should be about policy issues not personal attacks.



And in the end it was Labor and her own sisterhood that ditched her as PM before the electorate got its chance as summed up so well at the time by Liberal Senator Michaelia Cash.


----------



## wayneL

Deniers, fascists, faux outrage (and monumental hypocrisy) etc?

Methinks she doth protest too much.

wayneL's Law proven yet again.


----------



## sptrawler

basilio said:


> It would be impossible to point out to resident fascists how nasty and sustained the campaign was against Julia Gilliard.  You are collectively blind, deaf, dumb and intellectually destitute
> 
> For the other 3-4 people who follow this thread who arn't so afflicted a few reminders
> 
> 1) The chant of Juliar started by the Alan Jones of this world and echoed everywhere.
> 2) "Put Julia in a chaff bag and drown her at sea"  Another Alan Jones special and widely repeated
> 3) The abusive slogans and posters used at anti government rallies . Seeing the Honourable Tony Abbott under a Ditch teh Witch sign for instance
> *4) Finally. The absolute deliberate refusal of  the Honourable Tony Abbott to say that such personal abuse was inappropriate and should be stopped. That it degraded the office of PM and that discussions should be about policy issues not personal attacks.
> *
> 
> The Honourable Tony Abbott let the fires go.  They will come back and burn him.
> 
> _______________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> And wasn't there a ASF thread on teh abuse of politicians ? Or perhaps you can't remember back that far.




Talking about intelectually destitute, deaf and dumb. I notice you are quoting what Allan Jones said.

We are quoting what Gillard said, try quoting any reference to Abbott slagging off or ranting at Gillard.

As for your highlighted paragraph, what a joke, are you saying Gillards personal attack on Abbott in parliament, was about policy.
Your dreaming, or drinking.


----------



## drsmith

An attempt to mischievously label a video message from the PM as spam on Youtube has actually given it broader media coverage.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...n-prime-ministers-message-20140203-31wcz.html


----------



## drsmith

How to make the most from being last on the ballot paper.


----------



## Macquack

sptrawler said:


> You need a reality check.
> What would have happened if Abbott's minders had set up a riot against Gillard.
> *What would have happened if Abott stood up in parliament and ranted that Gillard is just a man hater. Remember the uproar in the papers when Abbott said to Gillard "you're a piece of work".*Yet the garbage she spewed out without foundation or proof, was hailed as long overdue.
> You need to look back through the SMH, Age and ABC to see what a media campaign looks like.lol
> 
> You can tell how bad Labor was in government by the fall in support for a republic. People have seen how bad it could be, if meglamaniacs were given absolute control.




Stop banging on about how Tony Abbott is some angel, the chosen one, butter would not melt in his mouth. 

Politics is a fiery business and Gillard was no angel, nor Abbott.

A fair judge would say that fighting fire with fire is the order of the day.

We are all biased, but some just cant see it.


----------



## IFocus

Knobby22 said:


> Amanda was a very good minister and I wish she hadn't retired. There are too many B team ministers at the moment. I hope Abbott considers a reshuffle, there is plenty of talent waiting at the wings.




The numbers game inside the party room is stopping any real move of talent to the front bench Abbott has a lot of IOU's to pay back.


----------



## sptrawler

Macquack said:


> Stop banging on about how Tony Abbott is some angel, the chosen one, butter would not melt in his mouth.
> 
> Politics is a fiery business and Gillard was no angel, nor Abbott.
> 
> A fair judge would say that fighting fire with fire is the order of the day.
> 
> We are all biased, but some just cant see it.




O.K *YOU* give me an example of Abbott 'losing it' or giving someone a spray.

Yet you all had a great time calling him the 'mad monk', the 'head banger'.

I personaly don't give a rats about Abbott, but I do get sick of people making out that Gillard and Swan etc have a right to label Abbott.
Then have a group of morons take up the chorus. 

Life is full of big mouthed bullies tagging people and the little hangers on chanting along behind. That's why the unions, gets away with what they do.


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> The numbers game inside the party room is stopping any real move of talent to the front bench Abbott has a lot of IOU's to pay back.



So how does that relate to Amanda Vanstone, other than a cheap baseless shot.

I see even Faifax are starting to give Hockey a bit of credit.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ment-muchneeded-direction-20140203-31xbo.html

Yet they couldn't help themselves from having a cheap stupid shot in the opening statement.
'Hockey is supplying something the Abbott government has been lacking - a purpose'

Yet they have effectively implimented a border policy that has reduced the inflow of boats from Indonesia.
Which Labor couldn't reduce in six years, that has been done in six months. 
Labor and the greens said it couldn't be done.
We are fortunate,IMO, that the general public isn't as dumb as Labor think.


----------



## sptrawler

Also, while I'm in rant mode, if Abbott and Hockey had jumped in to bail out Ford, Holden and SPC.

All and sundry would be claiming the coalition is helping their mates in big business.lol

Now that Shorten is saying they would bail out Ford and Holden, also Wong saying they would bail out SPC, the silence is deafening.lol,lol,lol

What a classic.


----------



## DB008

sptrawler said:


> Also, while I'm in rant mode, if Abbott and Hockey had jumped in to bail out Ford, Holden and SPC.
> 
> All and sundry would be claiming the coalition is helping their mates in big business.lol
> 
> Now that Shorten is saying they would bail out Ford and Holden, also Wong saying they would bail out SPC, the silence is deafening.lol,lol,lol
> 
> What a classic.




I heard about the SPC Ardmona EBA's today. Wow. No wonder some big business are going under, have you seen the working conditions (spectacular to say the least). Talk about uncompetitive on the world stage....


----------



## sptrawler

DB008 said:


> I heard about the SPC Ardmona EBA's today. Wow. No wonder some big business are going under, have you seen the working conditions (spectacular to say the least). Talk about uncompetitive on the world stage....




No I haven't, but maybe it is a reflection of the Labor Party trying to buy union membership, at the cost of the taxpayer.
It's as easy to draw that conclusion, as it is that Liberals bail out big business, because they're mates.
The older you get, the more cynical you get.lol
It cracked me up the other day, when I read Craig Thomson was a lawyer.lol Health Services Union secretary OMG
Didn't know he shouldn't be spending members money on prostitutes.OMG
I thought he was just a bloke, who worked his way up from the shop floor and was caught with his hands in the till.
Then he is in parliament representing us.lol


----------



## noco

DB008 said:


> I heard about the SPC Ardmona EBA's today. Wow. No wonder some big business are going under, have you seen the working conditions (spectacular to say the least). Talk about uncompetitive on the world stage....




Yes, and I reflect again on my  past posts. This was all started by the communist dominated unions in the 50's and the 60's and the unions thuggery still exists today....The communist dominated unions don't give a dam about the workers or the economy of Australia. All they are interested in is crippling our economy and this was high lighted in the Rudd/ Gillard era in the past 6 years and they nearly succeeded......stopped in time by the public electing a new Government.


----------



## sptrawler

noco said:


> Yes, and I reflect again on my  past posts. This was all started by the communist dominated unions in the 50's and the 60's and the unions thuggery still exists today....The communist dominated unions don't give a dam about the workers or the economy of Australia. All they are interested in is crippling our economy and this was high lighted in the Rudd/ Gillard era in the past 6 years and they nearly succeeded......stopped in time by the public electing a new Government.




The problem with that ideology noco, what is the end game?
If they cripple our economy, what is in it for them?

I tend tend to think it is more macro, what can I get out of a political career.

lazy bastxxrds, who have the gift of the gab, they want a taxpayer funded tax free pension.lol
They find an easy avenue the union management, that leads to Labor Party pre selection.

Rudd didn't come through the system, so has tried to change it.
Probably the best thing he did for the Labor cesspit IMO.


----------



## Knobby22

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-04/5236328


----------



## boofhead

www.scribd.com/doc/204418030/SPCA doesn't seem so over the top compared to what Abetz and others suggested. It would be nice to see greater breakdown of costs though.


----------



## orr

boofhead said:


> www.scribd.com/doc/204418030/SPCA doesn't seem so over the top compared to what Abetz and others suggested. It would be nice to see greater breakdown of costs though.




The LNP's ideological blinkers, earmuffs, and general sensory depravation make  the misrepresentationness platitudes that fall so sweetly into the ears of their benefactors, fall as a warm mucaziod drool from tonuges so brown ... If that doesn't make you sick examine the actuallity....

And where their happy to take us;

http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10...rong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2?c=reccon1


----------



## IFocus

Knobby22 said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-04/5236328





Was going to post some of the same but thought it wasted here Stone is also no fool unlike her glorious leader.


----------



## Calliope

orr said:


> The LNP's ideological blinkers, earmuffs, and general sensory depravation make  the misrepresentationness platitudes that fall so sweetly into the ears of their benefactors, fall as a warm mucaziod drool from tonuges so brown ... If that doesn't make you sick examine the actuallity....




Drool from brown tonuges does seem sickening.


----------



## drsmith

Sharman Stone in a tanty pees in the corner of the Coalition tent stinking it out while SPC Ardmona thinks it's going to bully the federal government into submission.

Below is one of SPC Ardmona's claims from its media release today.



> Claim: Redundancy is in excess of the award.
> Fact: This old condition was reduced in 2012 to a 52-week cap




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-04/nrn-spc-pay-claims/5237440

That's for workers employed after June 2012 who are going to take some time to get to that cap let alone exceed it under the old terms. Severance payments for those before July 2012 is still capped at 104 weeks and is uncapped for those employed before July 2001 (image below). In short, the 52-week cap introduced from July 2012 will not make a material difference to their cost structure for some time. 

http://www.afr.com/p/national/spc_workers_perks_cost_bailout_GD8J2Nuj6BIJ1f83LfAJ5J


----------



## DB008

DB008 said:


> I heard about the SPC Ardmona EBA's today. Wow. No wonder some big business are going under, have you seen the working conditions (spectacular to say the least). Talk about uncompetitive on the world stage....





SPC ARDMONA OPERATIONS SHEPPARTON/MOOROOPNA (FOOD PRESERVERS) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2012

http://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/agreements/fwa/AE899535.pdf


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> The problem with that ideology noco, what is the end game?
> If they cripple our economy, what is in it for them?
> 
> I tend tend to think it is more macro, what can I get out of a political career.
> 
> lazy bastxxrds, who have the gift of the gab, they want a taxpayer funded tax free pension.lol
> They find an easy avenue the union management, that leads to Labor Party pre selection.
> 
> Rudd didn't come through the system, so has tried to change it.
> Probably the best thing he did for the Labor cesspit IMO.




WHAT IS THE END GAME?

Total control of the :-

Media

Industry

Mining

Banks

I refer you to my posts #97 and #102 "Holedn- on yer bike"

This the way of Socialism (Communism) ...total control even of your life.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Yes, and I reflect again on my  past posts. This was all started by the communist dominated unions in the 50's and the 60's and the unions thuggery still exists today....The communist dominated unions don't give a dam about the workers or the economy of Australia. All they are interested in is crippling our economy and this was high lighted in the Rudd/ Gillard era in the past 6 years and they nearly succeeded......stopped in time by the public electing a new Government.




What about big business thuggery?  They might not send the boys around, but they do unleash the lawyers and do their best to move the profits where the tax doesn't need to be paid.

Have a talk to some small tenants in a Westfields, or a supplier to Coles / Woolworths that's been cliffed repeatedly.

Why are below average paid workers at SPC held us as some destructive force in the economy, when it's upper management and CEO pay inflation that's doing the most harm to the economy.  

I'd argue what crippled the economy over the last 6 years was the greediness of the resource sector, along with the  state and fed governments allowing them to go full throttle.  Who in their right mind allows 3 concurrent LNG trains to be built at Curtis Island?  Shock horror, construction costs blow out and time frames too.  Then the same over paid management has the audacity to front the media and act like it was a totally unforeseeable outcome.  Who in their right mind allows the unfettered expansion of the Pilbara iron ore mines?  Massive amounts of expensive capacity hitting the market at the wrong time - AGAIN.  

Then we have multiple off shore gas fields all being developed at the same time.

Huge influx of foreign capital into the country, AUD so high it decimates most sectors of the economy, and what do we get for it?  A hollowed out economy even more dependant on the FIRE sector, LNG plants at the top end of the cost curve, iron ore expansion that has moved us up the cost curve.  Nothing to do with unions.  This was businesses being poorly managed.

It was all presided over by Labor and Liberal Governments egged on by big business.

Just wait till we're sold out over the dud TPP managed trade deal.  It'll do more harm than the pathetic USA managed trade deal.  Once the giant US and Japanese companies get their lawyers on us through ISDS we'll be even more borked that we are now.


----------



## IFocus

So Cadbury (worth billions) gets a hand out SPC workers get lies on how much they are reaping in indulgent wage  agreement why is that?

Abbott what a lying tosser, marginal seat in Tas and a safe seat on the main land, Stone is the only Liberal with a back bone for Australians.

Is that a jet turbine I can hear screaming in the back ground.............nope just more anti social conservatives.


----------



## wayneL

IFocus said:


> ...marginal seat in Tas and a safe seat on the main land




You might be on to something there IF.

My application for a $25MIL grant was knocked back, and I am also in a safe Liberal seat.


----------



## noco

Lincoln's cannots
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrlft.
You cannot strengthen the week by weakening the strong,
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. 
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
you cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further brotherhood of men by lnciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative.
You cannot really help men by having the government tax them to do them what they can and should do for themselves.


----------



## Knobby22

So much for Liberals line in the sand and companies can stand on their own feet.

Why are they kicking in $3.5 mil to a seafood processor called Huon Aquaculture to upgrade their plant?? 

What is Cadbury, owned by Nestle, one of the biggest companies in the world going to do with $16 mil for a factory tour? Make a chocolate river and bring in Oompa Loompas? Sure Noco will be happy because they are from Oompa Loompa land and so won't be unionised. 

The fruit factory in Shep. gets two busloads of tourists a day + many other families in cars, we all have done it in Melbourne. You then visit the cafes and then visit the motor museum and maybe the art gallery. According to their mayor they get 250,000 transactions a year at the factory from tourists. 

The Libs just lied about the work practices and are all over the shop. Tell me why I am wrong and they are governing well. I must be just misunderstanding it.

Of course if I read a patriotic foreign owned publication instead of the Age and avoided the ABC I wouldn't have steam rising from my ears and would be a happy vegetable.

More government grant provided below.
http://www.daff.gov.au/agriculture-food/food/foodinnovation/round_2_rfpipp_grant_recipients


----------



## chiff

What was interesting after Tony Abbott's misrepresentation regarding the wages of SPCA workers was that Bill Shorten took the $60000 plus figure as valid as well.
How removed from the real world are these people-and of course their advisers.
Ideology uber alles!
Reminds me of when Bob Hawke offered ten dollars to shout the bar.


----------



## overhang

We have one party controlled by the unions and then the other by big business, both are just as corrupt as each other.
Why is it this government can axe all 3 climate agencies, fail to appoint a science minister but then have the audacity to order another study into adverse health affects caused by wind farms even though only 3 years ago the same study found no evidence of any and globally the many studies have resulted in the same answer.  So on one hand we have enough evidence to at least make us question climate change and then with no evidence of ill health affects he orders yet again another study.  Some consistency would be nice hear but I suspect he has his pockets lined from the big energy companies who would be the biggest losers out of renewable energy.  I don't want to turn this into a climate change debate but I find this completely inconsistent to dump agencies where there his much more evidence than the numerous study's on wind power health effects have found but yet he scraps one and orders more research for the other.


----------



## overhang

overhang said:


> Some consistency would be nice *hear* but I suspect he has his pockets lined from the big energy companies who would be the biggest losers out of renewable energy.




Wish I proof read that.


----------



## sptrawler

At last common sense is starting to glimmer through.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...rs-out-of-the-market-20140205-320vt.html#poll

We can't sustain ridiculous wages and conditions and also stay in business.
Something has to give, it isn't rocket science.


----------



## overhang

sptrawler said:


> At last common sense is starting to glimmer through.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...rs-out-of-the-market-20140205-320vt.html#poll
> 
> We can't sustain ridiculous wages and conditions and also stay in business.
> Something has to give, it isn't rocket science.




Well its about time someone from the union movement actually realized how damaging some of their excessive conditions are to the future employment of their members, if you keep forcing businesses to raise their overheads then a tipping point will occur where its unsustainable to stay in business.

I don't think penalty rates should be the target, those who work weekends and nights deserve a few extra dollars.  But if you want to boost productivity then kill off these RDO's.  Wasn't it a big deal when the 40 hour week was passed? and now we can't even work the modest 40 hour week without an RDO once a month.  It basically adds 2 weeks additional annual leave, combine that with the bludgers who use up their sick leave each year and they barely work a full work week. 

And while we're at it how about we take a good look at the golden handshakes at the top that only encourage short term company growth as to meet their targets for the excessive perks they receive.  CEO wage growth is also unsustainable.


----------



## wayneL

sptrawler said:


> At last common sense is starting to glimmer through.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...rs-out-of-the-market-20140205-320vt.html#poll
> 
> We can't sustain ridiculous wages and conditions and also stay in business.
> Something has to give, it isn't rocket science.




It seems cognitively dissonant to have a policy of lowering wages and propping up house prices however.


----------



## Knobby22

overhang said:


> .
> Why is it this government can axe all 3 climate agencies, fail to appoint a science minister but then have the audacity to order another study into adverse health affects caused by wind farms even though only 3 years ago the same study found no evidence of any and globally the many studies have resulted in the same answer.




It reminds me of George Bush the II. I think Abbott and some of his ministers are scientifically illiterate or at least have a great dislike of science. Maybe they think if they select the right people they can get the right answer...well it works for politics!

- - - Updated - - -



sptrawler said:


> At last common sense is starting to glimmer through.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...rs-out-of-the-market-20140205-320vt.html#poll
> 
> We can't sustain ridiculous wages and conditions and also stay in business.
> Something has to give, it isn't rocket science.




I vote with start with pollies pay. didn't they just get a rise of 30%?

- - - Updated - - -



wayneL said:


> It seems cognitively dissonant to have a policy of lowering wages and propping up house prices however.




It's Australia's sacred cow. Can't be questioned.


----------



## sptrawler

Knobby22 said:


> It reminds me of George Bush the II. I think Abbott and some of his ministers are scientifically illiterate or at least have a great dislike of science. Maybe they think if they select the right people they can get the right answer...well it works for politics!
> 
> - - - Updated - - -
> 
> 
> 
> I vote with start with pollies pay. didn't they just get a rise of 30%?
> 
> - - - Updated - - -
> 
> 
> 
> It's Australia's sacred cow. Can't be questioned.




Agree 100%.


----------



## IFocus

chiff said:


> What was interesting after Tony Abbott's misrepresentation regarding the wages of SPCA workers was that Bill Shorten took the $60000 plus figure as valid as well.
> How removed from the real world are these people-and of course their advisers.
> Ideology uber alles!
> Reminds me of when Bob Hawke offered ten dollars to shout the bar.




Yes, and Shorten has been shown up by a Liberal local member of all things.


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> At last common sense is starting to glimmer through.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...rs-out-of-the-market-20140205-320vt.html#poll
> 
> We can't sustain ridiculous wages and conditions and also stay in business.
> Something has to give, it isn't rocket science.




Well it is good to note that at least one union official is starting to talk sense.

What happened to "A FAIR DAYS WORK FOR A FAIR DAYS PAY"

Many are now working 36.5 hours per week....perhaps the unions should now start to get fair dinkum and revert back to a 40 hour week at the same rate of pay.....Perhaps the unions should start to think that 4 weeks annual leave is too much.....Perhaps the unions should start to think that 17.5 % leave loading should be abolished....I am old enough to remember 40 hour weeks, 2 weeks annual holidays and no leave loading....I can remember my weekly pay as a first year apprentice plumber was 0ne pound one and nine pence ( $2.19 )....That wage was 12.5% of a trades man wage and now first year apprentices are paid 60% of a tradies wage.....Who wants to employe apprentices at that rate.?

The unions were quick to put there grubby hands out when things were good.....but ha fellows, things are tough now so what about giving some back to save their jobs.....not bloody likely!!!!!!!!!!

And I will keep on harping about it until the cows come home......Thank the communist dominated unions starting back in the 50" and 60's for the number of manufactureing industries gone and the number of jobs that have been lost....And now the unions are screaming for the Government to bail them out.

If the unions and lefties are so concerned about jobs, I will ask them the question, "Why don't the unions buy out SPC Ardmona and try running it them selves"? Lets see how good they are.....Perhaps Coca-cola might sell it to them cheaply....Perhaps the fruit growers might even come to the party and operate the factory as a co-op.

To the best of my knowledge hospitality workers work a roosterd week in the likes of hotels and motels and the hourly rate on weekends is the same as week days....So why should some workers get penalty rates on week ends and others don't?

I say to you lefties, THINK HARD ABOUT IT...the alternative is the dole and who wants to live on that that rate of social security.....no hoilday pay...no leave loadings on the dole.


----------



## DB008

Joke of an article.....



> *Is Tony Abbott's Australian administration the most hostile to his nation's environment in history?*
> 
> In Western Australia, endangered great white sharks are being slaughtered. In Queensland, dredging spoil is to be dumped on the Great Barrier Reef. In Tasmania, ancient forests – harbouring some of the planet’s tallest trees – are in danger of being stripped of their World Heritage listing.
> 
> Australians could be forgiven for wondering if the federal government they elected last September is the most conservation-hostile in living memory.
> 
> Critics warn that moves by Tony Abbott and his Environment Minister, Greg Hunt, will not only degrade the country’s most outstanding natural assets, but make Australia an international laughing-stock. The UN has already threatened to list the Great Barrier Reef as “in danger” when its World Heritage watchdog committee meets in Qatar in June.
> 
> Compounding the right-wing government’s apparent disregard for Australia’s unique environment, say conservationists and scientists, is its resistance to any meaningful action to tackle climate change.
> 
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/is-tony-abbotts-australian-administration-the-most-hostile-to-his-nations-environment-in-history-9107534.html


----------



## wayneL

DB008 said:


> Joke of an article.....




The Independent is the commercial arm of UK Pravda... and appalling little rag, not worthy of even wiping one's backside with.

Most agree, as a result, it is losing millions


----------



## IFocus

So what's the joke ?

Its all true isn't it?




> Is Tony Abbott's Australian administration the most hostile to his nation's environment in history?
> 
> In Western Australia, endangered great white sharks are being slaughtered. In Queensland, dredging spoil is to be dumped on the Great Barrier Reef. In Tasmania, ancient forests – harbouring some of the planet’s tallest trees – are in danger of being stripped of their World Heritage listing.


----------



## DB008

How many sharks have been slaughtered?


----------



## sptrawler

DB008 said:


> How many sharks have been slaughtered?




Oh come on, don't let the truth, get in the way of a good squawk.


----------



## noco

DB008 said:


> Joke of an article.....




And the Independant favors the WATER MELON PARTY......NUFF SAID.

A leader published on the day of the 2008 London Mayoral election, compared the candidates and said that, if the newspaper had a vote, it would vote first for the Green Party candidate, Sian Berry, noting the similarity between her priorities and those of The Independent, and secondly, with "rather heavy heart", for the then incumbent, Ken Livingstone.[32]


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

I believe Tony Abbott to be doing a good job as PM.

The boats have stopped after 6 years of an ALP Free for All on our borders.

The engine room of our economy atm, mining, has some certainty as the Carbon Tax will be removed.

People will be able to work, without Union Heavies hiving off their contributions to have sex and watch porno movies.

The economy will prosper with the surety that stable government brings.

gg


----------



## sptrawler

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I believe Tony Abbott to be doing a good job as PM.
> 
> The boats have stopped after 6 years of an ALP Free for All on our borders.
> 
> The engine room of our economy atm, mining, has some certainty as the Carbon Tax will be removed.
> 
> People will be able to work, without Union Heavies hiving off their contributions to have sex and watch porno movies.
> 
> The economy will prosper with the surety that stable government brings.
> 
> gg




Thanks for that GG, my sphincter is relaxing, as I read your reassuring words.


----------



## drsmith

The government sticks to its guns on SPC Ardmona and for once, Malcolm Turnbull looks like a team player.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ret-spc-comments/story-fn3dxiwe-1226818293937


----------



## sptrawler

drsmith said:


> The government sticks to its guns on SPC Ardmona and for once, Malcolm Turnbull looks like a team player.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ret-spc-comments/story-fn3dxiwe-1226818293937




Hope the loony left read it.

The choice is, the taxpayer keeps paying and taxes keep going up. 
Or the company sells it to someone who can make a go of it,eg a growers co-op. I think I said that a while back .lol

How can a population of 24m pay for a welfare sytem, a pension system, a multi tiered Government and prop up multi national companies. lol
Then be expected to pay a mortgage and or rent, feed the family,run the car, pay the insurances, pay the council rates.
Also not only do you have to do that, but you have to be competitive with countries that don't provide any of the above.
Looks like reality check time has come, Labor throwing money around like goons, has come home to roost.IMO


----------



## drsmith

Niki Savva,



> THREE political leaders broke through Australia's summer haze. The first was Chris Christie, the second was Francois Hollande and the third was Tony Abbott.
> 
> Each managed it for different reasons, yet each in their own way was a reminder of what should be guiding principles for elected officials: keep your mind on the job; remember always why you were elected.
> 
> New Jersey Governor Christie, a charismatic figure once touted as a Republican candidate for the presidency, was brought undone because his staff engineered an almighty traffic jam to punish a political opponent.
> 
> Christie swears he didn't know they were going to do it. If true, he should have; if not, he is finito. Clearly a culture existed in his office, which he nurtured or tolerated, which let his senior staff believe it was acceptable to inconvenience thousands of commuters for cheap political payback.
> 
> It revived memories of last year's Australia Day, when the then press secretary to then prime minister Julia Gillard tried to embarrass Abbott by relaying something Abbott had not said and triggering a riot by Aborigines.
> 
> The French President has a quality not shared by most of his countryfolk - the personality of fibro - and is withering proof of Henry Kissinger's oft-quoted line that power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.
> 
> Hollande, who seems to regard loyalty and commitment as traits befitting lesser mortals, say Anglos, would have better served his people if he had kept his focus above his zipper line, rather than devoting time and energy to mapping scooter routes around Paris to meet mistress No 2.
> 
> A roue loose on the rues of Paris, closely followed by security detail with fresh croissants to ensure all appetites are sated, is the stuff of Truffaut, not of a politician asking voters to trust him.
> 
> Abbott broke through for thankfully more mundane reasons, although the Christie example of what happens when staff run rampant is a sobering one.
> 
> Abbott was doing his job, and appeared to have spent his break thinking about it. Since the political year resumed, he has shown he is beginning to get the hang of it. Not completely, not always, but certainly better than before.
> 
> His speech in Davos set out an economic narrative for himself and the world. It succinctly, if sketchily, set out challenges and remedies. Detail will have to come later.
> 
> His speeches and performance on Australia Day were also good. As Governor-General, Quentin Bryce was always going to be a hard act to follow, but if anyone can do it, his man Peter Cosgrove can.
> 
> These were encouraging signs of a maturing Abbott, an impression marred when valid criticism of ABC reporting standards was subsumed by suggestions the national broadcaster should barrack for the home team. The last thing this or any government needs is media cheer squads.
> 
> However, we are talking about Abbott, who will never be the PM from central casting, 100 per cent well-behaved, 100 per cent of the time. The inner larrikin will break through occasionally, as he must, lest the contents explode like a malfunctioning pressure-cooker.
> 
> Abbott has also benefited from issues breaking his way. Some of it is luck, some of it is luck he has created or helped along.
> 
> One issue where the government has absolute control is asylum-seekers. Like it or not - and the Greens and Labor clearly hate it, even though no boats mean no drownings - the policies are working.
> 
> If Abbott shows the same unswerving commitment and passion to fixing the budget deficit without killing the economy as he has to stopping the boats, and as he will to improving the lot of indigenous people, then he will have a handsome record as Prime Minister.
> 
> It remains a big if. So much depends on Abbott and those around him, and whether they have the necessary policy and political expertise as well as the courage.
> 
> Abbott has not been truly tested yet on the economy. There are early signs that he is not the soft touch many thought he would be. Abbott as Prime Minister is not Abbott as opposition leader. As one of his colleagues said recently: "He can't be the Tony he was five months ago, or the Tony he was five years ago."
> 
> The Abbott of five months ago promised $16 million to one profitable multinational, Cadbury. The Abbott of last week refused $25m to another, SPC Ardmona, owned by Coca-Cola Amatil.
> 
> Cracking down on corporate welfare should give the government ammunition to tackle middle-class welfare, although with friends such as Kevin Andrews handing out $20m for marriage counselling, the moral and economic messages get mixed.
> 
> More damaging, the right decision on SPC has been undermined by a sloppy sales job. Making the right decision is not enough. It has to be for the right reasons, fully and accurately explained to people and participants.
> 
> Sharman Stone, the local Liberal member, has been tempted to take her margin of 19.6 per cent, resign from the Liberal Party tomorrow and sit as an independent. If she thought it would buy leverage, she would do it.
> 
> Instead, she has undercut Abbott, who brought it on himself partly by overstating the impact of the union award on SPC's difficulties. Hearing the cabinet decision first from a journalist only blackened Stone's mood.
> 
> Stone has been loud and abusive. She will not stop and they can't make her. She is not alone in her disquiet about Abbott's drying-out. "You can be pure and you can also be dead," one cabinet minister observed a few days ago.
> 
> As Eric Abetz has made abundantly clear, the government is getting tough on business to get tough on unions but, if it is to succeed, it has to get all its facts right, all the time. There is no margin for error. Just ask the ABC.
> 
> The government should have stuck to the simple message of no more handouts for profitable multinationals. It already had the gift of corruption allegations against the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union, which has tightly wedged Bill Shorten.
> 
> The Opposition Leader's hostility to further probes of union corruption will prove painful and costly.
> 
> He had the chance to plot a different course. He could have done what Paul Howes did yesterday - give qualified support and appeal to everyone to surrender their weapons.
> 
> Shorten will ultimately regret he didn't, even if polls now show otherwise.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...s-rise-and-fall/story-fnahw9xv-1226818972199#


----------



## sptrawler

drsmith said:


> Niki Savva,
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...s-rise-and-fall/story-fnahw9xv-1226818972199#




Interesting times doc.


----------



## orr

sptrawler said:


> Interesting times doc.




Medieval times; We have a government with out a science minister.  We have Maurice Newman who thinks the sun still revolves around the earth.
A deranged faith in neo conservative economic alchemy..."but if we just paint the lead a 'gold'y' colour my liege, until we get it to work".... 
A Prime minister that regularly goes off for a pat on the head, for we know from Howard, neither are interested on elaborating on anything. God knows; what back alley's, secret passages and concealed doorways The Abbott now has to jink through to discuss his ecclesiastical bents with his big 'ol' pal Pell, that's  Cardinal, chop and change the pedophiles, Protect the Churches Gold, Pell.
 We have Brandis Obstructing Justice in The Hague. The 'idea !!!', of shining Light on  Lord Downers Black arts in corrupting negotiations with the East Timorese to the benefit of Woodside. From whom Downers New outfit 'Bespoke' now pockets a nice little retainer and the helpers from His dungeon now populate Brandis's office.
How long before Kevin Andrews steps in another Haniff and walks it, oblivious, though the house, costing multi-million$$ to clean it up. But the sort of thing though, that always leaves a stain.
As for Women...'They know their place'... A mouldy Harridan with a cauldron of Kerosene, joyfully flicking burning  spoonfuls from her 'belfry'...'ring the bells'. And an envoy so bewitched with her vanity and self importance that little has relevance in her world beyond the  hair and the clothes and accessories.


----------



## drsmith

sptrawler said:


> Interesting times doc.



More on the SPC Ardmonma entitlements including the point I made earlier about their redundancy entitlement (quoted below).

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...at-company-says/story-fn59niix-1226819084181#

Not only that, it also accumulates at a rate of 2-weeks for every 6 months of service at SPCA as opposed to 2-weeks for every 12-months of service in the APS (max 48 weeks).

http://www.apsc.gov.au/aps-employment-policy-and-advice/recruitment-and-selection/reengagement

Overall though, I think Niki is right in what she says. The Coalition are in my view framing this in the context of managing the overall age of entitlement debate, but the excesses in the SPCA workplace agreement were to be the simple public argument in this case. That was to help make it distinct from Cadbury I suspect. It's backfired to the extent that the SPCA workplace agreement is not the full story, but that's the problems politicians have to contend with when inconsistent within the broader context. Tony wasn't wrong in his broad criticism of SPCA's workplace agreement, but it was clearly over emphasised. Sharman Stone obviously has made the political optics much worse, but it's interesting that for once Malcolm Turnbull has stood behind his leader. There's a broader economic theme there I suspect Malcolm (and Joe Jockey) is trying to encourage on Tony Abbott.

SPCA's response I suspect directed more at the AFR's specific claims than anything else and in particular, the face value quantum cost of the allowances which do appear on their figures to be token. That's perhaps a lesson for the union though not to have silly things in agreements for the sake of looking good to it's members. There is though also an administrative cost to the company in relation to these elements which of course doesn't form part of the headline figures. In a competitive world, little differences can have a big influence of who survives and who perishes.

By the way Orr, you forgot what will be the greatest failure of this government in the eyes of some. Stopping the boats. 



> THE vast majority of workers at embattled cannery SPC Ardmona are entitled to lucrative redundancy payouts of up to two years' wages, the union representing the workforce has confirmed.
> 
> Confirmation of the entitlements comes amid a bitter brawl between Tony Abbott and local Liberal Party backbencher Sharman Stone, who has implied the Prime Minister lied about the generosity of conditions at SPC in rejecting the company's pleas for industry assistance.
> 
> In an SPC media release sent to all Coalition colleagues by Ms Stone yesterday, the company said the excessive redundancy payments had been trimmed back to 52 weeks in 2012. However, the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union has confirmed that almost all of the plant's more than 400 or so employees were employed under a previous enterprise agreement that provided for redundancy of four weeks' pay for every year of service, up to a maximum of 104 weeks.
> 
> AMWU food and confectionary division secretary Tom Hale said that very little hiring had been done since 2012 and all those employed before then would be entitled to 104 weeks' payment if they had the required length of service. He said SPC's workforce comprised mostly long-term employees, with at least 10 or 20 years' service with the company. "There would still be a fairly long-term workforce because it's one of the few jobs in town," he said.
> 
> With the federal government last week rejecting SPC's plea for $25 million towards a restructuring package, the company remains in talks to secure assistance, such as tax relief, from the Victorian government with an outcome expected as early as tomorrow.
> 
> The partyroom brawl over SPC and its workplace conditions erupted after Mr Abbott said last week that businesses seeking help needed to get their industrial relations "house in order".
> 
> "The existing agreement contains conditions and provisions which are well in excess of the award: there are wet allowances, there are loadings, there are extensive provisions to cash out sick leave, there are extremely generous redundancy provisions well in excess of the award," Mr Abbott said last week.
> 
> His comments sparked a furious response from Dr Stone, the Liberal member representing the Shepparton-based seat of Murray, who implied her leader was lying about the conditions.
> 
> Dr Stone yesterday stood by her comments and continued to press for government assistance for the company, which has joined her in challenging the assertion of "overgenerous" entitlements at the company's plants.
> 
> "Recent claims that SPC Ardmona is a 'union shop' or that the cause of its difficulties are because of 'over generous' allowances and conditions to staff are mistaken and need to be refuted by the facts," SPC Ardmona said in its release. However, Mr Hale confirmed that at least 90 per cent of the company's production staff were union members.
> 
> But he said the pay rates at SPC Ardmona were "at the bottom pile in terms of organised labour throughout the Murray Goulburn Valley". While penalty rates were slightly above award, the wage structure was not the reason the company was in strife.
> 
> Mr Hale backed Dr Stone's assault on Mr Abbott and said the federal government would end up paying more in unemployment benefits than it would save by denying the company $25m to restructure.
> 
> Criticism from the government and others of the agreement between SPC and the AMWU has also focused on several obscure allowances paid to workers on the company's three manufacturing sites called the "container", "bright tin" and "wet" allowances.
> 
> The company said last night the "bright tin allowance" of 50c per hour was paid to workers moving high pallet stacks of unlabelled tins with forklifts. It said container allowances had been phased out and no one was paid "wet" allowance in the past year.
> 
> Mr Hale rejected claims the EBA provided for nine weeks leave a year saying workers received 20 days a year plus 11 public holidays. He said they did get one RDO every 20 days in exchange for working a 40-hour week, but workers had agreed to take these away from peak production times.
> 
> Bill Shorten said yesterday that workers had "tightened their belts" and the company was willing to spend tens of millions to save SPC but the Abbott government was refusing to listen.
> 
> Mr Abbott said yesterday the government would not be revisiting its decision on SPC.
> 
> The Victorian government will meet SPC executives again today to flesh out the assistance to the company following Victorian Premier Denis Napthine's meeting with the company on Tuesday night. The Australian was told that this could clear the way for an outcome on Friday.
> 
> Aid options include a relief from payroll tax, a common form of state assistance to employers in difficulty, but there is also talk of a contribution from local councils as well. One option could be for the local council to exempt the company from rate payments for a period of time.
> 
> In a win for the fruit and vegetable processing company yesterday, the federal government's trade protection authority backed the case for action against canned tomato importers that are dumping their products at below cost in the Australian market.
> 
> Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane could act on those findings to impose barriers on some of the importers, in effect putting up their prices to help Australian competitors like SPC.


----------



## bunyip

noco said:


> Lincoln's cannots
> 
> You cannot strengthen the week by weakening the strong,
> You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
> You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
> You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.



Even Paul Howes of the AWU is starting to realize the truth of the above quotes, by admitting that union-brokered workplace agreements are pricing workers out of the market. 

At long last we have a union leader who’s starting to open his eyes and realize (without actually admitting it in so many words) that businesses like Ford and Holden, Toyota and SPC Ardoma, are simply unable to operate profitably because of unrealistic wages and conditions forced on them by unions.
Well done Paul – I’ve always disliked this bloke, but now it’s pleasing to see him showing some character by speaking the truth that many unions and workers don’t want to face up to.

Shorten did some ducking and weaving when a reporter confronted him with what Paul Howes said. Weak-kneed as always, Shorten ducked away from giving a straight answer by attempting to turn the heat back on Abbot and attacking him for not bailing out SPC Ardmona.


----------



## drsmith

bunyip said:


> Even Paul Howes of the AWU is starting to realize the truth of the above quotes, by admitting that union-brokered workplace agreements are pricing workers out of the market.



I wonder with Paul Howes whether there's an element of retribution in relation to Julia Gillard.

He has also suggested the family home should be in the assets test for the age pension and that pensioners affected could borrow against this asset as a top up.


----------



## drsmith

Do the Libs see Bill Glasson as a real chance of getting over the line this time ?


----------



## bunyip

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I believe Tony Abbott to be doing a good job as PM.
> 
> The boats have stopped after 6 years of an ALP Free for All on our borders.
> 
> The engine room of our economy atm, mining, has some certainty as the Carbon Tax will be removed.
> 
> People will be able to work, without Union Heavies hiving off their contributions to have sex and watch porno movies.
> 
> The economy will prosper with the surety that stable government brings.
> 
> gg




Well said, Garpal.
After six long years of hopelessly incompetent ALP government, Australia is now back on track.
I'm particularly pleased to see how quickly the Abbot government has been able to get on top of the illegal boat people problem.
This must be extremely galling to the left who delighted in putting up headlines such as _'Abbot's 'turn back the boats' policy is now in tatters!'_
I distinctly remember our old pal IFocus predicting on another thread that Abbot wouldn't be able to stop the boats.

Well done Tony Abbot and team for the methodical way you're going about fixing the problems that Labor created.


----------



## IFocus

orr said:


> Medieval times; We have a government with out a science minister.  We have Maurice Newman who thinks the sun still revolves around the earth.
> A deranged faith in neo conservative economic alchemy..."but if we just paint the lead a 'gold'y' colour my liege, until we get it to work"....
> A Prime minister that regularly goes off for a pat on the head, for we know from Howard, neither are interested on elaborating on anything. God knows; what back alley's, secret passages and concealed doorways The Abbott now has to jink through to discuss his ecclesiastical bents with his big 'ol' pal Pell, that's  Cardinal, chop and change the pedophiles, Protect the Churches Gold, Pell.
> We have Brandis Obstructing Justice in The Hague. The 'idea !!!', of shining Light on  Lord Downers Black arts in corrupting negotiations with the East Timorese to the benefit of Woodside. From whom Downers New outfit 'Bespoke' now pockets a nice little retainer and the helpers from His dungeon now populate Brandis's office.
> How long before Kevin Andrews steps in another Haniff and walks it, oblivious, though the house, costing multi-million$$ to clean it up. But the sort of thing though, that always leaves a stain.
> As for Women...'They know their place'... A mouldy Harridan with a cauldron of Kerosene, joyfully flicking burning  spoonfuls from her 'belfry'...'ring the bells'. And an envoy so bewitched with her vanity and self importance that little has relevance in her world beyond the  hair and the clothes and accessories.




Rising unemployment on a rising trajectory..............


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> Rising unemployment on a rising trajectory..............




As it has been predicted for the last two years, however no doubt you will blame Abbott.lol


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> Do the Libs see Bill Glasson as a real chance of getting over the line this time ?





Abbott speak....This will be an election about the performance of this bad, divided government. 

Any thing less than a resounding win by this bad government will be a resounding loss.

I am getting better I think.


----------



## IFocus

Cadbury workers get sweeter deal than SPC counterparts



> Cadbury's parent company Mondelez granted more generous conditions to its employees than SPC Ardmona, including more than twice the redundancy pay, 10 days a year paid leave for union delegates for training, and even a dust allowance.
> 
> Mondelez's new Suttontown production agreement struck with the union United Voice stipulates that employees at its Mount Gambier plant can cash out their accrued sick leave in some circumstances.
> 
> The potentially embarrassing revelation comes within days of the Abbott government confirming that Cadbury's Tasmanian plant will receive $16 million while SPC Ardmona has been denied a requested $25 million to stay afloat.






> Rejecting the SPC Ardmona bid, the government had slammed management for allegedly caving in to union pressure, depicting the Shepparton-based fruit processor as badly run and financially irresponsible. Prime Minister Tony Abbott and several senior figures pointed to chronic employee feather-bedding in the SPC Ardmona enterprise bargaining agreement as a central reason for rejecting the plea for assistance, despite fears the fruit processing works would close, costing 756 jobs directly and decimating the regional economy in the Goulburn Valley.
> 
> 
> Federal Liberal MP Sharman Stone has resorted to open warfare with her own party over the decision.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ounterparts-20140207-327ee.html#ixzz2si3GmvgB


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> Abbott speak....This will be an election about the performance of this bad, divided government.
> 
> Any thing less than a resounding win by this bad government will be a resounding loss.
> 
> I am getting better I think.



It's a pass on style.

On substance though, it fails to take into account the history of incumbents winning by-elections.


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> Cadbury workers get sweeter deal than SPC counterparts
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ounterparts-20140207-327ee.html#ixzz2si3GmvgB



Even a featherless galah still has a sharp beak.


----------



## sptrawler

I wonder if Abbott will withdraw the funding to Cadbury's?
One point, the report seemed to be talking about the eba at a plant in Mount Gambier, wasn't Abbott talking about a plant in Tasmania?


----------



## Ijustnewit

sptrawler said:


> I wonder if Abbott will withdraw the funding to Cadbury's?
> One point, the report seemed to be talking about the eba at a plant in Mount Gambier, wasn't Abbott talking about a plant in Tasmania?




I don't believe that will happen, this purely about tourism and jobs in a State that has the worst unemployment figures in Australia. And a State that has suffered greatly from the Labor / Green Government.
The days of forestry are dead and unless tourism takes over , we are stuffed. 
From a personal perspective I was lucky enough to be part one of the very last tour groups to go through Cadbury before the work place health and safety shut them down. Apparently things like stairs , railings and floor surfaces were not up to new standards. Not unexpected for a site that has over 18 heritage listed buildings on site , the conching machines that are used to mix and break down the raw ingredients are pure granite and are the only ones in existence are over 60 years old and still in use today. Perhaps why when used with milk from the place on earth that has the purest air on the planet ( Nth West Tas ) that Tasmanian chocolate is one of the best going around. The Cadbury visitor centre is still open , but for interpretation tours only and to buy some cheap non saleable chocolate ( wrong weight or incorrect packaging ect ) . 
Just not the same as going through the actual factory, as those who watched the upteempth repeat of Willy Wonka last night on television. It's every kids dream and turns adults and grown men into kids again 
It may be hard to get where I'm coming from , but you have to be here on Island to appreciate what we have to offer tourist and really it's only chance . About one third of the last tourism Australia awards came from down here . It is happening , the Mona museum is now the number one destination for arty foody types from all over the world. It's put Hobart on the map , not a day goes past that I sit here watching fully laden high speed catamarans go back and forth every twenty minutes. Cadbury is perfectly located less than a kilometer from all this action , also the original Claremont golf course put there for Cadburys early work force is being totally redeveloped into a resort course and all the trimmings that would go with such a complex. The course is right there next to the factory and when playing golf there all you can smell the waft of fresh chocolate . 
I can't wait for the upgrade to happen , I suggest you all watch a few episodes of the Gourmet Farmer on SBS get excited about Tasmania and come and visit . You might just like to wait till Tony dips his hand in pocket first if you want the Cadbury experience as well .


----------



## sptrawler

Ijustnewit said:


> I don't believe that will happen, this purely about tourism and jobs in a State that has the worst unemployment figures in Australia. And a State that has suffered greatly from the Labor / Green Government.
> The days of forestry are dead and unless tourism takes over , we are stuffed.
> From a personal perspective I was lucky enough to be part one of the very last tour groups to go through Cadbury before the work place health and safety shut them down. Apparently things like stairs , railings and floor surfaces were not up to new standards. Not unexpected for a site that has over 18 heritage listed buildings on site , the conching machines that are used to mix and break down the raw ingredients are pure granite and are the only ones in existence are over 60 years old and still in use today. Perhaps why when used with milk from the place on earth that has the purest air on the planet ( Nth West Tas ) that Tasmanian chocolate is one of the best going around. The Cadbury visitor centre is still open , but for interpretation tours only and to buy some cheap non saleable chocolate ( wrong weight or incorrect packaging ect ) .
> Just not the same as going through the actual factory, as those who watched the upteempth repeat of Willy Wonka last night on television. It's every kids dream and turns adults and grown men into kids again
> It may be hard to get where I'm coming from , but you have to be here on Island to appreciate what we have to offer tourist and really it's only chance . About one third of the last tourism Australia awards came from down here . It is happening , the Mona museum is now the number one destination for arty foody types from all over the world. It's put Hobart on the map , not a day goes past that I sit here watching fully laden high speed catamarans go back and forth every twenty minutes. Cadbury is perfectly located less than a kilometer from all this action , also the original Claremont golf course put there for Cadburys early work force is being totally redeveloped into a resort course and all the trimmings that would go with such a complex. The course is right there next to the factory and when playing golf there all you can smell the waft of fresh chocolate .
> I can't wait for the upgrade to happen , I suggest you all watch a few episodes of the Gourmet Farmer on SBS get excited about Tasmania and come and visit . You might just like to wait till Tony dips his hand in pocket first if you want the Cadbury experience as well .




I hope IFocus and Knobby read your post. It would appear they're not comparing apples with apples.lol


----------



## Knobby22

I'm not against it as I believe since I visited all the workers have been replaced by robots and it is hardly thrilling for the kids. I don't know the details of the deal but $16 mil seems a lot of money. Hopefully Cadbury are at least matching the sum because it is my money. But where does this suit with the philosophy the caucus is espousing?
As per the previous government, can we have an industry policy please? This rag tag of decisions based on seat of the pants reasoning is not the way to run the country.

I know Tassy is stuffed, but with the car industry and related suppliers all closing in Victoria is not going to be a pretty picture also. They should give the money they are getting from the findings that dumping occurred of tomato cans from Italy to SPC.


----------



## sptrawler

Knobby22 said:


> I'm not against it as I believe since I visited all the workers have been replaced by robots and it is hardly thrilling for the kids. I don't know the details of the deal but $16 mil seems a lot of money. Hopefully Cadbury are at least matching the sum because it is my money. But where does this suit with the philosophy the caucus is espousing?
> As per the previous government, can we have an industry policy please? This rag tag of decisions based on seat of the pants reasoning is not the way to run the country.
> 
> I know Tassy is stuffed, but with the car industry and related suppliers all closing in Victoria is not going to be a pretty picture also. They should give the money they are getting from the findings that dumping occurred of tomato cans from Italy to SPC.




I think what ijustnewit was saying is the Tassie factory is closed down and is of historic significance. It sounds as though it is only being opened as a tourist venture, not a commercial enterprise.
I don't think many companies would pour money into a museum.


----------



## Ijustnewit

sptrawler said:


> I think what ijustnewit was saying is the Tassie factory is closed down and is of historic significance. It sounds as though it is only being opened as a tourist venture, not a commercial enterprise.
> I don't think many companies would pour money into a museum.




The Cadbury factory is still fully functioning and Cadbury have no known plans to close it. Tasmanian climate and ingredients like the best milk make the chocolate exceptional. Actually they tried to change the formula a couple of years back by cutting down the Tassie milk and replacing it with high fat palm fats. Yuck !! This of course didn't work and their customers picked up on it and sales dropped. They quickly reinstated the original milk content.
It was the guided tour through the complex that ceased due to WPH&S. As for the robot workforce , yes like every working factory it has some robotic machinery. I can attest that being on one of the last ever tours that there were still plenty of oompa loompas on the job . 
Yes the buildings and actually the whole grounds and surrounding houses are of historic value. I was lucky enough a few months ago to get a tour through one of the original managers residences , it was built in the late 1950's and is in original condition with interior fittings. The ultimate untouched retro pad and totally amazing !!! Something like that on the mainland would be long gone.
Anyways further to my point of reason is, that Boags and Cascade beers have also run tours through their factories and they are highly successful tourist ventures even though now they are mainly all auto run warehouses and very few staff are there to be seen. It's the vibe of it , the chance to smell the hops or coco beans and then try a few chocolates or beers at the end of tour.
It's like the historical Cascade beer factory (the one on the label) , you can see it from the road in South Hobart , but there is nothing like saying you've been inside . Especially as a tourist , the Cadbury factory is no different. 
I can not answer the question about Cadbury kicking in some funds themselves ? As a taxpayer I would expect them to , but unless Tony kicks in his bit I believe that Cadbury would never reopen the facility alone .


----------



## sptrawler

Appologies, my mistake, I misunderstood and thought the factory was closed.

I must say the Cadbury's factory tour in Dunedin was popular, with the passengers from the cruise ship.


----------



## Knobby22

Thanks Ijustnewitt. Very interesting. Great read also. The beer factory peaked my interest.
Think it's about time my family visited Tassie. I haven't visited for 18 years.


----------



## bunyip

Now that yet another Aussie car manufacturer, Toyota, has announced that it’s pulling out of Australia, Bill Shorten, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Buffoon Bill’) is yapping like a little puppy dog about how the Abbot government is anti-jobs and has been the death of the Australian car industry. 
A bigger fool and hypocrite than Shorten would be hard to find – as ACTU boss, Buffoon Bill was party to putting in place the union-brokered workplace agreements that have forced Holden, Ford, and now Toyota out of business in this country. 
The Rudd/Gillard Labor governments, of which Buffoon Bill was a senior member, threw hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers money at the car industry but were unable to prevent the loss of hundreds of jobs each year and the continual decline of these industries. 

Toyota has stated that it was primarily the unions that forced them out of Australia. And yet when Toyota attempted to bring about changes in workplace agreements that may have been able to return the company to profitability and keep them in Australia, they were blocked by a Labor lawyer.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-labor-lawyer-and-the-death-seal-20131218-2zlca.html

Nobody will ever convince me that unions are there to help the workers. Even AWU boss Paul Howes admits that workers have priced themselves out of the market. As Howes can now see (it bloody well took him long enough!) you don’t help union members by destroying their jobs through workplace agreements that make companies unprofitable.
I don’t doubt that Buffon Bill can now see it as well, but unlike Paul Howes, Shorten doesn’t have the character to admit it. What a pathetic, grubby little fellow he is – no Australian with any common sense or responsibility will ever attempt to vote a Shorten-led government into power.


----------



## noco

bunyip said:


> Now that yet another Aussie car manufacturer, Toyota, has announced that it’s pulling out of Australia, Bill Shorten, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Buffoon Bill’) is yapping like a little puppy dog about how the Abbot government is anti-jobs and has been the death of the Australian car industry.
> A bigger fool and hypocrite than Shorten would be hard to find – as ACTU boss, Buffoon Bill was party to putting in place the union-brokered workplace agreements that have forced Holden, Ford, and now Toyota out of business in this country.
> The Rudd/Gillard Labor governments, of which Buffoon Bill was a senior member, threw hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers money at the car industry but were unable to prevent the loss of hundreds of jobs each year and the continual decline of these industries.
> 
> Toyota has stated that it was primarily the unions that forced them out of Australia. And yet when Toyota attempted to bring about changes in workplace agreements that may have been able to return the company to profitability and keep them in Australia, they were blocked by a Labor lawyer.
> http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-labor-lawyer-and-the-death-seal-20131218-2zlca.html
> 
> Nobody will ever convince me that unions are there to help the workers. Even AWU boss Paul Howes admits that workers have priced themselves out of the market. As Howes can now see (it bloody well took him long enough!) you don’t help union members by destroying their jobs through workplace agreements that make companies unprofitable.
> I don’t doubt that Buffon Bill can now see it as well, but unlike Paul Howes, Shorten doesn’t have the character to admit it. What a pathetic, grubby little fellow he is – no Australian with any common sense or responsibility will ever attempt to vote a Shorten-led government into power.




+ 1.....Well put....I will drink to all you have stated......and I will say it again and again untill I am BLUE IN THE FACE.......*"THIS ALL STARTED BACK IN THE 50'S AND 60'S WITH THOSE COMMUNIST DOMINATED MILITANT UNIONS AND EMBRACED LATER ON BY RUDD/GILLARD/RUDD".*


----------



## boofhead

Can I read where Toyota is blaming the unions? At the moment it seems Hockey says it is the case and Toyota say it is multiple factors including exchange rates and scale. Seems the Coalition have 1 focus - unions and cannot think about any other reason for productivity and cost issues.


----------



## Chris45

noco said:


> *"THIS ALL STARTED BACK IN THE 50'S AND 60'S WITH THOSE COMMUNIST DOMINATED MILITANT UNIONS AND EMBRACED LATER ON BY RUDD/GILLARD/RUDD".*



Yup! 

Australia's manufacturing industry has been in decline for decades thanks to the communist run unions who have rejected all attempts at serious workplace reform to make us more competitive. They were allowed to thrive and prosper under gutless previous governments from both sides.

Remember those ludicrous "demarcation disputes" when two unions would bring production to a halt because they couldn't agree on which member was authorised to tighten a bolt? 

Australian manufacturing has, for years, faced very stiff competition from overseas and the Howard government tried to introduce workplace reforms which might have made us more competitive and saved these industries, but the unions ran a scare campaign which the idiot half of the population fell for, and they voted for the softer option of Rudd.

Well, now they're paying the price! You can do workplace reform the easy way or the hard way. We're now going to be doing it the hard way. Unions are well and truly past their use-by date.

Our manufacturing sector has been crippled, our educational standards are declining, and we've done the easy options of gold mining, wheat, sheep, cattle, minerals, ... what's left? Tourism?

When a woman runs out of options to earn an income respectably, she often resorts to selling her "natural assets" and service customers. (The same goes for some men.)
When a nation runs out of options to earn an income respectably, it often resorts to selling its "natural assets" and service customers.


----------



## drsmith

boofhead said:


> Can I read where Toyota is blaming the unions? At the moment it seems Hockey says it is the case and Toyota say it is multiple factors including exchange rates and scale. Seems the Coalition have 1 focus - unions and cannot think about any other reason for productivity and cost issues.



The media has put two and two together and come up with six.



> Mr Hockey today said that Toyota Australia president Max Yasuda raised concerns with him about the generous conditions during a private conversation last year.
> 
> "They were very concerned about the conditions that existed at Toyota in Australia," he told Fairfax Media.
> 
> "[Mr Yasuda] warned it was proving to be very difficult to sustain the business with those sorts of conditions and I stood in Parliament actually and said quite bluntly that if the AMWU continued down this path, it would be very difficult for Toyota to stay in Australia."




It makes for a more entertaining story I suppose.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-...conditions-workers-cars-manufacturing/5254334

In parliament today,

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...or-plant-closure/story-fn59noo3-1226824530344


----------



## sydboy007

Which is it Tony??

Pre election you're claiming a Coalition Government will oversee an economy that creates 2 million jobs over a decade

Post election "..we can’t abandon the truth that governments don’t create jobs, businesses do"

Then we have the junk food industry somehow brow beating you into forcing a COAG and health group supported food star website to be taken off line.  Surely someone who has a keen interest in fitness can see the health benefits for the general public of being able to easily gain information on the food they eat.  Seems union pressure = bad, rent seeker pressure = good.

You're doing ya best to blame unions for all the ills in the economy, yet the productivity crushing high land prices in the country don't rate a mention, nor the tax system that skews hundreds of billions of dollars into non productive housing "investment" that sucks in massive amounts of foreign debt but doesn't create assets that can actually help pay for the debt. Hint - look to Texas to see how it's possible to manage high population growth, high income growth and stable real house prices.

You never mention how CEO pay has outstripped the pay rises that bad unions have negotiated, nor that any of their pay rises have NOT been through productivity gains.  In fact, research has continually shown the highest paid CEOs are value destroying for the companies.  Quite often the criteria for bonuses are changed, or made easier to be met.  Is it any wonder than the average worker has built up a bit of resentment over this?

It's 15+ years of bad Government policies that have got us to where we are.  As Toyota says, it's not a single issue, but the culmination of many that has got us on the path to another Banana Republic crisis.


----------



## bunyip

* I don’t know who wrote the following. I post it here for the interest of and discussion by the forum. Make of it what you will.*

......................................................................................................................................................

ONLY $150 million a year to save Holden? Rubbish. The Holden Enterprise Agreement is the document that has utterly sunk Holden's prospects. It defies belief that someone in the company isn't being held to account for it.

Holden's management masks a union culture beyond most people's comprehension. Employment costs spiralled way beyond community standards long ago. Neither "pay freezes" nor more money could save Holden, but getting the Fair Work Commission to dissolve the agreement and put all workers on the award wage might have helped.

In 1991, the pre-enterprise bargaining award wage of a Holden entry level process worker was $462.80 a week. In 1992, Holden began enterprise bargaining and now a worker at that same classification level has a base rate of $1194.50 a week, a 158 per cent increase, or a compound increase of 4.4 per cent year on year for 22 years. Right now, base wage rates for process workers in the Holden enterprise agreement are in the $60,000 to $80,000 per year range and in recent times, "hardship payments" of $3750 were given to each worker.

The modern award for such workers mandates base rates in the $37,000 to $42,000 range. This means that before we add any of the shift penalties, loadings, 26 allowances and the added cost of productivity restrictions, Holden begins each working day paying its workforce almost double what it should. After you add in the other employment costs, I estimate Holden's workforce costs it somewhere close to triple the amount it should.

Many people who work at Holden don't actually work for Holden; they work for the union. Occupational health and safety people are given 10 days' paid time off a year to be trained by the union. Most companies do not allow unions to train their OH&S people because the knowledge is used to control the workplace to the benefit of the union.

Union delegates are also allowed up to 10 paid days a year for union training in how to be effective union delegates and two of these delegates are entitled to an extra Holden sponsorship of one paid month off to "further their industrial and/or leadership development".

Holden's rules on hiring casuals are shocking and unheard of in today's market. The agreement forbids Holden from hiring casuals except when a "short-term increase in workload, or other unusual circumstances occurs". If this situation arises Holden has to "consult and reach agreement" with the union. Further, "Engagement of the agreed number of casual personnel will be for the agreed specified tasks and the agreed specified periods." If any of this changes, Holden must get union agreement again. After three months of continuous full-time work a casual must be made permanent. It is impossible to run a business like this.

An ex-employee from Adelaide, on condition of anonymity, consented to an interview yesterday. He described the workforce as "over-managed", with one team leader for every six workers on the production line, when one for every 25 workers would suffice.

He said "some of us workers felt it wasn't necessary to get paid what we were getting paid to do the jobs we were  doing", adding that their work is probably worth about "20 bucks an hour". A few years back, mates took redundancy packages in the order of "$280k plus". Workers are "like sheep" that blindly follow the union leadership. At induction, new workers are ushered into one-on-one meetings with the union rep who heavies them into joining. "It is made clear that if you don't join the union you will be sacked," he said. Union representatives "don't actually do any work for Holden", but rather make themselves full-time  enforcers of union control.

He says workers are drug tested before hiring, but "only have to stay off it for a few weeks, get in the door and then you'll be right". Workers caught taking drugs or being drug-affected at work are allegedly put on a fully paid rehabilitation program, with special paid time off of about four weeks duration, before being let back into the workforce.

Australian workplaces have a zero tolerance for drug use, with instant dismissal the remedy, but at Holden "the union won't let the company sack" any workers caught dealing, taking or being on drugs. "If they did a random drug test tomorrow they'd probably have to sack 40 per cent of the workforce," he adds.

If the Holden scenario were playing out in a privately owned business, proper cost-cutting strategies would be used. If you have the will and can hire the skill, there are many ways to cut labour costs. The workers can be given a couple of years notice of significant wage drops and can receive lump sum payouts of entitlements to help bring down family debt.

Of course, these strategies are only ever used by business people who have no one else to bail them out. It seems Holden would rather leave the country than dissolve its enterprise agreement. The union thinks members are better off jobless than on award wages. Holden's fate is sealed.

When Holden does leave, workers will receive the most generous redundancy benefits around. Holden says leaving will cost $600m. Most of this will go to staff payouts. The fellow interviewed agrees with my calculation: the average production-line worker will walk away with a redundancy package of between $300k-500k.


----------



## drsmith

bunyip said:


> I don’t know who wrote the following.



Grace Collier.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...l-holden-engine/story-fnkdypbm-1226779253154#


----------



## sydboy007

bunyip said:


> * I don’t know who wrote the following. I post it here for the interest of and discussion by the forum. Make of it what you will.*
> 
> ......................................................................................................................................................
> 
> He says workers are drug tested before hiring, but "only have to stay off it for a few weeks, get in the door and then you'll be right". Workers caught taking drugs or being drug-affected at work are allegedly put on a fully paid rehabilitation program, with special paid time off of about four weeks duration, before being let back into the workforce.
> 
> Australian workplaces have a zero tolerance for drug use, with instant dismissal the remedy, but at Holden "the union won't let the company sack" any workers caught dealing, taking or being on drugs. "If they did a random drug test tomorrow they'd probably have to sack 40 per cent of the workforce," he adds.




The same could be said for the finance industry.  Drug abuse isn't restricted to car manufacturing.  I worked with an alcoholic in my previous job and he'd quite often turn up with more than a few under hid belt for a night shift.

In my previous job the redundancy packages of the old timers were in the $200-250K range, along with $50K of LSL on top, and this was in private enterprise, non unionised workforce.  They were just lucky to have had things negotiated in a way very beneficial to them 20 odd years ago, so it might have been due to the unions at that time.

Have to say the Holden workers are some of the few plebs around who've had pay rises in line with CEOs.

Unions have to answer for some of the issues we're facing, poor management too, and then we as voters not willing to face up to the fact we want the Government to spend more than it collects in taxes.


----------



## sptrawler

The above posts,  just show there is too much money floating around.

It reminds me of that quote by Robin Williams, "cocaine is gods way of telling you, you are making too much money.


----------



## drsmith

SPC Ardmona can get by with a $22m government handout as opposed to the original $50m it asked for.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-13/victorian-government-announces-package-for-spc-ardmona/5257564


----------



## Logique

Ijustnewit said:


> ...It's like the historical Cascade beer factory (the one on the label) , you can see it from the road in South Hobart , but there is nothing like saying you've been inside . Especially as a tourist , the Cadbury factory is no different...



Cadbury and Cascade are national tourism icons, I wouldn't begrudge any subsidies to either institution. Meaning no offence to Boags, which is also a good setup.

You'll never taste a crisper lager than the post-tour sample at Cascade. Superbly and distinctively crafted, and post-lagering fresh. (No I'm not an employee).


----------



## IFocus

Rewards for the faceless men of the Liberal extreme right


Former Howard minister Nick Minchin to replace former Labor premier Steve Bracks as consul general to New York

F







> ormer Howard government minister Nick Minchin has been confirmed as Australia's consul general to New York in a move likely to reignite political brinkmanship over the role.
> 
> Foreign Minister Julie Bishop sacked former Victorian Labor premier Steve Bracks from the position in one of the Coalition's first acts post-election, before the Government had even been sworn in.
> 
> The former government appointed Mr Bracks in May 2013 and he had not officially taken up the role before it was revoked last September.
> 
> Richard Lether has continued as the acting consul general in New York during that time, prompting Opposition queries as to why the role had still not been filled as of this month.
> 
> A statement from Ms Bishop this morning confirmed that Mr Minchin, who quit politics in 2010 and who has been speculated as a possible appointee for the consul general ever since Mr Bracks's sacking, will take up the role.


----------



## IFocus

What a lazy mob these Liberals ....really its Labors fault what a joke.

Assistant Health Minister Fiona Nash's chief of staff Alastair Furnival resigns after conflict of interest claims



> Labor calls for full explanation
> 
> Labor is still insisting the minister give a detailed explanation of her role in the decision to delay the Health Star Rating system.
> 
> The Opposition's health spokeswoman Catherine King said Senator Furnival was "engaging in a debate about semantics in order to protect herself", and called on Prime Minister Tony Abbott to "consider the case".
> 
> "Why did the minister decide to intervene?" Ms King said.
> 
> "Did she declare the issue she was supposed to declare, and what has happened between her office and the Prime Minister's office."




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-...of-food-labelling-controversy-resigns/5261052


----------



## sydboy007

What negotiation skills prowess the Australian team had with South Korea.  15 years to wait for beef tarrifs to be fully removed.  15 YEARS.  I'll be pretty much all the multi year tariff reductions are for Australia, whereas the Abbot Government will have provided near immediate tarrif relief for most of what the South Koreans export to us.

i love this from Robb - ''Concerns about ISDS are totally overblown and are used by those who are 'anti-trade' in a bid to erode public confidence,'' Mr Robb said. ''If governments acted in accordance with their international obligations, there was nothing to fear from ISDS.

UNCTAD advised that 2012 had the highest level of new ISDS cases.  It wouldn't be surprising if 2013 beat the record.


----------



## Knobby22

I hope their negotiation skills have improved.
You would think Andrew Robb would have been replaced after some of his previous efforts.


----------



## noco

drsmith said:


> Grace Collier.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...l-holden-engine/story-fnkdypbm-1226779253154#




Doc, I posted this same article on my post #89 24/12/2013 "HOLEDN - ON YOUR BIKE".


----------



## rumpole

Would anyone care to comment as to why businesses are queing up to leave the country now that the "Party of business" is in power ?


----------



## sptrawler

rumpole said:


> Would anyone care to comment as to why businesses are queing up to leave the country now that the "Party of business" is in power ?




Haven't you heard, this Government has told them no more welfare, fix your business model.

The last Government upped the cost of doing business.

Rather than put in a long winded explanation. Simon Cowan sums it up o.k in this article.IMO
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-13/cowan-protectionism/5257426


For a " Party of Business" to take this stand, things must be pretty bad.


----------



## rumpole

sptrawler said:


> Haven't you heard, this Government has told them no more welfare, fix your business model.




Obviously they will be fixing their business model in other countries. There goes jobs and skills here.


----------



## sptrawler

rumpole said:


> Obviously they will be fixing their business model in other countries. There goes jobs and skills here.




So what is the other option, take more money off businesses that are making money, and give it to companies that are losing money.

Wouldn't it make more sense to stop propping up failing business models, with tax payers money.
 But instead drop the company taxes, with the money you save, that in theory should help all companies prosper.
You can't just keep throwing away money in the hope it will do better.

If it was your money and say you were funding four businesses. 
Three are doing really well, however one business keeps losing money, because it can't sell enough of your product.

Do you increase what you charge for your product?
Do you take funds from the other three businesses, to subsidise the fourth?
Do ask the fourth business, to ascertain if there is any possibility, of an improvement?
Or do you let it just carryon business as usual, till you run out of money?


----------



## rumpole

sptrawler said:


> So what is the other option, take more money off businesses that are making money, and give it to companies that are losing money.
> 
> Wouldn't it make more sense to stop propping up failing business models, with tax payers money.
> But instead drop the company taxes, with the money you save, that in theory should help all companies prosper.
> You can't just keep throwing away money in the hope it will do better.
> 
> If it was your money and say you were funding four businesses.
> Three are doing really well, however one business keeps losing money, because it can't sell enough of your product.
> 
> Do you increase what you charge for your product?
> Do you take funds from the other three businesses, to subsidise the fourth?
> Do ask the fourth business, to ascertain if there is any possibility, of an improvement?
> Or do you let it just carryon business as usual, till you run out of money?




It depends on the importance of the business to the economy.

 A key manufacturing industry with spin-offs to a lot of other industries is worth at least trying to save. I don't believe in handouts to business, I believe in co-investment in which the taxpayer gets a return like any other investor. The subsidy model is flawed. If we invest in businesses, that should imply some ownership of their assets, like other shareholders have.

Politicians have a duty to look at the economy as a whole and help strategic industries which may be suffering a downturn from temporary circumstances which can be ridden out by taxpayer investment.


----------



## sptrawler

rumpole said:


> It depends on the importance of the business to the economy.
> 
> A key manufacturing industry with spin-offs to a lot of other industries is worth at least trying to save. I don't believe in handouts to business, I believe in co-investment in which the taxpayer gets a return like any other investor. The subsidy model is flawed. If we invest in businesses, that should imply some ownership of their assets, like other shareholders have.
> 
> Politicians have a duty to look at the economy as a whole, not just individual businesses who may be suffering a downturn from temporary circumstances which can be ridden out by taxpayer investment.




Maybe they are.
I remember working for a very large business (one of the biggest). They were given tax breaks as long as they agreed to value add.
Well the plant they built was 1930's technology and a very small scale, but promised to increase the scale at a later date.
To cut a long story short as soon as the Government waived the requirement to upgrade the plant, the company closed it, 1500 jobs lost in 1979. It has sat idle, in the middle of the Perth industrial area, ever since.

The economy can't support, our welfare system, pension system, medicare system and support multi nationals. We don't have enough people to do that.
It would be nice to just keep giving people more money, so they can pay more to support more. Eventually your money becomes worthless.

Like you said, it is strange a Liberal Government has made this stand, they are usually pro business.

The last Government made things worse by adding new taxes on businesses, thereby compounding the problem.
Qantas wants a tax payer handout, yet we taxed them $100milion carbon tax last year,dumb.
How much carbon tax did the car manufacturers pay, lots I bet, yet you say give them tax payers handouts. Why not just tax them less.

Something has to be done to make Australia a sustainable place to do business. Relying on digging up resources isn't the answer, it hasn't worked for Argentina, Brazil or Chile.

We are running a deficit that has built up over a boom period.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> So what is the other option, take more money off businesses that are making money, and give it to companies that are losing money.
> 
> Wouldn't it make more sense to stop propping up failing business models, with tax payers money.
> But instead drop the company taxes, with the money you save, that in theory should help all companies prosper.
> You can't just keep throwing away money in the hope it will do better.
> 
> If it was your money and say you were funding four businesses.
> Three are doing really well, however one business keeps losing money, because it can't sell enough of your product.
> 
> Do you increase what you charge for your product?
> Do you take funds from the other three businesses, to subsidise the fourth?
> Do ask the fourth business, to ascertain if there is any possibility, of an improvement?
> Or do you let it just carryon business as usual, till you run out of money?




Bigget thing all layers of Government could do is to reduce the cost of land.  The flow on effect of massively overpriced land is a lack of competitiveness.  It doesn't really matter how efficient a business is if the fixed cost of rent is multiples of their competitors.

Add in that any workers have to be overpaid to afford to rent / pay the mortgage and it's crippling the competitiveness of the country.

That it's a non issue for all the major parties shows just how stuffed we're going to be.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Bigget thing all layers of Government could do is to reduce the cost of land.  The flow on effect of massively overpriced land is a lack of competitiveness.  It doesn't really matter how efficient a business is if the fixed cost of rent is multiples of their competitors.
> 
> Add in that any workers have to be overpaid to afford to rent / pay the mortgage and it's crippling the competitiveness of the country.
> 
> That it's a non issue for all the major parties shows just how stuffed we're going to be.




Absolutely, I bet there isn't many politicians that don't have investment properties.

The proactive tax breaks on property, amounts to a government gaurantee on price growth.

I'll be supprised, if there isn't a big shake up of the housing sector, and the way it's taxed.

This might be the government, that has the gonads to do it, it is long overdue. IMO

The residential property market, has become a joke. Yet commercial is in the doldrums.

People see residential property as a 100% gaurantee to make money, that isn't a healthy situation.


----------



## rumpole

Reduce the price of land by restricting foreign investment. 

But that's probably too dangerous for some.


----------



## sptrawler

rumpole said:


> It depends on the importance of the business to the economy.
> 
> A key manufacturing industry with spin-offs to a lot of other industries is worth at least trying to save. I don't believe in handouts to business, I believe in co-investment in which the taxpayer gets a return like any other investor. The subsidy model is flawed. If we invest in businesses, that should imply some ownership of their assets, like other shareholders have.
> 
> Politicians have a duty to look at the economy as a whole and help strategic industries which may be suffering a downturn from temporary circumstances which can be ridden out by taxpayer investment.




This ABC article probably answers your questions.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-18/sammut-and-philipatos-ir-reform/5267192


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Absolutely, I bet there isn't many politicians that don't have investment properties.
> 
> The proactive tax breaks on property, amounts to a government gaurantee on price growth.
> 
> I'll be supprised, if there isn't a big shake up of the housing sector, and the way it's taxed.
> 
> This might be the government, that has the gonads to do it, it is long overdue. IMO
> 
> The residential property market, has become a joke. Yet commercial is in the doldrums.
> 
> People see residential property as a 100% gaurantee to make money, that isn't a healthy situation.




I truly hope you're right, but considering they couldn't bring themselves to support the removal of the statutory method for car FBT, and how effective just $22M of advertising was against the original mining tax, and the fact PM and Treasure have both been on the record recently to say they don't believe high and rising house prices are bad, I don't see anything changing.

The REIA will bring out the lie that removal of NG will cause the housing market to implode and rents to sky rocket when history shows it wasn't true.  Hopefully the punters are smart enough to realise if landlords decide to sell en masse then they either sell to other investors or they sell to renters.  Either way there's no change in the supply or demand for rental properties.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> I truly hope you're right, but considering they couldn't bring themselves to support the removal of the statutory method for car FBT, and how effective just $22M of advertising was against the original mining tax, and the fact PM and Treasure have both been on the record recently to say they don't believe high and rising house prices are bad, I don't see anything changing.
> 
> The REIA will bring out the lie that removal of NG will cause the housing market to implode and rents to sky rocket when history shows it wasn't true.  Hopefully the punters are smart enough to realise if landlords decide to sell en masse then they either sell to other investors or they sell to renters.  Either way there's no change in the supply or demand for rental properties.




For my children and grandchildrens sake, I hope i'm right, unabated greed isn't the road to a better society.IMO
Also, the government can't claim it is cutting out taxpayer funded bailouts and yet support taxpayer funded property speculation.
It becomes a glaring contradiction.IMO
They will lose the support of their heartland, unless they apply consistent reasoning.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> For my children and grandchildrens sake, I hope i'm right, unabated greed isn't the road to a better society.IMO
> Also, the government can't claim it is cutting out taxpayer funded bailouts and yet support taxpayer funded property speculation.
> It becomes a glaring contradiction.IMO
> They will lose the support of their heartland, unless they apply consistent reasoning.




Tax free lump sum super with full access to the pension is the other glaringly obvious inconsistency, but I don't see that one changing any faster than NG.  

Abbott sided with the 16,000 who were going to have a 15% tax added to their earnings above $100K a year (well into the top income decile, especially since it's tax free) and has made the tax benefits of super for roughly 3.6M workers pretty much non existent and applied the change retrospectively too.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Tax free lump sum super with full access to the pension is the other glaringly obvious inconsistency, but I don't see that one changing any faster than NG.
> 
> Abbott sided with the 16,000 who were going to have a 15% tax added to their earnings above $100K a year (well into the top income decile, especially since it's tax free) and has made the tax benefits of super for roughly 3.6M workers pretty much non existent and applied the change retrospectively too.





On one hand, your saying people who have access to a lump sum to gain a pension, is wrong.

Then on the other, you are saying people who leave it in super and earn above a certain amount, should be taxed.

Before you know it, you would be charging normal tax rates on pensions.lol 

Why would you bother, 15% contribution tax, 15% earnings tax, then at the end it depends which ar$e is in office as to how much tax you pay when on a pension. Why bother locking your money up for that long?

Stuff super give me the cash.lol I'll negative gear.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Tax free lump sum super with full access to the pension is the other glaringly obvious inconsistency, but I don't see that one changing any faster than NG.
> 
> Abbott sided with the 16,000 who were going to have a 15% tax added to their earnings above $100K a year (well into the top income decile, especially since it's tax free) and has made the tax benefits of super for roughly 3.6M workers pretty much non existent and applied the change retrospectively too.




Actually Syd, upon thinking about it. 
By the time you reach retirement age, all you wish for, will have been enacted.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> On one hand, your saying people who have access to a lump sum to gain a pension, is wrong.
> 
> Then on the other, you are saying people who leave it in super and earn above a certain amount, should be taxed.
> 
> Before you know it, you would be charging normal tax rates on pensions.lol
> 
> Why would you bother, 15% contribution tax, 15% earnings tax, then at the end it depends which ar$e is in office as to how much tax you pay when on a pension. Why bother locking your money up for that long?
> 
> Stuff super give me the cash.lol I'll negative gear.




Seriously, a tax discount of around 60% isn't enough for that select group?  Most people get a 50% reduction in the tax they pay for contributions and investment returns.  It just seems silly to provide massive tax breaks to people based on saying it's to help cut the cost of the pension, but then once they're no longer able to get a pension, the tax losses still rack up.  In 15 years we'll have a near doubling of people on tax free super, combined with a 25% reduction in the workers to pensioner ratio.

Tax free super has to be one of the biggest potential drains on the budget in the coming years.

Also, super is compulsory, so why make the tax benefits on something compulsory too generous.  I'd say encouraging some extra saving, up to a reasonable amount is good policy, but then with more and more people hitting retirement still with a mortgage I'm not sure how many could benefit from it.  Once again most of the tax breaks will go to those who don't need to be encouraged to save for their retirement.



sptrawler said:


> Actually Syd, upon thinking about it.
> By the time you reach retirement age, all you wish for, will have been enacted.




It should have been enacted years ago SP.  That it hasn't been only means the future pain for those left paying taxes will be that much worse.

Do you believe it's sensible policy to allow someone to take their super as a lump sum and spent it quickly then still be able to gain a full pension?  Shouldn't we enforce super to be taken as a pension so as to move as many people off a full pension to a part pension and start saving some expenditure?  Aged care services, including the aged pension, already takes up some 20% of the federal budget, and that's when the boomers have only just started retiring.

Maybe it would be easier for people to understand if full tax was paid on super contributions and an equal rebate was provided by the Govt.  All rebate money has to be taken as a pension.  That way the argument of it's my money can hold true for what you actually contributed, and what the tax payer has contributed is used for the benefit of ALL tax payers ie reducing the cost of the aged pension.  Same would go for any fund earnings each FY.  It would certainly make it easier for people to see just how many $$$ super is costing.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Do you believe it's sensible policy to allow someone to take their super as a lump sum and spent it quickly then still be able to gain a full pension?  Shouldn't we enforce super to be taken as a pension so as to move as many people off a full pension to a part pension and start saving some expenditure?  Aged care services, including the aged pension, already takes up some 20% of the federal budget, and that's when the boomers have only just started retiring.
> 
> .




Probably belongs in another thread.
But of the people I know, the only ones talking of pulling their money out, are those with very little in super.
An 80year old friend, who has a fair bit in super, is actually borrowing money to build a house, rather than remove money from super.
The people you are talking about, will end up on a pension anyway. The pension really isn't much to aspire to.
I retired at 55 and I don't expect to ever get a pension, nor do I want one. However, if the tax rules change there is every chance I along with everyone else, will end up on one.
Most "average Australian" baby boomers nearing 60 on an average wage, will have about $150,000 in super. yipee. 
You can have that much and qualify for the full pension anyway, I think you're chasing windmills.
The problem your alluding to, won't happen untill average balances are around $500,000 and that is a long way off.IMO


----------



## noco

rumpole said:


> Obviously they will be fixing their business model in other countries. There goes jobs and skills here.





And can you blame them from taking their business to other countries?

And now the unions are crying out for government assistance to help those  businesses who can't make a profit due to high cost and over regualted requirements.

Have you ever been in business rumpole?

I have for 43 years and I am well aware of the pitfalls and I have never worked 38 hours a week.....more like 60 and 70 hours over 6 days and sometimes 7.


----------



## rumpole

noco said:


> I have for 43 years and I am well aware of the pitfalls and I have never worked 38 hours a week.....more like 60 and 70 hours over 6 days and sometimes 7.




So why are you still here if it's so bad ?


----------



## rumpole

noco said:


> And can you blame them from taking their business to other countries?




Not now that Abbott is PM, no.


----------



## noco

rumpole said:


> So why are you still here if it's so bad ?




Oh yes, the economy is bad alright thanks to Rudd/ Gillard/ Rudd...you got that right.

I was fortunate to be able to retire before the Labor Party took over in November 2007......If I had stayed in business under those goons I would most likely have gone broke.


----------



## noco

rumpole said:


> Not now that Abbott is PM, no.




This is not Abbotts fault.....he has only been in office for 5 months......the ones that are pulling out are the ones who kept putting their grubby hands out for subsidies to help them over come high costs created by your beloved unions.....But the well has dried up and the subsidies have stopped.....we don't need large overseas corporations like Ford, Holden and Toyota who who can't stand on their own two feet. Why should profitable companies and tax payers keep giving handouts for non profitable companies?

Manufacturing has been in decline since the early 1970's thanks to the communist dominated trade unions..


----------



## rumpole

noco said:


> Manufacturing has been in decline since the early 1970's thanks to the communist dominated trade unions..




I doubt if communism has much to do with trade unions, just greed, same as overpaid company directors who get bonuses for bankrupting their companies.


----------



## sptrawler

Here's a chart from the ABC website, showing job loses in manufacturing.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-19/manufacturing-chart-provided-by-aig/5264452


----------



## rumpole

sptrawler said:


> Here's a chart from the ABC website, showing job loses in manufacturing.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-19/manufacturing-chart-provided-by-aig/5264452




You don't actually believe the ABC communists do you ?


----------



## rumpole

sptrawler said:


> Here's a chart from the ABC website, showing job loses in manufacturing.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-19/manufacturing-chart-provided-by-aig/5264452




Can we blame government policy for the losses under Labor ? I would say the GFC would have had a lot to do with it, plus the Rudd governments adroit handling of the stimulus packages, shielding the economy from recession thereby creating a safe haven for money here and driving up the dollar. So losses in manufacturing jobs would be a side effect of a good policy. Pity the attempts to create a quasi sovereign wealth wealth fund via a mining tax to protect the $AUD was so opposed by vested interests.

Also interesting how the jobs rose as soon as Rudd got in, following a downtrend in the Howard years untill the GFC bit.


----------



## sptrawler

rumpole said:


> Can we blame government policy for the losses under Labor ? I would say the GFC would have had a lot to do with it, plus the Rudd governments adroit handling of the stimulus packages, shielding the economy from recession thereby creating a safe haven for money here and driving up the dollar. So losses in manufacturing jobs would be a side effect of a good policy. Pity the attempts to create a quasi sovereign wealth wealth fund via a mining tax to protect the $AUD was so opposed by vested interests.
> 
> Also interesting how the jobs rose as soon as Rudd got in, following a downtrend in the Howard years untill the GFC bit.




Yes, I think it's a shame we didn't get another term of Labor. They were about to turn the corner.


----------



## rumpole

sptrawler said:


> Yes, I think it's a shame we didn't get another term of Labor. They were about to turn the corner.




At least it took them six years to get rid of two car makers, it only took Abbott two months


----------



## sptrawler

rumpole said:


> At least it took them six years to get rid of two car makers, it only took Abbott two months




That's very true, if Labor were in they would have given them more money. 
Probably the $100million they took of Qantas, in carbon tax.
Oh no, they couldn't do that, because Qantas needs a handout also.


----------



## Macquack

noco said:


> Have you ever been in business rumpole?
> 
> I have for 43 years and I am well aware of the pitfalls and *I have never worked 38 hours a week.....more like 60 and 70 hours over 6 days and sometimes 7*.




You must be f*cking loaded then, Noco? 

And if your not, then your management skills must have been worse than the Labor Party that you whinge about all the bloody time.


----------



## sydboy007

Interesting the Abbott Govt expected the SPC workers to be reduced to the minimum award pay rate before the Govt would be willing to provide assistance.

* How is this attitude compatible with Abbott defending Don Randall and his $5000 2 hour meeting, or claiming work expenses for being at a friends' wedding?  Easy for a PM on $500K to say, or a lowly backbencher on $195K.

* The total blindness to the overall loss of competitiveness in Australia due to high land and rent, high utilities and the cripplingly high AUD.  Also a decade or more of minimal infrastructure investment is holding us back.

Wage growth outside the resource sector over the last 5 years has been minuscule (except CEOs and Politicians) compared to land price inflation and 50%+ growth cost of utilities due partly to over investment.  RET and carbon tax are way down the list of cost push pressures too.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Interesting the Abbott Govt expected the SPC workers to be reduced to the minimum award pay rate before the Govt would be willing to provide assistance.
> 
> * How is this attitude compatible with Abbott defending Don Randall and his $5000 2 hour meeting, or claiming work expenses for being at a friends' wedding?  Easy for a PM on $500K to say, or a lowly backbencher on $195K.
> 
> * The total blindness to the overall loss of competitiveness in Australia due to high land and rent, high utilities and the cripplingly high AUD.  Also a decade or more of minimal infrastructure investment is holding us back.
> 
> Wage growth outside the resource sector over the last 5 years has been minuscule (except CEOs and Politicians) compared to land price inflation and 50%+ growth cost of utilities due partly to over investment.  RET and carbon tax are way down the list of cost push pressures too.




That's capitalism at work, we're just lucky there isn't 50million of us, it would be ten times worse.

Politics is full of lawyers, bankers, accountants, that tells you, it's either a lucrative scam or they weren't very good at their real job.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Interesting the Abbott Govt expected the SPC workers to be reduced to the minimum award pay rate before the Govt would be willing to provide assistance.
> 
> .




http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ilout-union-officials-say-20140219-3314e.html

An extract from the article below,

*If SPC Ardmona workers had been moved on to the award, pay for a level-two process worker would have been cut from about $50,000 a year to $33,000. For higher-paid maintenance workers, the falls would have been even more dramatic, dropping from as much as $85,000 a year to about $50,000*.


So actually, Abbott wasn't telling lies when he said the workers had lucrative above award conditions.

It sounds as though they amount to about 75% loading on the base wage.


----------



## Calliope

sptrawler said:


> That's capitalism at work, we're just lucky there isn't 50million of us, it would be ten times worse.
> 
> Politics is full of lawyers, bankers, accountants, that tells you, it's either a lucrative scam or they weren't very good at their real job.




Composition of present Federal Parliament;

* Previous occupation*


Number
Percentage*
*Business executives, managers, self-employed business people, company directors, etc*.	
57
25%

*Barristers, solicitors, lawyers, legal officers, etc* 
30
13%
*Political consultants, advisers and lobbyists* 
32
14%
*Party and union administrators* 
22
10%
*Party and union officials* 
14
6%
*Members of state/territory legislatures* 
13
6
*Public service/policy administrators* 
10
4%
*Other administrators/consultants* 
9
4%
Farmers, graziers and other (full-time) primary producers	
8
4%
Researchers, research assistants, electorate and project officers	
8
4%
Lecturers, teachers, tutors	
5
2%
Medical practitioners, dentists, nurses	
4
2%
Local government officials	
3
1%
Other	
11
5%
Total	
226
100%

You will notice that those from private enterprise i.e. the people who get things done, and are almost entirely on the Coalition benches are vastly outnumbered by; 
Barristers, solicitors, lawyers, legal officers, etc.  Political consultants, advisers and lobbyist. Party and union administrators. Party and union officials, public servants etc...and these worthies dominate the Labor benches


http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1314/43rdParl


----------



## noco

Macquack said:


> You must be f*cking loaded then, Noco?
> 
> And if your not, then your management skills must have been worse than the Labor Party that you whinge about all the bloody time.




It is me to know and you to find out.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ilout-union-officials-say-20140219-3314e.html
> 
> An extract from the article below,
> 
> *If SPC Ardmona workers had been moved on to the award, pay for a level-two process worker would have been cut from about $50,000 a year to $33,000. For higher-paid maintenance workers, the falls would have been even more dramatic, dropping from as much as $85,000 a year to about $50,000*.
> 
> 
> So actually, Abbott wasn't telling lies when he said the workers had lucrative above award conditions.
> 
> It sounds as though they amount to about 75% loading on the base wage.




Depends what was bumping up their pay.  I get around 25% extra grosse pay each year due to working nights and weekends and public holidays.

I don't consider those payments as being lucrative but fair compensation for wearing my body out faster due to the constant flipping of my body clock and the anti social late shift and weekend work.

It's the rank hypocrisy of a group of people on a minimum of $195K calling for workers already earning atleast 75% less to take a pay cut.  This is the group of politicians who received 3 payrises over 16 months (IIRC).

How about Abbott and his colleges pledge to accept no pay rise till:

* Budget is balanced - according to Pyne it's a simple matter

* 4 qtrs of real per capita GDP growth

When / if they achieve that then I'd consider them deserving of a pay rise.  They're already in the top 5% of income earners of Australia.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Depends what was bumping up their pay.  I get around 25% extra grosse pay each year due to working nights and weekends and public holidays.
> 
> I don't consider those payments as being lucrative but fair compensation for wearing my body out faster due to the constant flipping of my body clock and the anti social late shift and weekend work.
> 
> It's the rank hypocrisy of a group of people on a minimum of $195K calling for workers already earning atleast 75% less to take a pay cut.  This is the group of politicians who received 3 payrises over 16 months (IIRC).
> 
> How about Abbott and his colleges pledge to accept no pay rise till:
> 
> * Budget is balanced - according to Pyne it's a simple matter
> 
> * 4 qtrs of real per capita GDP growth
> 
> When / if they achieve that then I'd consider them deserving of a pay rise.  They're already in the top 5% of income earners of Australia.




That last 40% payrise was outrageous, obviously having inside knowledge of the state of the economy, convinced Labor and Liberal to accept the money. Shows how politicians have a thick skin.

However getting away from the emotive side of it, Australia does have to stop chasing its tail with pay rises.
Only large companies can afford to pay them, but they still filter through to the general cost of living for everyone.
Meanwhile small companies have to lay people off because they're not making enough.
It will end badly unless workers and business get into a profit sharing model. Where pay rises are linked to improved profits.
Sounds easy, but it will be just about imposible to implement.


----------



## IFocus

The 'end of the age of entitlement' doesn't apply to Murdoch's empire



> Let’s be very clear: when treasurer Joe Hockey announced “the end of the age of entitlement” amidst the threatened closure of the SPC cannery in Shepparton, the withdrawal of Toyota from Australian manufacturing and the planned shutdown of Holden in South Australia, he was not talking about the expectations of corporate Australia. He was declaring an end only to a working-class expectation of basic job security.





http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...f-entitlement-doesnt-apply-to-murdochs-empire


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> The 'end of the age of entitlement' doesn't apply to Murdoch's empire
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...f-entitlement-doesnt-apply-to-murdochs-empire




Nor does it for "chardonnay socialists".lol


----------



## IFocus

The article rips the heart out off Abbott's BS.

Real wages actually fell last year, so if we’re about to have a pay rise explosion, someone better hurry up and light the fuse



> Wages increased in 2013 by less than inflation did, which suggests that real wages actually fell last year. The last time this has happened was during the GFC.






> And as for the manufacturing workers unions acting like it is boom time, the data gives that line a bit of a smack as well. In the manufacturing sector the growth in wages under enterprise agreements is at its lowest since 1994





> It’s fine for employer groups, the government and media outlets such as the Australian and the Australian Financial Review to argue for more flexibility in our IR system. But people who look at the past four years and still utter the phrase “wages boom” are just the economic equivalent of climate-change deniers.





http://www.theguardian.com/business...ts-economic-equivalent-climate-change-deniers


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> The article rips the heart out off Abbott's BS.
> 
> Real wages actually fell last year, so if we’re about to have a pay rise explosion, someone better hurry up and light the fuse
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/business...ts-economic-equivalent-climate-change-deniers




So we're ok now, no more job loses due to being uncompetitive, thanks IFocus.
I'll ring my kids in the mines and tell them all's good.lol

Oh by the way talking about BS, wasn't it funny that Qantas had a $300million loss that included a carbon tax of $100million.
Would that qualify as Gillard BS that cost jobs at Qantas.lol

Or the fact we are shutting down low cost coal generators at Kwinana to install gas units.lol


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> So we're ok now, no more job loses due to being uncompetitive, thanks IFocus.
> I'll ring my kids in the mines and tell them all's good.lol
> 
> Oh by the way talking about BS, wasn't it funny that Qantas had a $300million loss that included a carbon tax of $100million.
> Would that qualify as Gillard BS that cost jobs at Qantas.lol
> 
> Or the fact we are shutting down low cost coal generators at Kwinana to install gas units.lol




Don't forget the $40,000,000 carbon tax bill Alcoa had to pay.


----------



## IFocus

Looks like work-non choices is going to get a re-run soon I think I believe the bottom opinion rather the Abetz



> Senator Abetz confirmed, when asked about the changes, that they would allow workers to trade off penalty rates for family time.
> 
> He stressed it would be employees who decided if this trade-off suited them, and not employers dictating that penalty rates be signed away. ''If the worker is better off overall as determined by the worker, why should some collective agreement seek to deny the individual that right?''







> ''This is a blatant attempt to cut pay and conditions … despite all the pre-election promises,'' she said. ''Minister Abetz talks about imaginary workers that want to give up penalty rates for nothing. We're yet to find a worker that thinks this is a good deal.''




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...r-work-laws-20140220-334db.html#ixzz2tuE0bs5t


----------



## IFocus

sptrawler said:


> So we're ok now, no more job loses due to being uncompetitive, thanks IFocus.
> I'll ring my kids in the mines and tell them all's good.lol






Just tell your kids its all Labor's fault and that your mate Tony is going to cut their pay and conditions......all good.

I actually think its all heading in the wrong direction and yet to see any hope this government is going to do any thing other than redistribute wealth to their top end mates (like the US 17% from the middle class to the top .5%)

It's class war on steroids.


----------



## rumpole

IFocus said:


> Looks like work-non choices is going to get a re-run soon I think I believe the bottom opinion rather the Abetz
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...r-work-laws-20140220-334db.html#ixzz2tuE0bs5t




Of course the worker will have a choice, so do people with guns at their heads.


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> Just tell your kids its all Labor's fault and that your mate Tony is going to cut their pay and conditions......all good.
> 
> I actually think its all heading in the wrong direction and yet to see any hope this government is going to do any thing other than redistribute wealth to their top end mates (like the US 17% from the middle class to the top .5%)
> 
> It's class war on steroids.




You really do live in another universe don't you.

The nickel mining company my son works for, asked everyone to take a pay cut over 12 months ago. 
The guys agreed to it, or the mine was going to shut down. 

You and your ideology would have everyone out of a job, but that's fine.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> It will end badly unless workers and business get into a profit sharing model. Where pay rises are linked to improved profits.
> Sounds easy, but it will be just about imposible to implement.




Fully agree, but with the Coalition Government demonising workers and unions I don't see it happening.

No idea if an Accord can be done with union membership lower, but some form of solidarity needs to be seen or people wont be too happy feeling they are bearing more than their fair share of the costs to regain our international competitiveness.

John Brogden - chief executive of the Financial Services Council - has been bemoaning the fact that with 1.7T in super it's a shame Aussie fund managers only have about 5% of FUM from overseas.  Shows that what looks like should be a competitive industry can't compete on the global stage.


----------



## IFocus

sptrawler said:


> The nickel mining company my son works for, asked everyone to take a pay cut over 12 months ago.
> The guys agreed to it, or the mine was going to shut down.





How much of a pay cut did the board and CEO take?


----------



## bunyip

IFocus said:


> The article rips the heart out off Abbott's BS.
> 
> Real wages actually fell last year, so if we’re about to have a pay rise explosion, someone better hurry up and light the fuse
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/business...ts-economic-equivalent-climate-change-deniers




AWU boss Paul Howes recently said that workers were pricing themselves out of the market.
Do you agree or disagree with him?


----------



## sydboy007

bunyip said:


> AWU boss Paul Howes recently said that workers were pricing themselves out of the market.
> Do you agree or disagree with him?




A lot of wages in Australia are high, but then CEo pay has risen 3 times faster than the plebs underneath them.

There's also the issue that wages in a lot of business are not the biggest cost, but rents are, yet there's no focus on the causes of over priced land in this country, nor any policies by the tweedle dum and tweedle dee major parties to resolve it.

There will need to be a lot of sacrifice to get us competitive again, but if there's not at least the perception the pain is being share by everyone, and seriously politicians getting 3 pay rises in less than 2 years doesn't qualify for it, but demonisng workers and unions is definitely not the way forward.

Besides removing the carbon tax, which has had little impact on the economy and has provided a tidy profit via the sale of excess permits to many trade exposed companies, what is the Abbott Govt doing to improve the general competitiveness of the Australian economy?


----------



## IFocus

bunyip said:


> AWU boss Paul Howes recently said that workers were pricing themselves out of the market.
> Do you agree or disagree with him?




Paul Howes is a media tart looking for a safe seat he would'nt know what a worker looked like if he fell over one.

Here in WA we still struggle to get skilled trades, where will they come from if your mate Abbott keeps killing industries that train them but throws money at his media mogul mates.

Mining BTW train SFA skilled trades pay bugger all tax and get massive tax breaks on fuel etc but still keep believing your mate Abbott lying about over paid workers, the SPC / Cadbury thing was utter and total BS.


----------



## IFocus

Reality bites: pollies fake it for the cameras



> This sort of thinking, where facts bend like light through a prism to suit political necessity, are a commonplace.
> 
> Did outrageous award conditions put SPC Ardmona in a hard place? Yes, say the politicians. No, says the company.
> 
> Same story at Toyota. And Holden.
> 
> Did the carbon tax play a leading hand in the Alcoa smelter decision? No, says Alcoa. Yes, says government. Is Australian business enduring a wages boom that tears at the heart of business and erodes slim profitability? Yes, says government. No, says the Australian Bureau of Statistics: "The growth in wages over the last year of 2.6 per cent seasonally adjusted was the smallest through the year rise since the series commenced in 1997."


----------



## basilio

It's a joke isn't it ? This mindless, viscous excuse for a government wants to slash the penalty rates of hospitality staff and factory workers to do what ? Just ensure the CEO's can buy another private plane? 

And exactly how are  working people  supposed to survive if their wages are cut by 15-20-25% ? 

If this piece of industrial relations is successful I can see some excellent job opportunities for security guards on all the government MPS.


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> If this piece of industrial relations is successful I can see some excellent job opportunities for security guards on all the government MPS.




Yes it is quite possible that union thuggery will endanger Coalition MPs. Let's hope the Royal Commission will curb Union thuggery and skulduggery, before that stage is reached.

The 1996 Parliament House Riot gave us a preview of the lynch-mob depths they would stoop to.


----------



## sydboy007

So the Health Minister says "Today I ask you to help steer our country to a frank, fearless and far-reaching discussion on our health system. Why? Well, partly the answer lies in the latest statistics on obesity and diabetes in this country.''

He goes on to say ''Rising rates of obesity and diabetes may be the seeds of a future crisis - yet they are just two of several that we as a nation and society must confront.''

The same Health Minister who's allowed his assistant Health Minister to shut down a website designed to help combat the obesity epidemic by providing people more information on the food they eat.  Obviously the Minister believes we must confront the issue via ignorance and lack of easy access to information that might actually help us.

It is also the same minister who's cut funding to the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia, which is another silent killer of Australians.  Maybe an evidence based approach to drug addiction wasn't compatible with a  Government that lacks a Minister for Science?

Combined with the FOFA legislation being watered down and the removal of the LISC for 3.6M true Aussie battlers, while increasing the incomes of 16,000 struggling ultra wealthy super pensioners, it's sadly becoming increasingly obvious this Government is not about the great unwashed.


----------



## IFocus

Mike Carlton on Downers appointment



> On a much happier note, how thrilling that Lord Downer has so graciously agreed to be our man in London, Australia's high commissioner to the Court of St James.
> 
> It is a splendid posting, infinitely well merited. In his distinguished career as foreign affairs minister, Downer was a pivotal figure in the Coalition of the Willing's triumphant victory in the Iraq War, doing so much to bring about the peace, democracy and security flowering in the Middle East today. And all that as we sold wheat to Saddam Hussein and deftly shovelled hundreds of millions of dollars into the tyrant's bank account for the privilege.







> It's fitting, too, that Downer will be following in the footsteps of his father, Sir Alec, also a former Liberal cabinet minister, and high commissioner from 1963 to 1972. Although the Labour government of Harold Wilson held office for most of those years, Downer snr famously spent much of his time brown-nosing the High Tory establishment in energetic but sadly fruitless pursuit of a peerage.
> 
> ''While Downer had certain merits, he had not been a success as high commissioner,'' wrote Sir Paul Hasluck, then the Liberal foreign minister and later governor-general. ''He was too easily charmed by being recognised by some member of the nobility, and felt he had done great service to Australia if he were on speaking terms with some member of the royal family. He knew too many of the nice people and scarcely any of the bastards.''




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/plain-sailing-but-heads-will-roll-20140221-3379y.html#ixzz2u091X4h2


----------



## IFocus

as per Syds comments

Government silent on why it axed alcohol harm body



> An alcohol harm reduction body has accused the federal government of an ''appalling level of transparency'' after it refused to release documents explaining why it axed the nation's drug and alcohol body after almost 50 years of operation.
> 
> The Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education had its freedom of information request denied on the grounds it was ''not in the public interest''.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...l-harm-body-20140221-337h8.html#ixzz2u09UqcvY


----------



## rumpole

IFocus said:


> as per Syds comments
> 
> Government silent on why it axed alcohol harm body
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...l-harm-body-20140221-337h8.html#ixzz2u09UqcvY




Well, what did we expect ? Profits before people is the LNP's secret slogan.


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> How much of a pay cut did the board and CEO take?




Probably about as much as a union organiser takes, when he negotiates a poor deal for workers.

To put your head in the sand and say that wages shouldn't follow profitability. 

Is the same as putting your rents up, when you can't rent out your properties.

It is childlike ideology.IMO

Fortunately workers are much better informed today, than they were 30 years ago. It will be interesting to see where it all, ends up. 
Either way "sunshine and lollipops" are off the menu at the moment, no matter who is in office.
Now some of the issues are on the table, they will have to be addressed.

Can't wait untill the politicians face up to the fact, that they themselves are a huge burden on the public purse.
The cost of Federal and State Governments are huge, the duplication of functions are massive and the inherent belief of self entitlement is unsustainable.

They have privatised large chunks of their portfolios and responsibilties, yet haven't reduced their entitlements or numbers.
Maybe politicians need a strategic review of their roles functions and effectiveness, I think they would get a massive shock.


----------



## Calliope

rumpole said:


> Well, what did we expect ? Profits before people is the LNP's secret slogan.




It's also the union bosses "not so secret slogan". Slush funds before workers.


----------



## noco

Calliope said:


> It's also the union bosses "not so secret slogan". Slush funds before workers.




Calliope, you are not supposed to talk about greedy union bosses...only greedy business bosses.

Ah well, I guess the Royal commission will sort the sheep from the goats in the unions.....Not too many sheep I am afraid.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Calliope, you are not supposed to talk about greedy union bosses...only greedy business bosses.
> 
> Ah well, I guess the Royal commission will sort the sheep from the goats in the unions.....Not too many sheep I am afraid.




So you think it sensible to focus on 1 problem by ignoring another?

I'll freely admit some union members have done great harm to workers and the economy.  Some of the ambit claims they have are just plain ridiculous, but then what the BCA tends to go in with each year is often just as bad.

Are you able to take off your ideologically biased glasses and see that business and political leaders have done just as much damage too?

There is no single magic issue that can be resolved to get the country back on track.  It's taken around 20 years of lack of ticker in the political establishment to get us close to where we were back in the late 80s ie a near 3rd world country reliant on a couple of key commodities for much of our export income, with near total capitulation for most companies being competitive in the tradeable sectors.  Our economy is more like Brazil or Russia than the USA or Germany.

Banks too big to fail using their strength to not pay for the implicit guarantee they get from the Federal Government.  Every rent seeker has shown if they shout loud enough and scare enough people that the monopoly style rents they receive are good for the economy and good for those fortunate voters most able to take advantage of it.  All the investment distortions are ignored, yet they do more damage than a hundred Craig Thompsons.

It wont matter what the GDP numbers say, because for the majority of us it's going to feel like a recession whether we have a technical one or not, which is generally quite hard to achieve due to the high immigration levels we have.  Falling per capita AND real wages are going to hurt.  Combined with many more years of above CPI electricity prices and the likelihood of gas prices being 3 to 4 times higher than they currently are are other issues our political leaders have their heads in the sand over.  Youth unemployment SHOULD be a national disgrace yet it's not registering in the national conscious.

Getting people to accept we are going to suffer a largish national income fall and be willing to wear some of the hurt is going to be key on how we face the many challenges coming our way.  So far Abbott is not sending the right message.  You can't coddle up to big business and expect the voters to wear a greater share of the pain.  You can't really in good standing lecture workers who are already at the lower end of the income scale that they have to reduce their pay even more, where a year earlier you were defending getting 3 massive pay rises over 16 or 18 months.  You can't expect a lot of trust from the voters when you stand up for $5000 2 hour meetings while in opposition, especially when the stench of purchasing an IP was merely _incidental_.

If Labor is smart they'll start offering some true leadership on these issues with REAL world responses to them.  I fear they'll take the Abbott FUD route instead, which will be to the detriment of us all.

If you could wipe out unions tomorrow Noco, do you think the Australian economy would then be able to have a world class competitive tradeables sector?  I'm pretty confident in saying no it wouldn't.


----------



## qldfrog

You are probably right sydboy, after the debacle of the Gilliard government we need leadership and a strong one.
we all need to make high sacrifices and get out of the partisan slogan if we want to avoid the descent to doom (economically)
time to look ahead  and stop the race forward with immigration and debt fuelled housing recovery:
Pakistan/egypt have a huge number of houses and high demand  too......That does not build an economy
not so sure tony will have the guts..and no hope to come from Labour


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> If Labor is smart they'll start offering some true leadership on these issues with REAL world responses to them.  I fear they'll take the Abbott FUD route instead, which will be to the detriment of us all.
> 
> If you could wipe out unions tomorrow Noco, do you think the Australian economy would then be able to have a world class competitive tradeables sector?  I'm pretty confident in saying no it wouldn't.




If Labor were smart they would have offered true leadership on these issues, six months ago, when in office.

If you could wipe out unions tomorrow, you would have a stronger Labor Party and the shouted down members would be able to put forward their opinion.
Rather than be threatened with a ' bag of bolts on the head' if they don't toe the line. fact not fiction.lol


----------



## sptrawler

I know this isn't Abbott related, but it is Liberal Party related.
Some would have us think, that Liberal is all about 'diving to the bottom' with wages and conditions. 
That is a stupid arguement, both parties have kids, that have to work.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/21646299/minister-appalled-by-mcdonalds-shifts/

To think that one party, embraces draconian measures, while the other wants to bring down companies, is crazy.
Both want a better Australia, it is just dependent on the politicians, putting Australia first.
Not themselves.

That big pay rise a couple of years ago, doesn't stand them in good stead.
It smells of insider trading, they knew what was coming.lol


----------



## drsmith

Question time today would have been worth watching.



> In Question Time, the Minister responded to Opposition queries about the flow of information by saying that on Saturday it became "essential to correct the record".
> 
> He told Parliament the Immigration Department's inquiry into the matter will look at "all of the issues that relate to this incident", including those stemming from Labor's time in government.
> 
> "That will include how this centre was specified, and who set it up and how it was set up," Mr Morrison said.
> 
> "It'll go into the performance of the service contractors that those opposite contracted, it will go into the security arrangements that were put in place and left to the Opposition when we formed government.
> 
> "It'll go into all of those and it'll go into the conduct of myself and those on this side and our handling of these issues since we took over responsibility for these centres."
> 
> Mr Morrison also launched a counter-attack on Labor, criticising former immigration minister Tony Burke for his handling of last year's riot at the detention centre on Nauru.
> 
> "It took him a full week to front the Australian people to announce the review into the Nauru processing centre that burnt down on his watch - it was a melt down on your watch," he accused Mr Burke in Parliament.
> 
> Mr Burke, now Manager of Opposition Business, protested that it was not relevant to the question.
> 
> "There are no end of opportunities for political point-scoring - we are dealing with an issue where a man has died," he said.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-...sure-to-resign-over-manus-island-riot/5279714



> "The manager of opposition business (Tony Burke) once boast he could build a 10,000 man camp on Manus Island," Mr Morrison told the chamber.
> 
> "I just shudder to think how something like that could have been run safely."




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...r-for-pm-shorten/story-fn3dxiwe-1226835958663


----------



## drsmith

Scott Morrison's performance in Parliament today in response to questions from Labor's Richard Marles as judged by today's Fairfax's Pulse's column closing summary,



> 5:59pm: Before we ride off into the Monday sunset, what did we learn today?
> •"I'll take that on notice" is not an all-encompassing get out of jail card. Particularly if Penny Wong is on the committee;
> •Celebrations take many forms (see: the bonfires lit for George Brandis' elevation to Attorney-General);
> •The rains/ pours thing really is true. Craig Thomson now needs to keep a concerned eye on the privileges committee;
> •As Christopher Pyne tells us, MPs might "gild the lily". But this is very different from deliberately misleading parliament; and
> •If at first you don't succeed ... Try and try again. Even if it's just a crockery set;
> 
> Thanks for tuning in. Andrew Meares, Alex Ellinghausen and I will see you tomorrow for MORE estimates.



Manus didn't rate a mention.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ics-live-february-24-2014-20140224-33b4v.html


----------



## trainspotter

Singing like a canary in a cage.



> FORMER Australian prime minister Julia Gillard has praised the Abbott government for maintaining funding for a program designed to educate children in the world's poorest countries.
> Gillard, speaking in Washington DC on Monday at the Brookings Institution, said she was pleased the change of government in Australia did not lead to a cut in the financial support for the Global Partnership for Education (GPE).
> Gillard will take up the role of chair of the GPE's board next month.




http://www.news.com.au/world/breaki...government-in-us/story-e6frfkui-1226836490765



> Tony Abbott has flagged a reduction in the rate of spending growth in health and education, but insists he will keep his election promise of no cuts in those areas.
> In a speech to the Australia-Canada Economic Leadership Forum on Monday night, the Prime Minister backed his Treasurer, Joe Hockey, in preparing Australians for a tough budget and for inevitable curtailing of government programs.
> ''We will keep our pre-election commitments to maintain health spending and school spending but we must reduce the rate of spending growth in the longer term,'' Mr Abbott said.
> Advertisement
> The Prime Minister's warning about health and education spending follows media appearances last week by Health Minister Peter Dutton, and Mr Hockey, in which they suggested that the current rate of government spending was unsustainable.
> Delivering the first in a series of major speeches on the Coalition's health agenda, Mr Dutton said last Wednesday that one of the Abbott government's important tasks was ''to grow the opportunity for those Australians who can afford to do to contribute to their own health care costs''.





Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...on-spending-20140225-33du9.html#ixzz2uHj5BJid

Let the toecutting begin in earnest I say !


----------



## drsmith

Talk of effectively means-testing Medicare and increasing the pension age I'd suggest has unsettled the natives with the result being a very poor poll Newspoll for the government.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...dget-fears-rise/story-fnc6vkbc-1226836442203#


----------



## rumpole

The Manus situation is looking more like "children overboard" . 

 At least Morrison had the guts to correct himself, but we'll see what comes out from now on.

 Manus is looking shaky as a detention centre, so next we turn to Cambodia.

North Korea is looking good too.


----------



## sydboy007

from the Australian

_Assistant Immigration Minister Michaelia Cash will announce the inquiry with a pledge to ensure the integrity of the program while scrapping any unnecessary red tape that holds business back.

The terms of reference to be issued today highlight the importance of the program to employers that experience skill shortages and the potential of the workers to boost the economy…

Senator Cash is expected to commit to “evidence-based productivity reform” as part of the announcement…

There were 90,780 workers in Australia under the scheme at the end of last year, up 8.3 per cent on the previous year…

The toughening of the 457 visa program cleared the parliament on June 28 when Labor gained the support of the Greens and crossbench senators Nick Xenophon and John Madigan._

Strange the Government thinks it's an onerous condition to actually advertise a job before applying to fill the role via a 457 visa.

Considering unemployment is already at 6%, underemployment is increasing, hours worked decreasing, participation decreasing, why would you want to make it even easier to import foreign workers?

This seems to be all about depressing wages and possibly goosing the housing market with increased demand.


----------



## IFocus

Grubby politics and the public know it

Coalition's break with precedent takes political use of parliament to new level




> Another day, another unprecedented use of the resources and powers of government to pursue politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before it has even met, the government has announced the parliament will apologise, something that has previously happened only in relation to matters such as the stolen generation, forced adoptions or British child adoptions. Pyne says these comparisons are unfair, but concedes this apology is setting a precedent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday we discovered the prime minister ordered cabinet documents from the previous Labor government be handed to the royal commission into the home insulation scheme, one of two highly political royal commissions set up by the government (the other is into union corruption). This is also unprecedented.
> 
> The cabinet handbook states “the convention is that cabinet documents are confidential to the government which created them and not the property of the sponsoring minister or department. Access to them by succeeding governments is not granted without the approval of the current parliamentary leader of the appropriate political party.”
Click to expand...






> Whether these unprecedented and blatantly political tactics are effective remains to be seen, but it is possible the best way for a government to “put behind it” three years of a hung parliament is to get on with governing.




http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/25/coalition-precedent-political-use-parliament


----------



## AAA

IFocus said:


> Grubby politics and the public know it
> 
> Coalition's break with precedent takes political use of parliament to new level
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/25/coalition-precedent-political-use-parliament




Shorten unreservedly supported this motion.


----------



## orr

On Cardinal 'hold your nose against the smell' Pell's appointment as the vatican economic overlord. 
Both Hitler and Stalin modelled intrinsic elements on the organisation of the church, orthodox and catholic.
Abbott By his own admission doesn't understand much about economics, and doesn't care to much or understand much about science either, but he does understand Brutalism .

 Intergenerational institutional Brutalism is what the church has served up to untold thousands of children and families, note how many are the *powerless*, protected by it's infiltration of governmental structures and institutions.  And... Institutionalised Brutalism is what is being served up to asylum seekers, the *powerless*... If history is your guide Brutalism is what is in-store for a particular _group_ of you. lets see what the 'jackboot' feels like when it's on your neck.

 Separation of church and state... LOL


----------



## IFocus

AAA said:


> Shorten unreservedly supported this motion.




From the Liberal Daily



> Manager of opposition business, Tony Burke, said his party would not oppose the motion, but accused the government of attempting to wedge Labor on the issue.
> 
> “We are deeply, deeply offended by what happened’’ with Thomson, Mr Burke said.
> 
> “We’re not going to play some game ... I expect it will be dealt with pretty quickly.’’
> 
> Amid claims of political pointscoring, Leader of the House Christopher Pyne defended the move, saying Thomson had defamed individuals under parliamentary privilege with what appeared to be lies.





http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...n-apology-motion/story-fn59niix-1226836658403


----------



## AAA

IFocus said:


> From the Liberal Daily
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...n-apology-motion/story-fn59niix-1226836658403




Labor did more than just not opposing the motion. I listened to Shorten's response in parliament. His support was unreserved without qualification. If the motion was not warranted why did Shorten offer his unreserved support.


----------



## drsmith

AAA said:


> If the motion was not warranted why did Shorten offer his unreserved support.



For the same reason Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott didn't contest their seats at the last election.


----------



## rumpole

drsmith said:


> For the same reason Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott didn't contest their seats at the last election.




Shorten was getting death threats ?


----------



## IFocus

Under Tony Abbott, political principles reach an all-time low



> We are witnessing history being made. Unfortunately, it's a history-making decline in standards of political behaviour. At least it proves we're not merely imagining that things were better in the old days.
> 
> Tempting though it is, one of the things incoming governments don't do is delve into the affairs of their predecessor. The papers of the old government aren't made available to the new masters. But all that is out the window with the Abbott government's decision to establish a royal commission into the Rudd government's handling of the home insulation program and provide it with Labor's cabinet documents.







> It takes innocence greater than I can muster to believe the motive for the inquiry is to bring justice to the program's victims rather than to embarrass the Coalition's political opponents by raking over one of their more celebrated stuff-ups.






> So far have our standards sunk that we must now suffer the indignity of being lectured on human rights by the Chinese government.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/under...alltime-low-20140225-33ffk.html#ixzz2uMzrH2an


----------



## sails

IFocus said:


> Under Tony Abbott, political principles reach an all-time low
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/under...alltime-low-20140225-33ffk.html#ixzz2uMzrH2an





No, IFocus. That's an opinion, not fact...


----------



## noco

The socialist left wing Labor and the Greens want a Royal commission into the death of one asylum seeker but cannot see the reason for a Royal commission into the 'PINK BAT DISASTER" that caused the deaths of 4 young Australian men and the burning down of over 200 houses.

What do they have to fear?


----------



## basilio

sails said:


> No, IFocus. That's an opinion, not fact...




Well * the fact*  is that this government is destroying a centuries old tradition of  parliamentary protocol by wanting to release cabinet papers for the Royal Commission.

The longstanding tradition of having cabinet papers confidential allows frank and wide ranging advice to governments. It means ministers  from whichever party is in power can speak their minds without being concerned that in 3 years time they will have their comments trawled and nitpicked in public.

It's wrong, it's dumb and it's unprincipled.  I just hope the judge in this case has the courage and clear vision to make that observation regardless of the findings.


----------



## sydboy007

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-26/ewen-jones-says-food-star-ratings-wont-work/5283940

_“I carry weight, I am actually fat. It’s not the Government that makes me fat… I don’t need a government to come and tell me that what I’m eating is wrong”…

“When I’m opening up a tub of ice-cream, I’m not looking at the rating, I’m not opening it because it’s low-calorie, low-fat or because it’s good for me”…

“I’m opening it up because it’s chock-a-block full of chocolate”…

Asked how he believed the Government should best combat obesity and its huge costs to the taxpayers, Mr Jones said education was the key.

“I think it’s through education and education in school, through healthy examples in schools, but not down to tuckshops,” he said._

-----------------

So if education is the way, then surely a website providing information to help make better choices, along with food labels that help to make better food choices is a good way forward  

 have no idea what MP Jones is on about.  It's not like we're going t ban blatantly bad foods.  He's still able to eat himself into a type II diabetes early death if he so chooses.  

Jones' attitude seems to sum up the Coalition position on the issue though.  Keep the masses in the dark and keep the donations from the junk food / alcohol / tobacco industries rolling in.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> The socialist left wing Labor and the Greens want a Royal commission into the death of one asylum seeker but cannot see the reason for a Royal commission into the 'PINK BAT DISASTER" that caused the deaths of 4 young Australian men and the burning down of over 200 houses.
> 
> What do they have to fear?




* can you point me to the information about 200 houses burning down

* were the private employers more or less responsible than the govt for the deaths?  Should Govt no longer provide money to external parties and only use directly employed people to do any form of Govt contract so as to ensure OH&S compliance? Note it was the states who were responsible for setting OH&S and IIRC none of them really had much in the way of guidelines for the insulation installers.

* can we have a royal commission into John Howard sending troops into Iraq for the second Iraq war?  He did so against a large share of the population, he did so ignoring a lot of tell tale signs the information being used to justify the invasion was faulty, and it turned out that all the reasons provided as justification wear false or out right lies.  The Brits did a decent attempt at some self analysis, how about the Abbott Govt does some too so we ensure not to make the same mistakes again.


----------



## drsmith

QT live on Youtube,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lXfH2PJO4E#t=535

35 watching now.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> * can you point me to the information about 200 houses burning down
> 
> * were the private employers more or less responsible than the govt for the deaths?  Should Govt no longer provide money to external parties and only use directly employed people to do any form of Govt contract so as to ensure OH&S compliance? Note it was the states who were responsible for setting OH&S and IIRC none of them really had much in the way of guidelines for the insulation installers..




The link below indicates 154 house fires that we know of......there may have been more......nevertheless, just one house fire would have been too many.

The Governemnt in office at the time of this debacle should have insisted on contractors being registered as proficient with Work Place Health Safety rules.....they did not care who did the work, resulting in letting a lot of "COW BOYS" in that should not have been allowed. 

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...l-rationality-prevail-over-pink-batt-hysteria


----------



## DB008

noco said:


> The socialist left wing Labor and the Greens want a Royal commission into the death of one asylum seeker but cannot see the reason for a Royal commission into the 'PINK BAT DISASTER" that caused the deaths of 4 young Australian men and the burning down of over 200 houses.
> 
> What do they have to fear?




Don't forget the 1200 that drowned at sea during ALP's 'open border' policy. Not a peep out of them...


----------



## rumpole

DB008 said:


> Don't forget the 1200 that drowned at sea during ALP's 'open border' policy. Not a peep out of them...




It's ridiculous to blame drownings at sea on government policy.

 The responsibility lies with those who choose to take the risks.

 Once people have got here, and are in the custody and 'care' of the Australian government, the duty of responsibility for their safety then transfers to the government (of whatever persuasion).


----------



## DB008

rumpole said:


> It's ridiculous to blame drownings at sea on government policy.
> 
> The responsibility lies with those who choose to take the risks.
> 
> Once people have got here, and are in the custody and 'care' of the Australian government, the duty of responsibility for their safety then transfers to the government (of whatever persuasion).




Please take your blinkers off.

If the previous Gov had an open border policy that encouraged people to come here illegally....umm, they would have to take some of the blame for some of those deaths at sea? No?



Here was an article in todays paper that might help you understand...




> *The hypocrites of the left*
> 
> A YOUNG man came to our doorstep seeking our help and we killed him. That is what happened on Tony Abbott’s watch and Tony Abbott now needs to show some principle and sack Scott Morrison.”
> 
> That single quote from Greens MP Adam Bandt sums up the emotional flatulence and sanctimonious hypocrisy that has been spewing from the Establishment Left all week.
> 
> If by “we”, Bandt meant the Greens and the rest of the opportunistic bleeding hearts who have been parading their compassion all week, then he would have been correct.
> 
> Because if anyone is to blame for the death of 23-year-old asylum seeker Reza Berati during a violent riot at Manus Island it is those very people who persuaded Kevin Rudd to dismantle the Howard government’s hard-won border protection.
> 
> And further, it was the toxic partnership of the Greens and Labor which turbocharged the people smuggling racket and lured asylum seekers like Berati with the promise of open borders.
> 
> Yet Labor’s Senator Sue Lines had the hide to accuse Scott Morrison of having “Blood on his hands”.
> 
> Greens leader Christine Milne even came close to accusing Immigration Minister Scott Morrison of “murder”.
> 
> What a joke.
> 
> Yes, Berati’s death was tragic. And if there are lessons to be learned about how to manage Manus Island, the government will need to heed them.
> 
> But the glee with which the compassionistas are pouncing on this story is unseemly.
> 
> What makes it even more infuriating is that this tragedy never should have happened. John Howard had emptied out the detention centres. There were just four boat people left in detention when Labor came to office. The boats had stopped. The deterrent was in place. No one left to riot. No asylum seekers dying at sea.
> 
> Labor arrogantly dismantled it all with the result that more than 50,000 people bypassed our immigration system and more than 1200 people drowned trying to get here.
> 
> Yet the bleeding hearts were silent on those deaths, which were every bit as tragic.
> 
> The tragedies were the direct result of achieving their heart’s desire and few had the integrity or humility to admit they were wrong.
> 
> When 200 asylum seekers drowned off Java in December 2011, what was Greens Senator Sarah Hanson Young’s response? “Tragedies happen. Accidents happen.”
> 
> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/the-hypocrites-of-the-left/story-fni0cwl5-1226837577099


----------



## rumpole

DB008 said:


> Please take your blinkers off.
> 
> If the previous Gov had an open border policy that encouraged people to come here illegally....umm, they would have to take some of the blame for some of those deaths at sea? No?
> 
> 
> .




So you ascribe NO RESPONSIBILITY WHATEVER to people who have seen others drown at sea and still choose to take a risk when they are quite safe in Indonesia, and you allot ALL the responsibility to government policy at the time ?

It's really funny when some people drone on about 'personal responsibility' in some issues like drug and alcohol abuse and decide to totally ignore it in others.

Yes, this government's policy appears to have stopped the boats. What price do you put on the now fractured relations with Indonesia which is just waiting for an excuse to get some retribution for our ships straying over its borders. Such retribution may come in loss of trade deals which could cost us more than we saved in refugee detention.

And I hear no condemnation of the blatant hypocrisy of refusing to agree to a 'Malaysia solution' on the laughable grounds that Malaysia has not signed the refugee convention, but sending people back to Indonesia which has also not signed the convention is fine ?


----------



## Macquack

rumpole said:


> It's ridiculous to blame drownings at sea on government policy.
> 
> The responsibility lies with those who choose to take the risks.
> 
> Once people have got here, and are in the custody and 'care' of the Australian government, the duty of responsibility for their safety then transfers to the government (of whatever persuasion).




Agree 100%.

It grates me that the same goons who are willing to blast the refugees out of the water to keep them out of Australia, are the same ones that feign compassion and cry crocodile tears if refugees perish.


----------



## DB008

rumpole said:


> *So you ascribe NO RESPONSIBILITY WHATEVER to people who have seen others drown at sea and still choose to take a risk when they are quite safe in Indonesia, and you allot ALL the responsibility to government policy at the time ?*
> 
> It's really funny when some people drone on about 'personal responsibility' in some issues like drug and alcohol abuse and decide to totally ignore it in others.
> 
> Yes, this government's policy appears to have stopped the boats. What price do you put on the now fractured relations with Indonesia which is just waiting for an excuse to get some retribution for our ships straying over its borders. Such retribution may come in loss of trade deals which could cost us more than we saved in refugee detention.
> 
> And I hear no condemnation of the blatant hypocrisy of refusing to agree to a 'Malaysia solution' on the laughable grounds that Malaysia has not signed the refugee convention, but sending people back to Indonesia which has also not signed the convention is fine ?




Of course. People are responsible for their actions. However, if you throw a juicy carrot, there will always be a certain percentage of people that will take it, regardless of the risks. ALP had an open border policy. Lots of people drowned, bugger all was said about it. ALP encouraged people to come here in droves.


----------



## Calliope

Macquack said:


> Agree 100%.
> 
> It grates me that the same goons who are willing to blast the refugees out of the water to keep them out of Australia, are the same ones that feign compassion and cry crocodile tears if refugees perish.




Plenty of feigned compassion and crocodile tears here, at a rent-a crowd "candlelight vigil" organised by GetUp to make political capital out of the death of an Iranian in Manus.


----------



## drsmith

rumpole said:


> And I hear no condemnation of the blatant hypocrisy of refusing to agree to a 'Malaysia solution' on the laughable grounds that Malaysia has not signed the refugee convention, but sending people back to Indonesia which has also not signed the convention is fine ?



The Malaysia solution was discussed at length in the asylum seeker thread at the time it was proposed.


----------



## sydboy007

Interesting everyone is ignoring the growing Scandal around Alastair Furnival and his lobbyign to get Cadbury their $16M.

I thought at least Noco would be incensed at the blatant abuse of power.

Furnival used to work for Cadbury and miraculously they get a handout from the Government he was working for.

How do you have an end to the age of entitlement when the system is so corrupted by the lobbyists and the general public is realising that the burden of structural adjustment will not be fairly shared.

Factor in that the Food and Grocery Council, which has opposed the food rating system site, contacted the Senator about it the day it went live. The site was pulled down the same day.  Coincidence??

Abbots' already using the not as bad as Thompson defence, but if that's the height of the bar you are setting yourself, then seriously resign and get someone in who has some integrity.


----------



## Knobby22

Yes, I agree Sydboy, it's disgusting.
How the hell did a lobbyist get to that position within the government power structures.
How many more are there in a similar position? The Libs need to look into this otherwise the public will soon lose all faith.


----------



## orr

Knobby... Syd
Geez guys, come on.
 Senator Nash's debouched, dishonest, misleading, disingenuous, self-serving, lazy, behaviour has to been seen through 'Thomson' spectacles or specially made contact lens, available free with all Murdoch publications. This allows the wearer not to see the frothy scum unless it rises higher or is more putrid than 'Thomson scum'.
And it goes without saying, that this government, being on a razor thin majority, can hardly be expected to put morality and good governance before politics .


----------



## trainspotter

Ermmmm ....... Alastair Furnival is the dude that lobbied the TASMANIAN GOVERNMENT for a Visitors Centre worth 400k for Cadbury. Leader of the opposition (that's right .. Tony Abbot was not PM then as it was the lead up to the election) pledged the 16 million *PRIOR* to being elected. 

Senator Nash is GUILTY of not knowing (read lying) that Alastair Furnival held a pecuniary interest in a company he had partial ownership (Australian Public Affairs) that lobbied the TASMANIAN GOVERNMENT prior to her becoming a Senator. Alastair Furnival went on to become Senator Nashs' chief of staff but has since resigned.

Yep .. burn them all at the stake. Eddie Obeid anyone or are your collective memories that short?


----------



## trainspotter

Only need to go back a few years for this one:-



> *A PROMINENT Labor lobbyist's wife has been appointed to the State Government's top planning body, despite having limited development experience.*
> 
> Davina Quirke is serving her first term as an elected member at Burnside Council.
> 
> The council is being investigated by the State Government over allegations of bullying, harassment and outside influence.
> 
> Ms Quirke's husband, John Quirke, is a former ALP state MP and federal senator, and a lobbyist whose clients include Adelaide-based property development company Makris Corporation.
> 
> Urban Development and Planning Minister Paul Holloway yesterday said Ms Quirke was appointed because she was one of "very few" female applicants for the Development Policy Advisory Committee, the body responsible for advising the minister on planning changes such as the redevelopment of Cheltenham Park racecourse and the growth of Mt Barker.
> 
> Mr Holloway granted major project status to Makris Corporation's development of North Adelaide's former Le Cornu site and Encounter Bay Shopping Centre in 2007. The firm is part of a group of companies that last year donated $79,800 to the SA Labor Party – making it Labor's largest property donor.




http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...s-government-job/story-e6freo8c-1225767718900

Me old mate Eddie Obeid .. nothing corrupt here:-



> ICAC has found Mr Obeid obtained a licence at Mount Penny in the Bylong Valley with the help of former resources minister Ian Macdonald. The deal resulted in Mr Obeid and his family obtaining a $30 million profit.




AND 



> After sensational public inquiries last year, the Independent Commission Against Corruption found Mr Macdonald and his political ally, former Labor MP Eddie Obeid, acted corruptly by agreeing in 2008 to create a mining tenement over the Obeid family's farm at Mount Penny in the Bylong Valley.
> The decision delivered the Obeids $30 million with the promise of at least $30 million more.
> ICAC also found Mr Macdonald acted corruptly in 2008 in granting a licence at Doyles Creek to a company, Doyles Creek Mining, then chaired by former union official John Maitland. In December, ICAC advised the government that the licences - and another at Glendon Brook that formed part of the inquiry - were so ''tainted by corruption'' they should be cancelled.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/nsw-gover...on-scandals-20140120-314iv.html#ixzz2uV8ZjA46

OFF WITH THEIR HEADS ! :


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Interesting everyone is ignoring the growing Scandal around Alastair Furnival and his lobbyign to get Cadbury their $16M.
> 
> I thought at least Noco would be incensed at the blatant abuse of power.
> 
> Furnival used to work for Cadbury and miraculously they get a handout from the Government he was working for.
> 
> How do you have an end to the age of entitlement when the system is so corrupted by the lobbyists and the general public is realising that the burden of structural adjustment will not be fairly shared.
> 
> Factor in that the Food and Grocery Council, which has opposed the food rating system site, contacted the Senator about it the day it went live. The site was pulled down the same day.  Coincidence??
> 
> Abbots' already using the not as bad as Thompson defence, but if that's the height of the bar you are setting yourself, then seriously resign and get someone in who has some integrity.




Sydboy, I have no qualm about any body breaking the law irrespect of which side of politics they belong....if they have done the wrong thing and are found out, then they should face the penalty served out to them.

It would appear Furnival has broken the law and has paid the price by losing his job..... whether Senator Nash of Abbott can be implicated is another question and as Craig Emmerson has always stated about Craig Thomson, you are innocent untill proven guilty.

I am sure of course the Labor Party will flog this to the death hoping to see Nash either sacked or resign......It is a bit like Conroy at the moment being admonished in parliament yesterday after the Member for Denison moved a motion to condemn Conroy......maybe both of them should be sacked and then that be the equalizer......tit for tat as they say.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Sydboy, I have no qualm about any body breaking the law irrespect of which side of politics they belong....if they have done the wrong thing and are found out, then they should face the penalty served out to them.
> 
> It would appear Furnival has broken the law and has paid the price by losing his job..... whether Senator Nash of Abbott can be implicated is another question and as Craig Emmerson has always stated about Craig Thomson, you are innocent untill proven guilty.
> 
> I am sure of course the Labor Party will flog this to the death hoping to see Nash either sacked or resign......It is a bit like Conroy at the moment being admonished in parliament yesterday after the Member for Denison moved a motion to condemn Conroy......maybe both of them should be sacked and then that be the equalizer......tit for tat as they say.




You're just nosier when it's about Labor??

It seems that Furnival was INVOLVED with the decision to provide Cadbury with $16M in funding, after he'd failed to get the Tassie Govt to provide them with $400K.  He'll be in for a good bonus with that kind of deal, or is that his wife since she owns all the shares in the business??

Now if that turns out to be proven, then how does the Government have any moral authority to chastise the unions when they are providing public funds to companies based more on the political contacts.  I'd say it's these kinds of issues that are going to have far more impact on Australia over the next couple of years than a small communist get together over Easter.

Abott harangued Gillard over the "slush" fund from decades passed.  Surely the Government can provide some detailed answers to something that only just happened?  Surely they can let us know what was discussed with the Food and Grocery council just before the food rating website was shut down.  Surely it's not difficult to provide information on who was involved in the meetings and decision making process regarding the Cadbury funding.


----------



## IFocus

trainspotter said:


> Yep .. burn them all at the stake. Eddie Obeid anyone or are your collective memories that short?




Actually I think a stake stuck through the h............may be not is there a stake big enough? OK burn him happy to provide the matches.


----------



## sydboy007

trainspotter said:


> Yep .. burn them all at the stake. Eddie Obeid anyone or are your collective memories that short?




Asset forfeiture along the lines of proceeds from crime seems fitting, but once again it's not like any Government would have the balls to stop the lobbying or provide some real deterent to these kinds of crimes.  After all, it's the main reason we need Governments, to decide which rent seeker gets the best deal.


----------



## dutchie

Hockey:

"Let me put it to you this way: The Age of Entitlement is over."

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/t...entitlement-20120419-1x8vj.html#ixzz2uYyEj1Ra

Hockey:

Oh, by the way we want to introduce an* entitlement* for paid parental leave, that will cost the nation $5.5 billion.

What a joke.
What hypocrites!!


----------



## noco

dutchie said:


> Hockey:
> 
> "Let me put it to you this way: The Age of Entitlement is over."
> 
> Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/t...entitlement-20120419-1x8vj.html#ixzz2uYyEj1Ra
> 
> Hockey:
> 
> Oh, by the way we want to introduce an* entitlement* for paid parental leave, that will cost the nation $5.5 billion.
> 
> What a joke.
> What hypocrites!!




I don't believe it will get through in it's present form....the Greens are seeking some ammendments to water it down and may well be succesful....even a few  LNP back benches may cross the floor....something you would not see from the Labor Party. 

Whilst I am against women receiving PPL while  earning $150,000, they are nevertheless in a very small majority....I believe lower than 2%.


----------



## rumpole

noco said:


> I don't believe it will get through in it's present form....the Greens are seeking some ammendments to water it down and may well be succesful....even a few  LNP back benches may cross the floor....something you would not see from the Labor Party.
> 
> Whilst I am against women receiving PPL while  earning $150,000, they are nevertheless in a very small majority....I believe lower than 2%.




The Labor party and Greens should let it through.

If you can't afford it, don't promise it.


----------



## Logique

Beyond despicable. Both Fairfax and Richard Ackland have jumped the shark. 

Ackland seems appalled that the Government of the day should follow a policy because ''the Australian people want it''. Presumably he stands on the higher moral ground. No mention of the 1100 asylum seekers killed on Labor's watch.


> http://www.smh.com.au/comment/welcome-back-to-white-australia-20140227-33m4w.html
> *Welcome back to White Australia*
> 28 Feb 2014, Sydney Morning Herald columnist - Richard Ackland
> 
> Before our eyes, day by day, Scott Morrison becomes the hollow man. His face tightens and twists, his eyes are dead, and his words strangled with jargon....When you peel back the layers, the oft repeated Coalition justification for stopping the boats is that ''the Australian people want it''....They are too invested in the nasty option - which has the flimsy justification of popularity..


----------



## Calliope

sydboy007 said:


> Asset forfeiture along the lines of proceeds from crime seems fitting, but once again it's not like any Government would have the balls to stop the lobbying or provide some real deterent to these kinds of crimes.  After all, it's the main reason we need Governments, to decide which rent seeker gets the best deal.




Sigh.:shake: We can but hope for some wonderful day in the future when your Greens will assume power and we can move into the broad sunlit uplands where political corruption is non-existent.


----------



## trainspotter

Calliope said:


> Sigh.:shake: We can but hope for some wonderful day in the future when your Greens will assume power and we can move into the broad sunlit uplands where political corruption is non-existent.




Yes ... and I rode my unicorn to work today as it farted $100 bills out of it's anus to feed the poor.


----------



## trainspotter

sydboy007 said:


> You're just nosier when it's about Labor??
> 
> It seems that Furnival was INVOLVED with the decision to provide Cadbury with $16M in funding, after he'd failed to get the Tassie Govt to provide them with $400K.  He'll be in for a good bonus with that kind of deal, or is that his wife since she owns all the shares in the business??
> 
> Now if that turns out to be proven, then how does the Government have any moral authority to chastise the unions when they are providing public funds to companies based more on the political contacts.  I'd say it's these kinds of issues that are going to have far more impact on Australia over the next couple of years than a small communist get together over Easter.
> 
> Abott harangued Gillard over the "slush" fund from decades passed.  Surely the Government can provide some detailed answers to something that only just happened?  Surely they can let us know what was discussed with the Food and Grocery council just before the food rating website was shut down.  Surely it's not difficult to provide information on who was involved in the meetings and decision making process regarding the Cadbury funding.




ERMMMMMMMMM .. that's his JOB .. he was a lobbyist, he lobbied the TASMANIAN GOVERNMENT for 400k who in turn approached the *THEN *Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbot and he PLEDGED the 16 million to Cadbury *PRIOR *to the election. 

If the *NOW* Prime Minister Tony Abbot reneged on his pledge to give the money to Cadbury YOU would be the first one to say he has done a BACKFLIP !!! 

Alastair Furnival CRIME was to not declare his pecuniary interest in the lobbying firm "Australian Public Affairs" that had a CONFLICT OF INTEREST with his job description. He was in the process of transferring his shares and directorship to his wife at the time FAIRFAX MEDIA shat on him.

Senator Fiona Nash is STOOOPID and LIED that she did not know about Alastair Furnival background. Within hours she BACKFLIPPED and got caught out LYING. (I can't recall is their favourite get out of jail free card)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-...t-to-fiona-nash-on-day-website-pulled/5286976

Go here and read it for yourself !


----------



## overhang

So the Government believe the fix for Qantas is to lift the sale act but yet currently only 39% is foreign owned which is still 10% off the cap.  This would indicate there isn't a demand for the airline so how is this going to help?  What am I missing here?  Are there stipulations that some form of maintenance be performed here that will be removed that would save money?  I've never held Qantas but it seems a large sum of shareholders point the finger at Joyce for the airlines demise.  He was also high up at Ansett during the financial collapse and seems incapable of turning things around.


----------



## Julia

overhang said:


> So the Government believe the fix for Qantas is to lift the sale act but yet currently only 39% is foreign owned which is still 10% off the cap.  This would indicate there isn't a demand for the airline so how is this going to help?  What am I missing here?



I suspect the government's decision to put this legislation up is designed more to wedge Labor, and to provide an apparent equalising of the playing field with Virgin.



> I've never held Qantas but it seems a large sum of shareholders point the finger at Joyce for the airlines demise.  He was also high up at Ansett during the financial collapse and seems incapable of turning things around.



Yep, hence the government's reluctance to accede to Mr Joyce's request for a $3 billion unsecured loan.


----------



## McLovin

overhang said:


> So the Government believe the fix for Qantas is to lift the sale act but yet currently only 39% is foreign owned which is still 10% off the cap.  This would indicate there isn't a demand for the airline so how is this going to help?  What am I missing here?  Are there stipulations that some form of maintenance be performed here that will be removed that would save money?  I've never held Qantas but it seems a large sum of shareholders point the finger at Joyce for the airlines demise.  He was also high up at Ansett during the financial collapse and seems incapable of turning things around.




If you can't exercise control then you may just not bother investing in the first place. Once a foreign airline sees that it can control Qantas it changes the ball game. The two clauses (foreign airline ownership + foreign ownership in totality) are designed to ensure Qantas is controlled by Australians, it's not really there to stop portfolio investors from buying QAN shares.

 As long as the Act is in force they (Joyce + board) can attribute every ill that befalls the airline to the outdated ownership structure, while glossing over their own incompetence.

Shorten is an idiot, why on Earth would you hand over a taxpayer funded blank cheque to a business that is being run by a group of managers who'd struggle with a school sausage sizzle?

Having said all that, neither side of politics will let Qantas disappear. If it goes broke it will be absolutely rescued.


----------



## DB008

overhang said:


> So the Government believe the fix for Qantas is to lift the sale act but yet currently only 39% is foreign owned which is still 10% off the cap.  This would indicate there isn't a demand for the airline so how is this going to help?  What am I missing here?




Maybe..



> The Act, which limits foreign ownership of the Flying Kangaroo to 49 per cent, limits foreign airline ownership to 35 per cent and prevents a single foreign investor from owning more than 25 per cent


----------



## Ferret

overhang said:


> So the Government believe the fix for Qantas is to lift the sale act but yet currently only 39% is foreign owned which is still 10% off the cap.  This would indicate there isn't a demand for the airline so how is this going to help?  What am I missing here?




I don't think the government believe this is the fix for Qantas, but Joyce has been winging that Qantas can't compete because of the sale act, and therefore it should be given a government debt guarantee.  

Now the government has said they will change the foreign ownership provisions of the act and Joyce is left with egg on his face because he knows the problems are deeper than the sale act provisions.  

The government has called his bluff!


----------



## sydboy007

If anything it was the Labor Govt allowing Virgin to do their little trick of setting up a holding company for flag carrier status, while keeping "control" of the airline via the ASX listed shares which means 75% of the airline is now pretty much owned by 3 fierce QF competitors.

To give you an idea of how this has changed the playing field we'll look at Singapore airlines, which is really an extension of the Singapore Govt.  Say SQ wants to increase flights from Australia to Singapore.  They will not only look at the revenue they gain from the extra seats, but also how much extra revenue the Singapore economy gains by more tourists visiting or stopping over in Singapore.  They might only be making $20 profit on each extra seat, but if each seat brings in a few hundred dollars (probably a lot more considering a cheap hotel is $150 a night) to the Singapore economy then it's likely they will bring in the sub economic capacity.  International tourists provide over 10% of Singapores GDP, 3.3% of export income and roughly 10% of employment. 

Compare this to QF who would have major reservations about bringing on extra international capacity with such a slim profit margin.

Etihad is probably run along similar lines too, since Abu Dhabi is becoming a reasonably popular tourist destination.  Tourism supports roughly 10% of all jobs in the emirate.

As for Air NZ, not sure if the majority Govt ownership is affecting how they operate or not, but it's not hard to see them adding extra capacity at sub economic returns especially if that increases overall tourism revenue which is a big part of the NZ economy - 10% of population employed in the industry and it provides roughly $10B in revenue from international tourists.

So it's hard for QF to compete against carriers that are being used partly as Government tourism policy.  QF has to make an economic return just from seat sales, whereas the major shareholders of Virgin could in theory sell seats at break even, or even a slight loss and their major Govt investors would see that as part of the costs of supporting their tourism industries.  Tourism employment for Australia is < 5% so you can see the 3 major Virgin shareholders have economies much more reliant on tourism than Australia.

I don't know if it's possible, but forcing Virgin to move the flag carrier holding company back into the listed entity may be the best way forward, along with the forced reduction of ownership for overseas airlines on the share register.  This would then reduce the incentive to continually support the loss making addition of domestic capacity, as well as curtail the aggressive expansion of capacity into Australia that is generally not done solely on the profit generated for the airline.

Combine this with the fact that Thai and Malaysian airlines have had multiple Govt bailouts, United and Delta have been through Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, Korean Air and Asiana Airlines are on the road to bankruptcy.  Pretty much EVERY airline flying into Australia receives far more Government support than QF, yet the Govt and media argue they should learn to compete.  How do you compete against competitors that get regular Govt top ups, or go through bankruptcy protection and come out with lowered debts and leaner staff levels and working conditions?  How do you compete against airlines that can be "pressured" to bring in extra capacity at below ROI because it's supportive of the countrys' tourism industry?  Maybe we need to give QF a bounty for each tourist it brings into the country, or something to help them compete in a very unlevel playing field.


----------



## McLovin

sydboy007 said:


> To give you an idea of how this has changed the playing field we'll look at Singapore airlines, which is really an extension of the Singapore Govt.  Say SQ wants to increase flights from Australia to Singapore.  They will not only look at the revenue they gain from the extra seats, but also how much extra revenue the Singapore economy gains by more tourists visiting or stopping over in Singapore.  They might only be making $20 profit on each extra seat, but if each seat brings in a few hundred dollars (probably a lot more considering a cheap hotel is $150 a night) to the Singapore economy then it's likely they will bring in the sub economic capacity.  International tourists provide over 10% of Singapores GDP, 3.3% of export income and roughly 10% of employment.
> 
> Compare this to QF who would have major reservations about bringing on extra international capacity with such a slim profit margin.




Who told you that?

SQ is a listed company. And a profitable one at that. It is not an extension of the Singapore tourism authority. Just because it is majority government owned doesn't mean the profit motive has been chucked out the window, nor is there any credible evidence they are dumping capacity in Australia. This accusation of government support has been getting tossed around by unprofitable competitors for years (actually SQ complains that EK receives support too). SQ has more capacity running into Australia because it's not an end of line carrier like QF. It's the same reason CX can run 5 daily flights into Sydney and 4 into Melbourne. All that traffic is running back into a massive hub. 

There is a huge market that involves getting people from Australia to Asia and Europe. SQ has been playing in that market for decades. QF decided to keep dropping services from Europe until all it offered passengers was London. Well that's fantastic, if you're going to London, otherwise they force their pax to transfer at probably one of the worst airports in Europe. If I'm not going to London, I'd much rather transfer at Schipol or Frankfurt.

I'll play Qantas CEO, and say that they could compete. But Joyce has run down the product so much because he thought everyone who flew Qantas was like the once a year punter who flies Deathstar from Sydney to Bali. Those crappy mattresses they offer in business class now are because they seats are falling apart. The hosties have to make people's beds now, which means on a long haul late night flight in a full business cabin it might be 30-40 minutes once you're in the air before you are offered a drink. That would never, ever happen on SQ/CX/EK etc. Qantas still believes it can charge a premium price but it has degraded its hard and soft product over the last few years.





			
				sydboy007 said:
			
		

> As for Air NZ, not sure if the majority Govt ownership is affecting how they operate or not, but it's not hard to see them adding extra capacity at sub economic returns especially if that increases overall tourism revenue which is a big part of the NZ economy - 10% of population employed in the industry and it provides roughly $10B in revenue from international tourists.




ANZ has been shrinking not growing, that's why it's returning to profitability.


----------



## sydboy007

McLovin said:


> Who told you that?
> 
> SQ is a listed company. And a profitable one at that. It is not an extension of the Singapore tourism authority. Just because it is majority government owned doesn't mean the profit motive has been chucked out the window, nor is there any credible evidence they are dumping capacity in Australia. This accusation of government support has been getting tossed around by unprofitable competitors for years (actually SQ complains that EK receives support too). SQ has more capacity running into Australia because it's not an end of line carrier like QF. It's the same reason CX can run 5 daily flights into Sydney and 4 into Melbourne. All that traffic is running back into a massive hub.
> 
> There is a huge market that involves getting people from Australia to Asia and Europe. SQ has been playing in that market for decades. QF decided to keep dropping services from Europe until all it offered passengers was London. Well that's fantastic, if you're going to London, otherwise they force their pax to transfer at probably one of the worst airports in Europe. If I'm not going to London, I'd much rather transfer at Schipol or Frankfurt.
> 
> I'll play Qantas CEO, and say that they could compete. But Joyce has run down the product so much because he thought everyone who flew Qantas was like the once a year punter who flies Deathstar from Sydney to Bali. Those crappy mattresses they offer in business class now are because they seats are falling apart. The hosties have to make people's beds now, which means on a long haul late night flight in a full business cabin it might be 30-40 minutes once you're in the air before you are offered a drink. That would never, ever happen on SQ/CX/EK etc. Qantas still believes it can charge a premium price but it has degraded its hard and soft product over the last few years.
> 
> ANZ has been shrinking not growing, that's why it's returning to profitability.




Singapore has crony capitalism throughout the major companies.  The head of Temasek is the wife of the PM and the way she has handled the SWF over the years she's been there has been woeful.  You can blame some of the political instability in Thailand on the way they helped Thaksin try to avoid tax on his shincorp mobile sale.

Yes SQ is a well run airline, and the profit motive is still there, but you can't deny that when you have an overall view of the economics of extra capacity that a Government backed airline will not behave quite as economically rational as one that relies solely on the profit it generates from ticket sales.

Forgetting SQ, you glossed over the fact that most of the major competitors for QF into this country have received bailouts or bankruptcy bailouts.  Imagine how things would be if those airlines had been left to fail and QF had been left to compete with other profitably run airlines on those routes?  QF would probably be back on the KL route, and would probably have an extra flight or 2 a day to BKK as well.  They'd also have quite a few extra flights to the USA too.  The middle eastern carriers pay no company tax.  Dubai already sees 28% of the cities GDP from aviation.  The Government may not be providing outright subsidies to the airlines there, but they do provide amazing infrastructure at very cheap prices

I fly QF regularly internationally using points and can't fault their service.  In economy we're all cattle, and in business class I'd say their food is superior to the likes of Asiana / Eva / Thai.  People rave about SQ service, but in economy I've found them similar to any other airline and in it's too long since I was at the pointy end of the cabin to comment on their business class service.  Certainly QFs hard product beats what Asiana have into this country and definitely beats Thai / Delta / United as well.  I'd say QF business to the USA is superior thatn Virgin, and their lounge access in LA is way in front of what Virgin offer.

The Airline industry has to be one of themost distored by Government intervention.  It it had been running based on free market principles there'd probably be 30-50% fewer airlines in the skies today that 25 years ago.


----------



## McLovin

sydboy007 said:


> Singapore has crony capitalism throughout the major companies.  The head of Temasek is the wife of the PM and the way she has handled the SWF over the years she's been there has been woeful.  You can blame some of the political instability in Thailand on the way they helped Thaksin try to avoid tax on his shincorp mobile sale.
> 
> Yes SQ is a well run airline, and the profit motive is still there, but you can't deny that when you have an overall view of the economics of extra capacity that a Government backed airline will not behave quite as economically rational as one that relies solely on the profit it generates from ticket sales.




So where is the evidence? SQ has a higher RPK and load factor and a marginally lower yield. The metrics do not paint the story of an airline being run for the purpose of boosting tourism at discount prices.





			
				sydboy007 said:
			
		

> Forgetting SQ, you glossed over the fact that most of the major competitors for QF into this country have received bailouts or bankruptcy bailouts.  Imagine how things would be if those airlines had been left to fail and QF had been left to compete with other profitably run airlines on those routes?  QF would probably be back on the KL route, and would probably have an extra flight or 2 a day to BKK as well.  They'd also have quite a few extra flights to the USA too.  The middle eastern carriers pay no company tax.  Dubai already sees 28% of the cities GDP from aviation.  The Government may not be providing outright subsidies to the airlines there, but they do provide amazing infrastructure at very cheap prices




There is more that goes into the economics of whether to fly a route than whether or not it is underserved. KL has always been a relatively low yield leisure route, as is BKK. Why waste an aircraft on a lower yield route when it can be better utilised on a high business route (SIN/HKG/Shanghai). BKK/KL are more natural Jetstar routes, IMO.

As for North America, I remember in the bad old days when Qantas used to generate 20% of group profit on the two flights/day they had SYD-LAX and business class was $14,000+. Qantas still charge $8,000+ for business to LAX (I know I have two flights with them in the next couple of months), and their load factor is 80%+. If they can't turn a profit with those numbers then they're kidding themselves. They're usually the most expensive across the Pacific by 20-25%.



sydboy007 said:


> I fly QF regularly internationally using points and can't fault their service.  In economy we're all cattle, and in business class I'd say their food is superior to the likes of Asiana / Eva / Thai.  People rave about SQ service, but in economy I've found them similar to any other airline and in it's too long since I was at the pointy end of the cabin to comment on their business class service.  Certainly QFs hard product beats what Asiana have into this country and definitely beats Thai / Delta / United as well.  I'd say QF business to the USA is superior thatn Virgin, and their lounge access in LA is way in front of what Virgin offer.




The service on QF varies from excellent to cr@p. I don't think you can compare Qantas to Asiana/EVA/Thai. These are not QF's natural competitors, they offer significantly cheaper fares. QF has always tried to pitch itself at the top end of the market, with SQ/CX. It's been a while since I flew SQ in business but the hard product on CX blows the Skybed out of the water.

This might be better in its own thread.


----------



## IFocus

Turn back the forests

Is any one out there taking this government seriously. 





http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-06/clarke-and-dawe-welcome-to-contemporary-australia/5302498


----------



## springhill

IFocus said:


> Turn back the forests
> 
> Is any one out there taking this government seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-06/clarke-and-dawe-welcome-to-contemporary-australia/5302498




The more pertinent question would be - Is anyone taking you seriously?


----------



## rumpole

springhill said:


> The more pertinent question would be - Is anyone taking you seriously?




No more or less than anyone else


----------



## IFocus

springhill said:


> The more pertinent question would be - Is anyone taking you seriously?




I doubt it just like the comedy act we currently have for a government.


----------



## IFocus

Australia is still handing out cheques despite age of entitlement being over


Tony Abbott opposes ‘government by chequebook’ but is helping businesses in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania


http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...t-carbon-tax-as-the-main-cause-of-qantas-woes


----------



## IFocus

Tony Abbott singles out carbon tax as the main cause of Qantas woes

Forget management decisions and the bitter turf war with Virgin – it seems Labor’s refusal to repeal the tax is to blame



http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...t-carbon-tax-as-the-main-cause-of-qantas-woes



Qantas carbon tax bill has been covered by ticket surcharge

CEO Alan Joyce and prime minister Tony Abbott have spoken of the tax’s $106m impact, yet its net effect was zero


http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...tax-bill-has-been-covered-by-ticket-surcharge


----------



## IFocus

Our own Tea Party conservatives are a threat to Australia's economic record



> Unlike what we can see in the US, success in Australia is more likely to be determined by effort, not by where you were born. Regrettably, our model is now under fierce attack
> 
> Over the last 30 years, the Australian economy has become one of the most open in the developed world and is now in its 23rd year of recession-free economic growth.
> 
> *Australia is now the fifth richest nation in per capita GDP terms, according to the IMF.* Only Luxembourg, Qatar, Norway and Switzerland are ahead of Australia. Despite the headwinds of the global financial crisis, the Australian economy grew by 15% over the past six years.
> 
> During the global crisis, the Australian government took decisive action to support economic growth and jobs. Businesses and workers responded, and we avoided the wide-scale economic destruction seen elsewhere. Australia’s 23m citizens can be proud of this, but should be even prouder of something more impressive.
> 
> Through the last three decades –18 years of which were under Labor led social democratic government – Australia did all this and still delivered social fairness. We turned outward to the world, embraced global trade and capital mobility and kept the fair go intact.







> While Australia still has pockets of disadvantage, our broader outcomes are very different to those in the US. Since the mid 1990s household income in Australia has improved as the hard won economic reforms of the previous decade kicked-in.* Middle income Australian households are now more than 50% better off than they were in 1995. This has been achieved despite the global financial crisis, and the initial downturn in terms of trade that came with it.*
> 
> In contrast, US middle income families are earning less in real terms than they were in 1989. *In 2012, the real median US household income was $51,017 while 25 years earlier it was $51,681 in current dollars. In other words, a quarter of a century ago, a middle class American family was making more than a middle class American family today.*
> 
> Meanwhile America’s rich have got richer – a lot richer.






> This is something the renowned economist Joseph Stiglitz explored in his book The Price of Inequality. Stiglitz points out that the US is seeing the slow strangulation of the American Dream, and that the US has surrendered much of its civil society to vested interests, which both stifles the lives of the poor but also risks future collective prosperity.
> 
> *These huge increases in income and wealth at the top end are not trickling down. Indeed, Stiglitz points out that about 60% of the US’s income growth over the past three decades flowed to the top 1%.*
> 
> Of deeper concern should be, that it’s very likely to stay that way. While many Americans believe fervently that they can ‘make it’ too, economic mobility is fast becoming a thing of the past. In the US, your parents’ income has more influence on your life chances than in just about all other developed countries.





http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...es-are-a-threat-to-australias-economic-record


----------



## IFocus

Lies, lies, dam lies and the Abbott government


Hardly the wages blowout of an inflexible market





> As the Productivity Commission undertakes a "comprehensive" review of workplace laws, it's worth noting that Australia's soft economy is being accompanied by slowing wages growth - exactly what you'd expect to see in a market with a good degree of labour flexibility, writes Stephen Koukoulas.
> 
> *Recent labour market data has confirmed a near textbook degree of flexibility in wages.* At a time when employment growth is softening and the unemployment rate has been edging up, there has been a quite abrupt slowing in the pace of wages growth.








> Here are the facts.
> 
> Since the first half of 2011, the unemployment rate has edged up from a little below 5 per cent to the current rate of 6.0 per cent. This has been the direct result of the extended period of sub-trend economic growth as the terms of trade have fallen and as monetary policy was kept too tight for too long.
> 
> *The flexibility of the labour market is shown in the fact that the annual pace of wages growth has slowed from around 4 per cent three years ago to a record low 2.6 per cent in the most recent period.*





What we all know this government is anti worker




> All of which suggests the hidden agenda of reform to the labour market slowly but surely being unfurled by the Coalition government since the election is not really about macroeconomic management.





More bad news for Abbotts reckless attack on Australia.



> This is good news, and it is aided by the fact that productivity growth has been strong over the past year.





http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-...wages-blowout-of-an-inflexible-market/5305998


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> Lies, lies, dam lies and the Abbott government
> Hardly the wages blowout of an inflexible market
> What we all know this government is anti wor
> 
> More bad news for Abbotts reckless attack on Australi
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-...wages-blowout-of-an-inflexible-market/5305998




Ifocus, why do you think there has been a big drop in wage growth in the last 12 months, as opposed to three years ago.

Could it be because workers were scared of losing their jobs, as a result of the shambles called a  Labor/Green minority government.

The complete loss of confidence, that Labor inflicted on the Australian population, was nothing short of incompetence or at worste economic vandalism.

This not only resulted in a loss of consumer confidence, as seen in the retail sector, but also in a drop in security of tenure for workers.

No it's easier to blame anyone other than those responsible.lol

Still getting no traction in the bottom of the cage.

Blame Tony,  blame Tony, give me a cracker.lol

In about 12 months you will be able to blame Tony for the economic outcomes, currently nothing has been changed with regard fiscal settings.


----------



## rumpole

> Could it be because workers were scared of losing their jobs, as a result of the shambles called a Labor/Green minority government.




They'll be even more scared now thanks to Tony.

GMH, Toyota, Qantas, who is next on the list ?


----------



## sptrawler

rumpole said:


> They'll be even more scared now thanks to Tony.
> 
> GMH, Toyota, Qantas, who is next on the list ?




Absolutely they will, but they know throwing more taxpayer money at failing businesses, isn't the answer.

Now we have hundreds of billions of unproductive debt that has to be serviced, thanks in main, to poor fiscal policy, planning and excecution by the Labor Party.

That debt, along with the debt that is going to required to implement productive infrastructure, has to be funded from the tax base.

Of course any sensible person is scared, it isn't rocket science, you keep swiping the credit card eventually someone has to pay for it.

I just can't get my head around why it's Tony's fault, maybe you could explain
In a sensible, logical, manner would be appreciated. Maybe a reference to fiscal responsibilty and budgetry constraint might help.
Just wishing we had the money to keep going further into debt, doesn't make it long term answer.


----------



## rumpole

> I just can't get my head around why it's Tony's fault, maybe you could explain
> In a sensible, logical, manner would be appreciated. Maybe a reference to fiscal responsibilty and budgetry constraint might help.




The point is that Tony said he would fix all the alleged bad for business things bought in by Labor.

If GMH, Toyota, Email & co really believed he was going to do that, why wouldn't they hang around instead of queueing up to leave ?

Can you explain that in a sensible logical manner to me ?


----------



## Calliope

rumpole said:


> The point is that Tony said he would fix all the alleged bad for business things bought in by Labor.




The point is he said nothing of the sort. You must expect him to be a miracle man to clean up in six months, the pile of $hit that took the Labor/Greens six years to accumulate.


----------



## rumpole

Calliope said:


> The point is he said nothing of the sort. You must expect him to be a miracle man to clean up in six months, the pile of $hit that took The Labor/Greens six years to accumulate.




Six months ?Those companies who are leaving don't expect him to fix it up AT ALL, that's why they are going.


----------



## IFocus

sptrawler said:


> Ifocus, why do you think there has been a big drop in wage growth in the last 12 months, as opposed to three years ago.
> 
> Could it be because workers were scared of losing their jobs, as a result of the shambles called a  Labor/Green minority government.
> 
> The complete loss of confidence, that Labor inflicted on the Australian population, was nothing short of incompetence or at worste economic vandalism.
> 
> This not only resulted in a loss of consumer confidence, as seen in the retail sector, but also in a drop in security of tenure for workers.
> 
> No it's easier to blame anyone other than those responsible.lol
> 
> Still getting no traction in the bottom of the cage.
> 
> Blame Tony,  blame Tony, give me a cracker.lol
> 
> In about 12 months you will be able to blame Tony for the economic outcomes, currently nothing has been changed with regard fiscal settings.





You must get a new pair of Liberal blinkers.....you completely missed the point of the article.


----------



## sptrawler

rumpole said:


> The point is that Tony said he would fix all the alleged bad for business things bought in by Labor.
> 
> If GMH, Toyota, Email & co really believed he was going to do that, why wouldn't they hang around instead of queueing up to leave ?
> 
> Can you explain that in a sensible logical manner to me ?




Yes, it has been explain over and over, but here we go again.

The Australian car industry, like many other manufacturing industries in Australia, suffer from lack of scale, under investment and high input costs. 
Our iron and steel, clothing and electronics/white goods industries all suffered from the same problems. They, like G.M and Ford, could have spent the money on increasing the output of their facilities and used Australia as an export hub.
It actually would have been quite sensible, as the raw product (cotton, iron ore, coking coal etc) were sourced here.
Also energy was cheap, this made Australia a logical choice to manufacture and mahufacturing made up 30% of the economy in the 1960's and early 1970's. 
Meters, Kelvinator, Westinghouse fridges, stoves washing machines.
AWA, t.v, radios. Albany wool mills blankets,carpets, towels.
BHP Iron and steel works in Kwinana W.A, Port Kembla, Whyalla, Newcastle.
Midland workshops W.A, made locomotives and rolling stock

Now we have Holden, Ford and Toyota, what do they all have in common?
Well IMO they had the opportunity, to invest and grow their companies, they chose not to. 
They instead leave it as a small local producer, that relies on tax payer money to stay in business. That is always destined to fail, it is just a matter of time. 
They sell less and less product, because they haven't got the economies of scale, to adapt the product to changing consumer tastes.

So how does Tony change that in six months, without writing a blank cheque? 
Which compounds the problem, or don't you see that as a problem?


----------



## rumpole

sptrawler said:


> So how does Tony change that in six months, without writing a blank cheque?
> Which compounds the problem, or don't you see that as a problem?




As I've said before, he doesn't have to write a blank cheque.

Inject some capital into those businesses. For example, buy their plant and machinery and lease it back to them or give them secured loans. The sort of things other investors would do. And reserve some of our gas exports for local users at a reasonable price.

That would keep them going until some of the structural problems can be sorted.


----------



## Calliope

rumpole said:


> Six months ?Those companies who are leaving don't expect him to fix it up AT ALL, that's why they are going.




Obviously you are not a taxpayer. Its got nothing to do with Abbott. Ford, GM and Toyota are going because the taxpayer is tired of bailing them out. It's called throwing good money after bad. It's surprising that you post on a Stock Forum yet know so little about market forces.


----------



## rumpole

Calliope said:


> Obviously you are not a taxpayer. Its got nothing to do with Abbott. Ford, GM and Toyota are going because the taxpayer is tired of bailing them out. It's called throwing good money after bad. It's surprising that you post on a Stock Forum yet know so little about market forces.




Tell it to the Americans, Germans, Italians, Japanese, Chinese. They all assist their industries in one way or another.

If you were so concerned about market forces you would call for a ban on all imports from state owned industries , like most products from China, ban Etihad , Emirates and Air NZ from flying here etc.


----------



## sptrawler

rumpole said:


> As I've said before, he doesn't have to write a blank cheque.
> 
> Inject some capital into those businesses. For example, buy their plant and machinery and lease it back to them or give them secured loans. The sort of things other investors would do. And reserve some of our gas exports for local users at a reasonable price.
> 
> That would keep them going until some of the structural problems can be sorted.




Can't you see, if the Government bought them out, there is no way GM would lease it back.lol

They would take the money and run, It isn't viable.

The Government could take over the plant and start running it as a government enterprise.
Then after 5 years and $30billion in loses, you would be sreaming for them to close it. Also everyone would be saying "Tony bought a dud, with tax payer money"

Let's keep it logical, G.M is global producer, they can't make money out of the plant.

Why do you think the government can improve the situation? 
I think emotions are clouding common sense, the governmets are all to blame for this situation evolving.

There is no easy fix, and as Calliope says you can't keep throwing good money after bad.

You can't run your home buget like that and you can't run a country like that, Greece and Spain are an example of that ideology.
They were having a great time, everyone on a government funded pension at 55, great untill you run out of money. Now they have 20% unemployment.

As for giving G.M a secured loan and injecting tax payer money, *they don't need it*.
If they were going to make the plant profitable, they would have expanded its production, rather than build a new plant in Korea and Thailand.


----------



## sptrawler

rumpole said:


> Tell it to the Americans, Germans, Italians, Japanese, Chinese. They all assist their industries in one way or another.
> 
> If you were so concerned about market forces you would call for a ban on all imports from state owned industries , like most products from China, ban Etihad , Emirates and Air NZ from flying here etc.




Germany produces appriximately 6million cars per year, China 14million, Japan 7million, South Korea 4.5million, USA 4million.

Australia 113,000 cars, how do you compete?
O.K we put import tarrifs on China, USA, Germany and Korea.

They in return put tarrifs on our exports. 

So we export less and we increase the tax on  imports which puts the prices up, that means we need to lift wages and taxes.
Which makes the Australian car more expensive, so we increase the tarrifs further on cars.

Meanwhile we sell less cars, because even with tarrifs the overseas companies make cheaper and cheaper cars.
This comes about by improvements in technology, manufaturing techniques and economies of scale.

So we pour more tax payer money into the company, but the company can't justify updating the plant due to the low volumes.
So we increase the tarrifs and the wages and the taxes.

Rumpole, maybe you can see some logic in it, but it defeats me.


----------



## McLovin

rumpole said:


> As I've said before, he doesn't have to write a blank cheque.
> 
> Inject some capital into those businesses. For example, buy their plant and machinery and lease it back to them or give them secured loans. The sort of things other investors would do. And reserve some of our gas exports for local users at a reasonable price.
> 
> That would keep them going until some of the structural problems can be sorted.




They've had 25 years to sort out their structural problems, but the solution is to throw more money at them?

You need to face reality, producing a couple of hundred thousand cars/year will never be economic.

If throwing cash at them is the sort of thing other investors would do, then why aren't they doing it?


----------



## rumpole

McLovin said:


> They've had 25 years to sort out their structural problems, but the solution is to throw more money at them?
> 
> You need to face reality, producing a couple of hundred thousand cars/year will never be economic.
> 
> If throwing cash at them is the sort of thing other investors would do, then why aren't they doing it?




Taken to its logical conclusion, all your argument leads to is a country totally dependent on other countries for anything more advanced than digging a few minerals out of the ground, and this government does not even want to get a fair return from that.

 Skills , zero. A nation of losers is the way we are going, but hey, let's just blame market forces shall we ?


----------



## sptrawler

rumpole said:


> Taken to its logical conclusion, all your argument leads to is a country totally dependent on other countries for anything more advanced than digging a few minerals out of the ground, and this government does not even want to get a fair return from that.
> 
> Skills , zero. A nation of losers is the way we are going, but hey, let's just blame market forces shall we ?




No, I don't think that is right.

We just have to work out where we have a natural advantage, and then exploit and grow those industries.

Maybe it will come through the NBN, or agriculture or an offshoot of mining. Maybe it will come from a technology that hasn't been discovered yet.

Singapore has no natural resources and very little manufacturing, yet it is a financial power house.
They have found their niche, we have to do the same.
We are not going to maintain our living standards, trying to make T shirts cheaper than China.


----------



## McLovin

rumpole said:


> Taken to its logical conclusion, all your argument leads to is a country totally dependent on other countries for anything more advanced than digging




Rubbish. They were saying the same thing 30 years ago when they started tearing down tariffs. Everyone would be out of a job. 

I can't think of many people who today would argue that was the incorrect decision. But I guess some people will never be happy unless they can buy a pair of Australian made Dunlop Volleys.


----------



## rumpole

McLovin said:


> Rubbish. They were saying the same thing 30 years ago when they started tearing down tariffs. Everyone would be out of a job.
> 
> I can't think of many people who today would argue that was the incorrect decision. But I guess some people will never be happy unless they can buy a pair of Australian made Dunlop Volleys.




It's coming true, it's just taken a long time to happen. The underlying under-employment rate is disturbing, as is youth unemployment, but I guess you don't care much about that.

As for Australian made Dunlop volleys, they may be more expensive, but they would be better quality than the imported rubbish.


----------



## McLovin

rumpole said:


> It's coming true, it's just taken a long time to happen. The underlying under-employment rate is disturbing, as is youth unemployment, but I guess you don't care much about that.




You mean this youth unemployment? Looks lower to me. Maybe I'm being to glass half full.





Yes, underemployment is a problem, but I can't for the life of me understand how using taxpayer dollars to prop up companies selling cr@ppy cars will fix the problem. Weekly earnings have been rising for decades. Weekly earnings includes earnings of all employees, not just full time.




rumpole said:


> As for Australian made Dunlop volleys, they may be more expensive, but they would be better quality than the imported rubbish.




Sarcasm?


----------



## rumpole

McLovin said:


> You mean this youth unemployment? Looks lower to me. Maybe I'm being to glass half full.
> 
> View attachment 57149
> 
> 
> Yes, underemployment is a problem, but I can't for the life of me understand how using taxpayer dollars to prop up companies selling cr@ppy cars will fix the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarcasm?




Sarcasm was not intended. The last pair of joggers I bought (imported coz their are no Aus ones) lasted about a year. People of our technical prowess must be able to do better.


----------



## noco

rumpole said:


> As I've said before, he doesn't have to write a blank cheque.
> 
> Inject some capital into those businesses. For example, buy their plant and machinery and lease it back to them or give them secured loans. The sort of things other investors would do. And reserve some of our gas exports for local users at a reasonable price.
> 
> That would keep them going until some of the structural problems can be sorted.




rumpole, why don't you suggest to your comrades in the unions to buy and manage these unprofitable industries....they have plenty of money....it would be like commune sharing for the workers who could also take out shares with their redundancy payouts ($300,000 to $500.000)...your problem will be solved. I think it would a great idea...what do you think?

But please don't ask the taxpayers to help you out if you start losing money.


----------



## rumpole

noco said:


> rumpole, why don't you suggest to your comrades in the unions to buy and manage these unprofitable industries....they have plenty of money....it would be like commune sharing for the workers who could also take out shares with their redundancy payouts ($300,000 to $500.000)...your problem will be solved. I think it would a great idea...what do you think?
> 
> But please don't ask the taxpayers to help you out if you start losing money.




Fraid I don't know anyone in a union, but maybe you should ask some of your mates running car parts businesses what they are going to do when the car makers leave.


----------



## noco

rumpole said:


> Fraid I don't know anyone in a union, but maybe you should ask some of your mates running car parts businesses what they are going to do when the car makers leave.





So I pray, tell me dear rumpole, what are your solutions?

Inject more taxpayers money to prop up unprofitable  overseas corporations?

I was hoping you would have commented on my idea of the unions and their members buying out Holden or Ford.


----------



## sptrawler

rumpole said:


> Fraid I don't know anyone in a union, but maybe you should ask some of your mates running car parts businesses what they are going to do when the car makers leave.





Probably the same as what, horse shoe manufacturers did when all the blacksmiths shut up shop.

The same as all the wool press manufacturers and wool mills did, when the downturn in wool industry happened.

The same as all the copper radiator repair shops did, when plastic/aluminium radiators became the norm.

Adapt, improvise, evolve or go out of business. Or would you still be pumping tax payers money into them, to keep them going?


----------



## rumpole

noco said:


> So I pray, tell me dear rumpole, what are your solutions?
> 
> Inject more taxpayers money to prop up unprofitable  overseas corporations?
> 
> I was hoping you would have commented on my idea of the unions and their members buying out Holden or Ford.




Probably the best idea is to let the foreigners depart then start from scratch, building vehicles for the local market with appropriate tariffs until the business gets on its feet. 

The public should have an input into the type of vehicle they want, judging by sales it would be a medium SUV type family car.

Finance this by a serious resource rent tax , like Norway's. Source as many parts from local parts suppliers as possible, have an eye to export sales and require purchase of a certain percentage of local vehicles by State, Federal and local governments.


----------



## AAA

rumpole said:


> Probably the best idea is to let the foreigners depart then start from scratch, building vehicles for the local market with appropriate tariffs until the business gets on its feet.
> 
> The public should have an input into the type of vehicle they want, judging by sales it would be a medium SUV type family car.
> 
> Finance this by a serious resource rent tax , like Norway's. Source as many parts from local parts suppliers as possible, have an eye to export sales and require purchase of a certain percentage of local vehicles by State, Federal and local governments.




We already pay more for cars than a lot of other countries do. An 'appropiate tariff ' would have to add a fair bit to the price to protect the new Australian car industry. Before Ford closed down a large % of government cars would have been holden and ford. Holden and Ford still lost money then in the Australian market. 

Talk about flogging a dead horse!


----------



## sptrawler

rumpole said:


> Probably the best idea is to let the foreigners depart then start from scratch, building vehicles for the local market with appropriate tariffs until the business gets on its feet..




Noble sugestion. 



rumpole said:


> The public should have an input into the type of vehicle they want, judging by sales it would be a medium SUV type family car..




Therein lies your problem.
10 years ago everyone wanted a large family car, today they want a medium sized SUV,
next year a small compact might be the flavour of the month.

Re tooling and making panel dies costs a fortune, that is where economies of scale comes in.
Australians buy 1million cars a year, that's all shapes and sizes.
Yet you are sugesting, we can re tool every time there is a change in consumer tastes and sell enough to cover our costs and compete with overseas products?  



rumpole said:


> Finance this by a serious resource rent tax , like Norway's. Source as many parts from local parts suppliers as possible, have an eye to export sales and require purchase of a certain percentage of local vehicles by State, Federal and local governments.




To make it viable, you would have to block the importation of any overseas cars and legislate to only allow the purchase of an Australian car.
As AAA said most Govt cars are Aust, also 90% of Aust taxis would be Falcons and they're still not viable.


----------



## rumpole

sptrawler said:


> Noble sugestion.
> 
> 
> 
> Therein lies your problem.
> 10 years ago everyone wanted a large family car, today they want a medium sized SUV,
> next year a small compact might be the flavour of the month.
> 
> Re tooling and making panel dies costs a fortune, that is where economies of scale comes in.
> Australians buy 1million cars a year, that's all shapes and sizes.
> Yet you are sugesting, we can re tool every time there is a change in consumer tastes and sell enough to cover our costs and compete with overseas products?




You don't take into account emerging technology like 3D printing. It's not quite there yet for mass production, but there is no reason we can't be one of the first to develop its full potential. You don't change dies, you just change a computer program.



> To make it viable, you would have to block the importation of any overseas cars and legislate to only allow the purchase of an Australian car.




I don't think so. People are looking for quality which is why Mercedes and BMW are so popular. We could compete on price against those makes using better technology than is currently in our old factories.
.


----------



## AAA

rumpole said:


> You don't take into account emerging technology like 3D printing. It's not quite there yet for mass production, but there is no reason we can't be one of the first to develop its full potential. You don't change dies, you just change a computer program.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so. People are looking for quality which is why Mercedes and BMW are so popular. We could compete on price against those makes using better technology than is currently in our old factories.
> .




Would this be a privately owned or a government run business. Your average Australian consumer can't afford a merc or bmw


----------



## noco

rumpole said:


> Fraid I don't know anyone in a union, but maybe you should ask some of your mates running car parts businesses what they are going to do when the car makers leave.




As I have said before, if those car maker components companies have all their irons in the one fire, then they are not very good business people to be relying on one customer....those people are tooled up to make not only car components.


----------



## sptrawler

rumpole said:


> You don't take into account emerging technology like 3D printing. It's not quite there yet for mass production, but there is no reason we can't be one of the first to develop its full potential. You don't change dies, you just change a computer program.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so. People are looking for quality which is why Mercedes and BMW are so popular. We could compete on price against those makes using better technology than is currently in our old factories.
> .




That idea has merit, however you are sugesting replacing the existing manufacturing technology with new, also the output capacity would have to increased massively.
It would probably be cheaper to build new manufacturing facilities and use the existing for low volume products.

The one major difficulty I see is how do you compete with the overseas manufacturers established in low cost countries. Could you keep your costs under control?
For example all VW Golfs imported into Australia, are made in South Africa, VW Polo is made in China and the VW Jetta is made in Mexico.
You could try going back to 57% import tarrifs, but that would have huge inflationary effects and due to the floating dollar an international backlash.

If someone like BHP had decided to buy out Chrysler Australia, in the 1970's when they closed, and get into car manufacturing it might have worked.
They owned raw material, steel processing and energy reserves, but really would you want to start dealing with extra hassle.

It all boils back to the fact it is difficult to do business here, everyone wants to be on $100k a year.

The politicians are just the same, they want ludicrous entitlements and $200-500k a year, because they have the gift of the gab.
I don't think it is going to end well for them either, Federal politicians, State politicians, Local councils.
They have to be rationalised also.IMO


----------



## rumpole

sptrawler said:


> The one major difficulty I see is how do you compete with the overseas manufacturers established in low cost countries. Could you keep your costs under control?




Fair point. Production would have to be increasingly mechanised and automated. New production techniques like the aforementioned 3D printing would do that. Some jobs would be lost at the factory, but others in the parts production, design and development areas would be saved.

 The jobs that would be created would be in the high tech areas of materials, design, engineering and production techniques. This would have spinoffs to other areas, aeronautics, marine, defence industries etc.


----------



## sptrawler

rumpole said:


> Fair point. Production would have to be increasingly mechanised and automated. New production techniques like the aforementioned 3D printing would do that. Some jobs would be lost at the factory, but others in the parts production, design and development areas would be saved..




O.K but how do we rate in the race for leading edge 3D print technology, I thought the U.S and U.K were at the cutting edge?
Starting from scratch, against companies that produce 3million cars a year and paying current wages, will require minimal labour costs, not just some job losses.
I agree other parts producers, design and development areas would be saved. IF they could survive the lean period while you are trying to build a market.

In all probability, they will go broke waiting for volume to come through.




rumpole said:


> The jobs that would be created would be in the high tech areas of materials, design, engineering and production techniques. This would have spinoffs to other areas, aeronautics, marine, defence industries etc.




The best sugestion, IMO was the 3D printing technology. 
Probably in the production of LNG process equipment and raw material handling equipment manufacture.


----------



## McLovin

As an example, BMW spent *3.5 billion euros (that's $5.35b)* last year on R&D. And we're going to compete against that by asking the public what colour velour they want in their new mid-size SUV. 

Give.me.a.break.

Why is it even so necessary for us to make cars?

ETA: The Toyota Corolla is the most popular car in Australia. Toyota spends $1m/hour every day of the year on R&D. That's $8.765b/annum on R&D.


----------



## sydboy007

rumpole said:


> Fair point. Production would have to be increasingly mechanised and automated. New production techniques like the aforementioned 3D printing would do that. Some jobs would be lost at the factory, but others in the parts production, design and development areas would be saved.
> 
> The jobs that would be created would be in the high tech areas of materials, design, engineering and production techniques. This would have spinoffs to other areas, aeronautics, marine, defence industries etc.




http://rt.com/usa/3d-printed-concrete-house-727/

Just what Joe, Tony, Glen need for the rebalancing of the economy.

Keep digging the holes, more houses.


----------



## sptrawler

McLovin said:


> As an example, BMW spent *3.5 billion euros (that's $5.35b)* last year on R&D. And we're going to compete against that by asking the public what colour velour they want in their new mid-size SUV.
> 
> Give.me.a.break.
> 
> Why is it even so necessary for us to make cars?
> 
> ETA: The Toyota Corolla is the most popular car in Australia. Toyota spends $1m/hour every day of the year on R&D. That's $8.765b/annum on R&D.




Jeez, McLovin, this is a chat thread, don't hit him with the shovel.

It's o.k to think that Australia will be fixed by the fairy's at the bottom of the garden.


----------



## rumpole

McLovin said:


> Why is it even so necessary for us to make cars?




Technical capacity for one thing.

The ability to mass produce items as complex as vehicles would come in handy if we had to manufacture other things eg for our defence forces.

Then there is the question about an increasing trade deficit with all vehicles being imported, and the effects that has on our economy.


----------



## noco

rumpole said:


> Technical capacity for one thing.
> 
> The ability to mass produce items as complex as vehicles would come in handy if we had to manufacture other things eg for our defence forces.
> 
> Then there is the question about an increasing trade deficit with all vehicles being imported, and the effects that has on our economy.




rumpole, if you are not too old and still have all your faculties, please do me a favor and do a course in Sales and Marketing....It might help you to understand how things work when you have competition, high cost, low level production and a small market base......

Tariffs do not solve the problem...if you add some 57% tariff on imported cars, a Toyota Corolla will cost something like $30,000. Tariffs only add to inflation = more demand for higher wages.

I think it is time for you to came back down to earth and become realistic as to what is really happening in our car industry and and other manufacturing organisations. You obviously do not seem to comprehend the lead up over the past 50 years as the reason why we have lost our manufacturing. Of course it is so easy to blame the Abbott government for not giving handouts to prop up high union wages..you know the LABOR PARROTS are saying..'TONY ABBOTT DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THE WORKERS" .....but of course we all know there is no money left in the 'PIGGY BANK" and we also know why there is no money in it. 

You whistle and I will point.


----------



## rumpole

noco said:


> rumpole, if you are not too old and still have all your faculties, please do me a favor and do a course in Sales and Marketing....It might help you to understand how things work when you have competition, high cost, low level production and a small market base......
> 
> Tariffs do not solve the problem...if you add some 57% tariff on imported cars, a Toyota Corolla will cost something like $30,000. Tariffs only add to inflation = more demand for higher wages.
> 
> I think it is time for you to came back down to earth and become realistic as to what is really happening in our car industry and and other manufacturing organisations. You obviously do not seem to comprehend the lead up over the past 50 years as the reason why we have lost our manufacturing. Of course it is so easy to blame the Abbott government for not giving handouts to prop up high union wages..you know the LABOR PARROTS are saying..'TONY ABBOTT DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THE WORKERS" .....but of course we all know there is no money left in the 'PIGGY BANK" and we also know why there is no money in it.
> 
> You whistle and I will point.




If you don't like tariffs noco, then import quotas would fit the bill.


----------



## noco

rumpole said:


> If you don't like tariffs noco, then import quotas would fit the bill.




Ahla Pauline.....please explain.


----------



## rumpole

noco said:


> Ahla Pauline.....please explain.




Import quota: Limitation of the quantity of imports allowed into Australia. 

If the Australian product is good enough to compete with imports of the same price, then quotas may be set fairly high, and let the buyers show their support of the local product.


----------



## McLovin

rumpole said:


> Technical capacity for one thing.
> 
> The ability to mass produce items as complex as vehicles would come in handy if we had to manufacture other things eg for our defence forces.




We already have local defence contractors that manufacture for the ADF.


----------



## rumpole

McLovin said:


> We already have local defence contractors that manufacture for the ADF.




Not on the scale that would be required if things got more serious


----------



## McLovin

rumpole said:


> Not on the scale that would be required if things got more serious




Yeah OK. We'll just get those punters making Ford Falcons to switch to making tanks and battleships if things get serious.  'Cause you know, they're basically the same thing.


----------



## rumpole

McLovin said:


> Yeah OK. We'll just get those punters making Ford Falcons to switch to making tanks and battleships if things get serious.  'Cause you know, they're basically the same thing.




As I've explained before, new production techniques like 3d printing allow flexibility in what you can make, and even without it auto assembly lines here and the US were turned to arms manufacturing in WW2.


----------



## orr

McLovin said:


> Yeah OK. We'll just get those punters making Ford Falcons to switch to making tanks and battleships if things get serious.  'Cause you know, they're basically the same thing.




"The FP-45 Liberator was a pistol manufactured by the United States military during World War II for use by resistance forces in occupied territories.

The concept was suggested by a Polish military attache in March 1942. The project was assigned to the US Army Joint Psychological Warfare Committee and was designed for the United States Army two months later by George Hyde of the Inland Manufacturing Division of the General Motors Corporation in Dayton, Ohio. Production was undertaken by General Motors Guide Lamp Division to avoid conflicting priorities with Inland Division production of the M1 carbine.[1] The army designated the weapon the Flare Projector Caliber .45 hence the designation FP-45. This was done to disguise the fact that a pistol was being mass-produced. The original engineering drawings label the barrel as "tube", the trigger as "yoke", the firing pin as "control rod", and the trigger guard as "spanner". The Guide Lamp Division plant in Anderson, Indiana assembled a million[2] of these guns. The Liberator project took about six months from conception to the end of production with about 11 weeks of actual manufacturing time, done by 300 workers."

All from wiki, but the story logded itself in my mind when I first saw one, and was told the story at the war memorial as a school kid. The point raised in the telling not mentioned at wiki, was a retort from a GM executive saying something along the lines of, 'give us something we can make out of pressed metal and we'll spit'em out by the millions.'


----------



## Calliope

rumpole said:


> As I've explained before, new production techniques like 3d printing allow flexibility in what you can make, and even without it auto assembly lines here and the US were turned to arms manufacturing in WW2.




3d printed tanks would be very flexible indeed. We could have these huge printers at the front and print replacement tanks as required. The next war will be a war of the printers. 

Even if they don't work they will look impressive like the printed out North Korean ballistic missiles.  If we are smart we will switch our auto industry to making 3d printers.


----------



## McLovin

orr said:


> All from wiki, but the story logded itself in my mind when I first saw one, and was told the story at the war memorial as a school kid. The point raised in the telling not mentioned at wiki, was a retort from a GM executive saying something along the lines of, 'give us something we can make out of pressed metal and we'll spit'em out by the millions.'




I don't disagree with that. But, WW2 was a mechanised war, WW3, if it ever happens, will be won by electronic technology. It will take a lot more than pressed metal and/or 3d printing. It would seem better to have the ability to scale existing defence manufacturing capability rather than support an unprofitable industry "just in case".

To be honest, I don't think we'll ever have a WW2 style war again. The bomb makes sure of that.


----------



## rumpole

Interesting article on productivity

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-...not-the-culprit-of-productivity-slide/5309036


----------



## sptrawler

rumpole said:


> Interesting article on productivity
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-...not-the-culprit-of-productivity-slide/5309036




I found that article very badly done. 
He blames politicians of going for emotive missinformation, then proceedes to compare a person digging a hole with a shovel, to someone using a front end loader.
This was after using the car manufacturers and small business as his example.

He would have been far better off staying on the subject and comparing apples with apples.
It would have been much more accurate and believable, had he compared the manhours per car built in our production facilities as opposed to competing overseas manufacturers.

His quote
"_Unfortunately, like almost everything that passes for political discourse these days, it ignores the evidence, overlooks the logic and ploughs on through to a predictable conclusion that is entirely wrong_".
Could quite easily be levelled at his article.IMO.

To start the article at a macro level i.e

_"Superficially, the evidence is overwhelming. Toyota, Ford, Holden and a myriad other businesses have decided to close down here because production costs are too high. It's a problem replicated across small and medium-sized businesses. Coffee shops can't afford to open on the weekend because of penalty rates and union featherbedding.

It makes for a compelling argument, particularly for an electorate that has grown accustomed to the five second sound bite, repeated ad infinitum_"

Then try to say that these are not real issues, and substantiate it by showing the transition from mining construction to production actually means our productivity is increasing.

I'm sure small business owners will feel great about that, they just have to wait for the productivity increase Ian is talking about, hitting their shop.

Just my opinion, but his take on it seems about as disjointed as the politicians.


----------



## rumpole

> I'm sure small business owners will feel great about that, they just have to wait for the productivity increase Ian is talking about, hitting their shop.




Small business owners should be subject to much less regulation than larger businesses imo. Coffee shop owners shouldn't have to pay penalty rates or be subject to unfair dismissal laws. 

Once you get above the level where the business owners are not the managers then other dynamics like personality conflicts can occur that have nothing to do with an employees ability to do their job, and should be subject to some scrutiny from an independent party.


----------



## Calliope

I defy any left-leaner to find a flaw in this proposition espoused by Andrew Bolt. For once he gets it exactly right.



> LABOR is worried. The public isn’t stupid, after all, and doesn’t believe governments can or should “save” jobs.
> 
> We’re all consumers now. If we want to save Qantas, we’ll fly it.
> 
> If we want to save our car industry, we’ll buy a Holden or Ford.
> 
> If we want to save SPC Ardmona, we’ll buy a tin of peaches.
> 
> And if we don’t buy that ticket, car or tin, the Government should get its hands out of our pockets. Don’t force us to donate to companies that didn’t earn our business.




http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...-for-local-firms/story-fni0ffxg-1226849573464


----------



## rumpole

Calliope said:


> I defy any left-leaner to find a flaw in this proposition espoused by Andrew Bolt. For once he gets it exactly right.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...-for-local-firms/story-fni0ffxg-1226849573464




What he says is fair enough, but it's indicative of what happens when we let our industries get sold off to foreigners who think they can tell what we want from the other side of the world.

Let the foreigners depart, and then get the industries back in local hands. That requires government investment because the local business sector is too gutless to take any risks without some sort of government guarantee.


----------



## McLovin

rumpole said:


> What he says is fair enough, but it's indicative of what happens when we let our industries get sold off to foreigners who think they can tell what we want from the other side of the world.
> 
> Let the foreigners depart, and then get the industries back in local hands. That requires government investment because the local business sector is too gutless to take any risks without some sort of government guarantee.




When all else fails, fall back on good ol' fashioned xenophobia. You sound about 30 years out of date.

Look at all those foreigners, with no idea what Australians want. I'm sure you're shocked the Morphy Richards toaster isn't in there. 





http://cdn.marketingmag.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/added-value-culture-aus.png


----------



## rumpole

McLovin said:


> When all else fails, fall back on good ol' fashioned xenophobia. You sound about 30 years out of date.
> 
> Look at all those foreigners, with no idea what Australians want. I'm sure you're shocked the Morphy Richards toaster isn't in there.
> 
> View attachment 57167
> 
> 
> http://cdn.marketingmag.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/added-value-culture-aus.png




Microsoft, Google, it's easy to sell cr@p to people when you are a virtual monopoly.

As for BMW, I remember reading the motoring mags years ago that said that the GM Statesman and Senator were at least as good as BMW, except for the badge. You could sell some people a turd sandwich as long as it had the right badge.


----------



## McLovin

rumpole said:


> Microsoft, Google, it's easy to sell cr@p to people when you are a virtual monopoly.




It's not about sales, it's about brands.

But thanks for playing. I leave you in 1984.


----------



## rumpole

McLovin said:


> It's not about sales, it's about brands.
> 
> .




You are obviously one who falls for the brand hype. Lots of suckers in this country it seems.


----------



## McLovin

rumpole said:


> You are obviously one who falls for the brand hype. Lots of suckers in this country it seems.




Perhaps. But I can spot a troll a mile away.


----------



## rumpole

McLovin said:


> Perhaps. But I can spot a troll a mile away.




If trolling is expressing an opinion different to yourself, then...


----------



## sydboy007

Will be interesting to see how things change for access to the Commonwealth Seniors card.

I can't believe they set a $50K limit - that's in the 7th income decile for a single person income (863-1,054), but the Senior could be paying no tax on this so could be equivalent to the 8th income decile ie they could be beating at least 60-70% of the population on income and still received all the generous perks of the seniors card.  Talk about age of entitlement with emphasis on welfare based on age not need.

Sadly Labor is already showing they will take the low road, but then Queensland Coalition MP Andrew Laming has also called for Seniors to rise up so I doubt we'll see any meaningful reforms.

FYI - 1 in 10 tax dollars goes to the aged pension already


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Will be interesting to see how things change for access to the Commonwealth Seniors card.
> 
> I can't believe they set a $50K limit - that's in the 7th income decile for a single person income (863-1,054), but the Senior could be paying no tax on this so could be equivalent to the 8th income decile ie they could be beating at least 60-70% of the population on income and still received all the generous perks of the seniors card.  Talk about age of entitlement with emphasis on welfare based on age not need.
> 
> Sadly Labor is already showing they will take the low road, but then Queensland Coalition MP Andrew Laming has also called for Seniors to rise up so I doubt we'll see any meaningful reforms.
> 
> FYI - 1 in 10 tax dollars goes to the aged pension already




I'm suprised you haven't mentioned the pension rise Tony is giving out.

Oh no, its not about the minimum pension for a couple, going upto $32,500/anum with $200k in the bank and a  McMansion worth $3m + get the seniors card .

It's about screwing the self funded, that have saved $1m in super and are getting $35,000 in term deposits.lol 
Make them pay for the frugality, that will teach everyone to spend instead of saving.
Thank god for karma.lol


----------



## Julia

sptrawler said:


> It's about screwing the self funded, that have saved $1m in super and are getting $35,000 in term deposits.lol
> Make them pay for the frugality, that will teach everyone to spend instead of saving.
> Thank god for karma.lol



And that demonstrates the very message that the government would be sending to future retirees if they penalise self funded retirees on the small concession they receive via the CSHC.

There comes a point when people are just going to say, to hell with making the effort to be self funded:  might as well spend up before reaching age pension age and qualify for full or substantial part pension.
That would be a very short sighted approach imo.


----------



## sptrawler

Julia said:


> And that demonstrates the very message that the government would be sending to future retirees if they penalise self funded retirees on the small concession they receive via the CSHC.
> 
> There comes a point when people are just going to say, to hell with making the effort to be self funded:  might as well spend up before reaching age pension age and qualify for full or substantial part pension.
> That would be a very short sighted approach imo.




Yes, and then all Syds worries come home to roost.
Everyone has a minimal amount in super, get maximum pension and had a great time on the way.lol

However, the government has upped the after tax limit to $180k/anum, which if they play around too much with the rules, will end up as you say "no one putting extra in".

So one hopes the Government isn't as short sighted.


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> And that demonstrates the very message that the government would be sending to future retirees if they penalise self funded retirees on the small concession they receive via the CSHC.
> 
> There comes a point when people are just going to say, to hell with making the effort to be self funded:  might as well spend up before reaching age pension age and qualify for full or substantial part pension.
> That would be a very short sighted approach imo.




Should a single person on 50K tax free, or couple on 80K tax free be receiving welfare when the Abbot Government believes people earning less than $18K a year should PAY extra tax for their super?

CSHS provides access to PBS medicines at a greatly reduced prices, and up to $300 / qtr in supplement income.  It doesn't make economic sense to me that we provide welfare to relatively well off people.



sptrawler said:


> Yes, and then all Syds worries come home to roost.
> Everyone has a minimal amount in super, get maximum pension and had a great time on the way.lol
> 
> However, the government has upped the after tax limit to $180k/anum, which if they play around too much with the rules, will end up as you say "no one putting extra in".
> 
> So one hopes the Government isn't as short sighted.




How much of a retirement income should the Government provide tax incentives to achieve?  Between the tax foregone and the $20B or so in fees siphoned out by the industry, it would be cheaper to just provide everyone with the pension.

The great lark is to load up on debt, take out a lump sum to pay it off, holiday, new car then get the full pension while sitting on a small fortune called the primary residence.  The aged pension cost to the budget has increased by $13B a year in a decade.  It's an unsustainable system.  The aged budget is already over $50B a year and the boomers have barely begun retiring or increasing the demands on the health budget.  How does a rapidly shrinking tax paying population keep things running?  We peaked at 1.5 workers per dependant in 2010.  By 2020 it'll be just 1.4 and 2030 down to 1.3.  

The top 5% of income earners receive over 20% of Government funding for super.  Why?  It's quite likely these people would have enough assets to not be eligible for a pension, so why do they receive around $3.3B in annual funding on their contributions?  Why do the millions of low income earners pay 15% more tax on their contributions than income earned, or at best get a 4% reduction in their tax?


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> How much of a retirement income should the Government provide tax incentives to achieve?  Between the tax foregone and the $20B or so in fees siphoned out by the industry, it would be cheaper to just provide everyone with the pension.?




Ask yourself, how much effort it would take you to save enough to supply yourself with a $32,000 dollar pension.
Also we are talking about saving it over the last 30 years.
For a comparison working on on inflation of 5% in thirty years you will have to have saved enough to better a pension of $94,000/ year.
Then to better a pension or equal a pension of $94,000 at 4% return(which are current rates) you will need to have saved $2.5million.
While your neighbour spends everything, has a ball and gets $94k, then someone tells you, What's your problem.lol






sydboy007 said:


> The great lark is to load up on debt, take out a lump sum to pay it off, holiday, new car then get the full pension while sitting on a small fortune called the primary residence.  The aged pension cost to the budget has increased by $13B a year in a decade.  It's an unsustainable system.  The aged budget is already over $50B a year and the boomers have barely begun retiring or increasing the demands on the health budget.  How does a rapidly shrinking tax paying population keep things running?  We peaked at 1.5 workers per dependant in 2010.  By 2020 it'll be just 1.4 and 2030 down to 1.3. .?





Most people who have substantial sums in their super tend to take it as a self funded pension. 
Those who have low amounts tend to spend it and access the government aged pension.
So again, your focus on wanting to penalise savers, and promote spending.





sydboy007 said:


> The top 5% of income earners receive over 20% of Government funding for super.  Why?  It's quite likely these people would have enough assets to not be eligible for a pension, so why do they receive around $3.3B in annual funding on their contributions?  Why do the millions of low income earners pay 15% more tax on their contributions than income earned, or at best get a 4% reduction in their tax.?




How many of the top 5% of income earners will access a government aged pension?

Forget about the top 5%.
Think about the 'joe average'.
Most people fall into the middle to low income earners
Some have saved enough, by doing without, to self fund.
Some have spent everything and recieve the equivilent of $850,000 in the bank at 3.5%.
I know who I feel sorry for.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Ask yourself, how much effort it would take you to save enough to supply yourself with a $32,000 dollar pension.
> Also we are talking about saving it over the last 30 years.
> For a comparison working on on inflation of 5% in thirty years you will have to have saved enough to better a pension of $94,000/ year.
> Then to better a pension or equal a pension of $94,000 at 4% return(which are current rates) you will need to have saved $2.5million.
> While your neighbour spends everything, has a ball and gets $94k, then someone tells you, What's your problem.lol




Not sure what you mean by inflation of 5%.  We've rarely had a full year of inflation above 3% for a couple of decades now.  Why does the hard working single gen x on $50K get access to little to no benefits, yet a single pensioner can earn similar amounts tax free but avail themselves of a number of Government benefits?

I'd say you could achieve a $32K pension in todays dollars with roughly $800K in various ILBs and floating rate corporate bonds with some higher yielding hybrids for a bit of extra cash as reward for the extra risk.  Plenty offering relatively safe 6-7% yields.  Anyone accepting a 4% yield is either lazy or far too conservative for their own good.



sptrawler said:


> Most people who have substantial sums in their super tend to take it as a self funded pension.
> Those who have low amounts tend to spend it and access the government aged pension.
> So again, your focus on wanting to penalise savers, and promote spending.




What do you consider a low amount?  If someone can take out $150K to tart up the house and pay off the mortgage etc how is it good for the tax payers left to fund their full pension.  $150K in some ILBs would provide around a 4% REAL cash flow yield indexed to CPI each qtr - $500 extra income each month.  Shouldn't the system be designed to minimise the revenue drain on the budget?

Currently the age pension asset rules encourages over investment in housing.  I've lost count of the times pensioners in those news paper columns have been told to renovate and then get centre link to reassess their pension eligibility now they've lowered their assessable asset base.  Why does a pensioner with a $1M house - plenty would have this if they live in a capital city - have a good chance to gain a full pension, but a pensioner with a $1M share portfolio will most likely get nothing?  With housing representing up to 80% of a households wealth, why is it excluded from determining who gets access to the aged pension?  I'm not saying assess the full value, but it's going to be increasingly hard to justify providing a full aged pension to someone with a high level of relative wealth to the younger gen x and gen y who have been priced out of the housing market due to boomer investors and increasingly foreign investors.



sptrawler said:


> How many of the top 5% of income earners will access a government aged pension?
> 
> Forget about the top 5%.
> Think about the 'joe average'.
> Most people fall into the middle to low income earners
> Some have saved enough, by doing without, to self fund.
> Some have spent everything and recieve the equivilent of $850,000 in the bank at 3.5%.
> I know who I feel sorry for.




How can we forget about the top 5% when they're receiving the equivalent to 10% of the current pension expenditure in super subsidies, and that's just on their annual contributions?  Wouldn't we be better off targeting super in a much more economical way?  Why do the poorest people on < 18K pay more in super tax than they do on their taxable income.  The whole super system is designed to provide the greatest assistance to the rich.

$3.6B a year would build a decent toll free road or fund a major mass transit upgrade in a capital city.  It's not small change.  I'd prefer to see it added to the bottom 3 income decile super accounts so when they retire they do have a balance big enough to provide a reasonable top up to their pension.


----------



## sptrawler

Pointless continueing the 'super' loop.

How about this for a missed opportunity, Lynas, they mine the rare eath minerals in W.A.

However they decided to build the processing plant in Malaysia, well it has gone frrom bad to worse for them.
Maybe if they had processed it here, they would now be making a profit.

It just looks like, they are being held to ransom.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/wa/a/21918028/lynas-flags-need-for-more-cash/

By the way I have no interest or holding in them, just see it as another company trying to rip out our minerals and value add offshore.

It really is the root cause of our problems.IMO

This is the issue the Government has to address, value adding here, is just as easy as in Malaysia.


----------



## sptrawler

It's also funny that the Government can talk about antiquated rules from the 1930's requiring an overhaul.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-11/berg-time-to-ditch-antiquated-media-regulations/5311800

When the Government system is older and more outdated, also it costs us a fortune in taxes to support:

Federal politicians(from all parties) and their staff, then their pension entitlements.

State politicians(from all parties) and their staff, then their pension entitlements.

Local government costs and their pensions and entitlements.

This system was put in place when, the only way of getting information across the country, had to be done by surface mail(ship).

Therefore a State government was needed to make local decissions, now we have instantaneous communication, it negates the requirement for so many levels of government.IMO

Why is it, the average worker, has to pull in his/her belt?

Maybe a bit of self appraisal, is required from politicians.


----------



## sptrawler

This is an interesting headline in the SMH

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...rnaut--who-do-you-believe-20140313-34oxf.html

Well I for one would think Tony Abbott, has a miriad of current experts to make current decissions, from current information.

Bernie Fraser.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Fraser_(economist)
Was Governor of the Reserve Bank from 1989 - 1996.
Since then I've seen him mainly in commercials for Australian super.

Ken Henry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Henry_(public_servant)
Was actually appointed by Costello.
The Labor Party used him to assess the current tax system, then acted on very few of the recomendations.

Ross Garnaut.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Garnaut
He actually reported carbon capture, carbon storage and clean coal technology hopefully would be available within 20 years.

The problem is IMO taxing electricity generators, when there isn't any alternatives, just puts up the price of electricity. As trainspotter said.


So in a nutshell why would Abbott use these guys. Labor didn't


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Pointless continueing the 'super' loop.
> 
> How about this for a missed opportunity, Lynas, they mine the rare eath minerals in W.A.
> 
> However they decided to build the processing plant in Malaysia, well it has gone frrom bad to worse for them.
> Maybe if they had processed it here, they would now be making a profit.
> 
> It just looks like, they are being held to ransom.
> 
> http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/wa/a/21918028/lynas-flags-need-for-more-cash/
> 
> By the way I have no interest or holding in them, just see it as another company trying to rip out our minerals and value add offshore.
> 
> It really is the root cause of our problems.IMO
> 
> This is the issue the Government has to address, value adding here, is just as easy as in Malaysia.




Boils down to the fact that the processing of rare earths leaves over radioactive wastes.  Not highly radioactive, but high enough that it's an issue to deal with.

Lynas believed things would be easier to do in Malaysia, but the locals have - probably rightly - jacked up over it as they don't quite trust their Government to ensure the proper treatment of this waste.

Only have to look at the Morwell coal mine fire to see how things can go wrong when you let companies self assess their obligations.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Boils down to the fact that the processing of rare earths leaves over radioactive wastes.  Not highly radioactive, but high enough that it's an issue to deal with.
> 
> Lynas believed things would be easier to do in Malaysia, but the locals have - probably rightly - jacked up over it as they don't quite trust their Government to ensure the proper treatment of this waste.
> 
> Only have to look at the Morwell coal mine fire to see how things can go wrong when you let companies self assess their obligations.




Absolutely and isn't it Bob Hawke that is saying we should consider being a storage facility for depleted waste?

Also, from what I read in W.A, the Morewell fires were deliberately lit.lol

Jeez, I think everyone is in for a big wake up call .


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Absolutely and isn't it Bob Hawke that is saying we should consider being a storage facility for depleted waste?
> 
> Also, from what I read in W.A, the Morewell fires were deliberately lit.lol
> 
> Jeez, I think everyone is in for a big wake up call .




The fire was most likely deliberately lit, but the fact is IF the mine had been properly secured the fire would definitely not have been as bad as it was.  Somehow I think if O4B Abbott had been in power Lynas would probably have got a deal to process the rare earths in Australia.  If it's Ok to spray millions of litres of briny water over agricultural land from CSG wells, I'm sure they could come up with a plan to cheaply store the radioactive waste materials left over.

Parts of Australia probably would make for a decent long term storage facility of nuclear waste,  Easy enough to find a location far enough from any fault line that deep mine shaft can be built into without affecting any water table.

The fact that the UK has had to set obscenely high wholesale electricity rates to get their new nuclear generators built by EDF - 92.5 pounds ($170) per megawatt hour (the Australian average was between $43 and $66 depending on the state last year).  I'm not sure how big a nuclear renaissance the world is going to see at those kinds of fixed prices.  Makes wind power look cheap.  Add in the cost of long term storage facilities and I can't help but think nuclear power is an expensive form of carbon abatement, but hey it's probably more realistic than CC&S unless you've built a coal power station next to a near depleted gas field.


----------



## IFocus

Tony Abbott takes a grilling from a group of high school students

The carbon tax, gay marriage, asylum seekers and gender equity were the zingers for the prime minister after he invited questions




> All the while, the encounter was being filmed by one of the students, Aria McCarthy-Lochner, who described Abbott’s performance as one where he *“avoids and waffles”*.


----------



## drsmith

What asylum seekers IF ?

We're not getting too many by boat now. 

I also note that Julia Gillard copped the sanger, un-grilled.


----------



## Macquack

drsmith said:


> What asylum seekers IF ?
> 
> We're not getting too many by boat now.
> 
> I also note that Julia Gillard *copped the sanger*, un-grilled.




Get a kick out of juvenile delinquency, do you Smith?


----------



## drsmith

Macquack said:


> Get a kick out of juvenile delinquency, do you Smith?



The sanger was nothing compared to what she ultimately copped from her own party.


----------



## DB008

Apparently there was a march in Melbourne today. Over something. Who knows. From the pictures I saw, it all looked like uni students. 'Meh..

Have a look at some of the banners.






Boy-oh-boy....how embarrassing.


----------



## drsmith

DB008 said:


> Have a look at some of the banners.



A fun day out for some brainless ideologues.

At least they didn't call him a misogynist.


----------



## Smurf1976

sptrawler said:


> By the way I have no interest or holding in them, just see it as another company trying to rip out our minerals and value add offshore.
> 
> It really is the root cause of our problems.IMO
> 
> This is the issue the Government has to address, value adding here, is just as easy as in Malaysia.



+1

We have massive resources being pretty much given away. We sell it for $5, then someone else processes it and turns it into $100. 

It makes no sense at all to be doing that, unless the object isn't to make money or create employment but instead to just put a lot of very big holes in the ground as quickly as possible.


----------



## Smurf1976

McLovin said:


> Why is it even so necessary for us to make cars?



I think the real concern is about cars per se, but that mining is ultimately a dead end at some unknown future time.

But as sure as night follows day, children will be taught that "Australia used to depend heavily on mining, until.....". 

It will happen. And if there's no other industry of note around at the time then we're completely screwed.


----------



## Smurf1976

sydboy007 said:


> The fire was most likely deliberately lit, but the fact is IF the mine had been properly secured the fire would definitely not have been as bad as it was.




The lesson here, one which nuclear proponents struggle to grasp, is that anything man does has at least some chance of going horribly wrong. Mines on fire, aircraft going missing and so on.

The unique thing about nuclear is that we have no realistic plan to deal with what will inevitably occur at some point. The Morwell fire might be causing havoc in the Latrobe Valley, but there's no chance that we'll need to evacuate Melbourne, Tasmania or New Zealand because of it.



> Parts of Australia probably would make for a decent long term storage facility of nuclear waste




Much as I'm not keen on nuclear energy due to the unmanageable nature of its' inherent risks, it's a reality that the world does have nuclear waste and it needs to be put somewhere. Ignoring NIMBY arguments, Australia is a very logical place to put it.



> I'm not sure how big a nuclear renaissance the world is going to see at those kinds of fixed prices.  Makes wind power look cheap.




Nobody's going to build a new nuclear plant for pure economic reasons. But the world has them, some countries are building more for non-economic reasons, and the resultant waste has to go somewhere. Provided that we charge enough (and we should be able to charge big $ I'd think) then Australia is a logical place for it.

The key would be in negotiating hard enough and I don't trust politicians of any persuasion to do so. Rather than simply being paid money, I'd rather we got something tangible for it. Eg much has been said about (for example) canals to move water long distances in WA. No problems - we'll take country x's nuclear waste and store it indefinitely on the condition that they pay the cost of building the canals. Things like that - with some decent negotiation we could get a lot of those long running ideas actually built.


----------



## Logique

DB008 said:


> Apparently there was a march in Melbourne today. Over something. Who knows. From the pictures I saw, it all looked like uni students. 'Meh..
> Have a look at some of the banners.
> View attachment 57256
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boy-oh-boy....how embarrassing.



Thanks DB. It wouldn't be ok if directed at Gillard or Plibersek. But seemingly quite alright if Tony Abbott is the target. That's not hypocritical at all in Lefty Land.


----------



## rumpole

Logique said:


> Thanks DB. It wouldn't be ok if directed at Gillard or Plibersek. But seemingly quite alright if Tony Abbott is the target. That's not hypocritical at all in Lefty Land.




A bit strong I'd have to say. The protest that is.


----------



## Macquack

Logique said:


> Thanks DB. It wouldn't be ok if directed at Gillard or Plibersek. But seemingly *quite alright if Tony Abbott is the target.* That's not hypocritical at all in Lefty Land.




I don't see *Gillard or Plibersek in front of the banner*?

See if you can work out the difference.


----------



## DB008

Logique said:


> Thanks DB. It wouldn't be ok if directed at Gillard or Plibersek. But seemingly quite alright if Tony Abbott is the target. That's not hypocritical at all in Lefty Land.




+1


----------



## Macquack

Have a cry from your *one eye*, then harden up a bit.


----------



## drsmith

Macquack said:


> I don't see *Gillard or Plibersek in front of the banner*?
> 
> See if you can work out the difference.



The difference is that those banners are much more offensive than ditch-the-witch.

What is it about TA that upsets these people so much ?

Has he introduced a big new economy wide tax after going to the electorate saying he wouldn't ?


----------



## bellenuit

Macquack said:


> Have a cry from your *one eye*, then harden up a bit.
> 
> View attachment 57259




Are you sure that is not photoshopped. The photos I remember had the sign behind his back and at a greater distance than shown on your photo. Additionally, your photo doesn't show any hand holding it up and it seems to be floating


----------



## drsmith

Whether intentional or not, standing in front of signs like that reduced TA's and the Libs political standing. It was poor judgement by organisers of the event to allow it to happen.

After that episode, I don't think we'll see party leaders standing in front of signs like that for some time, or in front of the even worse bile directed at TA.

In relation to where a hand could hold the sign from the image above, the image below should make that clearer.


----------



## wayneL

DB008 said:


> +1




So Tony is both a communist AND a Fascist, both extreme right wing and extreme left wing?

That guy is emblematic of the whole GetUp mentality - retarded malcontents.


----------



## drsmith

wayneL said:


> So Tony is both a communist AND a Fascist, both extreme right wing and extreme left wing?
> 
> That guy is emblematic of the whole GetUp mentality - retarded malcontents.



I also note in the other image that that particular group was not too keen on democracy, something Stalin and Hitler had in common.


----------



## noco

wayneL said:


> So Tony is both a communist AND a Fascist, both extreme right wing and extreme left wing?
> 
> That guy is emblematic of the whole GetUp mentality - retarded malcontents.




And don't forget Bill Shorten is a member of GET UP


----------



## noco

Shorten, Carr and Emerson must now have egg all over their faces relating to handouts to Holden, Qantas and SPC.


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...ing-his-own-luck/story-fnj45fvb-1226856290694


----------



## noco

The GET UP RENT A CROWD but where was there comrade in arms Billy Shorten????????


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...at-was-the-point/story-fni0xqrb-1226856898563


----------



## Smurf1976

noco said:


> And don't forget Bill Shorten is a member of GET UP




For the record, I'm also a member.

Not that I've been to any of their protests, but being a member costs nothing and means I know what they're up to.


----------



## noco

Smurf1976 said:


> For the record, I'm also a member.
> 
> Not that I've been to any of their protests, but being a member costs nothing and means I know what they're up to.




One young girl on QandA last night said very clearly she was paid to go to the protest...she did not elaborate on how much or who paid her......No wonder they got a good roll up....some people will do anything for money

Anyway what was the protest about?

All I could observe was rude and crude banners and T shirts....I noted one T shirt with F*** Abbott....If that had been F*** Gillard or F*** Shorten there would have been hell to play...I really cannot see rhyme nor reason for that kind of behaviour. 

Those people obviously do not believe in democracy.....they have to take some lessons some time that in a democracy the majority normally rules....use their protest at the ballot box.

Unfortunately in South Australia, the Liberals gained 53% indicating the voters wanted a change of government. But thanks to the Gerrymander in South Australia it can not happen....The same thing has kept Labor in power for 12 years...so if the people in South Australia want a change of government, the Liberals will have to gain 54%.

I know you will tell me it happened to poor old Kim Beasley when he lost to Howard with 51% but that was Federal.and spread over a wider area...I am also old enough to remember the gerrymander that went on Joe's time in Queensland....but the new electoral commission later took care of that and since then it has been fair voting in Queensland.


----------



## chiff

The voting disparity in SA is not due to gerrymander.Every four years the electoral commission rewrites the boundaries to make the seats more equal in population.
The difference comes with SA being a city-state.The city seats are hotly contested with most having only a small percentage difference in the two-party preferred.However, some country electorates vote overwhelmingly for the Liberals,sometimes over four to one or more.This is where the disparity comes in.
The electoral commission has found this difference in voting patterns hard to counter,without skewing the geographical boundaries completely.
If you want to know what a gerrymander is, or was, look to Qld with old Jo ,and the Labor party in Qld before that.That was accepted behaviour in Qld,and in SA when Tom Playford was the long time Premier.
Country electorates always had fewer voters than city electorates.


----------



## Calliope

Smurf1976 said:


> For the record, I'm also a member.
> 
> Not that I've been to any of their protests, but being a member costs nothing and means I know what they're up to.




Like all GetUp supporters you are probably just following your "compassionate heart".

I think we know what bastardry they are up to without being a member.



> THE compassionate heart of the country seemed just a tad menacing at their rallies.
> 
> Greens MP Adam Bandt tweets, yesterday:
> 
> THE compassionate, humane & generous heart of this country beats strong, as ... (the) March in March gathering showed.
> 
> Banner at March in March, Sunday:
> 
> TO save the world, I vote for retroactive abortion on Tony Abbott.
> 
> Banner at March in March, Sunday:
> 
> #KILL Abbott pozible campaign?




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...t-would-be-happy/story-fn72xczz-1226857385561


----------



## IFocus

I wonder where the Liberal party donation for this came from........

Financial victims unite to fight plans to water down consumer protection



> Victims who lost billions in the collapse of financial advice firms such as Storm Financial are joining consumer groups, superannuant and seniors associations and industry superannuation funds in an angry backlash against the government’s plan to wind back new consumer protection laws





I just love this bit



> But Tony Abbott said on Monday the former Labor government’s legal protection laws – which his government is seeking to water down – were* “a classic case of regulatory overkill” because it was already an “ethical given” that professional advisers would take into account the best interests of their clients*.





Ultra left wing group (Commo's) Choice joins the action (What would they know)



> The consumer group Choice, which is organising a campaign against the proposed reforms, wrote to all senators on Tuesday asking them to oppose the legislation and vote to disallow the regulations.




Who made this up..............I am sure Arthur is straight all Liberals are.



> The regulations are being proposed by the assistant treasurer, Arthur Sinodinos, who is under pressure over his involvement with a company linked to the disgraced New South Wales Labor figure Eddie Obeid, which is under investigation by the Independent Commission Against Corruption.




http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...fight-plans-to-water-down-consumer-protection


----------



## rumpole

> “a classic case of regulatory overkill” because it was already an “ethical given” that professional advisers would take into account the best interests of their clients.




What a pity ethics is not compulsory in the financial advice industry.


----------



## sptrawler

rumpole said:


> What a pity ethics is not compulsory in the financial advice industry.




Or in politics.lol


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> I wonder where the Liberal party donation for this came from........
> 
> Financial victims unite to fight plans to water down consumer protection
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just love this bit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ultra left wing group (Commo's) Choice joins the action (What would they know)
> 
> 
> 
> Who made this up..............I am sure Arthur is straight all Liberals are.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...fight-plans-to-water-down-consumer-protection




Can you summarise the post, to make sense, unusual post from you IFocus.


----------



## drsmith

Tony Abbott demolishing Bill Shorten and Labor on the mining tax,

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo...dr/19c32232-832c-45aa-8efa-783c9a3446a4/0000"


----------



## IFocus

sptrawler said:


> Can you summarise the post, to make sense, unusual post from you IFocus.




My insinuations are the financial sector threw a heap of money at the Liberal Party now its pay back time.

Honest Arthur was a high flyer in the Liberal party machine possibly one of those faceless cashiers.

Even Choice thinks its a very bad idea which clearly means they are Commo's (name given to anyone opposing Liberal Party corrupt practices).

Think that covers it


----------



## orr

drsmith said:


> Tony Abbott demolishing Bill Shorten and Labor on the mining tax,
> 
> http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo...dr/19c32232-832c-45aa-8efa-783c9a3446a4/0000"




This is by vast bulk of it's foreign ownership 'The Mining Industry' demolishing  The Australian Communities interests.
 Buried in the blather, Abbott  alludes to his government 'doing justice'  to the Audit commissions report on the Henry Tax revenue. 
We can only hope so. Which by extension would demand a bigger tax take than the current arrangement . 'enter Mitch Hooke or by crook'


----------



## drsmith

A little light history on Labor's mining tax.

Ken Henry's version was announced as government policy without significant industry consultation and problems quickly emerged. One in particular was how markets would value tax credits on losses. It this tax proposal that brought Kevin Rudd's first prime ministership to the bitter end that we all remember in 2010. 

Julia Gillard's version and associated spending was an electoral fix in a rush to the polls after deposing Kevin Rudd. It's raised much less revenue than forecast and combined with the associated spending has had a significant net negative impact on the budget.

Clearly an outstanding success, Labor style.


----------



## orr

drsmith said:


> A little light history on Labor's mining tax.
> 
> Clearly an outstanding success, Labor style.




I'd rate it poorly, a lost opportunity, a failure of government.
Just like the middle class welfare structural deficit debacle left by the 'Happy Days will never end' Howard/Costello beer and skittles pork barrel the plebs brigade.

As I say though, I look forward to a little more enlightened future history on a Liberal Mining Tax.

I'll ask you to direct your next comments to the 'Science Minister'


----------



## drsmith

orr said:


> As I say though, I look forward to a little more enlightened future history on a Liberal Mining Tax.



The current government's white paper on tax is due to be released in 18 months.


----------



## noco

drsmith said:


> A little light history on Labor's mining tax.
> 
> Ken Henry's version was announced as government policy without significant industry consultation and problems quickly emerged. One in particular was how markets would value tax credits on losses. It this tax proposal that brought Kevin Rudd's first prime ministership to the bitter end that we all remember in 2010.
> 
> Julia Gillard's version and associated spending was an electoral fix in a rush to the polls after deposing Kevin Rudd. It's raised much less revenue than forecast and combined with the associated spending has had a significant net negative impact on the budget.
> 
> Clearly an outstanding success, Labor style.




But Doc to make matters worse, the $6 billion Labor said they would raise from the mining tax has been spent and committed long before the money came in.

No wuckin forries...the Abbott Government now has the worry of Labors botched tax which has cost more to administer than it has raised.


----------



## IFocus

noco said:


> But Doc to make matters worse, the $6 billion Labor said they would raise from the mining tax has been spent and committed long before the money came in.
> 
> No wuckin forries...the Abbott Government now has the worry of Labors botched tax which has cost more to administer than it has raised.




Abbott help create the issues backed the spending (populous opposition) and opposed the mining tax as Gina didn't have enough zillions and Rudd botched the implementation.

Your grand kids will have less for education and health care as a result.


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> Your grand kids will have less for education and health care as a result.



I suppose the spending cuts that Labor took to the last election but are now combining with the Greens to defeat in Senate are the Abbott Government's fault too.

Labor's fiscal irresponsibility knows no bounds.


----------



## IFocus

This government is really taking us forward with the correct priorities, How goes that song .................hands on hearts Rule Britannia........... 


Knights and dames reinstated in change to Australia's honours system

Tony Abbott reveals the outgoing governor general, Quentin Bryce, and her successor, Peter Cosgrove, will be the first to receive the titles


http://www.theguardian.com/politics...o-australias-honours-system#start-of-comments


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> Abbott help create the issues backed the spending (populous opposition) and opposed the mining tax as Gina didn't have enough zillions and Rudd botched the implementation.
> 
> Your grand kids will have less for education and health care as a result.




And whose fault is that?.......you whistle and I will point

My grand kids and my great grand kids will still be paying off Labor economic miss management


----------



## orr

Tug my forelock and call me 'queeny'. 
 And bend me over and roger my ramjets if it's not 'sir John Winston for his services to warmongering and lickspittle'dom.......

Come on you Tory Tub Thumpers sing the highs, of how now we all have to stoop so low, as some.

Bryce has cut a deal on this... Any guesses?


----------



## dutchie

IFocus said:


> This government is really taking us forward with the correct priorities, How goes that song .................hands on hearts Rule Britannia...........
> 
> 
> Knights and dames reinstated in change to Australia's honours system
> 
> Tony Abbott reveals the outgoing governor general, Quentin Bryce, and her successor, Peter Cosgrove, will be the first to receive the titles
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...o-australias-honours-system#start-of-comments




I would have thought Abbott would have better things to do with his time.

Lets create another class in Australia. No doubt it will cost tax payers more money to keep them.

Next thing he will introduce Lordships for politicians.

Knights and Dames, humbug and totally unnecessary.


----------



## rumpole

IFocus said:


> This government is really taking us forward with the correct priorities, How goes that song .................hands on hearts Rule Britannia...........
> 
> 
> Knights and dames reinstated in change to Australia's honours system
> 
> Tony Abbott reveals the outgoing governor general, Quentin Bryce, and her successor, Peter Cosgrove, will be the first to receive the titles
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...o-australias-honours-system#start-of-comments




Every day the goes by under the Abbott government we move a step closer to the 1950's

Next thing Tony will get up in Parliament and say of the Queen "I did but see her passing by, and yet I'll love her till I die".


----------



## noco

rumpole said:


> Every day the goes by under the Abbott government we move a step closer to the 1950's
> 
> Next thing Tony will get up in Parliament and say of the Queen "I did but see her passing by, and yet I'll love her till I die".




Good to see you are a Royalist.

Don't you mean a step closer to 2050.....1950 has long gone so we can't possibly take a step closer.

You most likely were not even born then.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Good to see you are a Royalist.
> 
> Don't you mean a step closer to 2050.....1950 has long gone so we can't possibly take a step closer.
> 
> You most likely were not even born then.




I was born in the 1950's and I meant a step closer to the 1950's in style. You know, women at home doing the ironing, God Save the Queen played in schools every morning, and Knighthoods dished out by politicians to their mates.


----------



## Knobby22

Quentin, an avowed Republican accepted the honour.
The ruling class have a lot of difficulty resisting the lure of titles.

She has provided a good win for Abbott as any resistance now just looks forlorn.
Personally, I don't mind their return.


----------



## SirRumpole

Knobby22 said:


> Personally, I don't mind their return.




So Orders of Australia just don't cut it ?


----------



## Sir Osisofliver

*Looks at his own avatar name*

Meh!  What's the big deal about bringing back the Sir moniker? Isn't it just a way of the country (or whoever is in power politically) to celebrate an individuals achievements?

Isn't that how we ended up with Sir Donald Bradman..Dare we hope for a Sir Shane Keith Warne?

Cheers

Sir O


----------



## Calliope

George Brandis says everyone has the right to be bigoted.



> Cambridge Dictionary:
> 
> BIGOT: a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong.




I guess that covers most people on this thread.


----------



## Knobby22

SirRumpole said:


> So Orders of Australia just don't cut it ?




Nah, you need people to kowtow.

Good one Sir O,  Sir Warne, I can see it now.


----------



## drsmith

Joe Hockey is becoming the strength behind this government,



Knobby22 said:


> JOE Hockey’s warning on the budget blowout is aimed at his leader’s office as much as at Labor and the public at large.
> 
> With just seven weeks left before he stands up in the House of Representatives to deliver his critical first budget, now is the time for Coalition leadership to confront the politically unpalatable savings decisions that are needed to bring the government’s finances back under control. It must not defer decisions until next year or, worse, after the next election to avoid short-term political pain.
> 
> The government has been in possession of the Commission of Audit’s first report for six weeks. It will have made recommendations affecting age pensions, Medicare, family and disability benefits along with industry and defence programs. Anything less would fail to deliver the budget surplus equivalent to 1 per cent of GDP by 2023, which was at the heart of its terms of reference.
> 
> Hockey is saying the government must bite the bullet now, because finances are not going to get any better. On the contrary, they will get much worse as unbudgeted defence, health and education commitments kick in from 2017-18 onwards.
> 
> It is striking that the government is also wanting to introduce new spending of its own, including roads and its extravagant paid parental leave scheme, further confusing its budget message.
> 
> Hockey will receive the commission’s second report by the end of this week. It will make recommendations on budget governance, including new fiscal rules.
> 
> Labor’s Chris Bowen says if only the government had not jettisoned Labor’s fiscal rules while adding some fresh spending, it could be back in surplus within five years. However, if only Labor had kept to its own fiscal rules, the deficit would be a fraction of its current size.
> 
> The problem, as the Parliamentary Budget Office has detailed, is that the cost of pensions, health, education and defence is rising more rapidly than inflation.
> 
> The government must not only agree to tough savings, but also to new rules imposing greater discipline on its spending than Labor was able to achieve.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...lear-pm-act-now/story-e6frg9qo-1226864761688#


----------



## Julia

drsmith said:


> Joe Hockey is becoming the strength behind this government,



+1.
On the Knighthood thing, I don't care one way or the other.  Just think it's irrelevant and unnecessary, and handing to the Left a reason for the mockery about reverting to the 50's.


----------



## SirRumpole

drsmith said:


> Joe Hockey is becoming the strength behind this government,
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...lear-pm-act-now/story-e6frg9qo-1226864761688#




It's pertinent to look at expenditure, but it's also pertinent to look at revenue, but sadly "the strength" seems totally unable to do this, apart from giving away revenue like the carbon and mining taxes. The expenditure associated with the mining tax could be abolished, but the tax itself kept and strengthened which would put our income on a sounder footing and enable the paying off of debt, which "the strength" still has no idea of how to achieve.


----------



## drsmith

SirRumpole said:


> It's pertinent to look at expenditure, but it's also pertinent to look at revenue, but sadly "the strength" seems totally unable to do this, apart from giving away revenue like the carbon and mining taxes. The expenditure associated with the mining tax could be abolished, but the tax itself kept and strengthened which would put our income on a sounder footing and enable the paying off of debt, which "the strength" still has no idea of how to achieve.



I thought the carbon tax wasn't about revenue but about saving the planet. 

The mining tax definitely wasn't about revenue. It was about getting JG over the line in the 2010 election.


----------



## drsmith

Julia said:


> +1.
> On the Knighthood thing, I don't care one way or the other.  Just think it's irrelevant and unnecessary, and handing to the Left a reason for the mockery about reverting to the 50's.



I don't get it either. Hopefully it will be TA's only Julia Gillard style captains pick.


----------



## SirRumpole

drsmith said:


> I don't get it either. Hopefully it will be TA's only Julia Gillard style captains pick.




You mean apart from the PPL scheme which he didn't canvas with his party room either.


----------



## trainspotter

SirRumpole said:


> I was born in the 1950's and I meant a step closer to the 1950's in style. You know, women at home doing the ironing, God Save the Queen played in schools every morning, and Knighthoods dished out by politicians to their mates.




And you turned out alright one would assume?


----------



## SirRumpole

trainspotter said:


> And you turned out alright one would assume?




Naturally, but times have moved on and the knighthood thing is well and truly outdated.


----------



## trainspotter

SirRumpole said:


> Naturally, but times have moved on and the knighthood thing is well and truly outdated.




So why the "SIR" in front of the moniker? Are you alluding to the anachronous nature of the Abbot's governments intent to bring back the honour system?


----------



## SirRumpole

trainspotter said:


> So why the "SIR" in front of the moniker? Are you alluding to the anachronous nature of the Abbot's governments intent to bring back the honour system?




You can spot more than trains can't you ?


The "honours" given to people who accept appointments that pay well and give them recognition are absurd and anything that can be done to cheapen them is worthwhile.

Quentin Bryce said it was an "honour" to serve the nation, so why does she need another one ? 

Recognition should be given to people who don't get the public attention they deserve, not to elites who accept plum jobs with good pay.


----------



## trainspotter

SirRumpole said:


> You can spot more than trains can't you ?
> 
> 
> The "honours" given to people who accept appointments that pay well and give them recognition are absurd and anything that can be done to cheapen them is worthwhile.
> 
> Quentin Bryce said it was an "honour" to serve the nation, so why does she need another one ?
> 
> Recognition should be given to people who don't get the public attention they deserve, not to elites who accept plum jobs with good pay.




Geeee ... Ta for the "honour' of the acclamation. 

Well they are not called "blue bloods" for nothing. I find it delicious that Bill Shortens mother in law is going to receive one whether she wants to or not!!! Hopefully this is the only Marty McFly episode that Tones has


----------



## drsmith

SirRumpole said:


> You mean apart from the PPL scheme which he didn't canvas with his party room either.



I knew you'd get to the PPL eventually.

I don't think too many though will be rushing to its defense.


----------



## SirRumpole

Government to sell Medibank private.

Watch for all the health funds competing to push up prices without the restraint of a government owned competitor.


----------



## drsmith

SirRumpole said:


> Watch for all the health funds competing to push up prices without the restraint of a government owned competitor.



First post on the announced sale of Medibank Private and it's a buy recommendation.


----------



## overhang

Poor decision by a poor government (yes the last one was bad too).  $300 million profit on an estimated 4 billion market capital is 7.5% which is greater than 15 year government bonds at 4.5%.  The government is selling us out for short term political points to achieve a surplus, yet Medibank Private is well and truly paying for itself.

And the cycle continues, Labor getting us into debt and then all praise the coalition for their economic marvel while they sell off our last remaining public assets.


----------



## drsmith

overhang said:


> Poor decision by a poor government (yes the last one was bad too).  $300 million profit on an estimated 4 billion market capital is 7.5% which is greater than 15 year government bonds at 4.5%.



Second buy recommendation. 

I can see this is going to be a stampede.

Given that investment markets generally demand higher returns from corporate entities (whether that be equity or debt holders) than from government bonds, doesn't the above rationale logically default to governments not selling anything ?


----------



## noco

overhang said:


> Poor decision by a poor government (yes the last one was bad too).  $300 million profit on an estimated 4 billion market capital is 7.5% which is greater than 15 year government bonds at 4.5%.  The government is selling us out for short term political points to achieve a surplus, yet Medibank Private is well and truly paying for itself.
> 
> And the cycle continues, Labor getting us into debt and then all praise the coalition for their economic marvel while they sell off our last remaining public assets.




We need da munya to pay da chows for da interest piled up by da Laba pepels piggy bank borrowings coz da Laba pepels spent all da munya dey did'nt waise from da Minin' tax.  (16 billion bickies)


----------



## overhang

drsmith said:


> Second buy recommendation.
> 
> I can see this is going to be a stampede.
> 
> Given that investment markets generally demand higher returns from corporate entities (whether that be equity or debt holders) than from government bonds, doesn't the above rationale logically default to governments not selling anything ?




It's up to the government to inform us why this is the best economic decision because all signs point to it not being one.  Premiums wont increase just as our electricity prices will decrease upon privatisation..... that didn't quite work out so well.



noco said:


> We need da munya to pay da chows for da interest piled up by da Laba pepels piggy bank borrowings coz da Laba pepels spent all da munya dey did'nt waise from da Minin' tax.  (16 billion bickies)


----------



## drsmith

overhang said:


> It's up to the government to inform us why this is the best economic decision because all signs point to it not being one.  Premiums wont increase just as our electricity prices will decrease upon privatisation..... that didn't quite work out so well.



All signs ??

As a general rule, governments should not sell essential service or monopoly business. This though in my view is not the case with MBP although the private health industry overall does get a lot of government support.

This one is more in the category of a Commonwealth Bank or Qantas than say electricity generation or Telstra's network.


----------



## Calliope

SirRumpole said:


> The "honours" given to people who accept appointments that pay well and give them recognition are absurd and anything that can be done to cheapen them is worthwhile.




Yes, giving yourself "honours" can certainly cheapen it. We had a premier up here once, Joh Blelke-Petersen, who gave himself a knighthood. He was stripped of his "honours" when he got caught out.


----------



## overhang

drsmith said:


> All signs ??
> 
> As a general rule, governments should not sell essential service or monopoly business. This though in my view is not the case with MBP although the private health industry overall does get a lot of government support.
> 
> This one is more in the category of a Commonwealth Bank or Qantas than say electricity generation or Telstra's network.




I would agree with you there.  But it's still up to the government to explain why this is the best economic decision to sell a government asset that returns above the government bond rate.


----------



## drsmith

overhang said:


> I would agree with you there.  But it's still up to the government to explain why this is the best economic decision to sell a government asset that returns above the government bond rate.



As above,



drsmith said:


> Given that investment markets generally demand higher returns from corporate entities (whether that be equity or debt holders) than from government bonds, doesn't the above rationale logically default to governments not selling anything ?


----------



## overhang

drsmith said:


> As above,




Where is the rational there? The government needs to borrow money so why do it in the way of something that returns 7.5% (actually 15% if its 2 billion as estimated) when you can do it via bonds at 4.5%?


----------



## drsmith

overhang said:


> Where is the rational there?



Market pricing of risk.

A sovereign is generally considered less risk than a corporate.


----------



## overhang

drsmith said:


> Market pricing of risk.
> 
> A sovereign is generally considered less risk than a corporate.




Obviously but that didn't answer my question.  Why doesn't the government raise the money via bonds at 4.5% than sell a golden egg returning 15-7.5%.  You could argue that given the competition that that rate is unsustainable and this is the point the government needs to make, they need to explain the economic reasons to sell MP.


----------



## drsmith

overhang said:


> Obviously but that didn't answer my question.



It's then simple logic that if governments expected to sell assets at a return equal or lower than the government bond rate, they wouldn't sell anything.


----------



## overhang

drsmith said:


> It's then simple logic that if governments expected to sell assets at a return equal or lower than the government bond rate, they wouldn't sell anything.




In which case that is pure speculation that MP margins are unsustainable.  This is up to the government to explain without you going in to bat for them.


----------



## drsmith

overhang said:


> In which case that is pure speculation that MP margins are unsustainable.  This is up to the government to explain without you going in to bat for them.



I'm not batting for anyone or commenting on MP margins. 

I'm just simply considering the relative risk investment markets apply to different asset classes and how that logically impacts on using the government bond rate as a benchmark on the sale price of assets.


----------



## overhang

drsmith said:


> I'm not batting for anyone or commenting on MP margins.
> 
> I'm just simply considering the relative risk investment markets apply to different asset classes and how that logically impacts on using the government bond rate as a benchmark on the sale price of assets.




It's relevant when the government is attempting to raise capital.


----------



## drsmith

overhang said:


> It's relevant when the government is attempting to raise capital.



Let's just clear up one thing.

Do you consider that governments should only sell assets that offer a rate of return to investors that is less than the government bond rate ?


----------



## overhang

drsmith said:


> Let's just clear up one thing.
> 
> Do you consider that governments should only sell assets that offer a rate of return to investors that is less than the government bond rate ?




Of course not but I want a good explanation by the government on why they deem this the best approach to raise capital.  I guess I want to know if this is for economic reasons or just political point scoring to achieve a surplus.

I do feel more comfortable about the sale after reading the fact check about the premiums
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-05/matthias-cormann-medibank-private-sale-impact/5058346


----------



## Julia

Premiums are not the only factor in a for profit organisation.   An aggressive owner of Medibank Private could keep premiums with similar relativity to other providers but e.g. reduce payouts etc.

As a member, it pains me that my premium increases every year partly go to providing all sorts of crap like homeopathy when buying the Extras component.  I've not been able to find an option where I pay less for simply having access to routine dental care.

I'll believe there will no additional increase in premiums or reduction in benefits when I see it happening.

Also would have preferred the government to continue its ownership and reaping of the healthy dividends.

Separately, I avoid IPOs as a rule, but - depending on the prospectus - this is one that might be worth engaging in.


----------



## IFocus

Julia said:


> Premiums are not the only factor in a for profit organisation.   An aggressive owner of Medibank Private could keep premiums with similar relativity to other providers but e.g. reduce payouts etc.
> 
> As a member, it pains me that my premium increases every year partly go to providing all sorts of crap like homeopathy when buying the Extras component.  I've not been able to find an option where I pay less for simply having access to routine dental care.
> 
> I'll believe there will no additional increase in premiums or reduction in benefits when I see it happening.
> 
> Also would have preferred the government to continue its ownership and reaping of the healthy dividends.
> 
> Separately, I avoid IPOs as a rule, but - depending on the prospectus - this is one that might be worth engaging in.




Yes when you get such a consistence rate return no investor for income would sell.


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> Yes when you get such a consistence rate return no investor for income would sell.




Unless the capital could be required, to fund greater growth.


----------



## Julia

sptrawler said:


> Unless the capital could be required, to fund greater growth.



Isn't such a comment completely ignoring the primary reason for establishing the business in the first place?  i.e. to provide security of good health care to members.

I'm completely sick of governments, both state and federal, who have failed to make appropriate provision for ongoing infrastructure needs, take the easy way out in selling a valuable asset for short term capital availability.

There seems to be no thought whatsoever given to the thousands of people who are finding the exponentially rising cost of living unaffordable.  It's a case of "let's increase our own profits and stuff the customers".
I heard a news report a couple of days ago about the many thousands of people who have had their electricity cut off because they simply cannot pay.

Meantime, the Qld government has just been awarded by an 'independent' organisation a 22% pay increase for the Premier and an even greater % for the leader of the opposition.
"Nothing we can do about it", opines the Premier.  "It's completely out of our hands."

What a crock!


----------



## sptrawler

Julia said:


> Isn't such a comment completely ignoring the primary reason for establishing the business in the first place?  i.e. to provide security of good health care to members.
> 
> I'm completely sick of governments, both state and federal, who have failed to make appropriate provision for ongoing infrastructure needs, take the easy way out in selling a valuable asset for short term capital availability.
> 
> There seems to be no thought whatsoever given to the thousands of people who are finding the exponentially rising cost of living unaffordable.  It's a case of "let's increase our own profits and stuff the customers".
> I heard a news report a couple of days ago about the many thousands of people who have had their electricity cut off because they simply cannot pay.
> 
> Meantime, the Qld government has just been awarded by an 'independent' organisation a 22% pay increase for the Premier and an even greater % for the leader of the opposition.
> "Nothing we can do about it", opines the Premier.  "It's completely out of our hands."




Agree completely, however if the deficit has a servicing cost, and you don't want to further increase taxes. How do you fund it?
Also if you wish to further expand necessary infrastructure, without increasing taxes, how do you fund it?

If you decide to fund it with increased taxes, that increases costs, which increase the exponential cost of living.

The ridiculous MP pay rises, tells me scary times are coming. They are just pre arming, because they are pre warned.IMO


----------



## IFocus

sptrawler said:


> Agree completely, however if the deficit has a servicing cost, and you don't want to further increase taxes. How do you fund it?
> Also if you wish to further expand necessary infrastructure, without increasing taxes, how do you fund it?
> 
> If you decide to fund it with increased taxes, that increases costs, which increase the exponential cost of living.




The issue is not increasing taxes its the* shrinking tax revenue base *which no one in government wants to talk about because they would then have to explain why its all Labors fault.


----------



## orr

IFocus said:


> * shrinking tax revenue base *which no one in government wants to  explain why its all Labors fault.




No Balls Costello, If only He'd had just one, Things may have been so different. but now the legacy, as, Ross Garnaut describes so emphatically and accurately in 'Dog Days' as." the Great Australian Complacency',  is ours now to suffer an deal with. We would have all be so much better off if Smirking Pete had choked to death a 'Jew Jube' out of a bag of those Dollar Sweets, Rather than have to wait  and to see him just 'Choke'. To his cheer squad, 'you're clowns'.

Everybody else now feeling that medievilist reviveal now? If you're not, you're pretty lonely.


----------



## orr

David Irvine, 67, has told his staff at the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation that he will step down as director-general of security

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...n-september-20140402-35ye2.html#ixzz2xhyKQedg

I expect him to then have time to Visit Lord Viscount Downer over in London where, on plushly upholstered furnishings cigars and brandy balloons(at our expense) in hand they'll toast their success at screwing over the East Timorese, laying the ground work of a failed state that will require plushly appointed budgets for their bastard offspring/successors to oversee, to keep us 'safe' and uninformed. 

Sir John Howard  Our next ambassador to Baghdad. Carn't wait to see him off.


----------



## IFocus

orr said:


> David Irvine, 67, has told his staff at the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation that he will step down as director-general of security
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...n-september-20140402-35ye2.html#ixzz2xhyKQedg
> 
> I expect him to then have time to Visit Lord Viscount Downer over in London where, on plushly upholstered furnishings cigars and brandy balloons(at our expense) in hand they'll toast their success at screwing over the East Timorese, laying the ground work of a failed state that will require plushly appointed budgets for their bastard offspring/successors to oversee, to keep us 'safe' and uninformed.
> 
> Sir John Howard  Our next ambassador to Baghdad. Carn't wait to see him off.





You forgot Sir Nick Minchin..........


----------



## IFocus

What a low life 




> Dubai fraud case: Emails suggest Alexander Downer was asked to lobby on behalf of Marcus Lee
> 
> he ABC's Foreign Correspondent program revealed last night that Mr Downer, while working as a consultant for hire, had written to the country's Crown Prince in 2009 seeking bail for one of the Australians, Matt Joyce.
> 
> The approach involved a negotiation of a *success fee, estimated at $60,000.*
> 
> Controversially his letter, delivered by the Australian Embassy, made no mention of the other Australian defendant, Marcus Lee.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-02/imprisoned-australian-lashes-out-at-alexander-downer/5362226


----------



## DB008

IF, if true, I have lost all respect for Downer.


----------



## SirRumpole

Just wait for the Coalition screams of ABC bias.


----------



## drsmith

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...llengesparkinson/story-fn3dxiwe-1226872690545



> Just weeks out from Treasurer Joe Hockey's first budget, Dr Parkinson told a conference in Sydney that government revenues cannot "magically" return to the levels seen prior to the 2008-2009 global financial crisis.
> 
> Some have suggested that if only personal income tax cuts had been avoided in the 2000s things would be better," he told the Sydney Institute on Wednesday.
> 
> "As a tautology, it is hard to fault that logic.
> 
> *"But if we had held on to that revenue, it may well have been spent on outlays rather than on tax cuts, meaning average earners would have faced higher marginal and average tax rates than they do now."*



Ain't that the truth.

My bolds.


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> The issue is not increasing taxes its the* shrinking tax revenue base *which no one in government wants to talk about because they would then have to explain why its all Labors fault.




Well the *shrinking tax revenue base*
Didn't happen in the last six months, did it. 
The shrinking tax base and ballooning debt, happened under Labor.
They continued spending and promising grandiose initiatives, while the tax take was shrinking and their spending was increasing.

Your obviously just having a lend of everyone. You can't really believe this situation has only developed in the last six months.


----------



## banco

They need to start including the PPOR in pension means tests to give tax revenue a boost.


----------



## DB008

banco said:


> They need to start including the PPOR in pension means tests to give tax revenue a boost.




Why?

So you've lived in the same house for 30++ years and it has now gone up in value. Hello...pay more tax. I think a lot of oldies are asset rich but cash flow poor.


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> What a low life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-02/imprisoned-australian-lashes-out-at-alexander-downer/5362226




I think you are a bit off beat IFocus....what relevance has these comments and allegations got to do with this thread?

Are you now trying to link Downer with the Abbott Government for something that is alleged to have happened in 2009....I know who the low life is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## banco

DB008 said:


> Why?
> 
> So you've lived in the same house for 30++ years and it has now gone up in value. Hello...pay more tax. I think a lot of oldies are asset rich but cash flow poor.




It would be more along the lines of "sell your 1.2 million house buy yourself a $450,000 apartment and live off the balance of the sale proceeds".


----------



## drsmith

DB008 said:


> So you've lived in the same house for 30++ years and it has now gone up in value. Hello...pay more tax. I think a lot of oldies are asset rich but cash flow poor.



The WA Labor government after coming to office in 2000 was going to introduce a premium property tax at a rate of 2%pa on properties valued at $1m or over.

After realising the impact it would have on asset rich but income poor households like the above, the idea was modified to delay payment to be made out of their estate after they died.

Whether as a means of forcing people out of their home of several decades or as a de-facto death duty, it was ultimately dropped.


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> The WA Labor government after coming to office in 2000 was going to introduce a premium property tax at a rate of 2%pa on properties valued at $1m or over.
> 
> After realising the impact it would have on asset rich but income poor households like the above, the idea was modified to delay payment to be made out of their estate after they died.
> 
> Whether as a means of forcing people out of their home of several decades or as a de-facto death duty, it was ultimately dropped.




Grey power!!


----------



## drsmith

In terms of tax reform, I'm not a believer in taxing the family home. This is at odds with Ken Henry but just because it can't move doesn't mean we should tax it.

Instead, we should make existing taxes more robust and reducing the overall number of taxes. No single measure in isolation is the answer. It needs a broader approach. Property needs much broader reform. As an example, state government stamp duties on property transactions should ultimately be removed as should negative gearing from unrelated income such as salary.

In short, the existing base needs to be looked at before existing taxes are increased or new taxes introduced and that also includes the GST. 

The problem with tax reform is there are winners and losers and more of the latter when brought about by a budget already under stress.


----------



## DB008

drsmith said:


> The WA Labor government after coming to office in 2000 was going to introduce a premium property tax at a rate of 2%pa on properties valued at $1m or over.
> 
> After realising the impact it would have on asset rich but income poor households like the above, the idea was modified to delay payment to be made out of their estate after they died.
> 
> Whether as a means of forcing people out of their home of several decades or as a de-facto death duty, it was ultimately dropped.




I agree.

Lets say I buy a home somewhere in Sydney/Melbourne today for $800k. Not a popular area at the moment, on the outskirts of the city.
In 40 years, that area might be popular and the house might be worth $3 million, but l was just an average worker and living off the pension now at ~70 years of age.
Why should I be forced to sell my house, just to pay a tax because the Government stuffed up their spending and budgeting. It's crazy.


----------



## sptrawler

banco said:


> It would be more along the lines of "sell your 1.2 million house buy yourself a $450,000 apartment and live off the balance of the sale proceeds".




They are having enough trouble re locating tenants from State housing rentals, in NSW.


----------



## McLovin

DB008 said:


> Why should I be forced to sell my house, just to pay a tax because the Government stuffed up their spending and budgeting. It's crazy.




On the flipside, why should I have to pay your pension while you live in your $3m house just because the government stuffed up their spending and budgeting.


----------



## banco

DB008 said:


> I agree.
> 
> Lets say I buy a home somewhere in Sydney/Melbourne today for $800k. Not a popular area at the moment, on the outskirts of the city.
> In 40 years, that area might be popular and the house might be worth $3 million, but l was just an average worker and living off the pension now at ~70 years of age.
> Why should I be forced to sell my house, just to pay a tax because the Government stuffed up their spending and budgeting. It's crazy.




You can't place all the blame on the "Government".  It's the electorate that expects a certain level of services.


----------



## DB008

This article has gone viral. It's everywhere. Check out the comments section down the bottom....nasty

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/02/coalition-review-of-consumer-laws-may-ban-environmental-boycotts



> *Australian government may ban environmental boycotts*
> 
> Coalition MPs and industry groups are using a review of competition laws to push for a ban on campaigns against companies on the grounds that they are selling products that damage the environment, for example by using old-growth timber or overfished seafood.
> 
> The parliamentary secretary for agriculture, Richard Colbeck, said the backbench rural committee and “quite a number in the ministry” want to use the review to remove an exemption for environmental groups from the consumer law ban on so-called “secondary boycotts”.
> 
> “I do think there is an appetite in the government for changing these laws,” Colbeck said.
> 
> The exemption also applies to campaigns related to “consumer protection” but Colbeck said he would not be seeking to change that provision.
> 
> The government announced last week a “root and branch review” of competition policy headed by the economist Professor Ian Harper.




- - - Updated - - -



banco said:


> You can't place all the blame on the "Government".  It's the electorate that expects a certain level of services.




Isn't that why we pay taxes?

Where do we draw the line on taxes? 90%
That video that someone posted here with Milton Freedman talking about a flat 25% tax rate is probably the best idea l've seen in a very long time. Pity it will never come to fruition...


----------



## drsmith

Dr Martin Parkinson at The Sydney Institute last night.

Fiscal sustainability & living standards - the decade ahead.

http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Speeches/2014/Fiscal_sustainability


----------



## noco

drsmith said:


> In short, the existing base needs to be looked at before existing taxes are increased or new taxes introduced and that also includes the GST.
> 
> The problem with tax reform is there are winners and losers and more of the latter when brought about by a budget already under stress.




I believe it is inevitable that sooner or later the GST will be raised to possibly 15% in line with New Zealand. But cannot see it happening this side of the next election 2016 after Abbott promised there would "NO INCREASE IN THE GST UNDER A GOVERNMENT HE LEADS DURING HIS FIRST TERM....and I believe he will honor his commitment.

I did an exercise last year based on the current income from the GST at 10%.....At 12.5% it would bring in $11 billion.......At 15% based on just double the extra 2.5% that would bring in $22 billion.per year.

At least when paying the GST on goods and services, one does know what the additional cost will be.... Unlike the carbon tax which has been added on to practically everything we buy and which has been exploited by unscrupulous companies.....nobody knows how much extra one pays for goods affected by the carbon tax with the exception of power companies....the honest companies will remove those carbon tax costs should the carbon tax be scrapped and they will be the winners.

The same thing occurred when there was a hidden sales tax....most people in my era had no idea they were paying an extra 22.5% s/t on a can of coke or 33.3% s/t on stationery or 25% on motor vehicles.....The Labor Party worked on a grand scare campaign at the time that everything would cost and extra 10%......it was unfortunate at the time that Labor could not tell the truth  that all those nasty sales taxes would be deleted. Keating wanted to introduce the GST when Hawke was Prime Minister but Hawke did not have the gutz to introduce it for fear of losing voter support. 

You can bet your boots if Abbott goes to the next election with an increase in the GST, our Labor Party comrades will be at it again with a "Gobbles' propaganda like you have never seen before. 

Reform in all forms of taxation is a must.


----------



## drsmith

noco said:


> I believe it is inevitable that sooner or later the GST will be raised to possibly 15% in line with New Zealand. But cannot see it happening this side of the next election 2016 after Abbott promised there would "NO INCREASE IN THE GST UNDER A GOVERNMENT HE LEADS DURING HIS FIRST TERM....and I believe he will honor his commitment.
> 
> I did an exercise last year based on the current income from the GST at 10%.....At 12.5% it would bring in $11 billion.......At 15% based on just double the extra 2.5% that would bring in $22 billion.per year.



My view remains that the priority with GST reform should be broadening the base before raising the rate or in other words, fixing the compromise that was originally made with the Democrats to get it up in the first place. This would be a genuine tax reform rather than just a tax increase.

The most sensible political strategy for the feds will be to wait for the inevitable crawl from all the states to them and I suspect that's the strategy they'll adopt.


----------



## orr

noco said:


> got to do with this thread?
> 
> .I know who the low life is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





Yeah get it on topic: The Abbott Government
Thats Tony Abbott, the same Tony Abbott who sat at the knee of George Pell while he was busy destroying the body and soul of a Mr Ellis, overtly and many others covertly.
The Tony Abbott who rejoiced in the repeated penetrations of George Pells Dictums, taking deeply the essence of the old seminary, through the very same period. Entrusting his moral compass and his heavenly hereafter to the sanction of a man so worthy of admiration... Abbott happy to go down on his knees and kiss ring for absolution.
But now these two, Tony and George. Once so close, so intermit are Publicly estranged. And No comment from Tony on the obscenities the filth the horror the dereliction the Evil..

No one needs a cloak of bigotry more than Tony Abbott PM.... Bigotry, a special dog whistle bigotry so much said by saying so little, It's every bodies right.


----------



## sydboy007

DB008 said:


> I agree.
> 
> Lets say I buy a home somewhere in Sydney/Melbourne today for $800k. Not a popular area at the moment, on the outskirts of the city.
> In 40 years, that area might be popular and the house might be worth $3 million, but l was just an average worker and living off the pension now at ~70 years of age.
> Why should I be forced to sell my house, just to pay a tax because the Government stuffed up their spending and budgeting. It's crazy.




But WHY did the house grow in value?  Could it be because quite a bit of publicly funded infrastructure was build, maybe better roads / public transport / schools etc.  A land tax would help to fund this infrastructure, and overcome the current issue we have where local Government can't afford increases in population so they restrict new housing.

I say go for the taxes that cause the least amount of damage and land tax + GST seem to generate the highest level of revenue with the least cost.  They distort economic activity the least.  The fact it's rather difficult to hide property, and that land tax might stop so many properties sitting vacant and help to alleviate the housing affordability issues this country is facing.


----------



## SirRumpole

> My view remains that the priority with GST reform should be broadening the base before raising the rate or in other words, fixing the compromise that was originally made with the Democrats to get it up in the first place. This would be a genuine tax reform rather than just a tax increase.




And how would they compensate self funded retirees not getting a pension, and with interest rates so  low they are hardly getting any return on their savings ?


----------



## IFocus

noco said:


> I think you are a bit off beat IFocus....what relevance has these comments and allegations got to do with this thread?
> 
> Are you now trying to link Downer with the Abbott Government for something that is alleged to have happened in 2009....I know who the low life is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Who just got appointed to London by Abbott?

Its got every thing to do with this government


----------



## drsmith

SirRumpole said:


> And how would they compensate self funded retirees not getting a pension, and with interest rates so  low they are hardly getting any return on their savings ?



Interest rates are determined by the RBA, markets and banks. 

They are not determined by the government.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> And how would they compensate self funded retirees not getting a pension, and with interest rates so  low they are hardly getting any return on their savings ?




Why should they compensate self funded retirees not getting a pension?
Labor thought they were fat cats. If you don't qualify for part pension why do you need compensation?lol


----------



## sptrawler

It's also funny how for the last six months, while Abbott and Hockey have been saying we have a huge tax deficit problem.
All the "financial gurus" have been poo pahing it saying " we haven't got a problem, just Tony and Joe talking it up"

Now the Treasury and the RBA are saying it, there is a general change of rhetoric, so the gurus don't looked as stupid as they are.lol

It is classic, just dumb reporting, they blew their feet off when Labor were in. Is there any wonder SMSF are on the rise? When you see the so called gurus, making fools of themselves.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> It's also funny how for the last six months, while Abbott and Hockey have been saying we have a huge tax deficit problem.
> All the "financial gurus" have been poo pahing it saying " we haven't got a problem, just Tony and Joe talking it up"
> 
> Now the Treasury and the RBA are saying it, there is a general change of rhetoric, so the gurus don't looked as stupid as they are.lol
> 
> It is classic, just dumb reporting, they blew their feet off when Labor were in. Is there any wonder SMSF are on the rise? When you see the so called gurus, making fools of themselves.




I think they were using the term *BUDGET CRISIS!!!* (yes at least 3 ! because that is how exclaimed they were about it)

Since getting into Govt they have rolled back most attempts by Labor to increase revenues, borrowed another 8 odd billion to pass to the RBA, and well that sense of pre election *CRISIS!!!* has pretty much disappeared.  Throw in Abbott is OK with 5K 2 hour meetings and well, it just feels like they've changed their attitude to the *CRISIS!!!* now they're actually responsible for balancing the budget, which is going to be VERY VERY difficult now that most of us are actually saving again and consumption is not growing faster than GDP.  GST is rising about half the rate of the Howard years, but I don't think the household sector is capable of going on another debt binge like that where we had a couple of years with negative savings.

I'll admit there's plenty of wasteful spending in the budget, even more rent seeking tax reductions like NG and half CG, but there's also a revenue issue since the GFC due to the spending of the transitory mining boom income on tax cuts.  Time to pay the piper now that the ToT has started to turn against us and it's only the early stages so far.  Mining CAPEX cliff is more like a gentle hill at the moment, but next year is going to be a shocker.  Coking coal already down to $140 tonne and still falling, thermal coal is around break even for a lot of Australian mines, iron ore has probably got a long way to fall once the new supply comes online late this year and through 2015 and China continues with their economic rebalancing.

All this while the banks are busily leading as much as they can for housing "investment" while the productive side of the economy is contracting at an alarming rate with nothing to replace it, and the complacency of our politicians is bordering on treason as far as I'm concerned.  Abbott picking an ex CBA CEO to run his Financial Services enquiry is just another nail in the coffin of the economy.  How does he expect meaningful reform to come from someone so close to the cause of many of the issues?


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> I think they were using the term *BUDGET CRISIS!!!* (yes at least 3 ! because that is how exclaimed they were about it)
> 
> Since getting into Govt they have rolled back most attempts by Labor to increase revenues, borrowed another 8 odd billion to pass to the RBA, and well that sense of pre election *CRISIS!!!* has pretty much disappeared.  Throw in Abbott is OK with 5K 2 hour meetings and well, it just feels like they've changed their attitude to the *CRISIS!!!* now they're actually responsible for balancing the budget, which is going to be VERY VERY difficult now that most of us are actually saving again and consumption is not growing faster than GDP.  GST is rising about half the rate of the Howard years, but I don't think the household sector is capable of going on another debt binge like that where we had a couple of years with negative savings.
> 
> I'll admit there's plenty of wasteful spending in the budget, even more rent seeking tax reductions like NG and half CG, but there's also a revenue issue since the GFC due to the spending of the transitory mining boom income on tax cuts.  Time to pay the piper now that the ToT has started to turn against us and it's only the early stages so far.  Mining CAPEX cliff is more like a gentle hill at the moment, but next year is going to be a shocker.  Coking coal already down to $140 tonne and still falling, thermal coal is around break even for a lot of Australian mines, iron ore has probably got a long way to fall once the new supply comes online late this year and through 2015 and China continues with their economic rebalancing.
> 
> All this while the banks are busily leading as much as they can for housing "investment" while the productive side of the economy is contracting at an alarming rate with nothing to replace it, and the complacency of our politicians is bordering on treason as far as I'm concerned.  Abbott picking an ex CBA CEO to run his Financial Services enquiry is just another nail in the coffin of the economy.  How does he expect meaningful reform to come from someone so close to the cause of many of the issues?




Like I've said before, IMO you will have a better chance of meaningfull tax reform under this Government, than the last. Band aid tax policy, irrational unfunded social policy and poorly thought out infrastructure policy, has to lead to disaster.

Lets just see what eventuates, in the first 12 months, currently Labor/Greens are a stumbling block. Some may say they are doing the right thing, however as per usual, I think the silent majority agree with Abbott.
Time will tell.


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> Who just got appointed to London by Abbott?
> 
> Its got every thing to do with this government





I was referring to your post #1994.....about something you maintained happened in 2009.

His recent posting has been well earned, being the longest serving Foreign Minister in Parliament.

Peter Beattie was an absolute rogue in Queensland but they nevertheless gave him a fat cat job in the USA.


----------



## IFocus

noco said:


> I was referring to your post #1994.....about something you maintained happened in 2009.
> 
> His recent posting has been well earned, being the longest serving Foreign Minister in Parliament.
> 
> Peter Beattie was an absolute rogue in Queensland but they nevertheless gave him a fat cat job in the USA.




I don't know of any public person from any Federal political party who has charged $60K for helping out another Australian using Australian embassy  for delivery boy.

- - - Updated - - -



sptrawler said:


> irrational unfunded social policy




Supported by Abbott?


----------



## Julia

IFocus said:


> I don't know of any public person from any Federal political party who has charged $60K for helping out another Australian using Australian embassy  for delivery boy.



In the interview with Alexander Downer on the ABC a few nights ago he said that ultimately he did not charge anyone for any consular services he performed.
Do you have information to the contrary?


----------



## IFocus

Julia said:


> In the interview with Alexander Downer on the ABC a few nights ago he said that ultimately he did not charge anyone for any consular services he performed.
> Do you have information to the contrary?




Weasel words I think, an Australian family paid $60K for Downer to make a representation to a foreign government official using the local Australian embassy to deliver the message.

Note there were two parties involved but one could not afford the payment, Downer claimed he didn't know about the 2nd so didn't include them unfortunately for Downer his claim has since been discredited.

So yes he is correct still fails to address the morally bankrupt point about $60K. 

I could understand a fee to cover costs but $60K?

Like Sinodinos I am surprised at this outcome I thought Downer would have had more empathy but clearly he doesn't

Is his behaviour suitable for one of the plum jobs for the boys?


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> Weasel words I think, an Australian family paid $60K for Downer to make a representation to a foreign government official using the local Australian embassy to deliver the message.
> 
> Note there were two parties involved but one could not afford the payment, Downer claimed he didn't know about the 2nd so didn't include them unfortunately for Downer his claim has since been discredited.
> 
> So yes he is correct still fails to address the morally bankrupt point about $60K.
> 
> I could understand a fee to cover costs but $60K?
> 
> Like Sinodinos I am surprised at this outcome I thought Downer would have had more empathy but clearly he doesn't
> 
> Is his behaviour suitable for one of the plum jobs for the boys?





Was Peter Beattie suitable for his plum job in the USA after wrecking Queensland.....he was also having an affair with another woman for some 7 years while he was married..


----------



## Julia

IFocus said:


> Weasel words I think, an Australian family paid $60K for Downer to make a representation to a foreign government official using the local Australian embassy to deliver the message.
> 
> Note there were two parties involved but one could not afford the payment, Downer claimed he didn't know about the 2nd so didn't include them unfortunately for Downer his claim has since been discredited.



Yes, I heard an interview with him on ABC Radio on this point, and his explanation was less than convincing.



> Like Sinodinos I am surprised at this outcome I thought Downer would have had more empathy but clearly he doesn't



In the end it seems the prime motivation of pretty much all politicians is self-interest, sadly.
Not confined to one side or the other.


----------



## Calliope

As Polonius said (in an aside) regarding Hamlet;



> Though this be madness, yet there is method in ’t




I have racked my brains trying to find a method in Abbott's apparent madness in resurrecting "sirs" and "dames". The only conclusion I can come to is that he wants to have a "dame" title handy to pay off Bronwyn Bishop who is presently as mad as a cut snake and is well past her use-by-date or any value to her party.


----------



## noco

Calliope said:


> As Polonius said (in an aside) regarding Hamlet;
> 
> 
> 
> I have racked my brains trying to find a method in Abbott's apparent madness in resurrecting "sirs" and "dames". The only conclusion I can come to is that he wants to have a "dame" title handy to pay off Bronwyn Bishop who is presently as mad as a cut snake and is well past her use-by-date or any value to her party.




Calliope, Having known the Labor Party would obviously criticize Abbott for his decision on Sirs and Dames, perhaps he did it to be able to throw a bit  of "sucker bait" to Shorten by making his mother-in- law a Dame...Since Quentin Bryce accepted the honor, Shorten may have been wedged into going soft on the idea.

It probably would have been better for Shorten had his mother-in-law declined the honor.

As far as Bronwyn Bishop is concerned that is another matter......she has been in parliament for some 18 years and is now speaker....whether she would be entitled to the honor remains to be seen.

IMHO. I can't see the harm in bestowing these honors on someone who has served Australia  with honor and distinction, so long it is not a burden on the tax payer.....If there is an ongoing payment or benefit, then I am against it.


----------



## Calliope

noco said:


> IMHO. I can't see the harm in bestowing these honors on someone who has served Australia  with honor and distinction, so long it is not a burden on the tax payer.....If there is an ongoing payment or benefit, then I am against it.




No harm done.? He has made himself a laughing stock. That's harm.


----------



## noco

Calliope said:


> No harm done.? He has made himself a laughing stock. That's harm.




Yes Calliope, I am afraid I will have to agree with ...I believe Abbott was a bit foolish to have done it without cabinet approval, unless of course he did it to wedge Shorten.


----------



## Calliope

noco said:


> Yes Calliope, I am afraid I will have to agree with ...I believe Abbott was a bit foolish to have done it without cabinet approval, unless of course he did it to wedge Shorten.




Abbott is the one who ended up being wedged. The opposition gave him a good wedgie in Parliament last week. If he just confines this nonsense to Governors General, he might live it down; although I doubt it. This stupidity along with the nonsensical PPL will remain as an albatross around his neck until the next election. 

I am afraid noco, that you are now one of a small minority prepared to make excuses for his strange habit of shooting himself in the foot.


----------



## noco

Calliope said:


> Abbott is the one who ended up being wedged. The opposition gave him a good wedgie in Parliament last week. If he just confines this nonsense to Governors General, he might live it down; although I doubt it. This stupidity along with the nonsensical PPL will remain as an albatross around his neck until the next election.
> 
> I am afraid noco, that you are now one of a small minority prepared to make excuses for his strange habit of shooting himself in the foot.




Not at all Calliope regarding being in the small minority.......I agreed with you about the sirs and dames and I did comment some time ago that the PPL is unaffordable along with many other hare brain schemes that Labor has imposed upon us including the Gonski, the NDIS, the carbon and mining tax........the former two will have to be modified and the latter two will need to be scrapped.


----------



## IFocus

noco said:


> Yes Calliope, I am afraid I will have to agree with ...I believe Abbott was a bit foolish to have done it without cabinet approval, unless of course he did it to wedge Shorten.




So not in the national interest then purely for political gain..............


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> So not in the national interest then purely for political gain..............




I really don't see what it has to do with National interest.......Do you believe the Carbon tax and the mining tax is in the National interest?

Political gain???????????????well you can't tell me both sides don't do it....The Labor/Green Party are past masters at it.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> I really don't see what it has to do with National interest.......Do you believe the Carbon tax and the mining tax is in the National interest?




Yes.

In a time of "budget crisis", why give big polluters and mining companies earning billions a tax break, at the same time contemplating hitting the rest of us with an expanded GST ? And make no mistake, that is what all the conservative politicians want to do. 

Why do you think the Libs had a shocker in the WA Senate re-run ?


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Yes.
> 
> In a time of "budget crisis", why give big polluters and mining companies earning billions a tax break, at the same time contemplating hitting the rest of us with an expanded GST ? And make no mistake, that is what all the conservative politicians want to do.
> 
> Why do you think the Libs had a shocker in the WA Senate re-run ?




And Labor didn't fair too well either in WA Senate election.

$6 billion Labor didn't raise in the mining tax but spent it before they even raised $200,000.

The Carbon tax has cost us $550 per year extra in the cost of living.

Keating wanted to introduce a 15%  GST but Hawke stopped him...in the national interest or political gain?

The Carbon tax has driven several companies off shore.............less jobs..........but that is all Abbott's fault.


----------



## DB008

sydboy007 said:


> Since getting into Govt they have rolled back most attempts by Labor to increase revenues, borrowed another 8 odd billion to pass to the RBA, and well that sense of pre election *CRISIS!!!* has pretty much disappeared.




Hold on.

I'm calling you out on a flat out lie here.

And you know it.

Swan took profits from the RBA, to try to get into surplus.


----------



## sydboy007

DB008 said:


> Hold on.
> 
> I'm calling you out on a flat out lie here.
> 
> And you know it.
> 
> Swan took profits from the RBA, to try to get into surplus.




So did the previous Howard Govt.  Over $17B actually. Not one year did Howard not have his hand in the RBA cookie jar.  Labor received just under $9B.

http://www.rba.gov.au/publications/annual-reports/rba/2013/html/earnings-dist.html

The issue I have is why provide the RBA over $8B (costing $320M interest each year) when they didn't request it and all they'd asked for to be allowed to keep their profits over the next few years to build their reserves?

Will Ponzi Joe reduce the headline deficit figure by the amount he provided the RBA, or will he bundle it up and blame Labor for the entire deficit??  How many years before Ponzi Joe starts to dip into the RBA funds again to help his quest for a budget surplus?


----------



## IFocus

Deal not well received from within the Liberal party wonder what would have been said if Labor caved in  


Tony Abbott defends free trade deal with Japan despite farmers' criticism



> The deal has prompted a degree of restiveness within Coalition ranks. George Christensen, a north Queensland government backbencher from a sugar-growing region, has queried the value of the new agreement.
> 
> “I appreciate that negotiating FTAs, particularly with Japan, is tricky business. But I wonder about the value of an FTA with any nation unless there's significant benefit for Australian agriculture,” Christensen told the ABC on Tuesday.




http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ade-deal-with-japan-despite-farmers-criticism


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> Deal not well received from within the Liberal party wonder what would have been said if Labor caved in
> 
> 
> Tony Abbott defends free trade deal with Japan despite farmers' criticism
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ade-deal-with-japan-despite-farmers-criticism




Labor sat on their backsides for 6 years and did nothing because they did not know how to go about it...which of course is not surprising....If it was anything to do with the National interest, Labor did  not want to know about it.


----------



## sydboy007

IFocus said:


> Deal not well received from within the Liberal party wonder what would have been said if Labor caved in
> 
> 
> Tony Abbott defends free trade deal with Japan despite farmers' criticism
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ade-deal-with-japan-despite-farmers-criticism




Never any mention of how long the foregone tariff revenue takes to be replaced by the increased taxes generate by the inflated projections of increased GDP.  What taxes will rise / services be cut to compensate for the immediate revenue losses?

No mention that importers may decide to increase more expensive imports from Japan that appear cheaper because of the removed tariffs but leave the Australian economy poorer eg product A from 1 country at 10,500 (imported as $10000 + $500 tariff) is replaced by $10300 product from Japan (exported as $10300 with $0 tariff.  Importer has saved $200 but $500 in tariff revenue has been forgone. 

Throw in very complex ROOs and I don't see much benefit from any of the FTAs that have been signed.  Certainly all the blue sky dreams from the USFTA have never materialised for Australia.  

The fact is world population is still increasing at a decent clip, amount of arable land is decreasing at an alarming rate, most countries that have extremely high tariffs on agricultural products will face having to reduce them in the not too distant future simply to keep food price inflation under control.  This years wheat crop is looking to be a shocker due to drought in much of the growing regions of the USA and Australia.  I'd argue by the time we get any meaningful tariff reductions from these crappy managed trade deals our trade partners will be forced into reducing their tariffs on food imports any way.


----------



## IFocus

sydboy007 said:


> Never any mention of how long the foregone tariff revenue takes to be replaced by the increased taxes generate by the inflated projections of increased GDP.  What taxes will rise / services be cut to compensate for the immediate revenue losses?
> 
> No mention that importers may decide to increase more expensive imports from Japan that appear cheaper because of the removed tariffs but leave the Australian economy poorer eg product A from 1 country at 10,500 (imported as $10000 + $500 tariff) is replaced by $10300 product from Japan (exported as $10300 with $0 tariff.  Importer has saved $200 but $500 in tariff revenue has been forgone.
> 
> Throw in very complex ROOs and I don't see much benefit from any of the FTAs that have been signed.  Certainly all the blue sky dreams from the USFTA have never materialised for Australia.
> 
> The fact is world population is still increasing at a decent clip, amount of arable land is decreasing at an alarming rate, most countries that have extremely high tariffs on agricultural products will face having to reduce them in the not too distant future simply to keep food price inflation under control.  This years wheat crop is looking to be a shocker due to drought in much of the growing regions of the USA and Australia.  I'd argue by the time we get any meaningful tariff reductions from these crappy managed trade deals our trade partners will be forced into reducing their tariffs on food imports any way.





The time for the Japanese to wind back the tariffs to still a very high level was a surprise of course the spin doctors are working over time and yes would like to know which way the net benefits went for the USFTA.


----------



## drsmith

noco said:


> Labor sat on their backsides for 6 years and did nothing because they did not know how to go about it...which of course is not surprising....If it was anything to do with the National interest, Labor did  not want to know about it.



Labor's idea of international negotiation on agriculture was to ban live cattle exports to Indonesia on the basis of a 4-Corners program.


----------



## noco

And after Labor did nothing on free trade agreements and almost killed the cattle trade with Indonesia, Penny Wong sits back and criticizes the Abbott Government for what they did not get in the agreement.....What did she expect Abbott to do?.......Hold a gun at the head of the Japanese Prime Minister.

As I always say, it is better to have a half a loaf of bread than no bread at all.


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...r-lives-directly/story-fni0ffsx-1226878193669

And how about this from Craig Emmerson

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/.../if_emerson_says_its_good_hes_probably_right/


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> And after Labor did nothing on free trade agreements and almost killed the cattle trade with Indonesia, Penny Wong sits back and criticizes the Abbott Government for what they did not get in the agreement.....What did she expect Abbott to do?.......Hold a gun at the head of the Japanese Prime Minister.
> 
> As I always say, it is better to have a half a loaf of bread than no bread at all.
> 
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...r-lives-directly/story-fni0ffsx-1226878193669
> 
> And how about this from Craig Emmerson
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/.../if_emerson_says_its_good_hes_probably_right/




So in your opinion Australia got a better deal than the Japanese?

Getting a trade deal is easy.  Getting a trade deal that actually benefits large sections of the economy within the short to medium term (1-5 years), well ain't seen Abbott do that yet and Howard probably set the bar pretty high on just how to sell Australia out with the AUSFTA - between 2004-2009 our trade deficit with the USA increased from US$ 6.4B to 11.6B and we're still paying up to 80% more for games, 16% more for ebooks, 50% for music, not sure how badly ripped off for movies we are, but pretty much all that content comes from the USA.  In agriculture, there was no additional access to the US sugar market, and increased access to dairy, beef, lamb and wine markets was to be phased in over 12-17 years ie still 2 to 5 years before increase access STARTS.

I get the feeling the Japanese are laughing all the way to the bank, considering how beneficial and fast most of their tariff reductions occur at compared to what Australia is getting.  20 years for some tariff reductions to be fully drawn down - NOT REMOVED.  Rice and sugar a long with a lot of dairy products not covered. Electronics, car components, elaborately transformed manufactures all seem to be tariff free pretty quickly.  I'd think Japan benefits a lot more from those kinds of exports than we do.

Will be interesting to see if the same 2% increase clause on imports for agricultural products in any year from the KAFTA for unilateral increases of tariffs is in the JAPEA agreement as well.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> So in your opinion Australia got a better deal than the Japanese?



Former trade minister Craig Emerson is of the view this trade deal with Japan is the best Australia could have achieved.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> Former trade minister Craig Emerson is of the view this trade deal with Japan is the best Australia could have achieved.




LOL.  Miles away from saying it's a good deal.

I think there should be a legal frame work the Govt has to work in.  No more waiting 20 years for tariffs to be reduced, yet alone not even achieving a full removal.  I'd argue a 10 year max for full removal is reasonable.  Having to wait any longer is really just signing your name on a piece of paper for political gain.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> LOL.  Miles away from saying it's a good deal.
> 
> I think there should be a legal frame work the Govt has to work in.  No more waiting 20 years for tariffs to be reduced, yet alone not even achieving a full removal.  I'd argue a 10 year max for full removal is reasonable.  Having to wait any longer is really just signing your name on a piece of paper for political gain.



These could well be fair points, but not as a partisan criticism of the current government.


----------



## Calliope

sydboy007 said:


> Having to wait any longer is really just signing your name on a piece of paper for political gain.




How dare they. Political gain should only be the preserve of the left.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> These could well be fair points, but not as a partisan criticism of the current government.




Well how's about we look at the Labor Chile FTA deal

* Elimination of tariffs on all existing merchandise trade by 2015 ie 6 years.

* Access to the Chilean Financial Services Sector on par with what we have with the USA

* Sugar retains a 6% tariff (Japan keeps 70%+)

Can't easily find a lot of other info on it, but seems agricultural products got a far better deal than what we got from Korea of Japan.  Seems like we could will be at 0% by 2015.

The we have Labors Malaysia FTA - Jan 1 2013

97.6 per cent of Australian goods currently exported to Malaysia became eligible for tariff-free treatment on entry into force of the Agreement, rising to 99 per cent in 2017*.  Australia eliminated all remaining tariffs on goods from Malaysia on entry into force of the Agreement.

Australian industries benefiting from the Agreement include:

milk ”” a liberalised licensing arrangement for liquid milk exporters, allowing access for higher value retail products;

automotives ”” elimination of all tariffs on large cars and virtually all tariffs on automotive parts imported into Malaysia from day one. All tariffs on small cars will be eliminated by 2016. From day one, Malaysia exempted Australian cars from its global limit on imports;

processed foods; plastics; chemicals and a range of manufactured products ””elimination of virtually all tariffs;

wine ”” a guarantee for Australian exporters of the best tariff treatment Malaysia gives any country;

iron and steel ”” tariffs on 96.4 per cent of iron and steel imported from Australia eliminated by 2016. This will rise to 99.9 per cent by 2017 and 100 per cent by 2020*; and

rice ”” open access arrangements from 2023. All tariffs eliminated by 2026.


education services - 70 per cent ownership in higher education services, increasing to 100 per cent in 2015; 70 per cent ownership in a range of other education services;

financial services - 70 per cent ownership in investment banking and direct insurance services;
telecommunications - at least 70 per cent ownership in all telecommunications services; and

professional services - 100 per cent ownership in accounting, auditing and bookkeeping services; 100 per cent 
ownership in management consultant services (excluding financial management consulting); 51 per cent ownership in taxation services.

Seems Labor was able to get far more comprehensive and faster tariff reductions than what Abbott and co have achieved.


----------



## sydboy007

Calliope said:


> How dare they. Political gain should only be the preserve of the left.




:topic


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> Well how's about we look at the Labor Chile FTA deal.



How's about we look at Labor's Japan FTA deal during their 6-years in office.


----------



## Calliope

sydboy007 said:


> :topic




Well, well, well... so a comment critical of your comments on the Abbott thread is Off Topic?  How original!  I think you are off colour. Is the  Abbott/Japan FTA deal more than you can stomach?


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> How's about we look at Labor's Japan FTA deal during their 6-years in office.




What's worse?  Not signing a crap deal or signing a crap deal and crowing about it?

Labor seems to have shown far better negotiating skills.  Best to hang off giving away the family silver till we're getting access to something of equal value?

If Abbott signs a China FTA I'd say it will help to make KAFTA and JAPEA look good.

So I can surmise you believe the JAPEA and KAFTA are good deals for Australia since you're bagging Labor for not signing one with Japan?


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> What's worse?  Not signing a crap deal or signing a crap deal and crowing about it?
> 
> Labor seems to have shown far better negotiating skills.  Best to hang off giving away the family silver till we're getting access to something of equal value?
> 
> If Abbott signs a China FTA I'd say it will help to make KAFTA and JAPEA look good.
> 
> So I can surmise you believe the JAPEA and KAFTA are good deals for Australia since you're bagging Labor for not signing one with Japan?




Sour grapes sydboy......Stop sucking on lemons...If Labor had done the deal, you would be crowing instead.

Chile ...Malaysia....What is the trade worth between them and Australia compared to Japan, Korea and China?

PEANUTS.

Great deal Labor did on the meat industry with Indonesia.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  They sent a few Australian cattle cockies to the wall and  few to their grave thanks to Ludwig.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Sour grapes sydboy......Stop sucking on lemons...If Labor had done the deal, you would be crowing instead.
> 
> Chile ...Malaysia....What is the trade worth between them and Australia compared to Japan, Korea and China?
> 
> PEANUTS.
> 
> Great deal Labor did on the meat industry with Indonesia.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  They sent a few Australian cattle cockies to the wall and  few to their grave thanks to Ludwig.




If Labor had been silly enough to sign these agreements I'd have been just as critical of them.

I'd agree that Labor could have handled the Indonesian live cattle issue far better, but then did you actually watch eh videos of what was happening to the cattle.  I did and felt physically ill afterwards, so some form of response was definitely necessary, unless of course you don't believe that animals should be humanely slaughtered?

So I'll ask you once again, do you believe that Australia or Japan is getting a better deal from the Aus-Jap FTA??


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> If Labor had been silly enough to sign these agreements I'd have been just as critical of them.
> 
> I'd agree that Labor could have handled the Indonesian live cattle issue far better, but then did you actually watch eh videos of what was happening to the cattle.  I did and felt physically ill afterwards, so some form of response was definitely necessary, unless of course you don't believe that animals should be humanely slaughtered?
> 
> So I'll ask you once again, do you believe that Australia or Japan is getting a better deal from the Aus-Jap FTA??




I will ask to you once again Sydboy, would you sooner have a half a loaf of bread or none at all?


----------



## explod

So cumoorn there noco,

 who is getting the best deal?


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> What's worse?  Not signing a crap deal or signing a crap deal and crowing about it?



I bring you back to former Labor trade minister Craig Emerson.

He didn't think it was crap.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> I bring you back to former Labor trade minister Craig Emerson.
> 
> He didn't think it was crap.




Saying it's the best deal you could get is not the same as saying it was a good deal beneficial to Australia .  I've not heard you sing glorious praise about the deal.

Bit like the gambling addict who only got 2 fingers broken but was happy because it was the best deal he could get from his bookie.

From Alan Mitchell in the AFR today:

_Almost two-thirds of the potential lift in Australia’s national income would come from the increase in Japanese exports to Australia. It would come as a result of the investment and productivity gains generated by more import competition…

They will…force Australian producers to innovate and lift productivity to survive…

Tariff-free imports are a key strength of the FTA with Japan, but they also expose the fundamental weakness of all bilateral FTAs. Australia can have all the cheap manufactured goods it wants, just as Japan can get all the cheap food it likes, by unilaterally tearing down the remaining barriers to trade.

Yet both nations deny their economies the bulk of the benefits of genuine trade reform while they spoon out market access to one trading partner after another, in stupid, long drawn-out negotiations._


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> I will ask to you once again Sydboy, would you sooner have a half a loaf of bread or none at all?




Your assumption is we're even getting half a loaf.  From the looks of it we're getting a couple of crusts, and waiting many a year before even having much of a chance at tasting a full slice or two of that loaf.

How about you go do a bit of research into the crapola deals the Liberals have gave us with their FTAs.  Like the extra $200M+ a year the AUSFTA costs us each year in higher pharmaceutical costs due to the increased in patent length, or the roughly $2B lost to generics manufacturers in Australia.

Do you support the clause the Liberals allowed in the KAFTA that allows the Koreans to unilaterally raise tariffs again if the import of any commodity increases by more than 2% in any year.  What's the point of a trade deal if the other party can pretty much stunt any of your export growth?


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> Saying it's the best deal you could get is not the same as saying it was a good deal beneficial to Australia.



Saying it's the best deal you could get would indicate he and Labor would have been happy to do it, contrary to what you yourself have indicated.



sydboy007 said:


> What's worse?  Not signing a crap deal or signing a crap deal and crowing about it?


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> I bring you back to former Labor trade minister Craig Emerson.
> 
> He didn't think it was crap.




If you want to invoke Emerson then you best admit the Abbott claims on the carbon tax were and are crap


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> If you want to invoke Emerson then you best admit the Abbott claims on the carbon tax were and are crap



Craig Emerson invoked himself on the issue of the Japan FTA. Perhaps he considered it better than his singing ability and didn't want it to pass without at least trying to direct some of the credit to himself.

The lie of Julia Gillard that is the carbon tax will go in July or perhaps sooner if Bill Shorten by some miracle comes to his senses.


----------



## noco

Great News for the Abbott Government.....unemployment down....jobs being created......Australia is open for business....confidence back.....NO,NO,NO......Abbott could not have done it in 7 months.....it has to be Labors good work over the past 6 years......Bless their little hearts.


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/unemployment_down/


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Great News for the Abbott Government.....unemployment down....jobs being created......Australia is open for business....confidence back.....NO,NO,NO......Abbott could not have done it in 7 months.....it has to be Labors good work over the past 6 years......Bless their little hearts.
> 
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/unemployment_down/




Participation rate DOWN 0.2% (back somewhere at 2006 levels) which pretty much accounts for the decrease in the unemployment rate.  Less workers paying tax ain't something to celebrate me thinks.

Trend unemployment INCREASED to 6% and this is the figure the ABS and RBA will focus on.

Only good news is aggregate hours work did increase, and jobs growth MAY be back to around population growth levels but will take a few more months before the trend figures show one way or the other, especially with the change in sampling that occurred in Feb.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...alian-news/truth-about-unemployment-australia

_Using the seasonally-adjusted data, the ABS is 95 per cent confident that employment growth was somewhere between a 39,000-person fall and a 76,000-person rise during March.

They are also 95 per cent confident that the unemployment rate was somewhere between 5.2 and 6 per cent. Wide confidence intervals are a common feature of seasonally-adjusted data, which is precisely why the ABS recommends a greater focus on trend estimates.

Last month the ABS was at pains to remind people that the strong growth in February was due to a change in sample.

With the exception of myself and a few others, its warning was largely ignored (Why the jobs figures don’t add up, March 13). It was universally reported that employment rose by around 47,000 in February and almost universally ignored that 37 per cent of that growth was completely imaginary and a result of a change in sampling methodology by the ABS._


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> Saying it's the best deal you could get would indicate he and Labor would have been happy to do it, contrary to what you yourself have indicated.




So by your logic with currently at least 5 Liberal members expressing public concern over the government’s intentions for sections 18C and 18D of the Discrimination Act that would mean the Liberal party is against the changes.

I don't see saying that something is the best deal someone else was able to get in anyways shows you believe it was a good deal or that you would have accepted the deal.  I'd think most people would say something like "That's a good deal" or "I wish i could have got a similar / same deal."


----------



## sptrawler

Well this is a turn up for the books, Mark Kenny giving Abbot some credit. Maybe the reporters are finding it difficult to find negative material to write about Abbott.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/com...s-skills-beyond-his-years-20140410-zqsxs.html

With the advent of digital print, it will be very easy for the publishers to ascertain which column writers have falling numbers. Then it's just a smple case of annalysis, to identify the problem.
Another six months, and we should all have some idea, whether Abbott is any good or not.IMO 

On a side note, the 'Captains Pick' Bob Carr, has got team Labor chucking a hissy fit. 
Funny, when Gillard rolled him out onto the stage, they ponced on as though he was the messiah, turns out he was just another one of them. What are they saying, he's selfish, self serving, inwardly focused, narcissist obviously the Labor traits run deep IMO.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> So by your logic with currently at least 5 Liberal members expressing public concern over the government’s intentions for sections 18C and 18D of the Discrimination Act that would mean the Liberal party is against the changes.
> 
> I don't see saying that something is the best deal someone else was able to get in anyways shows you believe it was a good deal or that you would have accepted the deal.  I'd think most people would say something like "That's a good deal" or "I wish i could have got a similar / same deal."




Alan Kohler, gives his thoughts on the free trade agreements.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-10/kohler-following-keatings-lead-on-reform-finally/5378090


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> Alan Kohler, gives his thoughts on the free trade agreements.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-10/kohler-following-keatings-lead-on-reform-finally/5378090





Don't you like the way the Green/Labor socialist lefties operate....they hate each other internally but the one thing they do have in common is they hate to see success in the coalition ranks......they are obviously envious of the way Abbott is going about things in an adult manner.......A manner which the Green/Labor could never achieve.


----------



## IFocus

noco said:


> Don't you like the way the Green/Labor socialist lefties operate....they hate each other internally but the one thing they do have in common is they hate to see success in the coalition ranks......they are obviously envious of the way Abbott is going about things in an adult manner.......A manner which the Green/Labor could never achieve.





From sptrawlers article  





> Credit where it's due: 13 years of Paul Keating between 1983 and 1996 set Australia up for a quarter of a century, so far, of recession-free growth.
> 
> He was 20-30 years ahead of his time, and now the rest of the world has had to accept that microeconomic reform is the way to go.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-10/kohler-following-keatings-lead-on-reform-finally/5378090


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> From sptrawlers article
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-10/kohler-following-keatings-lead-on-reform-finally/5378090




'Twas a shame about the years in between 2007 and 2013 though.....All Keatings good work was undone......rooned...ah la GG


----------



## Calliope

sptrawler said:


> Well this is a turn up for the books, Mark Kenny giving Abbot some credit. Maybe the reporters are finding it difficult to find negative material to write about Abbott.




Maybe they should talk to IFocus and sydboy007, if they want negativity and sour grapes about Abbott and the Coalition.


----------



## explod

Yep, Tony has now greater insight than the missing plane search team.

Just announced to a large business conference in China that the seach has now closed right in,  cross over to the search and, whoa no new information.

Anyow, he,s the Prime Minister and that  my friends is where news comes from these days.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Yep, Tony has now greater insight than the missing plane search team.
> 
> Just announced to a large business conference in China that the seach has now closed right in,  cross over to the search and, whoa no new information.
> 
> Anyow, he,s the Prime Minister and that  my friends is where news comes from these days.




Oh no explod...there is far more interesting  news coming out of Bob Carr (THE RAT)


----------



## explod

noco said:


> 'Twas a shame about the years in between 2007 and 2013 though.....All Keatings good work was undone......rooned...ah la GG




Off topic, Carr,s he,s the past and dont want to promote him here.

Nah mate, keep it on the subject, but yeh,hard for u ole Pal to see Abbot losing sight of what his job is.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Off topic, Carr,s he,s the past and dont want to promote him here.
> 
> Nah mate, keep it on the subject, but yeh,hard for u ole Pal to see Abbot losing sight of what his job is.




The latest polls indicate he (Abbott)  is doing a great job....now you have to agree on that one ole mate......Like in comparison poor old Bill, he is going down, down, down and to make things worse he (Shorten) has now been accused of raping a 16 year girl.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> The latest polls indicate he (Abbott)  is doing a great job....now you have to agree on that one ole mate......Like in comparison poor old Bill, he is going down, down, down and to make things worse he (Shorten) has now been accused of raping a 16 year girl.




Again you fly way off topic.

And ALP moved so far right that they are trying to emulate the LIB,s

Wonder if the polls are merely representing media rating type support.  Maybe you will become some sort of a muppet party noco.

Seriously, is this government?


----------



## drsmith

explod said:


> Seriously, is this government?



This is government.

It has toasted the border security problems resurrected by Labor and then made worse by the Greens influence on office during Julia Gillard's prime ministership and it will toast the Labor/Green carbon tax.


----------



## Calliope

Calliope said:


> Maybe they should talk to IFocus and sydboy007, if they want negativity and sour grapes about Abbott and the Coalition.




I apologize Plod for leaving you out.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Alan Kohler, gives his thoughts on the free trade agreements.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-10/kohler-following-keatings-lead-on-reform-finally/5378090




Considering over 60% of the benefits of the JAPEA are available to Australia by unilaterally removing tariffs on imports, one has to wonder what all the hoopla was all about.  When our competitors can take up to 2 decades to just reduce their tariffs on some of our major exports, let alone actually getting them to 0%, possibly we'd be better off pushing the Doha WTO talks along.  We're still 3 years away from the AUSFTA from providing any increased access for beef exports, some exports in the KAFTA and JAPEA will still just be getting their full tariff reductions near 2030.

As the ACCI has found from surveying it's members less than 30% of them use the current managed trade agreements due to the onerous paperwork involved, especially surrounding ROOs (Rules of Origin).

Each FTA has it's own ROOs paperwork, so there's a spaghetti bowl effect whereby each FTA you want to take advantage of involves new sets of paperwork to prove your product complies with meeting that particular set of ROOs.  Possibly if Abbott wants to have some meaningful red tape reform getting all the current managed trade agreements to having a common ROO architecture would be quite beneficial, and probably should have been part of the negotiations of these managed trade agreements since the AUSFTA.

ROOs compliance is not such an issue for the large multinationals like Toyota / Nissan (Thailand FTA for car imports), Samsung / LG (KAFTA), Sony / Sharp / Mistubishi / every Japanese car marker (JAPEA) compared to the generally quite small Australian companies.

Now if Abbott had been getting managed trade agreements pretty much like what we have with NZ ie close to a common market, then I'd say there's a lot of value in that.

But the truth is, as was shown by Labor in the 80s, that unilaterally removing tariff barriers benefits your economy quite considerably due to the increased competition to formerly protected sectors required to improve their productivity to better compete.  Whether that will prove to be the best way moving forward, I'm not sure.  With the massively high trade barriers other countries have for a lot of our exports, combined with tens of billions in various subsidies for agricultural products, I'm not convinced it's possible to have a high wage economy without some form of tariff protection.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> This is government.
> 
> It has toasted the border security problems resurrected by Labor and then made worse by the Greens influence on office during Julia Gillard's prime ministership and it will toast the Labor/Green carbon tax.




But then they're planning to make changes to the 457 visa program which could see a large influx of workers into the country during a period where the economy is at stall speed in the sense that jobs growth is barely at or mostly below population growth hence the rising unemployment.  Factor in the massive amount of underemployment out there and is it a good idea to be allowing employers to bring in as many foreign workers as they please, especially since they may not be required to even have basic English speaking skills?

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@...prodno=6265.0&issue=September 2013&num=&view=

_The Underemployed Workers Survey found that of the 11.7 million employed people aged 15 years and over in September 2013:

10.7 million (92%) were fully employed; and
970,100 (8%) were not fully employed, of whom 875,200 were underemployed.

Of the 875,200 underemployed workers (see Tables 1 and 2):
817,200 usually worked part-time, but would prefer more hours and were available to start work with more hours either in the reference week, or in the four weeks following the interview; and
58,000 usually worked full-time, but worked part-time hours in the reference week due to economic reasons (for example no work or not enough work available, been stood down, or on short time).

The median duration of the current period of insufficient work for underemployed part-time workers was 30 weeks, up significantly from 26 weeks in 2012, and back to levels observed in 2010 and 2011. The mean duration of current period of insufficient work in September 2013 was 76.3 weeks compared to 69.0 weeks in 2012_

Possibly with the recent increase in hours worked the level of underemployment has decreased slightly, though most of my friends in the services industries are still having trouble getting more than 25 hours of work a week so maybe the increase is fairly concentrated.


----------



## drsmith

Syd,

I'm not sure comprehensive English lessons were part of the service offered by people smugglers. That also don't help them swim when the boat sinks.

I also note the attempted change in subject as a response. 

A question of curiosity though. Do you work nights ?


----------



## IFocus

Great lets sell Australia to the Chinese government Abbott is a genus 




> Tony Abbott says China's state-owned enterprises are welcome in Australia
> 
> Tony Abbott has again signalled his government will look to strike a special deal to approve more investment in Australia by Chinese state-owned enterprises if China signs up to a broad-ranging free trade pact.




http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/11/abbott-says-chinas-state-owned-enterprises-welcome


----------



## IFocus

I take it people wanting the pension dont vote Liberal





> Pension changes would break Tony Abbott's election pledges, says Labor
> 
> Joe Hockey has sent a clear signal that the coalition government is considering raising the pension age in the looming budget
> 
> reasurer Joe Hockey has sent his clearest signal yet that the government is considering raising the pension age in the looming budget in an effort to put commonwealth finances on a more sustainable footing.
> 
> But the shadow families minister, Jenny Macklin, on Friday pointed to the numerous times before last September’s election that Tony Abbott had promised not to touch the pension.





https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/newreply.php?p=821425&noquote=1


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> Great lets sell Australia to the Chinese government Abbott is a genus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/11/abbott-says-chinas-state-owned-enterprises-welcome




I think you are getting a bit carried away with yourself.

Typical of lefties....may it sound worse than what it really is.


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> I take it people wanting the pension dont vote Liberal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/newreply.php?p=821425&noquote=1




They are talking about raising the pension age in increments over a period up to the age of 67 in the same way the Labor Party's Wayne Swan suggested sometime ago.......now please don't ask me for a link...I am going from memory.

But let us not forget, Labor fazed  in the eligible age for women from 60 to 65 over 10 years, moving 6months each year.

But lets be realistic, we are all living longer with modern medical science and stem cell research, so we will have a lot more pensioners on the welfare system which is already overloaded......how are we supposed to pay for it all given the fact Labor left the country with a legacy of $123 billion deficit and a debt of $667 billion.

But we are now moooooooooooving forrrrrrrrrrrrward.

There is also an incentive if you work beyond the retirement age by a part time pension.


----------



## IFocus

noco said:


> I think you are getting a bit carried away with yourself.
> 
> Typical of lefties....may it sound worse than what it really is.




I expect a revolt from the Bush Socialists over this once the mega Chinese government companies start buying up prime farm land and assets.

Can you point out any other governments that have bought out Australian assets freehold?


----------



## Calliope

IFocus said:


> I expect a revolt from the Bush Socialists over this once the mega Chinese government companies start buying up prime farm land and assets.
> 
> Can you point out any other governments that have bought out Australian assets freehold?




I like it. Its all about food production. Compared to the Chinese we are amateurs at the game of food production. Same goes with cooking the food.


----------



## IFocus

Direct Action’s moment of truth is imminent

With economists thinking big emissions reductions not possible under the Coalition policy, reality is about to meet slogan




> Slowly, inexorably, we are inching towards the time when one of the greatest fudges in recent Australian politics will be exposed.
> 
> Tony Abbott’s political demolition of the former government’s carbon pricing scheme was based not on what many in his party believe – that climate change is not happening and there is therefore no need to do anything at all – but rather on the assertion that the Coalition could achieve “the same” environmental benefit in an almost pain-free way.





http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/11/direct-actions-moment-of-truth-is-imminent


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> Direct Action’s moment of truth is imminent
> 
> With economists thinking big emissions reductions not possible under the Coalition policy, reality is about to meet slogan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/11/direct-actions-moment-of-truth-is-imminent





Hmmmmmmmm ...the Guardian newspaper......run by the socialist left and the columnist Lenore Taylor is to the far left as she can go....also a good mate of Gillard....what else could anybody expect?

Although a little off beat of the thread, the carbon tax has done very little to reduce a gas which is so important to plant life and has done virtually nothing to reduce "GLOBAL WARMING"...I believe something like .00000005 % of one degree.

Global Warming is crap and I hope Abbott scraps the direct action plan like he wants to scarp the carbon tax.
It will save us a lot of money....and while he is at it, scrap the PPL as well.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> Syd,
> 
> I'm not sure comprehensive English lessons were part of the service offered by people smugglers. That also don't help them swim when the boat sinks.
> 
> I also note the attempted change in subject as a response.
> 
> A question of curiosity though. Do you work nights ?




Not changing the subject.  You believe that stopping the boats is a prime achievement of the Abbott Govt, fair enough, but then you turn a blind eye to the fact that the same Abbott Government is changing the 457 rules to allow just as many, maybe more, foreigners into the country at a time when the jobs market is very weak, trend unemployment is still rising and the only reason the seasonally adjusted monthly unemployment rate had a surprise fall was because the participation rate fell.  

I do shift work which includes a number of graveyard shifts.  Had mentioned it a few times in previous posts.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Not changing the subject.  You believe that stopping the boats is a prime achievement of the Abbott Govt, fair enough, but then you turn a blind eye to the fact that the same Abbott Government is changing the 457 rules to allow just as many, maybe more, foreigners into the country at a time when the jobs market is very weak, trend unemployment is still rising and the only reason the seasonally adjusted monthly unemployment rate had a surprise fall was because the participation rate fell.
> 
> I do shift work which includes a number of graveyard shifts.  Had mentioned it a few times in previous posts.




I think you may be missing the point on these 457 visas.

Th reason behind allowing 457 visas is to fill the vacuum of skilled workers who are prepared to work in isolated places whereas many of the Australian skilled workers do not want to leave the big cities, their families or the seaboard location.......It is my belief that if skilled Australian workers have not replied to the demand of work in isolated places, then it is the right of the company to use the 457 visas.

You should have no complaints if these circumstances occur.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> I think you may be missing the point on these 457 visas.
> 
> Th reason behind allowing 457 visas is to fill the vacuum of skilled workers who are prepared to work in isolated places whereas many of the Australian skilled workers do not want to leave the big cities, their families or the seaboard location.......It is my belief that if skilled Australian workers have not replied to the demand of work in isolated places, then it is the right of the company to use the 457 visas.
> 
> You should have no complaints if these circumstances occur.




126350 issued for 2012-13 up from 125070 the previous year.

Top industries: Accommodation & food (12.9% or over 16000) , Media, telecomms, healthcare, construction.

Don't know about you, but I've never though you needed a degree to serve food.

I work in the telecomms industry and there's not a lot of opportunities at the moment, yet over 12000 457 Visas issues just last year.

So do you agree with the Abott Government changes to:

* allow an unlimited level of 457 visas to be applied for each year
* provide no financial penalty if an employer highers multiple times as many 457 visa workers as they claimed they would
* watered down advertising of positions so that a 1 day "advertisement" on a company facebook page would be deemed acceptable

Call me parochial, call me racist if you like, but I think there should be a legal requirement to higher an appropriately skilled Aussie over a foreign worker.  No IFs or BUTs.

Abbott is trying to have his workchoices cake by creating higher supply of labour to suppress wages, doubly worse during an economic decline, while claiming to keep his pre-election promise of not making any changes to work place laws.  I can assure you if he had told the electorate of his plans it would have been a big voter changer for many Australians.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> Not changing the subject.  You believe that stopping the boats is a prime achievement of the Abbott Govt, fair enough, but then you turn a blind eye to the fact that the same Abbott Government is changing the 457 rules to allow just as many, maybe more, foreigners into the country at a time when the jobs market is very weak, trend unemployment is still rising and the only reason the seasonally adjusted monthly unemployment rate had a surprise fall was because the participation rate fell.
> 
> I do shift work which includes a number of graveyard shifts.  Had mentioned it a few times in previous posts.



As I have stated before on a number of occasions, border security is the first responsibility of any government and that's a test Labor failed in office and something this government has, for all practical purposes, promptly rectified.

Whether or not any of us agree or disagree with the specific immigration or foreign worker policy of any government, this government is at least in control. That's much more than can be said for the previous Labor administration.

Have you just done graveyard shift number 3 on the trot ?

My advice would be to not do that sort of stuff long term. They're called graveyard shifts for a reason.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> 126350 issued for 2012-13 up from 125070 the previous year.
> 
> Top industries: Accommodation & food (12.9% or over 16000) , Media, telecomms, healthcare, construction.
> 
> Don't know about you, but I've never though you needed a degree to serve food.
> 
> I work in the telecomms industry and there's not a lot of opportunities at the moment, yet over 12000 457 Visas issues just last year.
> 
> So do you agree with the Abott Government changes to:
> 
> * allow an unlimited level of 457 visas to be applied for each year
> * provide no financial penalty if an employer highers multiple times as many 457 visa workers as they claimed they would
> * watered down advertising of positions so that a 1 day "advertisement" on a company facebook page would be deemed acceptable
> 
> Call me parochial, call me racist if you like, but I think there should be a legal requirement to higher an appropriately skilled Aussie over a foreign worker.  No IFs or BUTs.
> 
> Abbott is trying to have his workchoices cake by creating higher supply of labour to suppress wages, doubly worse during an economic decline, while claiming to keep his pre-election promise of not making any changes to work place laws.  I can assure you if he had told the electorate of his plans it would have been a big voter changer for many Australians.




Actually Syd, what Noco say's is actually correct. 
There is a massive shortage of workers prepared to work in isolated regions, that was why Labor gave Gina permission to use overseas workers at Roy Hill mine.
I can understand your personal unhappiness with the 457's, many are being brought in to fill a void in the telecommunications and IT field. I think a lot of this is done by the telcos to avoid having to pay Telstra for fault repairs.
It wouldn't matter who is in government, this is the way the World has gone, it is in its infancy here.
The German car manufacturers have been using Turks, in a similar manner for decades,


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> Direct Action’s moment of truth is imminent
> 
> With economists thinking big emissions reductions not possible under the Coalition policy, reality is about to meet slogan
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/11/direct-actions-moment-of-truth-is-imminent



What's imminent is the fate of the carbon tax.

It will soon meet its maker.


----------



## explod

Calliope said:


> I apologize Plod for leaving you out.




Accepted Calliope,

Dont, worry noco has it all worked out for the short term.

The growing world wide problem of climate and refugees will not go away by pretending and building barriers.

There is no real government.


----------



## drsmith

explod said:


> The growing world wide problem of climate and refugees will not go away by pretending and building barriers.
> 
> There is no real government.



It's no secret the Green movement prefers a one-world government over sovereign nations and are so driven by this ideology that country shoppers drowning at sea are mere accidents in the pursuit of this quest.


----------



## explod

drsmith said:


> It's no secret the Green movement prefers a one-world government over sovereign nations and are so driven by this ideology that country shoppers drowning at sea are mere accidents in the pursuit of this quest.





Discredit does not address the issues or answer the question.

The MSM,s interpretation of the Green movement is selective to protect self interest and feed off controlling the sheeple.  However growing sheer numbers will need to,be addressed if we are to maintain the life we have known.

And for example, to maintain fortress Australia we me rue the day that we did not take every able soul (boat people too) to build the required defenses.


----------



## Julia

explod said:


> And for example, to maintain fortress Australia we me rue the day that we did not take every able soul (boat people too) to build the required defenses.



Who will be invading us, explod?


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> Who will be invading us, explod?




It would be naive to think that this couldn't happen at some time in the future. We could be an irresistible target for a Muslim country with a population of 250 million to our north, if they ever run out of land or minerals.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> 126350 issued for 2012-13 up from 125070 the previous year.
> 
> Top industries: Accommodation & food (12.9% or over 16000) , Media, telecomms, healthcare, construction.
> 
> Don't know about you, but I've never though you needed a degree to serve food.
> 
> I work in the telecomms industry and there's not a lot of opportunities at the moment, yet over 12000 457 Visas issues just last year.
> 
> So do you agree with the Abott Government changes to:
> 
> * allow an unlimited level of 457 visas to be applied for each year
> * provide no financial penalty if an employer highers multiple times as many 457 visa workers as they claimed they would
> * watered down advertising of positions so that a 1 day "advertisement" on a company facebook page would be deemed acceptable
> 
> Call me parochial, call me racist if you like, but I think there should be a legal requirement to higher an appropriately skilled Aussie over a foreign worker.  No IFs or BUTs.
> 
> Abbott is trying to have his workchoices cake by creating higher supply of labour to suppress wages, doubly worse during an economic decline, while claiming to keep his pre-election promise of not making any changes to work place laws.  I can assure you if he had told the electorate of his plans it would have been a big voter changer for many Australians.




Sydboy, you are still missing the point again  with your one track mind that foreign workers are replacing Australian workers...... no such thing is happening.

There are lots of Employment Agencies in Australia who have these jobs on their books as well as the employers advertising....I would like to find out the statistics of how many Australian workers apply for certain jobs in isolated places......I would like to know how many Australian workers are offered such work and then decline once knowing where they have to go.

It does not matter whether the job vacancy is for a doctor, a nurse, a lawyer, a boiler maker welder, a plumber, an electrician or a domestic worker....If the job vacancy is one of those categories is located at Meekatharra, Newman, Tom Price, Turkey creek, Halls Creek, Alice Springs, Tenant Creek, Jabiru, Borroloola, Aramac and many of the isolated mines, would you leave your family and friends who are living in some major cities on the coast to go and work in such isolated places? 

I have a second cousin who was the supervisor of house keeping at the Crocodile Hotel in Kakadu NT. and she tells me she was always struggling to get Australian house maids to service rooms.....they finished up bringing in Filipino girls to fill the vacancies......even in the Hotel/Casino in Townsville, management have trouble getting Australian house maids who say they find the work too strenuous and barely last a couple of weeks....now 80% of house maids are Filipino...They are local girls but they are not here on 457 visas.....they work roster shifts Monday to Sunday with no penalty rates on weekends....some even start at 6 am. they are paid the same rate of pay as Australians....so there is no depression of wages as you claim......It is the leftie catch cry again and the scare campaign that Abbott will bring back Work Choices....When will you get off that bike.

So Sydboy, I am quoting these cases in an endeavor to engage you into rethinking your attitude to 457 visas and that foreign workers are not taking over Australian jobs......the jobs are there.....it is just that Australian workers are not desirous of leaving the comfort of their own homes and their families and furthermore I don't blame them.....THE IFS and BUTS has nothing to do with it.

So please get of your high horse and listen to reason for once.


----------



## drsmith

explod said:


> Discredit does not address the issues or answer the question.



Neither does large scale importation of the world's problems to our own detriment and little gain elsewhere let alone the human cost of what the Greens dismiss as accidents.

As a basic evolutionary process, it's competition that drives advancement through adaptation. World government without competition on the same scale would ultimately be an evolutionary dead end. It may come with the discovery of intelligent extra terrestrial life but will more likely come with the expansion of our species to other worlds.

Its time is a long way off yet.


----------



## sptrawler

noco said:


> So Sydboy, I am quoting these cases in an endeavor to engage you into rethinking your attitude to 457 visas and that foreign workers are not taking over Australian jobs......the jobs are there.....it is just that Australian workers are not desirous of leaving the comfort of their own homes and their families and furthermore I don't blame them.....THE IFS and BUTS has nothing to do with it.
> .




There is a huge situation arising in Australia. 
As you say no one wants to leave the cities. 
Everyone wants a tax funded pension that provides a comfortable lifestyle, if they haven't saved for their own pension.
Everyone wants unlimited access to welfare, no strings attached.
Everyone wants tax funded job security, even if the business isn't competitive.
Everyone wants tax funded health care.
Everyone wants tax funded bling speed internet.
Everyone wants, tax funded education.
Everyone wants, everyone wants.
However when you ask them to put something in, there is a huge scream and outcry.
I see the government is going to offer sweeteners to try and tempt the unemployed to take regional work, there will be a huge outcry.
NSW is trying to sell off some older inner city public housing, to release a lot of money for public housing, there is a huge outcry.
This constant pandering to population that wants to live in a taxpayer funded holiday camp, is going to come to an end, one way or another.IMO 
Australia is going to have to drag itself up off its lazy fat ar$e, or they will end up like Greece or Spain.
Having an afternoon siesta saying  "Hey watts the matter, find someone to tax, get off my case".


----------



## sptrawler

explod said:


> are to maintain the life we have known.
> 
> And for example, to maintain fortress Australia we me rue the day that we did not take every able soul (boat people too) to build the required defenses.




We also may rue the day we let so many in, just because you take a person into your house and feed him, doesn't mean he is obligated to follow your beliefs, or fight for your cause.


----------



## explod

sptrawler said:


> We also may rue the day we let so many in, just because you take a person into your house and feed him, doesn't mean he is obligated to follow your beliefs, or fight for your cause.




Since the late 60s for over 30 years i observed first hand the growth of Melbourne. And it was amazing how so many diverse peoples grew together and enriched our way of life.  In medicine alone campuses such as Monash leadvthe world in curing deseases and rebuilding bodies. Micro sergery engineers sought after across the globe.

Why, because we have enthusiasm, fresh blood  mix of viewpoints.  I could go on so much more.

I willvgo to the library computer tomorrow and give a real burst. Very hard doing this on phone.

Everyone should for example be made to work in,some way for keep, and we could do that. 

And on another front for example if drugs were legalised the drug trade would die and the druggies would either die or,be identified and cured. Resources could then be redirected.


----------



## explod

Julia said:


> Who will be invading us, explod?




Overpopulation.  Our navy may hold things for a few more years but if we do not populate our northern lands others out of necessity will.

IMHO


----------



## sptrawler

explod said:


> Since the late 60s for over 30 years i observed first hand the growth of Melbourne. And it was amazing how so many diverse peoples grew together and enriched our way of life.  In medicine alone campuses such as Monash leadvthe world in curing deseases and rebuilding bodies. Micro sergery engineers sought after across the globe.
> 
> Why, because we have enthusiasm, fresh blood  mix of viewpoints.  I could go on so much more.
> 
> I willvgo to the library computer tomorrow and give a real burst. Very hard doing this on phone.
> 
> Everyone should for example be made to work in,some way for keep, and we could do that.
> 
> And on another front for example if drugs were legalised the drug trade would die and the druggies would either die or,be identified and cured. Resources could then be redirected.




Look at the stats on asylum seekers, becoming job seekers, then compare that with asylum seekers becoming welfare dependent citizens.
Not wanting to be nasty, however, apparently we can't afford to maintain our pension system with people that have paid taxes.
How the hell do you think we can sustain a welfare sytem, when we just keep taking on more dependants.
If they have something to offer our country, I'm sure there are avenues available to them.

However, you can't just say let them in, let them in, when we are obviously in a position that we can't afford the already existing burden. 

It's o.k standing in a circle chanting and sing Kumbaya, but it isn't a good look on a work day.


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> It would be naive to think that this couldn't happen at some time in the future. We could be an irresistible target for a Muslim country with a population of 250 million to our north, if they ever run out of land or minerals.



And you imagine we would just sit back and let it happen???  Why do you think Australia has - often against the will of the electorate - supported the USA?   The Indonesians can't even manage their own borders, let alone invade Australia.  The USA would deal with any such unlikely threat rapidly.



sptrawler said:


> We also may rue the day we let so many in, just because you take a person into your house and feed him, doesn't mean he is obligated to follow your beliefs, or fight for your cause.



+1.  Exactly right.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> There are lots of Employment Agencies in Australia who have these jobs on their books as well as the employers advertising....I would like to find out the statistics of how many Australian workers apply for certain jobs in isolated places......I would like to know how many Australian workers are offered such work and then decline once knowing where they have to go.
> 
> I have a second cousin who was the supervisor of house keeping at the Crocodile Hotel in Kakadu NT. and she tells me she was always struggling to get Australian house maids to service rooms.....they finished up bringing in Filipino girls to fill the vacancies......even in the Hotel/Casino in Townsville, management have trouble getting Australian house maids who say they find the work too strenuous and barely last a couple of weeks....now 80% of house maids are Filipino..*.They are local girls but they are not here on 457 visas.....they work roster shifts Monday to Sunday with no penalty rates on weekends....some even start at 6 am. they are paid the same rate of pay as Australians.*...so there is no depression of wages as you claim......It is the leftie catch cry again and the scare campaign that Abbott will bring back Work Choices....When will you get off that bike.
> 
> So Sydboy, I am quoting these cases in an endeavor to engage you into rethinking your attitude to 457 visas and that foreign workers are not taking over Australian jobs......the jobs are there.....it is just that Australian workers are not desirous of leaving the comfort of their own homes and their families and furthermore I don't blame them.....THE IFS and BUTS has nothing to do with it.
> 
> So please get of your high horse and listen to reason for once.




If you increase supply of workers, what happens to wages?  What are the pay rates the Hotel / Casino in Townsville offering?  High enough for someone to have a liveable income??  Do they employ the people directly, or hide behind a labour hire company and pay on a per room basis?

As for you second cousin paying the Filipino maids the same rate as Australians, if they are not being paid penalty rates on weekends then I think Fair Work Australia needs to investigate.  6AM starts are nothing unusual.  In Sydney the train is half full of people getting in to work around that time.

If house keeping staff are treated in a similar way to how one of my house mates, I can understand why it's hard to find people willing to stick with it.  Using labour hire firms to get around paying a wage so the hotel can pay you based on each room cleaned, with no regard to when say a customer has decided to defalcate somewhere other than the toilet, or has hosted a large party in the room and there's extra work involved in cleaning and deodorising.  To say I was shocked at what some people get up to in high end hotel rooms is an understatement.

So rather than pointing the finger at the lazy Aussie, maybe you need to dig a bit deeper and see if there's any other reason behind the difficulty to hire staff by certain companies.  I know of a company in Sydney that has a number of venues used for Weddings / Functions and the way they treated their staff left them in a very difficult situation due to their bad reputation, especially for their dodgy practices on how they paid staff on a public holiday.  They have such high staff turnover I'm surprised they still have a business.  People I knew would only accept work from them as a last resort.

I have no problem with using 457 visas to fill jobs that a local person can't, but why water down the rules to allow companies to far more easily use them.  Surely it's not too onerous to show you've advertised the position for a couple of weeks, and that the company will only higher the number of people it says it will.  Surely it's reasonable to show you've interviewed locals for the position and can show why none of them were suitable for the role.  Some companies have hired 8 times as many many works on 457 visas as they applied for.  Abbott says they shouldn't suffer any financial penalty for this.  I think they should as it's a breach of faith with the Australian public to only use a 457 visa worker as a last resort.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> The USA would deal with any such unlikely threat rapidly.
> 
> 
> .




The USA won't even sign a Defence alliance with us. 

ANZUS is merely a treaty to consult, it gives the USA no obligations to do anything about our defence. The USA has pacts to defend Taiwan, the Phillippines and Japan but not us. Anyone who want to attack us would wait until the USA is weakest and least able to come to our aid. eg if they were fighting in the Middle East or against China over Taiwan.

As for us , trying to defend against 250 million people, pull the other one.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> The USA won't even sign a Defence alliance with us.
> 
> ANZUS is merely a treaty to consult, it gives the USA no obligations to do anything about our defence. The USA has pacts to defend Taiwan, the Phillippines and Japan but not us. Anyone who want to attack us would wait until the USA is weakest and least able to come to our aid. eg if they were fighting in the Middle East or against China over Taiwan.
> 
> As for us , trying to defend against 250 million people, pull the other one.




History has never shown, cowtowing and grovelling, as a very successful defence policy either. Rudd and Gillards behaviour toward Indonesia was infantile, stopping the cattle trade, then Rudd running over to get Bang Bangs support against Abbott, bloody playground behaviour.
As for our defence the U.S, U.K and China have enough skin in the game, to come over and protect their assetts.


----------



## orr

Negative gearing on investment property. If you can't see how this feeds property speculation in the cities you're referred to above and the on-flow economic activity that then feeds on itself and the associated tax receipts and then commercial profit  imperatives of the major corporations/technocracies of the 'New Industrial State', well?. And so the kapoof'el bird goes around and around, but slower and slower because of the traffic. 
And we're blessed with a government that's digging in it's navel. 
The infrastructure PM? anybody seen any?
Name a visionary on the government benches, I think there's one. and now name the ideologically hidebound.
To paraphrase Clinton' 'It's the policies stupid...' If you want regional development you build infrastructure that supports it and policies that encourage it , at a Notational level.  
And we know how many policies this government went to the election with. One, 'don't step on toes of flat screen obsessed western suburb sports clowns, sorry fans.' 
So keep kicking those own goals Tony, that's what we elected you for.


----------



## drsmith

orr said:


> The infrastructure PM? anybody seen any?




https://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/BuildingRoads/Projects/planning/Pages/NorthlinkWA.aspx


----------



## sptrawler

orr said:


> Negative gearing on investment property. If you can't see how this feeds property speculation in the cities you're referred to above and the on-flow economic activity that then feeds on itself and the associated tax receipts and then commercial profit  imperatives of the major corporations/technocracies of the 'New Industrial State', well?. And so the kapoof'el bird goes around and around, but slower and slower because of the traffic.
> And we're blessed with a government that's digging in it's navel.
> The infrastructure PM? anybody seen any?
> Name a visionary on the government benches, I think there's one. and now name the ideologically hidebound.
> To paraphrase Clinton' 'It's the policies stupid...' If you want regional development you build infrastructure that supports it and policies that encourage it , at a Notational level.
> And we know how many policies this government went to the election with. One, 'don't step on toes of flat screen obsessed western suburb sports clowns, sorry fans.'
> So keep kicking those own goals Tony, that's what we elected you for.




Nice rant.
Maybe we should reflect on the $300billion debt, racked up over the last six years from the last government, and ponder the productive infrastucture that has delivered. 
Then we can sit down and analyse how much infrastructure you would expect to be delivered in six months.lol
As for a government that's digging in its navel. I think that is better than a prime Minister having to front up to an inquiry into poor policy implementation, that may have lead to deaths.
Anyway from a t.v perspective, navel gazing is far better than, ear cleaning and eating.


----------



## orr

Occasionally we see polls on this forum:

Is the Abbott Government;

a/ Fair dinkum.
b/ For the fair go'.
c/ Worried about 'fairy's'...(who aren't radio shock jocks).
d/ Fairy floss.


Oh and by the way,  'It's about the policies, 'stupid' '.


----------



## McLovin

SirRumpole said:


> The USA won't even sign a Defence alliance with us.
> 
> ANZUS is merely a treaty to consult, it gives the USA no obligations to do anything about our defence.






Yes it does.



> DESIRING to declare publicly and formally their sense of unity, so that no potential aggressor could be under the illusion that any of them stand alone in the Pacific Area, and
> 
> DESIRING further to coordinate their efforts for collective defense for the preservation of peace and security pending the development of a more comprehensive system of regional security in the Pacific Area,






> Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on any of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.




I seriously doubt treaty or no treaty the US would allow Australia to be invaded. The governments and military are so intertwined through various treaties and programs (Echelon, Five Eyes etc)


----------



## McLovin

sptrawler said:


> As for our defence the U.S, U.K and China have enough skin in the game, to come over and protect their assetts.




That's exactly right, sp. Money talks and bullsh!t walks.


----------



## SirRumpole

McLovin said:


> Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on any of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.




The definition of 'act' ? Open to interpretation. Might be a few trade sanctions or the sixth fleet depending on who is in office and what else they have on. Five eyes and Echelon does provide a measure of utility for the US, but smart policy wold be to ensure that they are not indispensible.


----------



## McLovin

SirRumpole said:


> The definition of 'act' ? Open to interpretation. Might be a few trade sanctions or the sixth fleet depending on who is in office and what else they have on. Five eyes and Echelon does provide a measure of utility for the US, but smart policy wold be to ensure that they are not indispensible.




When read in the context of the introduction it's pretty clear that it means the defense of a party to the treaty up to the use of military force.



> DESIRING to declare publicly and formally their sense of unity, so that no potential aggressor could be under the illusion that any of them stand alone in the Pacific Area




I'm not sure how it could be interpreted as, if you invade we'll just slap sanctions on you.


----------



## SirRumpole

McLovin said:


> When read in the context of the introduction it's pretty clear that it means the defense of a party to the treaty up to the use of military force.




Well, good luck with that, but the trouble it's taken to get a few marines in Darwin does not  indicate to me that we are a priority compared to places like Diego Garcia or Puerto Rico.


----------



## McLovin

SirRumpole said:


> Well, good luck with that, but the trouble it's taken to get a few marines in Darwin does not  indicate to me that we are a priority compared to places like Diego Garcia or Puerto Rico.




Puerto Rico is part of the United States.


----------



## SirRumpole

McLovin said:


> Puerto Rico is part of the United States.




Yes, just like Hawaii, stolen from the natives. But the point is, 300 marines in Darwin to defend all those important assets ?


----------



## McLovin

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, just like Hawaii, stolen from the natives. But the point is, 300 marines in Darwin to defend all those important assets ?




Actually it was ceded by the Spanish, who I am sure had pretty much wiped out the natives by that time.

In any event, you don't need marines stationed in Darwin to provide a sufficient deterrent. The US navy could overwhelm any other navy many times over and everyone knows that.


----------



## DB008

McLovin said:


> Actually it was ceded by the Spanish, who I am sure had pretty much wiped out the natives by that time.
> 
> In any event, you don't need marines stationed in Darwin to provide a sufficient deterrent. The US navy could overwhelm any other navy many times over and everyone knows that.




I'm willing to sacrifice a vital body part, that the Yanks some weapons here (ie, nukes) on one of their bases here...


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> If you increase supply of workers, what happens to wages?  What are the pay rates the Hotel / Casino in Townsville offering?  High enough for someone to have a liveable income??  Do they employ the people directly, or hide behind a labour hire company and pay on a per room basis?
> 
> As for you second cousin paying the Filipino maids the same rate as Australians, if they are not being paid penalty rates on weekends then I think Fair Work Australia needs to investigate.  6AM starts are nothing unusual.  In Sydney the train is half full of people getting in to work around that time.
> 
> If house keeping staff are treated in a similar way to how one of my house mates, I can understand why it's hard to find people willing to stick with it.  Using labour hire firms to get around paying a wage so the hotel can pay you based on each room cleaned, with no regard to when say a customer has decided to defalcate somewhere other than the toilet, or has hosted a large party in the room and there's extra work involved in cleaning and deodorising.  To say I was shocked at what some people get up to in high end hotel rooms is an understatement.
> 
> So rather than pointing the finger at the lazy Aussie, maybe you need to dig a bit deeper and see if there's any other reason behind the difficulty to hire staff by certain companies.  I know of a company in Sydney that has a number of venues used for Weddings / Functions and the way they treated their staff left them in a very difficult situation due to their bad reputation, especially for their dodgy practices on how they paid staff on a public holiday.  They have such high staff turnover I'm surprised they still have a business.  People I knew would only accept work from them as a last resort.
> 
> I have no problem with using 457 visas to fill jobs that a local person can't, but why water down the rules to allow companies to far more easily use them.  Surely it's not too onerous to show you've advertised the position for a couple of weeks, and that the company will only higher the number of people it says it will.  Surely it's reasonable to show you've interviewed locals for the position and can show why none of them were suitable for the role.  Some companies have hired 8 times as many many works on 457 visas as they applied for.  Abbott says they shouldn't suffer any financial penalty for this.  I think they should as it's a breach of faith with the Australian public to only use a 457 visa worker as a last resort.




The Hotel Casino Townsville pay an hourly rate slightly above award rates negotiated by a work place agreement.......The are engaged directly by the Hotel/Casino who do have a good reputation.......Permanent staff work a 38 hour week and do not have a high turn over.

I trust that settles your argument.


----------



## Julia

McLovin said:


> In any event, you don't need marines stationed in Darwin to provide a sufficient deterrent. The US navy could overwhelm any other navy many times over and everyone knows that.



+1.


----------



## waza1960

> Quote Originally Posted by McLovin  View Post
> In any event, you don't need marines stationed in Darwin to provide a sufficient deterrent. The US navy could overwhelm any other navy many times over and everyone knows that.



+2

 Yes check out their latest toy (rail gun) http://blog.al.com/wire/2014/04/watch_the_navys_super-fast_rai_1.html


----------



## SirRumpole

> Quote Originally Posted by McLovin View Post
> In any event, you don't need marines stationed in Darwin to provide a sufficient deterrent. The US navy could overwhelm any other navy many times over and everyone knows that.




At this point in time, probably yes, but with the US deeply in debt, China making advances and modernising its military and Russia looking at becoming a superpower again, The US could be stretched on multiple fronts in ten years or so. It's already winding back some of its military, and has said that the JSF is 'un affordable' which is language rarely heard in the US when it comes to defence where business as usual is 'damn the cost as long as we have the most'.

People who ignore these changes and complacently believe that everything will stay as it always has may be in for a shock.


----------



## trainspotter

waza1960 said:


> +2
> 
> Yes check out their latest toy (rail gun) http://blog.al.com/wire/2014/04/watch_the_navys_super-fast_rai_1.html




+3 Stark Industries eat your heart out !!


----------



## SirRumpole

trainspotter said:


> +3 Stark Industries eat your heart out !!




A cheap Chinese copy will be along in a few months no doubt


----------



## SirRumpole

So we are a nation of welfare bludgers according to the Coalition ?

This article says not

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-16/jericho-hardly-the-land-where-entitlement-runs-riot/5391558


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> So we are a nation of welfare bludgers according to the Coalition ?
> 
> This article says not
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-16/jericho-hardly-the-land-where-entitlement-runs-riot/5391558




It's only welfare if you're poor, otherwise it's for common good.


----------



## IFocus

Abbott objects to questions from a reporter working for the Liberal daily  news.

Isn't there another 3 Liberal members up for an ICAC investigation? 


Abbott questions reporter over 'unjustified corruption smear'



> Prime Minister Tony Abbott takes objection to a question from a reporter alleging corruption within the NSW Government, and calls for "decent standard from the media"




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-...eporter-over-corruption-smear-comment/5394858


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> Abbott questions reporter over 'unjustified corruption smear'



I thought he was very composed and professional in how he handled that.


----------



## sydboy007

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...orts/Trends_in_Australian_Government_receipts

Interesting Government produced information that shows the budget deficit is not so much a spending issue, but a significant decline in revenue post GFC.

It noted that average revenue since 1982-83 has been 24.1% of GDP, but that since 2007-08 it has been significantly below that level, and is only expected to return to average levels in 2017-18

Raising taxes isn't the only way to overcome the revenue shortfall.  Probably a fairer way is to start cutting away the massive amount of tax expenditures that are like a bleeding artery to the budget.  Tax expenditures are north of 8 % of GDP - govt revenue is currently only around 23% of GDP, so we're talking about the equivalent of spending roughly equal to a third of current Govt revenue - something like all aged care expenditure, other welfare, federal health care spending and military spending.  Not small change in anyone's book and is roughly worth $128B out of a $1.6T economy.

Considering corporate and payroll taxes have a 40% consumer welfare loss for each dollar of revenue they raise, yet municipal rates just 2%, and GST only 8%, with income taxes at 24%, surly the economic narrative for making substantial tax reform is not too hard to articulate?

Are Joe and Abbott capable of making these changes?  From the pre election opposition to Labors attempts at reducing some tax expenditures and their continued promise to get rid of the MRRT I don't think so.

Surely showing that replacing payroll, corporate, and income taxes with higher GST and some form of progressive land tax with targeted welfare increase for those impacted is something relatively easy to show?  

IF you can convince people that say $1B of income and payroll tax could be replaced by roughly just $859M, or that $1B in corporate tax revenue could be replaced via a land tax (which would be somewhere between GST and municipal rates in consumer welfare loss so say 5%) of just $632M, the changes should then be easy to get through.  The efficiency dividends of a change in the tax system away from corporate and income taxes is just so huge, yet Abbott has pretty much locked himself into not being able to make any fundamental reforms.

Factor in a month before the budget is released and the executive director of the Federal Treasury’s Revenue Group has said he's not aware of anyone in treasury having seen the commission of audit as yet, so how is the COA going to help set the direction of the budget?


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...orts/Trends_in_Australian_Government_receipts
> 
> Interesting Government produced information that shows the budget deficit is not so much a spending issue, but a significant decline in revenue post GFC.
> 
> It noted that average revenue since 1982-83 has been 24.1% of GDP, but that since 2007-08 it has been significantly below that level, and is only expected to return to average levels in 2017-18
> 
> Raising taxes isn't the only way to overcome the revenue shortfall.  Probably a fairer way is to start cutting away the massive amount of tax expenditures that are like a bleeding artery to the budget.  Tax expenditures are north of 8 % of GDP - govt revenue is currently only around 23% of GDP, so we're talking about the equivalent of spending roughly equal to a third of current Govt revenue - something like all aged care expenditure, other welfare, federal health care spending and military spending.  Not small change in anyone's book and is roughly worth $128B out of a $1.6T economy.
> 
> Considering corporate and payroll taxes have a 40% consumer welfare loss for each dollar of revenue they raise, yet municipal rates just 2%, and GST only 8%, with income taxes at 24%, surly the economic narrative for making substantial tax reform is not too hard to articulate?
> 
> Are Joe and Abbott capable of making these changes?  From the pre election opposition to Labors attempts at reducing some tax expenditures and their continued promise to get rid of the MRRT I don't think so.
> 
> Surely showing that replacing payroll, corporate, and income taxes with higher GST and some form of progressive land tax with targeted welfare increase for those impacted is something relatively easy to show?
> 
> IF you can convince people that say $1B of income and payroll tax could be replaced by roughly just $859M, or that $1B in corporate tax revenue could be replaced via a land tax (which would be somewhere between GST and municipal rates in consumer welfare loss so say 5%) of just $632M, the changes should then be easy to get through.  The efficiency dividends of a change in the tax system away from corporate and income taxes is just so huge, yet Abbott has pretty much locked himself into not being able to make any fundamental reforms.
> 
> Factor in a month before the budget is released and the executive director of the Federal Treasury’s Revenue Group has said he's not aware of anyone in treasury having seen the commission of audit as yet, so how is the COA going to help set the direction of the budget?




Figures can prove anything I suppose.

One thing I'm sure of is that corporate tax must be a nightmare to administer, given that the tax act has bloated out from one book when I went to college to a whole bookshelf now.

What about progressively reducing deductions that corporations are currently allowed, which  can cover a multitude of sins, and at the same time reducing the company tax rate ?

That will ease the burden on the tax department allowing staff reductions, and reduce the business expense of justifying deductions, therefore making company tax more efficient.


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> Figures can prove anything I suppose.
> 
> One thing I'm sure of is that corporate tax must be a nightmare to administer, given that the tax act has bloated out from one book when I went to college to a whole bookshelf now.
> 
> What about progressively reducing deductions that corporations are currently allowed, which  can cover a multitude of sins, and at the same time reducing the company tax rate ?
> 
> That will ease the burden on the tax department allowing staff reductions, and reduce the business expense of justifying deductions, therefore making company tax more efficient.




The original Rudd MRRT was partly along those lines.  Pretty much every economics article I've read has repeatedly said that land taxes and GST are far more efficient in collecting revenue than income / corporate taxes.  There's a mountain of evidence to back up what I'm saying, heck it's one of the reasons Howard fought to bring in the GST.

I think land taxes are the simplest of all to implement.  Difficult to hide land, probably the best ownership records we have, and pretty easy to determine it's value and bring some of the true economic rent back into the public purse than constantly benefiting the private sector.

I just don't think our politicians are up to the task of explaining the issues and showing economically rational ways forward.

Personally I'd like to see the budget provide estimates of the tax expenditures.  They're a hidden tax on us all as other taxation has to be higher to account for the loss of revenue.  Even if the OECD is wrong, and say tax expenditures are only 5% of GDP, that's still the equivalent of $80B in spending or twice the current deficit.

Maybe if I use the last budget figures it gets a bit easier to understand my argument about taxation efficiency

http://www.budget.gov.au/2012-13/content/overview/html/overview_42.htm

* Income Tax 163B collected - roughly $39B consumer welfare loss

* Company and resource rent taxes collected $82.4B - roughly $33B consumer welfare loss

Lets say we bring in a land tax and broaden the GST base so as to allow a halving of the revenue received via income and corporate taxes.

So Income tax drops to $81.5B and Corporate tax to $41.2B

I'll go conservative and say that this tax change will halve the consumer welfare loss of each

So the land tax and broadening of GST will need to raise $122.7B, but in the process we've halved the consumer welfare loss of each so there's a net benefit of $36B or ~ the current cost of the aged pension.  Plenty enough to see stamp duties finally wiped out.  

If the federal Govt was smart they'd combine a progressive land tax with the ability for the states to vary the level - along the lines of how US states are able to set different sales and land tax levels.  Probably a better way to encourage development out of the capital cities, and I'd say it will help with housing affordability as building properties where land values are lower will probably start to provide better economic returns to building companies - progressively higher land tax should in theory limit how much someone is willing to pay for a property.

Combine this with a true legislation repeal day to make things easier for businesses with further corporate tax reductions paid for by corporate tax expenditure cuts, and the party that starts talking along these lines will definitely get my attention.  Abbott's in the box seat, but I don't think he has any intention of being this economically rational.

* NBN CBA - paid for an not used
* Commission of Audit - paid for and not shown to Treasury before the budget is released.

Some will argue it's not up there with "pink bats" but it's only been 7 months and this kind of waste is not a good sign.


----------



## drsmith

How the pension age might increase,

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...fast-path-to-70/story-e6frg926-1226889586494#


----------



## drsmith

Federal Treasurer Joe Hockey outlines details of Commission of Audit report ahead of release next week and the May budget.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-23/joe-hockey-outlines-details-of-commission-of-audit/5407616


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> Federal Treasurer Joe Hockey outlines details of Commission of Audit report ahead of release next week and the May budget.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-23/joe-hockey-outlines-details-of-commission-of-audit/5407616




Considering they weren't willing to show it to treasury, so hasn't really helped frame the budget, and we're now told the CoA didn't look at direct action either because as the head of the Audit has said:

“The Commission of Audit couldn’t really look at it because we didn’t have a policy to look at,” he said.
“If they had a policy and it was out there we would have had a look at it, but in the absence of any detail we couldn’t.”


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...e-emissions-20140424-zqya6.html#ixzz2zkqG7Dou

beside being a political weapon against Labor, what was the point of the expense??

I do love the honesty when Mr Sheppard said "If they had a policy.."


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> Considering they weren't willing to show it to treasury, so hasn't really helped frame the budget, and we're now told the CoA didn't look at direct action either because as the head of the Audit has said:



While there may be questions about some of this government's individual policies (as there are with all governments), it's emerging that this government is going to establish a broader long term fiscal management plan early in this term. This is something the previous government didn't do and as a consequence could only deal with the emerging fiscal situation in an increasingly reactionary way.  

The results of that both politically and in terms of resultant fiscal outcomes speak for themselves.


----------



## drsmith

More on the CoA and upcoming budget.

Politically, this is perhaps the most important point.



> But he said many of the "structural changes" the Government is proposing will be taken to the next election due in 2016.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-24/joe-hockey-on-budget/5408300


----------



## McLovin

drsmith said:


> While there may be questions about some of this government's individual policies (as there are with all governments), it's emerging that this government is going to establish a broader long term fiscal management plan early in this term. This is something the previous government didn't do and as a consequence could only deal with the emerging fiscal situation in an increasingly reactionary way.
> 
> The results of that both politically and in terms of resultant fiscal outcomes speak for themselves.




It's a bit early to be calling that isn't it? We don't know what this government will do, so far it's been all talk.


----------



## sydboy007

McLovin said:


> It's a bit early to be calling that isn't it? We don't know what this government will do, so far it's been all talk.




Loads of commissions and audits of just about everything, though few of them have been released for public scrutiny, and even less seems to have had any recommendations used.

Far cry from the transparent and responsible Government they harped on about while in opposition, but then oppositions are always pro transparency and Governments seem to keep everything as a state secret.

case in point

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...bott-with-images-of-cute-kittens-9274549.html


----------



## drsmith

Fear not young Syd.

The CoA will be released next Thursday and I'd suggest a greater proportion of its recommendations will see light of day relative to those from the Henry tax review.


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> While there may be questions about some of this government's individual policies (as there are with all governments), it's emerging that this government is going to establish a broader long term fiscal management plan early in this term. This is something the previous government didn't do and as a consequence could only deal with the emerging fiscal situation in an increasingly reactionary way.
> 
> The results of that both politically and in terms of resultant fiscal outcomes speak for themselves.




All I see is kites being flown left right and centre but happy for you if are buying all of that.


----------



## Calliope

sydboy007 said:


> .
> Far cry from the transparent and responsible Government they harped on about while in opposition, but then oppositions are always pro transparency and Governments seem to keep everything as a state secret.




I agree. They should;

Be more transparent

Lay their cards on the table

Come out of the closet

Let all state secrets be an open book

Tell the truth about their economic failings

Admit they have stuffed up

Be open to the electorate on all things 

Aim to let their truth, honesty and veracity be a model to all.

In other words, be more like the Labor/Greens. If they need help with this approach they could always ask sydboy for advice.


----------



## sydboy007

Calliope said:


> I agree. They should;
> 
> Be more transparent
> 
> Lay their cards on the table
> 
> Come out of the closet
> 
> Let all state secrets be an open book
> 
> Tell the truth about their economic failings
> 
> Admit they have stuffed up
> 
> Be open to the electorate on all things
> 
> Aim to let their truth, honesty and veracity be a model to all.
> 
> In other words, be more like the Labor/Greens. If they need help with this approach they could always ask sydboy for advice.




Always seems to be your raison d'etre that you hold up Labor as the way things should be.

I just want a Government to walk the walk rather than doing mostly the opposite to what they say they will.

Do you think it's sensible to have a CoA and not show it to Treasury, and keep it secret till just 2 weeks before the budget?  Do you think it's sensible to have direct action environmental policy so poorly defined that the Government hasn't been able to run it through any form of CBA or COA or pretty much any economic analysis?  Why spend millions of dollars on a CBA for the CBN only to have the minister say no need, just do the rollout as I've decreed even though it's rank hypocrisy because I winged at Labor for 3 years that they didn't do a CBA to justify their NBN policy.

Why does it matter what Labor did?  Unless you are holding Labor up as the way for thing to be done, and I really hope not, then shouldn't this Government be held accountable to what they said before the election, or is that a standard only to be applied to Labor?


----------



## Calliope

sydboy007 said:


> just want a Government *walk the walk* rather than doing mostly the opposite to what they say they will.




Me too. Sorry I omitted that clichÃ©. Another i forgot was "Let the sun shine in".



> I winged at Labor for 3 years that they didn't do a CBA to justify their NBN policy




Synonyms for "winged". 
feathered, elevated, fleet, wounded, lofty, rapid, swift, sublime, alate, alar, penate.

Which one did you use? Im not surprised you were ineffectual.


----------



## banco

They must think this policy is utter **** to be releasing it in the afternoon before ANZAC day:

Government releases policy white paper on Direct Action climate change plan

The Federal Government has released its detailed policy white paper on its Direct Action climate change plan.

At the core of the policy is the $2.5 billion emissions reduction fund (ERF) which the Government says will pay industry for activities that reduce carbon emissions.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-24/government-releases-climate-change-policy-white-paper/5409262


----------



## drsmith

banco said:


> Government releases policy white paper on Direct Action climate change plan



It's actually a green paper, but it looks very white on my desktop. 

http://www.environment.gov.au/syste...99a3-040705fead3b/files/erf-green-paper_1.pdf


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> It's actually a green paper, but it looks very white on my desktop.
> 
> http://www.environment.gov.au/syste...99a3-040705fead3b/files/erf-green-paper_1.pdf




It seems to be just a slightly more defined thoughty bubble to what they went to the election with.

Some initial questions I have are:

_The alternative global model is purchasing abatement. Instead of a heavy punitive tax, a 
buy-back model focuses on activities that reduce emissions. _

The money comes from general Government revenue ie taxation so someone is paying extra tax to support this.

_At the start of the Emissions Reduction Fund, a simple process would be adopted to make it 
as easy as possible for businesses to participate. Businesses could submit bids at any time 
and, at regular intervals, the Clean Energy Regulator could run tender rounds to select eligible 
offers on a lowest-cost priority basis up to a benchmark price. This benchmark would be 
commercial-in-confidence to encourage businesses to submit their lowest price. _

So there's currently no defined process, but it will be simple.

_The Clean Energy Regulator could seek redress if emissions reductions are found not to have occurred._

Could?  Why not SHOULD?  If a company breaks it's contractural obligations then shouldn't they pay back the money they've been provided?

_In the mining sector, there are opportunities to reduce fugitive emissions through destruction of waste coal mine gas._ 

Why do tax payers have to subsidise multibillion dollar mining companies for this?

_Many changes in business activities and practices reduce emissions. Those changes are often 
associated with actions to lower business costs such as energy costs. While these activities 
make a positive contribution to reducing Australia’s emissions, they do not require incentives to take place._ 

Isn't DA all about the above?

_Emissions reduction methods will be developed collaboratively with emissions reduction 
providers._

So they want to repeal the current carbon abatemnt scheme but they don't actually have a ready to go policy to replace it.

_Some of the most prospective low-cost emissions reduction opportunities exist outside major 
industrial settings, such as energy efficiency improvements in commercial buildings, more fuel 
efficient transport use and the diversion of waste from landfills._ 

Isn't this "associated with actions to lower business costs such as energy costs".  So the policy says they wont be covered, but then says they will be?

_Facility methods would be a key way in which the Emissions Reduction Fund could quickly 
facilitate large-scale emissions reduction projects across a broad range of sectors. Potential 
emissions reduction activities covered by these methods include: switching to less 
emissions-intensive fuel sources, optimising boiler efficiency and recovering waste heat within the facility._

Once again, seems very much like "associated with actions to lower business costs such as energy costs".  

_Details that are commercially sensitive, including the Government’s benchmark price for 
auctions and the price of emissions reductions in individual contracts, would be kept 
confidential in order to encourage participation and to preserve competition in auction 
processes._ 

Seriously, they believe that will happen?  What about staff that move between companies?  What about law firms or other companies that will see bids from different companies?  How do you stop gaming of the system? The airlines ran a cartel on international freight for years before being caught.


----------



## Calliope

Thanks to this buffoon we may be spared the stupidity, waste and uselessness of the Direct Action climate change plan. He would like to stop the PPL also, but i'm afraid it will get through the Senate in a modified version with Green support.


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> It's actually a green paper, but it looks very white on my desktop.
> 
> http://www.environment.gov.au/syste...99a3-040705fead3b/files/erf-green-paper_1.pdf




Short version: how to piss away $2.5 billion so we can say we have a climate change policy


----------



## drsmith

banco said:


> Short version: how to piss away $2.5 billion so we can say we have a climate change policy



I haven't actually bothered to read it.

$2.5bn is small beer compared to the carbon tax.


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> I haven't actually bothered to read it.
> 
> $2.5bn is small beer compared to the carbon tax.




The carbon tax was a TAX (ie revenue).  This is expenditure.


----------



## sydboy007

banco said:


> The carbon tax was a TAX (ie revenue).  This is expenditure.




Now now, as the Guv'ent says "The alternative global model is purchasing abatement. Instead of a heavy punitive tax, a buy-back model focuses on activities that reduce emissions."

We'll get to see what expenditures are cut to make way for DA and it's extra billion in funding.  The age of corporate rent seeking is about to be turbo charged.


----------



## Julia

Calliope said:


> Thanks to this buffoon we may be spared the stupidity, waste and uselessness of the Direct Action climate change plan.



Yes, there just may be some value in Mr Palmer after all if he can do away with this.




banco said:


> Short version: how to piss away $2.5 billion so we can say we have a climate change policy



And that's almost entirely why it was dreamed up.   They should just have had the courage to say "we do not believe in taking action unless it is along with complete global participation."

I'm not sure how devious the Liberal strategists are (or perhaps just Mr Abbott himself), but I suppose it's possible that he is taking a punt on sticking to the climate change and PPL schemes in order to please those parts of the electorate that might benefit from at least the PPL, in the belief that none of it will get through the Senate anyway?


----------



## banco

Julia said:


> Yes, there just may be some value in Mr Palmer after all if he can do away with this.
> 
> 
> 
> And that's almost entirely why it was dreamed up.   They should just have had the courage to say "we do not believe in taking action unless it is along with complete global participation."




I almost feel sorry for Greg Hunt because he gets beaten up in every interview he does trying to defend this pathetic policy.


----------



## noco

banco said:


> I almost feel sorry for Greg Hunt because he gets beaten up in every interview he does trying to defend this pathetic policy.





Greg Hunt does not impress me one bit....he always comes across as a kid who has just left high school and lacking in confidence in his own ability.........I hope Palmer has this direct action plan blocked in the senate and so save us $2.5 billion.

As for the PPL it should also be scrapped along side the carbon dioxide tax.

Yes, you are right...this is Noco speaking from the cuff.


----------



## drsmith

banco said:


> The carbon tax was a TAX (ie revenue).  This is expenditure.



The compensation is expenditure.

The cost of implementation, maintenance and compliance is expenditure.

The cost this nation transfers overseas as an ETS is a loss of wealth to this nation.

Both the carbon tax and the Coalition's direct action are duds in my view but the latter is less of a dud and at least has the virtue of being something a government said it would do during an election campaign as opposed to something a government said it would not do.


----------



## drsmith

The Medicare levy is already set to increase from July this year as partial funding for the NDIS and there are now media reports about a debt levy in the upcoming budget.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...dget-says-report/story-fnmbxsh3-1226897147747

This in my view would be a significant breach of trust as was the superannuation surcharge in the first term of the Howard Government.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> The Medicare levy is already set to increase from July this year as partial funding for the NDIS and there are now media reports about a debt levy in the upcoming budget.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...dget-says-report/story-fnmbxsh3-1226897147747
> 
> This in my view would be a significant breach of trust as was the superannuation surcharge in the first term of the Howard Government.




With ~$120B in tax expenditures each year, practically the highest level in the OECD, I'd say cutting back on some of them would be a fairer way to distribute the pain of balancing the budget.  Combine that with a move away from corporate and income taxes to a broadened GST and progressive land tax and I'd say getting the budget back to surplus is easy.  The hard part is having the leadership to steer the public to understanding this is the best way forward, and neither Abbott or Hockey so far have shown much ticker for the task.

Another problem is tax expenditures generally benefit the L+NP voters more, so movement from Hockey on them is most likely not on the agenda, thought I am hoping the mooted NG changes for housing do eventuate.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> With ~$120B in tax expenditures each year, practically the highest level in the OECD, I'd say cutting back on some of them would be a fairer way to distribute the pain of balancing the budget.  Combine that with a move away from corporate and income taxes to a broadened GST and progressive land tax and I'd say getting the budget back to surplus is easy.  The hard part is having the leadership to steer the public to understanding this is the best way forward, and neither Abbott or Hockey so far have shown much ticker for the task.
> 
> Another problem is tax expenditures generally benefit the L+NP voters more, so movement from Hockey on them is most likely not on the agenda, thought I am hoping the mooted NG changes for housing do eventuate.





Ya gotta keep  Australia MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVING   FOOOOOOOOOOOOOORWARD.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Ya gotta keep  Australia MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVING   FOOOOOOOOOOOOOORWARD.





But to do that you have to borrow, was called investing in the future.

But now we move the otherway, BACKWARDS, with a surplass.


----------



## sptrawler

explod said:


> But to do that you have to borrow, was called investing in the future.
> 
> But now we move the otherway, BACKWARDS, with a surplass.




You are right plod, it's a shame Labor didn't win the election.

If Labor had won, we would have a surplus real soon, as Wayne kept promising.

Also we wouldn't have any budget cuts, only extra budget spending on Gonski, NDIS, extra 10,000 asylum seekers.

Ah the good old days, where you get cheques in the mail to buy a t.v, what a life.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Ya gotta keep  Australia MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVING   FOOOOOOOOOOOOOORWARD.




Meaningful tax reform is moving forward.  Unless there's some major surprises on budget night I'd say Abbott and Hockey are all about keeping in place.

Check out page 12 of the attachment and see if you think we're getting reasonable value for the 10s of billions in tax expenditures that successive Governments have bequeathed to the rentier classes.

The top 4 amount to over $61B.  Broadening the GST base could net around $16B in extra revenue, providing enough money to cut income AND corporate taxes while providing a far more stable income base for the states than stamp duty.  The efficiency gains would amount to billions of extra economic activity.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> Meaningful tax reform is moving forward.  Unless there's some major surprises on budget night I'd say Abbott and Hockey are all about keeping in place.
> 
> Check out page 12 of the attachment and see if you think we're getting reasonable value for the 10s of billions in tax expenditures that successive Governments have bequeathed to the rentier classes.
> 
> The top 4 amount to over $61B.  Broadening the GST base could net around $16B in extra revenue, providing enough money to cut income AND corporate taxes while providing a far more stable income base for the states than stamp duty.  The efficiency gains would amount to billions of extra economic activity.



It is inevitable that the GST will be increased, either as an increase to the rate or broadening of the base (or both ). It's just a question of how long it takes cash strapped state governments to go to the feds with the unified begging bowl in hand.

I would prefer to see a broadening of the base. This would reduce the complexity between GST free/GST items and represent how it was originally intended to be implemented. It will depend though on what compromises have to be made with balance of power senators. The base of the current GST was after all a compromise with the Democrats.


----------



## noco

noco said:


> Ya gotta keep  Australia MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVING   FOOOOOOOOOOOOOORWARD.




Ahla Juliar Gillard.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> It is inevitable that the GST will be increased, either as an increase to the rate or broadening of the base (or both ). It's just a question of how long it takes cash strapped state governments to go to the feds with the unified begging bowl in hand.
> 
> I would prefer to see a broadening of the base. This would reduce the complexity between GST free/GST items and represent how it was originally intended to be implemented. It will depend though on what compromises have to be made with balance of power senators. The base of the current GST was after all a compromise with the Democrats.




States can follow the lead of the ACT and bring in a broadly based progressive land tax.

It works well in the USA as each state has varying levels of land tax so there's competition at the taxation level too.  It's a very stable tax in terms of revenue with the added advantange of being extremely efficient to collect and far less distorting that stamp duties and pretty much any other form of tax.

The tools to resolve our Government revenue problems are within easy reach.  The problem is there's no political will to actually make the changes.  The fact we have such divisiveness between the political parties also makes any meaningful reform difficult, but I still believe good policy is eventually rewarded by voters.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> But to do that you have to borrow, was called investing in the future.
> 
> But now we move the otherway, BACKWARDS, with a surplass.




Maybe we should clear our guilty conscience and hand back our $900 cheques compliments of the Labor Party, because we are now going to pay it back whether we like it or not.


----------



## McLovin

I think the idea of a debt levy is one of the most comical things to come out of Canberra in years. Just fix the freakin' problem on the revenue and spending side and get on with it.


----------



## noco

McLovin said:


> I think the idea of a debt levy is one of the most comical things to come out of Canberra in years. Just fix the freakin' problem on the revenue and spending side and get on with it.




What are your suggestions? ......I would certainly not like to be in Hockey's shoe trying to clean up the mess created by Labor 2007 to 2013 and Hawke and Keating agree.


----------



## Calliope

noco said:


> What are your suggestions? ......I would certainly not like to be in Hockey's shoe trying to clean up the mess created by Labor 2007 to 2013 and Hawke and Keating agree.




Hockey doesn't sound so cocky lately.


----------



## McLovin

noco said:


> What are your suggestions? ......I would certainly not like to be in Hockey's shoe trying to clean up the mess created by Labor 2007 to 2013 and Hawke and Keating agree.




The debt is not a problem, the trajectory of the budget is. I can't think of anything more idiotic than even pretending to fix the budget problem with a "levy" that will be phased out by the next election.

So what are my suggestions? Get rid of NG, roll back family allowance, scrap that moronic PPL, start taxing pension payments out of super over a certain amount, increase the GST, remove the CGT discount, bring back indexation of fuel excise. It wouldn't surprise me if after all that you had some wiggle room for personal income tax cuts and a cut to the company tax rate, which is overdue, IMO.

The government's redistributive power should be used to create a safety net and should be genuinely redistributive. At the moment it's taking from Peter to pay_ Peter_.


----------



## sydboy007

McLovin said:


> So what are my suggestions? Get rid of NG, roll back family allowance, scrap that moronic PPL, start taxing pension payments out of super over a certain amount, increase the GST, remove the CGT discount, bring back indexation of fuel excise. It wouldn't surprise me if after all that you had some wiggle room for personal income tax cuts and a cut to the company tax rate, which is overdue, IMO.




I agree with all except maybe just broadening the GST base instead of raising it, and encouraging the states to introduce a land tax and get rid of the stupid stamp duties, especially on insurance.

This levy idiocy is purely for politics.  Just admit it's a tax, because at the end of the day if the Government is taxing a % of extra money from me then it's a fracking tax.


----------



## McLovin

sydboy007 said:


> I agree with all except maybe just broadening the GST base instead of raising it, and encouraging the states to introduce a land tax and get rid of the stupid stamp duties, especially on insurance.




When people talk about broadening the base I see that as implementing what would be an extremely regressive tax on the poor. I really wouldn't want to see basic food being taxed. 

No arguments about stamp duties, state government revenue is far too exposed to the ups and downs of the property market.


----------



## sydboy007

McLovin said:


> When people talk about broadening the base I see that as implementing what would be an extremely regressive tax on the poor. I really wouldn't want to see basic food being taxed.
> 
> No arguments about stamp duties, state government revenue is far too exposed to the ups and downs of the property market.




The problem is that spending on non GST goods and services is rising faster than GDP, so to leave it out means the current GCT base is part of a diminishing share of the economy.

I can sort of understand exempting food, or maybe we need to follow the UK and have a couple of rates for GST with the "essentials" at 10% and the rest at a higher rate.

We at least need to start having a "grown up" discussion on the issue.  Relying on corporate and income taxes as much as we do is a recipe for stagnation.

A few weeks back, Treasury Secretary, Martin Parkinson, claimed that the typical full-time employee would be paying tax of 39 ¢ in the dollar by 2015-16, up from 31 ¢ in the dollar. He also noted that:

_Continued increases in the personal income tax burden will hit lower and middle income earners with higher marginal and average tax rates. This will have adverse labour force participation impacts, while sharpening incentives for tax minimisation by higher income earners._

As the socialist Gittins said recently

_The average full-time wage next financial year, 2014-15, will be about $76,000. On the basis of reasonable assumptions about the growth in wages over the three years to 2017-18, you can calculate that someone on half the average wage would see the proportion of their wage that they lose in tax increase by 3.5 cents in the dollar.

For someone on the average wage the increase would be 2 cents in the dollar. On twice the average wage it’s 1.1 cents. And on six times the average wage it’s 0.8 cents.

Now that’s regressive._

GST is a far more efficient tax.  I'm sure with broadening the base there is ample room to ensure the bottom 3 deciles are not left worse off.

The below graph from the Henry Tax review shows just how inefficient corporate and income taxes are, so there's ample room for land taxes and GST to be set to recover less income, but in fact recover more due to less consumer welfare loss.

The current debt bad, surplus good, sell all Government monopolies and assets good, under invest in public infrastructure good when it makes attaining a surplus easier has to stop.  Heck, I'd like to see a massive reduction in immigration till all levels of Government come up with a coherent plan on how to fund the infrastructure required for this dubya stoopid big Australia by default policy.


----------



## sydboy007

Before 2007 a temporary levy was not a tax nor was it temporary
In the years 2007-2013 a temporary levy was just another great big tax
Post September 2013 a levy is but a temporary measure and certainly not a tax

A levy on high earners before 2007 was an illusion
A levy on high earners from 2007-2013 was class warfare
A levy on high earners from Sept 2013 is everyone doing their bit for Australia


----------



## McLovin

sydboy007 said:


> The problem is that spending on non GST goods and services is rising faster than GDP, so to leave it out means the current GCT base is part of a diminishing share of the economy.
> 
> I can sort of understand exempting food, or maybe we need to follow the UK and have a couple of rates for GST with the "essentials" at 10% and the rest at a higher rate.




Is it really food though or healthcare? If it's healthcare then a good place to start might be shifting more people into private health care, not through the carrot approach of paying for it but by saying if you earn over $x/year then you need to have private health insurance. The Medicare levy is far too low, especially now that it has been saddled with the burden of the NDIS.

I really don't like all these piecemeal changes that gutless governments have taken to. If reports are correct, it looks like I will be on a marginal rate of 50% thanks to Tony.

I never got my $900 either.


----------



## sydboy007

McLovin said:


> Is it really food though or healthcare? If it's healthcare then a good place to start might be shifting more people into private health care, not through the carrot approach of paying for it but by saying if you earn over $x/year then you need to have private health insurance. The Medicare levy is far too low, especially now that it has been saddled with the burden of the NDIS.
> 
> I really don't like all these piecemeal changes that gutless governments have taken to. If reports are correct, it looks like I will be on a marginal rate of 50% thanks to Tony.
> 
> I never got my $900 either.




I'm not sold on private healthcare.  The US experience shows it can provide poorer services at higher cost than the public system.

Personally I'd prefer to see more imput from nurses taken on board as to how to drive efficiency gain, along with better use of technology.  Certainly could look to some of the best practices from the private sector in India and US.  Private healthcare in Australia is more about queue jumping that relieving demand in the public sector.

yes, political ticker is in short supply these days.

His spiel about not breaking his pre election promise is just painful.  I have more respect for someone who says I made a mistake, and  this is what I'm going to do to make it right, than the person who spends all their effort trying defend the indefensible.

Meaningful tax reform rather than the crapola band aids we've had for years is what we need.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> I'm not sold on private healthcare.  The US experience shows it can provide poorer services at higher cost than the public system.
> 
> Personally I'd prefer to see more imput from nurses taken on board as to how to drive efficiency gain, along with better use of technology.  Certainly could look to some of the best practices from the private sector in India and US.  Private healthcare in Australia is more about queue jumping that relieving demand in the public sector.
> 
> yes, political ticker is in short supply these days.
> 
> His spiel about not breaking his pre election promise is just painful.  I have more respect for someone who says I made a mistake, and  this is what I'm going to do to make it right, than the person who spends all their effort trying defend the indefensible.
> 
> Meaningful tax reform rather than the crapola band aids we've had for years is what we need.




Yes the Fairfax media are beating it up, as usual.
Any effort to fix the deficit, will obviously be met by Fairfax anti Abbott press. Seems a shame they don't appear to put Australia first.IMO


----------



## banco

sptrawler said:


> Yes the Fairfax media are beating it up, as usual.
> Any effort to fix the deficit, will obviously be met by Fairfax anti Abbott press. Seems a shame they don't appear to put Australia first.IMO




So if they don't agree with your/abbott's policy views they are not putting Australia first?


----------



## noco

Tony Abbott has relented on some of his PPL scheme under pressure no doubt from within his own party and perhaps from some of the independents.

It has now been capped at $50,000.

Under the current economic circumstances, I would have preferred the whole scheme be abandoned altogether.

But at least it will stop Bill Shorten raving on as though every woman having a baby was to have received $75,000.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...cutoff-to-100000/story-fn59niix-1226900259004


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Tony Abbott has relented on some of his PPL scheme under pressure no doubt from within his own party and perhaps from some of the independents.
> 
> It has now been capped at $50,000.
> 
> Under the current economic circumstances, I would have preferred the whole scheme be abandoned altogether.
> 
> But at least it will stop Bill Shorten raving on as though every woman having a baby was to have received $75,000.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...cutoff-to-100000/story-fn59niix-1226900259004




The PPL was Abbott's 'signature policy'. It may have won him the election. If he's now going to back down and break his promise on this  then if he had any decency he would resign as PM.


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> The PPL was Abbott's 'signature policy'. It may have won him the election. If he's now going to back down and break his promise on this  then if he had any decency he would resign as PM.




We would run out of Prime Ministers very quickly.


----------



## dutchie

SirRumpole said:


> The PPL was Abbott's 'signature policy'. It may have won him the election. If he's now going to back down and break his promise on this  then if he had any decency he would resign as PM.




Actually I think he would have won with a bigger margin if he had not taken it to the election.

He will get more kudos than criticism if he drops it all together irrespective of the "broken promise" factor.


----------



## SirRumpole

dutchie said:


> Actually I think he would have won with a bigger margin if he had not taken it to the election.
> 
> He will get more kudos than criticism if he drops it all together irrespective of the "broken promise" factor.




He'll get kudos from the business sector and some in his own party, but whether the electorate will forgive him is another matter.

They didn't forgive Gillard for the carbon tax.


----------



## Junior

The 'deficit levy' is a disgrace.  If you're going to impose a significant increase in income taxes at least give more than a couple of months warning, and proper justification for it.  Our deficit and government debt levels are low by international standards, if it's so concerning scrap the Parental Leave scheme, don't spend $12 billion on planes and tighten up Age Pension asset test and indexing.  Income tax is already growing every year via bracket creep.

It's short term wealth transfer from middle/upper class workers to middle/upper class who choose to give birth, and can probably afford it without government assistance.  Ridiculous and unnecessary from a Government who rattled on about 'not getting in the way of growth' and no new taxes or increase in taxes.

Most of my friends are around 30 years and earning 70-110k.  Most have a significant HECS debt.  This means you lose 7-8% of gross salary to HECS repayments, potentially 1% to Deficit levy and 23-30% in regular income tax.  

It's a bit much!!


----------



## Calliope

SirRumpole said:


> He'll get kudos from the business sector and some in his own party, but whether the electorate will forgive him is another matter.




Nonsense. The electorate" hates the PPL. They would say "good riddance" if he dropped it all together. Direct Action on climate change is another stupid policy promise he should drop. Anothe stupid promise he should break is not to cut the ABC.



> They didn't forgive Gillard for the carbon tax




But Shorten and the Greens love it. So I can only assume that they think the electorate loves it. Or are they just crazy?


----------



## SirRumpole

Calliope said:


> Nonsense. The electorate" hates the PPL. They would say "good riddance" if he dropped it all together.




What's your basis for saying that ? Never get between a voter and a bucket of money.


----------



## drsmith

Junior said:


> The 'deficit levy' is a disgrace.  If you're going to impose a significant increase in income taxes at least give more than a couple of months warning, and proper justification for it.  Our deficit and government debt levels are low by international standards, if it's so concerning scrap the Parental Leave scheme, don't spend $12 billion on planes and tighten up Age Pension asset test and indexing.  Income tax is already growing every year via bracket creep.
> 
> It's short term wealth transfer from middle/upper class workers to middle/upper class who choose to give birth, and can probably afford it without government assistance.  Ridiculous and unnecessary from a Government who rattled on about 'not getting in the way of growth' and no new taxes or increase in taxes.
> 
> Most of my friends are around 30 years and earning 70-110k.  Most have a significant HECS debt.  This means you lose 7-8% of gross salary to HECS repayments, potentially 1% to Deficit levy and 23-30% in regular income tax.
> 
> It's a bit much!!



I agree that it's a disgrace but some of the numbers getting thrown around in the media are I would suggest nonsense. There's no way the government is going to slug someone who earns $80k an additional $800 tax (1%) at the point of reaching that income. 

If they do introduce it, I would suggest it will be progressive. For example, an additional 1% on that part of income above $80k, rising to 2% on that part above $180k. Someone therefore on $80k wouldn't pay any extra, someone on $100k would pay $200 extra and so on.

The government has not only put a politically bad idea in the public domain but its marketing to the public by the same government has been even worse by not providing some firm numbers and thus allowing a level of media speculation that really scares the horses. The latest I see in the Fairfax press is this,



> The Abbott government is likely to introduce the tax at a low level for incomes near $100,000, then gradually increase it with income to avoid a sudden step-up in tax. The tax will likely stop climbing when it hits 2 per cent.




That could mean a range of things.

This so-called deficit tax idea has become a political disaster for this government, both in terms of policy principal and its marketing and for Tony Abbott in particular. Even if they ultimately back away from it, the stench of deceit will remain and that at a time when Tony Abbott as PM needs to build his credibility, not destroy it.

The Medicare levy is already going to increase by 0.5% in July so even the timing is terrible.

My local Liberal member is about to get an email.

Idiots. 

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...rs-hardest-hit-in-new-tax-20140429-zr1el.html


----------



## McLovin

dutchie said:


> He will get more kudos than criticism if he drops it all together irrespective of the "broken promise" factor.




Of course he'll still have that messy broken promise about no new taxes. Seriously, it just completely baffles me how someone can be so dumb as to run a campaign for three years about a broken promise of not introducing a new tax and promising not to do the same and then introducing one at your first budget. It's schoolboy stuff.

Tony's biggest problem seems to be that he thinks his landslide was due to his popularity and trust in the electorate.


----------



## Calliope

SirRumpole said:


> What's your basis for saying that ? Never get between a voter and a bucket of money.




Ponder this; 



> *Should Tony Abbott ditch his paid parental leave scheme?*
> 
> 
> No. Parental leave should be paid at a person's full wage. 5%
> 
> 
> Yes. The country can't afford it. 55%
> 
> 
> No. We need to help parents in the workforce as much as we can. 0%
> 
> 
> Yes. The current parental leave scheme is adequate. 38%




This is only a small regional poll, but *even you* should get the drift.

http://www.gladstoneobserver.com.au/news/todays-poll-should-pm-ditch-paid-parental-leave-pl/2244108/


----------



## chode84

Ha Gladstone. Full of men. I don't think anyone even has kids in Gladstone any more. It looks like cancer central from above.


----------



## sydboy007

Calliope said:


> Nonsense. The electorate" hates the PPL. They would say "good riddance" if he dropped it all together. Direct Action on climate change is another stupid policy promise he should drop.




Still leaves him with an open wound till the next election for another broken promise.  Abbott ranted about Gillards' integrity.  It was all black and white, so he'll most likely be judged in a similar vein.

I think Abbott is having a very difficult time adjusting to being in Government and responsible for policy, than being in opposition and able to just whinge about things without offering much constructive policy.

To me the defining point will be how much of the CoA is sidelined.  From the sounds of it they will throw it in the circular filling cabinet next to their desk much like Labor did with the Henry Tax Review.


----------



## Junior

drsmith said:


> I agree that it's a disgrace but some of the numbers getting thrown around in the media are I would suggest nonsense. There's no way the government is going to slug someone who earns $80k an additional $800 tax (1%) at the point of reaching that income.
> 
> If they do introduce it, I would suggest it will be progressive. For example, an additional 1% on that part of income above $80k, rising to 2% on that part above $180k. Someone therefore on $80k wouldn't pay any extra, someone on $100k would pay $200 extra and so on.
> 
> The government has not only put a politically bad idea in the public domain but its marketing to the public by the same government has been even worse by not providing some firm numbers and thus allowing a level of media speculation that really scares the horses. The latest I see in the Fairfax press is this,
> 
> 
> 
> That could mean a range of things.
> 
> This so-called deficit tax idea has become a political disaster for this government, both in terms of policy principal and its marketing and for Tony Abbott in particular. Even if they ultimately back away from it, the stench of deceit will remain and that at a time when Tony Abbott as PM needs to build his credibility, not destroy it.
> 
> The Medicare levy is already going to increase by 0.5% in July so even the timing is terrible.
> 
> My local Liberal member is about to get an email.
> 
> Idiots.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...rs-hardest-hit-in-new-tax-20140429-zr1el.html




If that's the case it's not such a big hit....I read several articles about this tax and it's been described as 'cutting in' at $80,000, but also being described as an extra $800 for someone earning $80,000.  As you said....very very poorly marketed.  If it was marketed as a tax on the 'top 1%', or only high income earners it would be far easier for most to swallow.  

In any case, dumb policy, terrible timing and completely unnecessary!


----------



## Calliope

sydboy007 said:


> Still leaves him with an open wound till the next election for another broken promise.  Abbott ranted about Gillards' integrity.  It was all black and white, so he'll most likely be judged in a similar vein.
> 
> I think Abbott is having a very difficult time adjusting to being in Government and responsible for policy, than being in opposition and able to just whinge about things without offering much constructive policy.




I agree. His problem is that he made stupid promises when there was no need to  make them, and which he now is regretting and running ****-scared of breaking. The Royal Commission into union corruption was one of his more sound  promises. It virtually guarantees him the next election without trying to buy votes by making silly promises.

He might then start acting like a prime minister instead of a rabbit in the headlights.


----------



## SirRumpole

Calliope said:


> The Royal Commission into union corruption was one of his more sound  promises. It virtually guarantees him the next election without trying to buy votes by making silly promises.




Who are you kidding ? The taint of Liberal Party fundraising shenanigans is starting to spread and potentially affects all candidates because of the centralised funding model.

Abbott may well have made a noose for his own party's neck.


----------



## trainspotter

Governments of the day should realise that they are not voted in on their policies or how well they have the trust of the voting public. The reason they are voted in is because we get SICK of the EEEJITS running the country at the time. :aus:


----------



## Calliope

SirRumpole said:


> Who are you kidding ? The taint of Liberal Party fundraising shenanigans is starting to spread and potentially affects all candidates because of the centralised funding model.
> 
> Abbott may well have made a noose for his own party's neck.




You hope.

Abbott's inguiry into Union corruption and the cancer it has spread amongst Labor Federal politicians will completely over- shadow Rumpole's ineffectual little inquiry into Liberal Party corruption. Forget NSW, Labor leads on the corruption meter there by a large margin.

I kid you not.


----------



## drsmith

Some numbers on the deficit tax that make more sense even if the levy itself still doesn't.



> As revealed in yesterday’s Herald Sun, the new levy will see a 1 per cent increase to people’s income tax — from 37c to 38c in the dollar — for earnings of $80,000 to $180,000.
> 
> But the tax will not be as extreme as we reported, with the first $80,000 that people earn not subject to it.
> 
> A person on $80,000 would therefore not pay any extra, while a person on $100,000 would pay an additional $200 income tax, and someone earning $150,000 would pay $700 more.
> 
> The income tax rate would rise by 2 per cent (45c to 47c) for all earnings above $180,000, meaning a person earning $200,000 would pay $1400 more.
> 
> These rates do not include the Medicare levy or the disability care levy, which when included would see the top earners taxed at 49c in the dollar.



With Medicare (2%) included, the effective income tax rates from $80k to $180k are 40% and 49% above $180k.

The combined effects of the 0.5% Medicare levy increase and deficit tax would from the above be as follows,

Income  Extra tax (0.5% Medicare levy increase + deficit tax)
$50,000  $250
$80,000  $400
$100,000  $700 ($500 + $200)
$150,000  $1450 ($750 + $700)
$180,000  $1900 ($900 + $1000)
$200,000  $2400 ($1000 + $1400)

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...ver-new-debt-tax/story-fni0fit3-1226900288574


----------



## Julia

sydboy007 said:


> Still leaves him with an open wound till the next election for another broken promise.  Abbott ranted about Gillards' integrity.  It was all black and white, so he'll most likely be judged in a similar vein.
> 
> I think Abbott is having a very difficult time adjusting to being in Government and responsible for policy, than being in opposition and able to just whinge about things without offering much constructive policy.






Calliope said:


> I agree. His problem is that he made stupid promises when there was no need to  make them, and which he now is regretting and running ****-scared of breaking.



+1 to both above.   I'd hoped that Mr Abbott would somehow be able to remake himself when in government, but it just hasn't happened.   He's a very poor communicator and has demonstrated woeful judgement in several instances.  
He has only made the concession on the PPL because it was obvious the policy would be rolled in the Senate, even if it got through the lower house with several of his own people threatening to cross the floor on it.

If we must have a PPL at all, it would be better to leave the more modest Labor one in place imo.

His stupid obfuscating about a deficit levy not being a tax because 'it's only temporary' makes him look far more foolish than if he were just to be upfront about it.



trainspotter said:


> Governments of the day should realise that they are not voted in on their policies or how well they have the trust of the voting public. The reason they are voted in is because we get SICK of the EEEJITS running the country at the time. :aus:



Yes, exactly.  The desire to get Labor out was overwhelming but I doubt many people who voted for the Coalition did so because of any belief that Mr Abbott would be an ideal Prime Minister.  I hoped he would grow into the role but would now prefer to see Joe Hockey running things.  Mr Abbott seems to have so many peculiar blind spots.  Even silly, unimportant stuff like the Knights and Dames nonsense damages his credibility.


----------



## dutchie

Julia said:


> Yes, exactly.  The desire to get Labor out was overwhelming but I doubt many people who voted for the Coalition did so because of any belief that Mr Abbott would be an ideal Prime Minister.  I hoped he would grow into the role but would now prefer to see Joe Hockey running things.  Mr Abbott seems to have so many peculiar blind spots.  Even silly, unimportant stuff like the Knights and Dames nonsense damages his credibility.




+1

Politicians just don't seem to have any common sense.


----------



## banco

Calliope said:


> I agree. His problem is that he made stupid promises when there was no need to  make them, and which he now is regretting and running ****-scared of breaking. The Royal Commission into union corruption was one of his more sound  promises. It virtually guarantees him the next election without trying to buy votes by making silly promises.
> 
> He might then start acting like a prime minister instead of a rabbit in the headlights.




You've got to be kidding.  Unless Shorten himself is direcly implicated it will make little difference.  Your average punter doesn't pay attention to findings of Royal Commissions (particuarly on complicated matters).


----------



## noco

trainspotter said:


> Governments of the day should realise that they are not voted in on their policies or how well they have the trust of the voting public. The reason they are voted in is because we get SICK of the EEEJITS running the country at the time. :aus:




I guess, at the end of the day, it is a matter choosing the lesser of two evils.


----------



## drsmith

noco said:


> I guess, at the end of the day, it is a matter choosing the lesser of two evils.



A political strategy yes, but in terms of future governments, that may not be how it ultimately works out.



> While the two major parties continue to defecate in their own aeries, the loss of public faith will shift voter support to minor and single interest parties, none of whom are disposed to ever form government in their own right and thus can promise whatever they please or, more appropriately, whatever they think will please voters.
> 
> The ultimate consequences remain some way off but we are heading inexorably towards them; where minority governments, coalitions of political convenience, celebrity candidates pursuing self-interest, tormented administration and public policy distorted by miserable compromise – in short democracy Italian style – become the order of the day.




We of course had a taste of that with the previous government.

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com...eaustralian/comments/when_is_a_tax_not_a_tax/


----------



## Calliope

banco said:


> You've got to be kidding.  Unless Shorten himself is direcly implicated it will make little difference.  Your average punter doesn't pay attention to findings of Royal Commissions (particuarly on complicated matters).




There's nothing complicated about this one mate. It will dominate the news media...especially if Gillard and Bruce Wilson have to appear. Justice will be served. It will be the final nail in Labor's coffin. You must be pretty full of yourself if you think "your average punter" is a fool.


----------



## SirRumpole

Calliope said:


> There's nothing complicated about this one mate. It will dominate the news media...especially if Gillard and Bruce Wilson have to appear. Justice will be served. It will be the final nail in Labor's coffin. You must be pretty full of yourself if you think "your average punter" is a fool.




Gillard and Wilson don't matter any more, they are old news. If Shorten was vulnerable to this enquiry, Labor would have been silly to make him leader in the first place, and he would have been silly to run.

 Meanwhile Liberal pollies are going down like flies in NSW, and North Shore Sydney is Liberal party heartland and contains the two biggest figures in the Federal Liberal party , Abbott and Hockey. 

Sinodinus is already tainted, Hockey and Abbott may find it hard to avoid being tainted as well.


----------



## McLovin

Julia said:


> Mr Abbott seems to have so many peculiar blind spots.  Even silly, unimportant stuff like the Knights and Dames nonsense damages his credibility.




This is what I thought he'd be like although he seems to be even more out of touch. Like you said, he just doesn't seem to understand that he's not there because of his own popularity. The Knights and Dames nonsense was a minor indulgence but not one that a new, unpopular PM six months into the job has a mandate to introduce, especially without even consulting with his ministers. Whether he likes it or not, a good percentage of Australians do not like the idea of a monarchy and all the antiquated drivel that accompanies it, heck a good portion of his front bench doesn't! So in what world does he believe he has the right to unilaterally reintroduce knights and dames?

One gets the feeling that he really doesn't read the electorate very well. The insular peninsula is a not weathervane of the Australian public, it's not even a weathervane of Sydney, Abbott needs to learn that fast.

Abbott is living up to everything I thought he would be.


----------



## trainspotter

noco said:


> I guess, at the end of the day, it is a matter choosing the lesser of two evils.




If I had known Tony was gonna chuck 12.4 billion on some war planes and then hit me for a debt levy after doubling the debt ceiling, I am sure as the Pope has a pointy hat that I would not have voted for them 

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2014/04/23/00/04/australia-to-spend-12-4b-on-fighter-jets



> In any event, successive federal governments have been squirrelling away funds for the program.
> The $12.4 billion was *not new money* and would have no impact on the already-tight May budget, Mr Abbott said.




Not new money ?? HUH ??? If ya got that kinda money laying around - CHUCK IT AT THE MAY BUDGET !!! 

Planes, Dames & rooting the Automobile industry (apologies to John Hughes)


----------



## Calliope

SirRumpole said:


> Gillard and Wilson don't matter any more, they are old news.




You wish.



> If Shorten was vulnerable to this enquiry, Labor would have been silly to make him leader in the first place, and he would have been silly to run.




They were...and he was.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> If we must have a PPL at all, it would be better to leave the more modest Labor one in place imo.




And reduce the Public Services generous PPL to the level that everyone else gets



> His stupid obfuscating about a deficit levy not being a tax because 'it's only temporary' makes him look far more foolish than if he were just to be upfront about it.




Do we really need a stupid and foolish person as Prime Minister ?


----------



## Calliope

Abbott's great big new tax.


----------



## McLovin

SirRumpole said:


> And reduce the Public Services generous PPL to the level that everyone else gets




And increase public service wages to match the private sector? Quid pro quo.


----------



## wayneL

McLovin said:


> And increase public service wages to match the private sector? ]




Perhaps..... if they increased their performance to match the private sector?


----------



## dutchie

SirRumpole said:


> Do we really need a stupid and foolish person as Prime Minister ?




Certainly not. We don't want a repeat of the previous six years.


----------



## McLovin

Jeff Kennett gets it.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2014/s3995463.htm


----------



## Calliope

There will be no new taxes under a government I lead.


----------



## trainspotter

trainspotter said:


> Governments of the day should realise that they are not voted in on their policies or how well they have the trust of the voting public. The reason they are voted in is because we get SICK of the EEEJITS running the country at the time. :aus:






> JEFF KENNETT: Let's just recap the reality of life as we see it. Firstly, oppositions don't win government, governments lose office.




http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2014/s3995463.htm

Notice the subtle difference? (Thanks McLovin)


----------



## qldfrog

who would have thought I would ever say that but I wish Kennet was in charge instead of preparing to be taxed as mad while wasting billions on pensiosn, fighter jets, submarines, mandatory super,maternal leave
absolutel;y appaled.
We had a worst nightmare government with Julia G and keep the same dum ass management with the current government..
I had hope at least some sanity on the finance side with the liberals


----------



## Junior

Kennett's plan at least has logic on it's side, but it still involves boosting tax revenue, which I will never support while there's still significant scope to reduce unnecessary Government expenditure (defense, welfare, PPL).

I always found Abbott to be an unpleasant character (like most politicians), but I did make the mistake of believing him when he said no new taxes.  He said it so many f***ing times, 'no new taxes' and 'no surprises'.  

Both total rubbish less than a year down the track.


----------



## sydboy007

maybe Joe and Tony can take this info from the ATO to heart.  Some big $$$ there just ripe for the saving.

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has just released its 2011-12 Taxation Statistics, which once again revealed Australia is a nation of loss-making landlords, with 15% of taxpayers owning rental properties declaring a combined $7.86 billion of losses.

According to the ATO, there were 1,895,775 property investors in Australia in 2011-12, up from 1,811,175 in 2010-11 

Some more interesting (worrying?) facts that can be deduced from the ATO data includes:


Just over 1 in 7 (1,895,775) Australian taxpayers are a property investor (either negatively geared or positively geared), claiming a total of $7.859 billion in rental losses;
1 in 10 Australian taxpayers (1,266,540) are a negatively geared property investor claiming a total of $13.799 billion in rental losses;
The average income loss for all property investors in 2011-12 was $4,146; and
The average income loss for all *negatively geared* property investors in 2011-12 was *$10,895.*

With the massive increase in IP loans over the last 18 months I am expecting these figures to really blow out for the next few years, worse still when interest rates start rising and losses really take off.


----------



## Logique

If I could sum up the Abbott government in 2014,

they're using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. Lurching to the extreme right, and if you don't believe me, read the Bolt blog these days. Wake up to yourself Andrew Bolt, who's the extremist now.

At this rate, Labor will be back next time. 

In 2014, the Abbott government's electoral WorkCover is:

i) 6 months Paid Parental Leave, and 
ii) Medicare co-payment


----------



## sydboy007

Logique said:


> If I could sum up the Abbott government in 2014,
> 
> they're using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. Lurching to the extreme right, and if you don't believe me, read the Bolt blog these days. Wake up to yourself Andrew Bolt, who's the extremist now.
> 
> At this rate, Labor will be back next time.
> 
> In 2014, the Abbott government's electoral WorkCover is:
> 
> i) 6 months Paid Parental Leave, and
> ii) Medicare co-payment




Cheer up.  GG still thinks Tony will be the best PM Australia ever had.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Cheer up.  GG still thinks Tony will be the best PM Australia ever had.




I don't know about GG, but if he turns the bludger mentality of Australia around, he will be. Maybe you think another round of Labor splash of dumb cash, would somehow work out better, in the longer term.

You can only keep throwing money away like Labor for so long before it comes home to roost. Or maybe you think they were about to turn it around, jeez give me a break.

In a perverse way, I hope Labor do get in, it will make the medicine even worse as things blow out further and further. Then gen x and y will never be able to retire, what goes around comes around.


----------



## Ves

sptrawler said:


> Then gen x and y will never be able to retire, what goes around comes around.



That's amusing because some of them already have retired.   Before the preceding generations.

I'm mystified by some of the sentiments in here at times.   It is if people are under the illusion that the government has a fair bit of control over their actions.  

Not just your post sptrawler....   but some of your comments echoed what I have seen a lot on here and in the media. "You'll never get to do this because of the government....." Utter tripe.


----------



## waterbottle

Junior said:


> Kennett's plan at least has logic on it's side, but it still involves boosting tax revenue, which I will never support while there's still significant scope to reduce unnecessary Government expenditure (defense, welfare, PPL).
> 
> I always found Abbott to be an unpleasant character (like most politicians), but I did make the mistake of believing him when he said no new taxes.  He said it so many f***ing times, 'no new taxes' and 'no surprises'.
> 
> Both total rubbish less than a year down the track.




Buyer's remorse huh?


----------



## Julia

Ves said:


> I'm mystified by some of the sentiments in here at times.   It is if people are under the illusion that the government has a fair bit of control over their actions.



I've been thinking along similar lines.  I hear people say stuff like "we couldn't be expected to provide for our own retirement" because they are baby boomers or earlier born and there was no compulsory super when they were younger.   They have apparently grown up with the assumption that their taxes are guaranteed to provide them with a comfortable living from retirement at age 60 ish until they fall off the perch at probably into their 80's.  
Did it not occur to any of them to take a look at the projected age pension and ask themselves "is this all I need" and/or "is it conceivable - especially given the records of successive governments - that even this paltry amount will not be available by the time I want to retire"?

Did it only occur to a few that we need not have waited for governments to determine that a compulsory super saving is required and to actually decide for ourselves that we needed to do the appropriate calculations to ensure we had enough to retire on without taxpayer assistance?

In making such a comment, obviously we would exclude those people who genuinely cannot look out for themselves and be generous in our support for them.  But there's a world of difference in considering the person with a gross physical or psychological disability and the person who just chooses to spend their income throughout their working life in the naive belief that their taxes will fund them a comfortable and thoroughly deserved existence in retirement.

The government have, of course, exquisitely timed the CoA report.  Its very realistic harshness will make the upcoming budget seem like manna from heaven.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> The PPL was Abbott's 'signature policy'. It may have won him the election. If he's now going to back down and break his promise on this  then if he had any decency he would resign as PM.




I don't believe he will not have to back down or resign....the senate will save his bacon now and even after the 1st July when the new senate take office.

I have no doubt it will be either scrapped or watered down even more.

I personally hope it will be rejected by the senate.


----------



## Ves

Julia said:


> The government have, of course, exquisitely timed the CoA report.  Its very realistic harshness will make the upcoming budget seem like manna from heaven.



And that is the crux of all it....   it will be harsh,   some of it we will agree with and some of it we will not, of course.   And at the end of the day the only thing that we can effectively control are our own actions and taking responsibility for our reactions to any given situation.  Whether we agree or disagree with something,  it is pointless to get worked up about it  (ie.  the hysteria that this kind of thing generates) if we are not going to do anything else.  Complaining without action is pointless.   It's effectively arguing with reality.  And I can tell everyone from experience that reality ALWAYS wins.  All we can do is assess the situation and take responsibility of our own actions to ensure that when the government does something we all hate like raise taxes  or reduce benefits that we are in a position to either be entirely unaffected or barely affected at all.  

Independence is a wonderful thing.

Thank you for putting it more eloquently than I did in my first post,  Julia.


----------



## Junior

waterbottle said:


> Buyer's remorse huh?




No mate, I removed myself from the electoral role a while ago.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> I personally hope it will be rejected by the senate.




So does Abbott. He doesn't deserve to be bailed out from such a stupid promise.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> So does Abbott. He doesn't deserve to be bailed out from such a stupid promise.




Not as bad as, "THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER A GOVERNMENT I LEAD"


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Not as bad as, "THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER A GOVERNMENT I LEAD"




Just for interest, can you explain what the difference between a tax, which Abbott repeatedly said he will not introduce or increase, and a levy, which seems to have been proposed by Abbott.

From my personal point of view, and expecting to pay the levy, if the Government takes more money out of my weekly pay packet, then to me it's extra tax.  Any other term is really word games.

The dictionary definition of a tax is:

_a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions._

Sounds very much like a deficit levy to me.


----------



## sydboy007

Ves said:


> Complaining without action is pointless.   It's effectively arguing with reality.  And I can tell everyone from experience that reality ALWAYS wins.




Voters have themselves to blame for believing the short term promises of politicians who's main focus is getting into power, and maintaining that power.  Any good they do for the country is more often happy coincidence than because that was their objective - maybe I'm getting too cynical in my middle age??



Julia said:


> I've been thinking along similar lines.  I hear people say stuff like "we couldn't be expected to provide for our own retirement" because they are baby boomers or earlier born and there was no compulsory super when they were younger.   They have apparently grown up with the assumption that their taxes are guaranteed to provide them with a comfortable living from retirement at age 60 ish until they fall off the perch at probably into their 80's.




This argument is continually trundled out by the FIRE sector to keep the rivers of gold flowing into their coffers.  Too often I hear that unless we have an overly generous super system people wont save for their retirement.  Well, that might be true if it was optional, but we've had a compulsory system in place for a couple of decades, so why does it have to be so generous?  Does anyone seriously believe that those who are most able to take advantages of the tax shelter within super wouldn't use other means to save for their retirement?

We have a super system that costs twice as much as the average OECD country to run, costs the budget roughly the same in foregone revenue as the aged pension, and the cost is growing at around 12% a year, compared to roughly 4% for the aged pension.  1/3 of super tax expenditures go to just 10%, while 20%+ pay MORE tax in the super system than they do on their taxable income.  It's screaming for an overhaul, yet seems to be as sacrosanct as the primary residence.

Anyone who believes "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help" has to have rocks in their head.

i will say that the CoA has been designed byt he wealthy for the wealthy.  Not really anything in it that actuially targets them.  No focus on the $128B in tax expenditures each year, no questioning about obscene CEO pay that has no relation to actual management performance, and it was not allowed to look at broadening the GST base, and I can't understand why they didn't mention land tax since it is the MOST efficient tax their is, even more efficient than the GST.


----------



## Calliope

sydboy007 said:


> Just for interest, can you explain what the difference between a tax, which Abbott repeatedly said he will not introduce or increase, and a levy, which seems to have been proposed by Abbott.
> 
> From my personal point of view, and expecting to pay the levy...




Sure, It's a tax but it only slugs high earners like you. Tha carbon tax slugs everybody. Personally I'm against it. I'm against all forms of class based taxes. I don't see why you should pay a levy for being high earner, even if it is only $200. The marginal tax rates already cover that.


----------



## banco

noco said:


> Not as bad as, "THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER A GOVERNMENT I LEAD"




You really are a partisan hack.


----------



## Julia

sydboy007 said:


> i will say that the CoA has been designed byt he wealthy for the wealthy.  Not really anything in it that actuially targets them.



Let's wait for the Budget before drawing that conclusion.   

I did, however, have the thought after listening to a rundown on the CoA that the people putting it together are a whole world removed from many whom their ideas would affect.  I don't disagree with most of it in principle, but we're all born with widely varying capacities, upbringing and life experiences, all of which go to constitute the adults we become.

Sometimes it does rather seem that the successful vaguely imagine that every other person would be capable of emulating them if only they applied a little effort.  In many cases that's probably right, but often just not so.

PS  I heard on some ABC radio program (sorry, can't remember what now) about an American state where prisoners on discharge from jail were given a reasonably generous allowance for, I think, three months on the proviso that if they were not in work at the end of that period, they would go back to jail.  Every one of them found a job.


----------



## McLovin

Ves said:


> And that is the crux of all it.... it will be harsh, some of it we will agree with and some of it we will not, of course.




But people won't accept that. There was a belief before the election (noco seems to be only true believer left) that electing the Coalition would take us back to 2006, pre-GFC when everything was booming and it would be tax cuts for all. Now they're waking up to the reality that neither side is all that good, and the government can't flick the switch to turn the economy back to boom, and there are serious structural issues for Australia over the coming decades.  You just need to read some of the comments in here from before the election.



			
				Julia said:
			
		

> I did, however, have the thought after listening to a rundown on the CoA that the people putting it together are a whole world removed from many whom their ideas would affect. I don't disagree with most of it in principle, but we're all born with widely varying capacities, upbringing and life experiences, all of which go to constitute the adults we become.




It had a real air of "let them eat cake". And as per usual, it was so tightly framed to largely fit in with what the government wanted to hear.


----------



## trainspotter

Yet again another cycle of Austrayan (not a typo) politics. Labor gets in and spends up big $$$ on socialism, gravy train rides, bleeding hearts and artists - people get sick of the cronyism and vote them out - Liberals get in and toe cut everything and build up a war chest - people get sick of tightening their belts and vote them out - Labor gets in and wrings the neck of the company credit card on a massive $$$ splurge to buy the votes under the guise of "We are spending to stop Australia going into recession" (GFC) and wracks up huge debt - people get sick of the cronyism and vote them out. Liberals get in and toe cut everything and build up a war chest - people get sick of tightening their belts and vote them out - ad infinitum and so on and so forth.

I think the Independents are going to be the big winners as the 2 parties slowly descend into an ineffectual conglomerate of idealistic and pusillanimous blow hards that have neither the numbers to effect change nor the will of the people to mandate their policies.


----------



## sydboy007

McLovin said:


> But people won't accept that. There was a belief before the election (noco seems to be only true believer left) that electing the Coalition would take us back to 2006, pre-GFC when everything was booming and it would be tax cuts for all. Now they're waking up to the reality that neither side is all that good, and the government can't flick the switch to turn the economy back to boom, and there are serious structural issues for Australia over the coming decades.  You just need to read some of the comments in here from before the election.
> 
> It had a real air of "let them eat cake". And as per usual, it was so tightly framed to largely fit in with what the government wanted to hear.




It would be good if it was easy to show just how much extra spending was introduced during 2000-2013, along with how much tax revenue has been foregone as well (including tax expenditures). Adjust it to show what the growth was in real terms over that period - I think most will be quite surprised at just how high it was.

An itemised list of the top programs that had increased spending, and what the largest tax cuts / expenditures were would at least help to start debate on what programs were built up that caused the structural deficit within the budget.

With the ToT falling over at least the next 3 years tax revenue growth is going to be lower than anaemic GDP growth, so the revenue growth forecasts in the CoA seem to be a bit a bit heroic.  It's going to be basically the total opposite to what Abbott had when he was a member of the Howard Government.  Add in most households are at peak debt, and it's very unlikely the housing sector is going to step into the revenue breach.


----------



## drsmith

noco said:


> Not as bad as, "THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER A GOVERNMENT I LEAD"



That I would agree with but in terms of what politicians say before an election and do afterwards, it's not far off.

Another difference is the economic context. It was known that the carbon tax would slow the economy and this mattered little to Labor who introduced it to secure office from a hung parliament. The broader economic context of any deficit tax will be known with the budget. It seems that while promoting it, the government is still tinkering around the edges in the lead up to the budget. 



> The Treasurer has cautioned against assuming any debt levy will kick in for people on incomes as low as $80,000 per year.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-02/joe-hockey-on-call-to-arms/5425650


----------



## overhang

Julia said:


> I did, however, have the thought after listening to a rundown on the CoA that the people putting it together are a whole world removed from many whom their ideas would affect.  I don't disagree with most of it in principle, but we're all born with widely varying capacities, upbringing and life experiences, all of which go to constitute the adults we become.




Yes I agree, those making these recommendations believe drinking a $40 bottle of plonk as opposed to a $80 bottle is doing it tough (on a weeknight).  There are still a large number of people living under rental stress ( rental costs exceeding 30% of income).  Like you I'm not saying all the recommendations are wrong but this would have been an ideal time to begin the introduction of phasing out negative gearing which has a huge tax revenue potential for the coffers.

It's the same as the AFL, you have the head boss on a 3.8 million dollar salary defining these ridiculous ticket prices without any idea what it's like for those on a below average income to take their family to the footy.

It's great to see the government has now reduced the PPL down to The Greens level http://greens.org.au/better-paid-parental-leave  .Which party is supposed to be the economically responsible one again?  It's too many mixed messages, on one hand they're slashing and burning and on the other we have the PPL, direct action and war planes.


----------



## McLovin

drsmith said:


> That I would agree with but in terms of what politicians say before an election and do afterwards, it's not far off.




Politicians lie. It's the nature of the game. But the problem is that Abbott spent the last three years campaigning on broken promises around a new tax. It's the naiviety of the decision that amazes me.

Opposed the flood levy...



> "The one thing that [people] will never have to suffer under a Coalition government is an unnecessary new tax, a tax that could easily be replaced by savings found from the budget."




Which could be very easily be on message about his new debt levy.

And then this corker...



> "There is one fundamental message that we want to go out from this place to every nook and cranny of our country: There should be no new tax collection without an election."




And this...



> "What you'll get under us are tax cuts without new taxes,"




This is how the guy campaigned for three years. Is it really any wonder he looks rather foolish now? Doubly so when you consider he would still have won the election in a landslide even without making promises of no new taxes.


----------



## overhang

McLovin said:


> This is how the guy campaigned for three years. Is it really any wonder he looks rather foolish now? Doubly so when you consider he would still have won the election in a landslide even without making promises of no new taxes.




Yes this I don't understand, they probably would have won office by more without direct action and the PPL.  I think the public was aware we needed to stop the boats and tighten the belt.  They have the chance to be a great government but not with this inept PM.


----------



## Knobby22

The Commission of Audits rather scary document is really just a wish list of what would happen to us if we let the politicians take us down the US path. The middle class would be worse off and the very wealthy would be better off.

The facts are however is:
1) the Libs want to have a second term
2) there will be people in their own ranks who would revolt.

The truth is that it is a document to soften us all up so when the budget is released we all breath a sigh of relief and think it's not too bad.


----------



## sptrawler

trainspotter said:


> Yet again another cycle of Austrayan (not a typo) politics. Labor gets in and spends up big $$$ on socialism, gravy train rides, bleeding hearts and artists - people get sick of the cronyism and vote them out - Liberals get in and toe cut everything and build up a war chest - people get sick of tightening their belts and vote them out - Labor gets in and wrings the neck of the company credit card on a massive $$$ splurge to buy the votes under the guise of "We are spending to stop Australia going into recession" (GFC) and wracks up huge debt - people get sick of the cronyism and vote them out. Liberals get in and toe cut everything and build up a war chest - people get sick of tightening their belts and vote them out - ad infinitum and so on and so forth.
> 
> I think the Independents are going to be the big winners as the 2 parties slowly descend into an ineffectual conglomerate of idealistic and pusillanimous blow hards that have neither the numbers to effect change nor the will of the people to mandate their policies.




Agree with you trainspotter. What is funny, is people trying to make out, they didn't know the belt tightening was going to happen.


----------



## trainspotter

Knobby22 said:


> The Commission of Audits rather scary document is really just a wish list of what would happen to us if we let the politicians take us down the US path. The middle class would be worse off and the very wealthy would be better off.
> 
> The facts are however is:
> 1) the Libs want to have a second term
> 2) there will be people in their own ranks who would revolt.
> 
> The truth is that it is a document to soften us all up so when the budget is released we all breath a sigh of relief and think it's not too bad.




Aaaaaaaaaahhhhhh the old "Rope a Dope" routine or ambit claim you reckon Knobby22 ?


----------



## Knobby22

trainspotter said:


> Aaaaaaaaaahhhhhh the old "Rope a Dope" routine or ambit claim you reckon Knobby22 ?




Yep.


----------



## trainspotter

Knobby22 said:


> Yep.




The other thing you will also find the media have been thrown a raft of "red herrings" to chow down on. The Opposition (Bill Shorten in particular) will be very wise to keep schtum as it looks like the incumbent government is trying to thrash a fox out of a thicket for mine.


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> Agree with you trainspotter. What is funny, is people trying to make out, they didn't know the belt tightening was going to happen.




I listened to Jeff Kennett ( ex premier of Victoria) who said Tony Abbott must have the courage to do what is right for Australia and forget about the naysayers of broken promises.....If he squibs, the Comrades of the Greens will have had a victory.....Labor will hound him on broken promises from now until the next election, but if he can clean up Labor's extravaganza of the previous 6 years, his broken promises will be infinitesimal in the eyes of those who put him there 

The majority of voters elected Abbott to fix the economy and stop the boats.

If Labor become re-elected in 2016, I will be phoning Dr. Nitschke ( that euthanasia bloke)......I could not bear the pain and suffering of another term of Labor.:


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> If Labor become re-elected in 2016, I will be phoning Dr. Snickskee ( that euthanasia bloke)......I could not bear the pain and suffering of another term of Labor.:




Don't call him, call me, I'll do it much cheaper


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Don't call him, call me, I'll do it much cheaper




Rumpy, you pay peanuts you get monkeys.......I don't want to wake up half way through thank you....I want the job done professionally.

We have enough monkeys in the Green/Labor Party.


----------



## drsmith

McLovin said:


> This is how the guy campaigned for three years. Is it really any wonder he looks rather foolish now? Doubly so when you consider he would still have won the election in a landslide even without making promises of no new taxes.



I agree with the above but relative to the circumstances behind the introduction of the carbon tax, the political cost shouldn't be as much.


----------



## noco

drsmith said:


> I agree with the above but relative to the circumstances behind the introduction of the carbon tax, the political cost shouldn't be as much.




Yes I agree Doc, particularly if Hockey can show some spectacular results in the balance of this term.

I believe a lot will depend on overseas trade, an increase in commodity prices, control of the unions, the lifting of confidence in the business world and the creation of more jobs.


----------



## noco

noco said:


> Yes I agree Doc, particularly if Hockey can show some spectacular results in the balance of this term.
> 
> I believe a lot will depend on overseas trade, an increase in commodity prices, control of the unions, the lifting of confidence in the business world and the creation of more jobs.




http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com...dline|story|Broken promises a disaster for PM


WITH so many broken election promises in the pipeline, and a prime minister never much loved in the electorate, you might think the Abbott government is in a spot of political bother.

It depends what one means by “bother”. They have a secure majority on the floor of the House and there is no poll due for two-and-a-half years.

There will be two more budgets and squillalitres of water under the bridge before the next election. And, in the end, politically, that election result will be all that matters, all that’s remembered.

A line from an Australian article on Thursday illustrates perfectly why the government has little to fear in 2016. It encapsulates the chief reason the ALP went out on its ear last year and, despite current opinion polls and general sentiment, is likely to stay there way beyond the next election.
Read More


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> WITH so many broken election promises in the pipeline, and a prime minister never much loved in the electorate, you might think the Abbott government is in a spot of political bother.
> 
> It depends what one means by “bother”. They have a secure majority on the floor of the House and there is no poll due for two-and-a-half years.
> 
> There will be two more budgets and squillalitres of water under the bridge before the next election. And, in the end, politically, that election result will be all that matters, all that’s remembered.
> 
> A line from an Australian article on Thursday illustrates perfectly why the government has little to fear in 2016. It encapsulates the chief reason the ALP went out on its ear last year and, despite current opinion polls and general sentiment, is likely to stay there way beyond the next election.
> Read More




I think you are dismissing Clive Palmer and what he may do too easily.

He has a grudge against the Liberal party , and he doesn't bear grudges lightly.

He could throw many spokes in the Lib's wheel over the next two years, if the Parliament lasts that long.

I also think you are underestimating the ability of Labor to bounce back. The main causes of Labor's defeat, Gillard and Rudd are gone. Shorten is making a valiant effort to re democratise Labor and give the members more say in policy and candidate selection. This will in turn give them more appeal to the electorate.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I think you are dismissing Clive Palmer and what he may do too easily.
> 
> He has a grudge against the Liberal party , and he doesn't bear grudges lightly.
> 
> He could throw many spokes in the Lib's wheel over the next two years, if the Parliament lasts that long.
> 
> I also think you are underestimating the ability of Labor to bounce back. The main causes of Labor's defeat, Gillard and Rudd are gone. Shorten is making a valiant effort to re democratise Labor and give the members more say in policy and candidate selection. This will in turn give them more appeal to the electorate.




As far as Clive Palmer is concerned, he is well know as a "NUT CASE" at The Yaublu Nickel refinery.....Nobody knows what he stands for......He is losing a million dollars a day and wants to run the economy of Australia....He is a bag of wind is as big as himself.....IMHO voters are using him to ruffle the feathers of both the major parties.

Bills nick name as presented by Darren Finch on AM Agenda is "Bull Sh!ten"

He will also have to find his way through the mine field in the Royal Commission into the union corruption.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...about-slush-fund/story-fn59noo3-1226902660735


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Yes I agree Doc, particularly if Hockey can show some spectacular results in the balance of this term.
> 
> I believe a lot will depend on overseas trade, an increase in commodity prices, control of the unions, the lifting of confidence in the business world and the creation of more jobs.




It will be a miracle if he can do it.  As for increasing commodity prices, tell him he's dreaming.  Practicially everything we produce is already in oversupply, and that situation is only going to get worse as more and more supply comes online.

Not sure how well Govt revenue will hold up when the ToT really takes a dive over the next year, combined with an AUD that's going to head towards the 70c level.  Inflation takes off, petrol heads towards $2, RBA has to decide if it fights inflation or targets jobs growth, though the money markets may force them to raise rates.  I doubt Keatings famous J curve for growth when the AUD falls can happen as easily this time around.  What internationally competitive tradable sectors will we have left in 2015+?  We might have to hope for a student and tourism boom.

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2014/05/terms-of-trade-shock-round-two-begins/

_Remember that the first [ToT hit], which began in late 2011, smashed nominal growth, added 1% to unemployment, blew up the Budget, initiated a miner equity bear market, and triggered 2.25% in rate cuts even though the mining investment boom was powering._

Basically Abbott and Hockey are going to have their equivalent of the GFC, only it will unfold at a slower rate but probably have far more damaging effects on confidence.  Lets see them levy their way to a surplus eh.

We also have the commical Abbott with his weird numbers, or is that vodoo economics:

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/5/2/climate/tony-abbott-comedian-extraordinaire

_According to this government’s own budget numbers (on page 22 of the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook), its abolition of the economic wrecking ball -- the  great big carbon tax -- will leave taxpayers (both individuals and business) with an extra $7.4 billion in their pockets over the forward estimates, or $1.85bn per annum.

Estimates by tax experts cited by The Australian Financial Review speculate that the mooted deficit levy or hike in income tax rates the government is considering would impose an extra $10bn burden on taxpayers over four years, or $2.5 billion a year.

Somehow the $1.85bn carbon price is supposed to destroy the economy, although it actually came coupled with considerable compensating income tax cuts. Yet an income tax hike of $2.5bn will be good for the economy because it helps reduce the deficit.  And of course, the carbon tax revenue somehow doesn’t help address the deficit, does it?_

Now we have Hockey saying _“So please this idea, somehow, that everything we have ever said is going to be held against what has moved on us because the previous Government basically misled the Australian people about the state of the budget, is kind of ridiculous.”_

But my understanding is with the charter of budget honesty, and the PEFO released by Treasury, there can be no more hiding of the unvarnished truth regarding the budget.  If Hockey can show the Australia public were mislead prior to the election, then he should be sacking those in Treasury responsible, and I'd like to hear what changes he proposes to make to ensure it doesn't occur at the next election.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> It will be a miracle if he can do it.  As for increasing commodity prices, tell him he's dreaming.  Practicially everything we produce is already in oversupply, and that situation is only going to get worse as more and more supply comes online.
> 
> Not sure how well Govt revenue will hold up when the ToT really takes a dive over the next year, combined with an AUD that's going to head towards the 70c level.  Inflation takes off, petrol heads towards $2, RBA has to decide if it fights inflation or targets jobs growth, though the money markets may force them to raise rates.  I doubt Keatings famous J curve for growth when the AUD falls can happen as easily this time around.  What internationally competitive tradable sectors will we have left in 2015+?  We might have to hope for a student and tourism boom.
> 
> http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2014/05/terms-of-trade-shock-round-two-begins/
> 
> _Remember that the first [ToT hit], which began in late 2011, smashed nominal growth, added 1% to unemployment, blew up the Budget, initiated a miner equity bear market, and triggered 2.25% in rate cuts even though the mining investment boom was powering._
> 
> Basically Abbott and Hockey are going to have their equivalent of the GFC, only it will unfold at a slower rate but probably have far more damaging effects on confidence.  Lets see them levy their way to a surplus eh.
> 
> We also have the commical Abbott with his weird numbers, or is that vodoo economics:
> 
> http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/5/2/climate/tony-abbott-comedian-extraordinaire
> 
> _According to this government’s own budget numbers (on page 22 of the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook), its abolition of the economic wrecking ball -- the  great big carbon tax -- will leave taxpayers (both individuals and business) with an extra $7.4 billion in their pockets over the forward estimates, or $1.85bn per annum.
> 
> Estimates by tax experts cited by The Australian Financial Review speculate that the mooted deficit levy or hike in income tax rates the government is considering would impose an extra $10bn burden on taxpayers over four years, or $2.5 billion a year.
> 
> Somehow the $1.85bn carbon price is supposed to destroy the economy, although it actually came coupled with considerable compensating income tax cuts. Yet an income tax hike of $2.5bn will be good for the economy because it helps reduce the deficit.  And of course, the carbon tax revenue somehow doesn’t help address the deficit, does it?_
> 
> Now we have Hockey saying _“So please this idea, somehow, that everything we have ever said is going to be held against what has moved on us because the previous Government basically misled the Australian people about the state of the budget, is kind of ridiculous.”_
> 
> But my understanding is with the charter of budget honesty, and the PEFO released by Treasury, there can be no more hiding of the unvarnished truth regarding the budget.  If Hockey can show the Australia public were mislead prior to the election, then he should be sacking those in Treasury responsible, and I'd like to hear what changes he proposes to make to ensure it doesn't occur at the next election.




It sounds as if Tony and Joe are going to need a course in advanced policy development. Maybe they could do one of Labors policy development and napkin folding courses.lol


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> As far as Clive Palmer is concerned, he is well know as a "NUT CASE" at The Yaublu Nickel refinery.....Nobody knows what he stands for......He is losing a million dollars a day and wants to run the economy of Australia....He is a bag of wind is as big as himself.....IMHO voters are using him to ruffle the feathers of both the major parties.




Yes, but he's in Parliament and he votes



> Bills nick name as presented by Darren Finch on AM Agenda is "Bull Sh!ten"




Who the hell is Darren Finch, and why should we care what he thinks ?


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> I also think you are underestimating the ability of Labor to bounce back. The main causes of Labor's defeat, Gillard and Rudd are gone. .




That is a pretty damning statement, Rumpole, those two led your beloved Labor Party and the Country for the last six years.
Doesn't say much for your confidence, in the party, or its legacy after two terms in office.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> It sounds as if Tony and Joe are going to need a course in advanced policy development. Maybe they could do one of Labors policy development and napkin folding courses.lol




Somehow the last few days makes me suspect we could only be so lucky that Tony was using a napkin.  Glad to see at least you're happy with his performance and the economic direction he's taken.

Shame you're ignoring the cold hard truth just as much as any of our political leaders.  The free ride of the noughties is over.  The world is no longer going to continue to pay ever increasing amounts for our exports.  We've got monumental LNG plants at near the top of the cost curve, which will be hard pressed to break even once USA and Canadian LNG hits the market in roughly 3 to 5 years, yet we'll still be stuck paying 3 times the current cost for natural gas in this country.   Every last molecule of gas frozen and shipped fresh to Asia with nary a thought on the massive job losses that will cause.

All those tens of billions in tax cuts we had bribed to us, fuelling speculative house prices and consumer goods.  Now what do we have to show for it?  Crap infrastructure that was barely coping in 2000, now buckling under an extra few million people because our politicians keep funnelling in more consumers for the business lobby with no long term plan on how to build the country to support them, hoping the extra bodies keep the housing ponzi merry go round spinning just a bit longer.  We're practically the highest direct taxing nation, relying far too much on costly business and income taxes, too afraid to have an adult conversation on how to change the tax structure so we can raise more money and achieve the magic pudding of lower overall taxation which can be done  relatively simply, just with some political pain.

I've seen nothing from Labor while they were in Government that they were up to leading us on the difficult challenges that are now coming home to roost.  Currently Abbott is doing as poor a job on the issues too.  The guy can't even admit his PPL is a dog of a policy.  That kind of pig headedness is not what you expect from a leader. It might work wonders in opposition when it's all care no responsibility, but when you're actually in charge it's just ludicrous.

The 50 odd years of demographic tail winds have turned against us since 2010.  Raising the pension age isn't going to do much when it excludes all the boomers heading for retirement, and ignoring the $120 odd billion in tax expenditures isn't going to make getting a budget surplus any easier too.  Being so beholden to the FIRE sector that this Government is doesn't bode well for us as consumers, nor will it help slash the costs of our pension system that costs twice the OECD average to run on top of costing a similar amount to the aged pension.  Super is costing roughly $60B a year between tax expenditures and fees and it's not even on the agenda.  Can you think of any Government program that has costs escalating at 12% a year?  That's super tax expenditures.  How does a grown up leadership ignore something like that?  They've spent more effort on trying to make changes to the anti discrimination act and bring back all the bigotry that occurred before, so it's only fitting Abbott also wants to bring back a by gone era of knights and dames as well.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Somehow the last few days makes me suspect we could only be so lucky that Tony was using a napkin.  Glad to see at least you're happy with his performance and the economic direction he's taken.
> 
> Shame you're ignoring the cold hard truth just as much as any of our political leaders.  The free ride of the noughties is over.  The world is no longer going to continue to pay ever increasing amounts for our exports.  We've got monumental LNG plants at near the top of the cost curve, which will be hard pressed to break even once USA and Canadian LNG hits the market in roughly 3 to 5 years, yet we'll still be stuck paying 3 times the current cost for natural gas in this country.   Every last molecule of gas frozen and shipped fresh to Asia with nary a thought on the massive job losses that will cause.
> 
> All those tens of billions in tax cuts we had bribed to us, fuelling speculative house prices and consumer goods.  Now what do we have to show for it?  Crap infrastructure that was barely coping in 2000, now buckling under an extra few million people because our politicians keep funnelling in more consumers for the business lobby with no long term plan on how to build the country to support them, hoping the extra bodies keep the housing ponzi merry go round spinning just a bit longer.  We're practically the highest direct taxing nation, relying far too much on costly business and income taxes, too afraid to have an adult conversation on how to change the tax structure so we can raise more money and achieve the magic pudding of lower overall taxation which can be done  relatively simply, just with some political pain.
> 
> I've seen nothing from Labor while they were in Government that they were up to leading us on the difficult challenges that are now coming home to roost.  Currently Abbott is doing as poor a job on the issues too.  The guy can't even admit his PPL is a dog of a policy.  That kind of pig headedness is not what you expect from a leader. It might work wonders in opposition when it's all care no responsibility, but when you're actually in charge it's just ludicrous.
> 
> The 50 odd years of demographic tail winds have turned against us since 2010.  Raising the pension age isn't going to do much when it excludes all the boomers heading for retirement, and ignoring the $120 odd billion in tax expenditures isn't going to make getting a budget surplus any easier too.  Being so beholden to the FIRE sector that this Government is doesn't bode well for us as consumers, nor will it help slash the costs of our pension system that costs twice the OECD average to run on top of costing a similar amount to the aged pension.  Super is costing roughly $60B a year between tax expenditures and fees and it's not even on the agenda.  Can you think of any Government program that has costs escalating at 12% a year?  That's super tax expenditures.  How does a grown up leadership ignore something like that?  They've spent more effort on trying to make changes to the anti discrimination act and bring back all the bigotry that occurred before, so it's only fitting Abbott also wants to bring back a by gone era of knights and dames as well.




Absolutely no one can turn the economy on a sixpence, nor would people expect it.
It is hard enough getting any changes to be enacted, wait and see how much gets through parliament.
Lets not forget it was only 12 months ago Swany was telling us everything was apples.
I'm hoping there is something to address negative gearing. As for all the jumping up and down about raising the pension ago, it is garbage.
If people wish to retire before pension age, save up for it, same as others have. Most people at my age have to wait untill 67 anyway, I'm not saying it is right or wrong, just the way it is.
Here is a link to what I think you are refering to regards super.

http://www.taxpayer.com.au/News/281...x_breaks_to_be_abolished_in_lead-up_to_Budget

The problem with that is that, it will end up just like our last self funded pension system. 
The government will incorporate it all into consolidated revenue, then it will be means tested and around we go again.
Everyone gets a pension what a laugh, how long would that last.lol


----------



## Julia

noco said:


> [
> WITH so many broken election promises in the pipeline, and a prime minister never much loved in the electorate, you might think the Abbott government is in a spot of political bother.
> 
> It depends what one means by “bother”. They have a secure majority on the floor of the House and there is no poll due for two-and-a-half years.
> 
> There will be two more budgets and squillalitres of water under the bridge before the next election. And, in the end, politically, that election result will be all that matters, all that’s remembered.
> 
> A line from an Australian article on Thursday illustrates perfectly why the government has little to fear in 2016. It encapsulates the chief reason the ALP went out on its ear last year and, despite current opinion polls and general sentiment, is likely to stay there way beyond the next election.
> Read More



I wouldn't be nearly as confident about the government being returned for a second term on the basis of their performance so far.  Yes, a big plus for stopping the boats, but let's remember that in the minds of some of the electorate this has come at an unacceptable humanitarian cost.

Briefly watching Chris Bowen with Tony Jones on Lateline last night, I couldn't help thinking that if he were leading the Opposition right now, rather than the banal, ineffectual Bill Shorten with his silly whining about everything, Labor would have more than a decent chance of getting back into government unless Abbott et al can learn how to communicate properly with the electorate.  

Let's see if the presumably anodyne nature of the upcoming budget allays some of the fear and loathing in the electorate.


----------



## CanOz

It's amazing to me to see the bearishness on Australia in this and other threads....

One simple fact remains, Australia is at or near the top of the list for most desirable places to live in Asia pacific and the world...this fact has not been lost on us as we have travelled through out Sydney and Brisbane in search or property the past couple of weeks...indeed it's still the Lucky country, breathtakingly so in fact.

Roll on bull market, roll on.

Governments really have no lasting economic impact, one party reverses the last parties bungles...the business cycles roll on...


----------



## sptrawler

CanOz said:


> It's amazing to me to see the bearishness on Australia in this and other threads....
> 
> One simple fact remains, Australia is at or near the top of the list for most desirable places to live in Asia pacific and the world...this fact has not been lost on us as we have travelled through out Sydney and Brisbane in search or property the past couple of weeks...indeed it's still the Lucky country, breathtakingly so in fact.
> 
> Roll on bull market, roll on.
> 
> Governments really have no lasting economic impact, one party reverses the last parties bungles...the business cycles roll on...




Spot on CanOz, people need to just suck it up and get on with it, way too many princesses in Aus.

On a brighter note, Andrew Forrest has bought out 'Harvey Beef', at last an Aussie buying Australian. The Chinese were running their rule over it.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/latest/a/23153028/forrest-buys-harvey-beef-for-40m/

Oh he was another one Labor loved to bash.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> That is a pretty damning statement, Rumpole, those two led your beloved Labor Party and the Country for the last six years.
> Doesn't say much for your confidence, in the party, or its legacy after two terms in office.




I'm not a member of any political party, I vote for whoever I think will do a good job for the future of the country.

I may well have voted for Howard in 2007 if he had showed some commitment to building productive infrastructure and had some plans for the future instead of just buying votes at election time with tax cuts.

 Howard never had any interest in education or setting up high tech industries, he just wanted a bunch of bogan slaves for the mining industry. Unfortunately Abbott looks as if he is cast in the same mould (spelling intended).

Rudd and Gillard both had some good policies, but their egos got the better of them, and most of their plans were cruelled by the GFC. Hopefully Labor keeps their good ideas, and the new crop  implements them better.


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> Rudd and Gillard both had some good policies, but their egos got the better of them, and most of their plans were cruelled by the GFC. Hopefully Labor keeps their good ideas, and the new crop  implements them better.



You might add "and figures out how to pay for them".


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> You might add "and figures out how to pay for them".




Well, it won't be by throwing away revenue like the carbon and mining taxes and introducing expensive  middle class welfare 'entitlements'  like the Coalition's PPL.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> Howard never had any interest in education or setting up high tech industries, he just wanted a bunch of bogan slaves for the mining industry. Unfortunately Abbott looks as if he is cast in the same mould (spelling intended)..



I think you will find the critical shortage of labour for the mining industry was during the Rudd/Gillard term, that was the major reason they gave Rhinehart permission to stock Roy Hill with 457's




SirRumpole said:


> Rudd and Gillard both had some good policies, but their egos got the better of them, and most of their plans were cruelled by the GFC. Hopefully Labor keeps their good ideas, and the new crop  implements them better.




Again selective memory seems to be creeping in, post the carbon tax, many high tech companies heve gone offshore. The solar panel company that was established here 30years ago, for example. You are starting to sound like showbag Bill, amnesia setting in.


----------



## Calliope

Julia said:


> You might add "and figures out how to pay for them".




Rumpole is obviously a Greenie. How you pay for anything never figures in *their* "policies".


----------



## noco

Calliope said:


> Rumpole is obviously a Greenie. How you pay for anything never figures in *their* "policies".




Just pile it up on the credit card and let the next Government work out how to pay for it all.......Comrades of the Greenies don't know any other way.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Absolutely no one can turn the economy on a sixpence, nor would people expect it.
> It is hard enough getting any changes to be enacted, wait and see how much gets through parliament.
> Lets not forget it was only 12 months ago Swany was telling us everything was apples.
> I'm hoping there is something to address negative gearing. As for all the jumping up and down about raising the pension ago, it is garbage.
> If people wish to retire before pension age, save up for it, same as others have. Most people at my age have to wait untill 67 anyway, I'm not saying it is right or wrong, just the way it is.
> Here is a link to what I think you are refering to regards super.
> 
> http://www.taxpayer.com.au/News/281...x_breaks_to_be_abolished_in_lead-up_to_Budget
> 
> The problem with that is that, it will end up just like our last self funded pension system.
> The government will incorporate it all into consolidated revenue, then it will be means tested and around we go again.
> Everyone gets a pension what a laugh, how long would that last.lol




I don't expect things to be fixed in a day, but I do expect to have a feel for a coherent strategy by now, and there doesn't seem to be one.

lets look at the CoA.  Loaded with economic dries and ignores the politics of the changes that need to be made.  Little in the it that can help the Government educate (for want of a better word) the public on why the changes are desirable.

Worse, the Government set the terms of the CoA so narrowly and explicitly ignored:

* The GST
* $120B+ of tax expenditures.

If I'm going to pay for an audit that I plan to use to help get my finances in shape, I'm not going to hobble the audit by setting up major areas of my finances as off limits.  That's what this Government has done.  It's not economically rational.

As for super, we can no longer afford the current system.  Something fairer where everyone gets the same tax expenditures each year is probably the best way forward.  At least that would be a progressive system rather than the massively regressive system we currently have, but the Abbott Govt has already sided with the 16000 super fund members earning over 100K tax free each year over the couple of million members who were to benefit from the LISC.  The Abbott Government purposefully told the CoA to ignore this issue.  To me if a system is costing around $60B a year then it's ripe for some massive savings.

Throw in an ex banker heading the financial services review I don't expect any changes, especially when you read about the scandals now coming out regarding financial planers at the CBA under his time as CEO.  Funny how that kind of corruption is ignored, but the merest whiff of union corruption gets anyone on the right into a near rabid frenzy.  Damning that ASIC ignored it, damning that Labor allowed them to as well.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> I don't expect things to be fixed in a day, but I do expect to have a feel for a coherent strategy by now, and there doesn't seem to be one.
> 
> lets look at the CoA.  Loaded with economic dries and ignores the politics of the changes that need to be made.  Little in the it that can help the Government educate (for want of a better word) the public on why the changes are desirable.
> 
> Worse, the Government set the terms of the CoA so narrowly and explicitly ignored:
> 
> * The GST
> * $120B+ of tax expenditures.
> 
> If I'm going to pay for an audit that I plan to use to help get my finances in shape, I'm not going to hobble the audit by setting up major areas of my finances as off limits.  That's what this Government has done.  It's not economically rational.
> 
> As for super, we can no longer afford the current system.  Something fairer where everyone gets the same tax expenditures each year is probably the best way forward.  At least that would be a progressive system rather than the massively regressive system we currently have, but the Abbott Govt has already sided with the 16000 super fund members earning over 100K tax free each year over the couple of million members who were to benefit from the LISC.  The Abbott Government purposefully told the CoA to ignore this issue.  To me if a system is costing around $60B a year then it's ripe for some massive savings.
> 
> Throw in an ex banker heading the financial services review I don't expect any changes, especially when you read about the scandals now coming out regarding financial planers at the CBA under his time as CEO.  Funny how that kind of corruption is ignored, but the merest whiff of union corruption gets anyone on the right into a near rabid frenzy.  Damning that ASIC ignored it, damning that Labor allowed them to as well.




Talk about a near rabid frenzy, I would say that pretty well covers the chorus against the governments every idea and that's before a budget is put in place.
Well at least the frenzy over 'they will never be able to stop the boats' seems to have abated.
Now all we have to do is wait and see what happens fiscally, maybe then all the screamers and lefties will be proven wrong yet again. 
It is really hillarious watching Shorten on t.v, trying to pretend they had nothing to do with the fiscal situation, he is a real goose. I must say though, he has all the makings of a Labor treasurer, thick skin, look straight in the camera while bulls###ing.lol


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> I don't expect things to be fixed in a day, but I do expect to have a feel for a coherent strategy by now, and there doesn't seem to be one.
> 
> lets look at the CoA.  Loaded with economic dries and ignores the politics of the changes that need to be made.  Little in the it that can help the Government educate (for want of a better word) the public on why the changes are desirable.
> 
> Worse, the Government set the terms of the CoA so narrowly and explicitly ignored:
> 
> * The GST
> * $120B+ of tax expenditures.
> 
> If I'm going to pay for an audit that I plan to use to help get my finances in shape, I'm not going to hobble the audit by setting up major areas of my finances as off limits.  That's what this Government has done.  It's not economically rational.
> 
> As for super, we can no longer afford the current system.  Something fairer where everyone gets the same tax expenditures each year is probably the best way forward.  At least that would be a progressive system rather than the massively regressive system we currently have, but the Abbott Govt has already sided with the 16000 super fund members earning over 100K tax free each year over the couple of million members who were to benefit from the LISC.  The Abbott Government purposefully told the CoA to ignore this issue.  To me if a system is costing around $60B a year then it's ripe for some massive savings.
> 
> Throw in an ex banker heading the financial services review I don't expect any changes, especially when you read about the scandals now coming out regarding financial planers at the CBA under his time as CEO.  Funny how that kind of corruption is ignored, but the merest whiff of union corruption gets anyone on the right into a near rabid frenzy.  Damning that ASIC ignored it, damning that Labor allowed them to as well.




There seems like a stratergy to me, you may not like it, but it is more coherent than Labors was.
Talk about a near rabid frenzy, I would say that pretty well covers the chorus against the governments every idea and that's before a budget is put in place.
Well at least the frenzy over 'they will never be able to stop the boats' seems to have abated.
Now all we have to do is wait and see what happens fiscally, maybe then all the screamers and lefties will be proven wrong yet again. 
It is really hillarious watching Shorten on t.v, trying to pretend they had nothing to do with the fiscal situation, he is a real goose. I must say though, he has all the makings of a Labor treasurer, thick skin, look straight in the camera while bulls###ing.lol


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Just pile it up on the credit card and let the next Government work out how to pay for it all.......Comrades of the Greenies don't know any other way.




And the old schoolboys don't know much else but hysterical rhetoric when it comes to our debt/deficit in comparison with the rest of the world.


----------



## drsmith

drsmith said:


> Some numbers on the deficit tax that make more sense even if the levy itself still doesn't.
> 
> 
> With Medicare (2%) included, the effective income tax rates from $80k to $180k are 40% and 49% above $180k.
> 
> The combined effects of the 0.5% Medicare levy increase and deficit tax would from the above be as follows,
> 
> Income  Extra tax (0.5% Medicare levy increase + deficit tax)
> $50,000  $250
> $80,000  $400
> $100,000  $700 ($500 + $200)
> $150,000  $1450 ($750 + $700)
> $180,000  $1900 ($900 + $1000)
> $200,000  $2400 ($1000 + $1400)
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...ver-new-debt-tax/story-fni0fit3-1226900288574



With the latest media tweak at a threshold of $100k for 1% on top of the marginal rate and 2% above $180k, the numbers are as follows,

Income  Extra tax (0.5% Medicare levy increase + deficit tax)
$50,000  $250
$80,000  $400
$100,000  $500
$150,000  $1250 ($750 + $500)
$180,000  $1700 ($900 + $800)
$200,000  $2200 ($1000 + $1200)



> It is more likely to come in at $100,000, rising to a 2 per cent increase on the top marginal rate of taxation that cuts in at $180,000.
> 
> The current thinking remains that it will be in place for four years.




Some media commentary has also appeared on how politically bad it was for the government to let the media run with the more extreme numbers earlier in the week.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ld-seal-tony-abbotts-fate-20140502-zr2hx.html


----------



## drsmith

An interesting snapshot of income tax in Australia.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ly-ones-who-pay/story-fnmbxr2t-1226903973995#


----------



## sptrawler

drsmith said:


> An interesting snapshot of income tax in Australia.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ly-ones-who-pay/story-fnmbxr2t-1226903973995#




Yes Doc, I'm sure I read people on less than $55k pay no net tax, after subsidies.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> And the old schoolboys don't know much else but hysterical rhetoric when it comes to our debt/deficit in comparison with the rest of the world.




It is beyond belief that you compare our debt with the rest of the world, it's like comparing your personal debt with someone in the U.S, U.K or anywhere else. It is just a nonsense comparison, which has no relevance to anything.
The only thing it does do is show how badly the previous government has performed. Going from no debt to $300billion in six years.
It could have been worse, the goon show could have been re elected.
Policy on the run, band aid taxes and band aid programes put together on the back of napkins.
At least the current government, right or wrong, is structuring a fiscal policy on feedback from outside sources.
Not just blindly shooting from the hip, ala the last government. Whether they make a better fist of it, only time will tell and they will be judged, just as the last government was.
But the constant raving, before even the first budget, now that is hysteria.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> An interesting snapshot of income tax in Australia.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ly-ones-who-pay/story-fnmbxr2t-1226903973995#




I wonder if that graph includes tax expenditures.  Those on the higher incomes get the lions share of super tax expenditures, along with the halving of the GST rate.  Then we have wonderful discretionary trusts that help shelter the assets of the rich too.


----------



## Knobby22

sydboy007 said:


> I wonder if that graph includes tax expenditures.  Those on the higher incomes get the lions share of super tax expenditures, along with the halving of the GST rate.  Then we have wonderful discretionary trusts that help shelter the assets of the rich too.




Very true sydboy.

Also the big end of town such as Google is making hundreds of millions out of us and hardly pays any tax. It is very simple to set up a loan if you are wealthy, where you set up a company and borrow from it and have to pay it back so skipping all the tax. Not to mention trust funds and many other tricks. Pity us PAYG losers.

Newscorp is eagerly awaiting the rule change to gain Channel 10 as a reward for their slavish devotion. Next on their list will be to shut down ABC's News 24 channel and replace it with FOX.


----------



## Logique

drsmith said:


> An interesting snapshot of income tax in Australia.
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ly-ones-who-pay/story-fnmbxr2t-1226903973995#



Very interesting Dr Zacchary. 

Just 2.3% of workers earn + $180,000/ann. Big revenue raiser any additional tax on them! (eg deficit tax)

Also why work more hours, when earnings of $37,001+ brings such a massive jump in taxation, i.e.

Earnings up to $37,000 = 3.7% tax

Earnings $37,001+ = 32.8% tax


----------



## sydboy007

Logique said:


> Very interesting Dr Zacchary.
> 
> Just 2.3% of workers earn + $180,000/ann. Big revenue raiser any additional tax on them! (eg deficit tax)
> 
> Also why work more hours, when earnings of $37,001+ brings such a massive jump in taxation, i.e.
> 
> Earnings up to $37,000 = 3.7% tax
> 
> Earnings $37,001+ = 32.8% tax




There's the folly in being so reliant on income and corporate taxation.

The faster this Government realises taxing hard work is counter productive the better.  

After hearing of the deficit levy I've decided to take up my company's offer to purchase up to 2 weeks extra leave.  After tax it's like getting 2 for the price of 1


----------



## medicowallet

It seems to me the have nots?? here have a thought that high income earners ( and I am talking 180k-1000k ) have access to tax minimisation strategies that are available to the mega rich.

I can almost assure you there there are not many people in those income brackets who pay less ?% tax than people below the maximum marginal rate.

They still pay truckloads more than the average Joe, who is in fact subsidised often by those who have worked longer hours / sacrificed certain areas of their life to achieve such incomes.

But then again, the world owes certain people a living, and unfortunately those that work the smartest / hardest are often not the beneficiaries of any "generosity" of those who like to enjoy themselves.

MW

PS Yes, I do think that a small percentage of the community expects handouts, not handups.


----------



## IFocus

sptrawler said:


> The only thing it does do is show how badly the previous government has performed. Going from no debt to $300billion in six years.




What's really terrible is Labor are still spending it.........when will it ever end, why wont Labor stop spending our money?


----------



## IFocus

sydboy007 said:


> There's the folly in being so reliant on income and corporate taxation.
> 
> The faster this Government realises taxing hard work is counter productive the better.
> 
> After hearing of the deficit levy I've decided to take up my company's offer to purchase up to 2 weeks extra leave.  After tax it's like getting 2 for the price of 1




Thanks for your posts Syd you really bring some excellent contributions  to these threads


----------



## sydboy007

This graph shows just how lopsided our taxation system is.

Notice how consumption tax had the stimulus bounce, and has been on a continual decline since.  No wonder the states are near bankrupt too.

Our tax system favours speculation over thrift and penalises PAYG earners far to heavily.  I'm thinking I've got a better chance at lotto mega draw win than any meaningful tax reform on budget night, but I'll be happy if there's some good surprises.

Note: That consumptions taxes will take multiple hits with the FTAs recently announced.  Billions in import tariffs will be lost, and I've yet to hear how the Government expects to replace this lost income.


----------



## Julia

medicowallet said:


> It seems to me the have nots?? here have a thought that high income earners ( and I am talking 180k-1000k ) have access to tax minimisation strategies that are available to the mega rich.
> 
> I can almost assure you there there are not many people in those income brackets who pay less ?% tax than people below the maximum marginal rate.
> 
> They still pay truckloads more than the average Joe, who is in fact subsidised often by those who have worked longer hours / sacrificed certain areas of their life to achieve such incomes.
> 
> But then again, the world owes certain people a living, and unfortunately those that work the smartest / hardest are often not the beneficiaries of any "generosity" of those who like to enjoy themselves.
> 
> MW
> 
> PS Yes, I do think that a small percentage of the community expects handouts, not handups.



+1.  I'm reminded of the people who decline any suggestion that they had the option of saving for their own retirement.  They offer that they could not possibly be expected to do so because "compulsory super has only been in place for less than half their working lives".

If there's any logic in that I can't see it.  What was to stop them saving for their own retirement anyway?
It doesn't take any sort of mathematical wizard to realise that a government pension (even if it were to still exist when they reach the age of eligibility) is hardly enough for a comfortable retirement.


----------



## Calliope

IFocus said:


> What's really terrible is Labor are still spending it.........when will it ever end, why wont Labor stop spending our money?




I agree. It will never end. The Gonski Education reforms and the NDIS were cunningly designed to wedge the Coalition and to bleed the economy of billions far into the foreseeable future. Both are hugely inefficient and wasteful like all Labor projects, and the truth is we can't afford them.


----------



## sydboy007

Calliope said:


> I agree. It will never end. The Gonski Education reforms and the NDIS were cunningly designed to wedge the Coalition and to bleed the economy of billions far into the foreseeable future. Both are hugely inefficient and wasteful like all Labor projects, and the truth is we can't afford them.




But PPL is?  Removing the resource tax which is about the most efficient tax wasn't a wedge policy against Labor?  Then we have the removal of the LISC meaning something like 3.8 million people pay more in super tax than income tax, yet roughly 16000 will be blessed with an extra $75M each year.  How does that help reduce future aged pension costs?

Yes, the Abbott Government certainly knows how to ensure the pain from fiscal consolidation is distributed _fairly_.  Certainly in the same vein as $5000 trips for 2 hour meetings.


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> +1.  I'm reminded of the people who decline any suggestion that they had the option of saving for their own retirement.  They offer that they could not possibly be expected to do so because "compulsory super has only been in place for less than half their working lives".
> 
> If there's any logic in that I can't see it.  What was to stop them saving for their own retirement anyway?
> It doesn't take any sort of mathematical wizard to realise that a government pension (even if it were to still exist when they reach the age of eligibility) is hardly enough for a comfortable retirement.




Combined with the fact they were able to buy relatively well located shelter for around 3 times the average wage compared to the current 6 on the edge of a major city and 9 if you want access to decent public transport.  With such low housing costs it should have been relatively easy to pay off the mortgage and start saving for the future.  Even my dad was able to scrap together around $100K in super for when he retired and he spent many years on a low income keeping peoples gardens in shape and handyman jobs for pensioners who had no one else to help them.  My parents lived pretty frugally and knew the value of saving.

It's just another facet to how so many people want to blame someone else when most of the time they just need to take the initiative and sort things out for themselves.  Our politicians could also stop blaming everyone else and start taking a bit of responsibility.  Lead by example!  Now there's an old style tradition Abbott could have brought back instead of knights and dames or racial bigotry.


----------



## medicowallet

A problem is that imo what the majority vote for is not necessarily what is best for the majority.

A problem is that we vote for our self interests and that this leads to a mishmash of policy that often is a detriment to the majority.

I have no problem at all paying tax to aid the needy, but middle class welfare has proven to be a huge mistake, aiding in the housing boom and disincentivising hard work and self improvement

I 100% agree we need courage and conviction in a pm. But that would be political suicide


----------



## noco

I believe Joe Hockey has explained it very well in the link below....If you live beyond your means, you have to borrow money to satisfy your materialistic thirst....but eventually it has to be paid back with a heap of interest.

In years gone by when we did not have credit cards, you did without until you could afford it...Yes you could borrow from the bank to buy a house on one third deposit and you could buy a new car on hire purchase....but when you went shopping for living, food and clothing, you had to pay cash.

Either the Comrades of the Greens are dumb when it it comes to finances or they are just playing politics to suit their own egos and with very little interest in the welfare of the nation.  


http://www.couriermail.com.au/busin...onal-credit-card/story-fnihpj8r-1226904320467


----------



## chiff

Well silly me-I thought that the idea was for people to have access to finance and debt-and consume their little bums off.
And as long as they can service the debt,the lenders do not care how much people borrow.


----------



## waterbottle

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/federal-l...dragged-into-icac-scandal-20140502-zr2tp.html

*



			Federal Liberal MP Karen McNamara dragged into ICAC scandal
		
Click to expand...


*

Will be interesting to see how SirTonez will deal with this. Obviously there are still more federal players to be flushed out.


----------



## sydboy007

medicowallet said:


> I 100% agree we need courage and conviction in a pm. But that would be political suicide




I think a courageous PM would need a think skin, but generally people are willing to respect someone who makes a tough choice and sticks with it.

Changing our tax system away from direct to indirect taxes will be a hard sell, but the great thing is pretty much any economist worth their salt will back you up, and the massive efficiency dividend would allow more than adequate compensation for those on lower incomes.

I'd be quite happy if any extra GST income was tied to specific projects.  If the punters can see where the tax is going i'd say we'll generally be a bit more supportive of the change.

If KMPG in the Henry tax Review are right, then the Government could replace $2 of corporate tax with around $1.25 of land tax.  We could replace $6 of income tax with $5 of GST.

An added advantage of land tax on commercial property is the likes of Apple and Google would not find it so easy to avoid paying tax here.  Land tax on residential property would also help to even the balance between property owners and renters who don't benefit from the tax free status of the primary residence.  It also helps to catch some revenue from those who dodge GST via the cash economy.

Get some unions and a few major charities onside regarding the changes and you're half way to victory.


----------



## sydboy007

chiff said:


> Well silly me-I thought that the idea was for people to have access to finance and debt-and consume their little bums off.
> And as long as they can service the debt,the lenders do not care how much people borrow.




That was during the Howard _Equity Mate_ years.

Alas most borrowers have so over indulged they'll have years of indegestion.  I think only Cananda is the other "rich" country that hasn't de-leveraged after the GFC with Australia.  Household debt is now setting a new peak.  A scary house of straw that I doubt with survive the oncoming ToT storm and real income shock.

I'm yet to see any economic article that shows how it's possible to have GDP growth while the private and public sectors both save.


----------



## Julia

sydboy007 said:


> Combined with the fact they were able to buy relatively well located shelter for around 3 times the average wage compared to the current 6 on the edge of a major city and 9 if you want access to decent public transport.  With such low housing costs it should have been relatively easy to pay off the mortgage and start saving for the future.  Even my dad was able to scrap together around $100K in super for when he retired and he spent many years on a low income keeping peoples gardens in shape and handyman jobs for pensioners who had no one else to help them.  My parents lived pretty frugally and knew the value of saving.



Your last sentence relates to what sptrawler has previously said.  There was a different culture in that generation.  They didn't have the opportunity - or the compulsion - to buy the latest version of every u beaut bit of technology that comes out.  They had things repaired instead of tossing them out.  They mostly shared a common understanding that to get anywhere you had to be prepared to save and make sacrifices.   

There are some young people with a similar attitude today so I'd dispute any generalisation that it's just too hard for people to get into their own homes.  A couple with one child who were my neighbours until six months ago moved into their fully paid for new home, cost $1.1m.  They have three IPs, one freehold and the other two not far off that.  They're in their mid 30s, she's a teacher and he's an electrician with Ergon Energy.
He has worked extra hours to build up their asset base.  They simply are good money managers.
They've  had no assistance from anyone, both sets of parents are retired blue collar workers.

Then in my group of women friends, all are tertiary educated, two with PhDs, and only one is a self funded retiree.  She has attained that status not because of being particularly financially literate but because she spent her whole working life in the public service with a defined benefit scheme attached to her retirement plus substantial salary.  All the others own their own home, a  car more than 10 years old, and next to no savings .
Any discussion of financial matters causes their eyes to glaze over and comments to be made such as "oh, there's never been anyone in my family who was good with money", "shares are just a waste of time - pure gambling" etc etc.

So I'd suggest where people find themselves in retirement is far more to do with attitude and application than any particular intelligence or even parental modelling.

You could give those women I've mentioned above $100,000 each and five out of six of them would just think "whacko, what can I buy?"


----------



## Calliope

sydboy007 said:


> I'd be quite happy if any extra GST income was tied to specific projects.  If the punters can see where the tax is going i'd say we'll generally be a bit more supportive of the change.




A brilliant idea. All taxpayers should be able to nominate where their taxes are spent.

In the words of Kerry Packer;

"Because as a government I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be donating extra".

In other words...tell us where its going and we will happily give you more.


----------



## noco

It is incomprehensible, how these electoral polls have swayed back to Labor......on the one hand we have a political party who have created a huge financial mess and on the other hand we have a political party who is trying to rectify the mess left by Labor and who gets all the cu does?....you guessed it.LABOR. 

It is unbelievable just how some people think......It does not seem to matter to some as to what the Abbott Coalition  are trying to achieve  in the interest of the Nation......perhaps they think we should go on borrowing $100,000,000 per day so long as their own pockets don't get burnt......As I commented on another post, those $900 cheques Rudd gave us was just a loan and now we must pay it back in one form or another.


https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/23194053/voters-punish-coalitions-tax-plan-poll/In is incomprehensible


----------



## Julia

noco said:


> It is incomprehensible, how these electoral polls have swayed back to Labor.



Have they?  I only gave a cursory look at the poll published in today's paper, but thought the votes that have gone from the government have gone to PUP and the Greens rather than Labor.  Someone will have had a more considered look at it and be able to confirm or otherwise?

Given the loss of votes to the government, I don't think it's surprising at all.  They were  never particularly popular in their own right and won government mostly on the basis of people being fed up with Labor and going for an alternative.  In the last couple of weeks the government  has made a complete mess of conveying their fundamental message to the electorate, allowing leaks which in turn allow the media to speculate wildly with all sorts of doomsday scenarios.

As a result a large chunk of the population are convinced they are going to be faced with impossible cost of living increases.  Do you really think they are going to feel grateful that the government is claiming to be setting the country to rights at their expense?

If the government cannot do a better job than they have done so far in communicating their message, they deserve to be a one term government.


----------



## CanOz

noco said:


> It is incomprehensible, how these electoral polls have swayed back to Labor......on the one hand we have a political party who have created a huge financial mess and on the other hand we have a political party who is trying to rectify the mess left by Labor and who gets all the cu does?....you guessed it.LABOR.
> 
> It is unbelievable just how some people think......It does not seem to matter to some as to what the Abbott Coalition  are trying to achieve  in the interest of the Nation......perhaps they think we should go on borrowing $100,000,000 per day so long as their own pockets don't get burnt......As I commented on another post, those $900 cheques Rudd gave us was just a loan and now we must pay it back in one form or another.
> 
> 
> https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/23194053/voters-punish-coalitions-tax-plan-poll/In is incomprehensible




Agree totally noco, it's been very entertaining to watch since I've been here...regardless of what party got the country into it, someone has to have the courage to get the country out of it....


----------



## drsmith

Those who think current polling is a guide can place a bet now and cash in on election day. 

http://www.sportsbet.com.au/betting/politics/australian-federal-politics


----------



## bellenuit

noco said:


> It is unbelievable just how some people think......It does not seem to matter to some as to what the Abbott Coalition  are trying to achieve  in the interest of the Nation..




I think most of it is Abbott's own doing.

Parents are often in the position of making promises to their children that due to changed circumstances they can't keep. Employees too make commitments to their employers all of which they may not be able to keep because of changed circumstances.

A typical parent or employee would approach Abbott's dilemma by saying something like the following. _"Yes we did promise not to raise taxes and yes we did promise to get the budget under control, but the situation is much more dire than we expected. It is beyond my control but I can't keep both promises and as getting the budget under control is the more important of the two, I will tackle that as a priority. To do that, I must raise taxes. I apologise for not being able to keep that promise but I will return taxes to their current level as soon as is possible."_ This would require some loss of face, but I think the populace would likely accept it, as it is a situation they are often in themselves.

But instead of treating the populace as adults, Abbott does stupid and treats us all like idiots. Suggesting a temporary levy is not a tax defies all credibility.   

If he needs to hit high income taxpayers, couldn't he save all the legislation and bureaucracy that will be involved with such a levy by simply raising the tax rate on the current top two tiers, $80K+ and $180K+, by whatever is needed to give the same return as a levy. Then perhaps commit to reduce those tax levels as soon as the deficit reaches a particular level.

I am so sick of both sides of politics making absolute statements that they know they may not be able to keep if circumstances change. Then when circumstances do change, rather than taking the correct approach which might be to break one or more promises, they start doing stupid things to save face. Perhaps instead of promises, they should commit to prioritised goals and state upfront that not all may be achievable in the following term or couple of terms. We all know you can't have everything and understand that the lesser priority goals may have to be delayed in order to achieve the higher priority goals. 

Seeing the media completely taken up by whether such and such a promise is being kept or not is just sickening and the government could get on with doing what is right for the country if they didn't get in to these situations of their own making.


----------



## banco

bellenuit said:


> Seeing the media completely taken up by whether such and such a promise is being kept or not is just sickening and the government could get on with doing what is right for the country if they didn't get in to these situations of their own making.




There should be a culture of politicians keeping promises so voters can know what they are voting for. The idea that Abbott didn't know what was going on with the budget prior to the election campaign is fanciful (have you heard of PEFO?).  If he breaks the promise he will be crucified by the media and rightfully so.


----------



## McLovin

banco said:


> There should be a culture of politicians keeping promises so voters can know what they are voting for.




No. There should be a culture of politicians not making promises to not break promises. Any grown-up can deal with lying politicians. I'd be more worried if they weren't!


----------



## sydboy007

bellenuit said:


> I am so sick of both sides of politics making absolute statements that they know they may not be able to keep if circumstances change. Then when circumstances do change, rather than taking the correct approach which might be to break one or more promises, they start doing stupid things to save face. Perhaps instead of promises, they should commit to prioritised goals and state upfront that not all may be achievable in the following term or couple of terms. We all know you can't have everything and understand that the lesser priority goals may have to be delayed in order to achieve the higher priority goals.
> 
> Seeing the media completely taken up by whether such and such a promise is being kept or not is just sickening and the government could get on with doing what is right for the country if they didn't get in to these situations of their own making.




Fully agree with you, but Abbott helped to poison things while in opposition and is now being measured against the impossible standards he set.

Revenue is down, most likely wont recover quick enough to help fix the budget.  We need REAL taxation changes in this country.  $120B of tax expenditures and it's not even on the agenda.  Raising inefficient taxes is not a smart way forward.  Meaningful reforms are the only way forward.  We're in this mess because of repeated quick fix bandaid solutions that last till the next election.

I fear we'll have to really hit crisis levels before some party has the cajones to stand up and say they will make the tough choices.  Hopefully us voters are smart enough to support them.


----------



## sydboy007

banco said:


> There should be a culture of politicians keeping promises so voters can know what they are voting for. The idea that Abbott didn't know what was going on with the budget prior to the election campaign is fanciful (have you heard of PEFO?).  If he breaks the promise he will be crucified by the media and rightfully so.




I'd prefer political "leaders" to come up with 3 to 5 things they WILL achieve each term in office.  If they don't then they will stand down as leader.  I have my KPIs at work, so why shouldn't our political leaders be measured in a similar fashion?


----------



## Calliope

sydboy007 said:


> I fear we'll have to really hit crisis levels before some party has the cajones to stand up and say they will make the tough choices.  Hopefully us voters are smart enough to support them.




You mean like the Greens or PUP.


----------



## sydboy007

Calliope said:


> You mean like the Greens or PUP.




PUP is a symptom, not a cause


----------



## AAA

sydboy007 said:


> I fear we'll have to really hit crisis levels before some party has the cajones to stand up and say they will make the tough choices.  Hopefully us voters are smart enough to support them.





And yet you give you give the Abbott government no support at all for the tough choices they want to implement like raising the pension age. There is absolutely no positive political mileage they get out of doing this. It's a negative for them at the moment. By the time any positives come out of this for Australia Abbott and Hockey will have departed politics. Even if you disagree with the policy I find it hard to see why anyone wouldn't believe that it is a tough choice being made now for the future of Australia.


----------



## sydboy007

AAA said:


> And yet you give you give the Abbott government no support at all for the tough choices they want to implement like raising the pension age. There is absolutely no positive political mileage they get out of doing this. It's a negative for them at the moment. By the time any positives come out of this for Australia Abbott and Hockey will have departed politics. Even if you disagree with the policy I find it hard to see why anyone wouldn't believe that it is a tough choice being made now for the future of Australia.




I've not criticised the Abbott Government for planning to raise the pension age to 70.

I am critical of a lot of other ideas they've been leaking to the media.

Tough choices would be to stand up tot he rentier class and vested interests and tackle the $120B+ in tax expenditures we have.  Tough choices include restructuring our tax system away from inefficient direct taxes and killing off stamp duties and replacing them with indirect taxes that are less distorting of economic activity.

So far I've seen nothing to suggest that Abbott or Hockey are up to the task.  they've set up the CoA to ignore the GSt and tax expenditures, they're int eh process of allowing commissions back into financial advise, they've ensure most low paid workers pay more super tax than income tax. Even Abbotts "backdown" on PPL will reduce the cost minimally.

So apart from adding to Labors increase in the pension age, what economic policies would you suggest I support?


----------



## noco

It is so strange when you hear the Comrades of the Greens and the Greens themselves raving on that the Government  should hit the rich to pay more taxes.....then when a levy is applied to those earning over $80,000 per year our comrades complain about it.....I mean what do they want?

After all, as Joe Hockey states, it is equivalent to the price of a cup of coffee per day....Do you really think they would miss that much for the sake of the nation.  


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...r-burden-of-levy/story-fn59nsif-1226905277100


----------



## Junior

Buy a few less planes and apply asset/income test to the PPL.  Short term issue solved.

Then, as Sydboy said, implement meaningful and permanent tax reform.


----------



## banco

noco said:


> It is so strange when you hear the Comrades of the Greens and the Greens themselves raving on that the Government  should hit the rich to pay more taxes.....then when a levy is applied to those earning over $80,000 per year our comrades complain about it.....I mean what do they want?
> 
> After all, as Joe Hockey states, it is equivalent to the price of a cup of coffee per day....Do you really think they would miss that much for the sake of the nation.
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...r-burden-of-levy/story-fn59nsif-1226905277100




I know you have trouble keeping two ideas in your head at once but the issue of them breaking a promise is separate from the issue of whether it's good policy.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> It is so strange when you hear the Comrades of the Greens and the Greens themselves raving on that the Government  should hit the rich to pay more taxes.....then when a levy is applied to those earning over $80,000 per year our comrades complain about it.....I mean what do they want?
> 
> After all, as Joe Hockey states, it is equivalent to the price of a cup of coffee per day....Do you really think they would miss that much for the sake of the nation.
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...r-burden-of-levy/story-fn59nsif-1226905277100




Yet just about every budgeting tips site will mention cutting back on buying a coffee on the way to work.  I'm glad you're so willing to help contribute to the Abbott deficit reduction fund.

I don't have a problem with increasing taxation on the rich, I do have a problem when it's done poorly.  The deficit / deceit tax does not help resolve the long term budget issues.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> I don't have a problem with increasing taxation on the rich, I do have a problem when it's done poorly.  The deficit / deceit tax does not help resolve the long term budget issues.




The problem is, your obvious support of Labors poorly enacted tax reform, didn't result in your constant unending criticism.
Shame you can't apportion your venom evenly, or can't disquise your bias, one of the two.


----------



## waterbottle

I think we all know where the "policies" for saving the economy will be coming from.

I can just imagine the LNP acolytes humming chants in support of their beloved Lord Tonez as they sacrifice the nation's future in the name of Sur Plus


----------



## sptrawler

waterbottle said:


> I think we all know where the "policies" for saving the economy will be coming from.
> 
> I can just imagine the LNP acolytes humming chants in support of their beloved Lord Tonez as they sacrifice the nation's future in the name of Sur Plus
> 
> View attachment 57859




Would that headline be similar to this one.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-leaders-exclusive-access-20140505-zr4us.html

Jeez talk about throwing stones when living in a glass house.lol


----------



## sails

Waterbottle - you don't mention Bill Shorten with his $3,300 lunches for business leaders?  



> Labor is offering business leaders exclusive access to Opposition Leader Bill Shorten before the federal budget, but it comes at a high price – $3300 for a boardroom lunch.




http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-leaders-exclusive-access-20140505-zr4us.html



haha Sptrawler - great minds must think alike...lol


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> The problem is, your obvious support of Labors poorly enacted tax reform, didn't result in your constant unending criticism.
> Shame you can't apportion your venom evenly, or can't disquise your bias, one of the two.




You mean the tax reform like the LISC that would help over 2 million low income earners have more saved within super?  You mean the tax reform like how cars are treated for FBT?  You mean the FOFA brought in to try and clean up the financial advice industry.

Oh right, the current Government has killed all those meaningful reforms, or is planning to kill off the main parts of FOFA.  I do wonder how many boardroom meetings our current treasure had with the financial services industry and if they helped shape the changes currently being brought in


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> You mean the tax reform like the LISC that would help over 2 million low income earners have more saved within super?  You mean the tax reform like how cars are treated for FBT?  You mean the FOFA brought in to try and clean up the financial advice industry.




Like I said poorly concieved, badly implemented and in the majority of cases not thought through.

The last thing low income earners need is money locked away in a system, that even in your words is fundamentaly flawed and unffordable. Maybe pay the money off their electricity bill, it would make more sense.

The car lease fiasco was another example of policy on the run worked out on the back of a napkin and introduced overnight through the newspapers. Appaling and whether right or wrong the implementation was KRudd kindy.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Like I said poorly concieved, badly implemented and in the majority of cases not thought through.
> 
> The last thing low income earners need is money locked away in a system, that even in your words is fundamentaly flawed and unffordable. Maybe pay the money off their electricity bill, it would make more sense.
> 
> The car lease fiasco was another example of policy on the run worked out on the back of a napkin and introduced overnight through the newspapers. Appaling and whether right or wrong the implementation was KRudd kindy.




Well, can you point me to any current Govt economic policy that you think we should be supporting?  Supposedly they had a plan going into the election, but I'm yet to see any coherency in what they're doing.  Seems like gum wrapper policy to me.

Abbotts support of the rentier class prior to the election also means it will be just about impossible to make any meaningful reforms to wind back the $120B in tax expenditures that are bleeding the budget every year.

Unless your proposing to give low income earners extra cash in hand to compensate them for losing the LISC, then all the current Govt has done is to side with extremely wealth* people over a large number of the working poor.

* someone earning at least 100K tax free would be roughly in the top 5% of income earners, so if you're beating more than 95% of the population then I do consider you to be extremely wealthy.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Well, can you point me to any current Govt economic policy that you think we should be supporting?  Supposedly they had a plan going into the election, but I'm yet to see any coherency in what they're doing.  Seems like gum wrapper policy to me.
> 
> Abbotts support of the rentier class prior to the election also means it will be just about impossible to make any meaningful reforms to wind back the $120B in tax expenditures that are bleeding the budget every year.
> 
> Unless your proposing to give low income earners extra cash in hand to compensate them for losing the LISC, then all the current Govt has done is to side with extremely wealth* people over a large number of the working poor.
> 
> * someone earning at least 100K tax free would be roughly in the top 5% of income earners, so if you're beating more than 95% of the population then I do consider you to be extremely wealthy.




I bagged Labor, when they were in office, after they introduced poor policy and jumped from pillar to post, trying ad hock band aid policy on the run.
I will bag the coalition when I see the policies they get through parliament and are enacted. 
At the moment the only policy that has been enacted is the soveriegn borders, which currently appears to be working.
Everything else is speculation and media ranting, and to be honest, i have better things to fill my time than run around in ever decreasing circles screaming.


----------



## drsmith

The latest Newspoll should be a lesson to Tony Abbott and this government.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...abbott-newspoll/story-fn59niix-1226906679734#

While they have to some extent wedged themselves over the deficit tax and hence made it very difficult politically to back out of it altogether, they do have more flexibility than Julia Gillard and Labor did after announcing the carbon tax.

I would now expect a relatively high income threshold (somewhere between $100k and $180k) for any deficit levy in the argued principal of sharing the burden but after taking into account such a large loss of primary support.

The trust deficit as a result of this though is obviously going to be harder and take longer to repair, but the money still says it all in relation to where it sees the electorate's view of the current opposition.



> Pay on party which supplies the Prime Minister following the next Federal election.
> 
> Coalition: $1.40
> Labor: $2.75




http://www.sportsbet.com.au/betting...deral-politics/outrights?ev_oc_grp_id=1192309


----------



## sydboy007

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...snt-tough-these-four-budget-reforms-are-tough

Tony and Joe could have a quick read and see what some meaningful reform looks like

The main points

1. Cut super tax concessions

By changing the way superannuation is taxed, the Grattan Institute estimates the government could generate an extra $6 billion a year in income tax.

A recent Australia Institute report found that superannuation tax concessions will become the single largest area of government expenditure by 2016-17.

2. Cut or reduce negative gearing benefits

According to the Grattan Institute, stopping investors' ability to deduct losses they make on investment properties as a tax writeoff could save the government as much as $4bn a year in the short term and $2bn a year in the long term.

3. Axe or reduce the capital gains tax break

According to the Grattan Institute, cutting the 50 per cent tax break Australians receive off capital gains tax would contribute about $5bn per year to the budget. The institute's chief executive John Daley says that this rule "overwhelmingly benefits" the top 2 per cent of Australia's income earners.

4. Broaden GST, but lower income and corporate taxes

Broadening the base of the GST would give the government more room to move with lowering the corporate tax rate (which current sits at around 30 per cent of revenue) and cutting income tax. In return, the government would drive tax revenue by broadening the base and increasing the rate of the GST to encompass more products. The Grattan Institute estimates this will improve economic output by up to $25bn a year.


----------



## McLovin

sydboy007 said:


> http://www.businessspectator.com.au...snt-tough-these-four-budget-reforms-are-tough
> 
> Tony and Joe could have a quick read and see what some meaningful reform looks like
> 
> The main points
> 
> 1. Cut super tax concessions
> 
> By changing the way superannuation is taxed, the Grattan Institute estimates the government could generate an extra $6 billion a year in income tax.
> 
> A recent Australia Institute report found that superannuation tax concessions will become the single largest area of government expenditure by 2016-17.
> 
> 2. Cut or reduce negative gearing benefits
> 
> According to the Grattan Institute, stopping investors' ability to deduct losses they make on investment properties as a tax writeoff could save the government as much as $4bn a year in the short term and $2bn a year in the long term.
> 
> 3. Axe or reduce the capital gains tax break
> 
> According to the Grattan Institute, cutting the 50 per cent tax break Australians receive off capital gains tax would contribute about $5bn per year to the budget. The institute's chief executive John Daley says that this rule "overwhelmingly benefits" the top 2 per cent of Australia's income earners.
> 
> 4. Broaden GST, but lower income and corporate taxes
> 
> Broadening the base of the GST would give the government more room to move with lowering the corporate tax rate (which current sits at around 30 per cent of revenue) and cutting income tax. In return, the government would drive tax revenue by broadening the base and increasing the rate of the GST to encompass more products. The Grattan Institute estimates this will improve economic output by up to $25bn a year.




Yes. It needed to be decisive, hard and swift. This should have been a painful budget. Probably the only thing Keating and Howard ever agreed on was that you have to use up your political capital, it's not a savings plan. You then have 2.5 years to win back your support. Instead, the writing is on the wall that we will toss and turn through to the next election with no real changes.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> The main points.



These are valid areas of review but politically require the argument to be made and a mandate sought. That's hopefully what the upcoming tax white paper will do.

On the debt levy, even ol Pete's getting stuck in.



> Mr Costello wrote in his column that the superannuation surcharge was "one of the worst decisions" he made, and lamented that Labor reintroduced it following the Howard government’s defeat.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-06/costello-says-debt-levy-plan-has-no-economic-benefit/5432472


----------



## sydboy007

McLovin said:


> Yes. It needed to be decisive, hard and swift. This should have been a painful budget. Probably the only thing Keating and Howard ever agreed on was that you have to use up your political capital, it's not a savings plan. You then have 2.5 years to win back your support. Instead, the writing is on the wall that we will toss and turn through to the next election with no real changes.




I fear what little political capital they had has been wasted on the budget leaks.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> These are valid areas of review but politically require the argument to be made and a mandate sought. That's hopefully what the upcoming tax white paper will do.




I just can't believe Abbott will be inclined to even try to get the kind of consensus Labor achieved in the 80s

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...cs/can-abbott-rebuild-bungled-politics-reform

Perhaps the best example of how to sell ‘tough love’ to the electorate came with the election of the Hawke government in 1983. That was an era of runaway inflation and soaring unemployment -- but Hawke did set out an agenda in his campaign launch that explained the pain to come, and how it was to be shared. At his February 1983 launch he said: “... in this hour of Australia's worst economic crisis for fifty years, we shall ask all sections of the Australian community to show the common restraint and share the common burden for the common national purpose.”

He laid out a prices and incomes policy that would not cut incomes in nominal terms, but would crimp spending power and business profits, while still allowing economic rebalancing between supply constraints and booming demand. 

In the same speech he promised: “We undertake, immediately on assuming office, to convene a national economic summit conference, fully representative of Australian industry, the Australian workforce and the Australian people through their elected governments ... Its purpose is to create a climate for common understanding of the scale and scope of Australia's present crisis, to explore the policy options, and to ensure that the relevant parties, governments, business and the unions, clearly appreciate the role that each of them will have to play in pulling the country out of its present economic mess.”

*What different days. The National Economic Summit was held in April of that year. Hawke described the effect of that summit on ABC Radio in 2012: “We had the representatives, federal government, state government, local government, large employers, small employers, trade unions, churches, welfare organisations. They were given by Treasury all the information that we had and so you had the people of Australia, through their representative organisations, informed in a way that they had never been before.*

“... it was out of that that I got an unanimous communiquÃ© except for one person, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, unanimous communiquÃ© agreeing with the analysis and accepting the things that had to be done, getting a constructive relationship between employers and trade unions, reducing the increase in money wages in return for acceptance of the social wage. Virtually all of the success -- the economic success of 1983 -- stemmed from the summit.â


----------



## Trentb

sydboy007 said:


> 2. Cut or reduce negative gearing benefits
> 
> 3. Axe or reduce the capital gains tax break




Those two sound like a fantastic way to destroy the middle class. It's these people that have to sacrifice obtaining things in order to invest. 

Upping the risk and lowering the reward. There's a point where investing becomes too much of a sacrifice and too risky for the middle class. No incentive to save has an end result in more poor people albeit with the latest iPhones. 

Is it better to have more money circulating in the economy and a huge pension line-up when they retire or money going into investments with a large number of self-funded retirees???

Does it matter if the rich get richer if they bring a large number of middle class investors up with them as well???


----------



## McLovin

Trentb said:


> Those two sound like a fantastic way to destroy the middle class. It's these people that have to sacrifice obtaining things in order to invest.




Really? The middle class didn't exist before these two tax breaks were introduced?


----------



## sydboy007

Trentb said:


> Those two sound like a fantastic way to destroy the middle class. It's these people that have to sacrifice obtaining things in order to invest.
> 
> Upping the risk and lowering the reward. There's a point where investing becomes too much of a sacrifice and too risky for the middle class. No incentive to save has an end result in more poor people albeit with the latest iPhones.
> 
> Is it better to have more money circulating in the economy and a huge pension line-up when they retire or money going into investments with a large number of self-funded retirees???
> 
> Does it matter if the rich get richer if they bring a large number of middle class investors up with them as well???




There's a lot of research that shows negative gearing is used predominantly to purchase existing properties. Therefore items not adding to the stock of housing so has little benefit to the rental market, but does allow landlords to cause house price inflation. Quarantining it against the income of the property would be a fairer way to have NG.

Why does a poor person pay full tax on interest income but a rich person get a 50% discount for income via capital gains?  It's a big cost to the budget with little benefit to the economy.  It encourages speculation and distorts investment decisions. It also encourages the rich to convert income to a capital gain if possible.


----------



## drsmith

Negative gearing against wage income represents only one part of the problem in relation to property tax/transfer. 

The reform perspective needs to be much broader than just this one item.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> Negative gearing against wage income represents only one part of the problem in relation to property tax/transfer.
> 
> The reform perspective needs to be much broader than just this one item.




It's a start that's yet to happen.  Bring in some MP till the various levels of Govt can get off their collective flabby buts and increase supply.  I'll head back to my flying pig spotting.  Never seen one but still hoping.

Tis a shame we as a society have changed our perspective from housing providing shelter to all property being an investment.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> I just can't believe Abbott will be inclined to even try to get the kind of consensus Labor achieved in the 80s
> 
> http://www.businessspectator.com.au...cs/can-abbott-rebuild-bungled-politics-reform
> 
> Perhaps the best example of how to sell ‘tough love’ to the electorate came with the election of the Hawke government in 1983. That was an era of runaway inflation and soaring unemployment -- but Hawke did set out an agenda in his campaign launch that explained the pain to come, and how it was to be shared. At his February 1983 launch he said: “... in this hour of Australia's worst economic crisis for fifty years, we shall ask all sections of the Australian community to show the common restraint and share the common burden for the common national purpose.”
> 
> He laid out a prices and incomes policy that would not cut incomes in nominal terms, but would crimp spending power and business profits, while still allowing economic rebalancing between supply constraints and booming demand.
> 
> In the same speech he promised: “We undertake, immediately on assuming office, to convene a national economic summit conference, fully representative of Australian industry, the Australian workforce and the Australian people through their elected governments ... Its purpose is to create a climate for common understanding of the scale and scope of Australia's present crisis, to explore the policy options, and to ensure that the relevant parties, governments, business and the unions, clearly appreciate the role that each of them will have to play in pulling the country out of its present economic mess.”
> 
> *What different days. The National Economic Summit was held in April of that year. Hawke described the effect of that summit on ABC Radio in 2012: “We had the representatives, federal government, state government, local government, large employers, small employers, trade unions, churches, welfare organisations. They were given by Treasury all the information that we had and so you had the people of Australia, through their representative organisations, informed in a way that they had never been before.*
> 
> “... it was out of that that I got an unanimous communiquÃ© except for one person, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, unanimous communiquÃ© agreeing with the analysis and accepting the things that had to be done, getting a constructive relationship between employers and trade unions, reducing the increase in money wages in return for acceptance of the social wage. Virtually all of the success -- the economic success of 1983 -- stemmed from the summit.”




Speaking from living through the Hawke years, I can tell you the people on the workshop floor were well and truly fed up with Hawke and the unions, by the end of the wages accord.
The unions kept a lid on wage rises and the government promised to keep wages in line with inflation through wage increases and or tax relief.
The problem was the wage rise always came in less than inflation, the government always had a reason why it couldn't be the same and was always short.
By the time Hawke and the Accord was thrown out wages had gone backwards 18% in real terms. That's my memory of it, the biggest scam perpetrated on workers in my opinion.
By the way we all, on the workshop floor voted for Hawke, everyone thought he was going to be the mesiah. 
We all ended up very disappointed and disillutioned by Hawke and it was a very militant blue collar workplace.


----------



## IFocus

Has the Government doubled the budget deficit?



> Treasurer Joe Hockey is the "Masterchef of cooking the books" according to his Opposition counterpart Chris Bowen, who has repeatedly accused the Coalition of using "voodoo economics" to create a sense of crisis to justify dramatic spending cuts in the May 13 budget.
> 
> "Now what's happening here is that Joe Hockey has doubled the deficit, adding $68 billion to the deficit by changes to Government spending and changes to Government assumptions, and now he's asking the Australian people to pay for it", Mr Bowen told journalists in his electorate on April 27.
> 
> ABC Fact Check examines whether this statement is correct.







> The verdict
> 
> Mr Bowen accurately quoted changes totalling $68 billion in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook.
> 
> The MYEFO forecasts a budget deficit twice as large as it was in the PEFO. The economic assumptions in MYEFO are different from those used in the PEFO, and there is spending in the MYEFO that was not in the previous forecasts.
> 
> It remains to be seen how the two sets of forecasts stand the test of time, but as of today, Mr Bowen's claim checks out.


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> Has the Government doubled the budget deficit?




Well IFocus, one thing that can't be disputed, is the Labor government certainly more than doubled it.lol


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> It's a start that's yet to happen.  Bring in some MP till the various levels of Govt can get off their collective flabby buts and increase supply.  I'll head back to my flying pig spotting.  Never seen one but still hoping.
> 
> .




You may well see the flying pig, you appear to seeing to all the speculative kites, that the media keep floating about what the governments going to do.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> You may well see the flying pig, you appear to seeing to all the speculative kites, that the media keep floating about what the governments going to do.




If the Govt chooses to leak then the Govt has to wear the cost.  they'r ethe ones who've chosen to dog whistle / kite fly.

IMHO they'd have been smarter to have continued with their current policy of everything is a state secret and released the bare minimum on budget night.


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> Has the Government doubled the budget deficit?



Labor budgets have a history of being works of fiction and that includes Wayne Swan's "delivered" surplus. 

This government was just correcting the record.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> If the Govt chooses to leak then the Govt has to wear the cost.  they'r ethe ones who've chosen to dog whistle / kite fly.
> 
> IMHO they'd have been smarter to have continued with their current policy of everything is a state secret and released the bare minimum on budget night.




That is, if it's government leaks. 
My bet is media speculation and sensationalism, they are the ones who pushed for the audit to be made public and since then have been hyperboling it to be government policy.
Thankfully the government didn't release it earlier, it has been nauseating watching Shorten and the media beating it up since its release.
Just mindless dribble, which Shorten seems to be very good at. 
In my opinion Labor haven't got a chance with Shorten, his lack of credibility is like a millstone around their necks.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> That is, if it's government leaks.
> My bet is media speculation and sensationalism, they are the ones who pushed for the audit to be made public and since then have been hyperboling it to be government policy.
> Thankfully the government didn't release it earlier, it has been nauseating watching Shorten and the media beating it up since its release.
> Just mindless dribble, which Shorten seems to be very good at.
> In my opinion Labor haven't got a chance with Shorten, his lack of credibility is like a millstone around their necks.




So you're saying someone outside the Govt made up the deficit tax and Abbott and Joe have decided to not refute it.  If that's true then they're pretty sad politicians.

The CoA was a waste of money.  terms of reference so narrow as to pretty much make it usless in educating the public about what needs to be done.  How was it going to help build a policy direction when it had no input other that big business and extreme economic rationalists.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> Labor budgets have a history of being works of fiction and that includes Wayne Swan's "delivered" surplus.
> 
> This government was just correcting the record.




Christopher Pyne, December 10, 2011: “Well if there had been a Coalition government for the last five years, Kieran, I think most people accept that we would have had continuing surpluses.”

About as believable as no new taxes and a FTTN by late 2016


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> Christopher Pyne, December 10, 2011: “Well if there had been a Coalition government for the last five years, Kieran, I think most people accept that we would have had continuing surpluses.”
> 
> About as believable as no new taxes and a FTTN by late 2016



The books would have without a doubt been in far better shape as would have our border security and that would have been without new taxes or Labor's disastrous NBN. 

A lot about the upcoming budget is about repairing the mess Labor left but as we already know, it will also deal with some of the longer term issues on the entitlement side.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> The books would have without a doubt been in far better shape as would have our border security and that would have been without new taxes or Labor's disastrous NBN.
> 
> A lot about the upcoming budget is about repairing the mess Labor left.




Yet no one mentions all the damage Howard and Costello did to the budget.  How much revenue has been lost to removing the petrol excise indexation ($5B just this year), halving of CGT, tax free super, transition to retirement pensions, baby bonuses?

A lot of the upcoming budgets should be about repairing the stupidity of the last 10 years, but I'm got my doubts that's what they'll actually try to achieve.

Unless households are willing to go on another debt fill binge to ramp up GST / SD / CGT revenue (they ballooned from 65% to a peak of 150% of disposable income under Howard and just peaked at nearly 180% or $1.8T) the only way forward is via productivity and meaningful tax reform.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Yet no one mentions all the damage Howard and Costello did to the budget.  How much revenue has been lost to removing the petrol excise indexation ($5B just this year), halving of CGT, tax free super, transition to retirement pensions, baby bonuses?
> 
> A lot of the upcoming budgets should be about repairing the stupidity of the last 10 years, but I'm got my doubts that's what they'll actually try to achieve.
> 
> Unless households are willing to go on another debt fill binge to ramp up GST / SD / CGT revenue (they ballooned from 65% to a peak of 150% of disposable income under Howard and just peaked at nearly 180% or $1.8T) the only way forward is via productivity and meaningful tax reform.




A lot has been said about the Howard /Costello years, not the least by you. Also a lot has been said about the Rudd / Gillard years.
However we find ourselves in the present, the beginning of the Abbott / Hockey years, lets wait and see before getting ourselves into a rabid frenzy. Like i said earlier they haven't implemented anything yet, try and save your youthfull enthusiasm untill they do.
The sky isn't falling in this week.


----------



## sptrawler

Hey Syd, I heard on the news first thing this morning, that the government is meeting today to soften the budget. As though the reporter would have been told that, what a joke. 
So the useless media now has a bet both ways, if it's tough they told you so, if it's not so tough they told you so. lol
The reporting in this country is a national disgrace, all it does is give a reporter a platform for his/her personal opinion and really, who wants their personal opinion I can get that in the pub for free.
Is there any wonder newspaper circulation is falling.
Well, that's my opinion, for what it's worth.lol


----------



## Calliope

sptrawler said:


> Hey Syd, I heard on the news first thing this morning, that the government is meeting today to soften the budget.




Apparently it will apply to incomes over $150,000. Poor old syd will still get slugged.


----------



## sptrawler

Well at last there is a budget article that states facts and is written in an unbiased way, hooray.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-07/koukoulas-hockey-has-us-tracking-towards-surplus/5434290

No sensationalism, no telling us what the government is going to say, just saying it as it is.

There will be plenty of time to bag the budget, when it is laid out.


----------



## banco

sptrawler said:


> Hey Syd, I heard on the news first thing this morning, that the government is meeting today to soften the budget. As though the reporter would have been told that, what a joke.
> So the useless media now has a bet both ways, if it's tough they told you so, if it's not so tough they told you so. lol




You seem to have trouble following the chain of events.  Government leaks original plan a couple of weeks ago, is heavily criticised and then backs off and leaks again that they are softening it.


----------



## sptrawler

banco said:


> You seem to have trouble following the chain of events.  Government leaks original plan a couple of weeks ago, is heavily criticised and then backs off and leaks again that they are softening it.




O.K Banco, give us a scoop, what is in the budget? What's the original plan? or are you just going to regurgitate what the press spews out endlessly.lol
Apparently you have the inside knowledge.
Actually better still, if you know it, put your money where your mouth is.

http://www.sportsbet.com.au/blog/sportsbet-media/budget-betting-begins

Or do you have trouble following the chain of events also.lol


----------



## overhang

sptrawler said:


> O.K Banco, give us a scoop, what is in the budget? What's the original plan? or are you just going to regurgitate what the press spews out endlessly.lol
> Apparently you have the inside knowledge.
> Actually better still, if you know it, put your money where your mouth is.
> 
> http://www.sportsbet.com.au/blog/sportsbet-media/budget-betting-begins
> 
> Or do you have trouble following the chain of events also.lol




Well Peter Costello certainly seems to disagree with you, reading between the lines he insinuates the government leaked the levy to gauge public reaction.


> The argument for increasing income taxes through some kind of levy is all about the politics. That’s why it was floated ”” to gauge reaction.
> 
> If the government had *irrevocably decided to do it, it would have just announced it in the Budget scheduled for next Tuesday night.
> 
> I think there has been enough reaction now for the government to conclude that, far from making it easier to sell repairs to the Budget, the levy would make things harder.






> The Budget will be put to bed on the weekend. Tax proposals are regularly put in and pulled out in the last week *before a Budget.
> 
> Proposals can be changed or dropped altogether. The Prime Minister and Treasurer have cabinet authorisation to do that.



http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...bt-levy-will-die/story-fni0cwl5-1226906423665


----------



## sptrawler

overhang said:


> Well Peter Costello certainly seems to disagree with you, reading between the lines he insinuates the government leaked the levy to gauge public reaction.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...bt-levy-will-die/story-fni0cwl5-1226906423665




I'm not saying things aren't leaked, I'm saying the endless dribble that the newspapers put out is appalling.

When the Audit was announced, it was presented in a lot of the press as government policy, then you get everyone ranting about it.

Even your statement above is vague, 'seems to disagree',  'reading between the lines' and 'insunuates' all speculative supposition.

I guess I'm just fed up with poor media, even watching the news is grating, some newsreader giving their opinion on whatever story they're reading. 
Who cares what her or his opinion is? Also how qualified are they to give an opinion anyway.
Well that's my rant for the week


----------



## banco

sptrawler said:


> I'm not saying things aren't leaked, I'm saying the endless dribble that the newspapers put out is appalling.
> 
> When the Audit was announced, it was presented in a lot of the press as government policy, then you get everyone ranting about it.
> 
> Even your statement above is vague, 'seems to disagree',  'reading between the lines' and 'insunuates' all speculative supposition.
> 
> I guess I'm just fed up with poor media, even watching the news is grating, some newsreader giving their opinion on whatever story they're reading.
> Who cares what her or his opinion is? Also how qualified are they to give an opinion anyway.
> Well that's my rant for the week




I didn't know Grandpa Simpson posted here.


----------



## overhang

sptrawler said:


> I'm not saying things aren't leaked, I'm saying the endless dribble that the newspapers put out is appalling.
> 
> When the Audit was announced, it was presented in a lot of the press as government policy, then you get everyone ranting about it.
> 
> Even your statement above is vague, 'seems to disagree',  'reading between the lines' and 'insunuates' all speculative supposition.
> 
> I guess I'm just fed up with poor media, even watching the news is grating, some newsreader giving their opinion on whatever story they're reading.
> Who cares what her or his opinion is? Also how qualified are they to give an opinion anyway.
> Well that's my rant for the week




The government has lead to this speculation by not actually confirming or denying anything, they leaked this info that has caused a media frenzy and rightly so when Abbott promised no new taxes.
I'm sure I wouldn't have to check far into your post history to find some speculative comments one way or the other.


----------



## sptrawler

banco said:


> I didn't know Grandpa Simpson posted here.




Yes, just had my hip replaced a couple of weeks back, probably watching too much t.v.

It's like Packer and his mate having a bit of a punch up, the press get hold of it, now the bloody police are involved. 
It's a bloody shame the press can't go down the local train station after dark, and catch the thugs bashing the helpless and elderly, then get the police onto that.
No it isn't as exciting and won't sell bloody papers, it would only help society, who cares about that?
See you've got me going again.

I've got to get out more.


----------



## sptrawler

Here we go, police resources focused on media support.IMO

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/23297936/news-corp-watermark-hinders-packer-probe/

Maybe we should have Australia run by the media. 

Probably requires another thread,' Media beat ups and other circulation saving stories'


----------



## sptrawler

overhang said:


> I'm sure I wouldn't have to check far into your post history to find some speculative comments one way or the other.




Please do, I'm sure I need a reality check same as everyone else.


----------



## drsmith

Latest budget speculation on taxes,



> Senator Cormann called the deficit tax an “immediate special effort” but would not reveal who would pay it or how much it would cost. One option is a 1 per cent tax on earnings over $150,000 and 2 per cent on more than $180,000 to raise about $6.2bn over four years, according to estimates from Deloitte Access Economics. Another is only a 2 per cent tax on earnings over $180,000 to raise $4.6bn and sharpen the political fight by making it harder for Labor to oppose a hit to the wealthiest.




Hopefully, for simplicity if nothing else, it will be limited to the top marginal tax bracket.



> The Australian has confirmed that a rise in the fuel excise of 3c a litre was raised during budget consultations with interest groups. A government spokesman last night declined to comment on any fuel excise rise.




Reintroduction of CPI indexation on fuel excise would in my view make more sense than a one off hit.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...e-rise-in-frame/story-fnmbxr2t-1226909589752#


----------



## McLovin

Good bit from Latham today.



> The greatest emergency in Australian politics is not in the federal budget papers. It’s in a different kind of deficit: the democratic deficit whereby, after two decades of broken promises, entitlement rorts and corruption scandals, the electorate has lost faith in the political system. Public trust is at an all-time low. This is not just the Australian habit of tearing down tall poppies. It reflects a slow-burning anger in the electorate, a deep dislike of all things political as people have given up on democratic ideals.
> 
> At one time, I thought Tony Abbott understood this problem. Having campaigned for nearly three years against Julia Gillard’s broken carbon tax pledge and put trust at the centre of his covenant with the Australian people, one would have thought the Prime Minister had just two rules for government. One, keep all of his promises; and two, do as much as he could thereafter to reduce the budget deficit.
> 
> The Coalition’s much-touted debt tax, however, has sidelined this commonsense approach. Abbott has lowered himself to the status of any other hustling, two-bit political shyster. As acts of folly go, this one is a cracker. A man who put everything on the line by promising to keep each and every one of his election promises has crashed at the first honesty hurdle. He already had an integrity problem, a hangover from last year’s travel rorts scandal, but a broken tax promise is much worse. Abbott has handed to Bill Shorten the political sword he used so effectively in opposition: slashing a government to the ground on the core question of trust.
> 
> ...
> 
> It [the Commission of Audit] was useful only for revealing how senior Liberals see the future of community services in Australia, with an end to universality and the residualisation of the public sector. Contrast this with Abbott’s 2013 election manifesto when he campaigned as Gillard-lite, making extravagant promises for paid parental leave, Gonski school funding, the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the maintenance of carbon tax compensation (sans the tax itself: compo for nothing).
> 
> On top of this largesse, Abbott promised no net cuts to education, health, defence and pension spending, plus no new taxes – a magic pudding approach to budget management.
> 
> The gap between these commitments and the Commission of Audit report’s recommendations is being felt in two ways.
> 
> The first is in broken promises, as the government scrambles to do something meaningful about the budget deficit.
> 
> The second is in political frustration, as right-wingers come to realise that Abbott is something of a straw man: useful for turfing Labor out of power but hopeless at winding back the welfare state.




http://www.afr.com/p/opinion/tony_abbott_and_his_great_big_trust_vsSqjbx94pEGClwYULzMBM


----------



## sptrawler

McLovin said:


> Good bit from Latham today.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.afr.com/p/opinion/tony_abbott_and_his_great_big_trust_vsSqjbx94pEGClwYULzMBM




The last sentence may be very true. Good write up.


----------



## Julia

It's a pity Mr Latham failed so dismally when he had his chance.  He clearly has the capacity for lucid thinking and expression.  

It was good to see the candid Amanda Vanstone on "7.30" this evening, having lost none of her no-bullsh*t attitude.  Despite Sarah Ferguson's best efforts, Amanda was entirely up to the challenge.
Shame that she's no longer in government imo.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> It was good to see the candid Amanda Vanstone on "7.30" this evening, having lost none of her no-bullsh*t attitude.  Despite Sarah Ferguson's best efforts, Amanda was entirely up to the challenge.
> Shame that she's no longer in government imo.




Oh yes, we could certainly do with more criminals in this country, as long as they are Liberal party donors.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/crime-fighter-lashes-vanstones-visa-20090308-8sfu.html

Vanstone was packed off to Italy for a reason, she was just too embarrassing to have around.


----------



## IFocus

Just feels like everything is unravelling as Abbott performs the ultimate wedge politics on himself having promised the world in blood.

Another messenger for you to shoot sptrawler 

I really do wish Labor would stop spending all our money

Company directors losing faith in Abbott Government



> A survey shows company directors have become much less confident in the Abbott Government since it was first elected.
> 
> Back in the second half of 2013, just after the Abbott Government took office, almost 70 per cent of company directors expected the new administration to have a positive impact on their business decision making.
> 
> In the latest Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) survey, this figure has slumped to just 30 per cent.





http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-08/company-directors-starting-to-lose-faith-in-government/5439272


----------



## IFocus

For anyone living under a rock lately a bit of history here




> The prime minister insisted during last year’s election campaign that there would be no new taxes under a Coalition government, but has argued a deficit levy would not break that promise because it is temporary.
> 
> Tony Abbott opposed the 2011 flood levy, a temporary measure to pay for reconstruction after the Queensland floods. The carbon tax, which Abbott aggressively opposed and campaigned to abolish, is also technically a temporary measure, which is supposed to move to an emissions trading scheme with a floating price.
> 
> Abbott criticised taxes heavily as opposition leader but he argues because of the “budget emergency” the government is being forced to take action.
> 
> So what exactly has the Coalition said?





Statements before the September 2013 election



> Mark Riley: “But aren’t you going to have to increase taxes yourself?”
> 
> Abbott: “No. We are going to get government spending under control.”




Seven News, 4 August, 2013



> “What you’ll get under us are tax cuts without new taxes.”



Tony Abbott, doorstop,14 March, 2012



> “I say to this prime minister there should be no new tax collection without an election. That's what this prime minister should do. If this prime minister trusts in the democratic process, if this prime minister trusts her own judgment, trusts her own argument, that is what she should be doing. She should be taking this to the people. Mr Speaker, the whole point of this tax is to change the way every single Australian lives and works. That's another reason why this should be taken to the people.”





Tony Abbott, January 2011, at the same press conference



> "Why should the Australian people be hit with a levy to meet expenses which a competent, adult, prudent government should be able to cover from the ordinary revenues of government? … The one thing people will never have to suffer under a Coalition government is an unnecessary new tax, a tax that could easily be replaced by savings found from the budget.”





http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ernment-broken-its-election-promises-on-taxes


----------



## IFocus

Budget's petrol shock will leave voters fuming



> Motorists will pay more for fuel in future and it looks set to keep rising as Prime Minister Tony Abbott prepares to break his no "new taxes" promise for a second time – this time by taxing petrol at a higher rate.
> 
> The plan, which the government refused to officially confirm, compounds another tax increase to be announced in the budget – a special deficit levy on higher income earners designed to raise about $2.5 billion a year for its duration.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ters-fuming-20140508-zr6v2.html#ixzz31AIgaTdE


----------



## overhang

IFocus said:


> Budget's petrol shock will leave voters fuming
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ters-fuming-20140508-zr6v2.html#ixzz31AIgaTdE




The electorate will be fuming by any method to pay this debt back, did they really expect as they spent their $900 cheque on a new tv that wouldn't have to pay this money back in some form or another.  

My complaint would be that they won't reduce the fuel rebate for miners at all.  I say bring the fuel indexation on and I'm someone that drives a V8.


----------



## noco

overhang said:


> The electorate will be fuming by any method to pay this debt back, did they really expect as they spent their $900 cheque on a new tv that wouldn't have to pay this money back in some form or another.
> 
> My complaint would be that they won't reduce the fuel rebate for miners at all.  I say bring the fuel indexation on and I'm someone that drives a V8.




Good old generous Kevvie forgot to tell everyone at the time that those $900 cheques were just a loan....now you have to pay it back with interest.


----------



## IFocus

overhang said:


> The electorate will be fuming by any method to pay this debt back, did they really expect as they spent their $900 cheque on a new tv that wouldn't have to pay this money back in some form or another.




Not wanting to get into the debt discussion again but the stimulus isn't the reason for the current "budget crisis"

It was $40 bil the Liberals would have spent $20 bil small change apparently in these days of over heated printing presses.

The issue is successive governments starting with Howard giving away money to buy votes creating a structural issue on the revenue side.

Neither side of politics is prepared to talk about it, the Liberals don't want Howard and Costello's legacy of being economic genus (selling $ zillions of our assets and giving it away in permanent tax cuts ) to be blighted and Labor wont because they don't want to appear as mugs going along with the Ponzi scheme.    

On top of all that you have both sides agreeing (Abbott in blood) to further big ticket item spending.........what do you do ......blame the other mob and have an absolute dogs breakfast list of new taxes that are not new taxes blah blah.............


----------



## noco

I believe by the end of 2015, voters will be thanking Abbott for taking a strong stand on reducing spending and bring some stability in the debt and deficit.

Of course the comrades of the Greens will be expected to keep pounding on about broken promises and will continue to  make out everything is rosy when they know damn well they left behind one hell of a mess. 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...to-be-paying-off/story-e6frgd0x-1226910856280


----------



## drsmith

Latest on fuel excise,



> It is understood the budget – which is now all but finalised and heading to the official printer – contains changes to restore indexation of federal petrol excise according to inflation, adding up to 4 ¢ or 5 ¢ a litre within four years, which would be on top of the other factors that have been driving petrol prices up.






> The Australian Automobile Association (AAA) says the return to using the consumer price index to upwardly adjust the per-litre amount of federal excise would add about 0.6 of a cent per litre in 2014-15 for a modest initial return of $339 million to Canberra.
> 
> However, that revenue would climb exponentially as the price rises 3.5 ¢ to 4 ¢ a litre in 2017-18, raising $1600 million in that year, or $3.7 billion over the first four years.




http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-will-leave-voters-fuming-20140508-zr6v2.html


----------



## McLovin

IFocus said:


> Budget's petrol shock will leave voters fuming
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ters-fuming-20140508-zr6v2.html#ixzz31AIgaTdE




I actually thought reitroduction of excise indexation was a good idea. A few pages back I actually suggested it.

There will always be someone "fuming" but at least this one has some logic to it unlike that silly levy.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> I believe by the end of 2015, voters will be thanking Abbott for taking a strong stand on reducing spending and bring some stability in the debt and deficit.
> 
> Of course the comrades of the Greens will be expected to keep pounding on about broken promises and will continue to  make out everything is rosy when they know damn well they left behind one hell of a mess.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...to-be-paying-off/story-e6frgd0x-1226910856280




Unless you're arguing Abbott made his promises with a gun to his head, the negative public reaction to them is justified.  He used the same broken promises against Labor so should be more than willing to accept the same level of judgement against himself.

The various groups now jumping out to criticise the potential rise in fuel excise should also have been foreseen by Abbott.  His opposition to just about every tax measure Labor wanted to introduce to help balance the budget relied partly on fanning the public via the media.

The question is does Abbott, and the L+NP, have the ticker to do what's right for Australia past the next election, or will they focus more on being re-elected?  Sadly the other political parties will do their best to make as much political capital from any efforts to rebalance our tax system, but once again Abbott showed them the way.

It will be extremely hard to have much in the way of meaningful reforms with the current lack of bipartisan support for what needs to be done.

If this Government does target some of the massive $120B in tax expenditures then they will have my support.  So far the rise in the fuel excise levy is probably the only economic policy kite they've flown that I can support.  It does seem fitting that a L+NP PM has to fix this economic vandalism from a previous L+NP PM.  A decision brought about by pig headedness to stop applying GST on the petrol + excise price has conservatively cost the budget over $50B since it was made.


----------



## IFocus

Lazy hypercritical Liberals


Tony Abbott's grand infrastructure plan may be an expensive road to nowhere

The prime minister is throwing billions of dollars at projects before any proper cost-benefit analysis has been done 



> The chairman of the Productivity Commission, Peter Harris –* who would seem to be an appropriate person to listen to on this point *– was very blunt with his advice in a speech on Friday, targeting the federal government’s intention to set aside a huge honeypot, reportedly as much as $5bn, as top-up funding for states that sell big assets such as power generators or ports and then very quickly reinvest the money in infrastructure.
> 
> “Project plans are being dusted off all over Australia in the face of the new incentives for recycling capital from privatisation. We should all hope that there is more than dust being brushed off. But right now we can only hope,” he said. Quite blunt, really (for a Productivity Commission guy).







> And here’s the rub. That’s exactly what the Abbott government has done.* It has pledged billions of dollars to projects before any business case had been done* and is giving some of them even more money in this budget, again without a business case.
> 
> Pledging there would be “cranes over our cities” within a year of his election, Abbott make election promises totalling $3bn to the $10bn West Connex toll road in Sydney and the first stage of the East West link road in Melbourne – *at a time when neither had business plans*, and when Infrastructure Australia, which is supposedly the independent arbiter of the nation’s infrastructure priorities, *said neither was “ready to proceed*”.




http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ture-plan-may-be-an-expensive-road-to-nowhere


----------



## sydboy007

IFocus said:


> Lazy hypercritical Liberals
> 
> 
> Tony Abbott's grand infrastructure plan may be an expensive road to nowhere
> 
> The prime minister is throwing billions of dollars at projects before any proper cost-benefit analysis has been done
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ture-plan-may-be-an-expensive-road-to-nowhere




Lets hope things are handled a bit better than the Vic Government selling of Rural Finance to Adelaide Bendigo bank.  Seems fishy to sell a public asset insecret to one party without have some form of competitive tender.

Someone on macrobusiness summed it up quite nicely

Trying to “pay off” government debt by selling assets to private monopolists and tax farmers is rather like trying to “pay off” one’s home loan by having it transferred from the bank to a bunch of loan sharks armed with cricket bats and rottweilers.  

Private monopolists and tax farmers are not philanthropists. They are not giving the government money out of the kindness of their hearts. They are doing so in the expectation that they will be able to gouge it back in the form of monopoly pricing on their captive customers and from their farmed taxes.

The deadweight losses associated with monopoly pricing and tax farming are no different from the deadweight losses imposed by taxation. And yet, whereas the wacko laissez-faire extremists will condemn any form of transparent taxation, they will applaud such concealed “private taxation” by rent-extractors.

Private monopolies are classically allocatively inefficient. It’s just that their inefficiency isn’t of the sort that shows up in any published profit and loss statement.

When a [nameless] private airport monopoly, for example, needlessly delays – for years – the building of a second runway, the cost manifests itself “invisibly” in the form of lost time for travellers stuck in holding patterns, and in the form of extra fuel usage by airlines. 

For the wacko laissez-faire extremists, however, this would be regarded as “efficient” because it raises the rate of return on the company’s restricted asset base. 

When a private road tolling tax farm runs at below capacity because the profit-maximising toll has encouraged drivers onto local streets, the cost manifests itself “invisibly” again in the form of lost time, in extra fuel usage, and in reduced amenity for those affected by the traffic. 

For the wacko laissez-faire extremists, however, this would be regarded as “efficient” because it raises the company’s rate of return. 

When a privatised grain-handling authority closes regional depots and dynamites the silos (to prevent potential competitors offering to buy them), the cost manifests itself “invisibly” in the form of farmers having to build on-farm storage and transport their grain further by road.

For the wacko laissez-faire extremists, however, this would be regarded as “efficient” because it raises the company’s rate of return. 

But even more worrying is the direct line running from privatisation to corruption.

Public agencies put work out to tender on a competitive, transparent, price-based system. In contrast, additional work by private monopolies and tax farms is almost invariably achieved through secretive, “commercial-in-confidence” renegotiations. Invariably the monopolist or tax farmer is in the commercially advantageous position of controlling the critical assets and revenues and thus being able to present a “take-it-or-leave-it” proposal.

(We still don’t know exactly what concession were offered in order to get the announcement of a new runway shortly after the election. Tolls on drivers dropping off passengers perhaps??)

As a matter of cosmetics for the gullible, there is usually an “independent adviser” involved, but having myself worked in this role I can testify that it is worse than useless. Imagine, if you will, a judicial system in which supposedly “independent” judges were selected by the Minister on a case by case basis from a pool of barristers. Imagine, if you will, that their deliberations were held in secret (“judicial-in-confidence”). 

Imagine, if you will, that those same barristers were themselves hoping to be involved in other commercial dealings with the government. And imagine that the Minister had made it clear that he wanted a particular verdict to be reached!

If it weren’t so serious it would be laugh-out-loud funny.

There is a direct line running from privatisation to corruption.

But even beyond allocative inefficiency and corruption of the transparent and competitive tendering system, funding infrastructure through private monopolies and tax farms actually degrades public finances.

One only need look at the history of public debt in the United Kingdom. (See (http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05745.pdf). Public sector net debt (excluding financial sector interventions) fell from 44% of GDP in 1980 to 26% in 1991 following the massive Thatcher privatisation program [much of which was actually “good” privatisation aimed at promoting competition . . . unlike today’s scams] but by 1997 it was back up to 42%. It is now above 70%. 

In the long run privatisation erodes government finances. While public revenues are being progressively alienated, politicians keep topping up the public debt (to buy votes), but have progressively less and less public revenue to service it.

What we are actually seeing here is the collapse of the corrupt system of elective government. 

Politicians facing re-election want to spend money buying the votes of powerful minority voting blocs or marginal electorates. And they want to hide from the majority the cost of what they are doing. They achieve this through privatisation.

Privatisation of this type simply doesn’t address the underlying problem: desperate politicians wasting money trying to buy votes then trying to conceal what they have done.

Politicians won’t stop spending. But the alienation of revenues though privatisation means that public finances deteriorate and politicians become ever more dependent on the rentiers and tax farmers.

This is a throwback to the seventeenth century. It is a throwback to the Stuart kings trying to bypass parliament. It is a throwback to the ancien regime. It is a throwback to Colbert and the ferme generale.

It is not just internally inefficient (involving layers and layers of facilitators and other “ticket-clippers”). It is also a system that imposes layers and layers of deadweight losses: over-pricing and under-investment, costs that are built into every transaction in the economy. 

Buy an imported car? It will have an invisible “private monopoly port tax” built into the price. Buy imported clothes? They will have an invisible “private monopoly airport tax” built into the price. Buy some groceries? They will have an invisible “private monopoly toll road tax” built into the price. And so it goes on . . . and on.

Over the time the accumulated deadweight losses of this byzantine system can only grow.This is a slow-ticking time bomb. It is a system that will eventually collapse under the weight of its own accumulated inefficiency.

But there is a reason that ancien regimes becomes “ancien”. The reason is that their members refuse to face up to what is going on around them. They keep pretending to themselves that they can go on squaring the circle. 

Until eventually they can’t.


----------



## IFocus

IFocus said:


> Lazy hypercritical Liberals
> 
> 
> Tony Abbott's grand infrastructure plan may be an expensive road to nowhere
> 
> The prime minister is throwing billions of dollars at projects before any proper cost-benefit analysis has been done
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ture-plan-may-be-an-expensive-road-to-nowhere





Meant for any one who didn't guess hypocritical (thanks Julia) 

The Lazy Liberals comes from a Paul Keating quote, hypocritical for all the howls from Abbott in opposition but fails his own test in government.


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> Meant for any one who didn't guess hypocritical (thanks Julia)
> 
> The Lazy Liberals comes from a Paul Keating quote, hypocritical for all the howls from Abbott in opposition but fails his own test in government.




Now how about this test IFocus......Abbott is going to freeze the salaries of politicians and public servants....now that should put a smile on your face, the Greens and the Comrades of the Greens....or will it?

Hope you a not a public servant because if you are you will be like someone sucking on a lemon.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...and-a-pay-freeze/story-e6freon6-1226913042384


----------



## Calliope

The main theme on Insiders this morning was Abbott's broken promises. Naturally, the panellists neglected to point out that Hockey's promise to deliver a responsibe budget makes Abbott's glib tax and welfare promises redundant.


----------



## sydboy007

Calliope said:


> The main theme on Insiders this morning was Abbott's broken promises. Naturally, the panellists neglected to point out that Hockey's promise to deliver a responsibe budget makes Abbott's glib tax and welfare promises redundant.




Depends. Is the promise of the party leader bigger in the core non core promise ladder?  I think Tony said his promise more often than Joe.

Also, should a political party make conflicting promises?


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> Depends. Is the promise of the party leader bigger in the core non core promise ladder?  I think Tony said his promise more often than Joe.
> 
> Also, should a political party make conflicting promises?




Of course they should be consistent in their promises. The Coalition have had 6 years to get their policies straight. 

Blaming the current situation on Labor is laughable when the Coalition have doubled the budget deficit with their promises. Labor had already started cutting spending, it's something that can be more responsibly done over time, but of course we know that Abbockey wants to make room for sweeteners before the next election in their usual cynical manner.


----------



## Calliope

sydboy007 said:


> Depends. Is the promise of the party leader bigger in the core non core promise ladder?  I think Tony said his promise more often than Joe.
> 
> Also, should a political party make conflicting promises?




Silly promises that impede constructive policies should always be broken. I know you would like Abbott to break the PPL promise. I also suspect you would be happy for him to break his abolition of the Carbon Tax promise and his promise not to legislate for same sex marriage during the life of the government.


----------



## SirRumpole

Calliope said:


> Silly promises that impede constructive policies should always be broken..




Silly promises that impede constructive policies should not be made in the first place.


----------



## Calliope

SirRumpole said:


> Silly promises that impede constructive policies should not be made in the first place.




The facts of life Rumpy are that you have to get elected first, before you can put your constructive policies into play. Hence the promises. Can you name me any political party that doesn't do this? 

My attitude is that if the broken promises don't affect me then I don't worry about them. It is similar to your attitude on the Nigerian atrocities. If it doesn't affect you and you can do nothing about it, why bring it up?


----------



## SirRumpole

Calliope said:


> The facts of life Rumpy are that you have to get elected first, before you can put your constructive policies into play. Hence the promises. Can you name me any political party that doesn't do this?




Gillard broke her promise on the Carbon tax and got thrown out for it. Give me a good reason why it shouldn't happen to the Coalition. Abbott campaigned heavily on 'trust' and not lying to the public. we will see after the budget if he can keep up that charade.

You are basically condoning lying for political gain. Once you go down that road, all faith in politicians is lost, and the biggest liar wins. Is that what you want  ?



> My attitude is that if the broken promises don't affect me then I don't worry about them. It is similar to your attitude on the Nigerian atrocities. If it doesn't affect you and you can do nothing about it, why bring it up?




I won't be affected if petrol prices go up ? 

In any case your attitude is a purely selfish personal approach. See my response to your first quote.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I won't be affected if petrol prices go up ? .




Why Rumpy?....are you still riding in a horse and buggy or do you ride a push bike?


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Why Rumpy?....are you still riding in a horse and buggy or do you ride a push bike?




Diesel SUV.

You ?


----------



## Calliope

SirRumpole said:


> Gillard broke her promise on the Carbon tax and got thrown out for it. Give me a good reason why it shouldn't happen to the Coalition.




I won't lose any sleep over it.



> You are basically condoning lying for political gain. Once you go down that road, all faith in politicians is lost, and the biggest liar wins. Is that what you want  ?




Nonsense. I said it was a fact of life.



> I won't be affected if petrol prices go up ?




Did I ever say you would be?



> In any case your attitude is a purely selfish personal approach.




And yours is not.

You are still avoiding my question. *Can you name me any political party that doesn't do this?* Your favourite party The Greens easily avoid breaking their ridiculous promises by never winning government.


----------



## SirRumpole

Calliope said:


> You are still avoiding my question. *Can you name me any political party that doesn't do this?* Your favourite party The Greens easily avoid breaking their ridiculous promises by never winning government.




Of course they all do it, I'm just saying that we the voters shouldn't let them get away with it.


----------



## Calliope

SirRumpole said:


> Of course they all do it, I'm just saying that we the voters shouldn't let them get away with it.




Well good for you. I will follow your campaign "on keeping the bastards honest" with interest.


----------



## sydboy007

Calliope said:


> Silly promises that impede constructive policies should always be broken. I know you would like Abbott to break the PPL promise. I also suspect you would be happy for him to break his abolition of the Carbon Tax promise and his promise not to legislate for same sex marriage during the life of the government.




So you're saying we have to work out what are the silly and non silly promises made by Abbott before voting for him, yet most of the "promises" he made were the kind he said we could trust ie not off the cuff.

It seems like we're getting to the point we're we can barely trust anything he's said.

Shame he's not be able to hold himself to the same standards he kept demanding of the previous Govt.


----------



## Calliope

sydboy007 said:


> So you're saying we have to work out what are the silly and non silly promises made by Abbott before voting for him, yet most of the "promises" he made were the kind he said we could trust ie not off the cuff.
> 
> It seems like we're getting to the point we're we can barely trust anything he's said.
> 
> Shame he's not be able to hold himself to the same standards he kept demanding of the previous Govt.




Unlike you and Rumpy I can't get worked up about it. As I said previously there are some of his promises you would like him to break... plus his promise to hold a Royal Commision on Union Corruption. And i'm pretty sure you and Rumpy would have supported Gillard breaking her Carbon tax promise

Work on that.


----------



## drsmith

One of the more interesting turns with the deficit tax debate,



> The survival of Tony Abbott's controversial "deficit tax" hangs on a fight building within the Greens. Its leader Christine Milne is facing a revolt over her opposition to raising taxes on high-income earners.
> 
> With Labor determined to oppose the Prime Minister's "broken promise", Senator Milne has angered colleagues by saying she, too, would oppose the policy.
> 
> Her position undermines a core belief of the Greens, which is to redistribute income from the wealthy to the poor. The federal Greens are set to debate the issue early this week.




I reckon the threshold will be set at $180k and then it's over to Bill and Christine. 

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...n-fight-within-the-greens-20140510-zr8jt.html


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> Gillard broke her promise on the Carbon tax and got thrown out for it. Give me a good reason why it shouldn't happen to the Coalition. Abbott campaigned heavily on 'trust' and not lying to the public. we will see after the budget if he can keep up that charade.
> 
> You are basically condoning lying for political gain. Once you go down that road, all faith in politicians is lost, and the biggest liar wins. Is that what you want  ?






SirRumpole said:


> Of course they all do it, I'm just saying that we the voters shouldn't let them get away with it.






sydboy007 said:


> So you're saying we have to work out what are the silly and non silly promises made by Abbott before voting for him, yet most of the "promises" he made were the kind he said we could trust ie not off the cuff.
> 
> It seems like we're getting to the point we're we can barely trust anything he's said.
> 
> Shame he's not be able to hold himself to the same standards he kept demanding of the previous Govt.



Agree with all the above.  If Mr Abbott was so unsure of his capacity to fulfil promises he should not have made them in the first place, especially in light of his vehement and sustained campaign against Gillard et al for not keeping promises.

The electorate was determined to throw Labor out.  He had no need to make unnecessary promises at all.
Just stupid imo.

Rumpole and Syd:  you both clearly have a preference for a Labor government.  Could you perhaps outline what you think a Budget would be if Labor had been re-elected?  ie what measures might they have put in place to genuinely rein in the expanding spending?  Do you believe they will (or should) support some of the government measures (as we understand them to be at this stage) and if so, which ones?


----------



## drsmith

Julia said:


> Could you perhaps outline what you think a Budget would be if Labor had been re-elected?  ie what measures might they have put in place to genuinely rein in the expanding spending?  Do you believe they will (or should) support some of the government measures (as we understand them to be at this stage) and if so, which ones?



For a start, we can forget the measures Labor put to the electorate prior the 2013 election only to later reject them in the senate.


----------



## Calliope

We can forget about Abbott's foolish promises, that's water under the bridge. The promise which he has kept, to hold a Royal Commission into Union Corruption, will ensure the Coalition is re-elected. The only doubt is whether Abbott will be leading it. I would pick Julie Bishop. Unlike Abbott she shows confidence and style and the Labor/Greens hate  her which is a plus for her.


----------



## McLovin

Calliope said:


> The only doubt is whether Abbott will be leading it. I would pick Julie Bishop.




It's a pretty sad indictment of the body politic in this country when a guy can win in a landslide and six months later people are questioning if he'll be around at the next election.


----------



## Knobby22

Calliope said:


> We can forget about Abbott's foolish promises, that's water under the bridge. The promise which he has kept, to hold a Royal Commission into Union Corruption, will ensure the Coalition is re-elected. The only doubt is whether Abbott will be leading it. I would pick Julie Bishop. Unlike Abbott she shows confidence and style and the Labor/Greens hate  her which is a plus for her.



It would be very interesting if Julie Bishop did become leader but I think that would be highly unlikely.


----------



## Calliope

McLovin said:


> It's a pretty sad indictment of the body politic in this country when a guy can win in a landslide and six months later people are questioning if he'll be around at the next election.




Gillard, Rudd and Swanny handed them the landslide victory on a platter. The proverbial drover's dog would have won it. Abbott has failed to make the transition from Opposition Leader to PM.


----------



## McLovin

Calliope said:


> Gillard, Rudd and Swanny handed them the landslide victory on a platter. The proverbial drover's dog would have won it. Abbott has failed to make the transition from Opposition Leader to PM.




Well yeah, I don't disagree. It says a lot about the previous government that a guy like Abbott, who was never popular, managed to get it handed to him on a silver platter.

There's nothing prime ministerial about him. He's just a idealogical driven hack.


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> Agree with all the above.  If Mr Abbott was so unsure of his capacity to fulfil promises he should not have made them in the first place, especially in light of his vehement and sustained campaign against Gillard et al for not keeping promises.
> 
> The electorate was determined to throw Labor out.  He had no need to make unnecessary promises at all.
> Just stupid imo.
> 
> Rumpole and Syd:  you both clearly have a preference for a Labor government.  Could you perhaps outline what you think a Budget would be if Labor had been re-elected?  ie what measures might they have put in place to genuinely rein in the expanding spending?  Do you believe they will (or should) support some of the government measures (as we understand them to be at this stage) and if so, which ones?




So far the only policy kite I can support is the indexing of fuel excise.  Howard was so short sighted when he froze it back in 2001.

As for what I'd like to see in the budget, well there's the $120B+ of tax expenditures that has us beating even the Italians in how much revenue leaks out of the budget.  Every tax expenditure is a cut in services or a higher tax elsewhere.

I'd keep the rent and resource tax as it's very efficient, and while it wont bring in a huge amount of revenue, better to keep some of the commonwealth in the country than sending it off as dividends to foreign investors.

I'd quarantine NG to new assets ie existing shares / houses cannot be negatively geared - and also quarantining it against the income of the asset.

I'd like to see leadership on the GST, with a broadening of the base with income taxes reduced and targeted welfare increases.

I'd like to see the ATO investigate if we should revoke some of the tax treaties that the likes of Google and Apple use to pay next to no tax in this country.

I'd like to see the states encouraged to introduce broadly based progressive land taxes so that stamp duties can be killed off, and a new source of funding is secured - something like 5% of the population that is buying property each year provides an unfair share of state revenues.  Along with this stop forcing new home owners to repay for all the infrastructure and the gold plating of it.  Removing of stamp duty would allow empty nesters to down trade more easily, and there's needs to be a way to allow the excess funds from down sizing to be easily moved into super.

Between land tax and broadening of the GST there should be ample room to reduce commonwealth grants to the states, which can be then used to cut the corporate tax rate.  GST and land taxes are so much more efficient that income and especially corporate taxes.

Then we need to have a discussion on if it's appropriate for pensioners with a million dollar house, million in super, pension income of $60K should be receiving Government welfare.  We also need to decide if it's appropriate to have a super system with annual budget cost increasing at 12% a year and if the $30B+ in tax expenditures that flow mainly to the rich is good policy or if there's a cheaper and fairer way to ensure the aging of the population wont destroy the budget.  Is tax free super affordable in 10-15 years when the number of retirees has nearly doubled?

Keep the RET as it's been shown to suppress wholesale electricity prices enough to pretty much negate it's costs.  Keep the CEFC and continue to invest in clean energy.  We need the infrastructure investment to help offset the mining CAPEX cliff

Bring in a legal requirement for all federal infrastructure funding to be vetted and approved by Infrastructure Australia, along with a guarantee of it's independence similar to the RBA.  We cannot afford to make investments that are not self liquidating and generate enough economic returns to pay for themselves.

I'd like to see the Federal Govt work with the states to borrow for new roads and sell the bonds so that tolls can be set to repay the debt over a 50 year period.  No more $10+ in tolls each day for those who are forced to live on the edge of cities due to over priced housing.

Have all assets sales vetted by Infrastructure Australia and the ACCC involved to ensure it's in the public interest to sell and that the right regulations are in place to see that the private owners don't abuse what will most likely be a monopoly or significant market share.  I personally believe monopolies are best kept in Government hands.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> Agree with all the above.  If Mr Abbott was so unsure of his capacity to fulfil promises he should not have made them in the first place, especially in light of his vehement and sustained campaign against Gillard et al for not keeping promises.
> 
> The electorate was determined to throw Labor out.  He had no need to make unnecessary promises at all.
> Just stupid imo.
> 
> Rumpole and Syd:  you both clearly have a preference for a Labor government.  Could you perhaps outline what you think a Budget would be if Labor had been re-elected?  ie what measures might they have put in place to genuinely rein in the expanding spending?  Do you believe they will (or should) support some of the government measures (as we understand them to be at this stage) and if so, which ones?




Labor would retain the carbon and mining taxes which are two sources of revenue the Coalition wants to abolish. 

Most people have been compensated for the carbon tax and have factored in the cost in their budgets. The CT is less damaging than an increase in the fuel excise which hits all goods than have to be transported, which is just about everything. The mining tax should be strengthened (maybe by abolishing or reducing the tax credits given to miners for State royalty payments), and the expenditure which was promised against its revenue should be abolished. The revenue then goes into deficit reduction, paying off debt and provision for infrastructure.

Instead of increasing the fuel excise, I would cut the diesel fuel rebate for mining companies and farmers, reducing it over time, not abolishing it in one go.

Labor should oppose the Coalition's PPL scheme, even though it lets Abbott off the hook. Politically they should then cane him for promising this grossly irresponsible expenditure which adds $5 billion a year to the deficit so I've heard.

Raising the pension age to 70 is too fast too soon. 68 is high enough. 70 would be one of the highest in the western world.

Labor should oppose raising or extending the GST, and will obviously oppose any cuts to the minimum wage both of which would be very damaging to for lowly paid people. I can't see how self funded retirees like myself can be compensated for GST increases/widening whereas everyone else can be through income tax cuts or benefits increases.


$6 co-payment for bulk billing doctors I don't have much argument with as it may help to discourage over use of the medical system as long as there is some allowance for the genuinely chronically ill.

Deficit levy for high income earners ? As this doesn't apply to me I don't really care. I'll leave it to Liberal supporters to decide if it's a broken promise.

One area where savings could be made is in family benefit payments. I don't see the point in taking money from people with one hand and giving back with the other, after passing it through an expensive bureaucratic filter. These benefits should be phased out over time and replaced with reductions in the income tax rates. Although it's politically incorrect to say this, I think there is an over reliance on family benefit payments by people from certain cultures with large families which sees some families getting more in benefits than they pay in tax, so abolishing family payments over time would address this imbalance.

Negative gearing on residential properties costs about $7 billion a year, and discourages home ownership, which is  security for retirement, so I would phase this out over 5-7 years to let the market adjust.

Greater means testing for pensions and benefits I have no argument with, except for the inclusion of the primary residence. People should not be punished for living in quite modest homes when the housing bubble has increased the value of their land . On paper they may be asset rich, but still income poor so it would be inequitable to include the family home in means tests.

That is my wish list. I think it pays attention to both the revenue and expenditure sides of the budget and is equitable across all sectors of the community.


----------



## bellenuit

SirRumpole said:


> Labor would retain the carbon and mining taxes which are two sources of revenue the Coalition wants to abolish.




According to the latest figures, the Mining Tax costs more to run than it brings in. So that is not a revenue source, unless it is revamped and made more onerous on mining companies. But doing that runs the risk of driving investment on mining away and could result in less revenue being generated overall. 

The same applies to the carbon tax. It is probably the most efficient way of reducing carbon dioxide emissions in a closed economy. But we are not a closed economy, we import and export. The additional cost of the carbon tax on our steel and aluminium industries, for instance, may give a short term increase in revenue, but if it just makes them uncompetitive, you again lose in the long run. You lose business to overseas and end up with less revenue than otherwise. While Labor and the Greenies can dance with glee because their carbon tax has reduced carbon dioxide emissions in Australia, there will have been no reduction from a global perspective, as the countries that have taken our business will increase theirs by an amount similar to our emissions reduction. And if the competitors are in countries with less onerous emission controls that we impose, there may be an actual increase in carbon dioxide emissions from a global perspective.

In an open economy, business tax revenue is not proportional to tax rate. It is not inelastic. There are consequences of increasing the impost on businesses that must compete in an open environment.


----------



## SirRumpole

bellenuit said:


> According to the latest figures, the Mining Tax costs more to run than it brings in. So that is not a revenue source, unless it is revamped and made more onerous on mining companies. But doing that runs the risk of driving investment on mining away and could result in less revenue being generated overall.




Norway has 28% company tax plus 50% resource rent tax and it hasn't made any difference to investment in its oil and gas resources and has resulted in a massive sovereign wealth fund that finances Norway's pension schemes. Contrast this to the Coalition's plans to finance pensions via raising the pension age.



> The same applies to the carbon tax. It is probably the most efficient way of reducing carbon dioxide emissions in a closed economy. But we are not a closed economy, we import and export. The additional cost of the carbon tax on our steel and aluminium industries, for instance, may give a short term increase in revenue, but if it just makes them uncompetitive, you again lose in the long run. You lose business to overseas and end up with less revenue than otherwise. While Labor and the Greenies can dance with glee because their carbon tax has reduced carbon dioxide emissions in Australia, there will have been no reduction from a global perspective, as the countries that have taken our business will increase theirs by an amount similar to our emissions reduction. And if the competitors are in countries with less onerous emission controls that we impose, there may be an actual increase in carbon dioxide emissions from a global perspective.




Increases in fuel excise levy is just another carbon tax that reduces our ability to compete and increases costs to business. What is the justification for that means of raising revenue over the current carbon tax ? 

The Coalitions preference for building roads not public transport and then indexing the fuel tax excise is indicative that they are giving people no alternative but to be milch cows for open ended revenue raising via the petrol pumps.


----------



## Calliope

Labor says; *Whatever it is we're agin it*



> SO let’s check what Labor has said about things the Abbott Government plans in Tuesday’s Budget to dig us out of this financial hole.
> 
> A temporary deficit tax on higher earners?
> 
> *“Bad idea,” snaps Opposition Leader Bill Shorten. “Labor will have no part of it.”*
> 
> A rise ”” maybe just 1c a litre ”” on the fuel excise, to help save us from the 10 more years of debt Treasury predicts?
> 
> *It’s “regressive”, objects Labor’s Transport spokesman, Anthony Albanese, and a hit “bigger than the carbon price”*
> 
> Well, how about charging people maybe $6 for doctors’ visits, to stop health costs exploding by the projected 70 per cent over the next decade?
> 
> *“Poorer people will be unfairly hit,” howls Shorten. “We do not support a new GP tax.”*
> 
> Then how about slowing the boom in disability pensions ”” now costing $15 billion a year ”” by checking if younger pensioners can do at least some work, as the Government suggested on Saturday?
> 
> *“Why would you be punishing them?” complains Labor’s health spokesman Catherine King.*
> 
> Surely the Government should at least raise the pension age to 70 by 2035, as Treasurer Joe Hockey announced, with the pension bill now soaring past $36 billion a year?
> 
> *“Unfair,” declares Shorten. “Don’t pick on the pensioners.”*
> 
> Could the Government just slow the rate of pension increases, then?
> 
> *“The age pension is not a king’s ransom,” warns Shorten. “We will fight for the pensioners.”*
> 
> How about making students pay more for their university degrees once they’re earning well, since those degrees are passports to higher incomes anyway?
> 
> *“Get the priorities right,” scoffs Shorten. “I’m very worried the Abbott Government wants to make universities the preserve of children from well-off backgrounds alone.”*
> 
> But what about reining in the NDIS, a bureaucracy-riddled disability scheme that threatens to cost an astonishing $11 billion a year?
> 
> *“No,’’ snaps Opposition families spokesman Jenny Macklin. “No cuts, no delay to the National Disability Insurance Scheme”*




http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...-duty-to-save-us/story-fni0ffxg-1226913511211


----------



## Knobby22

Gee, it reminds me of someone else recently. Can't quite put my finger on it.


----------



## overhang

bellenuit said:


> The same applies to the carbon tax. It is probably the most efficient way of reducing carbon dioxide emissions in a closed economy. But we are not a closed economy, we import and export. The additional cost of the carbon tax on our steel and aluminium industries, for instance, may give a short term increase in revenue, but if it just makes them uncompetitive, you again lose in the long run. You lose business to overseas and end up with less revenue than otherwise. While Labor and the Greenies can dance with glee because their carbon tax has reduced carbon dioxide emissions in Australia, there will have been no reduction from a global perspective, as the countries that have taken our business will increase theirs by an amount similar to our emissions reduction. And if the competitors are in countries with less onerous emission controls that we impose, there may be an actual increase in carbon dioxide emissions from a global perspective.




+1  Such a good summary on why a carbon tax is completely counter productive that unlike most other arguments against the carbon tax doesn't just dismiss global warming completely.  For me it's also the fact that even if Australia produced zero emissions next year that the 1.2% we contribute would be completely negated by China's increasing emissions next year.


----------



## Calliope

Knobby22 said:


> Gee, it reminds me of someone else recently. Can't quite put my finger on it.




Let me have a guess... Rudd? Gillard? Swann? Milne?


----------



## noco

Knobby22 said:


> Gee, it reminds me of someone else recently. Can't quite put my finger on it.




It was Albo when he accused the Liberal opposition of saying  NO..NO..NO..NO..NO to everything.....but the Comrades of the Greens will  tell you in their next breath how clever they were in  passing so much legislation through with the help of the Liberals...something like about 99%.....correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## overhang

Calliope said:


> Labor says; *Whatever it is we're agin it*




I didn't even need to click the link to see that was Bolt's work.  Comments like "snaps Opposition Leader Bill Shorten"
“Get the priorities right,” scoffs Shorten"  Says more about Bolt's journalism than Shorten's remarks imo

But Knobby is right, I think the only policy Abbott ever supported while in opposition was the huge pay rise for themselves.


----------



## SirRumpole

overhang said:


> +1  Such a good summary on why a carbon tax is completely counter productive that unlike most other arguments against the carbon tax doesn't just dismiss global warming completely.  For me it's also the fact that even if Australia produced zero emissions next year that the 1.2% we contribute would be completely negated by China's increasing emissions next year.




Funny that people don't seem to be raising the same objections to raising the petrol tax excise. 

Your point about our emissions compared to those of other countries is accepted, but why ditch the CT as a revenue source and replace it with one that is equally as damaging and will go up year after year. It is a self generating tax, fuel prices rise, inflation goes up the excise increases, fuel prices rise more, and so on. We are being set up by this indexation rort more than we were by the carbon tax, because there is no compensation for the excise increase.


----------



## drsmith

overhang said:


> I think the only policy Abbott ever supported while in opposition was the huge pay rise for themselves.



Selective memory disorder ??

He supported the NDIS and the associated Medicare levy rise which come into place on July 1 this year.

He also supported a number of budget measures proposed by Labor in the lead up to 2013 election that Labor itself now no longer support.


----------



## sydboy007

Calliope said:


> Labor says; *Whatever it is we're agin it*
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...-duty-to-save-us/story-fni0ffxg-1226913511211




I seem to remember Abbott went into bat quite strongly to protect those who would end up paying for their cars under the changes to car FBT legislation.  Maybe he was considering increasing the fuel excise back then?

If the carbon reduction scheme was going to be a wrecking ball on the economy, then wont the fuel excise increase turn into a wrecking ball within a few years?  Each 1c rise in fuel excise is like a $4 / tonne carbon tax.  So within 6 years we've hit the wrecking ball $24/tonne level.


----------



## sydboy007

bellenuit said:


> According to the latest figures, the Mining Tax costs more to run than it brings in. So that is not a revenue source, unless it is revamped and made more onerous on mining companies. But doing that runs the risk of driving investment on mining away and could result in less revenue being generated overall.
> 
> The same applies to the carbon tax. It is probably the most efficient way of reducing carbon dioxide emissions in a closed economy. But we are not a closed economy, we import and export. The additional cost of the carbon tax on our steel and aluminium industries, for instance, may give a short term increase in revenue, but if it just makes them uncompetitive, you again lose in the long run. You lose business to overseas and end up with less revenue than otherwise. While Labor and the Greenies can dance with glee because their carbon tax has reduced carbon dioxide emissions in Australia, there will have been no reduction from a global perspective, as the countries that have taken our business will increase theirs by an amount similar to our emissions reduction. And if the competitors are in countries with less onerous emission controls that we impose, there may be an actual increase in carbon dioxide emissions from a global perspective.
> 
> In an open economy, business tax revenue is not proportional to tax rate. It is not inelastic. There are consequences of increasing the impost on businesses that must compete in an open environment.




Back in 1990 Australia came 10th in the world for per capital CO2 emissions at 16 tonne per person.

By 2000 we'd climbed to 8th at 18.6 tonnes each.  By 2005 we'd maintained our 8th position at 20.3 tonnes each, but the USA was now at 9th.  In 2011 we're back to 9th (USA 10th) with 19 tonnes each.  In 2011 China per capita CO2 emissions were only 7 tonnes each.  Seems a bit unfair to be saying we can pump out nearly 3 times s much as the Chinese and therefore don't need to do anything because we're just 1.2% of the global total (yet just 0.35% of the worlds population.  The world avg in 2011 was just 4.9.

As for the current carbon reduction scheme affecting trade exposed industries, well they got the majority of their permits for free, so the impact was minimal to them, and in some cases they were able to make money on selling their excess permits.

I'd argue quite often the reason energy intensive companies have shut down in Australia is because they had not invested in worlds best practice plant and production techniques.  I'd also argue it is because of the short sightedness of our politicians that has caused the fixed cost of the electricity networks to sky rocket, and with the gladstone LNG plants now sucking out all available gas the east coast market now has to try and remain competitive when gas prices will just about triple over the next few years.


----------



## sydboy007

bellenuit said:


> The same applies to the carbon tax. It is probably the most efficient way of reducing carbon dioxide emissions in a closed economy. But we are not a closed economy, we import and export. The additional cost of the carbon tax on our steel and aluminium industries, for instance, may give a short term increase in revenue, but if it just makes them uncompetitive, you again lose in the long run. You lose business to overseas and end up with less revenue than otherwise.




Further to my argument

_Contemplate this astounding finding by the Productivity Commission:

''Over the period June 1995 to the present, productivity across all workers increased by 33.6 per cent, while in the electricity sector it declined by 24.9 per cent.''
_
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/power-sector-needs-a-good-dietitian-20140511-383og.html#ixzz31SpGhSrF

Sort out the electricity sector and we'd save more than the increased costs from the carbon tax - win win.


----------



## CanOz

sydboy007 said:


> Further to my argument
> 
> _Contemplate this astounding finding by the Productivity Commission:
> 
> ''Over the period June 1995 to the present, productivity across all workers increased by 33.6 per cent, while in the electricity sector it declined by 24.9 per cent.''
> _
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/power-sector-needs-a-good-dietitian-20140511-383og.html#ixzz31SpGhSrF
> 
> Sort out the electricity sector and we'd save more than the increased costs from the carbon tax - win win.




Awaiting the entrance of the Smurf...corn:


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> Sort out the electricity sector and we'd save more than the increased costs from the carbon tax - win win.



One though is not justification for the other.

Sort out both.


----------



## Calliope

overhang said:


> But Knobby is right, I think the only policy Abbott ever supported while in opposition was the huge pay rise for themselves.




Knobby is being coy, but I guess we can look outide the list of the usual suspects...the perennial nay-sayers and knockers such as Plibersek, Burke, Cameron, Evans, Wong, Swann, Albanese, Macklin, etc. 

I suspect he means Abbott.


----------



## overhang

drsmith said:


> Selective memory disorder ??
> 
> He supported the NDIS and the associated Medicare levy rise which come into place on July 1 this year.
> 
> He also supported a number of budget measures proposed by Labor in the lead up to 2013 election that Labor itself now no longer support.



I didn't mean literally but it's difficult to convey that in text but yes opposition opposing legislation simply sells more tabloids than the many they agree with. 




sydboy007 said:


> Back in 1990 Australia came 10th in the world for per capital CO2 emissions at 16 tonne per person.
> 
> By 2000 we'd climbed to 8th at 18.6 tonnes each.  By 2005 we'd maintained our 8th position at 20.3 tonnes each, but the USA was now at 9th.  In 2011 we're back to 9th (USA 10th) with 19 tonnes each.  In 2011 China per capita CO2 emissions were only 7 tonnes each.  Seems a bit unfair to be saying we can pump out nearly 3 times s much as the Chinese and therefore don't need to do anything because we're just 1.2% of the global total (yet just 0.35% of the worlds population.  The world avg in 2011 was just 4.9.




I don't think the atmosphere really cares about per capita emissions, to stem our global emissions is noble but rather ineffective at actually reducing the worlds emissions.  So unless all our trade partners and competitors introduce an ETS at the same time then we're just handicapping ourselves. 
As far as the fuel excise tax is concerned then shouldn't the Greens be wrapped about this budget given high income earners will receive a tax increase and a carbon tax is introduced via fuel indexation?  Or does a carbon tax only work when there is a wealth redistribution model to it?


----------



## SirRumpole

I wonder if one of the government agencies to get the chop in the Budget will be the Human Rights Commission, to which a comrade of Tony Abbott, Tim Wilson of the IPA was recently appointed with a salary of $389,000 plus $50k expenses.

Tony wouldn't do his mates out of a job, surely ?


----------



## Calliope

SirRumpole said:


> I wonder if one of the government agencies to get the chop in the Budget will be the Human Rights Commission, to which a comrade of Tony Abbott, Tim Wilson of the IPA was recently appointed with a salary of $389,000 plus $50k expenses.
> 
> Tony wouldn't do his mates out of a job, surely ?




Tim Wilson was appointed  to the HRC to try to provide a little balance to the other members who don't think Human Rights should include freedom of speech. It really is a mission impossible. Abbott would be wise to give the HRC the chop.


----------



## Julia

overhang said:


> So unless all our trade partners and competitors introduce an ETS at the same time then we're just handicapping ourselves.



This  has been the objection of most who have not supported the Labor/Greens carbon tax.



> As far as the fuel excise tax is concerned then shouldn't the Greens be wrapped about this budget given high income earners will receive a tax increase and a carbon tax is introduced via fuel indexation?  Or does a carbon tax only work when there is a wealth redistribution model to it?



Even when there is the wealth redistribution principle involved, the hypocritical Greens still find it possible to object to proposed government policy, via the deficit levy/tax.  They are going to oppose it, apparently.



Calliope said:


> Tim Wilson was appointed  to the HRC to try to provide a little balance to the other members who don't think Human Rights should include freedom of speech. It really is a mission impossible. Abbott would be wise to give the HRC the chop.



+1.



McLovin said:


> It's a pretty sad indictment of the body politic in this country when a guy can win in a landslide and six months later people are questioning if he'll be around at the next election.



Yes, totally woeful.  If Mr Abbott's popularity doesn't pick up, the Libs are going to be looking for an alternative leader.  Who do you think would be suitable?
The candidates would appear to be Joe Hockey, Julie Bishop and Malcolm Turnbull, the last essentially just because his name keeps coming up, albeit mostly from the Labor and Greens supporters who no doubt would like him because his philosophy most closely aligns with their own.

Yes, he's urbane and well spoken.  But, without wishing to draw odious comparisons, he comes across to me as a more refined version of Clive Palmer, i.e. mostly about himself.  Mr Turnbull has been very successful in most of what he has done with his life and gives the impression that he just needs to top it all off with being Prime Minister of Australia.
Certainly he has been more of a team player since the embarrassing Godwin Grech affair, but I still see him as a great leader for Labor rather than the Coalition.  Happy to be shown to be wrong.


----------



## sptrawler

If all the things in the budget are knocked back in the senate, as is being sugested in the media, we all may get the opportunity to throw the coalition out.
Abbott may be forced to call a double dissolution.

Ah yes, let's get Labor and the Greens back in.lol


----------



## sydboy007

Is it sensible policy for the Government to focus on aged - over 50s - unemployment at the expense of youth unemployment?

The rumour is in the budget there will be a new program where employers will be paid $250 a fortnight for six months if they take on somebody aged 50 or over who is unemployed… providing for a total payment of $3250 per employer…

This is because as of June 2013, there were 120,000 people aged over 50 who were out of work. The participation rate – which defines those either in work or looking for work – for people aged between 60 and 64 was 54 per cent. That is more than 10 percentage points lower than the national average of 65 per cent.

The budget measure will provide the incentive payments to employers who take on a mature-age worker who has been unemployed for six months or more and receiving the dole…

*BUT*

The unemployment rate for 15 to 24 year olds has increased significantly since 2008, rising to around 12.5 per cent in February… Since 2008 the participation rate has declined by over 5 percentage points and it’s now at its lowest level since the series began in 1978.

That’s right, Australia’s youth unemployment rate has tripled since the Global Financial Crisis to 12.5%, causing 257,000 young Aussies between 15 to 24 years of age to be jobless. Of this number, 50,000 have been unemployed for more than 12 months, with the average length of time taken to gain a job rising to 29 weeks from only 16 weeks in 2008. More are also working part-time.

So if the Government thinks 120,000 50+ unemployed is deserving of a special program to help get them back into the workforce, why are the over 250K worth of youth unemployed basically ignored?  Shouldn't the Government be doing what it can to help ALL unemployed individuals to get a job, especially the long term unemployed?

Factor in making it possible to have an unlimited number of 457 Visa workers in the country, and it seems the L+NP are looking to discard the younger generation.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Is it sensible policy for the Government to focus on aged - over 50s - unemployment at the expense of youth unemployment?
> 
> The rumour is in the budget there will be a new program where employers will be paid $250 a fortnight for six months if they take on somebody aged 50 or over who is unemployed… providing for a total payment of $3250 per employer…
> 
> This is because as of June 2013, there were 120,000 people aged over 50 who were out of work. The participation rate – which defines those either in work or looking for work – for people aged between 60 and 64 was 54 per cent. That is more than 10 percentage points lower than the national average of 65 per cent.
> 
> The budget measure will provide the incentive payments to employers who take on a mature-age worker who has been unemployed for six months or more and receiving the dole…
> 
> *BUT*
> 
> The unemployment rate for 15 to 24 year olds has increased significantly since 2008, rising to around 12.5 per cent in February… Since 2008 the participation rate has declined by over 5 percentage points and it’s now at its lowest level since the series began in 1978.
> 
> That’s right, Australia’s youth unemployment rate has tripled since the Global Financial Crisis to 12.5%, causing 257,000 young Aussies between 15 to 24 years of age to be jobless. Of this number, 50,000 have been unemployed for more than 12 months, with the average length of time taken to gain a job rising to 29 weeks from only 16 weeks in 2008. More are also working part-time.
> 
> So if the Government thinks 120,000 50+ unemployed is deserving of a special program to help get them back into the workforce, why are the over 250K worth of youth unemployed basically ignored?  Shouldn't the Government be doing what it can to help ALL unemployed individuals to get a job, especially the long term unemployed?
> 
> Factor in making it possible to have an unlimited number of 457 Visa workers in the country, and it seems the L+NP are looking to discard the younger generation.




Maybe they've found, that over 50's want to work, but can't find employment and  unemployed youth can find employment but don't want to work?
Just a thought, several governments have thrown a lot of money at co funding youth employment, to no avail.

Best you can hope for Syd, is Labor /Greens get back in and we get back to, high spending and low taxing, magic.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Maybe they've found, that over 50's want to work, but can't find employment and  unemployed youth can find employment but don't want to work?
> Just a thought, several governments have thrown a lot of money at co funding youth employment, to no avail.
> 
> Best you can hope for Syd, is Labor /Greens get back in and we get back to, high spending and low taxing, magic.




Why do older people feel entitled to put down young people by making such inappropriately broad statements?

It's just as offensive as saying all old people are grumpy and too set in their ways to accept change.

Could the lack of employment opportunities for youth in Australia be due to off shoring of many of the entry level jobs?  I look at the opportunities within IT and so many of the jobs at the level I started in no longer exist here.  Could the tens of thousands of 457 via workers be reducing opportunities for locals, especially considering a lot of employers have hired far more workers than they applied for?

Maybe it's too many employers have your attitude towards the youth that they are lazy and not willing to be hard working?

Whatever the cause, it's a major issue because the longer these young people go without work, the harder and harder it is for them to ever get a job.

So why not provide an incentive to employ anyone who's long term unemployed, rather than only those aged 50+??


----------



## chode84

> As far as the fuel excise tax is concerned then shouldn't the Greens be wrapped about this budget given high income earners will receive a tax increase and a carbon tax is introduced via fuel indexation? Or does a carbon tax only work when there is a wealth redistribution model to it?




The Greens are supporting the fuel indexation as far as I'm aware. Although personally I think the carbon tax is a better mechanism from which to raise funds.


----------



## SirRumpole

Calliope said:


> Tim Wilson was appointed  to the HRC to try to provide a little balance to the other members who don't think Human Rights should include freedom of speech.




Presumably then, you would also support the abolition of all defamation laws ?


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Why do older people feel entitled to put down young people by making such inappropriately broad statements?
> 
> It's just as offensive as saying all old people are grumpy and too set in their ways to accept change.
> 
> Could the lack of employment opportunities for youth in Australia be due to off shoring of many of the entry level jobs?  I look at the opportunities within IT and so many of the jobs at the level I started in no longer exist here.  Could the tens of thousands of 457 via workers be reducing opportunities for locals, especially considering a lot of employers have hired far more workers than they applied for?
> 
> Maybe it's too many employers have your attitude towards the youth that they are lazy and not willing to be hard working?
> 
> Whatever the cause, it's a major issue because the longer these young people go without work, the harder and harder it is for them to ever get a job.
> 
> So why not provide an incentive to employ anyone who's long term unemployed, rather than only those aged 50+??




When it was sugested that long term unemployed people get government assistance to relocate to areas of employment, there was an outcry. All the people I saw interviewed, mainly young, flatly refused.
Why do people always come up with reasons why they can't avail themselves of work? 
Why did we need to have 457's during a mining boom, doing unskilled jobs?
Time to tell people to suck it up and get on with it, or we will end up third world. Just my opinion Syd
By the way old people generaly are grumpy and set in their ways, it's not offensive.


----------



## Calliope

SirRumpole said:


> Presumably then, you would also support the abolition of all defamation laws ?




Only you, Rumpy, could come up with such an illogical presumption.


----------



## trainspotter

overhang said:


> I didn't mean literally but it's difficult to convey that in text but yes opposition opposing legislation simply sells more tabloids than the many they agree with.
> 
> *I don't think the atmosphere really cares about per capita emissions,* to stem our global emissions is noble but rather ineffective at actually reducing the worlds emissions.  So unless all our trade partners and competitors introduce an ETS at the same time then we're just handicapping ourselves.
> As far as the fuel excise tax is concerned then shouldn't the Greens be wrapped about this budget given high income earners will receive a tax increase and a carbon tax is introduced via fuel indexation?  Or does a carbon tax only work when there is a wealth redistribution model to it?




Post of the month right here.


----------



## SirRumpole

Calliope said:


> Only you, Rumpy, could come up with such an illogical presumption.




So what is your position on the defamation laws ? Aren't they a restriction on free speech ?


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> So what is your position on the defamation laws ? Aren't they a restriction on free speech ?




That's a pathetic straw man fallacy Horace, free speech has never included the right to defame without remedy, in any Western democracy.


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> That's a pathetic straw man fallacy Horace, free speech has never included the right to defame without remedy, in any Western democracy.




Bolt defamed people and got punished for it, so what's the difference ? 

If Bolt was sued for defamation and lost, he would be a lot poorer than he is now. 

He got off easy under 18C, and should be thankful that he wasn't sued for defamation.


----------



## Calliope

SirRumpole said:


> Bolt defamed people and got punished for it, so what's the difference ?
> 
> If Bolt was sued for defamation and lost, he would be a lot poorer than he is now.
> 
> He got off easy under 18C, and should be thankful that he wasn't sued for defamation.




Your irrational presumption is that he defamed somebody. He didn't. 

I think it would be wise to get back on topic.


----------



## SirRumpole

Calliope said:


> Your irrational presumption is that he defamed somebody. He didn't.
> 
> I think it would be wise to get back on topic.




Yes you can argue "off topic", but you bought the subject up of free speech, and now you are trying to shut it down.

Your first statement, that Bolt did not defame anyone is your opinion. Others I've read believe the plaintiffs would have had a good case for defamation.


----------



## Calliope

SirRumpole said:


> Yes you can argue "off topic", but you bought the subject up of free speech, and now you are trying to shut it down.
> 
> Your first statement, that Bolt did not defame anyone is your opinion. Others I've read believe the plaintiffs would have had a good case for defamation.




Still :topic If you want to rubbish Bolt, there is a thread for that.[/B]


----------



## drsmith

Latest budget speculation from The Australian,



> • Budget repair levy of 2 per cent imposing extra income
> tax on those earning above $180,000, could raise around
> $5bn over four years.




http://resources.news.com.au/files/2014/05/12/1226915/176692-140513budget.pdf


----------



## Knobby22

Why the company tax cut drsmith??


----------



## drsmith

Knobby22 said:


> Why the company tax cut drsmith??



The party perspective rationale is outlined in the following policy document,

http://www.liberal.org.au/lowering-company-tax

With the PPL scheme levy to come in at the same time, it's really only a cut for small business.


----------



## noco

Terry McCrann is adamant, Tony Abbott has not broken his promise not to introduce new taxes.

Read McCrann's comment.



http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ann_why_abbott_is_not_breaking_a_tax_promise/


----------



## drsmith

One significant aspect is the emphasis on the states to agree to increasing GST revenue for long term maintenance of funding of health and education.


----------



## sptrawler

So all the endless ranting about the paid maternity leave, not the least on here, may have been a waste of breath.
Wow how much mileage did that one get.lol

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-13/corporate-welfare-axed-in-budget-2014/5446706

However, for whatever reason, the Government's planned company tax cut, paid parental leave scheme and the proposed 1.5 per cent levy on big business to fund the leave scheme have been left in the contingency reserve, rather than costed individually in detail in the budget.


----------



## dutchie

Well done Joe Hockey. 

A realistic and necessary budget brought down by the coalition.

The adults are back in charge.


----------



## SirRumpole

dutchie said:


> Well done Joe Hockey.
> 
> A realistic and necessary budget brought down by the coalition.
> 
> The adults are back in charge.




The budget was rubbish. Hitting those that can least afford it the most, and leaving mining companies and other businesses earning massive profits alone.

Class warfare at its worst.


----------



## dutchie

What was rubbish was the previous government that put us in this mess!


----------



## SirRumpole

dutchie said:


> What was rubbish was the previous government that put us in this mess!




Every economist I've heard has said there is no mess.


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> Every economist I've heard has said there is no mess.




Probably because you only hear the Keynesians.


----------



## Logique

The Age tells it like it is.

What's the bet that:
- the GP visit co-payment stays at $7. Thin end of the wedge.
- the debt-levy tax on high income isn't either heavily watered down, or quietly withdrawn
- pollies salaries resume the upward trend once the heat's off

The image of Hockey and Cormann smoking cigars at Parliament House will be an enduring one.

A horrid, callous budget. 6 months paid parental leave is still on the table, they're just waiting until the heat's off. Sharing the pain...pfft



> http://www.theage.com.au/comment/sp...stbudget-political-bounce-20140506-zr59m.html
> 
> ..This time, *the Abbott government’s debt-levy/tax on high-income earners is an obvious kite*. And, given the response so far - especially from the Liberal’s heartland of high-income earners but also from middle Australia and aspirational voters - it would be surprising if the levy will apply to those on $80,000. If it does happen, it is likely to kick in at higher levels of income.
> 
> But *perhaps the debt levy/tax is a clever distraction*? There did appear to be some leaks to friendly news sources about its details (another spin technique). And while all of the vocal, high-income earners are rallying against the levy and broken promises, *that takes attention away from other budget measures that might be about to hit many more Australians.* This includes those who are least able to defend themselves - the unemployed, single parents, disability pensioners, the chronically ill, students, the elderly, low and middle-income families who have to take their children to the doctors regularly. Their concerns might be crowded out by the focus on the wealth tax. And, if not by the wealth tax, by a focus on the many chilling prospects raised by the Commission of Audit.


----------



## SirRumpole

Logique said:


> The Age tells it like it is.
> 
> What's the bet that:
> - the GP visit co-payment stays at $7. Thin end of the wedge.
> - the debt-levy tax on high income isn't either heavily watered down, or quietly withdrawn
> - pollies salaries resume the upward trend once the heat's off
> 
> The image of Hockey and Cormann smoking cigars at Parliament House will be an enduring one.
> 
> A horrid, callous budget. 6 months paid parental leave is still on the table, they're just waiting until the heat's off. Sharing the pain...pfft




The debt levy tax only lasts three years anyway

Does anyone think that a politician earning $500k pa having his pay frozen for a while bears any relationship to people on low incomes paying more for doctors visits & medicines permanently ? 

The arrogance of these idiots is stunning.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Every economist I've heard has said there is no mess.





They are in denial....tell them to take off their blinkers.


----------



## dutchie

No mess?

Using the Wayne Swan economics method the Government just delivered a Surplus!

"Swanning about and surplus to the truth

    Patrick Lion
    The Daily Telegraph
    February 07, 2013 12:00AM



TREASURER Wayne Swan has been left red-faced after letterbox-dropping voters in his electorate and claiming he had "delivered" a Budget surplus, months before ditching what was only ever a promise.

The Opposition yesterday revealed in question time that Mr Swan was among at least 10 Labor MPs who sent constituents a taxpayer-funded pamphlet "Australia's economic report card" after last year's Budget.

The pamphlet claimed "we've delivered a surplus, on time, as promised", despite the government only forecasting a surplus in the Budget."

Mr Swan in December quietly ditched the pledge, saying it was now "unlikely".


----------



## SirRumpole

If the Senate throws out this budget, will Tony Abbott have the guts to call a double dissolution and justify his broken promises ?


----------



## dutchie

SirRumpole said:


> If the Senate throws out this budget, will Tony Abbott have the guts to call a double dissolution and justify his broken promises ?




A good question.

I don't think he will at the moment, he may wait to see how he fairs with the new senate.


----------



## drsmith

dutchie said:


> A good question.
> 
> I don't think he will at the moment, he may wait to see how he fairs with the new senate.




He'll get fuel excise indexation through the current senate (Greens support) and the deficit levy as well (likely Labor support).

The new senate though is what the chest beating is about.


----------



## drsmith

drsmith said:


> One significant aspect is the emphasis on the states to agree to increasing GST revenue for long term maintenance of funding of health and education.



The following article has more on this.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/fede...huge-shortfall-in-funding-20140513-388b8.html

In his post budget presser, Joe Hockey has stated that funding is still increasing in real terms.


----------



## banco

noco said:


> They are in denial....tell them to take off their blinkers.




Tell these smarty pants economists to stick their fancy degrees up their ass and  that noco knows better.


----------



## wayneL

banco said:


> Tell these smarty pants economists to stick their fancy degrees up their ass and  that noco knows better.




Sarcasm and appeal to authority fallacy all in the same sentence.... Impressive banco.


----------



## SirRumpole

It seems that Tim Wilson has kept his $390k salary + $50k expenses job.


----------



## DB008

K.Rudd comes to power in 07, inheriting a surplus
We have the biggest mining boom in modern Australian history during the years ALP were in power
Gillard & Co leave with "massive" billion dollar holes
Abbott & Co. try to clean up ALP the mess and are labeled stingy and tight-ass.


----------



## trainspotter

DB008 said:


> K.Rudd comes to power in 07, inheriting a surplus
> We have the biggest mining boom in modern Australian history during the years ALP were in power
> Gillard & Co leave with "massive" billion dollar holes
> Abbott & Co. try to clean up ALP the mess and are labeled stingy and tight-ass.




Pretty much sums it up in a nutshell really. In the 935 days between becoming prime minister on December 3, 2007, and Julia Gillard's coup of June 24, 2010, Rudd left Australians with at least $153 billion in unfunded fiscal burdens while wasting $100bn of the community's resources. "Le laissez-faire, c'est fini"

Anyone want to return their $900 cheques yet?


----------



## SirRumpole

DB008 said:


> Abbott & Co. try to clean up ALP the mess and are labeled stingy and tight-ass.




Just because they are doing something, doesn't mean they are doing the right things.

Why throw out an installed carbon tax and replace it with a fuel excise indexation monster that will feed on the price rises that it itself causes and increase the cost of living for everyone ?

Why make the sick and elderly pay increased costs for health when by increasing the Medicare levy, everyone contributes to the health system ?

Why put a joke tax on high income earners for three years only, and cut family benefits permanently ?

Why not implement a resource rent tax that mining companies can't avoid ? BHP doubled its profit in the last Fin Year.

Why not implement a super profit tax on banks whose profits have been soaring ?

Despite the Coalitions smarmy statements that the budget is fair, it most definitely is not.


----------



## DB008

SirRumpole said:


> Just because they are doing something, doesn't mean they are doing the right things.
> 
> Why throw out an installed carbon tax




"Purchasing" "carbon credits" from China is a joke.


----------



## noco

trainspotter said:


> Pretty much sums it up in a nutshell really. In the 935 days between becoming prime minister on December 3, 2007, and Julia Gillard's coup of June 24, 2010, Rudd left Australians with at least $153 billion in unfunded fiscal burdens while wasting $100bn of the community's resources. "Le laissez-faire, c'est fini"
> 
> Anyone want to return their $900 cheques yet?




As I have stated before, the $900 cheques were only a loan from Kevin Rudd and now we must pay it back with interest one way or another.

Emma Albrechtsen sums it up fairly well in Abbott's first budget, the Coalition have set the bar high and if they are able to hurdle it in their first term, voters are more likely to understand the need for some initial tightening of the belt.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...asier-to-stomach/story-e6frg7bo-1226916134838


----------



## trainspotter

SirRumpole said:


> Just because they are doing something, doesn't mean they are doing the right things.
> 
> Why throw out an installed carbon tax and replace it with a fuel excise indexation monster that will feed on the price rises that it itself causes and increase the cost of living for everyone ? The carbon tax increases the price of living all by itself.
> 
> Why make the sick and elderly pay increased costs for health when by increasing the Medicare levy, everyone contributes to the health system ? $7.00 to visit a doctor is not unreasonable.
> 
> Why put a joke tax on high income earners for three years only, and cut family benefits permanently ? Because the rich can afford it and the age of entitlements is over.
> 
> Why not implement a resource rent tax that mining companies can't avoid ? BHP doubled its profit in the last Fin Year. Because the MRRT is a stifling tax that is not good for the economy.
> 
> Why not implement a super profit tax on banks whose profits have been soaring ? Agree but the banks will merely lift margins and or fees to cover this additional tax and the people will end up paying even more.
> 
> Despite the Coalitions smarmy statements that the budget is fair, it most definitely is not. According to you.




SO you would prefer this?


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> Just because they are doing something, doesn't mean they are doing the right things.
> 
> Why throw out an installed carbon tax and replace it with a fuel excise indexation monster that will feed on the price rises that it itself causes and increase the cost of living for everyone ?.




Because the carbon tax put another impost on our already strugling small business and manufacturing sector. Our business costs are stupidly high already( wages and taxes), to add further costs on top was just dumb. When you have ground all the employers into the ground what then. Dumb politics.
New Zealand, U.K have 22% business tax, we tax 30% and Labor want to up that, dumb,dumb,dumb.



SirRumpole said:


> Why make the sick and elderly pay increased costs for health when by increasing the Medicare levy, everyone contributes to the health system ?.



Anything that is percieved to be free is abused, taken for granted and generaly abused, human nature. You can poo pah it as much as you like but history proves it



SirRumpole said:


> Why put a joke tax on high income earners for three years only, and cut family benefits permanently ?.




Because it makes $3billion, that you don't have to fork out.



SirRumpole said:


> Why not implement a resource rent tax that mining companies can't avoid ? BHP doubled its profit in the last Fin Year..






SirRumpole said:


> Why not implement a super profit tax on banks whose profits have been soaring ?.



Because the banks lend out $100 for every $7 - 8 they take in, they are going to have to hold more residual backup. 
The problem with a super profit tax is one year you have a super profit, the next year the world goes ar$e up ala gfc and everyone screams why haven't you got the money.
You can't say to a company "if you do business and invest in Australia, our tax rate is 30%". "However if you start doing really well we will tax you more", it would be easier just to introduce tax brackets for business.
It's a bit like Labor saying the coalition should have given Qantas money when they announced a $300million loss.
$100million of that was carbon tax? What the.



SirRumpole said:


> Despite the Coalitions smarmy statements that the budget is fair, it most definitely is not.




It is fair, they have reduced spending without stopping jobs growth. Too many people living in the me,me,me bubble.


----------



## overhang

You know you'd think a party that spent the last 3 years crucifying the Labor party for their broken promises would actually attempt not to break too many promises in their first budget.

To the budget itself it's tough as we suspected and probably needed to be but it's always going to be argued which parts are a bit too severe.  For mine it boggles my mind how this government can make the youth wait 6 months to receive any welfare (which they're upping to 25 to receive the dole, until then they will recieve the lesser payment of newstart) and then 6 months on the dole in which case after that time they will go for another 6 months cycle with no pay, but yet businesses will receive 10k bonuses for employing over 50's.  So on one hand they're saying go and get a job or study and on the other they are encouraging employers to employ their older job competitors instead.  Combine this with the many in the public sector that will lose their jobs because of the many cuts, the record high youth unemployment and you end up putting disadvantaged youth in quite a vulnerable position.

They have scrapped the First Home Savers Accounts all whilst ignoring negative gearing which as we know drives up house prices making it difficult for first home buyers to enter the market.

I really think the $7 gp visits are counterintuitive, in my town the clinic doesn't offer bulk billing.  Our A&E often have people arriving with minor problems such as headaches, tooth aches etc.  This results in more paperwork and they're normally more conservative in A&E and sometimes run unnecessary tests, all this costs time which could be spent providing care for patients that actually need it.  I wouldn't say it's a huge problem but this $7 dollar fee is going to have some flow on affect into A&E so some money saved by this policy will defer onto other departments.


----------



## sptrawler

overhang said:


> You know you'd think a party that spent the last 3 years crucifying the Labor party for their broken promises would actually attempt not to break too many promises in their first budget.
> 
> To the budget itself it's tough as we suspected and probably needed to be but it's always going to be argued which parts are a bit too severe.  For mine it boggles my mind how this government can make the youth wait 6 months to receive any welfare (which they're upping to 25 to receive the dole, until then they will recieve the lesser payment of newstart) and then 6 months on the dole in which case after that time they will go for another 6 months cycle with no pay, but yet businesses will receive 10k bonuses for employing over 50's.  So on one hand they're saying go and get a job or study and on the other they are encouraging employers to employ their older job competitors instead.  Combine this with the many in the public sector that will lose their jobs because of the many cuts, the record high youth unemployment and you end up putting disadvantaged youth in quite a vulnerable position.
> 
> They have scrapped the First Home Savers Accounts all whilst ignoring negative gearing which as we know drives up house prices making it difficult for first home buyers to enter the market.
> 
> I really think the $7 gp visits are counterintuitive, in my town the clinic doesn't offer bulk billing.  Our A&E often have people arriving with minor problems such as headaches, tooth aches etc.  This results in more paperwork and they're normally more conservative in A&E and sometimes run unnecessary tests, all this costs time which could be spent providing care for patients that actually need it.  I wouldn't say it's a huge problem but this $7 dollar fee is going to have some flow on affect into A&E so some money saved by this policy will defer onto other departments.




There are two things to keep in mind.
1. nothing is cast in stone.
2. Any enacted initiative, if it proves counter productive, can be changed.


----------



## sptrawler

This broken promise rant is really funny.

If the Coalition did nothing and the budget kept spiralling out of control.

Would the press and Labor say "well done we're in the $hit, but you didn't break your promise"

Or would they say.

"Australia is in a bigger mess than when the coalition took office. They are useless and need throwing out"

What a bunch of muppets, people need their heads read,IMO.


----------



## overhang

sptrawler said:


> This broken promise rant is really funny.
> 
> If the Coalition did nothing and the budget kept spiralling out of control.
> 
> Would the press and Labor say "well done we're in the $hit, but you didn't break your promise"
> 
> Or would they say.
> 
> "Australia is in a bigger mess than when the coalition took office. They are useless and need throwing out"
> 
> What a bunch of muppets, people need their heads read,IMO.




It would be argued that they shouldn't have made those commitments pre-election if they had no intentions of keeping them.  I would not have such a hard time with this if this government didn't campaign so hard regarding Labor's broken promises but as it is they have shot themselves in the foot.  And the ridiculous thing is they didn't need to make these promises to win the election, they just had to show up.


----------



## sptrawler

overhang said:


> It would be argued that they shouldn't have made those commitments pre-election if they had no intentions of keeping them.  I would not have such a hard time with this if this government didn't campaign so hard regarding Labor's broken promises but as it is they have shot themselves in the foot.  And the ridiculous thing is they didn't need to make these promises to win the election, they just had to show up.




So therefore now they find themselves in office, they should do nothing, rather than hurt your feelings. Priceless

I didn't realise your feelings were so important in the scheme of things. How many times in your life have you made a commitment that due to changed circumstances you couldn't keep.
I do agree that politicians make stupid promises, its has always happened, and the politicians are judged at the election as to whether it was worth it.
Gillard was judged harshly because the electorate couldn't reconcile the broken promise, with the percieved gains.
Abbott will be judged likewise.


----------



## drsmith

overhang said:


> You know you'd think a party that spent the last 3 years crucifying the Labor party for their broken promises would actually attempt not to break too many promises in their first budget.



There's an important difference. Like Peter Costello's first budget, this effort relates to fixing the fiscal imbalance. The carbon tax did not.

Also, by making the more politically difficult decisions now, this government is not setting itself up for ever increasing reactionary responses like the Gillard government did as the budget situation worsened. 

In other words, it's better politically to take the greater corrective action in the first budget than have fiscal policy look like a rudderless (no pun intended) ship for an entire term.


----------



## sptrawler

drsmith said:


> There's an important difference. Like Peter Costello's first budget, this effort relates to fixing the fiscal imbalance. The carbon tax did not.
> 
> Also, by making the more politically difficult decisions now, this government is not setting itself up for ever increasing reactionary responses like the Gillard government did as the budget situation worsened.
> 
> In other words, it's better politically to take the greater corrective action in the first budget than have fiscal policy look like a rudderless (no pun intended) ship for an entire term.




Well said doc.


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> Why make the sick and elderly pay increased costs for health when by increasing the Medicare levy, everyone contributes to the health system ?



As trainspotter has observed, $7 to visit the doctor is not unreasonable, especially when it's capped at ten visits which includes GP consultations and any supplementary items like pathology or XRays. That's just $70 per year. I do not believe people cannot afford that.

As usual there is much emoting of how cruel and unkind this is with such ridiculous statements as "many people need to visit their doctor five times a week (really???) and in no time at all they will be spending half of their total benefit. What utter rubbish. 




overhang said:


> For mine it boggles my mind how this government can make the youth wait 6 months to receive any welfare (which they're upping to 25 to receive the dole, until then they will recieve the lesser payment of newstart)



Newstart is just the formal name for the dole:  same thing.


----------



## overhang

sptrawler said:


> So therefore now they find themselves in office, they should do nothing, rather than hurt your feelings. Priceless
> 
> I didn't realise your feelings were so important in the scheme of things. How many times in your life have you made a commitment that due to changed circumstances you couldn't keep.
> I do agree that politicians make stupid promises, its has always happened, and the politicians are judged at the election as to whether it was worth it.
> Gillard was judged harshly because the electorate couldn't reconcile the broken promise, with the percieved gains.
> Abbott will be judged likewise.




Play the ball not the man!  You have completely over exaggerated my point.



drsmith said:


> There's an important difference. Like Peter Costello's first budget, this effort relates to fixing the fiscal imbalance. The carbon tax did not.
> 
> Also, by making the more politically difficult decisions now, this government is not setting itself up for ever increasing reactionary responses like the Gillard government did as the budget situation worsened.
> 
> In other words, it's better politically to take the greater corrective action in the first budget than have fiscal policy look like a rudderless (no pun intended) ship for an entire term.




I do agree somewhat that this is a somewhat tactical move to ease the burden early on rather than breaking commitments in the 2nd or 3rd year closer to the election and a smart move on that front.  In 3 years time we might find out if these broken promises come back to bite.


----------



## overhang

Julia said:


> Newstart is just the formal name for the dole:  same thing.




My mistake I meant youth allowance.


----------



## sptrawler

overhang said:


> Play the ball not the man!  You have completely over exaggerated my point.
> 
> .




I don't feel that is fair, you made a personal take on the fact promises were broken.
I responded by agreeing and pointing out promises are broken every election.
Then I went on to say politicians are judged by their broken promises, as will Abbott.

Maybe you are being a bit sensitive? I percieved your point of a broken promise as being over exaggerated.

My appologies if offence was taken.


----------



## overhang

sptrawler said:


> I don't feel that is fair, you made a personal take on the fact promises were broken.
> I responded by agreeing and pointing out promises are broken every election.
> Then I went on to say politicians are judged by their broken promises, as will Abbott.
> 
> Maybe you are being a bit sensitive? I percieved your point of a broken promise as being over exaggerated.
> 
> My appologies if offence was taken.




I raise several points and you have the nerve to carry on about my hurt feelings over the broken promise point, the press have covered the broken promises too so I'm not the only one who finds this government a bit hypocritical on this point but to carry on about my hurt feelings is just plain condescending. Drsmith had a sensible reply.


----------



## sptrawler

overhang said:


> I raise several points and you have the nerve to carry on about my hurt feelings over the broken promise point, the press have covered the broken promises too so I'm not the only one who finds this government a bit hypocritical on this point but to carry on about my hurt feelings is just plain condescending. Drsmith had a sensible reply.




If you read back through the threads, you will find that I have an immense dislike of the press and their childlike infatuation with nonsensical emotive issues, to ramp up circulation.
Drsmith probably has more patience than me.
I applogised if you took offence

As for your other points I didn't have a problem with them, sounded fair and reasonable.


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> There's an important difference. Like Peter Costello's first budget, this effort relates to fixing the fiscal imbalance. The carbon tax did not.
> 
> Also, by making the more politically difficult decisions now, this government is not setting itself up for ever increasing reactionary responses like the Gillard government did as the budget situation worsened.
> 
> In other words, it's better politically to take the greater corrective action in the first budget than have fiscal policy look like a rudderless (no pun intended) ship for an entire term.




The important difference for you is that it's a liberal prime minister rather than a labor prime minister who is breaking promises.  All the rest is post hoc rationalisation.


----------



## sptrawler

YEH, at last.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...-budget-measures/story-fnii5yv7-1226918057038

Let's go to an election to see if the silent majority want to go back to crisis management.
At least it will stop the ranting by fairfax media, please, please , please bring on an election.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> YEH, at last.
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...-budget-measures/story-fnii5yv7-1226918057038
> 
> Let's go to an election to see if the silent majority want to go back to crisis management.
> At least it will stop the ranting by fairfax media, please, please , please bring on an election.




I'd say Abbott would have little to no credibility at another election any time soon.

August 2013 

Reporter - The condition of the budget will not be an excuse for breaking promises?
Abbott - Exactly right.  We will keep the commitments that we make.

Doesn't really get any clearer than that.

March 2012 - Abbott - No ones personal tax will go up.

Unless Abbott came out and stated categorically he would stand down if he did anything other that what he said during the next election campaign, I think a large section of the community would be very unwilling to trust him again.

Factor in the states turning against him over the $80B in cuts for education and health care, and it would be a very brave unpopular PM to go to the polls.

Rural constituents may turn against the NP members too as Ian Macfarlane promised no cuts to landcare and now $484M is being cut.

While I'm happy to see some middle class welfare pared back, I find it quite abhorrent that so many distorting tax lurks benefiting the rich have been left unscathed.  Removal of the halving of CGT - $5B a year, quarantining NG to new assets - starts off in the 10s of millions but over time the savings will compound, killing off the PPL - $5B a year, are better options than setting up the under 30s to destitution.

If they capped pre tax super contributions at 10K per year they could save $6B a year, and removing tax free super for the over 60s is another $3B a year.  Both these changes would be very progressive tax changes.

All the above are certainly better options than hacking into the CSIRO again, cutting landcare funding (I view them as the equivalent of lifesavers for the bush).


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> As trainspotter has observed, $7 to visit the doctor is not unreasonable, especially when it's capped at ten visits which includes GP consultations and any supplementary items like pathology or XRays.




I'm not so much concerned about $7 co payment on services as the $5 increase (80c for card holders) increase in medicines. For people who need medicines all the time, this will be a significant impost.


----------



## SirRumpole

> Because the carbon tax put another impost on our already strugling small business and manufacturing sector. Our business costs are stupidly high already( wages and taxes), to add further costs on top was just dumb. When you have ground all the employers into the ground what then. Dumb politics.




And what do you think a continually increasing fuel tax will do to business costs ?

It's not just consumers that use fuel. Every business that transports goods does. Inflation will rise , the excise will increase, which contributes to inflation which causes the tax to rise ad infinitum.

I can't see how people who think they are smart can't see that this tax will be worse than the carbon tax. It really is a great big new tax on everything.



> Why put a joke tax on high income earners for three years only, and cut family benefits permanently ? Because the rich can afford it and the age of entitlements is over.




You are missing the point. If the rich can afford it they can pay the levy permanently, not just for three years. That's why it's a joke.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> And what do you think a continually increasing fuel tax will do to business costs ?
> 
> It's not just consumers that use fuel. Every business that transports goods does. Inflation will rise , the excise will increase, which contributes to inflation which causes the tax to rise ad infinitum.
> 
> I can't see how people who think they are smart can't see that this tax will be worse than the carbon tax. It really is a great big new tax on everything.
> 
> 
> 
> You are missing the point. If the rich can afford it they can pay the levy permanently, not just for three years. That's why it's a joke.





So what is the alternative Rumpy?.....Go back to the good old days (07/13)  of borrowing $100,000,000 a day just to keep everyone happy!!!!!!!!!!!

It will still have to be paid back or do you think money grows on trees?


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> So what is the alternative Rumpy?.....Go back to the good old days (07/13)  of borrowing $100,000,000 a day just to keep everyone happy!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> It will still have to be paid back or do you think money grows on trees?




If you read some of my previous posts, you will see I have given alternatives.


----------



## orr

Dominance Submission and deceit are the default psychological bedrock of infused tory dogma. The image from National Lampoons 'Animal House' ... 'yes Sir may I have another...._whack_'  If someone can put forward a more fitting metaphor for the Budget we have to have, please do.  Here we all are buck naked in submission for our confected sins with our self imposed authoritarian overlords administering our just deserved and wantingly recieved penance... Reading the posters to this thread it's easy to descern those who most joyfully await the next.... *'WHACK'*


----------



## drsmith

banco said:


> The important difference for you is that it's a liberal prime minister rather than a labor prime minister who is breaking promises.  All the rest is post hoc rationalisation.



It's not about me and political history speaks for itself.

Go back to the first budget under the Howard Government and consider how long that government was ultimately in office. Then consider how that compared to the fiscal management strategies of the Gillard government.


----------



## boofhead

Julia said:


> As trainspotter has observed, $7 to visit the doctor is not unreasonable, especially when it's capped at ten visits which includes GP consultations and any supplementary items like pathology or XRays. That's just $70 per year. I do not believe people cannot afford that.




While $70 over a year seems ok often the events can happen very quickly. Not so long ago I had a health issue that resulted in me visiting a GP, went off to do scans (with imaging specialists) which found something, back to the GP in the same day then referred to another specialist the next business day. The specialist sent me off to do other scans to help determine the issue. Not long later back to the specialist to look over results. In there are blood tests. The specialist had out of pocket expenses. It resulted in an operation which has follow up visits to the specialist and more blood tests. Then referral to other specialists. More imaging and tests. In a 2 month period I would have used up most of the first 10 co-contribution payments + the out of pocket expenses for one of the speialists. It hit hard quickly. I was thankful I'm not in another health system where I would have had a lot more costs.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> And what do you think a continually increasing fuel tax will do to business costs ?
> 
> It's not just consumers that use fuel. Every business that transports goods does. Inflation will rise , the excise will increase, which contributes to inflation which causes the tax to rise ad infinitum.
> 
> I can't see how people who think they are smart can't see that this tax will be worse than the carbon tax. It really is a great big new tax on everything..




The carbon tax was going on all types of fuel (petrol, diesel,coal and gas included), but it was also on electricity and emmissions from factories as well. Can't see how you can make that last statement 




SirRumpole said:


> You are missing the point. If the rich can afford it they can pay the levy permanently, not just for three years. That's why it's a joke.




The earners on $180,000 pay $54,000/tax, earners on less than $50,000 apparently pay no effective tax. 
Maybe we should go back to the good old days where the top rate is $0.60/ $1.
The other thing to consider is, the levy may indeed be made permanent after the tax white paper.
This budget is mainly focused on reducing Government spending, the assesment of the tax system is yet to happen.


----------



## sptrawler

This sort of nonesense from Truss, won't help their case.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...-pm-warren-truss/story-fnihsrf2-1226918078356

As if someone with a relatively modest super balance is going to blow it, to live on the bloody pension.
The same applies for those who have accumulated $millions in super, as if they are going to blow it to get a health care card. What a joke, I bet the tax dept have figures on exactly what is really going on.
Everyone I know on a self funded pension are trying extremely hard to make their money last as long as possible, it gives them options.
Truss should try living on the aged pension, rather than the taxpayer funded one he is going to get.lol


----------



## drsmith

It will be interesting to see what policies on superannuation get taken to the next election.

It's much harder to blow it over a short period if it can't be taken as a lump sum.


----------



## sptrawler

drsmith said:


> It will be interesting to see what policies on superannuation get taken to the next election.
> 
> It's much harder to blow it over a short period if it can't be taken as a lump sum.




As you say doc, it will be interesting.

The outcome of the tax white paper should open a lot discussion, our current tax system is rapidly aproaching its use by date.

Fewer people in work, more people on welfare, isn't a great mix. Some lateral thinking will be required.


----------



## sptrawler

overhang said:


> I raise several points and you have the nerve to carry on about my hurt feelings over the broken promise point, the press have covered the broken promises too so I'm not the only one who finds this government a bit hypocritical on this point but to carry on about my hurt feelings is just plain condescending. Drsmith had a sensible reply.




Here you go overhang, Alan Kohler explains the broken promises articulately, and why election promises are always broken.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-15/kohler-budget-time-bombs-meant-lies-were-inevitable/5452348

Here is a paragraph from the article. My bolds

*Broken promises are nothing new - they have been happening after every election since your correspondent first became a journalist in the early 1970s, and no doubt before that too*


----------



## trainspotter

SirRumpole said:


> And what do you think a continually increasing fuel tax will do to business costs ?
> 
> It's not just consumers that use fuel. Every business that transports goods does. Inflation will rise , the excise will increase, which contributes to inflation which causes the tax to rise ad infinitum.
> 
> I can't see how people who think they are smart can't see that this tax will be worse than the carbon tax. It really is a great big new tax on everything.
> 
> You are missing the point. If the rich can afford it they can pay the levy permanently, not just for three years. That's why it's a joke.




And the carbon tax does what again? Pretty sure this is a carbon tax wrapped in different **** paper for mine. Carbon tax on electricity for generating nasty Co2 effects EVERYBODY the same as fuel excise will. 

If you can't see this as a better alternative to a carbon tax then mebbe it is you who should be looking at your IQ level. A great big tax on everything? You are kidding me right? Have you considered that by indexing fuel costs that inflation will rise, is a good thing as long as it is controlled. What is the alternative? Recession we had to have ala' Keating style? Electricity companies and everybody else affected by the carbon tax PASSED this impost onto the consumer. This convo have been done to death by "economists" with far more brain capacity then either of us. Labor introduced the carbon tax to satisfy the Greens and gain political "green" points with the marginal voters. But you are aware of all this aren't you?

What makes you think the levy will come off in 3 years? Politics is full of "core" and "non core" promises only to be broken time and time again. Think of the $10 Ansett levy and how well that was managed. Ended up in the courts and was only abolished AFTER their were enough funds to pay all entitlements to the Ansett employees. How long do you think it will be before the "debt levy" would be abolished? After the budget is returned to a surplus?


----------



## drsmith

trainspotter said:


> What makes you think the levy will come off in 3 years?



A slightly different tack to the present conversation, but I suspect the current government's long game will be to go to the next election on a platform of tax cuts in their second term. This will be in part compensation for a an increased/broadened GST/bracket creep and include removal of the deficit levy at the higher end. Pensions would also need to be increased as compensation for an increased GST which could also soften the initial blow from changes to indexation. As the states will demand a significant take from any GST increase (it's been firmly put in their court to initiate the process), other areas of tax reform will be necessary to fund the above and in particular, dealing with the rigour of the existing tax base. This is where the tax white paper will be interesting.

After initially raising the tax take on higher income earners through the superannuation surcharge, we all know the tax cuts that followed under the Howard government. If this government goes the distance, it will be similar for its own constituency to the extent fiscal circumstances allow.


----------



## trainspotter

Yes drsmith, the similarities to the Howard government approach is Zachary the same. Let's hope the outcome is amenable to the voting public at the end of the day. We have until  before 14th January 2017 for this to be put to bed. The States are already squawking that the decision to raise the GST has been thrust onto them. Fait accompli IMO


----------



## SirRumpole

trainspotter said:


> You are kidding me right? Have you considered that by indexing fuel costs that inflation will rise, is a good thing as long as it is controlled. What is the alternative? Recession we had to have ala' Keating style?




You are kidding me right ? You agree that inflation will rise caused by a fuel tax levy. Feeding more increases in fuel tax levy. Feeding more increases in GST. Feeding more increases in inflation. Feeding reductions in consumer spending. Feeding a recession. How you intend that this cycle be controlled ?

Despite the introduction of the carbon tax inflation in this country remains low, and people have been compensated for the worst of its effects. No compensation will be made for fuel excise indexation.

Better the devil you know.


----------



## trainspotter

SirRumpole said:


> You are kidding me right ? You agree that inflation will rise caused by a fuel tax levy. Feeding more increases in fuel tax levy. Feeding more increases in GST. Feeding more increases in inflation. Feeding reductions in consumer spending. Feeding a recession. How you intend that this cycle be controlled ?
> 
> Despite the introduction of the carbon tax inflation in this country remains low, and people have been compensated for the worst of its effects. No compensation will be made for fuel excise indexation.
> 
> Better the devil you know.




So are you saying the introduction of the Carbon Tax has had ZERO inflationary response to the economy and has not increased the cost of living? My electricity bill went up $70 over a 60 day period with the "assumed" cost attached to the Co2 tax. Why is it that if it is a carbon tax that was supposed to be funded back into renewable energy generation it is OK with you and a petrol excise which will be funded back into road infrastructure is not OK? 40 CENTS A WEEK on petrol excise is hardly going to break the bank of the average family. It is a broad based consumption tax linked directly to your right foot rather then heating your house. What's the difference?

Compensation? What compensation? I have not received a cent in compensation for the Carbon Tax. But I have noticed the cost of living has risen which does not directly mean that inflation is directly connected to it.

Maybe instead of arguing over semantics you should read drsmiths post as to WHY this is happening. Tax cuts anyone in their second term? :


----------



## SirRumpole

trainspotter said:


> So are you saying the introduction of the Carbon Tax has had ZERO inflationary response to the economy and has not increased the cost of living?




Don't verbal me please, I never said that. Of course it had some effect, just not as much as you are trying to maintain.



> My electricity bill went up $70 over a 60 day period with the "assumed" cost attached to the Co2 tax. Why is it that if it is a carbon tax that was supposed to be funded back into renewable energy generation it is OK with you and a petrol excise which will be funded back into road infrastructure is not OK?




The majority of power cost increases have been due to over investment in poles and wires and a guaranteed return to power companies on their investment. Most companies would kill for a guaranteed return.

As for investment in roads, by not providing alternatives the government is suckering people in to paying the ever increasing fuel excise. It might start at 40 cents a week, what will it be in 2 years, 5 years, 10 years ? Is the government going to build ever increasing roads or just put the money into general revenue ? If the latter then it's another con.



> It is a broad based consumption tax linked directly to your right foot rather then heating your house. What's the difference?




The difference is because the carbon tax affects Liberal party donors, not the average Joe. That's why they want it out.



> Compensation? What compensation? I have not received a cent in compensation for the Carbon Tax. But I have noticed the cost of living has risen which does not directly mean that inflation is directly connected to it.




The tax free threshhold went up from $6000 to $18000.



> Maybe instead of arguing over semantics you should read drsmiths post as to WHY this is happening. Tax cuts anyone in their second term? :




What semantics ? I'm arguing about the policy dynamics.

Tax cuts in their second term ? Do you really believe that after Hockey said "this is only the beginning of the cuts" ?

If you do believe him, I really wonder about the level of your IQ.


----------



## trainspotter

Dear Horace,

As I have better things to do with my time then argue on the internet with someone who has a very small grasp of the tabloid headlines and repeat them in here verbatim I bid you adieu in your endeavours to profligate the Labor party ethos.

Let me leave you with this gem:-



> ENERGY company Synergy is pocketing millions of bonus carbon tax dollars by holding on to the money collected from West Australians for up to a year before handing it over to the Federal Government.
> 
> The monopoly electricity retailer already has collected $68 million from households and businesses and will raise an estimated further $150 million before it passes on one cent in tax.
> 
> Synergy admitted to The Sunday Times that it had squirrelled away millions of dollars into a bank account accruing interest and won't pay anything to the Gillard Government until mid-next year.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...n-carbon-tax-con/story-e6frg6n6-1226514353609


----------



## sptrawler

Rumpole, is the fuel excise levy the same one Bob Hawke promised to remove as soon as he attained office.lol,lol,lol. because it was a tax on the poor. 
Guess what he did? sod all, he didn't even remove the indexation on it, from memory.

Also for some reason you seem to be indicating the carbon tax was a fixed cost, were as the fuel tax will be indexed.
Don't know where you got that idea from.

The carbon tax has added heaps to the cost of electricity as generators burn more expensive fuels and install more capital intensive alternative energies.


----------



## overhang

sptrawler said:


> Here you go overhang, Alan Kohler explains the broken promises articulately, and why election promises are always broken.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-15/kohler-budget-time-bombs-meant-lies-were-inevitable/5452348
> 
> Here is a paragraph from the article. My bolds
> 
> *Broken promises are nothing new - they have been happening after every election since your correspondent first became a journalist in the early 1970s, and no doubt before that too*




Sptrawler as I have explained what I have drawn exception to is how heavily the Abbott government as opposition and the Murdoch press campaigned against Labor's broken promises, they clearly don't hold themselves to the same ethics they expected of Labor.


Back on the budget and what a disgrace this is, given all the cuts made to health and education but the god botherer can still find $245 million to spread religious dogma "*Schools will lose the option of appointing secular social workers under the national school chaplaincy program, for which the Abbott government has found an extra $245m in budget funding*."  Are we in a budget crisis or not?  Given Pyne was adamant that schools are the responsibility of the states then why is the federal government wasting this sort of money for schools?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...secular-social-workers-at-schools?CMP=soc_568


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> Rumpole, is the fuel excise levy the same one Bob Hawke promised to remove as soon as he attained office.lol,lol,lol. because it was a tax on the poor.
> Guess what he did? sod all, he didn't even remove the indexation on it, from memory.




So what ? I'm not a Labor party person, I'm just looking at alternatives. What happen 30 years ago doesn't mean a fig to me.



> Also for some reason you seem to be indicating the carbon tax was a fixed cost, were as the fuel tax will be indexed.
> Don't know where you got that idea from.




Fair point. I think the actual rate of the CT is too high and there is scope for reducing it.


----------



## Julia

sptrawler said:


> This sort of nonesense from Truss, won't help their case.
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...-pm-warren-truss/story-fnihsrf2-1226918078356
> 
> As if someone with a relatively modest super balance is going to blow it, to live on the bloody pension.
> The same applies for those who have accumulated $millions in super, as if they are going to blow it to get a health care card. What a joke, I bet the tax dept have figures on exactly what is really going on.
> Everyone I know on a self funded pension are trying extremely hard to make their money last as long as possible, it gives them options.
> Truss should try living on the aged pension, rather than the taxpayer funded one he is going to get.lol



What absolute stupidity from Warren Truss, to so insult a significant portion of his voter base.
It's about as smart as Joe Hockey's comment that the $7 was about a third of the cost of a packet of cigarettes or X quantity of beer.   That's implying that all the people worrying about the $7 are indiscriminately sucking on cigarettes and beer.

A better group of communicators could have sold this budget, but as with everything else they have touched other than perhaps the border issue, they have no idea about how to take the electorate with them.  Instead they have produced a 'them and us' situation with massive antagonism toward the government.



SirRumpole said:


> The tax free threshhold went up from $6000 to $18000.



That was an illusion.  Yes the tax free threshold was altered but at the same time some of the allowances and tax free exemptions were removed so there was effectively almost no difference at all in how much someone could earn without paying tax.


----------



## SirRumpole

trainspotter said:


> Dear Horace,
> 
> As I have better things to do with my time then argue on the internet with someone who has a very small grasp of the tabloid headlines and repeat them in here verbatim I bid you adieu in your endeavours to profligate the Labor party ethos.
> 
> Let me leave you with this gem:-
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...n-carbon-tax-con/story-e6frg6n6-1226514353609
> 
> Obviously something that could and should be addressed
> 
> View attachment 57967




Is that your power bill ? Your kwh appears to have about doubled as as your bill. What is the point you are trying to make ?


----------



## sptrawler

I must appolgise Rumpole, from memory I thought Hawke promised to abolish the fuel excise.

Upon furter investigation it was Hawke who introduced it apparently, what a laugh.

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...mments/pain_at_pump_could_backfire_on_abbott/

my bolds
*The excise on fuel was introduced by Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke in 1983, and increases were linked to the consumer price index, effectively delivering bi-annual price hikes. 

After a party room revolt in August 2000, John Howard froze the level of excise as part of the tax trade-off that accompanied the introduction of the goods and service tax in 2001*

I will have to check further and keep you posted.


----------



## sptrawler

overhang said:


> Back on the budget and what a disgrace this is, given all the cuts made to health and education but the god botherer can still find $245 million to spread religious dogma "*Schools will lose the option of appointing secular social workers under the national school chaplaincy program, for which the Abbott government has found an extra $245m in budget funding*."  Are we in a budget crisis or not?  Given Pyne was adamant that schools are the responsibility of the states then why is the federal government wasting this sort of money for schools?
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...secular-social-workers-at-schools?CMP=soc_568




Agree completely


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> What absolute stupidity from Warren Truss, to so insult a significant portion of his voter base.
> It's about as smart as Joe Hockey's comment that the $7 was about a third of the cost of a packet of cigarettes or X quantity of beer.   That's implying that all the people worrying about the $7 are indiscriminately sucking on cigarettes and beer.




Absolutely right Julia. Arrogant and insulting tripe from Truss. Along with the cigar smoking episode, it just represents what a bunch of out of touch egotistical elitists we have in government.



> A better group of communicators could have sold this budget, but as with everything else they have touched other than perhaps the border issue, they have no idea about how to take the electorate with them.  Instead they have produced a 'them and us' situation with massive antagonism toward the government.




I doubt if the Archangel Gabriel could sell this Budget.

Instead of hitting those who could afford it the least, a better way to go would be modest increases in income and company tax to maintain services. Polls have consistently shown that people want services to be available when they need them, and are prepared to pay a bit of extra tax for peace of mind.

At the same time, the costs of government can be reduced . Australians pay 10 times more for medicines than in NZ. Why is this the case ? $1 billion could be wiped off the health bill if medicines were a reasonable price.


----------



## trainspotter

SirRumpole said:


> Is that your power bill ? Your kwh appears to have about doubled as as your bill. What is the point you are trying to make ?




That the cost of the Carbon Tax is far more then what the petrol excise is going to be. 

Note the wording on the document "This includes 2.255 cents/unit for Synergy's *estimate* of it's costs for the Federal Governments carbon price, Synergy's allowable return and GST"

So as an "estimate" becomes an actual charge when? If their "estimate" is incorrect do I have to pay more once the policy has been finalised and if it is less do you think Synergy will refund the amount they have taken from me?

“There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead, but let me be clear: I will be putting a price on carbon and I will move to an emissions trading scheme.” Julia Gillard

"Whether it’s a stealth tax (like) the emissions trading scheme, whether it’s an upfront and straight forward tax like a carbon tax, there will not be any new taxes as part of the Coalition’s policies." Tony Abbott

 “There are no circumstances under which I will return to the leadership of the Australian Labor Party" Kevin Rudd

Howard/Hawke/Keating/Menzies/Whitlam ... makes no difference ...


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> Instead of hitting those who could afford it the least, a better way to go would be modest increases in income and company tax to maintain services. Polls have consistently shown that people want services to be available when they need them, and are prepared to pay a bit of extra tax for peace of mind..




Below you mention NZ, they have a company tax rate of 20% and you want to increase ours from 30%. As though that will help increase jobs.
By the way NZ also pay less per capita in welfare.
Also I don't see many Aussies rushing to live in NZ, there seems to be counter flow of population.





SirRumpole said:


> At the same time, the costs of government can be reduced . Australians pay 10 times more for medicines than in NZ. Why is this the case ? $1 billion could be wiped off the health bill if medicines were a reasonable price.




They are trying to reduce the cost of government.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> Below you mention NZ, they have a company tax rate of 20% and you want to increase ours from 30%. As though that will help increase jobs.
> By the way NZ also pay less per capita in welfare.
> Also I don't see many Aussies rushing to live in NZ, there seems to be counter flow of population.




So what are you saying ? Conditions for business are better in NZ, but still N.Zedders come here ?

Seems contradictory.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> So what are you saying ? Conditions for business are better in NZ, but still N.Zedders come here ?
> 
> Seems contradictory.




Not really NZ is trying and suceeding in atracting business to move there. 

http://www.smh.com.au/business/australian-jobs-on-the-move-to-nz-20120417-1x5jv.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arc...e-to-new-zealand/story-e6frg98x-1226064066666


----------



## CanOz

NZ has better tax for business's, as well as cheaper labor....not every man and his dog are earning 60k a year to sweep the floor...


----------



## noco

I have always advocated the states have  the responsibility for health and education and for the Federal Government to be involved is just doubling up on these services and an added burden on the taxpayer.

In Queensland years ago, hospitals were funded by the Golden Casket.......I do not why it was stopped and by which government.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...s-ball-to-states/story-e6frg9qo-1226917927183

And here is the answer.....You guessed it....The Beattie Labor Government sold off the assets for $530,000,000

Golden Casket Lottery Corporation, the former Queensland government-owned entity who owns a licensed monopoly on lotteries there; the management of which was sold to Tattersall's on 29 June 2007[2] for $530 million.[3]


----------



## sydboy007

CanOz said:


> NZ has better tax for business's, as well as cheaper labor....not every man and his dog are earning 60k a year to sweep the floor...




Can you show me 1 floor sweeper outside of a mining site earning 60K a year?

have you actually had a chat with the people who clean office buildings?  I can assure you they're at best getting around minimum wage, and worst are so desperate for work they are getting less than what they should just to pay their tuition fees and other bills.  Lots of foreign student slave labour in the cleaning market.

FYI 60K puts you at the border of the 7th and 8th income deciles.  I'd say if floor sweepers really earned that much we'd have some of the cleanest buildings in the world.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> I have always advocated the states have  the responsibility for health and education and for the Federal Government to be involved is just doubling up on these services and an added burden on the taxpayer.
> 
> In Queensland years ago, hospitals were funded by the Golden Casket.......I do not why it was stopped and by which government.
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...s-ball-to-states/story-e6frg9qo-1226917927183
> 
> And here is the answer.....You guessed it....The Beattie Labor Government sold off the assets for $530,000,000
> 
> Golden Casket Lottery Corporation, the former Queensland government-owned entity who owns a licensed monopoly on lotteries there; the management of which was sold to Tattersall's on 29 June 2007[2] for $530 million.[3]




Mr Abbott is offering $5B to the states to get them to flog off any remaining state assets.  No need to do a CBA.  No need to discuss the regulatory environment after sale.  No need to question if it's in the public interest to have the assets in private hands.  No mention of the fact most public asset sales short change tax payers.

No, PM Abbott wants to flog off the remaining family silver robbing the states of further income so it can be invested in projects that generally don't pass the investment grade self liquidating test.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Mr Abbott is offering $5B to the states to get them to flog off any remaining state assets.  No need to do a CBA.  No need to discuss the regulatory environment after sale.  No need to question if it's in the public interest to have the assets in private hands.  No mention of the fact most public asset sales short change tax payers.
> 
> No, PM Abbott wants to flog off the remaining family silver robbing the states of further income so it can be invested in projects that generally don't pass the investment grade self liquidating test.




Martin Ferguson and federal Labor weren't offering anything, when they were telling the States to sell their electricity assetts. 
I know it's a bit, tit for tat, but just trying to keep the cheap shots honest.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Mr Abbott is offering $5B to the states to get them to flog off any remaining state assets.  No need to do a CBA.  No need to discuss the regulatory environment after sale.  No need to question if it's in the public interest to have the assets in private hands.  No mention of the fact most public asset sales short change tax payers.
> 
> No, PM Abbott wants to flog off the remaining family silver robbing the states of further income so it can be invested in projects that generally don't pass the investment grade self liquidating test.




And why did Beattie sell the Golden Casket? It was because he had goofed with the states finances over 20 years of hard Labor and needed the money.....He and Bligh were borrowing money to pay public servants.....public servants who were employed by the Beattie/ Bligh just to keep state unemployment down and it did not matter if they were only doing 3 or 4 hours work a day.

The Federal Government wants to sell assets as do the states to pay for the debts Labor racked up over the past 6 years.


----------



## sptrawler

From Shortens budget reply, it doesn't sound like much of the budget will be passed.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-...dget-reply-opposes-13-billion-in-cuts/5455886

Oh well, that's the excitement over for awhile. I guess the newspapers will have to dream up the next catastrophe, that's going to befall us all.


----------



## drsmith

sptrawler said:


> From Shortens budget reply, it doesn't sound like much of the budget will be passed.






> 8:21pm: After the speech, Shorten has headed straight into an interview with 7.30's Sarah Ferguson.
> 
> Here things don't go quite as smoothly as in the chamber.
> 
> As we heard in his speech, he's committed to opposing the petrol tax, changes to higher education, Newstart, the age pension and the GP co-payment.
> 
> But says Labor has not decided yet on the deficit levy.
> 
> And he did not give a clear answer on whether they would support the tighter means testing of family payments.
> 
> He does think that cutting Family Tax Benefit-B when kids reach six year old is very harsh.




http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/the-pulse-live/politics-live-may-15-2014-20140515-38atf.html

CPI indexation of the fuel excise will go through with Greens support.


----------



## sptrawler

drsmith said:


> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/the-pulse-live/politics-live-may-15-2014-20140515-38atf.html
> 
> CPI indexation of the fuel excise will go through with Greens support.




Yes that is ironic when the fuel excise tax with indexing, was a Labor introduced tax, Howard stopped the indexing.
Even Sydboy says stopping it has cost a fortune.
Now Abbott wants to re apply it, Labor are against it, yet their carbon tax was going to go fuel next year,  weird.


----------



## PinguPingu

SMH: Tony Burke has just suggested that Christopher Pyne prompted Bronwyn Bishop to stand up during the post-speech applause for Shorten, to quieten the chamber down.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKCHnIozGTE 

Looks very much like Pyne directing Bishop here?


----------



## Julia

sydboy007 said:


> Can you show me 1 floor sweeper outside of a mining site earning 60K a year?
> 
> have you actually had a chat with the people who clean office buildings?  I can assure you they're at best getting around minimum wage, and worst are so desperate for work they are getting less than what they should just to pay their tuition fees and other bills.  Lots of foreign student slave labour in the cleaning market.



Aren't you taking CanOz's post rather too literally?  I read it as not really specifically a comment on what cleaners earn but rather a reference to what Australia pays people doing menial jobs compared with what they would earn in NZ, and on that basis, I think he was absolutely correct.



SirRumpole said:


> I doubt if the Archangel Gabriel could sell this Budget.



Well, Rumpole, my impression from your now many posts on various political threads is that you could take your very own recommendations for what the management of Australia should be, put a Liberal badge on it, and even the Archangel Gabriel would not be able to sell it to you.

My point was rather directed toward those in the electorate who might retain some measure of objectivity, and even Liberal voters for that matter.  I would never have had any expectation - and I'm sure neither would the government - that rusted on Labor supporters would find the Budget acceptable.

On Mr Shorten's Reply speech this evening, it was carefully crafted with all the due measures of emotion and hyperbole to appeal to his supporters and possibly even those disaffected with the government's Budget.
It was entirely predictable, even to the rising crescendo of his voice as he approached the conclusion.

What I found more interesting was the marked contrast in the subsequent interview by Sarah Ferguson of Mr Shorten compared with her interview of Mr Hockey after he delivered the budget.

In the latter, she constantly interrupted Mr Hockey.  He was barely able to complete a single sentence.
For Mr Shorten, however, she seemed happy to pose a few token questions without insisting on any answers, and then to allow him to rant on with the same cliches sans interruption of any kind.

Leigh Sales would not have countenanced such obvious bias.


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> From Shortens budget reply, it doesn't sound like much of the budget will be passed.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-...dget-reply-opposes-13-billion-in-cuts/5455886
> 
> Oh well, that's the excitement over for awhile. I guess the newspapers will have to dream up the next catastrophe, that's going to befall us all.




Bill Shorten was full of rhetoric and no substance......He did not offer one solution.....he might as well have not turned up.......As an alternative Prime Minister, I thought he would have told us how he would have handled the current situation of debt and deficit......how he would balance the books and how long it would have taken him to do it......he should have consulted Swanie first......Wayne ( the greatest Treasurer in the World) would have told him how.


----------



## Julia

sptrawler said:


> Not really NZ is trying and succeeding in attracting business to move there.



It's not yet up on the ABC's website, but there was an item on "PM" this evening on the NZ Budget being delivered, finally with a surplus after some years of work after inheriting the results of the previous Labor government there.

John Key, entirely reasonably, pointed to the just delivered Australian budget as the result of six years of Labor/Greens government.  His remarks were worth hearing imo.
Should be up on the PM website tomorrow.


----------



## SirRumpole

> Well, Rumpole, my impression from your now many posts on various political threads is that you could take your very own recommendations for what the management of Australia should be, put a Liberal badge on it, and even the Archangel Gabriel would not be able to sell it to you.




Extremist governments don't implement reasonable policies.


----------



## overhang

Julia said:


> What I found more interesting was the marked contrast in the subsequent interview by Sarah Ferguson of Mr Shorten compared with her interview of Mr Hockey after he delivered the budget.
> 
> In the latter, she constantly interrupted Mr Hockey.  He was barely able to complete a single sentence.
> For Mr Shorten, however, she seemed happy to pose a few token questions without insisting on any answers, and then to allow him to rant on with the same cliches sans interruption of any kind.
> 
> Leigh Sales would not have countenanced such obvious bias.




Julia was it not Sarah Ferguson who tore apart Wayne Swan after his budget speech or was that Leigh Sales?

I haven't seen the Shorten interview and don't have much interest in it as I'm aware it will be full of rhetoric and after reading an ABC article he clearly supports few of the policy's but wont say what cuts Labor would make and where savings would be made to pay for the allocated funding ie Gonski.

However I thought Sarah Ferguson was great at holding Hockey accountable when he wouldn't call a spade a spade.  Funny how as opposition he boasted that the flood levy was a new tax but now as government the high income earners levy is anything but a new tax.  This is not to say I don't support the levy but I just detest this continual diversion of questions by politicians,  I'm not sure if they've ever been honest but certainly not in my lifetime.  
I guess she was always going to gun a bit harder considering the cuts to the ABC were another broken promise.


----------



## sptrawler

I certainly hope there is a double dissolution, then the electorate can decide which path they wish to travel.

However, the reluctance to risk losing, will no doubt rule out our opportunity to choose.


----------



## Julia

overhang said:


> Julia was it not Sarah Ferguson who tore apart Wayne Swan after his budget speech or was that Leigh Sales?



I don't remember particularly, overhang, but probably it would have been Leigh Sales, given she has been the program anchor for the last several years now and is only not there at present because of her maternity leave.



> I haven't seen the Shorten interview and don't have much interest in it as I'm aware it will be full of rhetoric and after reading an ABC article he clearly supports few of the policy's but wont say what cuts Labor would make and where savings would be made to pay for the allocated funding ie Gonski.
> 
> However I thought Sarah Ferguson was great at holding Hockey accountable when he wouldn't call a spade a spade.  Funny how as opposition he boasted that the flood levy was a new tax but now as government the high income earners levy is anything but a new tax.  This is not to say I don't support the levy but I just detest this continual diversion of questions by politicians,  I'm not sure if they've ever been honest but certainly not in my lifetime.




I completely agree.  Some days I feel quite sick at the woeful standard of politicians of all stripes and colours.
Self interest and hypocrisy prevail, sadly.

Further to my earlier comment on NZ being back in the black, for anyone who is interested, this provides a little more detail:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/worl...q.html?promote_channel=edmail&mbnr=MzkzNDcxNA


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> Extremist governments don't implement reasonable policies.




Poor governments, don't have the discipline to implement rational policies.

They continue to fund the unsustainable, untill it becomes unmanageable.


----------



## CanOz

sydboy007 said:


> Can you show me 1 floor sweeper outside of a mining site earning 60K a year?
> 
> have you actually had a chat with the people who clean office buildings?  I can assure you they're at best getting around minimum wage, and worst are so desperate for work they are getting less than what they should just to pay their tuition fees and other bills.  Lots of foreign student slave labour in the cleaning market.
> 
> FYI 60K puts you at the border of the 7th and 8th income deciles.  I'd say if floor sweepers really earned that much we'd have some of the cleanest buildings in the world.




You are indeed out of touch...How about sign flippers on 55k a year?


----------



## sptrawler

CanOz said:


> You are indeed out of touch...How about sign flippers on 55k a year?




Funny you should mention that, a mate who works on the council on $60k, is going to do a traffic management course for a pay rise.


----------



## CanOz

sptrawler said:


> Funny you should mention that, a mate who works on the council on $60k, is going to do a traffic management course for a pay rise.





Yeah its the biggest pile of rot in the world, construction unions. Our mate owns a big firm in Brissy, when he told me about the sign flippers i nearly fainted. The cleaners and sweepers is true too, food preservers union. 

There's no other place like Australia for this...


----------



## Tink

I thought the same thing, Julia, with the Sarah Ferguson and Joe Hockey interview, compared to how she spoke to Bill Shorten. 
Maybe she was upset about the cuts to the ABC.


----------



## sydboy007

You'd think after Abbott going into bat for the salary packaging industry they'd at least try to help the poor guy now he's in power.

But no.  They're already out spruiking to high income individuals on how to salary package their new car so as to tax arbitrage between the new 49% debt levy rate and the 47% FBT rate that will exist till April next year.

Wonder if it will make them rethink their opposition to how the statutory method for claiming car expenses is done?  They've broken so many other promises in the name of getting the budget to surplus, why not another one that actually has some fairness and economic merit to back it up?


----------



## sptrawler

Abbott may have to go back to the negotiation table with Barnett, over the offshore LNG processing.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/wa/a/23552597/rocky-outcrops-worth-billions/


----------



## drsmith

> Ms Bishop was meeting the first group of students travelling to Singapore under the Federal Government's New Colombo Plan, a scheme which offers Australian undergraduates grants to study in the Indo-Pacific region.
> 
> Bebe D'Souza from the Sydney University Union says the minister was not fazed by the action, which attracted about 200 students.
> 
> "Julie Bishop came up the stairs surrounded by police and then all of the students kind of surrounded [her] and the police," she said.
> 
> The students were] yelling 'shame' and talking about how terrible these cuts on education are going to be for ordinary students.
> 
> "Julie Bishop kind of just like looked bemused, she didn't look shameful at all, she looked proud of what she was doing."



Perhaps she was thinking about six of the best with the rattan for each.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-16/julie-bishop-student-protest-sydney-university/5458636


----------



## drsmith

sptrawler said:


> Abbott may have to go back to the negotiation table with Barnett, over the offshore LNG processing.
> 
> https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/wa/a/23552597/rocky-outcrops-worth-billions/



Either that or dispose of a used empty asylum boat with a little too much C-4.


----------



## noco

Henry Ergas hits the nail on the head and points to the necessity of Hockey's fiscal action.

A spoon full of sugar makes the medicine go down.....Suck up up Labor and do the right thing by the nation or pay the consequences..


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...w-finish-the-job/story-fn7078da-1226920688190


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Henry Ergas hits the nail on the head and points to the necessity of Hockey's fiscal action.
> 
> A spoon full of sugar makes the medicine go down.....Suck up up Labor and do the right thing by the nation or pay the consequences..
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...w-finish-the-job/story-fn7078da-1226920688190




It will be interesting to see what your hero does when the majority of this Budget lies in tatters in the Senate.


----------



## drsmith

Mrs Carbon Tax offers her two bobs worth on the budget.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-17/cate-blanchett-slams-budget-cuts/5459416


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> It will be interesting to see what your hero does when the majority of this Budget lies in tatters in the Senate.




He will probably be too busy, to stand alongside your hero's, they seem busy answering questions about their policies ATM.lol


----------



## SirRumpole

drsmith said:


> Mrs Carbon Tax offers her two bobs worth on the budget.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-17/cate-blanchett-slams-budget-cuts/5459416




You missed a great opportunity Dr Smith

"Mrs Carbon Tax offers her two boobs worth on the budget."


----------



## noco

drsmith said:


> Mrs Carbon Tax offers her two bobs worth on the budget.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-17/cate-blanchett-slams-budget-cuts/5459416




Doc, what else would you expect from a dedicated GREENIE.


----------



## banco

That lying piece of ****:

_Well, I can understand why just at the moment politicians aren’t much trusted because we’ve had too many politicians who say one thing before an election to win votes and then do the opposite after the election…_

Tony Abbott, Newcastle radio, June 13, 2013.


----------



## Boggo

noco said:


> Doc, what else would you expect from a dedicated GREENIE.




Got this in an email


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> It will be interesting to see what your hero does when the majority of this Budget lies in tatters in the Senate.




Well, if Abbott can't negotiate or knock some sense into those "RED RAGERS AND THE GREENS", then he will have no alternative but to let the people decide whether they want to go down the same track as the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd chaos from 2007 to 2013 or whether they choice to weather out the storm that has been whipped up by the Greens and the comrades of the Greens or to attain some stability in our economy.

It is very simple, if Rudd and Gillard had not wasted so much of tax payers money on hare brain schemes and committed the Coalition into future schemes such as the NBN, Gonski and the NDIS and their own PPL, there would have been no need for such restrictions on the economy today..

A double dissolution  maybe the only solution.


----------



## noco

Abbott must hold his nerve and not let the polls sway him one way or the other......if a double dissolution is the only way to settle the difference between the two major parties, so be it.....it will let the voters decide whether to go backwards of move foooooooooooooorwards.  

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...ic-warrior-clash/story-e6frg74x-1226920686461

He (Shorten) says the budget problem is a myth, that Labor left a brilliant legacy and a strong economy. It has clean hands. This is not a credible position and the public will not accept it.

The consequence is that Labor has no solution to the nation’s contemporary budget dilemma because it refuses to admit the problem. It seems politically incapable of such an admission because that condemns its own record. Yet the gap between spending and revenue is upwards of 3 per cent of GDP and without policy change the budget sits in deficit for another 10 years.

The problem for Abbott and Hockey is they are taking pre-emptive action short of any crisis. There is no budget emergency now. Herein lies the seduction of the “no problem” school, which is alarmingly strong within the political system given that it is embraced by Labor, the Greens and the Palmer United Party to varying degrees.

While Labor has gone hard against the budget, its aim is to damage the Abbott government, not force an election. Labor would not want an election and is not ready for an election despite its bravado. Abbott’s obvious preference is to horse-trade his way to securing most of his budget measures. Indeed, necessary compromises may soften some of the harder edges of the budget.

The situation is unpredictable and the extent of any future deadlock pivots to a large extent on the Greens and Palmer. Antagonism between Palmer and the Abbott government now runs deep and such negotiations may not be fruitful as they once seemed.

The prospect of a long double-dissolution list of blocked bills by mid-2015 cannot be ruled out. In the interim Abbott must maintain discipline on his own side in the teeth of likely falling opinion polls. The lessons of the Rudd government loom large. It allowed itself to be panicked by the polls. Rudd retreated when he should have stayed strong. Labor in office exaggerated the strength of the Coalition opposition and got spooked.


----------



## noco

Shorten is wedging himself with self interest instead of the interest of the nation and I feel sure he is heading for another train wreck of his own makings.



http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ould_be_very_serious_about_an_early_election/


----------



## sptrawler

My pet hate, the press and poor reporting.

Today's Sunday Times in W.A. page 2 exclusive by Samantha Maiden, National Political Editor.

To quote" The controversial measures such as raising the retirement age from 65 to 70".

Where has she been? Labor lifted the retirement age to 67 a couple of years ago, but don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.


----------



## drsmith

Niki Savva made a very good point on the $7 GP co-payment on the ABC's Insiders today.

She's of the view that there's haggle room over the detail. It's the principal the government wants to establish.

In that context, Joe Hockey's comments on Andrew Bolts Show were also interesting today.


----------



## drsmith

Yesterday, I saw some interesting tables in the West Australian on earnings compared with net income after tax and benefits for a range of household scenarios. These were at $10k intervals. 

What struck me was there are some instances where the combination of marginal tax rate and benefit withdrawal resulted in EMTR's of 70 to 80%.

That's almost the classic poverty trap.


----------



## sptrawler

In todays paper, Noel Whittaker says 11% of taxpayers pay 61% of all the income tax. Guess we need to crank that up.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> So what are you saying ? Conditions for business are better in NZ, but still N.Zedders come here ?
> 
> Seems contradictory.





Here's some info regarding the situation in NZ, Rumpole.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-...land-hands-down-very-different-budget/5459904

The part relating to Kiwis heading to Australia: my bolds

*Certainly, a growing number of New Zealanders living in Australia are choosing to return to the greener pastures of home, and fewer are crossing the Tasman in the first place.

Prior to his National Party taking office, Mr Key says 3,000 Kiwis each month packed up and moved to Australia. He says that number is now 350 and falling.

"So what people are responding to is that they see a strong growing economy in New Zealand,"*

It's an interesting read.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> Here's some info regarding the situation in NZ, Rumpole.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-...land-hands-down-very-different-budget/5459904
> 
> The part relating to Kiwis heading to Australia: my bolds
> 
> *Certainly, a growing number of New Zealanders living in Australia are choosing to return to the greener pastures of home, and fewer are crossing the Tasman in the first place.
> 
> Prior to his National Party taking office, Mr Key says 3,000 Kiwis each month packed up and moved to Australia. He says that number is now 350 and falling.
> 
> "So what people are responding to is that they see a strong growing economy in New Zealand,"*
> 
> It's an interesting read.




Very good. I wonder how many came here for the social security benefits ? We may save some money from their departure.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> Very good. I wonder how many came here for the social security benefits ? We may save some money from their departure.




Actualy they seem to network well and get each other jobs, at least in the Kalgoorlie goldfields they do.lol

Like the article said, NZ went through the welfare tightening several years ago. 
We can keep blowing the spending out, but sooner or later it has to be addressed. 
Increasing taxes alone, won't cover it, that is why a overall assesment of the whole tax system is required. 
Labor know the problems the same as the government, it's all theatre at the moment, but it's good for a chat.


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> Very good. I wonder how many came here for the social security benefits ? We may save some money from their departure.



Perhaps take a look into your assertion above.
New Zealanders are not eligible for welfare, other than, I think, Medicare, on the same basis as the reciprocal agreement Australia has with many countries.

The notion of them coming over here, and swanning about on the dole, is entirely mischievous and false.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> Perhaps take a look into your assertion above.
> New Zealanders are not eligible for welfare, other than, I think, Medicare, on the same basis as the reciprocal agreement Australia has with many countries.
> 
> The notion of them coming over here, and swanning about on the dole, is entirely mischievous and false.




Aww Julia, that is my well known tongue in cheek sense of humour.

Remember Ned Kelly ?


----------



## Calliope

SirRumpole said:


> Very good. I wonder how many came here for the social security benefits ? We may save some money from their departure.




Do you think so? I suppose you prefer the illegals? Humour? No just stupidity.



> Non-protected SCV holders (the visa given to New Zealanders who arrive in Australia after 27 February 2001) cannot access the full range of Centrelink social security payments including payments such as the unemployment benefit (‘Newstart Allowance/Youth Allowance’), the parenting payment, the special benefit and the sickness allowance.




http://www.nzembassy.com/australia/...tralia/social-security-entitlements-for-nzers


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> In todays paper, Noel Whittaker says 11% of taxpayers pay 61% of all the income tax. Guess we need to crank that up.




Tony Abbott agrees with you 

The question is why does Abbott ignore all the tax expenditures that need to be reduced, and why is he going against pretty much every economist that says Australia relies far to much on direct taxes and not enough on indirect taxes?


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Tony Abbott agrees with you
> 
> The question is why does Abbott ignore all the tax expenditures that need to be reduced, and why is he going against pretty much every economist that says Australia relies far to much on direct taxes and not enough on indirect taxes?




Jeez for the millionth time, isn't there an overall investigation into our tax base(white paper) coming up.
Wasn't this budget about trying to stem the hemorrhaging on the spending side?

I wish you were as vocal when the debt and deficit was blowing out.

All of a sudden Abbott is a ba$tard for starting to sort it. When even Glen Stevenson is saying the promises on spending, by Labor, were completely unaffordable.

You're a hard person to please.

Bring on a double dissolution, we need to choose which bunch of liars can sort it.lol


----------



## DB008

sydboy007 said:


> Tony Abbott agrees with you
> 
> The question is why does Abbott ignore all the tax expenditures that need to be reduced, and why is he going against pretty much every economist that says Australia relies far to much on direct taxes and not enough on indirect taxes?




Past 6 years off the top of my head....

NBN (cost blow out, way behind schedule)
NDIS (not enough money to fund it in the first place)
Fuel watch (failed policy - scrapped)
Grocery watch (failed policy - scrapped)
Cash for clunkers (failed policy - scrapped)
Batts (failed policy - scrapped)
BER (failed policy - scrapped)
Super GP Clinics (failed policy - scrapped)
Immigration cost blow outs (you know the results, $6 billion+)
Carbon Tax (failed to collect much revenue)
Mining Tax (failed to collect much revenue)
Tax reform (haven't heard much about it)

Almost hit the $300 billion Government debt ceiling too.

Sorry SYD, which side were you talking about?


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Jeez for the millionth time, isn't there an overall investigation into our tax base(white paper) coming up.
> Wasn't this budget about trying to stem the hemorrhaging on the spending side?
> 
> I wish you were as vocal when the debt and deficit was blowing out.
> 
> All of a sudden Abbott is a ba$tard for starting to sort it. When even Glen Stevenson is saying the promises on spending, by Labor, were completely unaffordable.
> 
> You're a hard person to please.
> 
> Bring on a double dissolution, we need to choose which bunch of liars can sort it.lol




Possibly the Government should have been a lot more prepared, or at least as prepared as they made out to be pre election.

It doesn't make sense to do a poor half job with the budget now and have to wait at least a year, possibly the next election, before they're even willing to do any meaningful reform.

If they'd actually tackled some of the gross distortions in the tax system, along with some non ideologically based cuts to spending, then I'd say there'd be just as much howling about how unfair it was, but it would be more the vested interests trying to keep their tax lurks than the current shafting the under 30s that we've currently got.

So I'll say again - PPL $5B savings, cap pre tax super contributions to 10K a year saves $6B, quarantine negative gearing to new assets.  Relatively easy changes that are also socially equitable.  instead you're supporting what Abbots done.

I'd say most people are criticising the way the savings are currently being made, not against the fact we do need savings.  If the budget is in such a crisis, why do we have to wait for the tax white paper?  Surely they've got some leakable kite flying changes they could make now?


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Possibly the Government should have been a lot more prepared, or at least as prepared as they made out to be pre election.
> 
> It doesn't make sense to do a poor half job with the budget now and have to wait at least a year, possibly the next election, before they're even willing to do any meaningful reform.
> 
> If they'd actually tackled some of the gross distortions in the tax system, along with some non ideologically based cuts to spending, then I'd say there'd be just as much howling about how unfair it was, but it would be more the vested interests trying to keep their tax lurks than the current shafting the under 30s that we've currently got.
> 
> So I'll say again - PPL $5B savings, cap pre tax super contributions to 10K a year saves $6B, quarantine negative gearing to new assets.  Relatively easy changes that are also socially equitable.  instead you're supporting what Abbots done.
> 
> I'd say most people are criticising the way the savings are currently being made, not against the fact we do need savings.  If the budget is in such a crisis, why do we have to wait for the tax white paper?  Surely they've got some leakable kite flying changes they could make now?




Yes maybe they could have come in all guns blazing, half cocked full of good intention and implemented half baked ideas.

Just the same as the last Government did. They are in front of a Royal Commission for that approach.

Or maybe they come in try and curb spending. 
Then get people who should know what they are doing, to examine the tax system and identify where it is failing and recommend appropriate changes.
That would be novel.

As for making tax changes, I know from someone who has used a tax modelling computer, it isn't easy the ramifications can swing wildly. I agree with what you say, but I am not confident the outcome would be what you wished for.


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> Aww Julia, that is my well known tongue in cheek sense of humour.



No humour that was at all apparent in the post to which I responded.  And I can't say I've noticed much humour about anything from you, rather just a constant barrage of loathing about anything the government might attempt to do.

Perhaps just consider that the frequent aspersions against New Zealanders get a bit tired and tedious after a while, especially when there is zero basis for them.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> And I can't say I've noticed much humour about anything from you,




Ditto about yourself

You expect humour about the sort of people we now have in government ?

Hell will freeze over first.

If you insult Australians with cheap wisecracks about Ned Kelly and try and write it off as a joke, and can't take a bit in return, that's your problem not mine.


----------



## SirRumpole

> New Zealand citizens claiming payments in Australia
> Residence requirements for Centrelink payments
> 
> To qualify for most Centrelink payments, a person has to satisfy residence requirements. Generally, this means that you must be an Australian resident. An Australian resident is a person who is living in Australia and is either:
> 
> an Australian citizen,
> a permanent visa holder, or
> a 'protected' Special Category Visa (SCV) holder.
> 
> People who arrive in Australia on a New Zealand passport are generally issued an SCV on arrival. SCV holders who arrived in Australia after 26 February 2001 are generally considered to be 'non-protected'.
> 
> Protected SCV holders are those who arrived in Australia on a New Zealand passport and:
> 
> were in Australia on 26 February 2001,
> were in Australia for 12 months in the two years immediately before this date, or
> were assessed as 'protected' before 26 February 2004.
> 
> Protected SCV holders qualify as Australian residents and can access the full range of Centrelink payments, provided they are currently living in Australia and satisfy certain rules such as qualification criteria and relevant waiting periods.
> Payments that can be claimed if you are a New Zealand citizen
> 
> No matter whether you are a protected or non-protected SCV holder, you will still be able to claim these payments or cards as long as you are residing in Australia:
> 
> Family Tax Benefit
> Baby Bonus
> Child Care Benefit
> Double Orphan Pension
> Health Care Card
> Commonwealth Seniors Health Card
> Parental Leave Pay
> Dad and Partner Pay




http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/nz-citizens-claiming-payments-in-australia

Quite a few benefits that can be claimed by New Zealanders. It would be interesting to see how much is claimable by Australians living in NZ.

It seems all Centrelink benefits could by claimed by NZers if they arrived before 2001.


----------



## Julia

Rumpole, I'll just say this:   If you ever spend some time in New Zealand you may be assured that you will receive a hospitable and friendly welcome, despite your apparent dislike for us.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> Rumpole, I'll just say this:   If you ever spend some time in New Zealand you may be assured that you will receive a hospitable and friendly welcome, despite your apparent dislike for us.




I have no dislike for NZers Julia ,  some I have met seem only to keen to knock Australians , in jest of course, so they can expect a bit back now and then.

After that, I call truce.

OK ?


----------



## SirRumpole

*Coalition in world of pain: Newspoll
*
    PHILLIP HUDSON
    The Australian
    May 19, 2014 12:00AM



VOTERS have declared the government’s first budget to be the worst in more than 20 years, with support for the Coalition dropping to the lowest level since the dying days of Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership.

The latest Newspoll, conducted exclusively for The Australian, revealed that Bill Shorten has taken a shock 10-point lead over Tony Abbott as better prime minister ”” and 48 per cent of voters believe last week’s budget was bad for the country.

Mr Abbott yesterday said the government had subjected itself to “a world of political pain” because tough budget decisions were *“absolutely necessary” for the long-term future of the country, as his disapproval rating doubled his approval ranking.

Thirty-nine per cent said the budget was good for the country, which was slightly better than the past three Labor budgets but 21 points lower than the last *Coalition budget in 2007.

People aged over 50 and those earning more than $90,000 were the only groups where more people ranked the budget good for the country.

In the wake of tax rises on petrol, a $7 fee to visit the GP, welfare cuts and claims some families could lose up to $6000 a year, 69 per cent said they would be personally worse-off ”” the highest level since the controversial Dawkins budget in 1993 broke a series of tax promises.

This poll is the worst for any Coalition budget on record, with only 5 per cent saying they would be better off.

More at

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...f-pain-newspoll/story-fn59niix-1226922100493#


----------



## noco

Julia said:


> Rumpole, I'll just say this:   If you ever spend some time in New Zealand you may be assured that you will receive a hospitable and friendly welcome, despite your apparent dislike for us.




+1 Julia......I have had two x 21 days tours of New Zealand ....one in 1978/79 and another in 2007.....both in a mobile homes and I cannot speak highly enough of the hospitality received on both occasions on both Islands.

For anyone to criticize NZ, they obviously have never been there.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> *Coalition in world of pain: Newspoll
> *
> PHILLIP HUDSON
> The Australian
> May 19, 2014 12:00AM
> 
> 
> 
> VOTERS have declared the government’s first budget to be the worst in more than 20 years, with support for the Coalition dropping to the lowest level since the dying days of Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership.
> 
> The latest Newspoll, conducted exclusively for The Australian, revealed that Bill Shorten has taken a shock 10-point lead over Tony Abbott as better prime minister ”” and 48 per cent of voters believe last week’s budget was bad for the country.
> 
> Mr Abbott yesterday said the government had subjected itself to “a world of political pain” because tough budget decisions were *“absolutely necessary” for the long-term future of the country, as his disapproval rating doubled his approval ranking.
> 
> Thirty-nine per cent said the budget was good for the country, which was slightly better than the past three Labor budgets but 21 points lower than the last *Coalition budget in 2007.
> 
> People aged over 50 and those earning more than $90,000 were the only groups where more people ranked the budget good for the country.
> 
> In the wake of tax rises on petrol, a $7 fee to visit the GP, welfare cuts and claims some families could lose up to $6000 a year, 69 per cent said they would be personally worse-off ”” the highest level since the controversial Dawkins budget in 1993 broke a series of tax promises.
> 
> This poll is the worst for any Coalition budget on record, with only 5 per cent saying they would be better off.
> 
> More at
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...f-pain-newspoll/story-fn59niix-1226922100493#




Suck it up Rumpy......no gain without some pain.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Suck it up Rumpy......no gain without some pain.




When the pain also applies to the bloated mining and banking companies, I might agree.


----------



## wayneL

The prospect of Shorten, Wong et al being the next gu'mint, has me making contingency plans for someplace else to live. Australia, though seriously damaged by Whitlam, Fraser, Rudd and Gillard, still has some semblance of a great country to be in; but refuse to watch those remaining vestiges destroyed by the likes of them.

This is probably not a great budget, least of all a politically smart one, but FFS Labour again will be catastrophic.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> When the pain also applies to the bloated mining and banking companies, I might agree.




Rumpy, I am so pleased to see you happy this morning instead of a GRUMPY RUMPY.

But in 18 months time, things will turn around and you will see the gain after the pain.


----------



## dutchie

Abbott should go for a double dissolution.

The Australian public will elect Labor in a landslide and we will get six more years of the same as the last Labor government.

Now that's the best solution for us, for sure.

No worries mate!


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Rumpy, I am so pleased to see you happy this morning instead of a GRUMPY RUMPY.




Always happy mate 

Going to tell me what your OBE means ?

Organised Barbeque Expert ?





> But in 18 months time, things will turn around and you will see the gain after the pain.




Is that how long before a D.D. ?


----------



## SirRumpole

dutchie said:


> Abbott should go for a double dissolution.
> 
> The Australian public will elect Labor in a landslide and we will get six more years of the same as the last Labor government.




I don't think so. Rudd and Gillard are gone and I think Chris Bowen as Treasurer would do a good job. I think Labor would have to water down Gonski, perhaps temporarily until the financial position improved.


----------



## Knobby22

The voters have turned on Abbott.

Listening today to the Victorian Liberal premier bagging the budget as it attacks Victoria, I am convinced Abbott is gone.

I voted for him but can never trust him again. A complete liar with an extreme right wing agenda. Menzies will be rolling in his grave. I want my kids to have the opportunity to go to Uni. I want my parents to be able to live off the pension. They paid taxes all their lives and sure they went bankrupt running a business but they deserve government support. 

I don't want Medicare to be destroyed slowly bit by bit. I don't want cuts in State budgets attacking healthcare and forcing a rise in the GST. I don't want desperate youth trying to survive by whatever means.
I don't want programs which have proven to work (and save money) such as the scheme to lower re-admissions to prisons. 

I don't want the CSRIO cut to the bare bones. I don't want a 12% GST. It goes on and on.

I elected a Liberal government, not a US Republican government. We deserve a budget that is balanced so the pain is spread equally.

I like many others are disgusted and Abbotts ratings are now with the low point of Julia Gillard. My message the to Feds is get rid of him and Hockey and put in Turnbull, or be a one term government. He is a lying scum and he is gone.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Always happy mate
> 
> Going to tell me what your OBE means ?
> 
> Organised Barbeque Expert ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that how long before a D.D. ?




Rumpy, the OBE is an exclusive club......not many will be allowed to join......you have to attain certain qualifications to become a member and I don't think you have them yet.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I don't think so. Rudd and Gillard are gone and I think Chris Bowen as Treasurer would do a good job. I think Labor would have to water down Gonski, perhaps temporarily until the financial position improved.




Rumpy, Chris Bowen along with Jenny Macklin and comrade Gillard are all members of the Fabian society (COMMUNISM)......Chris Bowen's DNA would compel him into nationalizing the banks, mining, agriculture and manufacturing or what is left of it......It would compel him to squash free speech....They don't believe in free enterprise......Overseas investment would be gone and unemployment  would sky rocket.

If Bowen had the opportunity to manage the national purse strings, it will all over Red Rover...He would be worse than Rudd, Swannie and Gillard all rolled up in one and we certainly do not want to experience that all over again now do we?

Is that what you really want? Do you understand the ideology of Communism?

Communism has been a failure......What you should be more afraid of is Islam....but there again, they are both evil systems of government.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Rumpy, Chris Bowen along with Jenny Macklin and comrade Gillard are all members of the Fabian society (COMMUNISM)......Chris Bowen's DNA would compel him into nationalizing the banks, mining, agriculture and manufacturing or what is left of it......It would compel him to squash free speech....They don't believe in free enterprise......Overseas investment would be gone and unemployment  would sky rocket.
> 
> If Bowen had the opportunity to manage the national purse strings, it will all over Red Rover...He would be worse than Rudd, Swannie and Gillard all rolled up in one and we certainly do not want to experience that all over again now do we?
> 
> Is that what you really want? Do you understand the ideology of Communism?
> 
> Communism has been a failure......What you should be more afraid of is Islam....but there again, they are both evil systems of government.




No doubt about it noco, you really brighten my day by giving me a good laugh in the morning.

Thanks mate



ps agree about Islam.


----------



## noco

Knobby22 said:


> The voters have turned on Abbott.
> 
> Listening today to the Victorian Liberal premier bagging the budget as it attacks Victoria, I am convinced Abbott is gone.
> 
> I voted for him but can never trust him again. A complete liar with an extreme right wing agenda. Menzies will be rolling in his grave. I want my kids to have the opportunity to go to Uni. I want my parents to be able to live off the pension. They paid taxes all their lives and sure they went bankrupt running a business but they deserve government support.
> 
> I don't want Medicare to be destroyed slowly bit by bit. I don't want cuts in State budgets attacking healthcare and forcing a rise in the GST. I don't want desperate youth trying to survive by whatever means.
> I don't want programs which have proven to work (and save money) such as the scheme to lower re-admissions to prisons.
> 
> I don't want the CSRIO cut to the bare bones. I don't want a 12% GST. It goes on and on.
> 
> I elected a Liberal government, not a US Republican government. We deserve a budget that is balanced so the pain is spread equally.
> 
> I like many others are disgusted and Abbotts ratings are now with the low point of Julia Gillard. My message the to Feds is get rid of him and Hockey and put in Turnbull, or be a one term government. He is a lying scum and he is gone.




Isn't democracy wonderful......you will, have the opportunity to vote back in Labor in September 2016 and go backwards again.

You don't want...you don't want...you don't want......but you were quite happy to take the $900 cheque Kevvie sent you which was just a loan and now you DON'T WANT TO PAY IT BACK.

Suck it up sunshine...all good things must come to an end and now the Labor credit card must be paid back whether you like it or not.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> No doubt about it noco, you really brighten my day by giving me a good laugh in the morning.
> 
> Thanks mate
> 
> 
> 
> ps agree about Islam.




Pleased to be of service Rumpy.....is there anything else I can do for you......no.... don't answer that


----------



## Knobby22

Knobby22 said:


> The voters have turned on Abbott.
> 
> Listening today to the Victorian Liberal premier bagging the budget as it attacks Victoria, I am convinced Abbott is gone.
> 
> I voted for him but can never trust him again. A complete liar with an extreme right wing agenda. Menzies will be rolling in his grave. I want my kids to have the opportunity to go to Uni. I want my parents to be able to live off the pension. They paid taxes all their lives and sure they went bankrupt running a business but they deserve government support.
> 
> I don't want Medicare to be destroyed slowly bit by bit. I don't want cuts in State budgets attacking healthcare and forcing a rise in the GST. I don't want desperate youth trying to survive by whatever means.
> I don't want programs which have proven to work (and save money) such as the scheme to lower re-admissions to prisons.
> 
> I don't want the CSRIO cut to the bare bones. I don't want a 12% GST. It goes on and on.
> 
> I elected a Liberal government, not a US Republican government. We deserve a budget that is balanced so the pain is spread equally.
> 
> I like many others are disgusted and Abbotts ratings are now with the low point of Julia Gillard. My message the to Feds is get rid of him and Hockey and put in Turnbull, or be a one term government. He is a lying scum and he is gone.




Left out that I want my kids to be able to go to Uni.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> You don't want...you don't want...you don't want......but you were quite happy to take the $900 cheque Kevvie sent you which was just a loan and now you DON'T WANT TO PAY IT BACK.




I never got a $900 cheque, but I bet most people if given the chance to pay $900 in preference to having their family benefits cut or medicines rising in price FOREVER, would jump at the opportunity.


----------



## Calliope

dutchie said:


> Abbott should go for a double dissolution.
> 
> The Australian public will elect Labor in a landslide and we will get six more years of the same as the last Labor government.
> 
> Now that's the best solution for us, for sure.
> 
> No worries mate!




You are right dutchie. The electorate now realises it made a big mistake tossing out Labor/Green. It turns out that we  prefer a big-spending, big-borrowing government to one that asks us to help balance the budget.

Yes, bring on the election I say...we can't wait to return to the glorious salad days of the six year Rudd/Gillard/Rudd administration. We didn't appreciate how well off we were until we tried this mob of entitlement sucking leeches.

A Labor/Green/PUP administration is the one we deserve.

So bring it on.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I never got a $900 cheque, but I bet most people if given the chance to pay $900 in preference to having their family benefits cut or medicines rising in price FOREVER, would jump at the opportunity.




Rumpy, why didn't you get a $900 CHEQUE?....WERE YOU BEHIND THE DOOR WHEN KEVVIE GAVE THEM OUT?

I bet you my bottom dollar no one will be prepared to hand back their $900 cheques. 

Were you under 18 or were you on a people smugglers boat at the time?...LOL.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Rumpy, why didn't you get a $900 CHEQUE?....WERE YOU BEHIND THE DOOR WHEN KEVVIE GAVE THEM OUT?
> 
> I bet you my bottom dollar no one will be prepared to hand back their $900 cheques.
> 
> Were you under 18 or were you on a people smugglers boat at the time?...LOL.




I may have been spending a year dead for tax reasons


Wasn't it only available to low income earners ? I probably wasn't one at the time.


----------



## dutchie

Calliope said:


> You are right dutchie. The electorate now realises it made a big mistake tossing out Labor/Green. It turns out that we  prefer a big-spending, big-borrowing government to one that asks us to help balance the budget.
> 
> Yes, bring on the election I say...we can't wait to return to the glorious salad days of the six year Rudd/Gillard/Rudd administration. We didn't appreciate how well off we were until we tried this mob of entitlement sucking leeches.
> 
> A Labor/Green/PUP administration is the one we deserve.
> 
> So bring it on.




Now your talking. 
The electorate is with us!


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I may have been spending a year dead for tax reasons
> 
> 
> Wasn't it only available to low income earners ? I probably wasn't one at the time.




NO.....everybody received one whether you were rich or poor.

Is that a confession that you have been avoiding the tax man.....my lips are sealed.


----------



## dutchie

noco said:


> Suck it up sunshine...all good things must come to an end and now the Labor credit card must be paid back whether you like it or not.




No no no .. the solution is to spend more (as long as we still compare better than Greece, that's all that matters)

And of course as long as we are rated AAA from those firms that gave CDO's AAA ratings!

No worries mate!


----------



## Calliope

dutchie said:


> Now your talking.
> The electorate is with us!




I now have to concede that Rumpy, sydboy, Myths, IFocus and co. are right. Switching from a left wing Labor/Green   government to a Conservative Coalition was a failed experiment.

Shorten is the Man. In his speech maybe he didn't promise to restore *all our entitlements*...in fact, he wisely made no promises at all, but at least he will be keeping  Rudd's promises on Gonski education, NDIS health and NBN, i.e.pour billions of unfunded dollars into them forever.

And this makes sense. Doesn't it?


----------



## drsmith

Those who think Labor is going to win the next election can place their bets now and still get good odds.

Sportsbet has Labor at $2.50 while the Coalition is at $1.50.

http://www.sportsbet.com.au/betting...deral-politics/outrights?ev_oc_grp_id=1192309

Disclaimer: Gamble responsibly. Don't bet on Labor winning the next election.


----------



## SirRumpole

Calliope said:


> I now have to concede that Rumpy, sydboy, Myths, IFocus and co. are right. Switching from a left wing Labor/Green   government to a Conservative Coalition was a failed experiment.
> 
> Shorten is the Man. In his speech maybe he didn't promise to restore *all our entitlements*...in fact, he wisely made no promises at all, but at least he will be keeping  Rudd's promises on Gonski education, NDIS health and NBN, i.e.pour billions of unfunded dollars into them forever.
> 
> And this makes sense. Doesn't it?




I knew you would come round sooner or later


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I knew you would come round sooner or later




The problem with Socialism is that always run out of other peoples money.


----------



## noco

I was not sure which thread to place this link on but it does relate to the budget.
 It is all about revolting Uni students.

But some things never change — not least that it is far easier to cause mayhem than to engage in serious thought. And oh so much more pleasurable, too.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...ss-serious-issue/story-fn7078da-1226921940480


----------



## trainspotter

Labor Party new logo. I'm with you WayneL on leaving the country if the voting public get the government they deserve


----------



## CanOz

noco said:


> The problem with Socialism is that always run out of other peoples money.




Bingo...thats it. If they called an election today i still think the liberals would pull over the line, but it would be by a slim margin...likely the worse scenario possible, after an outright labor win.


----------



## Calliope

Nobody can accuse Newman and the other State Premiers of being opportunists. They are merely trying to cash in on the current unpopularity of Abbot and Hockey to prop up their own declining fortunes at home. The message for the Coalition is loud and clear;

*DON'T MESS WITH OUR ENTITLEMENTS.*



> State premiers have reacted angrily to an $80 billion federal budget cut to schools and hospitals funding, accusing the Commonwealth of trying to "wedge" them into pushing for a hike to the Goods and Services Tax (GST).




www.abc.net.as/2014-05-14/budget-2014-states-react-to-health-and-education-cuts/5452234u/new


----------



## noco

Calliope said:


> Nobody can accuse Newman and the other State Premiers of being opportunists. They are merely trying to cash in on the current unpopularity of Abbot and Hockey to prop up their own declining fortunes at home. The message for the Coalition is loud and clear;
> 
> *DON'T MESS WITH OUR ENTITLEMENTS.*
> 
> 
> 
> www.abc.net.as/2014-05-14/budget-2014-states-react-to-health-and-education-cuts/5452234u/new




But there is no emphasis on the fact that the states will still get there funding for another 3 or 4 years, so there is plenty of time for discussion and resolution to solve the problem which the states are all complaining about.......It is not that the the states will loose $80 billion on July 1 2014.....it is spread over the next 10 years...


----------



## noco

noco said:


> The problem with Socialism is that always run out of other peoples money.




Correction : The problem with Socialism is that THEY always run out of other peoples money.


----------



## drsmith

Calliope said:


> Nobody can accuse Newman and the other State Premiers of being opportunists. They are merely trying to cash in on the current unpopularity of Abbot and Hockey to prop up their own declining fortunes at home. The message for the Coalition is loud and clear;
> 
> *DON'T MESS WITH OUR ENTITLEMENTS.*
> 
> www.abc.net.as/2014-05-14/budget-2014-states-react-to-health-and-education-cuts/5452234u/new



Any government would rather spend than manage. The former is more politically popular in the shorter term as the current budget has demonstrated.

The federal government's pull back of Labor's unsustainable spending on health and education from their out years isn't only about the GST. It's also about encouraging greater fiscal restraint at the state level. Politically, that makes them very unhappy.


----------



## noco

Take your pick.

 Complaints about the Budget pain are like complaints that life-saving surgery leaves you sore. Paul Sheehan on Labor’s amoral attacks on the Abbott Governments attempts to fix what Labor broke:

    In 33 minutes of highly accusatory rhetoric [Opposition leader Bill] Shorten offered not a single sentence about how to fund the mountain of unfunded obligations Labor had left behind. Not a word about what taxes it would impose, what costs savings, efficiencies, sacrifices and hard choices it would make.

    What Shorten conspicuously omitted from Labor’s Shangri-La ‘’legacy’’ was that after inheriting the strongest budget position of any of the world’s 20 largest economies, Labor ran up debt at a rate faster than any of these major economies and created a legacy of huge costs. These costs, locked into legislation, are only just coming on stream. They included the national broadband network, the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the Gonski education reforms, and are in addition to the rapid rises in healthcare and welfare payments for an aging population.

    Shorten did not even try to offer an alternative route in the real world, a road map of funding his promises when the government is already spending $1 billion a month servicing Labor’s debt. This debt was used for spending sprees that did little to raise productivity, infamously the ‘’cash splash’’, the border protection debacle, the gold-plated, centralised, feather-bedded building national program for schools halls and the similarly afflicted home insulation program.



http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...-blogs:mini-blogs|1|heading|homepage|homepage


----------



## Knobby22

Try to read a bit more widely noco.

Big attack yesterday from a right wing think tank - Institute of Public affairs. Chris Berg.  Look it up yourself.
They are calling Abbott's budget a high taxing, high spending budget and are quite unimpressed. 

There are many ways to get the money and debt down with destroying pensioners, the CSRIO, Medicare, universities etc. but when you have right wing think tank  (full of very powerful people) criticising the budget you know you have a problem. 

The faceless men of the Liberal party will be announcing some changes soon.


----------



## noco

Knobby22 said:


> Try to read a bit more widely noco.
> 
> Big attack yesterday from a right wing think tank - Institute of Public affairs. Chris Berg.  Look it up yourself.
> They are calling Abbott's budget a high taxing, high spending budget and are quite unimpressed.
> 
> There are many ways to get the money and debt down with*out* destroying pensioners, the CSRIO, Medicare, universities etc. but when you have right wing think tank  (full of very powerful people) criticising the budget you know you have a problem.
> 
> The faceless men of the Liberal party will be announcing some changes soon.




Do you mean WITHOUT destroying pensioners etc.


----------



## Calliope

Knobby22 said:


> .
> There are many ways to get the money and debt down with(?) destroying pensioners, the CSRIO, Medicare, universities etc.




Yes, it was very distressing for me to see the destroyed pensioners and destroyed uni students queueing up for their morning uppers at The Coffee Shop this morning. The wailing was pitiful to behold.

I have now seen the light;

*How Dare They Mess With Our Entitlements*.

I live in a retirement village and I am trying to organise a pensioner protest group (with the help of GetUp and Uni Socialist Activists) to demonstrate outside the local member's office. I am making a placard of Abbott destroying a pensioner.


----------



## CanOz

The old age pension has to go sometime, the math just doesn't work anymore unless all the working people want to be taxed allot more to pay for the aging population. Its just a matter of which party has the courage to take this on first. I reckon the labor party is laughing their butts off at the liberals for doing doing this first...


----------



## Knobby22

Did you read what I said regarding the Institute of Public Affairs? Do you know who they are?
Did you see their statement regarding a high taxing high spending budget?

Feel like I'm talking to Mao Se Tung acolytes. Just keep sprouting the propaganda.


----------



## wayneL

Yes Knobby, wr must look to the Labor Party for the untainted


----------



## CanOz

I really think this is all a strategic move by the liberals. They look like the big bad wolf, bring the bad news first then perhaps get a little further ahead than anyone expects before the next election where they can sweeten things up a bit to stay in power....Got to be a strategy there somewhere, no one would piss off this many voter on purpose without a view to a strat coming into play later....


----------



## Calliope

wayneL said:


> Yes Knobby, wr must look to the Labor Party for the untainted




But Wayne you don't realise what a liberating feeling it is, to have seen the light and be able to share the phiposophies of the wise and "untainted" contributors to this discussion. 

I haven't felt so good about myself since as a young uni student I used to flog the Communist Tribune on street corners in Brisbane on a Saturday morning.


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> Yes Knobby, wr must look to the Labor Party for the untainted




Beautifully white-anted. No one wants to talk about it so let's leave it at that.


----------



## Julia

Knobby22 said:


> No one wants to talk about it so let's leave it at that.



Knobby, perhaps it's not that no one wants to talk about it, but rather that what has emanated from the Budget is a complex and - at least for me - puzzling picture.

You earlier said that you wanted to live in a society where the aged received pensions and university education was available and affordable for your children.  And a few other advantages which I can't now recall.
I don't think there would be anyone in Australia who would not share that desire, but the reality is that we cannot pay for delivery of these, plus the new NDIS, Gonski etc, as the population ages with fewer workers being required to support ever increasing numbers of retirees plus the added burden of health care for this older population as it inevitably blows out.

We are borrowing money to pay the interest on our borrowings.



> Although by itself the level of debt doesn’t matter much, it matters for what it does to the annual budget deficit. Once negligible, net interest payments are now about $9 billion. That’s an extra expense the budget didn’t used to have. It is set to climb to $13 billion in two years’ time as more deficits mean more borrowing, which means even bigger interest payments in future budgets.
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...is-bleeding-20140503-zr3mo.html#ixzz328TJG8Ii




No one wants to pay more tax.  No one wants a cut in services.  But apparently there is still an expectation that we can enjoy all the privileges we have thus far, that somehow the government will magically find a bucket of money somewhere that will affect no one.

Much of the disquiet - apart from the confected outrage about the broken promises - comes, as I perceive it - from the inequity involved insofar as who will be most badly affected by the government's proposals.

eg we have high youth unemployment, especially in the regions where in some places it's up to around 40%.
So the stand down and very low payments for people who cannot find work right up to age 30 seem extremely harsh and could see real distress in many young people.
At the same time, I'm all for young people being pushed harder to find work as we see more and more multi generational welfare which is bad for the individuals and bad for Australia.

Then there's the hypocrisy, another trait Australians really hate.  How is it possible that our government can be so tough on young people yet ready to provide a still very generous PPL.  Wouldn't it be reasonable to let families decide for themselves when they can afford to have children and fund it when they can afford it, rather than see more young people homeless?

And when people are genuinely worried about how they'll cope with the reductions, is it really a good look for Mr Hockey and Mr Cormann to be happily puffing cigars where the media can photograph them?  Like it or not, the smoking of cigars when the people have looks of such satisfaction on their faces creates the sense of self satisfaction.

Then Mr Truss hardly helped by criticising pensioners who 'lived the high life on cruises' etc and then accessed the age pension.   I wonder how many really intentionally save for their retirement, then decide to blow the lot for the privilege of counting every dollar on what will inevitably be a contracting amount of pension?  I don't think too many.  And if someone has worked hard for many years, saved diligently throughout that time, then wants to use some of their own money to have a holiday, then it is not the business of the Deputy Prime Minister.

If the government want to preclude what Mr Truss has alleged is happening, then they will need to legislate for some of Super to be taken as an income stream.

So, it's my impression that most people are shocked at the extent of the proposed changes, but even more at the apparent unfairness of where the axe is to fall.
And then there will of course be those who will continue to live in a hazy state of denial, no comprehension of the financial trajectory ahead as designed by Labor, and refuse to believe that any adjustment is required.


----------



## CanOz

Great post Julia...

I wish i were half as articulate as you are..


----------



## sptrawler

Julia said:


> Knobby, perhaps it's not that no one wants to talk about it, but rather that what has emanated from the Budget is a complex and - at least for me - puzzling picture.
> 
> You earlier said that you wanted to live in a society where the aged received pensions and university education was available and affordable for your children.  And a few other advantages which I can't now recall.
> I don't think there would be anyone in Australia who would not share that desire, but the reality is that we cannot pay for delivery of these, plus the new NDIS, Gonski etc, as the population ages with fewer workers being required to support ever increasing numbers of retirees plus the added burden of health care for this older population as it inevitably blows out.
> 
> We are borrowing money to pay the interest on our borrowings.
> 
> 
> 
> No one wants to pay more tax.  No one wants a cut in services.  But apparently there is still an expectation that we can enjoy all the privileges we have thus far, that somehow the government will magically find a bucket of money somewhere that will affect no one.
> 
> Much of the disquiet - apart from the confected outrage about the broken promises - comes, as I perceive it - from the inequity involved insofar as who will be most badly affected by the government's proposals.
> 
> eg we have high youth unemployment, especially in the regions where in some places it's up to around 40%.
> So the stand down and very low payments for people who cannot find work right up to age 30 seem extremely harsh and could see real distress in many young people.
> At the same time, I'm all for young people being pushed harder to find work as we see more and more multi generational welfare which is bad for the individuals and bad for Australia.
> 
> Then there's the hypocrisy, another trait Australians really hate.  How is it possible that our government can be so tough on young people yet ready to provide a still very generous PPL.  Wouldn't it be reasonable to let families decide for themselves when they can afford to have children and fund it when they can afford it, rather than see more young people homeless?
> 
> And when people are genuinely worried about how they'll cope with the reductions, is it really a good look for Mr Hockey and Mr Cormann to be happily puffing cigars where the media can photograph them?  Like it or not, the smoking of cigars when the people have looks of such satisfaction on their faces creates the sense of self satisfaction.
> 
> Then Mr Truss hardly helped by criticising pensioners who 'lived the high life on cruises' etc and then accessed the age pension.   I wonder how many really intentionally save for their retirement, then decide to blow the lot for the privilege of counting every dollar on what will inevitably a contracting amount of pension?  I don't think too many.  And if someone has worked hard for many years, saved diligently throughout that time, then wants to use some of their own money to have a holiday, then it is not the business of the Deputy Prime Minister.
> 
> If the government want to preclude what Mr Truss has alleged is happening, then they will need to legislate for some of Super to be taken as an income stream.
> 
> So, it's my impression that most people are shocked at the extent of the proposed changes, but even more at the apparent unfairness of where the axe is to fall.
> And then there will of course be those who will continue to live in a hazy state of denial, no comprehension of the financial trajectory ahead as designed by Labor, and refuse to believe that any adjustment is required.




+1 well explained. 
I'm not happy with the budget, but as you say the more it unfolds the more the criticism can be directed acurately. It will be interesting to see which parts get dropped and which parts get blocked in parliament.

I think the government will have to come up with a very good tax package, that enables them to tone down the cuts, in the very near future


----------



## CanOz

sptrawler said:


> I think the government will have to come up with a very good tax package, that enables them to tone down the cuts, in the very near future





This is a great point...


----------



## SirRumpole

Yes good post Julia, no one doubts something should be done,but as well as the hypocrisy you pointed out there is also the blatant lying.

 Apart from the nasties people have to endure, I wonder if genuine Liberal party supporters are privately shuddering that this militant extremism by Abbott may have made their party un-electable in the future. Abbott is a fool if he thinks that people will forget this blatant fraud.

Just one issue to chew on, the following report points out that Australians pay the highest cost for medicines in the Commonwealth. Why isn't this government doing some work to find out why and bring them down, instead of just jacking up prices for those who have no alternative but to pay ?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-...-14-times-more-for-prescription-drugs/5128028


----------



## Knobby22

Thanks Julia.

Firstly, there was the point that the right wing think tank called it a high taxing, high spending budget. Which it is.

The Australian - hardly the Government's harshest critic - estimates the overall spending for 2013-2014, a fiscal year in which the Coalition has been at the helm for nine of the 12 months, at around $410 billion - an increase of nearly $50 billion over the previous, supposedly profligate, year of Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd. And why not? Revenue collected by Tony ("our taxes will always be lower") Abbott will rise from 23 to nearly 25 per cent of GDP.

No one wants to discuss this with me. It has been studiously avoided.

Secondly, the savings made are quite small. It is about social engineering.

Sorry, but I believe in helping people who need it.
For instance, my parents ran a business for years and then went bankrupt unfortunately near retirement. They did manage to start again and saved some money but need the pension to survive, at a pretty average standard. now the government is effectively reducing the pension over time. 

They worked in the period where there was no super except near the end of their working lives. Now they are not going to get discounts on their electricity, gas, water etc. They will be in big trouble.

Another family member is the opposite. Earns $700,000 a year, negative gears the income and gets a sports car *subsidised by taxpayers* every two years. Nice guy and he is renting out a place cheap for my parents. The point is that he is hardly touched, while the poor are hit badly. 

BTW, he is happy as the *company tax rate got lowered by 1.5%* further increasing his income. 

This budget is not about paying back the debt. It is about changing Australia to be less equitable. To bring us closer to the USA model. I personally believe in Australia's model. This is not to say that we shouldn't make changes. I am happy to do that. But the basic aim that everyone has an equal chance should still be aimed for.
I believe in laissez-faire, I also believe changes have to be made. But they have to be equitable.


----------



## noco

Julia said:


> Knobby, perhaps it's not that no one wants to talk about it, but rather that what has emanated from the Budget is a complex and - at least for me - puzzling picture.
> 
> 
> Then Mr Truss hardly helped by criticising pensioners who 'lived the high life on cruises' etc and then accessed the age pension.   I wonder how many really intentionally save for their retirement, then decide to blow the lot for the privilege of counting every dollar on what will inevitably be a contracting amount of pension?  I don't think too many.  And if someone has worked hard for many years, saved diligently throughout that time, then wants to use some of their own money to have a holiday, then it is not the business of the Deputy Prime Minister.




Julia, I know of two cases where these couples are on the aged pension and  who as claimed 'lived the high life on cruises' etc......they did it by reverse mortgaging their houses......it is called a SKI holiday.......spend the kids inheritance.....you don't pay back until you both die....it then comes out of the estate.

I believe those who live in million dollar houses should do the same to live on instead of bludgeoning on the welfare.....Reverse mortgage their home for $100,000....problem solved.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Yes good post Julia, no one doubts something should be done,but as well as the hypocrisy you pointed out there is also the blatant lying.
> 
> Apart from the nasties people have to endure, I wonder if genuine Liberal party supporters are privately shuddering that this militant extremism by Abbott may have made their party un-electable in the future. Abbott is a fool if he thinks that people will forget this blatant fraud.
> 
> Just one issue to chew on, the following report points out that Australians pay the highest cost for medicines in the Commonwealth. Why isn't this government doing some work to find out why and bring them down, instead of just jacking up prices for those who have no alternative but to pay ?
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-...-14-times-more-for-prescription-drugs/5128028





Abbott did not do it to get the popularity vote like the comrades of the Greens.....he had guts to fix the Labor Party mess...he has done in the best interest of the nation......The interest of the nation is something Bill Shorten falls short on.


----------



## IFocus

Speaking of telling lies I find this really unconscionable behaviour from an Australian PM.

Abbott has always operated in this way hence my complete dislike of the man at any level but even I expected he would change gears once elected. 

Tony Abbott now admits $1.8bn in hospital cuts will begin from July


Prime minister backs down on claim that cuts to public hospital funding agreements would not take effect for three years

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/19/hospital-cuts-begin-july-tony-abbott-admits.


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> Speaking of telling lies I find this really unconscionable behaviour from an Australian PM.
> 
> Abbott has always operated in this way hence my complete dislike of the man at any level but even I expected he would change gears once elected.
> 
> Tony Abbott now admits $1.8bn in hospital cuts will begin from July
> 
> 
> Prime minister backs down on claim that cuts to public hospital funding agreements would not take effect for three years
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/19/hospital-cuts-begin-july-tony-abbott-admits.




So what is your opinion of Juliar......'THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER A GOVERNMENT I LEAD'.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> So what is your opinion of Juliar......'THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER A GOVERNMENT I LEAD'.




Get this noco, GILLARD IS GONE. We have to deal with what remains, as Phony Tony will have to deal with what remains of his budget after the Senate trashes it.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Get this noco, GILLARD IS GONE. We have to deal with what remains, as Phony Tony will have to deal with what remains of his budget after the Senate trashes it.




Wow....sorry Rumpy if I ruffled your feathers......It is Gillards past that 'phony Tony has to deal with.......so now I hope YOU get it?


----------



## Calliope

Knobby22 said:


> Sorry, but I believe in helping people who need it.




I assume you mean you believe the taxpayer should help people who need it, particularly your children and your parents

You said earlier;



> I want my kids to have the opportunity to go to Uni. I want my parents to be able to live off the pension.




I don't think the budget puts either of these issues in jeopardy. If you play your part as a responsible parent and a son, and with a little help from my taxes, I think we will be able to look after them.

So cheer up.


----------



## noco

One has to admit, Abbott has more guts than Rudd, Gillard, Swan and Shorten all rolled up in one.

In respect to the polls.....I believe the question was asked,"do you believe you will be worse off as a result of the budget".......A large percentage including myself would have responded with ...yes we would......but that should in no way assume that the same percentage would vote against it......these polls are in some cases a manipulation into swaying the Government into changing it's mind on it's budget decision.


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...ott-after-budget/story-fnihslxi-1226922196566


----------



## CanOz

There was a call for a more balanced coverage of the budget too, i saw this morning on a website somewhere....that would be refreshing.

One thing that has startled me is how emotional people feel about entitlements. I started planning a long time ago so that we wouldn't have to rely on anyone but ourselves. If i felt that was jeopardized by living in Australia then we'll have to find someplace else to live. I can understand the emotions involved though.


----------



## noco

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...-over-the-budget/story-fni0ffxg-1226921866450

FAR worse than anything in the Budget is the class war that reckless politicians and journalists are waging against it.

Labor leader Bill Shorten, Greens leader Christine Milne and so-called billionaire Clive Palmer have disgraced themselves in inciting real hatred.

A warning. On Friday, screaming Leftist students in Sydney physically attacked Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, pushing and grabbing her.

Unless the hate-speech is dialled back, god knows what more we’ll get.

Even before the Budget, the demonisation of Prime Minister Tony Abbott was out of control.

Labor under Julia Gillard had already smeared Abbott as a woman-hating bigot and incited a mini race-riot against him on Australia Day.

After his win, Facebook pages — one created from within the Geelong Trades Hall — urged Abbott’s assassination. And a same-sex marriage rally in Brisbane featured a banner showing him hanged by the neck. A Fairfax columnist sold

T-shirts with the slogan “F ... Abbott”.

In the March in March rallies, a sign urged Abbott be killed. In Newcastle, the Trades Hall secretary preached hatred of rich Australians, and urged Qantas boss Alan Joyce be shot “somewhere in the back of the head”.

But the past week has been worse still — not just because the political rhetoric is more extreme, but the country’s future is now at stake.

For some, the Budget may seem too harsh in restricting welfare handouts and adding a $7 charge to free visits to the doctor.

For others, it is actually too soft, with spending still soaring by an extra $57 billion four years from now, giving us yet more deficits.

All that deserves debate. Yet politicians and some journalists have instead painted this Budget as simply rich Liberals having fun belting poor battlers.

Have we ever seen such stupid appeals to class envy?

First there was the fake outrage when a TV camera caught Treasurer Joe Hockey and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann smoking cigars.

Sure enough, Shorten — unwilling even to admit to the financial disaster left by Labor — seized on this distraction to pander to the peanuts who think smoking cigars shows you hate the poor.

Confecting outrage, Shorten repeatedly stormed at “cigar-chomping, out-of-touch Liberals”, claiming they’d “never lived from pay cheque to pay cheque” and now pretended there was a Budget crisis to put a “tax on the sick”.

Milne last weekend added it was obscene that “rich” Liberals would crack “champagne” and “gorge” themselves at a function to hear Abbott gloat over hurting the poor.

Palmer, meanwhile, claimed the Liberals just invented our debt problem “to make our pensioners and others suffer”.

“Do we really hate people so much?” he bellowed. “It’s just about ideology and about smashing someone.”

Shorten, Milne and Palmer together could block Abbott’s rescue plan in the Senate for the next three years, and a healthy media would kick these craven populists for denying there’s even a problem to fix.

BLOG WITH ANDREW BOLT

A healthy media would also be horrified at their idiotic class war talk. Instead, many outlets have joined the Labor game.

After beating up the great cigar scandal, newspapers mocked Hockey’s wife, a successful banker, for wearing a moderately expensive dress when she went to Canberra for his Budget speech.

“Cutbacks? What cutbacks? Joe Hockey’s wife attends Budget announcement in $749 Carla Zampatti dress,” sneered the Australian edition of the Daily Mail, as if her dress showed Liberals were heartless.

Channel Nine’s Laurie Oakes, doyen of the Canberra press gallery, even started his post-Budget interview with the Treasurer with three questions attacking him for dancing with his wife in his office on Budget night.

“The unemployed, the sick, the welfare recipients hit by the Budget, they’re not going to be dancing are they?” lectured Oakes, as if he’d caught Hockey dancing on a carpet of starving pensioners, when he’d in fact been celebrating seeing his family after three weeks away working on a Budget to save us.

Meanwhile, the ABC portrayed the Budget as the cruel work in part of a foreigner unable to understand Australian values.

Interviewer Matt Abraham asked Belgian-born Finance Minister Mathias Cormann, who’s been here for 20 years, whether “you don’t know as much about the Australian mindset and culture as perhaps other politicians who have either been born here or been here a lot longer”.

This stuff isn’t just infantile but dangerous.

What unpredictable hatreds are being stoked? More importantly, how does this savage rhetoric help us to fix what’s broken?

The country is running dangerously short of money, and claiming this is just a con by the rich to torture the poor is a lie that could ruin us.

Shame on the guilty.


----------



## SirRumpole

> FAR worse than anything in the Budget is the class war that reckless politicians and journalists are waging against it.




Bwwwaaaaa !!!

Class warfare ? Who started that I wonder ?


----------



## CanOz

That's a worry Noco...the opposing parties are capitalizing on the sentiment, adding fuel to the fire. This could get very bad.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> Bwwwaaaaa !!!
> 
> Class warfare ? Who started that I wonder ?




Well it's do remember, the last Government having something to say, about a certain rich large lady and a certain rich large man.
Funnily enough they are now trying to climb in bed with the large man,lol


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> Well it's do remember, the last Government having something to say, about a certain rich large lady and a certain rich large man.
> Funnily enough they are now trying to climb in bed with the large man,lol




Yes, and the large man is attacking his own class !!!

Have we slipped into a parallel universe perhaps ?


----------



## sptrawler

Sorry about the spelling, it was meant to read I not it's, was side tracked.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, and the large man is attacking his own class !!!
> 
> Have we slipped into a parallel universe perhaps ?




Also backflipping on the hecs issue, maybe Shorten has offered him a deal, which would be true to form.


----------



## Julia

Knobby22 said:


> The Australian - hardly the Government's harshest critic - estimates the overall spending for 2013-2014, a fiscal year in which the Coalition has been at the helm for nine of the 12 months, at around $410 billion - an increase of nearly $50 billion over the previous, supposedly profligate, year of Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd. And why not? Revenue collected by Tony ("our taxes will always be lower") Abbott will rise from 23 to nearly 25 per cent of GDP.



Are you making allowances for the spending commitments the government inherited from Labor?  I don't want to place all the blame on Labor because Mr Abbott did commit to the NDIS and Gonski during the election campaign and thus has to take some responsibility for this.
The point of the Budget, as I understand it from the government, is that it's directed toward coping with not the present time so much as the projected spending in years to come when the factors I outlined earlier will come into play.



> For instance, my parents ran a business for years and then went bankrupt unfortunately near retirement. They did manage to start again and saved some money but need the pension to survive, at a pretty average standard. now the government is effectively reducing the pension over time.
> 
> They worked in the period where there was no super except near the end of their working lives.



This is something that is repeated often.   I don't understand why it needs to take compulsory super for people to adopt the initiative that they will need to save for their own retirement.  Nothing personal directed toward your parents, Knobby.  Just puzzlement at the general principle that people apparently don't do the simple calculation of working out what they will need in retirement plus give some thought to how much any of us can depend on any government to look after us for ever.



> Now they are not going to get discounts on their electricity, gas, water etc. They will be in big trouble.



I might be quite wrong, but I have the impression those on pensions will continue to receive these concessions.  It's people who depend on the Seniors' Card and perhaps the CSHC who might lose these if the States and the Feds cannot sort out their differences.   

Again, best not to assume these concessions will always be available.  Weren't most of them offered when we were running decent surpluses?  I'm not sure about this.  But it's a bit like the tax cuts that John Howard gave out when instead he could have avoided adding to the culture of entitlement and put those funds into an additional fund for the future.



> Another family member is the opposite. Earns $700,000 a year, negative gears the income and gets a sports car *subsidised by taxpayers* every two years. Nice guy and he is renting out a place cheap for my parents. The point is that he is hardly touched, while the poor are hit badly.
> 
> BTW, he is happy as the *company tax rate got lowered by 1.5%* further increasing his income.



There's no doubt that the affluent will feel less affected than those on low incomes.  That's simply always the case.  The more money we have the more choices we have.
However, we can't depend on governments to look after us under all circumstances and to make up for decisions we've made which have reduced our financial position.
It's a whole other subject to consider why some people will always be poor and others always find a way to achieve financial independence.



> This budget is not about paying back the debt. It is about changing Australia to be less equitable.



Do you believe there is no real problem and we can continue on our present trajectory? If not, what changes would you like to see made as an alternative to what is suggested in the budget?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Thanks Julia.

So much sense after the preceding anti-Abbott verbiage.

gg


----------



## SirRumpole

Speaking of unsustainable spending,

 * who introduced Family Benefit payments ?

 * how was it funded ?


----------



## noco

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Thanks Julia.
> 
> So much sense after the preceding anti-Abbott verbiage.
> 
> gg




Paul Sheehan hit the nail on the head when he made comparisons between the two major political leaders.


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/.../you_wanted_courageous_leadership_you_got_it/


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Alan Jones hit the nail on the head when he made comparisons between the two major political leaders.
> 
> Paul Sheehan hit the nail on the head when he made comparisons between the two major political leaders.




No doubt they both drink in the same inner city Sydney pub.


----------



## noco

Abbott wants to scrap the carbon tax and save a working family $550 per year.

Why are the nay sayers reluctant to talk about this?

All they want to talk about are negative aspects of the budget


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Abbott wants to scrap the carbon tax and save a working family $550 per year.




And cost them $2,000 + in lost benefits and fuel excise increase.


----------



## Knobby22

Julia said:


> Are you making allowances for the spending commitments the government inherited from Labor?  I don't want to place all the blame on Labor because Mr Abbott did commit to the NDIS and Gonski during the election campaign and thus has to take some responsibility for this.
> The point of the Budget, as I understand it from the government, is that it's directed toward coping with not the present time so much as the projected spending in years to come when the factors I outlined earlier will come into play.
> 
> 
> This is something that is repeated often.   I don't understand why it needs to take compulsory super for people to adopt the initiative that they will need to save for their own retirement.  Nothing personal directed toward your parents, Knobby.  Just puzzlement at the general principle that people apparently don't do the simple calculation of working out what they will need in retirement plus give some thought to how much any of us can depend on any government to look after us for ever.
> 
> 
> I might be quite wrong, but I have the impression those on pensions will continue to receive these concessions.  It's people who depend on the Seniors' Card and perhaps the CSHC who might lose these if the States and the Feds cannot sort out their differences.
> 
> Again, best not to assume these concessions will always be available.  Weren't most of them offered when we were running decent surpluses?  I'm not sure about this.  But it's a bit like the tax cuts that John Howard gave out when instead he could have avoided adding to the culture of entitlement and put those funds into an additional fund for the future.
> 
> 
> There's no doubt that the affluent will feel less affected than those on low incomes.  That's simply always the case.  The more money we have the more choices we have.
> However, we can't depend on governments to look after us under all circumstances and to make up for decisions we've made which have reduced our financial position.
> It's a whole other subject to consider why some people will always be poor and others always find a way to achieve financial independence.
> 
> 
> Do you believe there is no real problem and we can continue on our present trajectory? If not, what changes would you like to see made as an alternative to what is suggested in the budget?




My parents didn't plan to go bankrupt. They got caught out in the "recession we had to have" exacerbated by Keating. They employed people and were a classic small business. They had built up property and had stupidly agreed to put up the family home to the banks.They went from wealthy to paupers in an amazingly short time.

They managed to save a bit of super and have recovered somewhat when they bought a small house which went up in price which they have since sold.  Luckily they have the family to look after them, other pensioners will not be so lucky

Has our Govt spending as a % of GDP gone up over the last 30 years? No not much. Has our tax take as a % of GDP gone down? Yes. it is poor management by Labor and Liberal. I criticised Labor only a week ago as a high spending low taxing government that couldn't work out why they had run up a deficit. 

Howard was lauded when he first came in and cleared the decks. He made many important changes and actually got a boost in the polls. The reason is simple: the changes were perceived as fair, everyone was taking their share and it was perceived that the changes would be good for the country.

The changes being made now are unfair: they disproportionately hit the poor and give advantage to the rich. The public know this and the polls reflect this. 53% of people say this budget is "bad for Australia", with Howard it was the other way 61% approved. 

From the Grattan Institute "Budget modelling based on 45,000 families backed by the Bureau of Statistics showed the burden of this budget would fall "almost entirely" on the low end of the national income distribution. Typically a low income family will be worse off by $4,000 a year".  

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...diculed-over-bad-policies-20140519-38k7y.html      This link also shows some other fallacies of the budget as pointed out by economists.

Do you believe that once the budget is balanced again that what was taken away will be restored? Of course not.
It is social engineering.

So given the above facts what would a sensible leader, e.g. like John Howard do?
1. Raise the marginal tax rates by a small amount. This would easily cover the savings made by the other budget measures.
2. One of the largest drains on the budget (this is true) is superannuation tax breaks to the wealthy. They could limit the 15% annual tax break to say $200,000 a year where it changes to 30% and save  quite a large amount.
3. Make cuts equitably e.g. why do private schools not get a cut? Why do companies get a tax break? 
4. Make some of the other changes that are reasonable that have been proposed.
5. Continue changes to Superannuation so people can be expected to have enough to retire on in the future, reducing pension reliance. this means helping the lower paid build up their super, through good policy.
My parents are in their 80s. They won't be a drain on taxpayers forever. Don't hit the pensioners that grew up in the Depression.

I just believe in the Australian way of everyone getting a fair go. I believe that if you get the marks you should be able to go to Melbourne/Sydney University and not be scared off by $30,000 a year fees which frankly I can't afford and expect to save enough to retire but am in a better position than many others. I believe that we should have a safety net. Sure, it's got problems that need fixing but it should still exist. 

Basically, share the pain equitably. I do think the Australian public won't put with this budget and the Liberals will have to change it. it is unfortunate that it is not being argued in all facets of the press. Did you watch media Watch last night? Very illuminating.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> Speaking of unsustainable spending,
> 
> * who introduced Family Benefit payments ?
> 
> * how was it funded ?




Howard introduced it and it was obviously funded as the ran a surplus. Your point is?

While we are on twenty question.

* Who brought in the repugnant fuel excise tax complete with indexing? That everyone is ranting about.


----------



## Julia

Thanks for your further thoughts, Knobby.  
Agree that it's the minimal effect on the well off compared with the significant effect on the poor that is the Budget's most unacceptable aspect.

I don't think anyone should worry about too much at this stage because what gets through the Senate, even the new one, will not be what was announced last week.

On this:


> Why do companies get a tax break?



To encourage companies, especially small businesses, to expand/invest/take on more staff.
Company tax rate in Australia is much higher than in many similar countries.

And btw, much of the fear is based on inaccurate speculation:



> Now they are not going to get discounts on their electricity, gas, water etc. They will be in big trouble.




As I suggested last night pensioners will not be losing any discounts.  Joe Hockey confirmed this on Q & A last night.
Just one more thought:  if a pensioner couple were to be 'in big trouble' how do so many single pensioners seem to manage as well as they do?  They have the same rates, insurance, electricity etc as two people.


----------



## sptrawler

Knobby22 said:


> My parents didn't plan to go bankrupt. They got caught out in the "recession we had to have" exacerbated by Keating. They employed people and were a classic small business. They had built up property and had stupidly agreed to put up the family home to the banks.They went from wealthy to paupers in an amazingly short time.
> 
> They managed to save a bit of super and have recovered somewhat when they bought a small house which went up in price which they have since sold.  Luckily they have the family to look after them, other pensioners will not be so lucky
> .




It is a common story Knobby, my mother had to sell her home and is renting off a family member, this freed up some cash for holidays etc.

Apparently 80% of people over 65 are on the pension, the number is going to balloon over the next 20 years.

I suppose there will be on going changes as the juggling of spending and taxing is re adjusted. 
I'm guessing they are $hit scared to hit companies any harder at the moment, we are tetering on an implosion as it is.
I know over here in W.A jobs are being shed at a hell of a rate, shopping centres are full of empty shops. A mate of mine runs a small mechanical business, he used to employ 4 people, they're gone and the tax department has told him not to bother with a PAYG payment untill further notice.
Forge the other week laid of 1500 and went belly up, Bradken are laying off 500. I don't think ramping up the tax on them is the answer in the current climate.
Pensioners aren't the only problem, full time jobs are on the decline, which adds to the loss of tax credits.

As for saying the benefits won't come back when things improve, that seems a bit of a strange call. Are you saying that all the concessions have been there since the introduction of welfare?
I think you will find that the social welfare system is tweeked constantly, as the fiscal situation allows.
Whether this Government does a good fist of it, time will tell and they will be judged by the electorate. At the moment there is a hysterical frenzy going on, exacerbated by a useless media.IMO 
But the issues will remain, they won't go away and they will be addressed no matter who is in office.
Shorten can rant on at Abbott lying, but he knows the issues, a falling comodity price and a stagnant secondry industry sector. 
The only growing part of our economy is housing, and that's causing its own set of issues.
One hopes the tax 'white paper' comes up with a way of adjusting the tax base, without causing a recession.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> Howard introduced it and it was obviously funded as the ran a surplus. Your point is?




My point is that the Coalition go on about "Labor's" unsustainable spending and 'entitlement', but they introduced the entitlement of Family payments, baby bonus and PPL.



> While we are on twenty question.
> 
> * Who brought in the repugnant fuel excise tax complete with indexing? That everyone is ranting about.





Malcolm Fraser I believe.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> And cost them $2,000 + in lost benefits and fuel excise increase.





Some details please or are you talking through hat again.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Some details please or are you talking through hat again.




As you appear to be too lazy to do your own research, I'll do it for you this time.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-19/sharing-of-budget-pain-not-fair-natsem-modelling-says/5463008


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> My point is that the Coalition go on about "Labor's" unsustainable spending and 'entitlement', but they introduced the entitlement of Family payments, baby bonus and PPL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Malcolm Fraser I believe.




Hawke/ Keating in 1983.

Good old Malcolm, now there is a PM I never liked, brought in import parity pricing. 
To bring the price of local oil in line with imported oil.

So there you go, you go on about the Libs, they bring in a welfare payment. You talk up Labor and they brought in the fuel excise with indexing. 
Howard stopped the indexing, to help the poor, talk about ironic.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> Hawke/ Keating in 1983.
> 
> You talk up Labor and they brought in the fuel excise with indexing.






> "Tax on fuel in Australia was first introduced in the early 1900s as customs and excise duties3 on transport fuels, such as petrol and diesel, to fund the development and maintenance of Australia's road network.4 The link between fuel taxes and road funding was reinforced by the provision of exemptions (and later rebates) of fuel tax for off-road users of diesel from the late 1950s, and by concessional rates of excise where fuel is used other than as a transport fuel."




Fuel excise has been around longer than you think

http://fueltaxinquiry.treasury.gov.au/content/backgnd/002.asp


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> Fuel excise has been around longer than you think
> 
> http://fueltaxinquiry.treasury.gov.au/content/backgnd/002.asp





Nice try at a deflection, the debate is about the excise tax in its current form.

Good Labor ploy, avoid the issue.lol and throw crap before cleaning up their own back yard.


----------



## Knobby22

Julia said:


> Thanks for your further thoughts, Knobby.
> Agree that it's the minimal effect on the well off compared with the significant effect on the poor that is the Budget's most unacceptable aspect.
> 
> I don't think anyone should worry about too much at this stage because what gets through the Senate, even the new one, will not be what was announced last week.
> 
> On this:
> 
> To encourage companies, especially small businesses, to expand/invest/take on more staff.
> Company tax rate in Australia is much higher than in many similar countries.
> 
> And btw, much of the fear is based on inaccurate speculation:
> 
> As I suggested last night pensioners will not be losing any discounts.  Joe Hockey confirmed this on Q & A last night.
> Just one more thought:  if a pensioner couple were to be 'in big trouble' how do so many single pensioners seem to manage as well as they do?  They have the same rates, insurance, electricity etc as two people.




It was Denis Napthine, Liberal premier of Victoria who said that the discounts would be lost under the budget. He was very critical on the TV news.
Either he was misinformed or Hockey has changed this now after being shocked by the voter backlash.

I personally find it hard to see how lowering of company tax rates can be justified at this time.

Single pensioners can have it very bad as we all know. 

What did you think about the alternatives proposed?


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> Hawke/ Keating in 1983.
> 
> 
> So there you go, you go on about the Libs, they bring in a welfare payment. You talk up Labor and they brought in the fuel excise with indexing.




Well, Labor had to fund the Libs reckless 'entitlement' spending didn't they ?


----------



## Knobby22

sptrawler said:


> It is a common story Knobby, my mother had to sell her home and is renting off a family member, this freed up some cash for holidays etc.
> 
> Apparently 80% of people over 65 are on the pension, the number is going to balloon over the next 20 years.
> 
> I suppose there will be on going changes as the juggling of spending and taxing is re adjusted.
> I'm guessing they are $hit scared to hit companies any harder at the moment, we are tetering on an implosion as it is.
> I know over here in W.A jobs are being shed at a hell of a rate, shopping centres are full of empty shops. A mate of mine runs a small mechanical business, he used to employ 4 people, they're gone and the tax department has told him not to bother with a PAYG payment untill further notice.
> Forge the other week laid of 1500 and went belly up, Bradken are laying off 500. I don't think ramping up the tax on them is the answer in the current climate.
> Pensioners aren't the only problem, full time jobs are on the decline, which adds to the loss of tax credits.
> 
> As for saying the benefits won't come back when things improve, that seems a bit of a strange call. Are you saying that all the concessions have been there since the introduction of welfare?
> I think you will find that the social welfare system is tweeked constantly, as the fiscal situation allows.
> Whether this Government does a good fist of it, time will tell and they will be judged by the electorate. At the moment there is a hysterical frenzy going on, exacerbated by a useless media.IMO
> But the issues will remain, they won't go away and they will be addressed no matter who is in office.
> Shorten can rant on at Abbott lying, but he knows the issues, a falling comodity price and a stagnant secondry industry sector.
> The only growing part of our economy is housing, and that's causing its own set of issues.
> One hopes the tax 'white paper' comes up with a way of adjusting the tax base, without causing a recession.




Thanks sptrawler. Good points. If you haven't enough money to retire on then selling the family home is a good option and I have no problem with that. I know an Italian guy who sold his family home and used the money mainly to visit his home village in Italy then lived in a caravan with his wife till he died a few years later. We live in a freee country and should be able to do what we like.

I disagree on the whether the benefits will come back however. It's usually one way in this period of history.


----------



## CanOz

Well at least at this stage you guys can get your super. Despite living in Australia as a PR for 12 years i cannot get my super unless i retire in Australia, provided they let me immigrate. This should be in the Super thread really...


----------



## Julia

CanOz said:


> Well at least at this stage you guys can get your super. Despite living in Australia as a PR for 12 years i cannot get my super unless i retire in Australia, provided they let me immigrate.



So what would happen to your Super if you were never to return to Australia?


----------



## Calliope

Knobby22 said:


> My parents are in their 80s. They won't be a drain on taxpayers forever. Don't hit the pensioners that grew up in the Depression.
> 
> I just believe in the Australian way of everyone getting a fair go. I believe that if you get the marks you should be able to go to Melbourne/Sydney University and not be scared off by $30,000 a year fees which frankly I can't afford and expect to save enough to retire but am in a better position than many others. I believe that we should have a safety net. Sure, it's got problems that need fixing but it should still exist.




If your parents are in their 80s I guess you are a baby-boomer and a true product of the Age of Entitlement... and your children more so.

However don't despair. The Age of Entitlement, post-budget, is still alive and kicking.



> *Contrary to general opinion, the Treasurer’s budget measures on welfare are more about cost-cutting than ending the age of entitlement.*



Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/th...entitlement-20140519-38k0s.html#ixzz32EDmy2wk


----------



## craft

CanOz said:


> Well at least at this stage you guys can get your super. Despite living in Australia as a PR for 12 years i cannot get my super unless i retire in Australia, provided they let me immigrate. This should be in the Super thread really...




Can – this doesn’t sound quite right.

You don’t have to move back to Australia to get your super – You just have to meet the same conditions of release as if you lived in Australia ie preservation age, permanently retired etc.

You can’t get it early as you once could by moving out of Australia permanently.


----------



## CanOz

Julia said:


> So what would happen to your Super if you were never to return to Australia?




I'm not sure Julia, i assume it just falls under 'lost' super and goes where ever that goes. No doubt the government has plans for it already:frown:


----------



## CanOz

craft said:


> Can – this doesn’t sound quite right.
> 
> You don’t have to move back to Australia to get your super – You just have to meet the same conditions of release as if you lived in Australia ie preservation age, permanently retired etc.
> 
> You can’t get it early as you once could by moving out of Australia permanently.




Well unless its changed recently Craft, that's not the advice that I've been given. In fact, i cannot even self manage it. 

I was suspicious of the first advice that i was given so i checked it with my new accountant in QLD and indeed they also confirmed it.

In any case now that I'm married to an Australian citizen it doesn't faze me much, but sometimes plans change...


----------



## Julia

Knobby22 said:


> It was Denis Napthine, Liberal premier of Victoria who said that the discounts would be lost under the budget. He was very critical on the TV news.



Are you sure he wasn't referring to the discounts which are available via a Seniors' Card and the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card?   (Judd first raised this a few days ago).   The Seniors Card is State based and apparently funded by the Commonwealth, at least in part.  

 There has been a proposal by the government to remove one of the concessions currently available on the CSHC, apparently worth about $800 p.a.
The CSHC does not offer any entitlement to discount on Council rates, something that apparently a pension card does to the tune of around 20% off.



> I personally find it hard to see how lowering of company tax rates can be justified at this time.



The economy is still soft.  Presumably the government are thinking about a slight lowering providing an incentive to invest and increase staff.



> What did you think about the alternatives proposed?



I am not an economist.  I have no idea of how much money could be saved by any particular measure.  However, fwiw:



> So given the above facts what would a sensible leader, e.g. like John Howard do?
> 1. Raise the marginal tax rates by a small amount. This would easily cover the savings made by the other budget measures.



A raising of the GST might be more simple and more logical, with appropriate compensation for the poor.
I'm against applying the GST to fresh fruit and vegetables, given the rising rate of obesity.  We should be providing an incentive to healthy eating imo, not a disincentive.



> 2. One of the largest drains on the budget (this is true) is superannuation tax breaks to the wealthy. They could limit the 15% annual tax break to say $200,000 a year where it changes to 30% and save quite a large amount.



I'm not sure about too many disincentives to Super if the aim is to have more people being self funded in retirement.
One aspect that I do think should be changed is the capacity for an elderly person to receive a full pension whilst living in a $2M home.   I'd like to see the value of homes over $1M in Sydney and Melbourne, and less in regional areas, included in the assets test for the pension.
No need for any of the emotive whining about 'throwing poor, vulnerable old people out of their cherished family homes'.  If they are determined not to downsize, then they can engage a reverse mortgage to provide an income stream to supplement the reduced amount of government pension.

I don't see why struggling young people, already finding it so difficult to save enough to get into their first home, should be seeing their taxes going to the old who can afford to make a contribution to their own income.



> 3. Make cuts equitably e.g. why do private schools not get a cut? Why do companies get a tax break?



Can't comment on private schools.  Entirely unfamiliar with schools funding these days.
Company tax rate already commented on.



> 4. Make some of the other changes that are reasonable that have been proposed.



Can't comment here as I have no idea what you're referring to.



> 5. Continue changes to Superannuation so people can be expected to have enough to retire on in the future, reducing pension reliance. this means helping the lower paid build up their super, through good policy.



I think the need for this is clear to both sides of politics.  However, there is no need for anyone to be dependent on government policy to ensure enough to live on in retirement.  All through our lives we have choices about whether to think about how much we will need in retirement and how to get there, or alternatively to decline to think about it, spend most of what we earn, and then wail when we get old about how unfair it is that the government didn't make us save more.

Some good comments on this in the Superannuation thread.  I certainly wouldn't be committing excessive amounts to Super at age 30.



> My parents are in their 80s. They won't be a drain on taxpayers forever. Don't hit the pensioners that grew up in the Depression.



As far as I can tell, there will no hit on pensioners who grew up in the Depression, other than perhaps the $7 to visit the GP and the increase in PBS medicines which are presently extremely discounted over their real cost.   Then there's a safety net ensuring maximum of $70 p.a. is paid.   Surely that's fair enough and should reduce over servicing.
Even these measures will probably not happen because the other parties are vowing not to support them in the Senate.



> I just believe in the Australian way of everyone getting a fair go. I believe that if you get the marks you should be able to go to Melbourne/Sydney University and not be scared off by $30,000 a year fees



So who do you think should pay for people to go to university?   It's not as if anyone has to pay up front for their degree.  The taxpayer provides what seems to me a pretty cheap loan with no requirement to even pay back a single dollar until income reaches a certain level, I think about $50K.   Seems absolutely fair to me.

And on paying back what is spent on anyone's education, let's think about some of these hugely wealthy sports stars who have had extremely large amounts of money spent on their training via the Australian Institute of Sport.  AFAIK none of this is paid back even when they earn hundreds of thousands.  Happy to be corrected if I'm in error on this.


----------



## Knobby22

Julia said:


> Are you sure he wasn't referring to the discounts which are available via a Seniors' Card and the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card?   (Judd first raised this a few days ago).   The Seniors Card is State based and apparently funded by the Commonwealth, at least in part.
> 
> There has been a proposal by the government to remove one of the concessions currently available on the CSHC, apparently worth about $800 p.a.
> The CSHC does not offer any entitlement to discount on Council rates, something that apparently a pension card does to the tune of around 20% off.
> 
> .




You must be right. The Commonwealth funding has disappeared. He was talking energy costs not council rates.


----------



## craft

CanOz said:


> Well unless its changed recently Craft, that's not the advice that I've been given. In fact, i cannot even self manage it.
> 
> I was suspicious of the first advice that i was given so i checked it with my new accountant in QLD and indeed they also confirmed it.
> 
> In any case now that I'm married to an Australian citizen it doesn't faze me much, but sometimes plans change...




Don’t know your situation but never heard a requirement to move back to access.

Nothing has changed recently that I know of.

Either you were a temporary resident and you can get your super on leaving Aus or you are a permanent resident or citizen in which case you have to meet standard conditions of release and this is due to having a right to retire in Australia

https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Super/In-detail/Temporary-residents/Super-information-for-temporary-residents-departing-Australia/

Like I say I don’t know your situation but do know if I, as a citizen moved oversees, I could claim my super in another country under the same conditions of release as if I was in Australia.

Running a SMSF does have residency requirements - so no arguments there.

This should probably be in the super thread and you might get some additional views from the likes of VES.


----------



## sptrawler

craft said:


> Don’t know your situation but never heard a requirement to move back to access.
> 
> Nothing has changed recently that I know of.
> 
> Either you were a temporary resident and you can get your super on leaving Aus or you are a permanent resident or citizen in which case you have to meet standard conditions of release and this is due to having a right to retire in Australia
> 
> https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Super/In-detail/Temporary-residents/Super-information-for-temporary-residents-departing-Australia/
> 
> Like I say I don’t know your situation but do know if I, as a citizen moved oversees, I could claim my super in another country under the same conditions of release as if I was in Australia.
> 
> Running a SMSF does have residency requirements - so no arguments there.
> 
> This should probably be in the super thread and you might get some additional views from the likes of VES.




Craft, there was a loophole several years ago, whereby someone with dual citizenship, could sign a stat dec they were leaving the country, never to return and access their super.
What people were doing was take the money, go overseas for a period then come back.
I can't remember when it was closed off but it was a fair few years ago.
Now I think you have to reach preservation age even if leaving the country. I think that may be what CanOz may be refering to.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> As you appear to be too lazy to do your own research, I'll do it for you this time.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-19/sharing-of-budget-pain-not-fair-natsem-modelling-says/5463008




What else would you expect from a well trained left wing socialist Communist who learned it all in Moscow and 15 years with the socialist ABC.....She certainly was not in Moscow for a beauty contest.

It is all a beat up.

Emma Griffiths is ABC News Online's political correspondent. She has spent 15 years reporting for ABC TV and Radio News and Current Affairs, including a stint as Moscow correspondent. She has covered state politics in both Queensland and New South Wales and is on her second stint in the federal parliamentary press gallery.
Follow Emma on Twitter: @ejgriffiths


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> What else would you expect from a well trained left wing socialist Communist who learned it all in Moscow and 15 years with the socialist ABC.....She certainly was not in Moscow for a beauty contest.
> 
> It is all a beat up.
> 
> Emma Griffiths is ABC News Online's political correspondent. She has spent 15 years reporting for ABC TV and Radio News and Current Affairs, including a stint as Moscow correspondent. She has covered state politics in both Queensland and New South Wales and is on her second stint in the federal parliamentary press gallery.
> Follow Emma on Twitter: @ejgriffiths






The ABC sent her to Moscow and now she's a communist ?

hahahahahahaha

Better check under your bed matey, the commos are there too


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> The ABC sent her to Moscow and now she's a communist ?
> 
> hahahahahahaha
> 
> Better check under your bed matey, the commos are there too




Yeah she was well trained...as I said before, was not there to enter in a beauty contest.

Gillard also sent two unions heavies over there to get trained and indoctrinated.


----------



## noco

Those dirty comrades of the Greens......the sewer rats used  a scotched earth policy knowing full well they  were going to be defeated at the last election


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/the-alp-budget-boobytrap/story-e6freon6-1226923077146


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Those dirty comrades of the Greens......the sewer rats used  a scotched earth policy knowing full well they  were going to be defeated at the last election
> 
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/the-alp-budget-boobytrap/story-e6freon6-1226923077146




In that case they really suckered Abbott in to 'unity tickets' with Labor on NDIS and Gonski.

Either that or Abbott deliberately lied.

Abbott is either a fool or a liar, any preference ?


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> In that case they really suckered Abbott in to 'unity tickets' with Labor on NDIS and Gonski.
> 
> Either that or Abbott deliberately lied.
> 
> Abbott is either a fool or a liar, any preference ?




I hope he lied, because even the Reserve Bank says we can't afford them.
People need to get over this garbage and start debating the real issue of the deficit.


----------



## Smurf1976

sptrawler said:


> even the Reserve Bank says we can't afford them.



I take comments of this nature from the RBA fairly seriously given that they normally avoid commenting publicly on party political matters. It's not as though they comment on every tax or spending change unless it's either directly related to banking etc or is sufficiently drastic that they feel compelled to comment on it.


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> I take comments of this nature from the RBA fairly seriously given that they normally avoid commenting publicly on party political matters. It's not as though they comment on every tax or spending change unless it's either directly related to banking etc or is sufficiently drastic that they feel compelled to comment on it.




Yes Smurph, at the moment all the media want to talk about is promises.

Maybe someone should promise them, we're in the poo, unless we start addressing the issues.

They could start by asking Shorten what they would do to address the issues, especially since they are opposed to all the governments suggestions. After all they caused the fiscal problems, rightly or wrongly.


----------



## noco

noco said:


> Yeah she was well trained...as I said before, was not there to enter in a beauty contest.
> 
> Gillard also sent two unions heavies over there to get trained and indoctrinated.




http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/.../comments/paying_15000_for_gillards_comrades/


----------



## Julia

Smurf1976 said:


> I take comments of this nature from the RBA fairly seriously given that they normally avoid commenting publicly on party political matters. It's not as though they comment on every tax or spending change unless it's either directly related to banking etc or is sufficiently drastic that they feel compelled to comment on it.



+1.  Further, this evening Dr Martin Parkinson, Secretary of the Treasury, has largely supported the government's budget.  (ABC Radio News 6pm )

In ghastly contrast, "7.30" this evening featured the extremely confident Jacquie Lambie, member of PUP, who - presumably because of her career in the Army - knows that all the Budget is complete rubbish, and the government are 'psychopaths'.  She seems to base this on the fact that Australia presently has a AAA credit rating.  It doesn't seem to occur to her that unless spending is curtailed, that credit rating (for what it's worth given the AAA rating given to Lehman's just before it collapsed) will be downgraded, thus increasing Australia's interest bill.

She advocates a big tax on the big banks because they make billions in profit.  If she were asked what that represents in terms of % return she wouldn't have the faintest idea.  Billions of dollars sounds much more awful.

The absolutely frightening feature of this woman, rather like Pauline Hanson, is that her populist nonsense will appeal to a bunch of similarly ill educated voters out there and we will see PUP continue to rise in popularity.


----------



## Calliope

> ORGANISERS of a Melbourne rally against changes to higher education have upped their turnout predictions, with more than 2000 students now expected.
> 
> La Trobe University student union president Rose Steele, who will address protesters when they converge on the State Library at 2pm before marching through the city’s streets, said support continued to flow in.
> 
> “Students know this Budget is really going to hurt them and they’re angry and they’re getting active about it,’’ she said.
> 
> “It’s really important to see students demonstrating around this issue.”




http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...t-education-cuts/story-fni0fit3-1226925278792

A fair percentage of these 2000 whingers are doing mickey mouse courses like Business Studies, Sociology, Philosophy, Art History, Media Studies etc, which give them plenty of spare time to make mischief, but will never land them in a useful job anyway. So they will never be paying back their student loans.

Rather than wasting money on them, it should be diverted to train apprentices. Qualified tradesmen earn more money and make a greater contribution to the economy than these over-indulged bludgers ever will.
.


----------



## trainspotter

Don't see too many taxpayers over 180k a year planning mass demonstrations for the deficit levy (ahem tax) they have to pay @ 2% of gross income


----------



## sptrawler

trainspotter said:


> Don't see too many taxpayers over 180k a year planning mass demonstrations for the deficit levy (ahem tax) they have to pay @ 2% of gross income




Possibly they are at work, or maybe on their 3 week away roster.


----------



## trainspotter

sptrawler said:


> Possibly they are at work, or maybe on their 3 week away roster.




Reminds me of a joke I once heard and it goes like this:

A Liberal voting couple lived on the third floor of an apartment block, a Labor voting couple lived on the second floor of the same block and some university students occupied the lower levels. There was a terrible earth quake and the building collapsed. 

Who died in the collapse of the building?

No one died as the Liberal voting couple were hard at work, the Labor voting couple were attending a 3 day union rally protesting working conditions and the university students were busy storming parliament :


----------



## noco

trainspotter said:


> Reminds me of a joke I once heard and it goes like this:
> 
> A Liberal voting couple lived on the third floor of an apartment block, a Labor voting couple lived on the second floor of the same block and some university students occupied the lower levels. There was a terrible earth quake and the building collapsed.
> 
> Who died in the collapse of the building?
> 
> No one died as the Liberal voting couple were hard at work, the Labor voting couple were attending a 3 day union rally protesting working conditions and the university students were busy storming parliament :




Too true...too true...:


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> They could start by asking Shorten what they would do to address the issues, especially since they are opposed to all the governments suggestions. After all they caused the fiscal problems, rightly or wrongly.




Howard helped immensely with the structural deficit by:

* reducing then freezing fuel excise

* tax free super for over 60s

* massive increases in middle class welfare - that great baby bonus idea and increased FTB part B spring to mind

* halving of the CGT

* above has had major implications for the property price boom which has decimated productivity in Australia and probably the main cause for wages HAVING to be competitively high

So while it's fair to blame Labor for plenty of the current mess we're in, Howard and the previous Liberal Govt have plenty of the blame to share as well.  The current situation is due to a 10+ year period of poor policy compounding poor policy.


----------



## noco

Abbott cops the blame again if a woman dies because of domestic violence...OMG what next will these hypocrites get up to.?

Price is another left wing socialist....she was very silent when 1100 boat people died at sea.

Read the sub links as well to confirm what a hypocrite this woman really is.


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...-blogs:mini-blogs|1|heading|homepage|homepage


----------



## trainspotter

sydboy007 said:


> So while it's fair to blame Labor for plenty of the current mess we're in, Howard and the previous Liberal Govt have plenty of the blame to share as well.  The current situation is due to a 10+ year period of poor policy compounding poor policy.




Not so fast sydboy007 ... I don't know of any country that has spent it's way to a recovery?



> As for the reasons that the downturn here was not as bad as it has been elsewhere, there are four parts to the explanation that I can see.
> 
> There is firstly the extraordinary fiscal situation the government inherited. *We not only had no deficit, we actually had no debt. Australia was the only country in the world not to have any public debt whatsoever, a situation that it is almost impossible to imagine returning any time soon.*
> 
> There was then the mining boom built on the back of the Chinese stimulus. That has gone, in large part because the Chinese must now themselves deal with the problems that their own stimulus created in their own economy. But we have added to our own slowdown in mining through a series of policies that have made miners more reluctant to invest in Australia.
> 
> Third, our banking system was almost entirely untouched by the financial crisis which spread internationally due to the ownership of various toxic assets generated in the US financial system. Our banks were fine, so Australia had no problems of this kind to overcome.
> 
> And lastly – but this will make little sense to most people – the RBA kept interest rates up rather than pulling them down. No quantitative easing in these parts with the result that the national savings we generated were used more productively than elsewhere. You can’t stop governments from squandering what they squander, but at least the private sector was kept on the straight and narrow.




http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2013/08/the-bill-comes-due-for-rudd-s-misdiagnosis/


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

sydboy007 said:


> Howard helped immensely with the structural deficit by:
> 
> * reducing then freezing fuel excise
> 
> * tax free super for over 60s
> 
> * massive increases in middle class welfare - that great baby bonus idea and increased FTB part B spring to mind
> 
> * halving of the CGT
> 
> * above has had major implications for the property price boom which has decimated productivity in Australia and probably the main cause for wages HAVING to be competitively high
> 
> So while it's fair to blame Labor for plenty of the current mess we're in, Howard and the previous Liberal Govt have plenty of the blame to share as well.  The current situation is due to a 10+ year period of poor policy compounding poor policy.




Thanks syd.

While not totally agreeing with your arguments, I accept them as valid.

I still feel that if Howard had been re-elected he could have proceeded through the GFC better than Labor did by sensibly rolling more of those back which Labor did not have the wit to do. 

gg


----------



## sptrawler

trainspotter said:


> Not so fast sydboy007 ... I don't know of any country that has spent it's way to a recovery?
> 
> 
> 
> http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2013/08/the-bill-comes-due-for-rudd-s-misdiagnosis/




Oh come trainspotter, if it wasn't Abbotts fault, it was Howards fault.
Labor were the best government out, Rudd and Gillard were brilliant P.M's, look in my eyes, look in my eyes, say after me.


----------



## sptrawler

The media is so focused on Abbott and trying to bag him, that Australia and the discussion regarding its economy seems to carry no importance.

It's as though they are on a feeding frenzy, hope it works out for them, but it hasn't in the past.


----------



## banco

The first part makes zero sense unless they mean because Australia had low debt we could afford stimulus measures?

_As for the reasons that the downturn here was not as bad as it has been elsewhere, there are four parts to the explanation that I can see.

*There is firstly the extraordinary fiscal situation the government inherited. We not only had no deficit, we actually had no debt. Australia was the only country in the world not to have any public debt whatsoever, a situation that it is almost impossible to imagine returning any time soon.*_


----------



## sptrawler

banco said:


> The first part makes zero sense unless they mean because Australia had low debt we could afford stimulus measures?
> 
> _As for the reasons that the downturn here was not as bad as it has been elsewhere, there are four parts to the explanation that I can see.
> 
> *There is firstly the extraordinary fiscal situation the government inherited. We not only had no deficit, we actually had no debt. Australia was the only country in the world not to have any public debt whatsoever, a situation that it is almost impossible to imagine returning any time soon.*_




The funny thing is, now we have debt and are running a deficit, Labor *don't* want to stop it blowing out.

Who are they really trying to help? Noco isn't looking so off the planet.lol


----------



## Julia

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I still feel that if Howard had been re-elected he could have proceeded through the GFC better than Labor did by sensibly rolling more of those back which Labor did not have the wit to do.



+1.  

One of John Howard's most notable characteristics was his calmness, something that was so absolutely lacking in the panic of Swan, Rudd et al's response to the GFC.


----------



## Knobby22

My niece has managed to get into medicine. She is a country girl from an average family with both parents working bringing in less than $100000 a year. Under the new budget she can expect to owe $180000 at the end of her degree. Baby boomers got free education. I think this is very unfair and I fear for my children.

I actually can't sleep. Now there are mooted super changes etc. I wish we could call another election. My only hope is Clive Palmer who seems to have more interest in the average person. I am truly disgusted by this government. The outright lies. The determination to act for the lobbyists. I wish I had never voted them in.

The determination to attack families to advantage the rich is terrible. Bring back the old party who use to help families. Raise the tax rates rather than destroy the aspirations of middle class families. 

I will never believe anything Tony Abbott says again. I expect to be howled down in this thread but I truly have lost faith in the Coalition. The budget is a list of broken promises and should be blocked in the senate. We cannot let such deceit take place. The polls for the Libs will only get worse and this will be a one term government and I will become politically active to try to ensure this.

I was a big fan of John Howard and can't believe it has come to this.


----------



## SirRumpole

Knobby22 said:


> My niece has managed to get into medicine. She is a country girl from an average family with both parents working bringing in less than $100000 a year. Under the new budget she can expect to owe $180000 at the end of her degree. Baby boomers got free education. I think this is very unfair and I fear for my children.
> 
> I actually can't sleep. Now there are mooted super changes etc. I wish we could call another election. My only hope is Clive Palmer who seems to have more interest in the average person. I am truly disgusted by this government. The outright lies. The determination to act for the lobbyists. I wish I had never voted them in.
> 
> The determination to attack families to advantage the rich is terrible. Bring back the old party who use to help families. Raise the tax rates rather than destroy the aspirations of middle class families.
> 
> I will never believe anything Tony Abbott says again. I expect to be howled down in this thread but I truly have lost faith in the Coalition. The budget is a list of broken promises and should be blocked in the senate. We cannot let such deceit take place. The polls for the Libs will only get worse and this will be a one term government and I will become politically active to try to ensure this.
> 
> I was a big fan of John Howard and can't believe it has come to this.




+1 Knobby.

 We have seen what an extreme Right wing Tory government wants to do TO the country, not FOR it and why we shouldn't give them the chance to do it again.

Under different leadership, the Libs may do some good, but not under this one.


----------



## orr

Knobby22 said:


> My niece has managed to get into medicine. She is a country girl from an average family with both parents working bringing in less than $100000 a year. Under the new budget she can expect to owe $180000 at the end of her degree. Baby boomers got free education. I think this is very unfair and I fear for my children.
> 
> I actually can't sleep. Now there are mooted super changes etc. I wish we could call another election. My only hope is Clive Palmer who seems to have more interest in the average person. I am truly disgusted by this government. The outright lies. The determination to act for the lobbyists. I wish I had never voted them in.
> 
> The determination to attack families to advantage the rich is terrible. Bring back the old party who use to help families. Raise the tax rates rather than destroy the aspirations of middle class families.
> 
> I will never believe anything Tony Abbott says again. I expect to be howled down in this thread but I truly have lost faith in the Coalition. The budget is a list of broken promises and should be blocked in the senate. We cannot let such deceit take place. The polls for the Libs will only get worse and this will be a one term government and I will become politically active to try to ensure this.
> 
> I was a big fan of John Howard and can't believe it has come to this.




'_(read in pirate voice)_
Ahh come on Knobby, don't be like that.... 'They've stopped the boats'


----------



## Calliope

Shock! Horror! Abbott does it again. The mysogonist pig.





I think that anyone who gets Grumpy Gloria on the Sex Line will be short-changed..


----------



## basilio

I think Knobbys comment on the budget and his total disillusionment with an Abbott led Liberal party should be a very real concern for the Government. I just don't think he is the only person to feel like that.

You don't need to be a Labour voter to  recognise

a) The complete trashing of the Liberals pre election promises
b) The brutal unfairness of the budget.

I could see 2-3% of the stronger Liberal Party voters changing their votes in the next election. Be interesting to see any private research studies done on voters beliefs about their party after the budget. 

___________________________________________________________________________
When is a gift not  a gift ?

When it comes in the form of a $60k  scholarship for your daughter from a company that regularly gives funds to your political party and works in a field that is determined to extract advantage from new Government policies




> Liberal donor personally recommended Tony Abbott's daughter for scholarship
> 
> *Les Taylor, the chairman of the Whitehouse Institute of Design who recommended Frances Abbott to be only the second recipient of the 'chairman's scholarship', has made donations of more than $20,000 to the Liberal party*
> 
> • Tony Abbott's daughter given scholarship for $60,000 degree
> 
> Les Taylor, the chairman of the Whitehouse Institute of Design board of governors, personally recommended the prime minister’s daughter for a $60,000 design degree scholarship, and has also made donations of more than $20,000 to the state and federal Liberal party.




http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...bbott-degree-scholarship-tony-abbott-daughter

There  is more detail about how the head of the private College expected to benefit from changes in Government policies in the following story.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/fed...abbott-at-private-college-20140521-38olh.html


----------



## sptrawler

Knobby22 said:


> My niece has managed to get into medicine. She is a country girl from an average family with both parents working bringing in less than $100000 a year. Under the new budget she can expect to owe $180000 at the end of her degree. Baby boomers got free education. I think this is very unfair and I fear for my children.
> 
> I actually can't sleep. Now there are mooted super changes etc. I wish we could call another election. My only hope is Clive Palmer who seems to have more interest in the average person. I am truly disgusted by this government. The outright lies. The determination to act for the lobbyists. I wish I had never voted them in.
> 
> The determination to attack families to advantage the rich is terrible. Bring back the old party who use to help families. Raise the tax rates rather than destroy the aspirations of middle class families.
> 
> I will never believe anything Tony Abbott says again. I expect to be howled down in this thread but I truly have lost faith in the Coalition. The budget is a list of broken promises and should be blocked in the senate. We cannot let such deceit take place. The polls for the Libs will only get worse and this will be a one term government and I will become politically active to try to ensure this.
> 
> I was a big fan of John Howard and can't believe it has come to this.




Hey Knobby, don't let it get you down, firstly none of the budget has been enacted it has to get through parliament yet.
Secondly there is a hell of a lot of opposition to most of what is in the budget, especialy by the media, sooner or later the coalition will have to tone it down.

With the level of opposition, they may indeed be a one term government.


----------



## CanOz

sptrawler said:


> Hey Knobby, don't let it get you down, firstly none of the budget has been enacted it has to get through parliament yet.
> Secondly there is a hell of a lot of opposition to most of what is in the budget, especially by the media, sooner or later the coalition will have to tone it down.
> 
> With the level of opposition, they may indeed be a one term government.




I can understand the panic, the media is fueling this to no end. :frown:


----------



## Calliope

orr said:


> Ahh come on Knobby, don't be like that.... 'They've stopped the boats'




Come off it orr, Knobby has enough to worry about without you rubbing salt into his wounds.  Like you, Knobby has never been a supporter of the Coalition's heartless policy of stopping the boats.


----------



## trainspotter

Julia Gillard was criticized and it was labelled sexism because she was a woman. It is important to recognise that as a woman, and especially as a childless, unmarried woman, the prime minister was subjected to more scrutiny than her male predecessors. Nevermind Gillard was a less-than-effective prime minister.

Tony Abbott is being critisized as a misogynistic, grubby dog whistling, welfare wrecking, nation destroying, university student kicking, lying to the voting public, back flipping, increased taxing, desperate Prime Minister. Nevermind it was very clear as to what we elected the Liberal Party to do. Effective leadership IMO.

You might remember the mantra - it was stop the boats, repeal the carbon tax, build the roads of the 21st century, and get the *budget back under control*  .... which is exactly what they have done. 

This situation reminds me of someone having terminal cancer and complaining that chemotherapy makes them sick. Sorry if this analogy is a bit strong for some but I am having a hard time comprehending that this country is borrowing ONE BILLION dollars a month just to pay our interest bill on the debt left by the LABOR government.

If I had the ear of the PM, this is what I would be forcing down the proletariat's throat right now. How can we borrow that much money to just pay our interest bill and not expect the debt to have to be repaid at some stage?? 



> "Of the 17 top surveyed IMF countries, Labor left us with the fastest growth in spending of anyone in the world... and they left us with the third highest growth in debt of anyone in the top 17," Mr Hockey told RN Breakfast on March 6.
> 
> "So, the fact of the matter is they've left a whole lot of landmines in the budget. We need to carefully remove those landmines and put us back on a path that gets us away from $123 billion of deficit, and starts to pay down the logjam of $667 billion of debt."




Tax the banks more they whinge, tax the mining companies more they cry ... are you for real? The banks will merely increase rates or fees to cover the taxes imposed on them and the mining companies will downscale and shed jobs. But all you bleeding hearts and artists know all of this .... RIGHT ??? :frown:


----------



## sptrawler

The dopey media may well be playing into Abbotts hands. What if, down the track, Abbott falls on his sword? 

The media have made it all about Tony and trying to get him, rather than focus on the real issues. The real debate about the economy and the budgetry requirements hasn't happened.

It is about attacking Tony eg, Tony doesn't front a rabid uni mob, Tony winked, Joe smokes a cigar. That's the garbage wasted day after day on the front pages, bloody woefull reporting. 
No one has asked Bill what Labor would pass or want included. 
No media has discussed the severity of the deficit and debt situation and what options and outcomes could be expected. No real experts, just giggling morning t.v hosts giving their opinion, which is about as usefull as asking my Jack Russell for his opinion.

Abbott doesn't look as though he is enjoying the P.M's job, he never has, so it will be interesting to see what happens. At the opportune moment he may take the bullet for the party.
Just a thought.


----------



## banco

sptrawler said:


> The dopey media may well be playing into Abbotts hands. What if, down the track, Abbott falls on his sword?
> 
> The media have made it all about Tony and trying to get him, rather than focus on the real issues. The real debate about the economy and the budgetry requirements hasn't happened.
> 
> It is about attacking Tony eg, Tony doesn't front a rabid uni mob, Tony winked, Joe smokes a cigar. That's the garbage wasted day after day on the front pages, bloody woefull reporting.
> No one has asked Bill what Labor would pass or want included.
> No media has discussed the severity of the deficit and debt situation and what options and outcomes could be expected. No real experts, just giggling morning t.v hosts giving their opinion, which is about as usefull as asking my Jack Russell for his opinion.
> 
> Abbott doesn't look as though he is enjoying the P.M's job, he never has, so it will be interesting to see what happens. At the opportune moment he may take the bullet for the party.
> Just a thought.




You are sounding an awful lot like the Labor party voters who complained that there was too much focus on Gillard personally and not enough on the "issues".


----------



## trainspotter

banco said:


> You are sounding an awful lot like the Labor party voters who complained that there was too much focus on Gillard personally and not enough on the "issues".




ZACKERY my point !!!!!!!!!!! The media needs to focus on the issues and not on the personality traits.


----------



## trainspotter

And now they go after his daughter 



> PRIME Minister Tony Abbott is strongly defending the career of one of his daughters after questions were raised over whether she had benefited from favours to her father by a friend.
> Frances Abbott in 2011 won a $60,000 scholarship to the Whitehouse Institute of Design whose chairman Les Taylor is a longtime friend and supporter of Mr Abbott.
> She graduated in 2013 with a bachelor degree, The Guardian reported today.
> Frances, 22, is now working for Whitehouse in Melbourne as a teacher’s aide and aims to study for her masters degree later this year.
> *There is no evidence she did not earn her degree on merit or that she was not entitled to her current job.* And Mr Abbott’s office said, in a statement to news.com.au, that Frances won the scholarship “based on her application and art portfolio”.




http://www.news.com.au/national/pri...r-frances-abbott/story-fncynjr2-1226925826517

But hey ... let's print this anyhow eh !!


----------



## sptrawler

trainspotter said:


> ZACKERY my point !!!!!!!!!!! The media needs to focus on the issues and not on the personality traits.




Absolutely, news has been turned into a cross between a chat show a cheap monthly magazine and sensible political debate is a non event. Just the media trying to whip up public hysteria to boost numbers.

It really does need accurate debate, to tell if the coalition is overstating the problem, or the problem is indeed real.


----------



## Calliope

trainspotter said:


> ZACKERY my point !!!!!!!!!!! The media needs to focus on the issues and not on the personality traits.




But TS, what if it turns out the wanker is a winker?


----------



## sptrawler

banco said:


> You are sounding an awful lot like the Labor party voters who complained that there was too much focus on Gillard personally and not enough on the "issues".




Again that is true, if there had been responsible reporting, the supposed issues facing us now would be common knowledge. Rather than having it shoved in everyones face, like the coalition is doing.
If the media was more focused on real issues, rather than trying to make news into a daily soap opera, the public would be much better informed.

I suppose the subtle difference, between the Gillard situation and what I am talking about with Abbott. During Labor's term it was more about giving the bullet rather than taking it.lol


----------



## Knobby22

Front page of the Age.

The poorest families pay most in budget.

The poorest 20 per cent of Australian families will pay $1.1 billion more into government coffers than the richest households as a result of the budget, highlighting the huge inequity in the government's four-year blueprint for fiscal repair.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...st-families-20140521-38p4i.html#ixzz32PRNi6gg


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> Abbott doesn't look as though he is enjoying the P.M's job, he never has, so it will be interesting to see what happens. At the opportune moment he may take the bullet for the party.
> Just a thought.




The opportune time may be 18th September 2014. He would have been PM for a year and would be entitled to the famed gold pass and associated benefits.


----------



## sptrawler

Knobby22 said:


> Front page of the Age.
> 
> The poorest families pay most in budget.
> 
> The poorest 20 per cent of Australian families will pay $1.1 billion more into government coffers than the richest households as a result of the budget, highlighting the huge inequity in the government's four-year blueprint for fiscal repair.
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...st-families-20140521-38p4i.html#ixzz32PRNi6gg




That is a perfect example Knobby.
The poorest 20% to *pay $1.1billion more to the government*

The poorest 20% in all probability pay nothing to the government. What it is probably happening, is the welfare cuts will reduce the handouts by $1.1billion.
But that doesn't bring on the hysteria as much, better to let poor people think, they are going to have to *pay * more than a rich person pays in tax.


----------



## trainspotter

Knobby22 said:


> Front page of the Age.
> 
> The poorest families pay most in budget.
> 
> The poorest 20 per cent of Australian families will pay $1.1 billion more into government coffers than the richest households as a result of the budget, highlighting the huge inequity in the government's four-year blueprint for fiscal repair.
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...st-families-20140521-38p4i.html#ixzz32PRNi6gg




Let's get some perspective shall we .. they are paying NOTHING back to the government at all. The government has taken away $2.9 billion over four years thanks to changes to family benefits, pensions and other payments that they will no longer receive in "entitlements".

The wealthy are paying it out of their own pockets.


----------



## SirRumpole

trainspotter said:


> The wealthy are paying it out of their own pockets.




After they avoid their taxes with super, employer/taxpayer funded cars, family trusts, avoidance schemes...


----------



## CanOz

SirRumpole said:


> After they avoid their taxes with super, employer/taxpayer funded cars, family trusts, avoidance schemes...




Whatever, you've got to get your head out of the "government needs to re-distribute the wealth" "I'm entitled to it" crap.  

Work, save, invest...like everybody else.


----------



## banco

sptrawler said:


> Again that is true, if there had been responsible reporting, the supposed issues facing us now would be common knowledge. Rather than having it shoved in everyones face, like the coalition is doing.
> If the media was more focused on real issues, rather than trying to make news into a daily soap opera, the public would be much better informed.
> 
> I suppose the subtle difference, between the Gillard situation and what I am talking about with Abbott. During Labor's term it was more about giving the bullet rather than taking it.lol




The public isn't interested in the fine detail (or even the not so fine detail) of "issues".  They are much more interested in which of Tony Abbot's daughters looks best in a dress etc. The media is just giving them what they want.


----------



## Knobby22

As Abbott said yesterday, he will be able to give tax cuts in 3 years. I wonder where they will go?

I have no problem with reducing entitlements but the pain should be more evenly shared.


----------



## trainspotter

SirRumpole said:


> After they avoid their taxes with super, employer/taxpayer funded cars, family trusts, avoidance schemes...




Cry me a river ...  It is still coming out of their pockets and they still are paying more in tax.

Taxable income 2013/14

$0 – $18,200 = Nil

$18,201– $37,000 = 19c for each $1 over $18,200

$37,001 - $80,000 = $3,572 plus 32.5c for each $1 over $37,000 = 9.65% TAX

$80,001 - $180,000 = $17,547 plus 37c for each $1 over $80,000 = 21.93% TAX

$180,001 and over = $54,547 plus 45c for every $1 over $180,000 = 30.31% TAX

Add a further 2% onto the taxable income of those over 180k and they are now paying OVER 32% TAX

*Figures are rubbery at best as I am late for a meeting but you get the gist*


----------



## CanOz

Its funny, my neighbors here are all from Michigan (up to a dozen at times), the "thumb" actually. They're all very much hard working mid westerners, with a no nonsense attitude. Pretty conservative, mostly republican. We met up with an old friend of mine from Australia, in Thailand, a Union guy. My Michigan friends just cannot get over the benefits for a tradesman/union guys in Australia. I mean these Michigan people are on less than half the wage, net net that my Australian mate was on (and he had no trade). 

The guys from Michigan are all over Obama's big government and social handouts, more and more tax and healthcare levies. They really hate the entitlements that the GM boys got when they bailed out. Such a different view that you get from the working class in the US. They're all for business getting breaks so they can hire more people...

Its hardly the model for a successful economy given their track record, but its interesting the difference between the working class (blue collar or whatever) in the two countries....


----------



## SirRumpole

trainspotter said:


> Cry me a river ...  It is still coming out of their pockets and they still are paying more in tax.
> 
> Taxable income 2013/14
> 
> $0 – $18,200 = Nil
> 
> $18,201– $37,000 = 19c for each $1 over $18,200
> 
> $37,001 - $80,000 = $3,572 plus 32.5c for each $1 over $37,000 = 9.65% TAX
> 
> $80,001 - $180,000 = $17,547 plus 37c for each $1 over $80,000 = 21.93% TAX
> 
> $180,001 and over = $54,547 plus 45c for every $1 over $180,000 = 30.31% TAX
> 
> Add a further 2% onto the taxable income of those over 180k and they are now paying OVER 32% TAX
> 
> *Figures are rubbery at best as I am late for a meeting but you get the gist*




Funny how Hockey left alone negative gearing, family trusts and super concessions favouring the wealthy, and hit those mainly on low incomes.


----------



## SirRumpole

CanOz said:


> Work, save, invest...like everybody else.




I have, I've paid my taxes and don't get any government benefits, but that doesn't mean I have no compassion for those, especially pensioners who have paid their taxes and still get hit.


----------



## sptrawler

Knobby22 said:


> As Abbott said yesterday, he will be able to give tax cuts in 3 years. I wonder where they will go?
> 
> I have no problem with reducing entitlements but the pain should be more evenly shared.




The 'white paper' should have more info when it is completed.
My guess, for what it's worth, is there will be increases in income tax rates, also super and if the economy is picking up, negative gearing.
Any tax cuts I would guess would go toward business, to try and further stimulate jobs and consumer sentiment.

It is a real balancing act, people aren't spending, so gst revenue is falling. Companies are laying people off so income tax reciepts are falling. Small business is falling over, due to high costs, rent electricity and wages.

Government income is falling rapidly and the welfare costs are increasing, it makes it hard. But to keep allowing the debt to blow out adds to the interest bill, which puts further pressure on.

It isn't going to be sunshine and lolly pops for awhile.IMO

But we are still resource rich and have a relatively small population, so the good times will return.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> The 'white paper' should have more info when it is completed.




So the Henry review was just a Communist Manifesto was it ?


----------



## Julia

Knobby22 said:


> My niece has managed to get into medicine. She is a country girl from an average family with both parents working bringing in less than $100000 a year.



If she is already enrolled, as I understand it, her situation is unchanged, except perhaps an increase down the track in the interest rate on the taxpayer funded loan.



> Under the new budget she can expect to owe $180000 at the end of her degree.



Are you calculating this on the basis of her situation being the same now as it was before the Budget announcement or on the basis of what future students, not already enrolled, will pay?
Perhaps consider that before long, after she has graduated, she will have earning capacity of around the $180K mark per year.



> Baby boomers got free education. I think this is very unfair and I fear for my children.



At the time that at least the first tranche of baby boomers finished high school, very few of them went on to university, amongst girls probably less than 5%.  Nurses were trained within hospitals and teachers went to teacher training colleges.  Now both these occupations have become university degrees, along with many, many other degrees which would never have been considered valid a few decades ago and which, imo, have devalued the whole notion of a university education.

Just to repeat a question I've asked before, Knobby, if individuals actually receiving the university education are not to pay for it themselves, albeit on a very cheap taxpayer funded loan which is not required to even start to be paid back until they are earning over $50K, who do you think should pay for it?



> Now there are mooted super changes etc.



Well, if some of the huge tax advantages which continue to apply for people with many millions in Super were to be curtailed, I'd entirely support that.  It would also address some of your concern about the rich getting off so lightly.



> I wish we could call another election. My only hope is Clive Palmer who seems to have more interest in the average person.



What ideas do you believe Mr Palmer has that will so benefit Australia?   Do you give any credence to the suggestion that he is entirely self-interested, a rich person, bored with his current dinosaurs and other toys, who is having a bit of fun in politics.  Not just fun, but enthusiastic about his opportunity to take his revenge against any conservative sector of government, after the Qld LNP threw him out following his incessant and unreasonable demands to extend his own influence and acquire favours.

Have you been aware of the way he has trashed the Sunshine Coast resort, locking hundreds of investors out of their own villas there?  And the now pretty nasty situation with his Chinese partners?  His profane and obscene language toward them?

Perhaps my perception of Mr Palmer is faulty, but I do not see someone with the best interests of Australia at heart.  Rather, a greedy, over-indulged egocentric person capable of deluding many naive Australians that he is the answer to their political prayers.

Knobby, before you get more upset, think about the scenario which takes place all the time at an Asian market.
The vendor for the item you like, when you ask the price, will set that price at considerably above what he actually expects to receive for it.  Your offer will similarly be set at much less than you expect to pay for it.
A bit of haggling later, both of you end up with a compromise which is more or less acceptable to you both.

Perhaps regard this Budget stuff as along similar lines.
The government purposely leaked most of it long before delivery day so reaction could be gauged before it went to the printer.
So they knew Labor, the Greens and some of the Independents, would rule out supporting many of the measures in the Senate.
Exactly as they had predicted.
So the actual announced Budget would, imo, never have been expected to come into being.

Allowing yourself to get so upset about what mostly isn't going to happen is unnecessary and just causing yourself avoidable grief.

As observed by others, the media has a huge amount to answer for in their pathetic lack of focus on the real issues and their encouragement of the general hysteria.  Shame on them.
ABC Radio has had some fair and reasonable analysis, but the commercial media should be sacked en masse.


----------



## Calliope

Knobby22 said:


> As Abbott said yesterday, he will be able to give tax cuts in 3 years. I wonder where they will go?
> 
> I have no problem with reducing entitlements but the pain should be more evenly shared.




I suspect you must be in this bracket that you referred to; 



> The poorest families pay most in budget.




No doubt you must be feeling the pain when you say you can't sleep at night. I guess we take our entitlements for granted and get very upset when they are threatened.

I got a shock this morning myself when I read this headline in the Courier-Mail;



> *Almost 40,000 householders to lose guaranteed 8c solar feed-in tariff after new laws pass parliament*




I breathed a sigh of relief when I read on, that my 44c feed-in tariff which AGL pays me would not be affected.(yet?). I regard this as an "entitlement" even though it is subsidised by other consumers, in the same way as your entitlements are subsidised by taxpayers.


----------



## trainspotter

SirRumpole said:


> Funny how Hockey left alone negative gearing, family trusts and super concessions favouring the wealthy, and hit those mainly on low incomes.




Not funny at all Horace ... socialism is dead and buried. The age of entitlements is over, we simply cannot afford to keep paying people to do less and less. 

Hey why stop at the wealthy individual tax payers? Why not go after the big boys like Apple who paid 193 million to the ATO on 27 billion ? Oh that's right .. they would just pass the increase cost onto the consumer 

Negative gearing? Here's what would happen:- The 2010 Henry Review said negative *gearing was one of a plethora of inefficient taxes, including stamp duty, and called for it to be abolished. But it said any changes to *negative gearing or the capital gains tax *"may in the short term reduce residential property investment" *and that *"in a market facing *supply constraints, these reforms could place further pressure on the availability of *affordable rental accommodation within the private rental market".*

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/fede...ive-gearing-20140411-36him.html#ixzz32PjjJGcQ

Keating in 1985 tightened NG and capital city prices plummeted. Yep ... let's get rid of NG 

Family Trusts? Yep let's get rid of the Rineharts, the Obeids and the Tinklers who deliberately minimise their billions of dollars being siphoned off through these entities. All for it. Should be a limit of money and or assets allowed to be placed into this tax avoidance scheme. 

Superannuation concessions ? Ya gotta be kidding me right ? So I am going to be penalised for placing money into my superannuation so when I retire I have enough money to retire on and NOT have to get a pension from the government? That is the most stupidest notion I have heard bandied around yet. Everyone is taxed at 15% but because people earning more $$$ have more SGC going into super they pay less tax as their overall taxable income has been reduced. FFS ... why not just offer everyone a stipend of the money they have in super and the government takes over the balance payable on death


----------



## SirRumpole

> So the actual announced Budget would, imo, never have been expected to come into being.




With respect to you Julia, that makes this Budget even worse. 

Mucking around with peoples lives for the hell of it ?

Playing games with the electorate is a sure sign of arrogant, shallow and smug fools who don't deserve the office that people were tricked into giving them.

It's the same arrogant self delusion that comes out with statements like "people must have misheard us when we said..."


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> So the Henry review was just a Communist Manifesto was it ?




Not at all, but it certainly isn't current, no doubt it will be referenced. 
A bit like Gonski, when it was written Labor in all probability, told them money isn't a problem. 
Therefore now money is a problem, one would use Gonski as a reference, not as a be all to end all document.


----------



## SirRumpole

trainspotter said:


> Superannuation concessions ? Ya gotta be kidding me right ? So I am going to be penalised for placing money into my superannuation so when I retire I have enough money to retire on and NOT have to get a pension from the government? That is the most stupidest notion I have heard bandied around yet. Everyone is taxed at 15% but because people earning more $$$ have more SGC going into super they pay less tax as their overall taxable income has been reduced. FFS ... why not just offer everyone a stipend of the money they have in super and the government takes over the balance payable on death




I'm sure you are more expert than me on the subject, but others don't agree with you

http://www.smh.com.au/business/bank...exploiting-superannuation-20140522-38po9.html

And on NG, Keating abolished it it one go, he should have phased it out over 5+ years.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> With respect to you Julia, that makes this Budget even worse.
> 
> Mucking around with peoples lives for the hell of it ?
> 
> Playing games with the electorate is a sure sign of arrogant, shallow and smug fools who don't deserve the office that people were tricked into giving them.
> 
> It's the same arrogant self delusion that comes out with statements like "people must have misheard us when we said..."




You are starting to sound like the media.IMO


----------



## trainspotter

SirRumpole said:


> I'm sure you are more expert than me on the subject, but others don't agree with you
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/business/bank...exploiting-superannuation-20140522-38po9.html
> 
> And on NG, Keating abolished it it one go, he should have phased it out over 5+ years.




Mucking around with the superannuation laws would increase people NOT contributing to the scheme thusly placing the burden back on the government to find the money to pay for the pension. 

I just love how the news article has so many *anonymous *tax advisers and superannuation lawyers willing to talk to them 

In 1985, Labor *tightened* negative gearing rules, and Keating wanted to take the next step and scrap it altogether. Keating got rolled, spectacularly. In 1987, Labor reversed the tightening and the generous provisions applying to negative gearing pre-1985 were restored.

He did not abolish it at all it in one go as stated by your good self Horace.


----------



## SirRumpole

> Mucking around with the superannuation laws would increase people NOT contributing to the scheme thusly placing the burden back on the government to find the money to pay for the pension.




Oh really ? Millionaires might stop paying super and go on the pension ? Even if they stop paying super they can sell an investment property or two and not worry. An assets test would stop them getting the pension anyway.


----------



## trainspotter

SirRumpole said:


> Oh really ? Millionaires might stop paying super and go on the pension ? Even if they stop paying super they can sell an investment property or two and not worry. An assets test would stop them getting the pension anyway.




Did you even read the article you posted?



> Others are worried the government will go too far with any tweaks to the system.
> Nexia's Ian Stone said most of the self-managed super funds he sees have between $500,000 and $2 million in them and are being used by aspirational middle-class workers who are still in wealth creation mode.
> With a government asking people to self-fund more aspects of their lives, Mr Stone said* people are already nervous about putting too much of their savings into super* out of fear governments will fiddle with policy settings.




So if they closed the loopholes on the uber rich is not the issue. The issue is if they muck around with the super laws then "joe average" would NOT contribute further then they have to under law to superannuation.

Asset tests for pensions http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/assets

DYOR in future Horace


----------



## SirRumpole

trainspotter said:


> So if they closed the loopholes on the uber rich is not the issue.




So why haven't they even done that ?


----------



## trainspotter

SirRumpole said:


> So why haven't they even done that ?




HTFSIK ????? Oh wait ... it is on their to do list:-



> Federal Treasurer Joe Hockey has flagged *possible changes to superannuation rules *before the next election.
> 
> In last week's budget the Government confirmed the retirement age would be lifted to 70 by the year 2035.
> 
> During an appearance on the ABC's Q&A program last night, Mr Hockey told the audience he was now looking at areas such as superannuation to better prepare Australians for the change.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-...o-superannuation-before-next-election/5463618


----------



## SirRumpole

> During an appearance on the ABC's Q&A program last night, Mr Hockey told the audience he was now looking at areas such as superannuation to better prepare Australians for the change.




That is not going to help this



> Mr Stone said people are already nervous about putting too much of their savings into super out of fear governments will fiddle with policy settings.




Is it ?


----------



## trainspotter

SirRumpole said:


> That is not going to help this
> 
> Is it ?




So first of all you demand that they shut the loophole on superannuation then when I point out from your own article which you did not read that this will make "joe average" nervous about contributing to superannuation you sit on the fence confused? FFS 

Do yourself a favour and go here in future:-


----------



## SirRumpole

trainspotter said:


> So first of all you demand that they shut the loophole on superannuation then when I point out from your own article which you did not read that this will make "joe average" nervous about contributing to superannuation you sit on the fence confused? FFS
> 
> Do yourself a favour and go here in future:-
> 
> View attachment 58070




Well, we don't know what Sloppy Joe is going to do do we ?

If he came out and said "we will shut off concessions on millionaires' super", Joe Average isn't going to be worried about that is he ?

Instead he's making everyone nervous about what he's got in mind, and that could definitely affect what Joe Average does with his super.

So everyone is 

Oh sorry, I should have said everyone except you, who can apparently read Hockey's mind so perhaps you can tell us exactly what is in it.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> Well, we don't know what Sloppy Joe is going to do do we ?
> 
> If he came out and said "we will shut off concessions on millionaires' super", Joe Average isn't going to be worried about that is he ?
> 
> Instead he's making everyone nervous about what he's got in mind, and that could definitely affect what Joe Average does with his super.
> 
> So everyone is




Actualy Rumpole, he is saying nothing and doing nothing untill he obtains expert advice.

It is a shame Labor didn't do the same thing when they were in office, we wouldn't be in the mess we are.

I'm a bit suprised, you seem confused with your own arguements, normally you're quite lucid.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> Actualy Rumpole, he is saying nothing and doing nothing untill he obtains expert advice.




He's actually  creating more fear and uncertainty in the community. Just the sort of thing that spooks people and causes them to tighten spending, and we know what that means. Recession.


----------



## trainspotter

SirRumpole said:


> Well, we don't know what Sloppy Joe is going to do do we ?
> 
> If he came out and said "we will shut off concessions on millionaires' super", Joe Average isn't going to be worried about that is he ?
> 
> Instead he's making everyone nervous about what he's got in mind, and that could definitely affect what Joe Average does with his super.
> 
> So everyone is
> 
> Oh sorry, I should have said everyone except you, who can apparently read Hockey's mind so perhaps you can tell us exactly what is in it.




Ermmm nope ... it would appear that you are the only one confused. You are normally quite transpicuous in your verbosity but it seems that you have discombobulated yourself on the subject matter at hand.

I would suggest a BEX and a laydown until you are all better old bean. Toodle pip til then ld:


----------



## SirRumpole

trainspotter said:


> Ermmm nope ... it would appear that you are the only one confused. You are normally quite transpicuous in your verbosity but it seems that you have discombobulated yourself on the subject matter at hand.
> 
> I would suggest a BEX and a laydown until you are all better old bean. Toodle pip til then ld:




I may take your advice, but let's see what transpires. I'm quite lucid about being confused. I'm sure I'll report anything in the media that proves my case.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> He's actually  creating more fear and uncertainty in the community. Just the sort of thing that spooks people and causes them to tighten spending, and we know what that means. Recession.




Many moons ago when the media used to be a reasonable source of accurate information. They used to get an expert panel together after a budget to discuss the merrit good or bad.
Now in the era of social networking and instant hit reporting, expert panels are boring. 
Now we have to have sensationalism and trying to trip up the politician or capture that close up of them picking there nose or ear.
If you read Knobby's posts, it is the poor reporting of the facts that is causing his uncertainty. The facts are either not reported, incorrectly reported or presented in a manner to strike fear into the reader.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> He's actually  creating more fear and uncertainty in the community. Just the sort of thing that spooks people and causes them to tighten spending, and we know what that means. Recession.




Rumpy don't worry about it......when you know you have a problem you are half way there to solving it. Now if you can't solve it by yourself,  just get an egg, break it open, remove the yoke and everything will be 'alwhite'.

Now when Mr. Bull $hittin gets elected in 2016 or sooner if we have a DS., he will solve all your problems and you won't need the egg because he will kill the goose that laid the golden egg..


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> Many moons ago when the media used to be a reasonable source of accurate information. They used to get an expert panel together after a budget to discuss the merrit good or bad.
> Now in the era of social networking and instant hit reporting, expert panels are boring.
> Now we have to have sensationalism and trying to trip up the politician or capture that close up of them picking there nose or ear.
> If you read Knobby's posts, it is the poor reporting of the facts that is causing his uncertainty. The facts are either not reported, incorrectly reported or presented in a manner to strike fear into the reader.




There is probably some truth in that, but are you saying that the Murdoch media has savagely turned against Abbott and is now the "people's friend" ? Why wouldn't they be supporting the government by telling facts and hosing down the emotion ?


----------



## trainspotter

SirRumpole said:


> There is probably some truth in that, but are you saying that the Murdoch media has savagely turned against Abbott and is now the "people's friend" ? Why wouldn't they be supporting the government by telling facts and hosing down the emotion ?




Doesn't sell newspapers or create "paid clicks" on websites


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> There is probably some truth in that, but are you saying that the Murdoch media has savagely turned against Abbott and is now the "people's friend" ? Why wouldn't they be supporting the government by telling facts and hosing down the emotion ?




I think they are all as bad as each other.
This Government would know that the budget is hard, blind Freddy can see that.
The way I see it, they have been elected, they get to bring in changes, they will be judged at the next election.

At the moment, the last government who were voted out because of percieved mismanagement of the economy.

Are now, 8 months later, the font of all knowledge according to the media.

If the government doesn't bring in tax reform, to mirror the welfare savings, I will be the first to vote them out.

But to not let them roll out the plan, they would be judged by, is crazy and illogical.IMO


----------



## Calliope

This thread has now been Rumpolized...i.e. trivialised.


----------



## SirRumpole

Calliope said:


> This thread has now been Rumpolized...i.e. trivialised.




It was going ok untill you came along


----------



## Calliope

SirRumpole said:


> It was going ok untill you came along




Okay for you perhaps.


----------



## noco

I think this thread should be now be combined with the ASF joke thread., because that it is what it seems to be ATM.

Just stop pickin' on Tony.....it is breakin' my heart..


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> It was going ok untill you came along




Best we leave you to interact with Noco.


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> Best we leave you to interact with Noco.




No...No...please don't wish that on me...ROFL


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> No...No...please don't wish that on me...ROFL




Don't worry, I've had enough for today, back tomorrow


----------



## IFocus

sptrawler said:


> Many moons ago when the media used to be a reasonable source of accurate information.




Better late than never amazing you have just come to this conclusion. Of course you will still find the facts on the ABC even if they have been beaten into submission by the extremist's from the right. 

Its been interesting with the punters not believing Abbott (didn't give him a mandate in the senate) but sort of agreeing with the sentiment to throw out Labor.

Now that the population is being lied to on a daily basis, broken promises, everyone bar Abbott misunderstanding  etc what happens next election when Abbott fronts up with more promise's?

fascinating isn't it?


----------



## IFocus

This is what can happen when you politic  the family feel a bit sorry for Frances

Frances Abbott's classmates angry that they could not apply for scholarship


> Students say no one knew that financial help given to prime minister's daughter was available from Whitehouse Institute
> 
> Current and former students at the Whitehouse Institute of Design have reacted angrily to the revelation that prime minister Tony Abbott’s daughter Frances received an undisclosed scholarship of $60,000 to cover her tuition fees.
> 
> Four students – two of whom were classmates of Abbott’s – all said they did not know that the scholarship existed and raised questions over its fairness. Frances was only the second student to receive the award in its 25 year history.
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, Guardian Australia revealed that Frances had received a chairman’s scholarship from the institution, with Les Taylor, chairman of the board of governors, later saying he had recommended her personally for the award. Taylor said he had no say in the selection process




http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/22/former-classmates-angry-scholarship-abbotts-daughter


----------



## SirRumpole

IFocus said:


> Better late than never amazing you have just come to this conclusion. Of course you will still find the facts on the ABC even if they have been beaten into submission by the extremist's from the right.
> 
> Its been interesting with the punters not believing Abbott (didn't give him a mandate in the senate) but sort of agreeing with the sentiment to throw out Labor.
> 
> Now that the population is being lied to on a daily basis, broken promises, everyone bar Abbott misunderstanding  etc what happens next election when Abbott fronts up with more promise's?
> 
> fascinating isn't it?




What happens when he tries to negotiate with Palmer/Greens ? How can they believe any offers he makes them ?


----------



## IFocus

orr said:


> '_(read in pirate voice)_
> Ahh come on Knobby, don't be like that.... 'They've stopped the boats'





LOL that's all that matters..................


----------



## IFocus

CanOz said:


> Its funny, my neighbors here are all from Michigan (up to a dozen at times), the "thumb" actually. They're all very much hard working mid westerners, with a no nonsense attitude. Pretty conservative, mostly republican. We met up with an old friend of mine from Australia, in Thailand, a Union guy. My Michigan friends just cannot get over the benefits for a tradesman/union guys in Australia. I mean these Michigan people are on less than half the wage, net net that my Australian mate was on (and he had no trade).
> 
> The guys from Michigan are all over Obama's big government and social handouts, more and more tax and healthcare levies. They really hate the entitlements that the GM boys got when they bailed out. Such a different view that you get from the working class in the US. They're all for business getting breaks so they can hire more people...
> 
> Its hardly the model for a successful economy given their track record, but its interesting the difference between the working class (blue collar or whatever) in the two countries....




Can the US is a poor example with a massive working class poor and the middle class going backwards in real terms from the 90's, 19% or the wealth has been redistributed to the very top end  wealthy.
Biggest group of suckers on the planet as they keep buying the great American dream.


----------



## Macquack

Calliope said:


> This thread has now been Rumpolized...i.e. trivialised.




Get a life Calliope. Without SirRumpole, you would be talking to yourself.

Your biggest contribution to this thread was starting it, that is all.

My contribution, very little, except I think the medicare co-payment is a long overdue good idea.


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> With respect to you Julia, that makes this Budget even worse.
> 
> Mucking around with peoples lives for the hell of it ?



I understand what you're saying, but from the government's point of view, it's probably reasonable that they put out feelers as to how much the electorate will accept .  That is simply being realistic.
But certainly, I'd have had more respect for a government that didn't do the leaking, but then made a decent case for the changes suggested by the Budget.



sptrawler said:


> Actualy Rumpole, he is saying nothing and doing nothing untill he obtains expert advice.
> 
> It is a shame Labor didn't do the same thing when they were in office, we wouldn't be in the mess we are.



+1/



sptrawler said:


> Many moons ago when the media used to be a reasonable source of accurate information. They used to get an expert panel together after a budget to discuss the merrit good or bad.
> Now in the era of social networking and instant hit reporting, expert panels are boring.



To be fair to at least ABC Radio National, they did this and provided a pretty well balanced overview.



> Now we have to have sensationalism and trying to trip up the politician or capture that close up of them picking there nose or ear.
> If you read Knobby's posts, it is the poor reporting of the facts that is causing his uncertainty. The facts are either not reported, incorrectly reported or presented in a manner to strike fear into the reader.



Yes, exactly so.
This evening 7.30 had an item on students protesting the changes to university funding.   They are full of righteous outrage that they might have to pay more.
But if you were to ask them who they believe should be actually paying for their education if not them, I've not heard a single one of them come up with an answer.

That is the the big problem with all the indignation about the Budget proposals.  No one wants to take a hit in their own  personal circumstances.  Labor, The Greens, and PUP are all full of criticisms, but I have not heard any of them explain how we can cease borrowing the $1 billion per month that Trainspotter pointed out just to pay the interest on the debt, and how the reality that Australia has the fastest rate of spending growth in the world can be addressed.

It's about time some realism was required from all the detractors.  
I don't think the Budget is as fair as it should be by a long shot, but let's not put our collective heads in the sand and deny that anything needs to be done.
Labor did that for six years and look where that got us.

And for all the people who vow they will never vote Coalition again because they are so disgusted with broken promises etc., OK, fair enough.  But who in god's name will you vote for?  Go back to Labor who believe nothing ever has to be paid for?


----------



## sptrawler

Macquack said:


> Get a life Calliope. Without SirRumpole, you would be talking to yourself.
> 
> Your biggest contribution to this thread was starting it, that is all.
> 
> My contribution, very little, except I think the medicare co-payment is a long overdue good idea.




Agree Macquack, even if they made it $3, it would make people think, do I want a coffee or have a chat to the doctor.
When I was at work, they placed work gloves on the store counter, to stop people from cutting their hands in minor accidents. Well they couldn't keep the supply up, as soon as a new box was opened they were gone.

The company decided to make it a store requisition stock, which meant you had to fill out a requisition form.
Nobody was interested in gloves anymore.
If it's free, people don't appreciate it, they abuse the privilege and it isn't valued.

A bit like advice or lending something.lol


----------



## Calliope

Macquack said:


> Get a life Calliope. Without SirRumpole, you would be talking to yourself.
> 
> Your biggest contribution to this thread was starting it, that is all.
> 
> My contribution, very little, except I think the medicare co-payment is a long overdue good idea.




I'm surprised that you are a Rumpole fan. Your support for the medicare co-payment is at odds with Rumpole's philosophy that the taxpayer should support all his needs. However it is refreshing to see that we can at least agree on the co-payment.


----------



## SirRumpole

Calliope said:


> I'm surprised that you are a Rumpole fan. Your support for the medicare co-payment is at odds with Rumpole's philosophy that the taxpayer should support all his needs. However it is refreshing to see that we can at least agree on the co-payment.




Back in the mists of this thread I said a $6 co-payment is not objectionable, it turned out to be $7 and even that is not excessive, however the increase in medicine prices is objectionable considering we already pay high medicine costs compared to similar countries.


----------



## SirRumpole

> But if you were to ask them who they believe should be actually paying for their education if not them, I've not heard a single one of them come up with an answer.




HECS existed before this budget, and while it was a burden  people seemed to get along with it at that level. It was a reasonable balance between user pays and taxpayer pays. People who have university education go on to earn higher salaries and therefore pay higher taxes throughout their working lives, and they pay their HECS debt off as well, so the idea that they are a burden on the taxpayer is exaggerated.

What should be trimmed is government support for courses that are not useful in terms of productive capacity, and there are a few of those (Arts, History, Philosophy etc).



> Labor, The Greens, and PUP are all full of criticisms, but I have not heard any of them explain how we can cease borrowing the $1 billion per month that Trainspotter pointed out just to pay the interest on the debt, and how the reality that Australia has the fastest rate of spending growth in the world can be addressed.




There seems to be a general reluctance to raise taxes in this country, even though we are not highly taxed in global terms. If a party said "expenses are exceeding income, so to maintain services we need to raise marginal tax rates by 1% across the board", I think people would accept that, and it spreads  the burden over all income levels rather than just targetting the low paid, but politicians see this as political poison and so they don't trust the electorate to understand that income tax rises may be necessary. However they are quite willing to surreptitiously  entertain a GST increase/broadening which is a regressive tax that affects people more when they can least afford it.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> There seems to be a general reluctance to raise taxes in this country, even though we are not highly taxed in global terms. If a party said "expenses are exceeding income, so to maintain services we need to raise marginal tax rates by 1% across the board", I think people would accept that, and it spreads  the burden over all income levels rather than just targetting the low paid, but politicians see this as political poison and so they don't trust the electorate to understand that income tax rises may be necessary. However they are quite willing to surreptitiously  entertain a GST increase/broadening which is a regressive tax that affects people more when they can least afford it.




Ever thought about doing some research before making claims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates

We are up with the best of them when it comes to business and personal tax rates and our gst is one of the lowest.
Not saying your asertion that taxes could be put up, is wrong. 
Just saying your supporting evidence is unfounded.

Also your repetition about not increasing tax rates, when you are fully aware that the tax system is to be reviewed would indicate selective memory or memory retention problems


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> Ever thought about doing some research before making claims.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates
> 
> We are up with the best of them when it comes to business and personal tax rates and our gst is one of the lowest.
> Not saying your asertion that taxes could be put up, is wrong.
> Just saying your supporting evidence is unfounded.




Your table was simplistic as the following article shows. Maybe you should consider more detailed research than just Wiki

http://www.treasury.gov.au/Policy-T...ket-Guide-to-the-Australian-Tax-System/Part-1



> Australia’s tax-to-GDP ratio is low by international standards. In 2010 (Australia’s 2010-11 financial year), the latest year for which comparable international data is available, Australia had the fifth lowest tax burden of the OECD countries (Chart 1) and has typically ranked in the bottom third of countries since 1965 (when comparable data was first available). In 2010, Australia’s tax-to-GDP ratio was 25.6 per cent — below the OECD average of 33.8 per cent.






> Australia’s composition of direct taxes differs from most OECD countries. Australia is one of two OECD countries (the other being New Zealand) that do not levy social security taxes. In contrast, social security taxes are a large source of direct taxation revenue for a significant number of OECD countries (Chart 5).






> Relative to GDP, Australia has the third lowest level of total taxation on personal income, which includes taxes on personal income, social security taxes and taxes on payroll, in the OECD (Chart 6). Australia’s tax burden relating to these items (11.2 per cent of GDP) is lower than the OECD average (18.4 per cent).






> Most indirect taxation in OECD countries is generated through various taxes on goods and services. Australia has the fourth lowest level for goods and services taxes and total indirect taxation in the OECD (Chart 7). Australia’s indirect tax burden relating to these items is 9.7 per cent of GDP which is significantly lower than the OECD average of 12.9 per cent.






> The rate of excise duty on unleaded petrol in Australia is 38.1 cents per litre. This rate has been maintained since the indexation of petrol excise rates to the consumer price index (CPI) ceased in March 2001. The impact of excise duty on unleaded petrol, combined with the impact of general consumption taxes (value added tax (VAT), GST and sales taxes), is shown in Chart 8 for most OECD countries. Under this combined measure, which illustrates the total tax imposed on consumers, the average level of tax included in petrol prices for the OECD countries was A$ 0.95 per litre in the second quarter of 2012. In comparison, the level of tax included in unleaded petrol prices in Australia for the second quarter of 2011 was about half this amount at A$ 0.54 per litre — the fourth lowest of the OECD countries for which comparable data are available.







> Also your repetition about not increasing tax rates, when you are fully aware that the tax system is to be reviewed would indicate selective memory or memory retention problems




The Coalition had 6 years to formulate an opinion on personal tax rates, based I'm sure on input from the business community, and they also had the Henry review as mentioned previously.

 I hope the current review is more useful than the "Commission of Audit" which seems to have been largely ignored, and is an example of "policy on the run" that the Coalition seems to be embarked upon. "Sloppy Joe" seems an adequate description of our Treasurer.


----------



## Joe Blow

Just a reminder that this thread is about the Abbott government, so let's please stay on topic.

To the few that prefer to discuss other ASF members than the topic of the thread, please don't. If someone expresses an opinion that you disagree with then feel free to take issue with it. However, as soon as things get personal the thread starts to drift off topic, with insults and personal attacks not far behind.

Let's keep the discussion on topic and civil please. Attack opinions, not other ASF members.


----------



## DB008

sptrawler said:


> Agree Macquack, even if they made it $3, it would make people think, do I want a coffee or have a chat to the doctor.
> When I was at work, they placed work gloves on the store counter, to stop people from cutting their hands in minor accidents. Well they couldn't keep the supply up, as soon as a new box was opened they were gone.
> 
> The company decided to make it a store requisition stock, which meant you had to fill out a requisition form.
> Nobody was interested in gloves anymore.
> If it's free, people don't appreciate it, they abuse the privilege and it isn't valued.
> 
> A bit like advice or lending something.lol




+1

I have a very close friend who works at Medicare. She tells me that they have a "Top 10" list. The list is the Top 10 people who visit a doctor each month.

Guess the demographics?

Old ladies who just want to talk to someone - aka - the doctor.


----------



## Ferret

There are reports in Sydney that visits to doctors have dropped off since the budget, presumably because some people think the $7 co-payment has already been introduced.

I don't know how it could be done, but it would be interesting to see some research into the effect this has on the nation's overall health.  My gut feeling is that the majority of the forgone doctors visits were never necessary.


----------



## Junior

The fact that we are a relatively low taxing country, with low public debt and reasonably small government is a huge positive in my opinion.  Look at those nations with large government and high public debt to GDP....they are all stuck in a downward spiral of growing budget deficits and unconstrained government debt.  I'm talking about most of western Europe, the UK, US and Japan.

We should be paying down public debt over time with modest tax increases and tightening up of welfare to those who don't really need it (means test of PPL, tighten Age pension assets test and indexed to CPI only, broaden GST, reduce negative gearing and super concessions).  

One day we might face a serious recession or even war, and that's the time the Government will be forced to go into debt.


----------



## CanOz

IFocus said:


> Can the US is a poor example with a massive working class poor and the middle class going backwards in real terms from the 90's, 19% or the wealth has been redistributed to the very top end  wealthy.
> Biggest group of suckers on the planet as they keep buying the great American dream.




Agree IFocus that they are an extreme example, then Australia is likely the other extreme really.... 

Being from Canada i'm actually quite socialist, i don't mind high tax as long as supports good health care and education. However having been away from home so long and having to pay for everything ourselves recently, I'm not as keen as before to pay for others....


----------



## Calliope

CanOz said:


> Agree IFocus that they are an extreme example, then Australia is likely the other extreme really....
> 
> Being from Canada i'm actually quite socialist, i don't mind high tax as long as supports good health care and education. However having been away from home so long and having to pay for everything ourselves recently, I'm not as keen as before to pay for others....




*We are a Nation Of Welfare Whingers*



> I*f the federal government overnight reduced welfare, health and education spending to New Zealand levels it would be rolling in a $40 billion budget surplus next year rather than wallowing in deficit until 2018 or even later.*






> THE Kiwis may consistently flog Australia in rugby, but if welfare and whingeing were a competition we would be the undisputed champion.
> 
> Even after Joe Hockey’s tough budget, Australia’s welfare mountain will still dwarf anything across the Tasman.
> 
> The culmination of almost two decades of mainly populist budgets, the Abbott government will spend $6200 a person on cash welfare next year, over 25 per cent more than New Zealand’s government will on each of its citizens (converting all amounts to Australian dollars).
> 
> Education spending, at $2900 a person, is 10 per cent more generous in Australia but health expenditure is torrential by comparison: Australian state and federal governments will lavish more than $4600 a person to keep Australians alive and healthy, almost 50 per cent more than is spent in New Zealand. No methodological quibble could bridge such stark differences.
> 
> The relative splurge extends to hiring, too. Australia’s population of 23.5 million is about 5.2 times New Zealand’s, but as of June last year we had 8.4 times as many public servants: 1.89 million across our state, federal and local governments compared with New Zealand’s 226,000.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ngers-look-at-nz/story-fnc2jivw-1226927507807


----------



## SirRumpole

Calliope said:


> *We are a Nation Of Welfare Whingers*
> 
> but health expenditure is torrential by comparison: Australian state and federal governments will lavish more than $4600 a person to keep Australians alive and healthy, almost 50 per cent more than is spent in New Zealand. No methodological quibble could bridge such stark differences.




So you consider health spending to be welfare ?

Interesting.

What do consider we should receive in return for the taxes we pay ?


----------



## noco

Calliope said:


> *We are a Nation Of Welfare Whingers*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ngers-look-at-nz/story-fnc2jivw-1226927507807




Yes Calliope, these Australian welfare whingers just don't realize how well of they are in comparison to New Zealand and other countries.

As John F. Kennedy quoted back in the 60's...."think what you can do for your country and not what the country can do for you"..unquote.


----------



## Calliope

SirRumpole said:


> What do consider we should receive in return for the taxes we pay ?




That they be spent responsibly. I don't think the taxpayers are doing the whingeing. More likely it's the;



> HALF of Australian families receive more in handouts than they pay in net income tax, new figures reveal



.

http://www.news.com.au/national/wel...s-pay-no-net-tax/story-fncynjr2-1226911042149


----------



## IFocus

What did you expect from Tony Abbott?

My, my, aren't the little piggies squealing?



> While peals of distress issue from the electorate over the Federal budget, I'm moved to ask the 53.49 per cent of people who voted for the Coalition - "what did you expect?"
> 
> Of course, rusted-on conservatives knew what they were getting with Abbott and are no doubt shifting an extra $50K into their trust or super fund to cover the uptick in junior's uni fees. They saw this coming, it's just what they ordered.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/what-did-you-expect-from-tony-abbott-20140523-zri03.html#ixzz32VUO5z1W


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> The dopey media may well be playing into Abbotts hands. What if, down the track, Abbott falls on his sword?
> 
> The media have made it all about Tony and trying to get him, rather than focus on the real issues. The real debate about the economy and the budgetry requirements hasn't happened.
> 
> It is about attacking Tony eg, Tony doesn't front a rabid uni mob, Tony winked, Joe smokes a cigar. That's the garbage wasted day after day on the front pages, bloody woefull reporting.
> No one has asked Bill what Labor would pass or want included.
> No media has discussed the severity of the deficit and debt situation and what options and outcomes could be expected. No real experts, just giggling morning t.v hosts giving their opinion, which is about as usefull as asking my Jack Russell for his opinion.
> 
> Abbott doesn't look as though he is enjoying the P.M's job, he never has, so it will be interesting to see what happens. At the opportune moment he may take the bullet for the party.
> Just a thought.




I think the issue is how poorly they've handled trying to get the budget on a sustainable footing.

It seems if the money comes in then out again it's been targeted to a degree, but if the Government just chooses to provide support via tax expenditures that so far these have been ignored, and to say the budget white paper will deal with them seems a bit unfair to the under 30s and everyone else who's been whacked by the budget. Targeting those already on below poverty income thresholds just doesn't pass the pub test.

Surely they could have designed the budget to share the pain in a truly fair way?

Wouldn't it be better to determine the level of services we need, then maybe the higher levels that we want, and work out what the cost is to efficiently provide them.  At present there's no debate on just how big or small a Govt we need.  There  is no magic size of Govt because there's successful ones all over the world that account for very different shares of GDP.  Possibly a large land mass and small population Australia requires are larger than average Government sector since a lot of infrastructure is just no economical for the private sector.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> I think the issue is how poorly they've handled trying to get the budget on a sustainable footing.
> 
> It seems if the money comes in then out again it's been targeted to a degree, but if the Government just chooses to provide support via tax expenditures that so far these have been ignored, and to say the budget white paper will deal with them seems a bit unfair to the under 30s and everyone else who's been whacked by the budget. Targeting those already on below poverty income thresholds just doesn't pass the pub test.
> 
> Surely they could have designed the budget to share the pain in a truly fair way?
> 
> Wouldn't it be better to determine the level of services we need, then maybe the higher levels that we want, and work out what the cost is to efficiently provide them.  At present there's no debate on just how big or small a Govt we need.  There  is no magic size of Govt because there's successful ones all over the world that account for very different shares of GDP.  Possibly a large land mass and small population Australia requires are larger than average Government sector since a lot of infrastructure is just no economical for the private sector.




I agree, in hindsight, they should have got the tax review finished. Rather than handing down a lop sided budget.

I think they have certainly upset some people, I see the riot squad was called to Sydney university.

It was only a day or two ago, Fairfax was splashing "Abbott cowardly avoids uni students", all over their newspapers. Well I suppose they would have had more news fodder if he had gone, they must have been dissapointed.
The media is a disgrace.IMO


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> Wouldn't it be better to determine the level of services we need, then maybe the higher levels that we want, and work out what the cost is to efficiently provide them.  At present there's no debate on just how big or small a Govt we need.




And how many governments there should be. 

Australia's population is just over half that of California, and yet we apparently need six State and two territory governments all with their own Parliaments and bureaucracies.

 If we downsized to a Federal government and regional authorities that delivered the services paid for by the Federal government , we could have those services delivered more efficiently without a blame game.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> And how many governments there should be.
> 
> Australia's population is just over half that of California, and yet we apparently need six State and two territory governments all with their own Parliaments and bureaucracies.
> 
> If we downsized to a Federal government and regional authorities that delivered the services paid for by the Federal government , we could have those services delivered more efficiently without a blame game.




+1 At last, something I can agree with you on.


----------



## Calliope

IFocus said:


> My, my, aren't the little piggies squealing?




You seem out of touch IF. It's not the conservatives on this thread who are squealing...it's the Labor/Greens/PUPS. They want more time on the teat.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> +1 At last, something I can agree with you on.




I think the world may end tomorrow


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> And how many governments there should be.
> 
> Australia's population is just over half that of California, and yet we apparently need six State and two territory governments all with their own Parliaments and bureaucracies.
> 
> If we downsized to a Federal government and regional authorities that delivered the services paid for by the Federal government , we could have those services delivered more efficiently without a blame game.



Yes, agree.  The amount of duplication is ridiculous and the stupid bickering that goes on about who is responsible for what so childish and silly.

Mind you, looking at our local Council here, I'd hate to see an expanded version of them running too much, so there would have to be more quality candidates at the local level.


----------



## SirRumpole

An excellent article by Ross Gittins.

Make sure you watch the video

smh.com.au/comment/whats-inside-joe-hockeys-head-20140520-zri5f.html


----------



## Macquack

SirRumpole said:


> So you consider health spending to be welfare ?
> 
> Interesting.




I know a disability pensioner who gets "recreational" drugs under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). He mixes them (some form of codeine pain killers) with alcohol and gets a real good buzz out of it.

He can only get these prescription drugs every couple of months, so when he runs out he gets one of his mates to get some more for him, all under the PBS.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> An excellent article by Ross Gittins.
> 
> Make sure you watch the video
> 
> smh.com.au/comment/whats-inside-joe-hockeys-head-20140520-zri5f.html




Funny you are so impressed, it repeats what we have been said on ASF since the budget.

The budget has only targeted spending, not taxes i.e superannuation, negative gearing, capital gains etc
We all agree they need addressing and keep refering to the upcoming tax review.

Same as his video on how good our health care is, no one not even Hockey on Q & A disputed that. 
The debate is about an ageing population putting more demands on it and a reduced tax base to cover it.

The recurring talk is about sustainability, nobody is disputing the generosity or enjoyment of our health and welfare systems. There are 50,000 applicants, who risked their lives in seas off Christmas Island, as testament to that.
It's about paying for it and making it a sustainable model.

Like I said Ross appears to reinforce what has been said on here numerous times, especially by posters like Sydboy,  nothing new there.IMO

Of course the other question springs to mind, why didn't Labor do something about negative gearing, capital gains and super, in the last six years? 
Then all their handouts and blowouts would have been funded, maybe they had a reason for not changing the rules.lol


----------



## SirRumpole

> Like I said Ross appears to reinforce what has been said on here numerous times, especially by posters like Sydboy, nothing new there.IMO




Maybe nothing new, but it's interesting to see an acknowledged expert reinforce what some of us armchair pundits have been saying.



> Of course the other question springs to mind, why didn't Labor do something about negative gearing, capital gains and super, in the last six years?




Because, like most politicians they have their snouts as deep in the trough of these tax avoidance schemes as anyone else.

You must be happy now that I have criticised Labor, but I regard all politicians as not being above helping themselves before helping the country.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe nothing new, but it's interesting to see an acknowledged expert reinforce what some of us armchair pundits have been saying.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, like most politicians they have their snouts as deep in the trough of these tax avoidance schemes as anyone else.
> 
> You must be happy now that I have criticised Labor, but I regard all politicians as not being above helping themselves before helping the country.




Well look at that, we've agreed on two things in the same day.lol

It would appear our point of difference is, I feel the government was elected, they implement policies. On the results of those policies they are judged at the next election. If they lose the incoming government can overturn those policies.
It would appear, from your posts, the elected government can't implement any unpopular policies and it seems Fairfax agrees with you.
However from my point of view you can't run a country by newspaper articles and columnists, or why have an election, just let the newspapers run a poll.


----------



## Calliope

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe nothing new, but it's interesting to see an acknowledged expert




Gittins? An acknowledged expert? By whom? Julia Gillard perhaps?


----------



## CanOz

SirRumpole said:


> ... I regard all politicians as not being above helping themselves before helping the country.




SirR, is that ANOTHER thing we agree on? That's two now


----------



## SirRumpole

> It would appear, from your posts, the elected government can't implement any unpopular policies and it seems Fairfax agrees with you.




 There are two Houses of Parliament, and they have to get their legislation through both. 

 Abbott opposed the carbon tax, should he just have allowed it through ?

 The Coalition made so much about the 'Carbon tax lie' , can you really expect Labor and the Greens to roll over over Abbott's multiple backflips ?


----------



## Smurf1976

sptrawler said:


> I agree, in hindsight, they should have got the tax review finished. Rather than handing down a lop sided budget.




It's the same with anything. You need to know both the physical availability and cost of inputs in order to make sensible decisions about output. That goes for everything from a hotel to a building contractor to a power station. You need to know your inputs, both availability and cost, in order to make sensible decisions about output. 

Eg you can't sensibly manage the bookings of a hotel if you don't know how many rooms you've got in the first place but that is essentially what this government has done with the budget. Make decisions about output without knowing what inputs are available - that's a recipe for disaster if the inputs turn out to be significantly different to that assumed.


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> It's the same with anything. You need to know both the physical availability and cost of inputs in order to make sensible decisions about output. That goes for everything from a hotel to a building contractor to a power station. You need to know your inputs, both availability and cost, in order to make sensible decisions about output.
> 
> Eg you can't sensibly manage the bookings of a hotel if you don't know how many rooms you've got in the first place but that is essentially what this government has done with the budget. Make decisions about output without knowing what inputs are available - that's a recipe for disaster if the inputs turn out to be significantly different to that assumed.




Absolutely, I can't for the life of me understand, why they would hit spending, without addressing tax reciepts.

They seem to be relying on the 'trust me' mantra.

I think life has moved on from those days.

On re reading my post, I wrote it in the first person context, my mistake.
 I meant if they had hindsight, I bet they would have waited untill the tax review was completed.
It was either panic, inexperience or arrogance


----------



## Smurf1976

sptrawler said:


> It was either panic, inexperience or arrogance




I expect that most people in the workforce for long enough will have seen this sort of thing in the course of their employment.

New manager comes in with the idea (either their own or imposed by the owner or senior management) of "fixing the place". From that point there are really two options. Either the new manager carefully observes, questions, gets everyone on side and runs ideas past them, try things out on a small scale at first and so on. Or they adopt the "I know best" attitude, don't listen to anyone, and ram through whatever they think will work regardless of the consequences.

If you get one of the latter then it's inevitable that they make a serious mistake sooner or later for the simple reason that they are choosing to ignore most or all of the information available to them from sources who usually know more about it than they do. Sooner or later something turns out differently to their unfounded assumptions and then the disaster unfolds. 

Obviously that doesn't happen in every business. But work for a large corporation or government and sooner or later you'll almost certainly end up with one of the latter type of "manager" and once their strategy becomes apparent, the resultant train wreck is inevitable with the only question being what goes wrong first in a big enough way to bring some sense to the situation?

Arrogance precedes a downfall.


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> I expect that most people in the workforce for long enough will have seen this sort of thing in the course of their employment.
> 
> New manager comes in with the idea (either their own or imposed by the owner or senior management) of "fixing the place". From that point there are really two options. Either the new manager carefully observes, questions, gets everyone on side and runs ideas past them, try things out on a small scale at first and so on. Or they adopt the "I know best" attitude, don't listen to anyone, and ram through whatever they think will work regardless of the consequences.
> 
> If you get one of the latter then it's inevitable that they make a serious mistake sooner or later for the simple reason that they are choosing to ignore most or all of the information available to them from sources who usually know more about it than they do. Sooner or later something turns out differently to their unfounded assumptions and then the disaster unfolds.
> 
> Obviously that doesn't happen in every business. But work for a large corporation or government and sooner or later you'll almost certainly end up with one of the latter type of "manager" and once their strategy becomes apparent, the resultant train wreck is inevitable with the only question being what goes wrong first in a big enough way to bring some sense to the situation?
> 
> Arrogance precedes a downfall.




Yep, the obvious choice was a mini budget untill the outcome of the tax review.

What they saw was, we can save $40billion now and more after the tax review a case of premature budgeteering.IMO


----------



## noco

Judith Sloan explains the budget much better than Abbott and Hockey, so why all the beat up from the Greens and the comrades of the Greens.......Why is Shorten adamantly opposed to it?....why are we having streets riots and protests?....Why is the media all hyped up about it?

Perhaps when the results become more positive in 12 or 18 months, the budget will overshadow the good results of border protection.....By then voters will come to realize how negative the Labor Party and the media were in 2014. 



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...ed-and-necessary/story-fnbkvnk7-1226927573883


----------



## Ferret

Most people here seem to be shrugging off the broken promises in the budget and saying first and foremost must be to fix the deficit.  I know the deficit needs to be fixed, and the sooner, the better, but for me the broken promises are actually the bigger issue.

What message does it send to our politicians if the electorate stands back and says “We know you lied in the lead up to the last election, but that’s ok because what you are doing is very important”?  We’ll have them saying absolutely anything to get elected, knowing they will never be held to account.

It’s time to draw a line in the sand and say you can’t treat the electorate like this.  I think this is hugely important for our democracy.  It could well be doomed if we continue down the path that started with “core and non-core promises”, then lead to “no carbon tax in any government I lead” and is now at the point where “no new taxes” and so much else that was said in opposition is turned upside down by a new government.

Perhaps the most infuriating part of all this is that Abbott needn’t have got himself into this position.  Instead of making ridiculous promises at the last election, all he had to do was say that when he was prime minister he would be prepared to make hard and unpopular decisions for the good of the country.   I certainly would have still voted for him.


----------



## noco

Ferret said:


> Most people here seem to be shrugging off the broken promises in the budget and saying first and foremost must be to fix the deficit.  I know the deficit needs to be fixed, and the sooner, the better, but for me the broken promises are actually the bigger issue.
> 
> What message does it send to our politicians if the electorate stands back and says “We know you lied in the lead up to the last election, but that’s ok because what you are doing is very important”?  We’ll have them saying absolutely anything to get elected, knowing they will never be held to account.
> 
> It’s time to draw a line in the sand and say you can’t treat the electorate like this.  I think this is hugely important for our democracy.  It could well be doomed if we continue down the path that started with “core and non-core promises”, then lead to “no carbon tax in any government I lead” and is now at the point where “no new taxes” and so much else that was said in opposition is turned upside down by a new government.
> 
> Perhaps the most infuriating part of all this is that Abbott needn’t have got himself into this position.  Instead of making ridiculous promises at the last election, all he had to do was say that when he was prime minister he would be prepared to make hard and unpopular decisions for the good of the country.   I certainly would have still voted for him.




Yes, I entirely agree with what you say and this has been going on with politicians as long as I can remember when they would stand on the corner of our street on a soap box and preach what they would do....nothing has changed in time.....we have all made promises in our personal lives and for some reason, have had to break those promises......Abbott, in my mind did not have to say a word before 07/09/2013 and he still would have romped in given the poor fiscal record of the Labor Party and their 500 promises they made to bring the budget back into surplus in 2013 

However, putting all that aside, it is the end result that counts and I believe those broken promises will be over shadowed by the Coalition if they can bring the current mess of debit and deficit left by Labor under control.....too much emphasis has been placed by the media, Labor, the Greens and PUP on "BROKEN PROMISES" and they will no doubt flog it to death until 2016.......But in reality, it is really hypocritical of Labor who have and will continue to do it just to gain some political point scoring and in the short term it has worked in their favor.....They tried to do the same on border control and have since finished up with egg on their faces.

So lets wait and see....as Judith Sloan commented, the budget is not as bad as some people are portraying it.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> So lets wait and see....as Judith Sloan commented, the budget is not as bad as some people are portraying it.




I'm sure it's not as bad for people like Judith Sloan


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I'm sure it's not as bad for people like Judith Sloan




Rumpy, I would have been so disappointed if I had not received a response from you.

Did you bother to read the link?


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Rumpy, I would have been so disappointed if I had not received a response from you.
> 
> Did you bother to read the link?




Did you read Ross Gittin's piece ?


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I'm sure it's not as bad for people like Judith Sloan




Perhaps this might help you to understand the true facts of the budget V Labor's beat up interpretation.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...es-not-so-severe/story-fnmbxr2t-1226929382749


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Rumpy, I would have been so disappointed if I had not received a response from you.
> 
> Did you bother to read the link?




To read it , apparently I have to give money to Rupert Murdoch and that is against my principles



Perhaps you would care to post the full text here ?


----------



## Calliope

Knobby said a few days back;



> My only hope is Clive Palmer who seems to have more interest in the average person.




A forlorn hope.



> Mr Palmer’s senator-elect from Tasmania, Jacquie Lambie, has called for Australia’s banks to pay more tax. Australia’s big four banks, some of the most profitable in the world, paid a combined $36.7 billion in tax in the past four years. Commonwealth Bank, the nation’s largest, paid $3bn in the finan*cial year to June 30 and about $10.6bn in the past four years.
> 
> *The Weekend Australian did not receive a response to requests for comment from Ms Lambie about Mr Palmer’s companies not having paid the tax for six years*.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...irms-paying-none/story-fn59niix-1226929373534


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Did you read Ross Gittin's piece ?




No...the link did not work....it was probably a fake one.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> No...the link did not work....it was probably a fake one.




Copy and paste into browser.

I'm used to removing http://www. from url's for another forum.


----------



## qldfrog

Ferret said:


> Most people here seem to be shrugging off the broken promises in the budget and saying first and foremost must be to fix the deficit.  I know the deficit needs to be fixed, and the sooner, the better, but for me the broken promises are actually the bigger issue.
> 
> What message does it send to our politicians if the electorate stands back and says “We know you lied in the lead up to the last election, but that’s ok because what you are doing is very important”?  We’ll have them saying absolutely anything to get elected, knowing they will never be held to account.
> 
> It’s time to draw a line in the sand and say you can’t treat the electorate like this.  I think this is hugely important for our democracy.  It could well be doomed if we continue down the path that started with “core and non-core promises”, then lead to “no carbon tax in any government I lead” and is now at the point where “no new taxes” and so much else that was said in opposition is turned upside down by a new government.
> 
> Perhaps the most infuriating part of all this is that Abbott needn’t have got himself into this position.  Instead of making ridiculous promises at the last election, all he had to do was say that when he was prime minister he would be prepared to make hard and unpopular decisions for the good of the country.   I certainly would have still voted for him.




+1, but are people ready to put the country in front of their self interest such a minority that can not swing a vote???


----------



## noco

This is typical of Green/Labor party tactics....don't let the truth get in the way of a good story....Deception is one of their main traits. 


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...-blogs:mini-blogs|3|heading|homepage|homepage


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> To read it , apparently I have to give money to Rupert Murdoch and that is against my principles
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you would care to post the full text here ?




Rumpy, you have to be aware of copyright infringements.

Don't be mean....it only costs $14 per month and I am sure you could afford it......don't worry about your principles or if you prefer, just donate the $14 to Bill.


----------



## Smurf1976

Do we need to fix the budget? Well yes, we do.

But we live in society, there's far more to life than the economy which is just one part of society, and all things financial are a means to an end and not an end in themselves.

In short, this government seems to be focused on the budget to the exclusion of everything else. At with anything, once it goes to one extreme then it usually swings back the other way violently in due course. Therein lies the danger, we've gone from disregarding finances to a virtual panic and we'll then go back the other way. What we need is some balance - fix the budget but don't panic and don't ruin other aspects of society whilst doing so.


----------



## SirRumpole

Smurf1976 said:


> What we need is some balance - fix the budget but don't panic and don't ruin other aspects of society whilst doing so.




Well Smurf, Tories don't think much about society, Margaret Thatcher said there was no such thing. All they believe in is the power of money wielded by individuals. Keep government small and let the business tycoons sort out the country's problems.

Which they never do of course.


----------



## noco

What a sick Ba$tard this Mathieson is.....He must be getting a bit bored with Julia so he has sort publicity to remind us he is still with Julia......He should crawl back under his rock like a good grub.



http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...on-margie-abbott/story-fni0xqrb-1226930468927


----------



## noco

noco said:


> What a sick Ba$tard this Mathieson is.....He must be getting a bit bored with Julia so he has sort publicity to remind us he is still with Julia......He should crawl back under his rock like a good grub.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...on-margie-abbott/story-fni0xqrb-1226930468927




This attack on Abbotts family has been orchestrated by Shorten in an attempt to discredit Abbott.

What a low life coward Shorten is.....even the Secretary of the Electrical Trade union stated this morning on the Bolt Report, "An attack on Abbott's family is uncalled for and that the Prime Ministers family should be left out of it".


Shorten denies role in PM family attacks

    AAP
    May 25, 2014 5:01PM

    Print
    Save for later

Tony Abbott's wife Margie Abbott arrives at the National Press Club

Margie Abbott (pic) does not do enough charity work says former first bloke Tim Mathieson. Source: AAP

LABOR has angrily denied suggestions that Opposition Leader Bill Shorten orchestrated a series of attacks against Prime Minister Tony Abbott's family in the media.

Mr Abbott's family was thrust into the spotlight this week, with criticisms made about his wife's charity work and allegations of favouritism involving two of his daughters.

The prime minister accused some media outlets for "dirt digging", but one of his senior government ministers has now blamed federal Labor leader Bill Shorten for orchestrating the "repugnant" attacks.

Health Minister Peter Dutton accused Mr Shorten of withdrawing from the media at the same time his office "quite deliberately" launched these attacks against the Abbott family.

"I believe very strongly that this is an orchestrated attack by Bill Shorten and it needs to stop," Mr Dutton told Network Ten on Sunday.

Mr Shorten's office has rejected the allegations, calling them "wrong, hurtful and completely without foundation".

"Bill has made his position very clear that families should not be dragged into the political debate," a spokesman for Mr Shorten told AAP in a statement.

"This shows the government will stoop to any low it can to distract from its budget failure."

AAP understands the prime minister's office was contacted by Mr Shorten on Wednesday when questions started being asked about a $60,000 scholarship awarded to Mr Abbott's youngest daughter Frances.

It's understood Mr Shorten told the office Labor was not behind the story and believed families should be kept off limits.

A subsequent story carried complaints about the appointment of Mr Abbott's eldest daughter Louise to a government job in Geneva.

Yet another story published on Sunday aired criticisms from Julia Gillard's partner Tim Mathieson about Margie Abbott's commitment to charity.

A spokeswoman for the prime minister declined to comment on Mr Dutton's allegations, saying the stories about the Abbott family were of a personal nature and a distraction from the budget.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> This attack on Abbotts family has been orchestrated by Shorten in an attempt to discredit Abbott.




Any proof of that ?

Attacking people for being "low lifes" without evidence is as despicable as you seem to think Shorten is.

Shorten doesn't need to attack Abbott's family to discredit Abbott, Abbott is doing a good enough job of discrediting himself.

Apparently you neglected to read this in your own post



> AAP understands the prime minister's office was contacted by Mr Shorten on Wednesday when questions started being asked about a $60,000 scholarship awarded to Mr Abbott's youngest daughter Frances.
> 
> It's understood Mr Shorten told the office Labor was not behind the story and believed families should be kept off limits.




And it's all hypocritical anyway after Abbott bought Gillard's late father into politics with the "died of shame" comment.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Any proof of that ?
> 
> Attacking people for being "low lifes" without evidence is as despicable as you seem to think Shorten is.
> 
> Shorten doesn't need to attack Abbott's family to discredit Abbott, Abbott is doing a good enough job of discrediting himself.
> 
> Apparently you neglected to read this in your own post
> 
> 
> 
> And it's all hypocritical anyway after Abbott bought Gillard's late father into politics with the "died of shame" comment.




But that was not an attack on Gillards father.

Bill Shorten will hide behind other people like Mathieson and others from the Fabian Society,  GET UP and the radical students union.......He makes the  'bullets' but is too much of a coward to fire them himself.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> But that was not an attack on Gillards father.
> 
> Bill Shorten will hide behind other people like Mathieson and others from the Fabian Society,  GET UP and the radical students union.......He makes the  'bullets' but is too much of a coward to fire them himself.




No but an attack on Gillard.

What a dirty way to attack anyone. But dumb is the description which fits, just like the following irrelevancies of your post.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> And it's all hypocritical anyway after Abbott bought Gillard's late father into politics with the "died of shame" comment.




Are you sure it was Abbott, who made that statement, one must be a bit carefull writing aspertions.


----------



## explod

sptrawler said:


> Are you sure it was Abbott, who made that statement, one must be a bit carefull writing aspertions.




Yes, think it was that chock-a-jock Jones on Sydney radio.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> Are you sure it was Abbott, who made that statement, one must be a bit carefull writing aspertions.




Alan Jones originally made the comment and Abbott repeated it in Parliament.


----------



## bellenuit

SirRumpole said:


> Alan Jones originally made the comment and Abbott repeated it in Parliament.




Not quite correct....

Jones said, shortly after Gillard's father died: "your father would have died of shame if...." and finished the sentence with something that Gillard had done, which I cannot at this moment recollect. There was a major and perhaps deserved outcry over this.

A few weeks later, in parliament, when speaking about something I also cannot quite recollect, perhaps the carbon tax lie, Abbott said: "you should die of shame because.... ". There was no reference to Gillard's father, but the usual crowd from the left tried to suggest that using the expression "died of shame" was a subtle way of repeating what Jones said, without quite saying it. Abbott denied that was his intention and said it was a common expression of his. A search of his speeches in and outside parliament over the previous year showed that it was quite common for him to use that expression and he had in fact said it in relation to the exact same issue several times in the months before Gillard's father died.


----------



## Julia

bellenuit said:


> Not quite correct....
> 
> Jones said, shortly after Gillard's father died: "your father would have died of shame if...." and finished the sentence with something that Gillard had done, which I cannot at this moment recollect. There was a major and perhaps deserved outcry over this.
> 
> A few weeks later, in parliament, when speaking about something I also cannot quite recollect, perhaps the carbon tax lie, Abbott said: "you should die of shame because.... ". There was no reference to Gillard's father, but the usual crowd from the left tried to suggest that using the expression "died of shame" was a subtle way of repeating what Jones said, without quite saying it. Abbott denied that was his intention and said it was a common expression of his. A search of his speeches in and outside parliament over the previous year showed that it was quite common for him to use that expression and he had in fact said it in relation to the exact same issue several times in the months before Gillard's father died.



The above is yet another example of how the media ignores the most important aspects of what they should be reporting and investigating, in favour of petty, stupid, utterly irrelevant side issues.

Why any media would even bother to report anything said by Tim Mathieson, a person whose only relevance at any stage was that he had the dubious distinction of being the partner of the then Prime Minister, is absolutely beyond me.  It's a perfect example of what our media has become.  Shame on them.
Perhaps consider that no one needs to consume this rubbish.  By boycotting such media organisations, there might be a faint chance that they will think twice about their ill considered reporting.


----------



## dutchie

Julia said:


> The above is yet another example of how the media ignores the most important aspects of what they should be reporting and investigating, in favour of petty, stupid, utterly irrelevant side issues.
> 
> Why any media would even bother to report anything said by Tim Mathieson, a person whose only relevance at any stage was that he had the dubious distinction of being the partner of the then Prime Minister, is absolutely beyond me.  It's a perfect example of what our media has become.  Shame on them.
> Perhaps consider that no one needs to consume this rubbish.  By boycotting such media organisations, there might be a faint chance that they will think twice about their ill considered reporting.




I agree Julia.

It is so much easier to write about this sort of rubbish than it is to write something constructive (for or against a policy) about the real issues. The media would actually have to use their brains!!!

The media is deadset lazy and the electorate lets them get away with it.


----------



## noco

bellenuit said:


> Not quite correct....
> 
> Jones said, shortly after Gillard's father died: "your father would have died of shame if...." and finished the sentence with something that Gillard had done, which I cannot at this moment recollect. There was a major and perhaps deserved outcry over this.
> 
> A few weeks later, in parliament, when speaking about something I also cannot quite recollect, perhaps the carbon tax lie, Abbott said: "you should die of shame because.... ". There was no reference to Gillard's father, but the usual crowd from the left tried to suggest that using the expression "died of shame" was a subtle way of repeating what Jones said, without quite saying it. Abbott denied that was his intention and said it was a common expression of his. A search of his speeches in and outside parliament over the previous year showed that it was quite common for him to use that expression and he had in fact said it in relation to the exact same issue several times in the months before Gillard's father died.




Yes bellenuit, you correct 100%......but of course there are some people in this world who will always exaggerate the story and twist things around to suit themselves.
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story if you can gain some points from it.


----------



## SirRumpole

bellenuit said:


> Not quite correct....
> 
> Jones said, shortly after Gillard's father died: "your father would have died of shame if...." and finished the sentence with something that Gillard had done, which I cannot at this moment recollect. There was a major and perhaps deserved outcry over this.
> 
> A few weeks later, in parliament, when speaking about something I also cannot quite recollect, perhaps the carbon tax lie, Abbott said: "you should die of shame because.... ". There was no reference to Gillard's father, but the usual crowd from the left tried to suggest that using the expression "died of shame" was a subtle way of repeating what Jones said, without quite saying it. Abbott denied that was his intention and said it was a common expression of his. A search of his speeches in and outside parliament over the previous year showed that it was quite common for him to use that expression and he had in fact said it in relation to the exact same issue several times in the months before Gillard's father died.




A clumsy attempt by Abbott to paper over a very tacky comment. Abbott was aware of Jones' comment, and deliberately choose to repeat it in a different context. People can delude themselves that he meant something else if they want to, but to me it shows that Abbott has a very nasty streak.


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> A clumsy attempt by Abbott to paper over a very tacky comment. Abbott was aware of Jones' comment, and deliberately choose to repeat it in a different context. People can delude themselves that he meant something else if they want to, but to me it shows that Abbott has a very nasty streak.




Clumsy?

This comment of yours rather qualifies as clumsy Horace. *We can never know whether Tones intentionally referenced Jone's remark.* 'Died of shame' is common English idiom and one should not be ssurprised if the expression turned up in any conversation. To definitively assign such malice is disingenuous at best.

The nasty streak exposed, is actually your own.

This is yet another example of wayneL's Law[1].


[1] The impossibility of objectivity in leftist thought. waynel PhD et al 2013.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> A clumsy attempt by Abbott to paper over a very tacky comment. Abbott was aware of Jones' comment, and deliberately choose to repeat it in a different context. People can delude themselves that he meant something else if they want to, but to me it shows that Abbott has a very nasty streak.




And of course your opinion is the right one......Hmmmmmmmm comrade SHY will love you for it.


----------



## SirRumpole

> We can never know whether Tones intentionally referenced Jone's remark.




We can never know if Shorten instigated the revelations over Abbott's daughter's scholarship, but the Right continually contend that he did.

What goes around comes around.



> noco:
> .but of course there are some people in this world who will always exaggerate the story and twist things around to suit themselves.
> Never let the truth get in the way of a good story if you can gain some points from it.




Agreed, but in a different context.


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> We can never know if Shorten instigated the revelations over Abbott's daughter's scholarship, but the Right continually contend that he did.
> 
> *What goes around comes around.*




You are right, Shorten is copping this because of his and the Labor Party's previous (and current) conduct.

Let's face it, all politicians are liars; but it doesn't mean you have to be also.


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> You are right, Shorten is copping this because of his and the Labor Party's previous (and current) conduct.
> 
> Let's face it, all politicians are liars; but it doesn't mean you have to be also.




You should do some research into the difference between lying and opinion.

If you say "we will never know if Abbott deliberately repeated Jones's comment", then it can't be a lie to express the opinion that he did because the contrary cannot be proven. The evidence is that he knew of Jones' statement and made a similar statement soon after. People can either believe he intended a similar message to Jones or that he didn't.


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> Clumsy?
> 
> This comment of yours rather qualifies as clumsy Horace. *We can never know whether Tones intentionally referenced Jone's remark.* 'Died of shame' is common English idiom and one should not be ssurprised if the expression turned up in any conversation. To definitively assign such malice is disingenuous at best.
> 
> The nasty streak exposed, is actually your own.
> 
> This is yet another example of wayneL's Law[1].
> 
> 
> [1] The impossibility of objectivity in leftist thought. waynel PhD et al 2013.




Lol. It was in the media that day and  in the news the previous night and your mate "Tone" (didn't know you knew each other) deliberately referenced it. 

This is yet another example of changing history to suit the political aim and retain power or as I call it  George Orwell's political definition of truth law.

_"In "Minitrue", we have a department called the Records of Department. This is where we change history when something does not seem right, when event has happened, that should not have, or when a person "doublethinks". (Doublethinking is when you have a thought that goes against the Party). We do this so our Party looks good and we do not want people talking about what has happened in the past because we want the past to look good and have a positive impact that goes along with the Party's standards. Other people would like to say that we are a ministry that lies, but we that is not the case_." - George Orwell


----------



## sptrawler

I met up with my mother over the weekend, she was up from the country. 

Well she initially couldn't wait to tell me that the pills and doctor visits were going to cost here thousands of dollars. Also the government were going to reduce her pension. I told her calm down nothing was through parliament yet and asked her if she knew there were waivers for people with an ongoing medical condition.

What became obvious over the weekend was the government and the media, have done an appauling job of explaing the detail of the budget. It would be easy to blame the government, however the mass media has only reported in a manner that miss informs and causes panic.

The government probably needs to mount an advertising campaign to explain accurately, the budget content and its effect. Funny the tax payer, would have to pay to find out what the press should be printing, as a matter of course.


----------



## Julia

sptrawler said:


> The government probably needs to mount an advertising campaign to explain accurately, the budget content and its effect. Funny the tax payer, would have to pay to find out what the press should be printing, as a matter of course.



There have been some clear, properly explanatory articles in "The Australian" but agree that the misinformation put about by Fairfax in particular, and of course, Labor, has been spectacularly successful in scaring anyone who takes it at face value.

An advertising campaign is probably a good idea but what an indictment on the communication powers of the government that it should be necessary.


----------



## Calliope

The 'hate Abbott" campaign is plumbing ridiculous depths. The absurd Winkgate nonsense is a prime example, but the biggest absurdity was that Abbott felt the need to apologise, when he was so obviously set up by Faine and a sexline worker who is a Labor activist.

The smart thing for Abbott to have done was to tell the Labor/Green/Feminist twitterati to go to hell. The same applies to the "die of shame" remark. No explanation or apology will stop the Abbott haters from raising it, again and again, for their own grubby purposes.

His simple answer is "if you don't like it, lump it". It is when they get an apology out of him that they win, and it spurs them on to more nastiness, directed at him and his family.


----------



## Knobby22

sptrawler said:


> I told her calm down nothing was through parliament yet and asked her if she knew there were waivers for people with an ongoing medical condition.
> 
> .




That's not correct though sptrawler. Hockey made a mistake on Q&A. in the Budget people with a number of serious ongoing medical conditions are allowed one free doctor's visit per year as an overview to the various conditions. 

All other visits will be charged. Anyway, as you said it's not through Parliament yet, I'm sure that will be modified before then. 

I heard the leader of the AMA state that he was amazed that Hockey hadn't read his own budget (on the ABC of course, it won't be mentioned in The Australian). As a general principle, the AMA aren't against charging the fee by the way.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> Lol. It was in the media that day and  in the news the previous night and your mate "Tone" (didn't know you knew each other) deliberately referenced it.




Tones and I are not mates Knobby. As often stated on this forum, I am not a conservative, I am a classical liberal/libertarian. As such, the Liberal party is not a good fit for me, it's just that Labor are in quantum measure, even less so.

So please,  enough of the argumentative fallacy. 

Fwiw, Tone's comment was fair game (though AJs was in poor taste) IMO.



> This is yet another example of changing history to suit the political aim and retain power or as I call it  George Orwell's political definition of truth law.
> 
> _"In "Minitrue", we have a department called the Records of Department. This is where we change history when something does not seem right, when event has happened, that should not have, or when a person "doublethinks". (Doublethinking is when you have a thought that goes against the Party). We do this so our Party looks good and we do not want people talking about what has happened in the past because we want the past to look good and have a positive impact that goes along with the Party's standards. Other people would like to say that we are a ministry that lies, but we that is not the case_." - George Orwell




The old switcheroo eh? Quoting Labor/Fabian MO and assigning it to the conservatives... Oh my, your fallaciousness knows know bounds (and your red knickers are showing).


----------



## wayneL

Calliope said:


> The 'hate Abbott" campaign is plumbing ridiculous depths. The absurd Winkgate nonsense is a prime example, but the biggest absurdity was that Abbott felt the need to apologise, when he was so obviously set up by Faine and a sexline worker who is a Labor activist.
> 
> The smart thing for Abbott to have done was to tell the Labor/Green/Feminist twitterati to go to hell. The same applies to the "die of shame" remark. No explanation or apology will stop the Abbott haters from raising it, again and again, for their own grubby purposes.
> 
> His simple answer is "if you don't like it, lump it". It is when they get an apology out of him that they win, and it spurs them on to more nastiness, directed at him and his family.




Amen

.....and I'm sick of my faceache feed getting bombarded with peurile Labor/Green misrepresentations. 

The left are causing a division in society like Ive never witnessed in the Anglosphere, whipping up the haters into a muck lather....  impossible to reason with, even if it has never been easy (ref wayneL's Law).


----------



## Calliope

Knobby22 said:


> All other visits will be charged. Anyway, as you said it's not through Parliament yet, I'm sure that will be modified before then.
> 
> I heard the leader of the AMA state that he was amazed that Hockey hadn't read his own budget (on the ABC of course, it won't be mentioned in The Australian). As a general principle, the AMA aren't against charging the fee by the way.




Yes 8 bucks per visit is pretty nasty...the charge of course is at the doctor's disgression. Other countries find much higher co-payment charges work well;



> But however loud the wails, charging co-payments for GP visits is hardly unusual, even in health systems hailed for equity of access.
> 
> After all, the socially-minded Swedes do it, with co-payments that range from $20 to $30; so do the Finns, where consumers pay about $20 per visit; and even those diehard defenders of social security, the French, rely extensively on co-payments to “moderate” demand.
> 
> As for our Kiwi cousins, they have had co-payments for years. And far from services being retrenched, access to primary health services is generally very good, with 84 per cent of New Zealanders reporting that they are able to see a GP within 24 hours, as compared to about 65 per cent of Australians. Moreover, with co-payments boosting GPs’ incomes, after hours services are more readily available, with only 6 per cent of those surveyed finding surgery hours too limited.
> 
> But that isn’t to deny the co-payments will affect demand. Of course they will: the issue is by how much and with what effects.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...medicare-healthy/story-fn7078da-1226931018209


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> Amen
> 
> .....and I'm sick of my faceache feed getting bombarded with peurile Labor/Green misrepresentations.
> 
> The left are causing a division in society like Ive never witnessed in the Anglosphere, whipping up the haters into a muck lather....  impossible to reason with, even if it has never been easy (ref wayneL's Law).




Ah yars reminds one of the "ditch the witch" hate campaign doesn't it ?

But it was the Right doing the social division and hating then, so that's fine.

As I said before, "What goes around comes around".


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> Tones and I are not mates Knobby. As often stated on this forum, I am not a conservative, I am a classical liberal/libertarian. As such, the Liberal party is not a good fit for me, it's just that Labor are in quantum measure, even less so.
> 
> So please,  enough of the argumentative fallacy.
> 
> Fwiw, Tone's comment was fair game (though AJs was in poor taste) IMO.
> 
> 
> The old switcheroo eh? Quoting Labor/Fabian MO and assigning it to the conservatives... Oh my, your fallaciousness knows know bounds (and your red knickers are showing).




Calling him Tone rather than Tony suggests a high level of familiarity, even mateship. That is what I was referring to.   

Hey the Orwell comment hit home hey?  Sorry, if I don't agree with everything you write.


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> Ah yars reminds one of the "ditch the witch" hate campaign doesn't it ?
> 
> But it was the Right doing the social division and hating then, so that's fine.
> 
> As I said before, "What goes around comes around".




Was ditch the witch a campaign, or one person with a placard?


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> Was ditch the witch a campaign, or one person with a placard?




It resulted from Alan Jones's "dump her overboard" statement, rallies were held at which Jones, Abbott and co. et al appeared and denounced Gillard and the Carbon tax, so that could be called a campaign.


----------



## noco

wayneL said:


> Was ditch the witch a campaign, or one person with a placard?




Me thinks that one placard was a deliberate attempt by the Socialist left to shame Tony Abbott.....It popped up behind him where he could not see it.......Ah yes, nothing would surprise me with Labor's dirty tactics of late.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Me thinks that one placard was a deliberate attempt by the Socialist left to shame Tony Abbott.....It popped up behind him where he could not see it.......Ah yes, nothing would surprise me with Labor's dirty tactics of late.




Ah yes, nothing would surprise me if the Right accuse the Left of holding placards up at Abbott's rallies. 

It's typical of the Right's sneaky tactics


----------



## Knobby22

Ditch the witch wasn't such a bad placard. Just a rhyme, not that bad.

It was the following one that caused all the anger.






Sophie shouldn't have turned up to that one. I am sure it helped her lose her seat.

But there is always someone willing to take the piss - thank God. At least I think they are????





Where do you think those ice cubes come from?


----------



## SirRumpole

Knobby22 said:


> Ditch the witch wasn't such a bad placard. Just a rhyme, not that bad.
> 
> It was the following one that caused all the anger.
> 
> http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/gillard-revolted-by-liberal-tactics/story-fn6bqphm-1226027682690
> 
> Sophie shouldn't have turned up to that one. I am sure it helped her lose her seat.




Neither should the bloke talking. You can't tell me he didn't see the sign.


----------



## wayneL

Even as author of wayneL's law, I continue to be astonished.


----------



## Tink

Calliope said:


> The 'hate Abbott" campaign is plumbing ridiculous depths. The absurd Winkgate nonsense is a prime example, but the biggest absurdity was that Abbott felt the need to apologise, when he was so obviously set up by Faine and a sexline worker who is a Labor activist.
> 
> The smart thing for Abbott to have done was to tell the Labor/Green/Feminist twitterati to go to hell. The same applies to the "die of shame" remark. No explanation or apology will stop the Abbott haters from raising it, again and again, for their own grubby purposes.
> 
> His simple answer is "if you don't like it, lump it". It is when they get an apology out of him that they win, and it spurs them on to more nastiness, directed at him and his family.




Agree, and well said, Calliope.

The ABC are becoming an absolute joke, time for some trimming, well and truly.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> I told her calm down nothing was through parliament yet and asked her if she knew there were waivers for people with an ongoing medical condition.




Did you say "don't worry mum, Labor and the Greens will save you" ?


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> Did you say "don't worry mum, Labor and the Greens will save you" ?




No she still has her marbles, there is no way she would believe that.

She has lived through enough Labor governments, to know it always ends up in debt and belt tightening.

Yep, only ex union organisers and rusted on ex shop stewards believe that garbage.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> No she still has her marbles, there is no way she would believe that.
> 
> She has lived through enough Labor governments, to know it always ends up in debt and belt tightening.
> 
> Yep, only ex union organisers and rusted on ex shop stewards believe that garbage.




In that case, she has obviously got what she voted for, so why the complaints ?


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> In that case, she has obviously got what she voted for, so why the complaints ?




Don't believe the me,me,me mentality is is limited to the young.lol


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> Don't believe the me,me,me mentality is is limited to the young.lol




If your parents worked hard and paid their taxes then I believe they have more grounds to complain when something they have is taken away than do young people who want everything without working for it.

That's why I think that raising marginal tax rates is a better way of ensuring sustainability of services in the long term.

 Young people will get the advantages of a good health system later in life, and old people will get the services now when they need them, and not in 20 years when they are dead and the Medical Research Fund may or may not have found a cure for their ailments.

It's about basic fairness, and this budget fails that test.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> If your parents worked hard and paid their taxes then I believe they have more grounds to complain when something they have is taken away than do young people who want everything without working for it.
> 
> That's why I think that raising marginal tax rates is a better way of ensuring sustainability of services in the long term.
> 
> Young people will get the advantages of a good health system later in life, and old people will get the services now when they need them, and not in 20 years when they are dead and the Medical Research Fund may or may not have found a cure for their ailments.
> 
> It's about basic fairness, and this budget fails that test.




I agree 100% with you, but I'm prepared to see what comes out of the tax review, before I make my judgements.

We keep going around the same loop.


----------



## Knobby22

Looks like Brandis has officially backed down with regard to the race law change. I am sure the open criticism within the party forced his hand.

Another newsworthy element today was that the Federal police today were forced to admit that they did not advise Tony Abbott to not attend the Deakin university visit. Chris Pyne on Lateline advised that the AFP did give this advice, unfortunately he was lying or at least ill advised by the Prime Minister's office that stated publically that this occurred.


----------



## chiff

Do the Liberals still take donations from the tobacco industry,or have they recently ceased?
Having a medical research fund and  taking donations from the tobacco  industry is incompatible and insincere.


----------



## Junior

SirRumpole said:


> If your parents worked hard and paid their taxes then I believe they have more grounds to complain when something they have is taken away than do young people who want everything without working for it.
> 
> That's why I think that raising marginal tax rates is a better way of ensuring sustainability of services in the long term.
> 
> Young people will get the advantages of a good health system later in life, and old people will get the services now when they need them, and not in 20 years when they are dead and the Medical Research Fund may or may not have found a cure for their ailments.
> 
> It's about basic fairness, and this budget fails that test.




I agree wrt grounds to complain, but I don't agree about marginal tax rates.  They are high enough already, when you consider most younger ppl have HECS payments at 5-8% of gross income being deducted.  Medicare Levy has been raised.  High income earners are around 50% MTR, it's high enough.

As has been discussed to death; negative gearing, super tax concessions and GST are areas to consider.  Address these and we shouldn't need to increase income tax rates.


----------



## sydboy007

chiff said:


> Do the Liberals still take donations from the tobacco industry,or have they recently ceased?
> Having a medical research fund and  taking donations from the tobacco  industry is incompatible and insincere.




My understanding is the Liberals don't but the Nationals do.


----------



## explod

Rumour has it that Abbott will be tipped out in nine days,

Successors tipped are Hunt, Turnbull and my wife forgets the name of the other one. 

On Facebook this afternoon.


----------



## dutchie

explod said:


> Rumour has it that Abbott will be tipped out in nine days,
> 
> Successors tipped are Hunt, Turnbull and my wife forgets the name of the other one.
> 
> On Facebook this afternoon.




From the Castle:    "Tell him he's dreaming"

Abbott demolished Labor during Question Time.


----------



## noco

dutchie said:


> From the Castle:    "Tell him he's dreaming"
> 
> Abbott demolished Labor during Question Time.




dutchie, don't take too much notice of Plod......he likes to use 'SUCKER BAIT'.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> dutchie, don't take too much notice of Plod......he likes to use 'SUCKER BAIT'.




Jeez, thought you would be the last person to admit that noco.


----------



## SirRumpole

What a hoot, Joe Hockey protests against a $250 administration fee for Uni students and declares his support for free education

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...g-against-university-fees-20140528-394jn.html


----------



## SirRumpole

Everyone has to do their bit to fix the Budget, except the corporate sector.

Westfield paid 8% tax over the last 9 years, and the corporate average is 22%, when the company tax rate is 30%.

But the budget was fair according to the head of BHP.

What a wonker.

abc.net.au/news/2014-05-29/westfield-pays-8-per-cent-tax-according-to-union-report/5485928

abc.net.au/news/2014-05-28/budget-pain-is-evenly-shared-bhp-chief-says/5485306


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> Everyone has to do their bit to fix the Budget, except the corporate sector.
> 
> Westfield paid 8% tax over the last 9 years, and the corporate average is 22%, when the company tax rate is 30%.
> 
> But the budget was fair according to the head of BHP.
> 
> What a wonker.
> 
> abc.net.au/news/2014-05-29/westfield-pays-8-per-cent-tax-according-to-union-report/5485928
> 
> abc.net.au/news/2014-05-28/budget-pain-is-evenly-shared-bhp-chief-says/5485306




It's very fair for the rentier classes.

Get with the program.  In our plutocracy the rich powerful design the laws for the betterment of themselves.  How else can a $20M advertising campaign by the resource industry remove a PM and see a resource based tax knee capped in the way it was?  An industry that sends something like 70C in the $ of profits overseas was able to convince locals that they were here to save us.  Go figure.

Now we have a Government that believes in magic puddings and thinks it's a smart move to cut back welfare to the poorest sectors in society so they can fund removing the resource tax.  The same Government that is OK with losing over $6B a year in CPRS income - hey if Abbott can say a levy is not a tax then I'll go with the flow - once again funded by targeting mainly the poor.

It's funny how the rich have been able to get themselves so many tax expenditures which sit nicely hidden away.  I'm sure the tax review will highlight many of them, but I'm expecting Abbott and Joe will have aas much ticker as Labor did with implementing the Henry tax review.

For those that say we need to wait for the tax review, why not have brought some measures into the current budget that were recommended in the previous Hnry Tax Review?  Surely if they were a good idea back in 2010 they're still a good idea now?


----------



## orr

*the Abbott Government(2.0)*

We can't stop it now it's just getting interesting, in that car crash kinda way.


----------



## orr

*Re: the Abbott Government(2.0)*

Frances Abbott's Scholarship:the full extent

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JD-rKrcfGFE

good on 'Studio-10' for running the story


----------



## Julia

No wonder there is so much irritation with the media.  So Frances was awarded a scholarship from a private institution.  What business is that of anyone else?

This ongoing scavenging for anything at all that the people who detest the government can whip up and distort for their own political ends is become nauseating.

Presumably it's to cover up the reality that these media 'celebrities' lack the capacity for any genuine analysis of the country's economic realities.

There's plenty of scope for criticism in, for example, the way the government have failed to properly communicate the need for fiscal change without resorting to this sort of utterly pathetic smearing of a young woman.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> No wonder there is so much irritation with the media.  So Frances was awarded a scholarship from a private institution.  What business is that of anyone else?




It's not that concerning if that is all there was to it, but if the organisation receives taxpayer funding or grants then there is a possible conflict of interest.

Apparently there are only two people who have ever received that scholarship. One was the daughter of the college's owner, and the other...

Seems like an old mate's arrangement, but no doubt we could find other examples from the other sides of politics.


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> It's not that concerning if that is all there was to it, but if the organisation receives taxpayer funding or grants then there is a possible conflict of interest.
> 
> Apparently there are only two people who have ever received that scholarship. One was the daughter of the college's owner, and the other...
> 
> Seems like an old mate's arrangement, but no doubt we could find other examples from the other sides of politics.




She supposedly got it due to ability, and she did score at a D level which is pretty commendable.

But was she the best candidate?  If no one else knew of the scholarship, and no one else was able to submit to the screening process to see if they were worthy, then it does make it hard to prove one way or the other if she was the most deserving student.

I feel sorry for the girl.  She's collateral damage, in the same way Gillard's partner was at times collateral damage.


----------



## DB008

sydboy007 said:


> It's very fair for the rentier classes.
> 
> Get with the program.  In our plutocracy the rich powerful design the laws for the betterment of themselves.  How else can a $20M advertising campaign by the resource industry remove a PM and see a resource based tax knee capped in the way it was?  An industry that sends something like 70C in the $ of profits overseas was able to convince locals that they were here to save us.  Go figure.
> 
> Now we have a Government that believes in magic puddings and thinks it's a smart move to cut back welfare to the poorest sectors in society so they can fund removing the resource tax.  The same Government that is OK with losing over $6B a year in CPRS income - hey if Abbott can say a levy is not a tax then I'll go with the flow - once again funded by targeting mainly the poor.
> 
> It's funny how the rich have been able to get themselves so many tax expenditures which sit nicely hidden away.  I'm sure the tax review will highlight many of them, but I'm expecting Abbott and Joe will have aas much ticker as Labor did with implementing the Henry tax review.
> 
> For those that say we need to wait for the tax review, why not have brought some measures into the current budget that were recommended in the previous Hnry Tax Review?  Surely if they were a good idea back in 2010 they're still a good idea now?




But let's just encourage a lazy class of people instead?

This is crazy...

*The single mum on $55,000 in pensions, benefits, study aid*



> The warnings are based on government analysis that reveals some single parents are receiving $55,000 a year in tax-free benefits, including a pension, family tax benefits and study assistance. The calculations show that three workers on average salaries would pay about $17,000 in tax each to cover the sole parent’s benefits. Hitting back at claims his budget was unfair, the Treasurer countered the idea that taxes should be raised to match more than $7bn in welfare cuts so that every group carried the same share of the budget burden.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/the-single-mum-on-55000-in-pensions-benefits-study-aid/story-fn59nsif-1226936519119#


----------



## SirRumpole

DB008 said:


> But let's just encourage a lazy class of people instead?
> 
> This is crazy...
> 
> *The single mum on $55,000 in pensions, benefits, study aid*
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/the-single-mum-on-55000-in-pensions-benefits-study-aid/story-fn59nsif-1226936519119#




Those payment certainly seem excessive. 

Let's remember that family tax benefits arose under Howard/Costello.

I wonder how much these and the Costello baby bonus contributed to the idea of having children for the money ?


----------



## sydboy007

DB008 said:


> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/the-single-mum-on-55000-in-pensions-benefits-study-aid/story-fn59nsif-1226936519119#




In the fine print the assumptions is a single mother with 2 children under 6 both of whom are in child care for 40 hours per week.  Basically designed to maximise the support being received.

It also seems to be a bit harsh to single out this one very benefits maximising scenario.  How many single mothers would actually be able to get this, and is it sensible to stigmatise them when they're in training and hopefully skilling themselves for future employment?

I'd also love to see the same kind of angst direct tot he likes of Google / Apple / eBay that rake in billions yet pay practically no tax here because they've siphoned it off for the double irish dutch sandwich to avoid paying much in the way of tax.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> I'd also love to see the same kind of angst direct tot he likes of Google / Apple / eBay that rake in billions yet pay practically no tax here because they've siphoned it off for the double irish dutch sandwich to avoid paying much in the way of tax.




I doubt if you will see much of that angst here


----------



## DB008

sydboy007 said:


> In the fine print the assumptions is a single mother with 2 children under 6 both of whom are in child care for 40 hours per week.  Basically designed to maximise the support being received.
> 
> It also seems to be a bit harsh to single out this one very benefits maximising scenario.  How many single mothers would actually be able to get this, and is it sensible to stigmatise them when they're in training and hopefully skilling themselves for future employment?
> 
> I'd also love to see the same kind of angst direct tot he likes of Google / Apple / eBay that rake in billions yet pay practically no tax here because they've siphoned it off for the double irish dutch sandwich to avoid paying much in the way of tax.






SirRumpole said:


> I doubt if you will see much of that angst here





There are 2 parts to this.

1) A publicly listed company has to generate profits for it's shareholders. If there was a way of generating profits, and it didn't (like the double dutch/irish sandwich), there would be grounds to clean out the board

2) What those big companies are doing (tax loophole/by-pass), isn't illegal.

Personally, I think the laws should be changed. Australia isn't alone on this issue.


----------



## SirRumpole

DB008 said:


> There are 2 parts to this.
> 
> 2) What those big companies are doing (tax loophole/by-pass), isn't illegal.




Neither is a single mother claiming benefits created by elected governments of either persuasion.


----------



## DB008

SirRumpole said:


> Neither is a single mother claiming benefits created by elected governments of either persuasion.




Of course.

And the laws should be changed.

You also mentioned Howard/Costello. 

Did Rudd/Gillard do anything in the past 6 years? (I'm sure Syd will have a cunning answer to that one...)


----------



## sydboy007

DB008 said:


> Of course.
> 
> And the laws should be changed.
> 
> You also mentioned Howard/Costello.
> 
> Did Rudd/Gillard do anything in the past 6 years? (I'm sure Syd will have a cunning answer to that one...)




Only that both parties have pandered to the magic pudding scenario of goodies to all and lower taxes.

Tony has been caught out with the lie.  I still wonder if he believed he could cut taxes and increase spending like he said 

I will say that the few times Labor tried to attack tax expenditures in the recent past, that Abbott rode to the rescue of rentier class.  He's also removing the carbton tax but not the compensation - so I'd argue is pro welfare in that sense as well.

The budget "crisis" is just as much about the lack of revenue as it is about over spending.  Both parties need to take blame for foisting on us all their pet projects that end up wasting billions.  Far better to have an efficient and fair level of taxation that doesn't discourage hard work.  The Australian tax system taxes hard work far too high and encourages far too much speculation in asset price growth.  To me that is not a path to long term prosperity.

Now let me see how I can join the rentier class and get me some sacred cow tax expenditures


----------



## SirRumpole

DB008 said:


> Of course.
> 
> 
> Did Rudd/Gillard do anything in the past 6 years? (I'm sure Syd will have a cunning answer to that one...)




I believe they tried to cut benefits to some single parents, and got the appropriate roasting from the welfare lobbies. 

Gillard's popularity got a beating over that, but at least they recognised there was an issue.


----------



## So_Cynical

I think its pretty funny how the Noalition can put forward a Doctor tax (co payment) to fund a medical research fund, and yet want to remove the Carbon Tax (co payment) that basically funds renewables research and development...is the message, renewable energy is bad and Medical research is good?


----------



## DB008

So_Cynical said:


> I think its pretty funny how the Noalition can put forward a Doctor tax (co payment) to fund a medical research fund, and yet want to remove the Carbon Tax (co payment) that basically funds renewables research and development...is the message, renewable energy is bad and Medical research is good?




Don't forget that 10% of the Carbon Tax goes to the U.N.....for what exactly? (5 star hotels and F Class travel world wide...)


----------



## noco

DB008 said:


> Don't forget that 10% of the Carbon Tax goes to the U.N.....for what exactly? (5 star hotels and F Class travel world wide...)




+ the $599.000,000 Combet gave to the UN after the Cam Cum conference in Mexico a couple of years ago.

What was that for?


----------



## Smurf1976

So_Cynical said:


> is the message, renewable energy is bad and Medical research is good?




I think that the message is simpler than that. It's largely business which pays the carbon tax whereas it's individuals who will be paying the doctors. So it's a shift in who pays.

A Labor government taxed business (mostly) and a Coalition government is shifting the tax to individuals. No surprises there, it's a very predictable outcome in a "big picture" sense.


----------



## sydboy007

Smurf1976 said:


> I think that the message is simpler than that. It's largely business which pays the carbon tax whereas it's individuals who will be paying the doctors. So it's a shift in who pays.
> 
> A Labor government taxed business (mostly) and a Coalition government is shifting the tax to individuals. No surprises there, it's a very predictable outcome in a "big picture" sense.




Fits in nicely with the way tax expenditures have been left untouched.


----------



## SirRumpole

There is a proposal to drug test the unemployed.

Why not I say, should the taxpayer subsidise an individual's a drug habit ?

As long as it applies to politicians and public servants as well.


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> There is a proposal to drug test the unemployed.
> 
> Why not I say, should the taxpayer subsidise an individual's a drug habit ?
> 
> As long as it applies to politicians and public servants as well.






Though I'd question the cost benefit of it.

Should it apply to pensioners, family tax benefits recipients, families receiving child care fees rebates?  Maybe anyone receiving any form of Govt payment or benefit should be tested?  Afterall, any money received from the Government could be used to support their drug habit.

Should we test a persons hair so that we get a long term view of their drug use (or lack thereof)?   Gets around issues of going clean just before a test.

Hopefully they will also test for prescription drugs as well.  Oxycodone is the favoured drug of choice these days.  Hill Billy heroine is it's nickname in the states.  Deaths from abuse are heading towards 1000 a year, prescription rates are on a hockey stick like trajectory.

Doubt that would fly though, because it would catch too many of the "middle class."  probably catch the odd politician as well.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> Though I'd question the cost benefit of it.
> 
> Should it apply to pensioners, family tax benefits recipients, families receiving child care fees rebates?  Maybe anyone receiving any form of Govt payment or benefit should be tested?  Afterall, any money received from the Government could be used to support their drug habit.
> 
> Should we test a persons hair so that we get a long term view of their drug use (or lack thereof)?   Gets around issues of going clean just before a test.
> 
> Hopefully they will also test for prescription drugs as well.  Oxycodone is the favoured drug of choice these days.  Hill Billy heroine is it's nickname in the states.  Deaths from abuse are heading towards 1000 a year, prescription rates are on a hockey stick like trajectory.
> 
> Doubt that would fly though, because it would catch too many of the "middle class."  probably catch the odd politician as well.





I think it would be random testing, so the costs could be kept down. While I accept the point that all receivers of government benefits could be "targets", people on USB  where a drug habit could inhibit their ability to hold down a job should be the first cabs off the rank, as others qualify for benefits by reason of old age or children.


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> I think it would be random testing, so the costs could be kept down. While I accept the point that all receivers of government benefits could be "targets", people on USB  where a drug habit could inhibit their ability to hold down a job should be the first cabs off the rank, as others qualify for benefits by reason of old age or children.




Well, shouldn't we be out to catch drug addicted parents as much as welfare bludgers?  Come on Rumpole, think of the children /sarc

I can just see a random drug test as being a massive cost.  It will be geographically spread all around Australia.  There's over 700,000 unemployed.  What % should be tested each year?  Do you use profiling to try and maximise positive tests?  The administrative cost, let alone the actual test costs would be massive.  Does the Govt pay for their travel expenses?  What drugs are tested for?  What happens if you test positive?  How do you cope with the issues of a person not turning up / being able to turn up.  How much notice would someone get - less notice harder to avoid, but also more likely to conflict with say going for a job interview or a doctors appointment.  

Then you ask the question do you test the same person multiple times in a year?  IF not then once you do your test you know it's safe to go and use?  I just see it being as useful as the war on drugs have been.  It might make people feel safer, but it's just lots of money for little community benefit.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> Well, shouldn't we be out to catch drug addicted parents as much as welfare bludgers?  Come on Rumpole, think of the children /sarc
> 
> I can just see a random drug test as being a massive cost.  It will be geographically spread all around Australia.  There's over 700,000 unemployed.  What % should be tested each year?  Do you use profiling to try and maximise positive tests?  The administrative cost, let alone the actual test costs would be massive.  Does the Govt pay for their travel expenses?  What drugs are tested for?  What happens if you test positive?  How do you cope with the issues of a person not turning up / being able to turn up.  How much notice would someone get - less notice harder to avoid, but also more likely to conflict with say going for a job interview or a doctors appointment.
> 
> Then you ask the question do you test the same person multiple times in a year?  IF not then once you do your test you know it's safe to go and use?  I just see it being as useful as the war on drugs have been.  It might make people feel safer, but it's just lots of money for little community benefit.




Yes, all fair points. Apparently they did it in NZ, but it's tougher here because of the State responsibilities. 

Obviously you can't test for every prescription drug, but if you start with cannibis, heroin, meths, cocaine you would get the most destructive drugs.

As to notice, if it's their turn they get told when they turn up to Centrelink on their monthly visit. I don't know the specifics of testing for every drug, but if you can do it with a mouth swab then that can be taken by current staff.

If they test positive they get referred to a drug treatment program. Their continuing benefits rely on a satisfactory result, and once tested positive they will be subject to further routine tests. 

At the least, the prospect of being tested could persuade people to give up their habit.


----------



## SirRumpole

Malcolm Turnbull just gave a press conference

from his own lips

*"Andrew Bolt says he is a friend of the government

with friends like him, we don't need enemies"
*

You said it Malcolm


----------



## sydboy007

_Last week Mr Abbott told a room full of mining executives that the coal industry should not be demonised and that it was Australia's destiny to bring affordable energy to the world.

"If there was one fundamental problem, above all else, with the carbon tax it was that it said . . . that a commodity which in many years is our biggest single export somehow should be left in the ground and not sold," he said.
_
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...eling-happy-20140602-39f13.html#ixzz33Wl0RIFx

Tony needs to have a quick chat with his resource minister to understand iron ore is the top export by a margin close to 50%.  The fact he's ignoring the social and economic costs of mining coal and continuing to burn is not good for the long term economic health of the country.


----------



## Logique

SirRumpole said:


> Malcolm Turnbull just gave a press conference
> from his own lips
> *"Andrew Bolt says he is a friend of the government
> with friends like him, we don't need enemies"
> *You said it Malcolm



The budget is a dog and Malcolm knows it. Political over-reach.

Bolt is following the wrong path here. 

If the 'Doctor Tax' $ isn't even going towards paying off the deficit, what's the bl--dy point of it!

Palmer and PUP will lap it up, and likely make themselves heroes in the Senate.


----------



## Knobby22

You won't see this on the ABC!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKhuvA8oSlw


----------



## dutchie

Knobby22 said:


> You won't see this on the ABC!
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKhuvA8oSlw




Gleefully played by NEWS24 this morning!

More news less crap ABC


----------



## Knobby22

dutchie said:


> Gleefully played by NEWS24 this morning!
> 
> More news less crap ABC




They wouldn't be allowed to would they? Foxtel own the copyright.
http://www.thecomedychannel.com.au/


----------



## Logique

Pic sums it up. 
Governments have to sell a Budget. 

This one hasn't sold in any palatable form. Clive Palmer knows it, and so does Malcolm Turnbull.  Medicare $7 co-payment, right up there with '..there will be no carbon tax..'.  It's an older population in this country. 

Abandon co-payment PM Abbott, or I vote ALP next time.


----------



## sydboy007

Logique said:


> Pic sums it up.




Priceless pic

I have more issue with shafting the under 30s and sending them into abject poverty if they lose their job in the coming downturn / recession.

maybe someone should ask Tony what would Jesus do in this situation   I remember everything had it's place according to Abbott via Jesus.  Possibly the lack of Christian values in the budget has cooled the relationship between the two


----------



## Smurf1976

SirRumpole said:


> As long as it applies to politicians and public servants as well.




Politicians agreed.

But as for public servants, they are (in the main) just ordinary people doing a job. If we're going to drug test run of the mill office workers etc then it ought to apply regardless of who their employer is be it public or private. 

If someone earns an income through working then, within the law, it's up to them how they spend it. That applies regardless of who employs them - should be the same rules public or private sector.

I say that as someone who has never touched illegal drugs of any sort and who works in an industry where being fit for work is essential due to safety considerations. But that ought to apply regardless of who the boss is or whether it's a public service or a for-profit enterprise.


----------



## SirRumpole

If the government wants to save money on family payments, then I suggest it creates a waiting period of at least five years before these are paid to newly arrived immigrants who can now claim these benefits immediately on arrival if they have been accepted for permanent residency.

That may discourage some who come here for the social security, rather than to make a contribution.


----------



## IFocus

Logique said:


> Pic sums it up.
> Governments have to sell a Budget.
> 
> This one hasn't sold in any palatable form. Clive Palmer knows it, and so does Malcolm Turnbull.  Medicare $7 co-payment, right up there with '..there will be no carbon tax..'.  It's an older population in this country.
> 
> Abandon co-payment PM Abbott, or I vote ALP next time.
> View attachment 58212




Very clever pic, ministers now making statements on policy in line with the cabinet  as Abbott contradicts changing positions on the run looking like political strategies unwinding rapidly.


----------



## Knobby22

Howard and Hawke appeared at the Press club together.
Howard made some very good points, as did Hawke. Both great men imo.

Worth a watch of a bit of the video where Howard speaks. 

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...sons-learnt-20140604-39j72.html#ixzz33jN2HtrO


----------



## So_Cynical

Tony's greatest Gaffs, as shown on US TV a couple of days ago.
~


----------



## explod

explod said:


> Rumour has it that Abbott will be tipped out in nine days,
> 
> Successors tipped are Hunt, Turnbull and my wife forgets the name of the other one.
> 
> On Facebook this afternoon.




By the news stirring of Jones and Bolt over the last couple of days it looks like the tip on 28th may be on the mark.

This thread looks like coming to an end sooner than we may think.


----------



## IFocus

I have been restrained in commenting on Abbott lately but have been staggered on his continued statements that are direct lies or ignorance. His continuance of playing the Australian voter as ignorant buffoons must be killing the Coalition in the polls I just wonder on the ongoing damage are peoples memory's so short?   
The class warfare been raged against the swinging voters for basically little return is just staggering.


----------



## sydboy007

Knobby22 said:


> Howard and Hawke appeared at the Press club together.
> Howard made some very good points, as did Hawke. Both great men imo.




We'd be lucky to have leadership half their calibre these days.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> We'd be lucky to have leadership half their calibre these days.




Pity Keating wasn't there, but I doubt if the camaraderie would have lasted.


----------



## IFocus

Speaking of mad clearly the attacks are coming from the PMs office fascinating....... 




> After a week of extraordinary exchanges with the News Corp columnist Andrew Bolt and the Sydney radio announcer Alan Jones, Turnbull told the ABC’s 7.30 that “you could come to the conclusion” the attacks against him by the commentators had been “coordinated” but that he was “absolutely certain” they had not been fuelled by the prime minister’s office because “that really would be mad".



http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...steps-up-attack-against-big-megaphone-bullies


----------



## Julia

Watching Sarah Ferguson's interview with Malcolm Turnbull last night, imo he came across as barely containing his irritation at this whole silly situation.  
I thought he handled her questions pretty well.
Ditto calling Jones out as he did.

I'm no great fan of Mr Turnbull but believe he has done his best to be a team player in recent times, and can't be held responsible for the stupid behaviour of some of the less than sensible media commentators.

Again, the time, energy and focus of politicians - and the nation - is being wasted by this ridiculous attention-seeking nonsense instead of their looking at some genuinely relevant and important issues.


----------



## sptrawler

Julia said:


> Watching Sarah Ferguson's interview with Malcolm Turnbull last night, imo he came across as barely containing his irritation at this whole silly situation.
> I thought he handled her questions pretty well.
> Ditto calling Jones out as he did.
> 
> I'm no great fan of Mr Turnbull but believe he has done his best to be a team player in recent times, and can't be held responsible for the stupid behaviour of some of the less than sensible media commentators.
> 
> Again, the time, energy and focus of politicians - and the nation - is being wasted by this ridiculous attention-seeking nonsense instead of their looking at some genuinely relevant and important issues.




+1, the whole media has become an absolute joke.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> Watching Sarah Ferguson's interview with Malcolm Turnbull last night, imo he came across as barely containing his irritation at this whole silly situation.
> I thought he handled her questions pretty well.
> Ditto calling Jones out as he did.
> 
> I'm no great fan of Mr Turnbull but believe he has done his best to be a team player in recent times, and can't be held responsible for the stupid behaviour of some of the less than sensible media commentators.
> 
> Again, the time, energy and focus of politicians - and the nation - is being wasted by this ridiculous attention-seeking nonsense instead of their looking at some genuinely relevant and important issues.




Agreed on Turnbull's response to the issue, Abbott also handled it reasonably well, publicly anyway, but with two of Abbott's media chums coming out with anti Turnbull propaganda in such a short time frame you just have to wonder what and who is behind it. Peta Credlin on behalf of her boss perhaps ?

There is rarely smoke without fire, and I would surmise that there is a fair bit of smouldering going on in the LNP backbenches. Some with slim majorities may be getting nervous.


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> Agreed on Turnbull's response to the issue, Abbott also handled it reasonably well, publicly anyway, but with two of Abbott's media chums coming out with anti Turnbull propaganda in such a short time frame you just have to wonder what and who is behind it. Peta Credlin on behalf of her boss perhaps ?
> 
> There is rarely smoke without fire, and I would surmise that there is a fair bit of smouldering going on in the LNP backbenches. Some with slim majorities may be getting nervous.




Could be the tea party members firing the first shots against any potential moves by the few remaining centrists in the party?

Could be the below graphs have them scared to the ending of their entitlements.

Below Gillard's popularity 2 months faster 

How do you win an election yet never rate positively with the public as PM?


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> How do you win an election yet never rate positively with the public as PM?




Just shows how disenchanted the electorate was with the previous government.
The way things are going, we could be flipping governments for the next 10 years.

Shame the problems won't go away. 
However by then the media will really have something to report, the economy should be in real strife.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Just shows how disenchanted the electorate was with the previous government.
> The way things are going, we could be flipping governments for the next 10 years.
> 
> Shame the problems won't go away.
> However by then the media will really have something to report, the economy should be in real strife.




yes, I think the L+NP really thought the electorate wanted them when it was a case of dumb and dumber and fat bastard. OH BEHAVE 

Wont take 10 years.  100K of workers around the LNG terminals all looking for new jobs over the next 2 years.  Another 30K or so looking for jobs from other resource project construction as well.

The media might focus on GDP growth, mostly due to the population ponzi and net exports, which don't reflect the loss of purchasing power we're all facing, or the fact there's been an income and spending recession going on for the last couple of years already..

It was good while the ToT boom lasted, shame all we've got to show for it is massively wasteful Government spending programs and some of the world's most overpriced housing


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> yes, I think the L+NP really thought the electorate wanted them when it was a case of dumb and dumber and fat bastard. OH BEHAVE
> 
> Wont take 10 years.  100K of workers around the LNG terminals all looking for new jobs over the next 2 years.  Another 30K or so looking for jobs from other resource project construction as well.
> 
> The media might focus on GDP growth, mostly due to the population ponzi and net exports, which don't reflect the loss of purchasing power we're all facing, or the fact there's been an income and spending recession going on for the last couple of years already..
> 
> It was good while the ToT boom lasted, shame all we've got to show for it is massively wasteful Government spending programs and some of the world's most overpriced housing




Spot on, best everyone gets ready for a reality check. 
I think the spending cuts have caused a media meltdown, can't wait to see how 'bent out of shape' they get when it all starts to affect them personally. 
It probably has commenced with the t.v networks rationalising, the next will be a rapid slump in newspaper circulation.
Then will come the change of government and increased welfare spending, increased taxes and off we go again. Hopefully we will be back to 50c U.S by then


----------



## IFocus

sptrawler said:


> +1, the whole media has become an absolute joke.





To be honest are Bolt and Jones Media?


----------



## lindsayf

Julia said:


> Watching Sarah Ferguson's interview with Malcolm Turnbull last night, imo he came across as barely containing his irritation at this whole silly situation.
> I thought he handled her questions pretty well.
> Ditto calling Jones out as he did.
> 
> I'm no great fan of Mr Turnbull but believe he has done his best to be a team player in recent times, and can't be held responsible for the stupid behaviour of some of the less than sensible media commentators.
> 
> Again, the time, energy and focus of politicians - and the nation - is being wasted by this ridiculous attention-seeking nonsense instead of their looking at some genuinely relevant and important issues.





+100


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> To be honest are Bolt and Jones Media?




About as much as Tony Jones and Carlton, these guys all think that the garbage they spew influences people.

I think they will all end up out of a job, the lot of them are driving reporting down to the lowest common denominator.

Sensationalism works well untill reality overtakes it, then everyone is in the same head space.


----------



## Julia

On the question of whether these 'media celebrities' (I swallow hard at even writing those words) actually influence the public, I don't think there's any question that they do, at least amongst the less discerning of the electorate.

Does anyone remember a segment done by "The Chaser" back in their first series - when they were actually funny rather than obscene - where they'd find a few statements or a short interview with some utter idiot, and at the conclusion put the banner across the screen:

*"This person votes".*

Said it all for me, and still does.

Why else would people like Jones and Hadley be paid such extraordinary amounts?

Bolt also, I suppose.


----------



## Smurf1976

sptrawler said:


> Just shows how disenchanted the electorate was with the previous government.
> The way things are going, we could be flipping governments for the next 10 years.




Oppositions don't win elections. Governments lose them.

It's much the same as companies attract good (or bad) staff but it's the bosses who retain or lose them.

Faced with any sort of crisis, a good leader (political, business, anything) will focus on dealing with the crisis whilst keeping as many people as possible "on side". A bad leader will end up alienating practically everyone amidst the same general circumstances.

If you want a sure fire way to alienate people then just start telling lies, using the crisis (either real or manufactured) to pursue some ideological agenda that isn't actually necessary to fix the problem and adopt an "I know best, it's my way or the highway" attitude toward everything. That's a sure fire way to get practically everyone off side.

So far as the next election is concerned, if Abbott continues as he is (and remains leader) then all Labor needs to do is present themselves as having learned from past mistakes and now being well organised. That's it, nothing else is required other than to sit back and wait.


----------



## sptrawler

I noticed a very succinct quote in one of the papers.

A U.S 'expert' said, "Australia should think about what it wants to be when it grows up".

Very apt. IMO


----------



## IFocus

Back to raw politics 

Abbott was cast / made / supported by the right wing in the Liberal Party (note not by the Australian  Bush Socialists "nationals") in some peoples minds by Australians standards "the extreme right wing of conservative politics" i.e US Republican tea party of which Abbott sang from their hymn book while in opposition.
This worked well and the right gained power in the vacuum while Labor politically made poor choices both in policy and in basic political fore play.
Now reality has set in it will be interesting to see if the moderates in the Liberal party so long marginalised by the right nutters will gain ground.
Interesting to see how fragile the right and Abbott are with the latest attacks on Turnbull.


----------



## McLovin

Julia said:


> On the question of whether these 'media celebrities' (I swallow hard at even writing those words) actually influence the public, I don't think there's any question that they do, at least amongst the less discerning of the electorate.




I disagree, Julia. I think Jones reflects the views of his audience rather than shapes them. I also think he needs to be put in perspective; his show attracts about 150,000 listeners, and has been falling for years, in a city that's pushing 5 million. Back in the late 90's and early 00's politicians were deadly frightened of offending Jones, but I think that his influence and power has waned considerably. Mainly because politicians worked out that he didn't really affect elections. I'd put Bolt in the same category, the only person on here who seems to take him seriously is noco, and he's not exactly what you'd call a swinging voter.

As to pay, radio tends to disproportionately favour the top rating station. This means that the extra revenue that Hadley or Jones can bring is not linear to the uplift in ratings. For example, 2CH is owned by the same company that owns 2GB. 2CH has an audience share that is 30%-35% the size of 2GB's, but only can only attract 10% of the revenue. So you end up with large pay packets to chase small ratings increases.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> Why else would people like Jones and Hadley be paid such extraordinary amounts?
> 
> Bolt also, I suppose.




These people may pull in large audiences on the day, but that doesn't mean that most of their listeners agree with them all the time. 

Alan Jones et al can be perceived as rich elites trying to get the government that suits them, not their listeners. 

Same with Murdoch, but he's more cunning. News Ltd will always support the Liberal party, up to the time they perceive that the electorate has other ideas. That's why Murdoch supported Rudd in 2007, he knew that the mood had changed and he didn't want to be out of step with his readers or the new government.

Alan Jones and Bolt have nailed their colours so firmly to the Liberal mast that they can't climb down, but people make up their own minds based on personal interest, not what the propagandists like Bolt and Alan Jones say.


----------



## Julia

McLovin said:


> I disagree, Julia. I think Jones reflects the views of his audience rather than shapes them. I also think he needs to be put in perspective; his show attracts about 150,000 listeners, and has been falling for years, in a city that's pushing 5 million. Back in the late 90's and early 00's politicians were deadly frightened of offending Jones, but I think that his influence and power has waned considerably. Mainly because politicians worked out that he didn't really affect elections. I'd put Bolt in the same category, the only person on here who seems to take him seriously is noco, and he's not exactly what you'd call a swinging voter.
> 
> As to pay, radio tends to disproportionately favour the top rating station. This means that the extra revenue that Hadley or Jones can bring is not linear to the uplift in ratings. For example, 2CH is owned by the same company that owns 2GB. 2CH has an audience share that is 30%-35% the size of 2GB's, but only can only attract 10% of the revenue. So you end up with large pay packets to chase small ratings increases.



Thanks, McLovin.  You, living in Sydney, are much better placed to know the reality here than I am from the rare snatches I hear of Hadley's morning program.  This seems to be multiple callers all fawning over him and ringing to agree with whatever he has most recently been mouthing off over.

No other Sydney radio station ever hits our regional airwaves so obviously I've formed a disproportionate conclusion:  very happy to know it's not correct.


----------



## noco

McLovin said:


> , the only person on here who seems to take him seriously is noco, and he's not exactly what you'd call a swinging voter.
> 
> .




This is a bit off the topic of this thread but it is in answer to the above. 

Well McLovin for your information, I have voted Labor when there were genuine Labor men like Clem Jones, past Lord Mayor of Brisbane, who did a hell of a lot for Brisbane......he was not from the looney left like we have today who are intent on converting people to socialism and sending us down the road to ruin....I also voted for Hawke who was a true Labor man but since then the Labor Party have gone too far to the left and are dictated to by unions who now have only 17% of workers in unions but who have 50 % say in caucus. 

You have Shorten who a founding member of GET UP.... Chris Bowen, Jenny Macklin and probably a host of other "LABOR COHORTS" who are members of the Fabian Society....both organizations are a front for communism and I won't have a bar of it thank you.

I also voted back in the early 60's for a certain Labor Alderman who I lobbied to get approval to build some shops in Suburbia Brisbane......she introduced me to a Mexican whom she said had more influence in the City Council than she did..... He demanded 30 pounds ( "FOR HIS EXPENSES").... a month passed by when he contacted me again wanting more money.......that is when I started to realize  he was a 'bagman' for this Labor Alderman. note: I did not get my approval.

Yes, I will agree fully, the modern media has far too much influence on the young and the naive who have not had the experience to think for themselves so they believe in the lies they are brainwashed with that come out of the biased ABC, the Age  and the Guardian and the socialist Labor Party. Alan Jones listed a dozen or more proven lies out of the biased  ABC in his interview with Malcolm Turnbull...Go to 2GB and listen to that interview  and  the truth is there which nobody can deny it did not happen....I will endeavor to find the link.

McLovin, I could probably lay claim to being the oldest member of the ASF.....I am proud to have my OBE and I can assure you I have lived through the 50's and 60's when there was a lot of influence by the communist party upon the unions who were hell bent on wrecking the Australian economy through their outlandish demands for higher wages and conditions and in turn our manufacturing industry which  has all but been demolished. We can all observe today the affect it has had and  in particular on the car industry..

So the modern Communist Party are now using the Green/Labor extreme left to push their hidden agenda to convert to socialism which means the state want to own and nationalize the banks, the mining industry, farming, agriculture and what is left of the manufacturing industry. They do not believe in free enterprise and profits are a 'dirty' word...Could you imagine how long the communist party would last if they came out in the open and used the appropriate name.?

McLovin, I can assure you if the current Labor Party changed their ideology and came up with some sensible policies to fix the mess they have left us with in 2007/13, I would consider them again...they have no policy and have not suggested one way of rectifying the debt and deficit....all they are intent on doing is making sure the Abbott Government do not succeed in bringing things under control.......as Alan Jones quoted....Abbott has put his career on the line to save Australia....Shorten has put Australia on the line to save his career. unquote.

So I have said my piece and expressed my opinion and I trust the looney left will accept it without coming back with personal derogatory remarks.


----------



## noco

noco said:


> This is a bit off the topic of this thread but it is in answer to the above.
> 
> Well McLovin for your information, I have voted Labor when there were genuine Labor men like Clem Jones, past Lord Mayor of Brisbane, who did a hell of a lot for Brisbane......he was not from the looney left like we have today who are intent on converting people to socialism and sending us down the road to ruin....I also voted for Hawke who was a true Labor man but since then the Labor Party have gone too far to the left and are dictated to by unions who now have only 17% of workers in unions but who have 50 % say in caucus.
> 
> You have Shorten who a founding member of GET UP.... Chris Bowen, Jenny Macklin and probably a host of other "LABOR COHORTS" who are members of the Fabian Society....both organizations are a front for communism and I won't have a bar of it thank you.
> 
> I also voted back in the early 60's for a certain Labor Alderman who I lobbied to get approval to build some shops in Suburbia Brisbane......she introduced me to a Mexican whom she said had more influence in the City Council than she did..... He demanded 30 pounds ( "FOR HIS EXPENSES").... a month passed by when he contacted me again wanting more money.......that is when I started to realize  he was a 'bagman' for this Labor Alderman. note: I did not get my approval.
> 
> Yes, I will agree fully, the modern media has far too much influence on the young and the naive who have not had the experience to think for themselves so they believe in the lies they are brainwashed with that come out of the biased ABC, the Age  and the Guardian and the socialist Labor Party. Alan Jones listed a dozen or more proven lies out of the biased  ABC in his interview with Malcolm Turnbull...Go to 2GB and listen to that interview  and  the truth is there which nobody can deny it did not happen....I will endeavor to find the link.
> 
> McLovin, I could probably lay claim to being the oldest member of the ASF.....I am proud to have my OBE and I can assure you I have lived through the 50's and 60's when there was a lot of influence by the communist party upon the unions who were hell bent on wrecking the Australian economy through their outlandish demands for higher wages and conditions and in turn our manufacturing industry which  has all but been demolished. We can all observe today the affect it has had and  in particular on the car industry..
> 
> So the modern Communist Party are now using the Green/Labor extreme left to push their hidden agenda to convert to socialism which means the state want to own and nationalize the banks, the mining industry, farming, agriculture and what is left of the manufacturing industry. They do not believe in free enterprise and profits are a 'dirty' word...Could you imagine how long the communist party would last if they came out in the open and used the appropriate name.?
> 
> McLovin, I can assure you if the current Labor Party changed their ideology and came up with some sensible policies to fix the mess they have left us with in 2007/13, I would consider them again...they have no policy and have not suggested one way of rectifying the debt and deficit....all they are intent on doing is making sure the Abbott Government do not succeed in bringing things under control.......as Alan Jones quoted....Abbott has put his career on the line to save Australia....Shorten has put Australia on the line to save his career. unquote.
> 
> So I have said my piece and expressed my opinion and I trust the looney left will accept it without coming back with personal derogatory remarks.




Here is the link to the interview between Jones and Turnbull with mention of the ABC ...Listen from 14.00

http://www.2gb.com/article/alan-jones-malcolm-turnbull-4#.U5Jwy2RzDcs


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> This seems to be multiple callers all fawning over him and ringing to agree with whatever he has most recently been mouthing off over.




No doubt filtered calls or a paid cheer squad.


----------



## IFocus

Mike Carlton sticks the boots in



> You can smell the doubt in Tory ranks, see the fear in Tory eyes. It’s not yet panic, although in this febrile political climate it wouldn’t take much to start one. But they are worried, deeply worried, that *Tony Abbott might just have lost the plot.
> *
> This swine of a budget has been a disaster, both in its construction and its political execution. Stunned by the public protest, Abbott and his ministers have been furiously daubing the pig with lipstick, but it’s not working. The polls have the Coalition trailing badly on the primary vote and Bill Shorten is streets ahead as preferred prime minister, even though he has done little but keep his bum pointed to the ground.
> 
> So the usual Tory toadies of the media are stampeding to the aid of the party. For more than a week they have been exhorting Abbott to stand firm, to take arms against a sea of troubles, blah blah. Always a sure sign the faecal matter has hit the fan.







> The polls tell you more and more people are realising Abbott has not so much lost the plot as that he never had one. In opposition he was the wrecker, brutally effective against a divided and demoralised Labor Party, promising to lead an adult government faithful to its election commitments. But in power he and his ministers trudge through the smoking ruins of their policy flip-flops and broken promises, haplessly blaming their predecessors for the mess. This scaled new heights of idiocy on Wednesday when  Defence Minister David Johnston proclaimed that it was Labor’s fault Abbott’s RAAF VIP jet had been late leaving for Indonesia.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/tory-...y-enjoyable-20140606-zs0e2.html#ixzz33v2iosMM


----------



## IFocus

Nice summary of the Coalitions past weeks mess



> Just before Alan Jones introduced Andrew Bolt to his radio audience on Wednesday, and launched into a tag-team assault on the character and competence of the most popular figure in the Abbott government, Sydney’s talkback king offered listeners some context for the discussion.
> 
> ‘‘For some weeks now, the attacks on the Prime Minister of Australia have been unbelievably personal,’’ Jones began, adding that the language critics used to describe Tony Abbott had been ‘‘almost unprecedented’’.
> 
> *He didn’t explain that uncharacteristic caveat, almost, but it might just have been that, deep down, he understood that the things said about Abbott by his political foes are not in the same league of viciousness that Jones  reached when talking about another prime minister, Julia Gillard.
> *
> Here was the commentator who, soon after the death of Gillard’s father, said John Gillard had ‘‘died of shame’’ because ‘‘he had a daughter who told lies every time she stood for Parliament’’; who called her ‘‘Ju-liar’’ to her face; and who asserted she should be tied in a chaff bag, taken to sea and dumped.






> *The problem for the Coalition is that the attacks on Turnbull have damaged its standing,* which was already at a record low for a new government, and almost certainly enhanced his, especially among small-l liberals.
> 
> There is no suggestion Bolt was acting in response to any urgings from the Prime Minister’s office, but he does claim to be reflecting concerns about Turnbull from ‘‘some of Abbott’s troops’’. This points to an emerging problem, as does the mischief-making by those ‘‘senior Liberals’’ who told the ABC that Nationals ministers were duped into supporting the reintroduction of petrol excise – a claim flatly rejected by the government.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/after...breaks-down-20140606-zrzw8.html#ixzz33v4pfIN1


----------



## sptrawler

Great headline by the SMH

ABBOTT EMBARASSING US ON THE WORLD STAGE, SAYS LABOR. 
Well who really gives a $hit what Labor thinks, apart from the SMH, IFocus and Rumpole .

Unbelievable nonsense reporting. Please let us go into a full blown recession, so these idiots can report on real news.
Maybe we need a new thread 'Stupid News Headlines'

By the way it is great to see IFocus quoting Jones and Bolt.lol
Not unusual to see Carlton get a jersey though, what a dick.


----------



## Caveman

sptrawler said:


> Maybe we need a new thread 'Stupid News Headlines'



One has already been created its called the Bolt Report.


----------



## sydboy007

Seems like the Abbott Government wants east Jerusalem and West Bank to be O4B now.

I can't believe Bishop is so ill informed as question the illegality of Israel's settlements on occupied land.  Is this some sort of sop to try and keep the Jewish community in Australia on side during the ham fisted changes to the racial discrimination act by the Government?  Maybe it's just the tea party right asserting their influence?

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/austr...middle-east-peace-process-20140608-zs15x.html

_Australia’s new policy of refusing to describe East Jerusalem as “occupied”, confirmed by a statement made by Attorney-General George Brandis in consultation with Foreign Minister Julie Bishop..

The government’s statement follows Julie Bishop’s earlier break from bipartisan consensus when she said in Israel in January that she’d like to see which international law has declared Israel’s settlements illegal. The answer is that there is overwhelming international consensus that Israel is in clear breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention, specifically Article 49, paragraph 6, which states that  “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”.  

When New Jersey Governor Chris Christie referred to visiting Israel and flying over "the occupied territories", he was immediately upbraided by Adelson and required to issue a clarification. Tea Party Republican orthodoxy prohibits reference to occupation:  "occupied territories" are now “disputed" only._


----------



## explod

Touching the above topic Sydboy, a good reference is Alan hart on Zionism


----------



## banco

sptrawler said:


> Great headline by the SMH
> 
> ABBOTT EMBARASSING US ON THE WORLD STAGE, SAYS LABOR.
> Well who really gives a $hit what Labor thinks, apart from the SMH, IFocus and Rumpole .
> 
> Unbelievable nonsense reporting. Please let us go into a full blown recession, so these idiots can report on real news.
> Maybe we need a new thread 'Stupid News Headlines'
> 
> By the way it is great to see IFocus quoting Jones and Bolt.lol
> Not unusual to see Carlton get a jersey though, what a dick.




I hope you are on statins otherwise I can see you keeling over after reading yet another story that doesn't shower glory on the dear leader.


----------



## Logique

Would have thought Hillary was better than that: http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...d-faced-outrageous-sexism-20140610-zs2uf.html

Or at least better researched. Or less gender bigoted.

I might have thought about being supportive of her tilt, but ho hum, too predictable.


----------



## IFocus

In fighting starting already.........

Coalition split on paid parental leave sparks Joe Hockey budget warning



> Of the National party’s six senators (including Country Liberal Party senator Nigel Scullion) only Bridget McKenzie and Fiona Nash have confirmed they support the scheme. Scullion has yet to confirm how he will vote.
> 
> Boswell argued PPL was unfair to rural Australians, who generally earn less than their city counterparts, and would discriminate against stay-at-home mothers.
> 
> “You help the weak, not the strong,’’ Boswell told the Australian.




http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...rental-leave-sparks-joe-hockey-budget-warning


----------



## sptrawler

banco said:


> I hope you are on statins otherwise I can see you keeling over after reading yet another story that doesn't shower glory on the dear leader.




I don't care that the SMH doesn't shower glory or even praise on Abbott.

What I do care about, is the SMH using the oppostion leaders opinion, as a judgement of Abbotts performance.

Then using it as a headline,it is just ridiculous.


----------



## Julia

Logique said:


> Would have thought Hillary was better than that: http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...d-faced-outrageous-sexism-20140610-zs2uf.html
> 
> Or at least better researched. Or less gender bigoted.
> 
> I might have thought about being supportive of her tilt, but ho hum, too predictable.



I guess there are a few ways at looking at this.

They are on the 'same side' politically, for a start.  

Given Hillary's experiences with her husband's, er, peccadilloes she is probably an arch feminist.  The feminazis seem to lack objectivity in their determination to stick up for their own gender.

No doubt such a stance will have been exacerbated by sexism she has experienced herself, particularly from the Republicans.

I agree with you, Logique, but - depending on who the Republican candidate is - I still think she'd be a pretty good President, at least compared with some in the past.  Rumour has Jed Bush as being the Republican nominee.  Pretty funny if there's another Bush/Clinton contest.


----------



## IFocus

Julia said:


> I agree with you, Logique, but - depending on who the Republican candidate is - I still think she'd be a pretty good President, at least compared with some in the past.  Rumour has Jed Bush as being the Republican nominee.  Pretty funny if there's another Bush/Clinton contest.




A number of prize Republican candidates stayed out last election due to Obama seen as a shoe in.

I think the next US election will see a better field for the Republicans but Hilary could make a good president I think she would be further to the right than Bill.


----------



## sydboy007

_''The government is open to criticism and debate about our budget. However, we owe it to the community to set the facts straight and articulate the reasoning behind our decisions,'' the Treasurer said.

''Criticism of our strategy has been political in nature and has drifted to 1970s class warfare lines, claiming the budget is 'unfair' or that the 'rich don't contribute enough'.

''I would argue that the comments about inequality in Australia are largely misguided, both from an historical perspective, and from the perspective of the budget.''

''But a just and fair society must not seek to penalise those who aspire to be better. We must reward the lifters and discourage the leaners,'' he said._

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/call...-joe-hockey-20140611-39xsd.html#ixzz34MHDK8hg

If the Abbott Government is truly thinking like this then they've certainly lost the centre.  In a slowing economy with rising unemployment I'd like Hocket and Abbott to explain how removing support for those under 30 is in any way going to increase youth and the under 30s employment levels.


----------



## Logique

sydboy007 said:


> _''.....''Criticism of our strategy has been political in nature and has drifted to 1970s class warfare lines, claiming the budget is 'unfair' or that the 'rich don't contribute enough'.
> ''I would argue that the comments about inequality in Australia are largely misguided, both from an historical perspective, and from the perspective of the budget.''..._
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/call...-joe-hockey-20140611-39xsd.html#ixzz34MHDK8hg
> 
> If the Abbott Government is truly thinking like this then *they've certainly lost the centre*.   In a slowing economy with rising unemployment I'd like Hocket and Abbott to explain how removing support for those under 30 is in any way going to increase youth and the under 30s employment levels.



Where there's smoke there's fire. Clive Palmer..like a fox. Malcolm knows.

We wanted change, but we didn't want scarey north shore cossetted (a Sydney reference), elitist 'blame the victim' dogmatism. 

Lives in too comfortable a world does PM Abbott, and we see who advises him.

Of course, Malcolm lives in a comfortable world as well, but at least he has an eastern suburbs (another Sydney reference) constituency, who keep him honest.

One term, it is increasingly apparent.


----------



## IFocus

Seems everyone is lining up to put the boots in



John Hewson criticises 'obvious inequity' of budget measures

Former Liberal party leader scathing of Coalition's approach as new report points to rising income inequality



> The Abbott government has burned much of its political capital for little gain with budget measures characterised by “obvious inequity”, the former Liberal leader John Hewson has argued.
> 
> Hewson made the forthright comments about the disproportionate impact of the budget on the poor while launching a new report that points to rising income inequality in Australia.
> 
> “Even though the Abbott government were at pains prior to the budget to argue that ‘fixing the budget’, one of those dot points that they took to the election, would be done by sharing the burden of adjustment, the electoral backlash was driven by the obvious inequity of many of the budget measures that were proposed,” Hewson said during an event at Parliament House in Canberra on Wednesday.
> 
> “The budget proposed in simple terms a cut of some 12% to 15% in the disposable income of the lower-income groups, single-income families, families with children, but only less than 1% cut in disposable incomes for those on higher incomes.
> 
> “Moreover the government has burnt much of its political capital for little gain, in my view, in terms of ‘fixing the budget’, especially when the unfunded challenges of meeting some of those very large expenditure commitments in the out years still persist.”




http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...riticises-obvious-inequity-of-budget-measures


----------



## orr

If you luv football, you've just gotta luv goal posts. My favourite, are 'shifting ones'. Like Joseph Hellers 'Colonel Cathcart' in Catch22, ar$e licking HQ and his ever increasing number of missions for the bomber crews under his command, to finish their tour of duty, so do we see now Abbotts toadying to the fossil fool industry; Once it was no use Australia going out to lead the world on climate action if there was no movement in that direction from the worlds bigggg emitters of CO2. But now as they have announced their intention to move, the US China South Korea the UK, it's no longer a prerequisite. Our PM StumbleBum, either blissfully ignorant, or a complete muppet, or both, fails to grasp what is ahead tomorrow let alone whats in store for his grand children. 

And no dropping in to Baghdad on the trip this time? to observe the flowering democracy so evident in every oil weeping pour of that nation. And to be showered by its rapturous populace in praise that his political mentor,John Howard, who saw fit to help 'rein' down such luck upon them.

so much better that they're blow-up on the streets there, than cause disquiet by drowning on their way here or worst still cost us money by filling our gulags


----------



## Julia

Logique said:


> One term, it is increasingly apparent.



Don't you think it's a little premature to make such a prediction, Logique?  They have more than two years to go.
Do you disagree that measures need to be taken to counteract the projected increases in spending, apparently the highest in the world going forward?

How would you like to see this dealt with?   Someone is going to lose out, obviously.  If you're unhappy with what the government is proposing, presumably you have something better in mind which will ameliorate increasing debt.



IFocus said:


> Seems everyone is lining up to put the boots in
> John Hewson criticises 'obvious inequity' of budget measures



There are two notable features about John Hewson:
1.  He was a failed candidate for PM, being completely unconvincing re the introduction of the GST
2.  He has been one of the most vocal critics of all current politicians, despite his own exceptional failure.

I'd rather take notice of someone who was successful like Paul Keating or John Howard.

Perhaps, along with Malcolm Fraser, Dr Hewson should consider quietly retreating into anonymity instead of insisting he has wisdom to impart to present governments and oppositions.


----------



## Smurf1976

Julia said:


> I'd rather take notice of someone who was successful like Paul Keating or John Howard.



Agreed with your logic although in this case Hewson's actual comments are pretty much spot on in my view.

Abbott has alienated a disproportionate number of people relative to the budget gains achieved. Whether or not it's good economics (and I doubt it), it's not smart politics in the long run.

As for alternative options, first thing I'd be looking at is closing the loopholes. If the tax rates are intended to be x then that's what they should be. No loopholes available only to those for whom finding them saves a fortune. If it's x% tax then it's x% tax, end of story. How much it would actually save I don't know, but it would look a lot better politically to be targeting tax avoidance prior to cutting in other areas etc.


----------



## sydboy007

Smurf1976 said:


> Agreed with your logic although in this case Hewson's actual comments are pretty much spot on in my view.
> 
> Abbott has alienated a disproportionate number of people relative to the budget gains achieved. Whether or not it's good economics (and I doubt it), it's not smart politics in the long run.
> 
> As for alternative options, first thing I'd be looking at is closing the loopholes. If the tax rates are intended to be x then that's what they should be. No loopholes available only to those for whom finding them saves a fortune. If it's x% tax then it's x% tax, end of story. How much it would actually save I don't know, but it would look a lot better politically to be targeting tax avoidance prior to cutting in other areas etc.




+100

tax expenditures generally benefit he already well off, while the focus appears to be on actual revenue spending, yet a $ the Govt chooses not to tax is equivalent to a $ of spending, just one is easier to see since it appears as a $ figure in the budget papers.

Considering tax expenditures are equivalent to roughly 8% of GDP, there's plenty of scope to target that area to increase revenue without actually increasing tax rates.

We HAVE to move away from taxing profits and income and hard work and more to taxing land / resources / consumption.  If the budget did this I'd expect to be a similar level of grumbling, but an acceptance that it is sharing the burden equitably and in a manner that enhances the long term stability of the budget.  The Abbot Govt budget definitely does not do this.


----------



## IFocus

Julia said:


> I'd rather take notice of someone who was successful like Paul Keating or John Howard.
> 
> Perhaps, along with Malcolm Fraser, Dr Hewson should consider quietly retreating into anonymity instead of insisting he has wisdom to impart to present governments and oppositions.




If you read through the article I thought Hewson had some very good points.

Hewson was the perfect example of some rising too quickly (3 years then gaining the Liberal party leadership)before gaining enough political experience, Turnbull is another.
Hewson was also up against Paul Keating at his best, I don't believe any modern day politician would survive long and before the Liberal supporters turn up saying Howard defeated Keating, Keating had been in government as treasurer (8 years) and PM (5 years ) for 13 years total.  

To some extent I would argue the other side as saying Hewson isn't tainted by the need of giving the usual tribal response also he is some one who has had a very successful career outside of politics in banking and economics unlike Keating, Howard, Abbott and Hockey all of who are career politicians.


----------



## IFocus

I am just wondering why the change (sucking up to the Jewish lobby after burning it with the senseless "Bolt law" change perhaps) given that no one else has appeared to do the same. The "Bush Socialists"  are going to get really angry if it translates into trade losses at the farm gate.

PM rejects Arab risk to farm trade



> Tony Abbott has escalated a diplomatic brawl with Arab countries that threatens billions of dollars worth of farm exports, standing by a "provocative" adoption of more pro-Israel language.
> 
> Speaking to The Weekend West in Washington yesterday, the Prime Minister rejected as "far-fetched" threats by Arab League nations to stop taking Australian exports over what he described as a "slight change in terminology".





Slight change to terminology..........really, seems the Arabs understand English better than Abbott.


https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/24236151/pm-rejects-arab-risk-to-farm-trade/


----------



## IFocus

Interesting from the Australian so it must be true calls Hockey an absolute liar




Benefits of boom shared, says HILDA report 



> The trend towards greater self-reliance ”” driven by the productivity gains of the 1990s and the resources boom ”” cuts across Joe Hockey’s argument that tough budget measures are necessary to tackle a culture of “entitlement” that has developed in Australia, with people more dependent on welfare than in other countries.







> Survey director asso*ciate professor Roger Wilkins said it highlighted the effect of welfare reforms aimed at increasing participation in the paid workforce.
> 
> “The clear overall trend over the last 20 years has been one of declining welfare reliance among both working-age people and retired people,” he said. “Even the recent economic slowdown does not appear to have arrested this trend. It’s therefore hard to argue that excessive welfare dependence is the burning issue of the day.”
> 
> The Treasurer argued last week that Australia had more *people in the poorest fifth of the population entirely dependent on welfare than any other country and that the welfare system needed to be reined in.
> 
> “Our welfare system is unsustainable in its current form and it is not well targeted to those who really need our assistance ... payments are too broadly available to too many people,” he said.






> One result has been a dramatic fall in the numbers living in poverty. The survey shows the share of the population unable to provide adequate food, clothing and shelter for themselves has dropped from 12.8 per cent to 5.7 per cent.
> 
> Fewer people are claiming unemployment and parenting benefits, the Age Pension or most other forms of welfare support. The big exception is the disability pension, where repeated rounds of reforms since 2006 designed to make it more difficult to obtain appear to have had no sustained effect.


----------



## noco

The ABC, Fairfax and the Labor Party, in particular the shadow Foreign Minister, should now hang their heads in shame after portraying Abbott's overseas trip a failure which we all know is far from the truth.

The Shadow Foreign Minister mad a stupid statement to the press that Abbott had no friends overseas....now it has come back to bite her on the *um.......She is as big a liar as is her boss.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...crediting-abbott/story-fn558imw-1226955140286

Critics obsessed with discrediting Abbott

    TALKING POINT
    The Australian
    June 16, 2014 12:00AM



TONY Abbott returns from a very successful overseas tour during which he held court with numerous overseas heads of state, most notably the President of Indonesia, the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the US. I have no doubt that Abbott would win the approval of those with whom he met, just as he did on his recent trip to Japan and China.

Abbott may not be the world’s greatest showman, but what you see is what you get: sincerity with a straight forward presentation.

What is concerning, however, is that his Labor and Greens opponents, along with the ABC and Fairfax media, seem obsessed with discrediting Abbott domestically. These people want Abbott, the individual, to fail simply because he is Abbott, not because of what he stands for.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> _''The government is open to criticism and debate about our budget. However, we owe it to the community to set the facts straight and articulate the reasoning behind our decisions,'' the Treasurer said.
> 
> ''Criticism of our strategy has been political in nature and has drifted to 1970s class warfare lines, claiming the budget is 'unfair' or that the 'rich don't contribute enough'.
> 
> ''I would argue that the comments about inequality in Australia are largely misguided, both from an historical perspective, and from the perspective of the budget.''
> 
> ''But a just and fair society must not seek to penalise those who aspire to be better. We must reward the lifters and discourage the leaners,'' he said._
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/call...-joe-hockey-20140611-39xsd.html#ixzz34MHDK8hg
> 
> If the Abbott Government is truly thinking like this then they've certainly lost the centre.  In a slowing economy with rising unemployment I'd like Hocket and Abbott to explain how removing support for those under 30 is in any way going to increase youth and the under 30s employment levels.




As the baby boomers retire from the workforce, it may not demographally fit with the youth unemployment areas.
So I would think it is a bit of carrot and cane going on.

Didn't the government say they would give relocation allowances to unemployed youth, relocating for employment.

We could go happily along, with huge centres of unemployed young people and keep bringing in 457's to take up jobs in areas they don't want to live in.

Just up the taxes, then the unemployed can stay in the areas they want to live.

We can't have it all ways, at the moment work is an option, if you feel like it

I remember seeing an interview with a young lady in Newcastle, when the relocation allowance was announced.
She had attained a degree but couldn't find work in Newcastle, she didn't want to relocate because her family and friends were there. The journalist was sympathetic and asked why should she have to.
I wonder why she shouldn't have to? If she can't find a job in her chosen stream and decides to stay there. 
She won't have any super, so she will possibly be on some form of welfare all her life and still owe hecs.lol


----------



## noco

noco said:


> The ABC, Fairfax and the Labor Party, in particular the shadow Foreign Minister, should now hang their heads in shame after portraying Abbott's overseas trip a failure which we all know is far from the truth.
> 
> The Shadow Foreign Minister mad a stupid statement to the press that Abbott had no friends overseas....now it has come back to bite her on the *um.......She is as big a liar as is her boss.
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...crediting-abbott/story-fn558imw-1226955140286
> 
> Critics obsessed with discrediting Abbott
> 
> TALKING POINT
> The Australian
> June 16, 2014 12:00AM
> 
> 
> 
> TONY Abbott returns from a very successful overseas tour during which he held court with numerous overseas heads of state, most notably the President of Indonesia, the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the US. I have no doubt that Abbott would win the approval of those with whom he met, just as he did on his recent trip to Japan and China.
> 
> Abbott may not be the world’s greatest showman, but what you see is what you get: sincerity with a straight forward presentation.
> 
> What is concerning, however, is that his Labor and Greens opponents, along with the ABC and Fairfax media, seem obsessed with discrediting Abbott domestically. These people want Abbott, the individual, to fail simply because he is Abbott, not because of what he stands for.




And here is more on the failure of the left media to discredit and embarrass Tony Abbott......The lies and the beat up stories are  degrading their characters on every occasion to the point where surely any sane Australian can see through their objectives.....The socialist media should be the ones who are embarrassed.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...ards-tony-abbott/story-fni0ffxg-1226955073776


----------



## sptrawler

This is an example of sexism.IMO

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/national/a/24250149/gillard-faced-outrageous-sexism-clinton/

How Gillards mysogyny speach, wasn't ever tested by the media for validation, has left Abbott with an undeserved tag. 
To me, that smacks of sexist behaviour, by the media.
Obviously sexism towards Abbott is o.k.

When Palmer made comments towards Abbotts female head of staff, that's o.k
Mysogyny is only a dirty word, if you can hang it on Abbott.lol


----------



## Knobby22

I keep being stunned by the "reforms" proposed.

The Federal Government will now not have any environmental controls and these will be undertaken by the states only. Qld and WA have already signed up. These controls were initially put in by Fraser to save Fraser island from sand mining. Howard enshrined them in law by creating the Environmental protection and Biodiversity Act. Abbott will retain one control, the ability to stop a project before the States have made a decision, but once they have there is no ability to stop any activity.

We will become the only country in the world that will not have the main government controlling the environment. The Barrier reef for instance belongs to all Australians. We deserve a say.

The other bit of information I wasn't aware of is that council grants have been frozen meaning council rates will have to rise substantially over the next 3 years. Bad luck pensioners and self funded retirees.


----------



## Calliope

Knobby22 said:


> We will become the only country in the world that will not have the main government controlling the environment. The Barrier reef for instance belongs to all Australians. We deserve a say.




I'm sure "your last hope" and saviour, Clive Palmer has your Barrier reef interests at heart and will give you a say I notice however, on another thread, that you still have some faith in Bill shorten



> CLIVE Palmer’s Queensland nickel refinery poses a serious environmental threat, with nitrogen concentrations in its ponds more than 150 times the maximum for sewage discharge in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, according to a high-level federal government report.
> 
> The threat of another major discharge from the ponds to the ecosystem of Halifax Bay in the World Heritage Area in northern Queensland has been described in internal documents as “similar to the daily discharge of treated sewage from a city of seven million people”.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...risk-says-report/story-fnk76wj3-1226824182234


----------



## Knobby22

Oh Calliope, a bad nights sleep yet again.
No I agree. Clive will encourage this. I think I said in another thread that he would not normally get a single vote except Abbott is doing such a bad job. I have heard he is up to nearly 20% of the vote at present. 
I don't see where I have said anything good about Bill Shorten, in fact I said the opposite very recently regarding his work experience. But still what has that to do with the price of fish?

Very trollish to go the man rather than the issues though. So let's start again. Are you for or against them?


I keep being stunned by the "reforms" proposed.

*The Federal Government will now not have any environmental controls* and these will be undertaken by the states only. Qld and WA have already signed up. These controls were initially put in by Fraser to save Fraser island from sand mining. Howard enshrined them in law by creating the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act. Abbott will retain one control, the ability to stop a project before the States have made a decision, but once they have there is no ability to stop any activity.

* We will become the only country in the world that will not have the main government controlling the environment*. The Barrier reef for instance belongs to all Australians. We deserve a say.

 The other bit of information I wasn't aware of is that *council grants have been frozen* meaning *council rates will have to rise substantially *over the next 3 years. *Bad luck pensioners and self funded retirees. *


----------



## Calliope

Knobby22 said:


> Very trollish to go the man rather than the issues though. So let's start again. Are you for or against them?
> 
> I keep being stunned by the "reforms" proposed.[/B]




I was not playing the man. It is just that I "keep being stunned" by how "the man" who says the reef belongs to everyone could consider a man, who is doing more than anyone else to trash the reef, as his last hope.

You say "let's start again". I say it would be futile to discuss the environment with a man who cannot decide whether he is a Greenie or a PUPpet supporter, i.e. an environmentalist or a wrecker.

I have a feeling that you declared for PUP only because you see them as the best chance of derailing the Abbott government which you hate.


----------



## Knobby22

Calliope said:


> You say "let's start again". I say it would be futile to discuss the environment with a man who cannot decide whether he is a Greenie or a PUPpet supporter, i.e. an environmentalist or a wrecker.




Don't discuss it then.


----------



## Julia

sptrawler said:


> This is an example of sexism.IMO
> 
> https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/national/a/24250149/gillard-faced-outrageous-sexism-clinton/
> 
> How Gillards mysogyny speach, wasn't ever tested by the media for validation, has left Abbott with an undeserved tag.
> To me, that smacks of sexist behaviour, by the media.
> Obviously sexism towards Abbott is o.k.
> 
> When Palmer made comments towards Abbotts female head of staff, that's o.k
> Mysogyny is only a dirty word, if you can hang it on Abbott.lol



Agree.   I also lost some respect for Hillary Clinton on 7.30 last night for so lauding Gillard's 'misogyny speech'.



Knobby22 said:


> I keep being stunned by the "reforms" proposed.
> 
> The Federal Government will now not have any environmental controls and these will be undertaken by the states only. Qld and WA have already signed up. These controls were initially put in by Fraser to save Fraser island from sand mining. Howard enshrined them in law by creating the Environmental protection and Biodiversity Act. Abbott will retain one control, the ability to stop a project before the States have made a decision, but once they have there is no ability to stop any activity.



It's the mantra of a conservative government to reduce layers of government.  You seem to be implying that the States will be less responsible than the Commonwealth in looking after their own environmental matters.
I don't know why you'd draw that conclusion.  eg I doubt that this change will suddenly render Fraser Island a miner's paradise.



> We will become the only country in the world that will not have the main government controlling the environment. The Barrier reef for instance belongs to all Australians. We deserve a say.



How did you actually have a say in it when the Feds controlled it?  Just your capacity to vote against them in a general election?



> The other bit of information I wasn't aware of is that council grants have been frozen meaning council rates will have to rise substantially over the next 3 years. Bad luck pensioners and self funded retirees.



We'll see.  In Qld the government declared that concessions would have to be significantly reduced for the reason you describe.  The outcry was so huge, just two days later they reverted and issued an assurance no change would be made.   



Knobby22 said:


> Oh Calliope, a bad nights sleep yet again.
> No I agree. Clive will encourage this. I think I said in another thread that he would not normally get a single vote except Abbott is doing such a bad job. I have heard he is up to nearly 20% of the vote at present.
> I don't see where I have said anything good about Bill Shorten, in fact I said the opposite very recently regarding his work experience. But still what has that to do with the price of fish?



FWIW I recall a post of yours decrying the fact that Labor seem to be all over the place, unsure of what they represent.  Hardly any sort of endorsement of Mr Shorten.


----------



## SirRumpole

> It's the mantra of a conservative government to reduce layers of government. You seem to be implying that the States will be less responsible than the Commonwealth in looking after their own environmental matters.




When the States benefit directly from mining royalty payments, I would say it's a clear conflict of interest that they have control over protection of the environment in mining and gas/oil production permits.


----------



## waza1960

> When the States benefit directly from mining royalty payments, I would say it's a clear conflict of interest that they have control over protection of the environment in mining and gas/oil production permits.




 +1 Reminds me of the States and Gambling hopelessly conflicted there as well.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> _''The government is open to criticism and debate about our budget. However, we owe it to the community to set the facts straight and articulate the reasoning behind our decisions,'' the Treasurer said.
> 
> 
> If the Abbott Government is truly thinking like this then they've certainly lost the centre.  In a slowing economy with *rising unemployment* I'd like Hocket and Abbott to explain how removing support for those under 30 is in any way going to increase youth and the under 30s employment levels._



_

What are you talking about "RISING UNEMPLOYMENT"?......You are behind the times......unemployment has dropped has dropped to 5.8%......Labor predicted 6.2% last year._


----------



## Calliope

SirRumpole said:


> When the States benefit directly from mining royalty payments, I would say it's a clear conflict of interest that they have control over protection of the environment in mining and gas/oil production permits.




I think you mean the taxpayer benefits from the royalties  What you see as a conflct of interest, in getting rid of green tape, others see as common sense.


----------



## SirRumpole

Calliope said:


> I think you mean the taxpayer benefits from the royalties  What you see as a conflct of interest, in getting rid of green tape, others see as common sense.




The taxpayer also benefits from a clean environment. What you see as a commercial enterprise, others see as a pollution factory.


----------



## Calliope

SirRumpole said:


> The taxpayer also benefits from a clean environment. What you see as a commercial enterprise, others see as a pollution factory.




It's obvious you are not a taxpayer so we are poles apart on Green tape. Could you give me an example where Green tape reduces my taxes by derailing development?


----------



## trainspotter

SirRumpole said:


> The taxpayer also benefits from a clean environment. What you see as a commercial enterprise, others see as a pollution factory.




And it would appear the Greenies agree with you.



> "Adani has a long record of environmental destruction and are not a company you would let look after your pot plants, let alone safeguard the future of the Great Barrier Reef," Greenpeace's Ben Pearson said in a statement.
> Mr Pearson said the mine would see a new coal terminal built at Abbot Point in the reef's World Heritage area, requiring dredging and dumping and thousands of extra ships through the reef.




http://www.news.com.au/national/bre...approval-delayed/story-e6frfku9-1226957289831

Great ... we have a lovely clean environment and NO JOBS 

Could be the stoush between Clive and the LNP (Gina Reinhart in the mix as well) has given the minister the jitters?

What's Abbott doing about it? Keeping the coal fires burning is what. 



> Mr Abbott, however, has made his opposition to carbon pricing and to binding international agreement even clearer. He used a visit to Canada before arriving in New York to caucus with the like-minded conservative leader Stephen Harper to publicly reinforce their contempt for carbon pricing. The two men expressed a newly articulated view against global limits, arguing individual countries should be free to determine their own action as long as there was *no cost to economic growth*.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...arack-obama-20140611-39xrq.html#ixzz34swIAX6g


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> What are you talking about "RISING UNEMPLOYMENT"?......You are behind the times......unemployment has dropped has dropped to 5.8%......Labor predicted 6.2% last year.




Over the last 12 months the participation rate has declined by 0.4%

That's equivalent to over 46,000 workers.  To put it into perspective the improvement in unemployment was 0.3% over the last year, but the fall in participation accounts for that improvement and more.  A stable participation rate would likely have an unemployment level of 6.1%-6.2%.

Then we also have the fall in aggregate worked hours, the hidden unemployment and underemployment in the economy.  May aggregate monthly hours worked decreased 2.1 million hours (0.1%) to 1,598.6 million hours.  May 2013 aggregate hours worked was 1,628.5 million hours.  Basically 30 million hours less work available last month.

The ABS estimates the labour force underutilisation rate is 13.5%.

I look forward to seeing how you can put a positive spin to the above reality.


----------



## sydboy007

trainspotter said:


> Great ... we have a lovely clean environment and NO JOBS




Without an environment there is no economy.  Do you suggest we follow the absolute laissez faire model of China in the pursuit of our economic growth?


----------



## Calliope

sydboy007 said:


> Without an environment there is no economy.




Do you mean in a vacuum?



> Do you suggest we follow the absolute laissez faire model of China in the pursuit of our economic growth?




Incredible. Is that what you inferred from trainspotter's post?:shake:


----------



## Julia

I know the level of trust in politicians is minimal, but imo to suggest that, because the Federal government has taken its hands off environmental matters and instead the responsibility rests with the states, all environmental concerns will be dumped and the whole of Australia will become one giant pit of mining is ludicrous.

What on earth is it about political afficionados that they persist in resorting to descriptions of doomsday when the slightest change is mooted?

Let's just recognise that a balance needs to be attained between appropriately caring for the environment and providing jobs for people.

If the Greens and their various supporters here had their way, we'd have about three quarters of the population on ultra generous dole payments.
Fine.  Just advise where the money is coming from.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Over the last 12 months the participation rate has declined by 0.4%
> 
> That's equivalent to over 46,000 workers.  To put it into perspective the improvement in unemployment was 0.3% over the last year, but the fall in participation accounts for that improvement and more.  A stable participation rate would likely have an unemployment level of 6.1%-6.2%.
> 
> Then we also have the fall in aggregate worked hours, the hidden unemployment and underemployment in the economy.  May aggregate monthly hours worked decreased 2.1 million hours (0.1%) to 1,598.6 million hours.  May 2013 aggregate hours worked was 1,628.5 million hours.  Basically 30 million hours less work available last month.
> 
> The ABS estimates the labour force underutilisation rate is 13.5%.
> 
> I look forward to seeing how you can put a positive spin to the above reality.








MAY KEY FIGURES


Apr 2014

May 2014

Apr 14 to May 14

May 13 to May 14
Trend 						
	Employed persons ('000) 	
11 560.0

11 573.1

13.1

0.9
	%
	Unemployed persons ('000) 	
721.9

719.7

-2.2

5.2
	%
	Unemployment rate (%) 	
5.9

5.9

0.0
	pts 	
0.2
	pts
	Participation rate (%) 	
64.7

64.7

0.0
	pts 	
-0.4
	pts
Seasonally Adjusted 						
	Employed persons ('000) 	
11 569.4

11 564.6

-4.8

0.9
	%
	Unemployed persons ('000) 	
713.9

717.1

3.2

6.5
	%
	Unemployment rate (%) 	
5.8

5.8

0.0
	pts 	
0.3
	pts
	Participation rate (%) 	
64.7

64.6

-0.1
	pts 	
-0.4
	pts

Employed Persons
Graph: Employed Persons


Unemployment Rate
Graph: Unemployment Rate




MAY KEY POINTS


TREND ESTIMATES (MONTHLY CHANGE)

    Employment increased to 11,573,100.
    Unemployment decreased to 719,700.
    Unemployment rate remained steady at 5.9%.
    Participation rate remained steady at 64.7%.
    Aggregate monthly hours worked decreased 2.1 million hours (0.1%) to 1,598.6 million hours.

Here are the latest statistics.

SEASONALLY ADJUSTED ESTIMATES (MONTHLY CHANGE)

    Employment decreased 4,800 to 11,564,600. Full-time employment increased 22,200 to 8,068,300 and part-time employment decreased 27,000 to 3,496,200.
    Unemployment increased 3,200 to 717,100. The number of unemployed persons looking for full-time work increased 9,000 to 529,700 and the number of unemployed persons only looking for part-time work decreased 5,900 to 187,400.
    The unemployment rate was unchanged at 5.8%.
    Participation rate decreased 0.1 pts to 64.6%.
    Aggregate monthly hours worked increased 26.5 million hours (1.7%) to 1 ,604.5 million hours.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> If the Greens and their various supporters here had their way, we'd have about three quarters of the population on ultra generous dole payments.
> Fine.  Just advise where the money is coming from.




Surely you don't have such a low opinion of our capabilities that you think we can't do anything else except dig stuff out of the ground ? 

Australia is a big country and there are plenty of places that minerals or gas can be dug up from without potentially affecting water supplies or peoples health, so when it comes to putting gas wells on farming land or near towns people have a right to object. 


Lots of other countries have minimal natural resources and they get along fine. Australia has a lot of resources and we can afford to develop those resources that don't interfere with peoples lives.

It's also interesting to note that some people approach the realms of hyperbole by assuming that all people who want a clean environment object to all mining activities. That is oversimplifying the debate to the point of absurdity. As has been said, there must be a balance.


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> Surely you don't have such a low opinion of our capabilities that you think we can't do anything else except dig stuff out of the ground ?
> 
> Australia is a big country and there are plenty of places that minerals or gas can be dug up from without potentially affecting water supplies or peoples health, so when it comes to putting gas wells on farming land or near towns people have a right to object.
> 
> 
> Lots of other countries have minimal natural resources and they get along fine. Australia has a lot of resources and we can afford to develop those resources that don't interfere with peoples lives.
> 
> It's also interesting to note that some people approach the realms of hyperbole by assuming that all people who want a clean environment object to all mining activities. That is oversimplifying the debate to the point of absurdity. As has been said, there must be a balance.



Rumpole, are you so bored that you continually attempt to create argument out of agreement?

I have already said, above:


> Let's just recognise that a balance needs to be attained between appropriately caring for the environment and providing jobs for people.




Continue if you wish.  I won't be further responding.


----------



## trainspotter

sydboy007 said:


> Without an environment there is no economy.  Do you suggest we follow the absolute laissez faire model of China in the pursuit of our economic growth?




Are you quoting Nicholas Georgescu-Rogen straight out of Pravda?


----------



## SirRumpole

> Let's just recognise that a balance needs to be attained between appropriately caring for the environment and providing jobs for people.




To which I agreed.

Julia , once again you confuse 'discussion' with 'argument'. If you don't want a response to some of your points, the only way is to not make them in the first place, and that would deprive us of your opinions and those of others in response, and we would be the poorer for it. 

I'd hate to think that in any forum, people always have to agree. Variety is the spice of life.

I may have taken that you were referring to me as a "Green's supporter", who you criticised. Am I not entitled to respond ?


----------



## trainspotter

I find it bizarre that they are spending so much money to send a personalised letter to the pensioners just to explain that they will be ....... of never mind 



> *PERSONALISED letters will be sent to quell the fears of age pensioners, who have been bombarding politicians with complaints about cuts to their payments.*
> Senior ministers in the Abbott Government have told nervous Coalition MPs that a letter would be sent to all 2.4 million age pensioners to explain that changes in the May Budget would not leave them with less money.




http://www.news.com.au/national/abb...over-budget-cuts/story-fncynjr2-1226957935144

So some quick maths :- 2.4 million letters at a cost of say $2.00 each made up of stationery, envelope, stamp, print costs etc. = just shy of 5 million dollars WASTED !!!


----------



## trainspotter

Not another election ... 



> *THE Abbott Government has been handed a double dissolution trigger from Labor and the Greens, and a challenge to send the people to another election over its carbon policies.*
> Legislation to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation was voted down in the Senate today for a second time.
> A number of other carbon tax repeal bills could face the same fate.
> It means the Coalition has the power to use the bill to trigger a double dissolution and call another election of both houses.




http://www.news.com.au/national/gre...f-the-carbon-tax/story-fncynjr2-1226958741882


----------



## noco

trainspotter said:


> I find it bizarre that they are spending so much money to send a personalised letter to the pensioners just to explain that they will be ....... of never mind
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/national/abb...over-budget-cuts/story-fncynjr2-1226957935144
> 
> So some quick maths :- 2.4 million letters at a cost of say $2.00 each made up of stationery, envelope, stamp, print costs etc. = just shy of 5 million dollars WASTED !!!




Perhaps if the Green/Labor socialist left wing could stop their stupid propaganda and lies, then these letters would not be necessary.

I am not sure how you came up with a figure of $2 per letter but I believe you have inflated the cost to it make look worse than it really is.

I am not sure whether the Government even pays postage...perhaps some other ASF members may know better.....I tried to google the subject in question but could not find an answer.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Perhaps if the Green/Labor socialist left wing could stop their stupid propaganda and lies, then these letters would not be necessary.




perhaps if this government had a modicum of communication skills, they could explain their budget properly, as it is they are trying to sell a stinking carcass using taxpayers money, and proving as hopeless at that as they are bringing down an equitable budget.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Perhaps if the Green/Labor socialist left wing could stop their stupid propaganda and lies, then these letters would not be necessary.
> 
> I am not sure how you came up with a figure of $2 per letter but I believe you have inflated the cost to it make look worse than it really is.
> 
> I am not sure whether the Government even pays postage...perhaps some other ASF members may know better.....I tried to google the subject in question but could not find an answer.




Considering all the incorrect information various MPs from the L+NP have provided their constituents regarding the medicare co-payment, it's probably best they put something in writing, though even that is no longer proof that the L+NP will actually follow through with what they say.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> MAY KEY FIGURES




You've proved you can copy and paste, but you've missed the fall in the participation rate over the last year and ignored the near 30 million fall in hours worked as well.  At the minimum rate of pay that's close to half a billion less in wages for the month.  No wonder even the reject shop is having problems with people not spending.


----------



## sptrawler

trainspotter said:


> Not another election ...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/national/gre...f-the-carbon-tax/story-fncynjr2-1226958741882




With a bit of luck, we will get Labor back, we deserve it.


----------



## trainspotter

sptrawler said:


> With a bit of luck, we will get Labor back, we deserve it.




Luck has not so much to do with it .... The proletariat deserve the government they elect. 

Back to the printing press and throw it around to the bleeding hearts and artists I say !! Austerity or Prosperity? The answer is who pays the bill when the music stops? Which leads me to a vexing question that I am sure the more cerebral type of ASF member can answer.

To what debt levels can Australia bend to and still remain liquid? Does the debt ceiling need to be raised again? Do we need $700 cheques x 3 in the mail to spend on imported goods to stimulate the economy? As in that we seem to be carrying far less debt (Government and personal) than just about any other Western civilised Country. Austerity or Prosperity? Is Labor mentality of spending up big to pay your way out of a hypothetical recession or is it far better for Liberals to be toe cutting the economy? Do you spend your way out of debt to encourage the economy and tax the proletariat more? Or do you toe cut and sneakily shift boundaries to increase revenue from already underfunded failing systems?

Greece or Germany? Who got it right?


----------



## sydboy007

trainspotter said:


> Luck has not so much to do with it .... The proletariat deserve the government they elect.
> 
> Back to the printing press and throw it around to the bleeding hearts and artists I say !! Austerity or Prosperity? The answer is who pays the bill when the music stops? Which leads me to a vexing question that I am sure the more cerebral type of ASF member can answer.
> 
> To what debt levels can Australia bend to and still remain liquid? Does the debt ceiling need to be raised again? Do we need $700 cheques x 3 in the mail to spend on imported goods to stimulate the economy? As in that we seem to be carrying far less debt (Government and personal) than just about any other Western civilised Country. Austerity or Prosperity? Is Labor mentality of spending up big to pay your way out of a hypothetical recession or is it far better for Liberals to be toe cutting the economy? Do you spend your way out of debt to encourage the economy and tax the proletariat more? Or do you toe cut and sneakily shift boundaries to increase revenue from already underfunded failing systems?
> 
> Greece or Germany? Who got it right?




There is no debt ceiling.  The Government with the Greens have removed it.

Better question is should the 8% of GDP in tax expenditures (highest in the world according to the OECD) be targeted.  That's over $120B worth of foregone revenue.  Surely there's some fat in there that could be taxed better?


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> There is no debt ceiling.  The Government with the Greens have removed it.
> 
> Better question is should the 8% of GDP in tax expenditures (highest in the world according to the OECD) be targeted.  That's over $120B worth of foregone revenue.  Surely there's some fat in there that could be taxed better?




Just up the company tax rate, broaden the super profits tax, increase the carbon tax and increase tax rates for those on $80k+,.
Increase the dole, increase the pension, increase rent assistance, increase first home buyers grant,increase 457 visas for remote area workers.
Problem solvered.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> perhaps if this government had a modicum of communication skills, they could explain their budget properly, as it is they are trying to sell a stinking carcass using taxpayers money, and proving as hopeless at that as they are bringing down an equitable budget.




Instead of whinging like your comrades, why don't you ask B*ll $hittin to come with his solution to fix the mess the Green/Labor socialist Government left behind last year.


----------



## trainspotter

PUUULEEEEZE peoples ... solutions and not fanciful hip shots is the order of the day. Who is right? Is there any country that has spent it's way out of a hypothetical "recession" ?? Would it work? Did it work for Greenspan? Or is it right to be toe cutting and cutting costs?

Discuss ...

Sydboy007 might have exposed a flaw in the tax system that could easily be implemented to the tune of 120 billion. Is there any other ideas out there?


----------



## sptrawler

trainspotter said:


> PUUULEEEEZE peoples ... solutions and not fanciful hip shots is the order of the day. Who is right? Is there any country that has spent it's way out of a hypothetical "recession" ?? Would it work? Did it work for Greenspan? Or is it right to be toe cutting and cutting costs?
> 
> Discuss ...
> 
> Sydboy007 might have exposed a flaw in the tax system that could easily be implemented to the tune of 120 billion. Is there any other ideas out there?




If you read the superannuation thread, he puts $50b of it down to super tax concessions. 
I think he is cherry picking, to support ideological arguement.
These same fiscal  issues were present when Labor was in government, he said nothing, now the coalition is in, he can't shut up.
Any coalition sugestions, he is unwilling to entertain, so what is the point in debating when all he wants is an audience.IMO


----------



## trainspotter

To make wine you must crush grapes to release the goodness. You have to break eggs to make an omelette. There needs to be some rough and tumble to be able to come to a solution. If an audience is required to pepper the rhetoric than so be it. Superannuation is a cash cow for the government and I am sure they have not finished tweaking the purse strings on this behemoth just yet. The government runs a fine line of either upsetting the industries that drive the stock market and or the economy as well as regulated savings. These are the "untouchables" but if it is mining or profit orientated (read free enterprise) then the government of the day thinks it is fair game (usually Labor policy to crush the employer) and I am wondering if Tony has the balls to implement similar strategies of taxing the BIG END of town or is he more for trimming the snouts in the trough methodology.

If it is a saving and for the greater good of the country then does it matter whose policy it is?

P.S. NSW won the State of Origin 

P.P.S. Do you think the Libs will pull the trigger and go back to the polls?


----------



## sptrawler

trainspotter said:


> To make wine you must crush grapes to release the goodness. You have to break eggs to make an omelette. There needs to be some rough and tumble to be able to come to a solution. If an audience is required to pepper the rhetoric than so be it. Superannuation is a cash cow for the government and I am sure they have not finished tweaking the purse strings on this behemoth just yet. The government runs a fine line of either upsetting the industries that drive the stock market and or the economy as well as regulated savings. These are the "untouchables" but if it is mining or profit orientated (read free enterprise) then the government of the day thinks it is fair game (usually Labor policy to crush the employer) and I am wondering if Tony has the balls to implement similar strategies of taxing the BIG END of town or is he more for trimming the snouts in the trough methodology.
> 
> If it is a saving and for the greater good of the country then does it matter whose policy it is?
> 
> P.S. NSW won the State of Origin
> 
> P.P.S. Do you think the Libs will pull the trigger and go back to the polls?




In a word NO.
It would be suicide, the media have carved them up, Labor and the Greens have wedged them.

It is hard to sell a bitter pill, even harder if the media is telling you not to take it.

The problem is the longer you leave it, the bigger dose you have to take.

History shows Abbott is no idiot, my guess, he is working to a plan.

Any chages to increase tax, will leave Labor and the Greens with little option other than agree. Then all tax increases are down to them, as they wouldn't agree to reductions in spending.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> perhaps if this government had a modicum of communication skills, they could explain their budget properly, as it is they are trying to sell a stinking carcass using taxpayers money, and proving as hopeless at that as they are bringing down an equitable budget.




The problem is Rumpy, not only is the coalition fitting against the lies and the propaganda of the the Green/Labor socialist left, they are also having to contend with the biased ABC and Fairfax who do not want to see the Coalition remove the stinking dead carcass left behind by the Green/Labor socialist left.......$1 billion (taxpayers money) a month in interest on money the Green/Labor socialist left borrowed from the chows and if we had reelected the Green/Labor socialist left again in 2013, we would be paying $3 billion a month in interest.....You cannot deny the fact that this message has been spelt out by the coalition on a daily basis but the biased media only want to emphasis the bitter pill that is required to fix the Green/Labor socialist left sickness..

And of course you will never say how hopeless the Green/Labor socialist left were from 2007 to 2013.......the infighting, the change of leaders.....the wreckless spending and please don't tell me it was all about the GFC.....that was the excuse and not the real reason....the promises of budget surpluses year after year....how they opened the flood gates to illegal immigrants that has cost the tax payers over $11 billion....Swan and Gillard told us 500 times in 2012/13 they would have a surplus...perhaps we should have got that in writing.

The Green/Labor socialist left wing party do not have the National interest at heart, it is all about forcing their socialist ideology on the Australian community.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> The problem is Rumpy, not only is the coalition fitting against the lies and the propaganda of the the Green/Labor socialist left, they are also having to contend with the biased ABC and Fairfax who do not want to see the Coalition remove the stinking dead carcass left behind by the Green/Labor socialist left.....




Plenty of alternatives have been put up by myself and others on this forum that would have reduced the deficit more fairly than this budget has.

I won't go into detail again, but here are a few

Don't get rid of revenue sources like the carbon tax and mining tax (and don't spend the money that Labor allocated against the mining tax)
Phase out negative gearing on residential property
Don't introduce expensive PPL
Reduce tax avoidance by high income earners via family trusts and superannuation
Take action against tax avoiding international companies
Apply the medical co-payment directly to public hospitals
Reduce diesel fuel rebate
If necessary, modestly increase income tax rates across the board , and the Medicare levy.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Plenty of alternatives have been put up by myself and others on this forum that would have reduced the deficit more fairly than this budget has.
> 
> I won't go into detail again, but here are a few
> 
> Don't get rid of revenue sources like the carbon tax and mining tax (and don't spend the money that Labor allocated against the mining tax)
> Phase out negative gearing on residential property
> Don't introduce expensive PPL
> Reduce tax avoidance by high income earners via family trusts and superannuation
> Take action against tax avoiding international companies
> Apply the medical co-payment directly to public hospitals
> Reduce diesel fuel rebate
> If necessary, modestly increase income tax rates across the board , and the Medicare levy.




So Rumpy, in your theory above what are the figures you would come up with......I mean how much will it cost and how much will we save to get the budget back under control....there is no point in you coming up with ideas without some facts and figures.

But Rumpy, you seem to forget the Coalition were elected with a huge majority with a mandate to abolish the carbon tax that Rudd also backed...to bring the budget under control.....to stop the boats......Don't you remember Rudd saying he would abolish the carbon tax and of course we all know why he said it.......It is the Green/Labor socialist left wing saying one thing before the election and something different after the election like there will be no carbon tax under a Government I (Juliar) lead.

We live in a democracy...if this Government do not succeed in getting our finances under control, then we have what is called a ballot box where people can show their approval or disapproval in 2016 or before if there is a double dissolution of both houses...... The voters will decide whether they want a stable Government of whether they want to go back a big spending and  a big taxing Government.

So I suggest you advise your comrades of the left to allow the Coalition to do what they propose to do in the budget and stop obstructing.......The Green/Labor socialist left wing have even blocked $6 billion of the own proposed savings....So please tell me why they have exempt these savings now?


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Just up the company tax rate, broaden the super profits tax, increase the carbon tax and increase tax rates for those on $80k+,.
> Increase the dole, increase the pension, increase rent assistance, increase first home buyers grant,increase 457 visas for remote area workers.
> Problem solvered.




Tax resources, tax consumption, tax land

Why would you suggest increasing taxes on hard work 

Income and corporate taxes are the most inefficient taxes.

GST / land / resource taxes are the most efficient.

A change in the tax base could allow increased revenue AND lower taxes.

It would just take some true leadership to explain how this is possible to the electorate.  The Abbott Government can't even get their facts right on how the GP co payment will work, so I doubt they have the skills to get the public onside with major tax reform.


----------



## McLovin

Some good news...



> The High Court has ruled in favour of a Queensland father who challenged federal funding for the national schools chaplaincy program.
> 
> The challenge was launched by Ron Williams, who says there is no place in public schools for non-secular programs.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ins-program-20140619-3af5y.html#ixzz352po5RaP


----------



## Julia

McLovin, Mr Abbott is still determined to make it happen.  Have a look at the Religion is Crazy thread.


----------



## IFocus

McLovin said:


> Some good news...
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ins-program-20140619-3af5y.html#ixzz352po5RaP





You are a big disappointment you're not with the program


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> If you read the superannuation thread, he puts $50b of it down to super tax concessions.
> I think he is cherry picking, to support ideological arguement.
> These same fiscal  issues were present when Labor was in government, he said nothing, now the coalition is in, he can't shut up.
> Any coalition sugestions, he is unwilling to entertain, so what is the point in debating when all he wants is an audience.IMO




Please don't misrepresent what I've said.

I've complained that the super tax expenditures are around $30B with the industry and retail funds skimming $18B a year, while the SMSF sector is probably another $5B a year.

So to resolve an aged pension problem of $35B we're costing ourselves over $50B with the cost escalating rapidly.  to me that is not sensible policy.  I've complained of this when labor was in Government.

As for not supporting any current Govt policy, I've said I support the indexation of fuel excise and believe it was one of Howard's worst decisions, up there with tax free super and removing of RBLs.

There's nothing else worth supporting in the budget.  PPL - no thanks.  School Chaplains - nope.  Medicare co payment - I would if it was better targeted.  Deficit levy - it's a band-aid solution not meaningful reform.  Removal of the carbon and resources taxes - not unless Abbot can replace the revenue more fairly.

I'd be interested to know what you currently support from last Months budget.


----------



## Calliope

sydboy007 said:


> Please don't misrepresent what I've said.




Oh! The irony. Misrepresantation of opposing argument is your stock in trade.


----------



## dutchie

More good news

Jihadi Aussies mustn't be allowed back: PM


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...ng-iraq-sitation/story-fni0xqi4-1226960777157


----------



## Junior

sydboy007 said:


> Please don't misrepresent what I've said.
> 
> I've complained that the super tax expenditures are around $30B with the industry and retail funds skimming $18B a year, while the SMSF sector is probably another $5B a year.
> 
> So to resolve an aged pension problem of $35B we're costing ourselves over $50B with the cost escalating rapidly.  to me that is not sensible policy.  I've complained of this when labor was in Government.
> 
> As for not supporting any current Govt policy, I've said I support the indexation of fuel excise and believe it was one of Howard's worst decisions, up there with tax free super and removing of RBLs.
> 
> There's nothing else worth supporting in the budget.  PPL - no thanks.  School Chaplains - nope.  Medicare co payment - I would if it was better targeted.  Deficit levy - it's a band-aid solution not meaningful reform.  Removal of the carbon and resources taxes - not unless Abbot can replace the revenue more fairly.
> 
> I'd be interested to know what you currently support from last Months budget.




Hi Sydboy, I think your analysis of cost vs. saving is overly simplistic.

IF there was NO superannuation system that same pool of assets would be in the individuals hands (well...whatever % wasn't spent as it was earned)....and so it would still be invested somewhere, whether that be investment properties, shares, managed funds etc. and would still be subject to fees.  Accounting, agents fees, fund manager, stockbroker, financial planner, bank, legal etc.


----------



## Knobby22

dutchie said:


> More good news
> 
> Jihadi Aussies mustn't be allowed back: PM
> 
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...ng-iraq-sitation/story-fni0xqi4-1226960777157




But they are Australian citizens. How can he stop them coming home? Also, how can he prove that they were Jhadi and not just visiting relatives? I don't think there will be a problem with locking them up as it is against the law to fight foreign wars.


----------



## IFocus

Knobby22 said:


> But they are Australian citizens. How can he stop them coming home? Also, how can he prove that they were Jhadi and not just visiting relatives? I don't think there will be a problem with locking them up as it is against the law to fight foreign wars.




I have no sympathy for Jhadi but WTF is Abbott saying there is no process of law in this country.............


----------



## IFocus

Low life Abbott government backing the big end of town to screw the punters how disgusting.....where is the outrage from the Abbott lovers here.

Surely this legislation that they have pushed into parliament is so indicative of Abbott and his total disregard for any semblance of integrity.

Anger as Coalition waters down financial advice laws



> Consumer groups and industry super funds have hit out at the federal government's decision to push ahead with controversial changes to financial advice reforms.
> 
> Under changes to be introduced from July 1, the government will abolish a 'catch-all' provision for advisors to act in the best interests of their clients.
> 
> It will also exclude general advice from conflicted remuneration rules and remove the requirement for investors to 'opt-in' to authorise ongoing fees every two years.
> 
> The changes follow months of debate and speculation over the amendments to the future of financial advice (FOFA) reforms, introduced under Labor in response to a series of corporate collapses.
> 
> Consumer group Choice said the changes would wind back essential protection for consumers seeking financial advice.
> 
> ''Conflicted and poor financial advice has cost consumers billions and in too many cases led to people losing their homes and life savings,'' chief executive Alan Kirkland said.
> 
> ''This is why consumer protections were originally needed and exactly why they should not be removed.''




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/bank...advice-laws-20140620-3ahyl.html#ixzz35BZFODyk


----------



## dutchie

IFocus said:


> Low life Abbott government backing the big end of town to screw the punters how disgusting.....where is the outrage from the Abbott lovers here.
> 
> Surely this legislation that they have pushed into parliament is so indicative of Abbott and his total disregard for any semblance of integrity.
> 
> Anger as Coalition waters down financial advice laws
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/bank...advice-laws-20140620-3ahyl.html#ixzz35BZFODyk




Stagger me! I have to agree with IFocus.


----------



## IFocus

From Alan Kohler

Redraft the bloody FoFA bill, Minister



> he Senate committee is telling Finance Minister Mathias Cormann to redraft his FoFA bill, but is trying not to say it too loudly. So Alan Kohler says he'll do it for them: REDRAFT THE BLOODY BILL, MINISTER!
> 
> In a way, the two Senate inquiries were around the wrong way. The ASIC inquiry should have concluded before the other one began.
> 
> The ASIC one has been looking at what happens when advisers are paid commissions and don't act in their clients' best interests, and the inquiry into FoFA amendments has been looking at what to do about it.
> 
> So the Minister should wait for the second half of this opportunity (the Senate's report on ASIC's performance and the dreadful consequences of conflicted financial advice that it will contain) to think again before reacting to the suggestion from the FoFA committee's report that he redraft the amendments.
> 
> Maybe if he does that - and *he also thinks about why he went into public life in the first place* - Australia's hapless users of financial advice will end up with a good result.


----------



## IFocus

dutchie said:


> Stagger me! I have to agree with IFocus.




  dangerous territory Dutchie


----------



## Julia

IFocus said:


> Low life Abbott government backing the big end of town to screw the punters how disgusting.....where is the outrage from the Abbott lovers here.



Abbott lovers?   I can't think of even one on this forum.
Perhaps you don't bother reading the Superannuation thread.  There has been plenty of derision there about the watering down of FoFa.


----------



## SirRumpole

IFocus said:


> From Alan Kohler
> 
> Redraft the bloody FoFA bill, Minister




Why not just leave it the way it is ?


----------



## waza1960

> Abbott lovers? I can't think of even one on this forum




 Well I'm one and proud of it.
He may not turn out to be as great a PM as John Howard but compared to the labor rabble that was previously in Government he has integrity in spades.

 However I do think they are wrong to water down the FoFa.


----------



## IFocus

waza1960 said:


> Well I'm one and proud of it.





Good onya Waza


----------



## Smurf1976

Based on what I heard on the news, the basic idea is to remove responsibility from those giving financial advice should they end up losing someone's money.

OK, what next? Plumbers not responsible if they flood the house due to not connecting the pipes properly? Electrician isn't responsible if their faulty workmanship causes a fire or electric shock? Bus company not responsible if the bus isn't maintained and ends up crashing with injuries or worse to everyone on board? 

The possibilities are endless with this line of thinking. As for financial advice, the only rational response for ordinary consumers is to steer well clear of anyone calling themselves a financial adviser and do their own research on forums such as this one.


----------



## sydboy007

Junior said:


> Hi Sydboy, I think your analysis of cost vs. saving is overly simplistic.
> 
> IF there was NO superannuation system that same pool of assets would be in the individuals hands (well...whatever % wasn't spent as it was earned)....and so it would still be invested somewhere, whether that be investment properties, shares, managed funds etc. and would still be subject to fees.  Accounting, agents fees, fund manager, stockbroker, financial planner, bank, legal etc.




Fair points, but do you think we should be able to manage our retirement funds a lot cheaper than we currently do?

The Norwegians are able to run their SWF that has accumulated all their gas and oil income and it now stands at around half of the 1.8T in super saved here.  They run it all in house at a cost somewhere between 0.001 and 0.002%.  So what are we doing wrong?

There needs to be a move away from the FUM model, but I doubt that will happen while the FIRE sector has the major parties in their deep pockets.


----------



## medicowallet

Junior said:


> Hi Sydboy, I think your analysis of cost vs. saving is overly simplistic.
> 
> IF there was NO superannuation system that same pool of assets would be in the individuals hands (well...whatever % wasn't spent as it was earned)....and so it would still be invested somewhere, whether that be investment properties, shares, managed funds etc. and would still be subject to fees.  Accounting, agents fees, fund manager, stockbroker, financial planner, bank, legal etc.




You are wasting your time junior

I have tried to explain this to him multiple times with the alternatives eg neg geared property actually costing the govt more

What he doesnt understand is that the 1.x trillion makes profits which are taxed and are a great revenue stream

What peoplecwho dont pay the top marginal rate (or even worse no net tax) fail to understand is that even with some concessions you are still paying truckloads of tax, probably as a resukt of sacrificing something low to mid income earners were too lazy to do

Smacks of whinging to me
Barking up the wrong tree
Attacking thecpeople who give the most
Tall poppy
Poor understanding of the real world and the risks and stresses of many high income earners

Mw


----------



## Calliope

medicowallet said:


> Smacks of whinging to me
> Barking up the wrong tree
> Attacking thecpeople who give the most
> Tall poppy
> Poor understanding of the real world and the risks and stresses of many high income earners




All qualifications for being a Greenie.


----------



## Julia

waza1960 said:


> Well I'm one and proud of it.
> He may not turn out to be as great a PM as John Howard but compared to the labor rabble that was previously in Government he has integrity in spades.



Fair enough, waza.   I'm also much happier with Mr Abbott than I was with any of the Labor leaders.
And he's gaining confidence, despite all the detractors, with more fluent speech being especially noticeable.

Just having a small go at IFocus for the expression "Abbott lovers" which seemed unnecessarily derisive.


----------



## Calliope

It's not hard to figure out why, at the moment, Shorten is more popular than Abbott.  Sixty percent of Australian households pay no net income tax. At the merest suggestion in the budget that some of these might have to start pulling their weight, many of them stampeded like lemmings into Shorten's camp.

They are attracted to Shorten's philosophy that their "rights" have priority over such low priorities as balancing the budget. 

All the experts are saying this unpopularity could have been avoided if Abbott and Hockey had done a better job in selling the cut-backs, and the broken promises, as well as keeping some promises they should have broken.  

Not so...we have reached the _status quo_ where the leaners outnumber the lifters.


----------



## SirRumpole

Calliope said:


> All the experts are saying this unpopularity could have been avoided if Abbott and Hockey had done a better job in selling the *cut-backs*, and the broken promises, as well as keeping some promises they should have broken.
> 
> .




Haven't you been listening to question time ?

Abbott keeps saying there are NO cuts to health, NO cuts to education, NO cuts to pensions and NO cuts to family benefits.

It seems Abbott  can't even sell the budget to his own supporters


----------



## Calliope

I suppose your household is one of the 60% that pays no net income tax. That would account for you being a Shorten lover and an Abbott hater.


----------



## medicowallet

SirRumpole said:


> Haven't you been listening to question time ?
> 
> Abbott keeps saying there are NO cuts to health, NO cuts to education, NO cuts to pensions and NO cuts to family benefits.
> 
> It seems Abbott  can't even sell the budget to his own supporters




I am not sure of the details, because quite frankly I get shafted whichever government comes in.

but were there any cuts to net spending?

Or just cuts to proposed ( eg poison pilling ) unsustainable increases in spending?

MW


----------



## drsmith

explod said:


> By the news stirring of Jones and Bolt over the last couple of days it looks like the tip on 28th may be on the mark.
> 
> This thread looks like coming to an end sooner than we may think.



Labor will also win the next election 55%/45% 2PP like they did the last one.


----------



## Julia

medicowallet said:


> I am not sure of the details, because quite frankly I get shafted whichever government comes in.
> 
> but were there any cuts to net spending?
> 
> Or just cuts to proposed ( eg poison pilling ) unsustainable increases in spending?
> 
> MW



AFAIK, the latter.   But that doesn't matter.  Labor, Clive Palmer, the Greens and Fairfax are entirely happy to disregard that and talk about cuts, creating panic in the electorate, particularly amongst anxious aged pensioners who now believe their present entitlement is going to be reduced.

If we could adopt a Pollyanna approach, we'd believe that one day politicians might actually act together for the good of the Australian people as a whole.  Meantime, it's just a naive wish.


----------



## Knobby22

The new minister Mathias Cormann that took over from dodgy Sinodinos has done a good job modifying the financial advice laws imo.
He has got rid of my main concern being the reintroduction of dodgy fees and trailing commission for signing on dupes to schemes. If they don't exist then the financial advisors will be more likely to act in their clients interests.

He did state this is only the first step and they are looking into passing new regulations regarding financial planners. The previous laws were too unwieldy and costly. There are still ways around this, like a company like Storm putting adds on the TV and hiring people who have done the 9 day financial advisor course as receptionists to sell the stuff over the phone on a wage. I can't see how you can easily get around this.

It is in the financial advisor's interest that people can trust them. I nearly got conned by them in my early 30s but luckily I did enough research to obtain the knowledge to walk away. Plenty don't.

On a sideline, interesting that Abbott was called a sexist by his own upper house MP (who is retiring, bit late now to show some guts).


----------



## Calliope

Knobby22 said:


> On a sideline, interesting that Abbott was called a sexist by his own upper house MP (who is retiring, bit late now to show some guts).




I'd say gutless. She has always been a nasty piece of work, much more suited to your side of politics than the Liberals. If she'd had any guts she would have deserted to her true home with the greens years ago.



> RETIRING Liberal senator Sue Boyce has described Prime Minister Tony Abbott as "a sexist" and says the coalition has been "dog whistling" with its asylum seeker policies.
> 
> SPEAKING on her departure from federal parliament at the end of the month, Senator Boyce has told Fairfax Media she thinks Julia Gillard's famous misogyny speech was "powerful" and within context, "brilliant"







> Senator Boyce was proudest of her party's support for the National Disability Insurance Scheme but was concerned the Coalition was swinging too far to the right, particularly on issues such as asylum seekers, action against climate change and same-sex marriage.
> 
> ''I think the whole asylum seeker issue is fraught with dog whistling,'' she said, adding she did not appreciate the language used by Immigration Minister Scott Morrison. ''I mean, for example, I do not use the term 'illegal maritime arrivals'.''




http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-an...ls-out-sexist-tony-abbott-20140622-3alqg.html


----------



## sydboy007

Knobby22 said:


> The new minister Mathias Cormann that took over from dodgy Sinodinos has done a good job modifying the financial advice laws imo.
> He has got rid of my main concern being the reintroduction of dodgy fees and trailing commission for signing on dupes to schemes. If they don't exist then the financial advisors will be more likely to act in their clients interests.
> 
> He did state this is only the first step and they are looking into passing new regulations regarding financial planners. The previous laws were too unwieldy and costly. There are still ways around this, like a company like Storm putting adds on the TV and hiring people who have done the 9 day financial advisor course as receptionists to sell the stuff over the phone on a wage. I can't see how you can easily get around this.
> 
> It is in the financial advisor's interest that people can trust them. I nearly got conned by them in my early 30s but luckily I did enough research to obtain the knowledge to walk away. Plenty don't.
> 
> On a sideline, interesting that Abbott was called a sexist by his own upper house MP (who is retiring, bit late now to show some guts).




The issue is you may not be able to provide any form of commission, but the banks and likes of AMP are still able to offer staff bonuses for selling product, oops I mean providing general advise. 

You can bet the FIRE sector lawyers are already working out the legal loop holes to keep staff properly motivated.


----------



## Julia

Calliope said:


> I'd say gutless. She has always been a nasty piece of work, much more suited to your side of politics than the Liberals. If she'd had any guts she would have deserted to her true home with the greens years ago.



Knobby, perhaps consider that some people have their own agenda.  You might have noticed Senator MacDonald last week vociferously protesting the Coalition's PPL on the basis that it was unfair to place such a tax on business.  Then his next criticism was of the Levy on people earning over $180K, this time because *it did not* include a tax on business!

Senator MacDonald was demoted when the government took office, admitted he was very upset about it, and is now apparently  just being in search of revenge.

In view of the small number of females in the government, Senator Boyce may have considered she was due a cabinet position, despite her years of Left leaning commentary.  It's possible that she also is motivated by some emotion other than veracity in what she says.

Another Liberal who retired, I think, at the last election was Judi Moylan.  She also protested against many of her party's policies.
For god's sake, if you prefer the policies of the other side, have the courage to join Labor or The Greens instead of white anting your own party.

An aside on this, last night a quasi religious program on ABC's Local Radio network has as presenter a John Cleary.  Mr Cleary always invites a guest to agree with him and together they attack the government's policies.
Suitably encouraged, callers ring in and agree with everything they say, adding their own dose of venom.
Mr Cleary alleged that he had provided a balanced panel of commentators because he included ex Liberal Judi Moylan.  She, as always, railed against the immorality and hideousness of the government's asylum seeker policy.

I can't imagine how the call got through, but a woman phoned to say she would never listen to the program again because it was so utterly biased against the government, that there was never any balance by someone expressing a conservative view, etc etc.  So funny.  Actually shook Cleary and guests up!


----------



## Knobby22

The Libs are moving further to the right though, which is upsetting some of the less conservative elements.


----------



## SirRumpole

> I can't imagine how the call got through, but a woman phoned to say she would never listen to the program again because it was so utterly biased against the government, that there was never any balance by someone expressing a conservative view, etc etc. So funny. Actually shook Cleary and guests up!




Wasn't you was it ?


----------



## Calliope

Knobby22 said:


> The Libs are moving further to the right though, which is upsetting some of the less conservative elements.




Yes, if you favour the left wing policies of extravagent spending and having no inclination to balance the budget, I guess you would consider they are moving to the right. But if you agree with Senator Boyce that they are moving to the right on "issues such as asylum seekers, action against climate change and same-sex marriage." I think you are mistaken. 

These are issues they took to the election, and the "less conservative elements" as you call them, embraced them.


----------



## drsmith

Labor and the minors want to be careful on what they oppose in the senate.



> Labor is now rejecting budget savings worth about $25bn over four years, almost every spending cut or tax increase that needs to be legislated other than the deficit levy on earnings over $180,000, which passed the parliament last week.
> 
> The government estimated last night that Labor now opposed $39.3bn in overall savings measures, including those in the budget on top of others that have been before the parliament since late last year.
> 
> The social security measures, including changes to pension indexation and tougher rules for unemployment benefits, are set for defeat if put to the current Senate or to the upper house when new parties take their seats on July 7.
> 
> While the Liberal Democratic Party may support the Coalition on the welfare cuts, the reforms are expected to be opposed by Labor, the Greens, the Palmer United Party, the Democratic Labour Party and others.
> 
> The government has a chance of gaining some support from PUP, however, when its leader Clive Palmer meets Mr Abbott tomorrow morning.
> 
> Mr Palmer, who is expected to unveil his party’s position on key issues today, secured a renewed agreement from the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party yesterday when its senator-elect, Ricky Muir, reaffirmed his unity with the PUP.
> .




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-job-33bn-harder/story-fn59nsif-1226965710107

This government could well get the carbon and mining tax repeals through and then go to the polls in the face of an otherwise overly obstructionist senate.

Under such circumstances, Labor's economic platform would be interesting to say the least.

First though, we need to see what PUP does in practice.


----------



## sydboy007

i think labor should wave throught he entire budget.  Why protect the Liberals from their extremism.

say they would expect the same courtesy when next in Govt.

let the public see the good and bad of the direction the Government wants to go.

It would just be good if the Government, and all the parties, could actually have some consistency in their policies.

The Government says they wont withdraw the tax breaks to compensate for the carbon tax after it's repealed, so isn't that a continuation of the age of entitlement.

The greens want a carbon tax, but wont support the reintroduction of fuel excise indexation 

Labor opposing some of the sensible parts of the last budget.

Talk the talk, then walk the walk


----------



## Julia

If Labor and the small parties continue to obstruct the government's legislation in the Senate, the government are going to find it very difficult to do much about controlling the projected increasing expenditure.

Given the lack of any other evidence of cohesive policy from Labor, we might assume that this is their objective, i.e. being able to say as the next election rolls around "well, you've had three years to do something, and we're still in the same position ."

It's certainly hard to conclude that Labor has any more concern now for debt than they did when in office.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> It's certainly hard to conclude that Labor has any more concern now for debt than they did when in office.




Maybe they just want the government to find fairer ways of doing it.


----------



## dutchie

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe they just want the government to find fairer ways of doing it.




They have got a hide to say anything as they brought on these massive problems to Australia.


Gillard before the election "no carbon tax"
Gillard after the election - carbon tax introduced.

Shorten (Labor) before the election - get rid of the carbon tax
Shorten after the election - we are not going to let you get rid of the carbon tax

They still don't know whether they are coming or going.

Liars and hypocrites extraordinaire!


----------



## SirRumpole

dutchie said:


> They have got a hide to say anything as they brought on these massive problems to Australia.
> 
> 
> Gillard before the election "no carbon tax"
> Gillard after the election - carbon tax introduced.
> 
> Shorten (Labor) before the election - get rid of the carbon tax
> Shorten after the election - we are not going to let you get rid of the carbon tax
> 
> They still don't know whether they are coming or going.
> 
> Liars and hypocrites extraordinaire!




As opposed to "NO cuts in pensions, NO cuts to Health , NO cuts to Education, NO cuts to the ABC " ?

Ha Ha Ha.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> As opposed to "NO cuts in pensions, NO cuts to Health , NO cuts to Education, NO cuts to the ABC " ?
> 
> Ha Ha Ha.





Rumpy, how many times do I have to tell you?

Those $900 cheques Ruddie gave every one including many overseas was only a loan.......now you must pay it back....it is a pity he did not tell us it was only a loan.

Now if the Green/Labor socialist left wingers would  help scrap the carbon dioxide tax, the pensioners and the hard working families will be $550 better off.

But instead, the carbon dioxide tax goes up again on the 1 st July and we will all be worse off by more thanks to Mr. NO.


----------



## drsmith

noco said:


> Now if the Green/Labor socialist left wingers would  help scrap the carbon dioxide tax, the pensioners and the hard working families will be $550 better off.



Don't worry about them. 

Uncle Clive and his (cough) ol-mate Al Gore is coming to the rescue on the carbon tax.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-...n-tax-but-courts-gore-in-push-for-ets/5549938


----------



## noco

drsmith said:


> Don't worry about them.
> 
> Uncle Clive and his (cough) ol-mate Al Gore is coming to the rescue on the carbon tax.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-...n-tax-but-courts-gore-in-push-for-ets/5549938




Al Gore is the greatest conman of the century......he is up to his eye balls in this ETS and has several companies set up around the world and it looks like he has sucked in Clive Palmer to invest some of his 'hoot' in his scam.

For what other reason would Palmer be associated with Al Gore?


The U.S. Senate voted 95 to 0 not to ratify the Kyoto treaty in 1997. But that hasn’t stopped Al Gore.

Gore’s Circle of Business

Al Gore is chairman and founder of a private equity firm called Generation Investment Management (GIM). According to Gore, the London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are going green. “Generation Investment Management, purchases — but isn’t a provider of — carbon dioxide offsets,” said spokesman Richard Campbell in a March 7 report by CNSNews.

GIM appears to have considerable influence over the major carbon-credit trading firms that currently exist: the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) in the U.S. and the Carbon Neutral Company (CNC) in Great Britain. CCX is the only firm in the U.S. that claims to trade carbon credits.


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> If Labor and the small parties continue to obstruct the government's legislation in the Senate, the government are going to find it very difficult to do much about controlling the projected increasing expenditure.
> 
> Given the lack of any other evidence of cohesive policy from Labor, we might assume that this is their objective, i.e. being able to say as the next election rolls around "well, you've had three years to do something, and we're still in the same position ."
> 
> It's certainly hard to conclude that Labor has any more concern now for debt than they did when in office.




To be fair, the Liberals did help to destroy the resource tax which WOULD have generate da lot of revenue, helped to cap the rise of the AUD and left us with more of the proceeds of the resource boom staying in the country.  It would also probably have helped to stop the massive over investment that has occurred, and we'd probably see the ToT not falling as badly due to what is looking like a 30% oversupply on the seaborne iron ore trade, as well as the massive oversupply of thermal coal.

Abbott also protested against the changes to the statutory method for calculating car FBT, removed the changes to taxation on super pensions over 100K a year.

They've also committed themselves to repealing the carbon tax which does generate quite a bit of revenue, but has decided not to remove the compensatory tax reductions, while also increasing Govt expenditure in the area via DA.  There's also his PPL policy which is massively expensive compared to Labor's PPL scheme.

So while Labor certainly could have managed things a lot better, Abbot has to share some of the blame for the state of the budget because he generally opposed most of Labor's efforts to increase revenue.


----------



## Logique

There's your precious Abbott government.

Welching on a promise to Tasmanians, and meekly surrendering to the UN.  I hope the Coalition enjoys having those 4 out of 5 Tasmanian seats, because they won't hold them for long.



> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...966862054?nk=2cba29acabf9948fa4988d9e4f12494c
> 
> ..Abbott promised to change that, declaring: “*Tasmania needs to be an economy as well as a national park*.”
> Result: the Liberals won four of Tasmania’s five seats.......
> 
> ...But here’s the problem: the UN’s World Heritage Committee this week took less than 10 minutes to tell the Abbott Government no. It refused to delist the 170,000 hectares of our own forest [and plantations/cleared areas]  on the grounds that it would set an “unacceptable precedent”.
> 
> Other countries might then decide to do with their sites what they felt best.  In a clash on domestic policy between the UN and an elected government with a mandate, I’d expect the elected government to win.
> 
> But the Abbott Government, apparently feeling too embattled to start another brawl, has *declared it “accepts and will consider the decision”, one which obliges it to keep out the loggers, after all*....


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> To be fair, the Liberals did help to destroy the resource tax which WOULD have generate da lot of revenue, helped to cap the rise of the AUD and left us with more of the proceeds of the resource boom staying in the country.  It would also probably have helped to stop the massive over investment that has occurred, and we'd probably see the ToT not falling as badly due to what is looking like a 30% oversupply on the seaborne iron ore trade, as well as the massive oversupply of thermal coal.
> 
> Abbott also protested against the changes to the statutory method for calculating car FBT, removed the changes to taxation on super pensions over 100K a year.
> 
> They've also committed themselves to repealing the carbon tax which does generate quite a bit of revenue, but has decided not to remove the compensatory tax reductions, while also increasing Govt expenditure in the area via DA.  There's also his PPL policy which is massively expensive compared to Labor's PPL scheme.
> 
> So while Labor certainly could have managed things a lot better, Abbot has to share some of the blame for the state of the budget because he generally opposed most of Labor's efforts to increase revenue.




Interesting comments from Treasury chief and Turnbull.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...labor-over-budget-attacks-20140630-3b3xd.html


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Interesting comments from Treasury chief and Turnbull.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...labor-over-budget-attacks-20140630-3b3xd.html




"Looking at Australia's tax regime, you would say that it is too tough on people earning income, i.e. the entrepreneurs, the people who are growing [the economy],  younger people working hard ... it's too tough on them and it is incredibly concessional to older people who have made their money."

---------

Below graphs shows we're going in the wrong direction in terms of taxing corporate profits and labour income.  I doubt the current Govt has the ticker to change how things are going.  They wont tax resources, they wont increase tax on consumption, but they are increasing taxes on income.

The most efficient taxes target resources / land / consumption, so unless they plan to move the Australian tax base towards those areas it will be just more of the same and their criticism of Labor will be equally applicable to themselves.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> "Looking at Australia's tax regime, you would say that it is too tough on people earning income, i.e. the entrepreneurs, the people who are growing [the economy],  younger people working hard ... it's too tough on them and it is incredibly concessional to older people who have made their money."
> 
> ---------
> 
> Below graphs shows we're going in the wrong direction in terms of taxing corporate profits and labour income.  I doubt the current Govt has the ticker to change how things are going.  They wont tax resources, they wont increase tax on consumption, but they are increasing taxes on income.
> 
> The most efficient taxes target resources / land / consumption, so unless they plan to move the Australian tax base towards those areas it will be just more of the same and their criticism of Labor will be equally applicable to themselves.




I thought you would like that part. lol

Shame you didn't take anything, from the rest of the article.


----------



## Julia

sydboy007 said:


> I doubt the current Govt has the ticker to change how things are going.



They can do their best, but if consistently blocked by your Labor party and the minor parties, there's stuff all they can do.  So maybe direct some of your criticism toward Labor for playing politics over the good of the nation.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> Below graphs shows we're going in the wrong direction in terms of taxing corporate profits and labour income.  I doubt the current Govt has the ticker to change how things are going.  They wont tax resources, they wont increase tax on consumption, but they are increasing taxes on income.



You have about as much faith in this government's tax white paper and federation review as I did in Labor's NBN.

Time will tell.



Julia said:


> They can do their best, but if consistently blocked by your Labor party and the minor parties, there's stuff all they can do.  So maybe direct some of your criticism toward Labor for playing politics over the good of the nation.



Young Sid I imagine would be very disappointed in the Labor/Green stance on the CPI indexation of petrol excise.


----------



## Julia

Today's Newspoll is not looking good for the government.  Particularly Mr Abbott's Dissatisfaction Rating which is 62%.


----------



## wayneL

Julia said:


> Today's Newspoll is not looking good for the government.  Particularly Mr Abbott's Dissatisfaction Rating which is 62%.



Looks like LNP have squandered their goodwill up here too Julia. Australia is not the place to do Tea Party politics.

Idiots. I will never forgive them for government back to Labor on a silver platter.


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> They can do their best, but if consistently blocked by your Labor party and the minor parties, there's stuff all they can do.  So maybe direct some of your criticism toward Labor for playing politics over the good of the nation.




Right.  Labor tried to bring in a resource tax - initially blocked by the L+NP, and they've now repealed the watered down version.  I'd say we'd be in a far stronger economic position now if the original version had been introduced.  Tax payers would be far better off, the AUD wouldn't be on a rocket towards parity again, and resource shareholders would not be looking at quite as large asset right downs because of the massive over investment that occurred within Australia.

Changes to the statutory method for car FBT - blocked by the L+NP

Carbon tax compensation tax cuts and benefits increases - to be kept by the L+NP even though the tax revenue to fund it has been given up.

I'd definitely like Labor and the smaller parties to take a more nuanced strategy instead of the Abbott esque NO to everything, but it's strange that the demands for the opposition to think in the national interest was so quiet while Abbott was in opposition yet so loud now.

If the budget had introduced an effort to bring about meaningful tax reform then I'd be all over Labor for not supporting it, but the budget was really about the current Government's ideology and will do little to actually structurally adjust the budget to better cope with a falling participation rate and the rise of aged pension costs.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> You have about as much faith in this government's tax white paper and federation review as I did in Labor's NBN.
> 
> Time will tell.
> 
> 
> Young Sid I imagine would be very disappointed in the Labor/Green stance on the CPI indexation of petrol excise.




How much faith do you have in the current L+NP MTM network?  Their initial trial rollout in Umina has ground to a halt because they can't get power to the nodes.  How does that bode for a 100K node rollout?  I often wonder if any of them believed their 2016 rollout deadline pre election?

Yes, I'm very disappointed with Labor over their refusal to allow the indexation of fuel excise, and the greens have pretty much just pandered to 5% of the population with their blocking of it too.  Just shows their lack of relevance in the economic sphere.  It's a shame because with a more nuanced roll they could take the oxygen from PUP and actually turn into a useful 3rd force in politics.  Certainly wont happen under their current leadership.

Definite shame about the only revenue reform in the budget wont make it through.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> How much faith do you have in the current L+NP MTM network?  Their initial trial rollout in Umina has ground to a halt because they can't get power to the nodes.  How does that bode for a 100K node rollout?  I often wonder if any of them believed their 2016 rollout deadline pre election?.



They've done a deal for a trial rollout with Telstra.

http://www.afr.com/p/technology/telstra_in_nbn_fibre_deal_2UhvyideUybBooTZ3nXFBI



sydboy007 said:


> Yes, I'm very disappointed with Labor over their refusal to allow the indexation of fuel excise, and the greens have pretty much just pandered to 5% of the population with their blocking of it too.  Just shows their lack of relevance in the economic sphere.  It's a shame because with a more nuanced roll they could take the oxygen from PUP and actually turn into a useful 3rd force in politics.  Certainly wont happen under their current leadership.
> 
> Definite shame about the only revenue reform in the budget wont make it through.



If perfection is what one is after, politics is not the place to look, anywhere.

The Greens are worse than either of the major parties. Whether it's Bob Brown or Christine Milne, they don't even believe in sovereign nationhood. On that and that alone, I could never vote for them as leaders of our nation.


----------



## noco

drsmith said:


> They've done a deal for a trial rollout with Telstra.
> 
> http://www.afr.com/p/technology/telstra_in_nbn_fibre_deal_2UhvyideUybBooTZ3nXFBI
> 
> 
> If perfection is what one is after, politics is not the place to look, anywhere.
> 
> The Greens are worse than either of the major parties. Whether it's Bob Brown or Christine Milne, they don't even believe in sovereign nationhood. On that and that alone, I could never vote for them as leaders of our nation.





Don't worry Doc.....When the Fabian Society get back into power they will take us back to 07/13 again.

Come big spenders....spend a little time with me..  borrow heaps of Chow money...give plenty of hand outs to the bludgers......tax us to the kilts...bring back the Carbon tax and the useless mining  tax and in no time we will have no free enterprise ......control the media......spread their propaganda.......discredit the Liberals....open the flood gates the boat smugglers.....
Down with Capitalism and up with communism.......yeah.....the way to go, over my dead body.


----------



## drsmith

wayneL said:


> Looks like LNP have squandered their goodwill up here too Julia. Australia is not the place to do Tea Party politics.
> 
> Idiots. I will never forgive them for government back to Labor on a silver platter.



The latest federal newspoll I'd suggest is an outlier.

The latest Essential Media poll released this week was stable and much closer 52% 2PP support for Labor.

I can't speak in relation to Queensland but federally, there's a longer game being played than the current short term polls. Remember that fiscally, the Gillard government bled to death due to not taking the difficult decisions early in its term. This government has gone back to a more traditional first budget approach, but marketed it poorly. The likely repeal of the carbon tax this month will hopefully be a watershed moment for this government.

With a population softened by over 20-years of continuous economic growth, this is all going to be interesting to watch.

Sportsbet still has the Coalition favoured to win the next federal election as it does for the conservatives in Qld and NSW. Labor though is favourites in Vic.


----------



## drsmith

More food for thought from Treasury Secretary Martin Parkinson,

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ury-boss-martin-parkinson-20140702-3b7pp.html


----------



## sptrawler

drsmith said:


> I can't speak in relation to Queensland but federally, there's a longer game being played than the current short term polls. .




I agree with your sentiment doc, Abbott proved to be longer term thinker, when in opposition.

Currently I'm not over enamoured with their performance, but it may prove to be Labors downfall to block everything.
When the likely unpopular tax increases are put forward, Labor will be left with very little option than to wave them through. 
While the coalition will be able to say, we are not allowed to reduce spending, therefore there is little option other than to increase taxes.
The tax increases, one would think, will have to be focused on the personal tax base. As an increase on the company tax base, will further deteriorate what is a fragile recovery, at best. IMO

Just read your last post doc, it would appear treasury are of the same belief.lol
Maybe Abbott is letting Shorten 'wedge' himself.


----------



## sptrawler

When you read through that article, it shows how precarious our position is.
Shorten is going to make a fool of himself, for sure, he will reinforce the publics belief that Labor can't run an economy. IMO

Treasury are obviously getting nervous about the situation.


----------



## drsmith

sptrawler said:


> The tax increases, one would think, will have to be focused on the personal tax base.



Labor in government would let bracket creep do its work for it. That's what concerns Martin Parkinson.

If Labor's tactic in blocking spending cuts (including its own) to force the current government to increase marginal tax rates, that will be a win for Labor. This government I suspect won't go down that path beyond its temporary levy. Instead, it will allow the budget numbers to speak for themselves to continue to argue its case and against Labor's resistance in the Senate.


----------



## sptrawler

drsmith said:


> Labor in government would let bracket creep do its work for it. That's what concerns Martin Parkinson.
> 
> If Labor's tactic in blocking spending cuts (including its own) to force the current government to increase marginal tax rates, that will be a win for Labor. This government I suspect won't go down that path beyond its temporary levy. Instead, it will allow the budget numbers to speak for themselves to continue to argue its case and against Labor's resistance in the Senate.




It will be interesting to watch how it plays out, that's for sure.


----------



## noco

drsmith said:


> Labor in government would let bracket creep do its work for it. That's what concerns Martin Parkinson.
> 
> If Labor's tactic in blocking spending cuts (including its own) to force the current government to increase marginal tax rates, that will be a win for Labor. This government I suspect won't go down that path beyond its temporary levy. Instead, it will allow the budget numbers to speak for themselves to continue to argue its case and against Labor's resistance in the Senate.




Doc, the Green/Labor left wing socialists are executing their Fabian Society ideology to ruin the the Australian economy.

Reference my post #143....Communism is not dead and buried.

Julia Gillard
Julia Gillard, PM of Australia, and self-confessed Communist that morphed into the Fabian Society

Julia Gillard and her comrades have done everything precisely by the Fabian book. They have got into the corridors of power using honeyed words and big promises, as well as knifing their only obstacle in the back.Once in power they have ruthlessly, but quietly, gone about imposing their socialist aims on a population powerless to act against them. We have been disarmed. We have no way to determine how we are governed. The Fabianists dictate what laws we are ruled by. We are spied on (cameras everywhere today). The press, that pillar of our social fabric, has let us down and succumbed to the bullying politicians. Instead of standing up for the rights of the common man, they have surrendered their power to those in power. They have left We the People totally exposed to the depredations of the wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Bill Shorten, Chris Bowen and Jenny Macklin are following in Gillards foot prints.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Doc, the Green/Labor left wing socialists are executing their Fabian Society ideology to ruin the the Australian economy.
> 
> Reference my post #143....Communism is not dead and buried.
> 
> Julia Gillard
> Julia Gillard, PM of Australia, and self-confessed Communist that morphed into the Fabian Society
> 
> Julia Gillard and her comrades have done everything precisely by the Fabian book. They have got into the corridors of power using honeyed words and big promises, as well as knifing their only obstacle in the back.Once in power they have ruthlessly, but quietly, gone about imposing their socialist aims on a population powerless to act against them. We have been disarmed. We have no way to determine how we are governed. The Fabianists dictate what laws we are ruled by. We are spied on (cameras everywhere today). The press, that pillar of our social fabric, has let us down and succumbed to the bullying politicians. Instead of standing up for the rights of the common man, they have surrendered their power to those in power. They have left We the People totally exposed to the depredations of the wolves in sheep’s clothing.
> 
> Bill Shorten, Chris Bowen and Jenny Macklin are following in Gillards foot prints.




What a rant of coddswallop.  Non of those people are in power.

What is Tony the friendly gorilla doing about all those grievances you have.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> What a rant of coddswallop.  Non of those people are in power.
> 
> What is Tony the friendly gorilla doing about all those grievances you have.




plod, it is regrettable, you just will not accept reality of what is going on in your beloved Labor Party.

*Bill Shorten, Chris Bowen and Jenny Macklin are following in Gillards foot prints....Didn't you read it all?
*


----------



## IFocus

sydboy007 said:


> If the budget had introduced an effort to bring about meaningful tax reform then I'd be all over Labor for not supporting it, but *the budget was really about the current Government's ideology* *and will do little to actually structurally adjust the budget to better cope with a falling participation rate and the rise of aged pension costs*.




Strange how this is presented as the government failing to sell the budget well


----------



## explod

IFocus said:


> Strange how this is presented as the government failing to sell the budget well




Who cares, abbot holds the reins now.  And this thread is about THE ABBOTT GOVMINT.

You are off topic noco.

And therefore codswallup


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> Strange how this is presented as the government failing to sell the budget well




The biased media....ABC and Fairfax are certainly not helping.....plenty of adverse rhetoric and negative ideas.

They doing all they can to discredit Abbott.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> plod, it is regrettable, you just will not accept reality of what is going on in your beloved Labor Party.
> 
> *Bill Shorten, Chris Bowen and Jenny Macklin are following in Gillards foot prints....Didn't you read it all?
> *




And again wrong, I have no association with the labor party.

And on the libs, it is all cut back with jobs being lost in all directions.

BUT ABSOLUTELY NO IDEAS FOR CREATING NEW JOBS.

On Q and A Monday the frirst two speakers asked where are the jobs that all the retraining and support program's are aimed at.

And no one,on the panel answered the question.

So noco I ask you ...where are the new jobs going to come from?


----------



## IFocus

noco said:


> The biased media....ABC and Fairfax are certainly not helping.....plenty of adverse rhetoric and negative ideas.
> 
> They doing all they can to discredit Abbott.





I think its clearly a commo  conspiracy.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> They've done a deal for a trial rollout with Telstra.
> 
> http://www.afr.com/p/technology/telstra_in_nbn_fibre_deal_2UhvyideUybBooTZ3nXFBI




Lets see how that goes.  Considering how much talent Telstra has let go over the last decade it will be interesting to see if they can do any better than the NBN contractors, though for their day to day faults they use contractors supplied by the same companies, and when you hear how they would "ground" their test equipment on plastic conduit it makes me wonder how much gets repaired.

It will be interesting to see how Telstra manages all the issues for a FTTN style rollout though.  About March next year will be a good time to see if their rollout schedule of 12 months is another 2016 esque policy failure.  I'm hoping they release some information on remediation costs and how much of the copper had to be repaired and replaced, along with maximum cable distance to the nodes.  The fact that they're averaging 200 users per node makes me think they're maybe fudging things by building closer to the users which may not be maintained when the rollout ramps up.  Each node is capable of supporting roughly 330 users.  No word yet on how voice services will be provided either.

Oh and why are they bothering with the CBA any more?  It's costing $1400 a day, and Henry Ergas said he could do one in 3 days for the NBN, admittedly before being awarded a lucrative 6 months contract to produce one.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> I agree with your sentiment doc, Abbott proved to be longer term thinker, when in opposition.
> 
> Currently I'm not over enamoured with their performance, but it may prove to be Labors downfall to block everything.
> When the likely unpopular tax increases are put forward, Labor will be left with very little option than to wave them through.
> While the coalition will be able to say, we are not allowed to reduce spending, therefore there is little option other than to increase taxes.
> The tax increases, one would think, will have to be focused on the personal tax base. As an increase on the company tax base, will further deteriorate what is a fragile recovery, at best. IMO
> 
> Just read your last post doc, it would appear treasury are of the same belief.lol
> Maybe Abbott is letting Shorten 'wedge' himself.




Why do corporate and income taxes HAVE to be raised?  Other taxes could be used more efficiently.  Why can't we tax resources and land more?  Why can't we tax consumption more?

I think Labor should wave all the crap of the budget through.  Wash their hands of it.  The economic impact will be felt rapidly.  I think the bounce in consumer confidence has been due to the fact some of the nasties from the budget are unlikely to get through.  If people still thought it was all going to be enacted, we'd be looking at near recession by Q3 of the tax year.


----------



## sydboy007

explod said:


> And again wrong, I have no association with the labor party.
> 
> And on the libs, it is all cut back with jobs being lost in all directions.
> 
> BUT ABSOLUTELY NO IDEAS FOR CREATING NEW JOBS.
> 
> On Q and A Monday the frirst two speakers asked where are the jobs that all the retraining and support program's are aimed at.
> 
> And no one,on the panel answered the question.
> 
> So noco I ask you ...where are the new jobs going to come from?




Oh, Tony has told the SA Govt not to worry about the car manufacturers closing down.  He's assured them that once the resource and carbon taxes are repealed that BHP will fire up the CAPEX and get on with the Olympic Dam expansion.  The fact that BHP has said neither the carbon or resource taxes impacted their decision to not go ahead with the expansion, and made clear after Tony gave SA his assurances that it would, BHP came out yet again to say the expansion will not go ahead, but it seems those flat our rejections were inaudible to Tony's tin ear.  Current mineral prices don't make the economics stack up.

So I fear that Tony does believe his rhetoric, and will be in for some major headaches this time next year when the public is asking where do the 75-100K worth of workers involved with the CAPEX boom go for their next job?  If the car companies decide to shut shop in 2016 it will add another 40K of workers looking for a job.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> The economic impact will be felt rapidly.  I think the bounce in consumer confidence has been due to the fact some of the nasties from the budget are unlikely to get through.  If people still thought it was all going to be enacted, we'd be looking at near recession by Q3 of the tax year.



In terms of raw $, a lot the budget savings don't kick in till after this electoral cycle. 2014/15 is the smallest of all.

http://www.budget.gov.au/2014-15/content/overview/html/overview_04.htm

When it comes to the biggies, the government has given itself a lot of time to argue its case.


----------



## explod

drsmith said:


> In terms of raw $, a lot the budget savings don't kick in till after this electoral cycle. 2014/15 is the smallest of all.
> 
> http://www.budget.gov.au/2014-15/content/overview/html/overview_04.htm
> 
> When it comes to the biggies, the government has given itself a lot of time to argue its case.




So the only real policy is a budget surplus.

Then what, unemployment everywhere.

Plans for new innovative employment opportunities should be discussed now.  But no, silence or it's the previous governments fault, and we gunna have a surplace.

So drsmith, I ask you the question that noco has twice failed to answer me over the last few weeks.

WHERE ARE THE NEW JOBS GOING TO COME FROM ?


----------



## noco

explod said:


> And again wrong, I have no association with the labor party.
> 
> And on the libs, it is all cut back with jobs being lost in all directions.
> 
> BUT ABSOLUTELY NO IDEAS FOR CREATING NEW JOBS.
> 
> On Q and A Monday the frirst two speakers asked where are the jobs that all the retraining and support program's are aimed at.
> 
> And no one,on the panel answered the question.
> 
> So noco I ask you ...where are the new jobs going to come from?




What other biased questions would you expect from Q and A....I can't be bothered even watching that Tony Jones...he makes my blood curdle.

If you do some research on statistics, you will learn that unemployment is lower now than under the Labor Party.

By removing the imposition of the carbon tax, the mining tax, Labors red tape and green tape, controlling the corrupt militant unions will build confidence in the business community and the Coalition infrastructure programs will create many more jobs than under Labor...unemployment rose from 4% in 2006 to over 6.5 % in 2013.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> What other biased questions would you expect from Q and A....I can't be bothered even watching that Tony Jones...he makes my blood curdle.
> 
> If you do some research on statistics, you will learn that unemployment is lower now than under the Labor Party.
> 
> By removing the imposition of the carbon tax, the mining tax, Labors red tape and green tape, controlling the corrupt militant unions will build confidence in the business community and the Coalition infrastructure programs will create many more jobs than under Labor...unemployment rose from 4% in 2006 to over 6.5 % in 2013.




Not much on QandA myself but liberals were on it with no substance to their replies.

On unemployment they are now jigged with part time work and would be most interested in your stats that employment has improved.

The big one though which you have still not answered noco, is where are the jobs going to come from to employ the thousands per wewk being laid off as a result of our high dollar and loss of manufacturing competitiveness.

People are encouraged to borrow to buy more investment properties and expand business, why suddenly does the government not do so to create industries and environments to increase productivity and employ more people.

Again noco, WHERE ARE THE JOBS UNDER ABBOTT COMING FROM?


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Not much on QandA myself but liberals were on it with no substance to their replies.
> 
> On unemployment they are now jigged with part time work and would be most interested in your stats that employment has improved.
> 
> The big one though which you have still not answered noco, is where are the jobs going to come from to employ the thousands per wewk being laid off as a result of our high dollar and loss of manufacturing competitiveness.
> 
> People are encouraged to borrow to buy more investment properties and expand business, why suddenly does the government not do so to create industries and environments to increase productivity and employ more people.
> 
> Again noco, WHERE ARE THE JOBS UNDER ABBOTT COMING FROM?





You just don't get it do you? ........Jobs will be created when business confidence is resurrected under the Coalition Government by deleting the impediments installed by the Labor Party and the control the corrupt unions.

You just think the Government can wave a magic wand and ha presto new jobs will be here tomorrow.....there is a lot of catching up to do after Labor's neglect......The Labor Party has also hampered the government in the senate in implementing their polices......hopefully the new senate will be more sympathetic and not as hostile with the negativity of the Labor Party. 
Let us see the results in the next two years and if improvement does not happen I will be first in line to criticize the Abbott governement


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> What other biased questions would you expect from Q and A....I can't be bothered even watching that Tony Jones...he makes my blood curdle.
> 
> If you do some research on statistics, you will learn that unemployment is lower now than under the Labor Party.
> 
> By removing the imposition of the carbon tax, the mining tax, Labors red tape and green tape, controlling the corrupt militant unions will build confidence in the business community and the Coalition infrastructure programs will create many more jobs than under Labor...unemployment rose from 4% in 2006 to over 6.5 % in 2013.




You using an unemployment figure from the pre GFC boom when the savings rate was NEGATIVE, the terms of trade powering ahead, corporate tax revenue ballooning, GST revenue running along at 7-8%.

As for researching statistics you are not factoring in the falling participation rate since the Abbott Government was formed in September.  So add those workers back to the unemployed figures and you'll see that the level of unemployment is around 0.5% HGIHER than the headline rate.  I'd suggest you DYOR and you'll find aggregate hours worked in the economy has fallen since this time last year.  A lot less wages income in the economy now.

Can you point me to any mining projects currently held up due to the resource / carbon tax and /or red tape and green tape?


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Let us see the results in the next two years and if improvement does not happen I will be first in line to criticize the Abbott governement




Just for interest sake, could you give some benchmarks that you believe would indicate success / failure?

There was the 1 million new jobs in 5 years pledge.  Do you think if we take 60% of that figure and say if the economy hasn't added at least 500-600K new workers by the next election that this would indicate a failure?

The seasonally adjusted number of employed persons increased by 9,100 in September 2013 to 11,645,800.  Should we say in August 2016 an employment level less than 12,145,000 would be a policy failure?

Some things to note about the September employment stats:

* Despite the slight increase in total employment, seasonally adjusted aggregate hours worked decreased 6.4 million hours in September 2013 to 1,641.5 million hours (over $1.1B less in wages for the month)

* September 2013 saw the seasonally adjusted participation rate decrease 0.1 percentage points to 64.9%

*  The decrease in the unemployment rate is consistent with the decrease this month in the participation rate.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@...mmary&prodno=6202.0&issue=Sep 2013&num=&view=


----------



## sydboy007

Seems the Government is doing it's level best to disuade anyone from accessing the DA ERT.

* Once a bidder is successful in the reverse auction it will enter into a contract and it will not be able to further negotiate its terms. Details provided by the bidder before the auction – quantity of units to be delivered, price and delivery schedule – will automatically become terms of the contract.

* A major issue for some project proponents may arise from the requirement to specify a delivery schedule in advance. For some proponents, particularly in the land sector, it may not be possible to know with exact precision the time at which they can generate and then deliver units. The contract provides some flexibility by allowing for the seller to deliver carbon units in advance of the scheduled date where notice is given 20 business days before the proposed delivery. *However, the Commonwealth is under no obligation to accept advanced delivery*. According to explanatory notes provided with the draft contract, this is necessary "to allow the Commonwealth to manage its spending commitments, particularly between financial years"

*  The most significant risk for contractors is the draft agreement's "force majeure" provision. Normally, such contractual provisions provide for both parties to be relieved from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond their reasonable control occurs, such as a natural disaster. However, the ERF contract provides for an extra requirement for the operation of the force majeure provision – that the proponent be unable to provide "make-good" units.

In other words, if a proponent is hit by, for example, a bush fire or flood and unable to generate the contracted units, they must attempt to buy replacement units from the secondary market before claiming force majeure.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...will-risk-weightings-ensure-direct-action-dud


----------



## explod

noco said:


> You just don't get it do you? ........Jobs will be created when business confidence is resurrected under the Coalition Government by deleting the impediments installed by the Labor Party and the control the corrupt unions.
> 
> You just think the Government can wave a magic wand and ha presto new jobs will be here tomorrow.....there is a lot of catching up to do after Labor's neglect......The Labor Party has also hampered the government in the senate in implementing their polices......hopefully the new senate will be more sympathetic and not as hostile with the negativity of the Labor Party.
> Let us see the results in the next two years and if improvement does not happen I will be first in line to criticize the Abbott governement





Noco, you are the one that does not get it.

Governments are supposed to lead and promote vision for the people to follow.  We have had none of this from your pal Tony.  In the past we had, .Chiffey, Menzies, Fraser and Keating who were very visionary, whout the ideas out there andut government money in to ensure objectives were met.

The debt of the government is minuscule on a per capita basis compared to that of most other countries and is why our currency refuses to fall.  The US debt is almost off the scale in trillions.  The little bit of debt we have is just a reason for the libs to rant on and do nothing more than support the self interest of their close financial supporters.

I would be telling the people that we have the Chinese starting to have direct flights out of Avelon airport, (in fact about 3 years time) The Geelong region is a great producer of food so the government could assist enterprises to ramp up productivity in this area to capitalise on this.  And food production is becoming a big problem in china.  Government help to increase and further stimulate the fish farms in this region.  The Chinese love our scallops for example. China is working on more efficient solar panels, our expertise being made redundant could work with the Chinese to create much more energy efficient vehicles.  Investment (by borrowing ) in such areas is the way forward and how it was done successfully in the past.

In the past the government financed Soldier Settlement to develop the farming of western Victoria just after the war.  Such schemes could be imitated to help people on the margins build their own homes and create decentralised communities, which could also reduce traffic problems. Decentralised self sufficient communities will again help to reduce the terrible traffic problems we have in Victoria and reduce the need for the enourmouse amounts being spent on freeways.

And I could go on noco.

So I repeat noco, under Abbott, where are the jobs going to come from?

Are you able to think and conceptualise ole pal, can Abbott.  Not looking good.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Noco, you are the one that does not get it.
> 
> Governments are supposed to lead and promote vision for the people to follow.  We have had none of this from your pal Tony.  In the past we had, .Chiffey, Menzies, Fraser and Keating who were very visionary, whout the ideas out there andut government money in to ensure objectives were met.
> 
> The debt of the government is minuscule on a per capita basis compared to that of most other countries and is why our currency refuses to fall.  The US debt is almost off the scale in trillions.  The little bit of debt we have is just a reason for the libs to rant on and do nothing more than support the self interest of their close financial supporters.
> 
> I would be telling the people that we have the Chinese starting to have direct flights out of Avelon airport, (in fact about 3 years time) The Geelong region is a great producer of food so the government could assist enterprises to ramp up productivity in this area to capitalise on this.  And food production is becoming a big problem in china.  Government help to increase and further stimulate the fish farms in this region.  The Chinese love our scallops for example. China is working on more efficient solar panels, our expertise being made redundant could work with the Chinese to create much more energy efficient vehicles.  Investment (by borrowing ) in such areas is the way forward and how it was done successfully in the past.
> 
> In the past the government financed Soldier Settlement to develop the farming of western Victoria just after the war.  Such schemes could be imitated to help people on the margins build their own homes and create decentralised communities, which could also reduce traffic problems. Decentralised self sufficient communities will again help to reduce the terrible traffic problems we have in Victoria and reduce the need for the enourmouse amounts being spent on freeways.
> 
> And I could go on noco.
> 
> So I repeat noco, under Abbott, where are the jobs going to come from?
> 
> Are you able to think and conceptualise ole pal, can Abbott.  Not looking good.




I give up on you plod....I have explained it to twice on how jobs will be created.

You appear to be so narrow minded, I believe you could see through a key hold with two eyes.


----------



## drsmith

It's one way to get media attention,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-...tt-put-career-before-daughters-safety/5568286


----------



## Julia

Hopefully some of the experienced senators will pull Ms Lambie into line fairly quickly.
She certainly doesn't suffer from any self esteem problems.


----------



## chiff

Where are the jobs coming from.Maybe from an idea that someone in Northern Norway told me years ago. 
Perhaps they can all go down to Oslo and cut eachothers hair."


----------



## SirRumpole

I saw the Jacquie Lambie interview, and she reminds me of the character Nurse Diesel in the Mel Brooks film High Anxiety. That said, at least she has some ability to express herself and some ideas on what she wants to get done.

I think Clive has his hands full dealing with Jacquie, never mind Tony Abbot.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> I give up on you plod....I have explained it to twice on how jobs will be created.
> 
> You appear to be so narrow minded, I believe you could see through a key hold with two eyes.




Never give up noco.  You have said how, But have failed to say WHAT.

Can you go from the how and tell us in what the jobs will likely to be.  Some concepts is all I ask ole pal.

Stimulation around the world has failed, the people need direction and support.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I saw the Jacquie Lambie interview, and she reminds me of the character Nurse Diesel in the Mel Brooks film High Anxiety. That said, at least she has some ability to express herself and some ideas on what she wants to get done.
> 
> I think Clive has his hands full dealing with Jacquie, never mind Tony Abbot.




I think he has his hands full with the chows as well


----------



## drsmith

It's inevitable that Uncle Clive will have trouble with the cats on his lap.

What's PUP's guiding principals other than Clive himself ?


----------



## drsmith

explod said:


> Never give up noco.  You have said how, But have failed to say WHAT.
> 
> Can you go from the how and tell us in what the jobs will likely to be.



You seem to be hammering this point so as a mild curiosity, I'm interest in your specific ideas.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Never give up noco.  You have said how, But have failed to say WHAT.
> 
> Can you go from the how and tell us in what the jobs will likely to be.  Some concepts is all I ask ole pal.
> 
> Stimulation around the world has failed, the people need direction and support.





OK Plod, now pay attention and I will tell you one more time....If I don't get through to you  this time please drop it because I think you are trying to be a little smart by half.

The Government scraps the carbon tax, the mining tax, Labor's hare brain regulations, green tape, red tape gets their budget though the senate without the negativity of the Green/Labor socialist left wing Fabain Society thinking, control the corrupt militant unions,  build up business confidence and the jobs will follow in the planned infrastructure, mining, agriculture and manufacturing.

If you can't understand it all that well, then I suggest you wait and observe developments during the next two years when you will see the results....You are expecting them  to be able turn the Queen Mary around in 5 minutes and it does not work like that.....You also have a very short memory of the Labor mess that has to be cleaned up at the same time.


----------



## banco

noco said:


> OK Plod, now pay attention and I will tell you one more time....If I don't get through to you  this time please drop it because I think you are trying to be a little smart by half.
> 
> The Government scraps the carbon tax, the mining tax, Labor's hare brain regulations, green tape, red tape gets their budget though the senate without the negativity of the Green/Labor socialist left wing Fabain Society thinking, control the corrupt militant unions,  build up business confidence and the jobs will follow in the planned infrastructure, mining, agriculture and manufacturing.
> 
> If you can't understand it all that well, then I suggest you wait and observe developments during the next two years when you will see the results....You are expecting them  to be able turn the Queen Mary around in 5 minutes and it does not work like that.....You also have a very short memory of the Labor mess that has to be cleaned up at the same time.




I like how people who are ostensibly free marketeers place such stock in the actions of Government to create jobs.


----------



## dutchie

banco said:


> I like how people who are ostensibly free marketeers place such stock in the actions of Government to create jobs.




Thats what makes the world go round.


----------



## McLovin

noco said:


> OK Plod, now pay attention and I will tell you one more time....If I don't get through to you  this time please drop it because I think you are trying to be a little smart by half.
> 
> The Government scraps the carbon tax, the mining tax, Labor's hare brain regulations, green tape, red tape gets their budget though the senate without the negativity of the Green/Labor socialist left wing Fabain Society thinking, control the corrupt militant unions,  build up business confidence and the jobs will follow in the planned infrastructure, mining, agriculture and manufacturing.
> 
> If you can't understand it all that well, then I suggest you wait and observe developments during the next two years when you will see the results....You are expecting them  to be able turn the Queen Mary around in 5 minutes and it does not work like that.....You also have a very short memory of the Labor mess that has to be cleaned up at the same time.




Wow. It's all so simple!


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> It's one way to get media attention,
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-...tt-put-career-before-daughters-safety/5568286





She made an obvious and valid point one I notice none of the rampant right have noted




> New senator Jacqui Lambie says the Prime Minister put his political career ahead of his daughters' safety by "parading" them for the media in last year's election campaign.


----------



## IFocus

Tim Dunlop writes quite a good line worth a read 

The right hates the society it has created



> So when Kelly laments our fragmenting political culture and our failure to get behind a national program of reform, the program and reform he implicitly means is a continuation of the neoliberal dogma that has dominated the thinking of the political class -- here and around world -- for the last several decades.
> 
> In other words, he is arguing in favour of an economic system that by its nature creates the very social fragmentation that he is lamenting.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-04/dunlop-the-right-hates-the-society-it-has-created/5568928


----------



## explod

noco said:


> OK Plod, now pay attention and I will tell you one more time....If I don't get through to you  this time please drop it because I think you are trying to be a little smart by half.
> 
> The Government scraps the carbon tax, the mining tax, Labor's hare brain regulations, green tape, red tape gets their budget though the senate without the negativity of the Green/Labor socialist left wing Fabain Society thinking, control the corrupt militant unions,  build up business confidence and the jobs will follow in the planned infrastructure, mining, agriculture and manufacturing.
> 
> If you can't understand it all that well, then I suggest you wait and observe developments during the next two years when you will see the results....You are expecting them  to be able turn the Queen Mary around in 5 minutes and it does not work like that.....You also have a very short memory of the Labor mess that has to be cleaned up at the same time.




So noco you have metered out a heap of bang heads and told me to go away.

But noco I cannot go till you get it, you still do not.

Now to get the carbon tax out of the way, get the budget back into surpass and all the other things you would think that ya ole pal tony would dangle some carrots by putting up a few ideas on,

WHERE ARE THE JOBS GOING TO COME FROM????

Noco,??? 

Now this time answer the question with some objectivity.

And blaming the last government is unproductive, we all know they fell apart, that,s why they are out.  How are you libs going to stay in?

And for the record I am fast becoming a centre left to the right, a Malcolm Frazer follower.  Certainly labor has lost me and the greens seem pretty bereft of ideas also.


----------



## Calliope

explod said:


> And for the record I am fast becoming a centre left to the right, a Malcolm Frazer follower.  Certainly labor has lost me and the greens seem pretty bereft of ideas also.




*You* are obviously bereft of ideas Plod. What the hell is a "center left to the right"? It would be foolish to follow Malcolm Fraser. It might lead you to Memphis where you could end up "wearing nothing but a towell and a confused expression". I don't think anyone has taken him seriously since, except the Greens, and they are weirdos.



> IT'S one of Australia's most enduring and mysterious political scandals. How did Malcolm Fraser end up in the foyer of a seedy Memphis hotel - popular with prostitutes and drug dealers - wearing nothing but a towel and a confused expression?




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ers-and-me-tamie/story-e6frg6xf-1111114264770


----------



## drsmith

Paul Kelly's piece today is well worth a read.



> WITH Tony Abbott issuing a personal and passionate pledge to rekindle “the age of reform” in Australia, the sources of national prosperity and living standards growth remain uncertain given global unpredictability and domestic political rancour.
> 
> Leading economists Chris Richardson, director of Deloitte Access Economics, and the University of Melbourne’s Ross Garnaut warned this week that Australia faced a sharp fall in living standards growth ”” a jolt awaiting the Australian people.
> 
> “The lesson for Australia is productivity or bust,” Richardson said. He gave a presentation suggesting that “growth in our living standards will halve” and said of the debate on national reform: “You look at the conversation today and it terrifies me.”
> 
> Garnaut warned that even Richardson’s predictions might be optimistic. He renewed the call for a better productivity performance and went to the heart of the problem: “I regret to say that changes in the contemporary political culture will be necessary to deliver productivity-enhancing reform.”
> 
> Australia’s future was addressed this week at an intense National Economic and Social Outlook Conference, the ninth, jointly run by The Australian and the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, titled “Pathways to Growth”, featuring leaders from both the Coalition and Labor, policy analysts and academic experts.
> 
> The big and contradictory themes were: passionate declarations of reform faith by the Prime Minister and Joe Hockey; repudiations of the budget by Labor, not because of the scale of fiscal cuts but because of values and fairness; and concern from the policy community about fiscal sustainability, global risk and the shadow over future prosperity.
> 
> The deception that Australia has no serious budget problem was exposed comprehensively, yet again, by John Daley, head of the Grattan Institute, in a presentation that demands more attention. Daley’s bottom line is that current settings, even after the Hockey budget, “are not sustainable in the long run”.
> 
> Daley showed that the budget had both “a revenue and a spending problem”, contrary to much political opinion. He found the biggest single driver of escalating costs was healthcare while welfare outlays were contained. Daley’s analysis shows the main adjustment in the budget is not spending cuts but tax increases, notably “bracket creep” (people pushed into higher tax rates), and this is sure to create an income tax problem. He says more structural policy decisions will be essential and there are only hard political options left.
> 
> Richardson summed up the position: “The budget isn’t in crisis but it is in need of much more repair than many realise.” He said it was responsibility of “politicians on both sides of the aisle to lead the repair job”. The best place to start, surely, is an honest admission of Australia’s fiscal reality rather than the current denialism.
> 
> Calling last year’s campaign “the Seinfeld election”, Richardson said the politicians “were promising a lot extra when the budget was in deficit”.
> 
> Significantly, opposition Treasury spokesman Chris Bowen said he agreed with Daley’s argument about the need for a far greater fiscal consolidation.
> 
> Abbott and Hockey half agreed and half dissented from the policy community. They agreed on the need for reform but rejected the pessimism on living standards. Indeed, the Prime Minister and Treasurer are profoundly satisfied with the decision they took to become a government of ambitious reform. You may think they are unnerved by bad polls. They are not.
> 
> Their government has a cause and they radiate a sense of purpose. Yet their conversation has yet to strike a persuasive chord with the public. “The age of reform has not ended in Australia,” Abbott told the conference dinner. “It has only been interrupted and is now beginning again. Strongly. Purposefully. And I believe effectively.”
> 
> Abbott said he wanted to address the critique of the political system made by the author in The Australian on Wednesday ”” that politics was in malfunction and it was uncertain whether a reforming PM could succeed any more.
> 
> “It’s a question many of you may have pondered especially over the past few weeks,” Abbott said. “It can only be answered with a decisive ‘yes’.
> 
> Abbott’s argument was that “business as usual is not an option for a country that’s living beyond its means”. He said the government’s reforms were “difficult but necessary”. During questions Abbott praised the reform feats of Bob Hawke and John Howard in office. He asserted: “The budget will pass because no one has put up a credible alternative.”
> 
> Yet this confidence on the budget is unconvincing.
> 
> Independent senator Nick Xenophon told the final session he felt the government would struggle to get its main budget savings through the Senate and predicted a policy re-think or mini-budget would be necessary.
> 
> But Hockey offered an upbeat view. The world was marked by “new disruptive forces” but, he said, “I believe we stand at the dawn of another great age of prosperity, but it is a very different epoch to what anyone would have imagined in 1964” (the birth of The Australian).
> 
> Selling the budget philosophy, Hockey said people “don’t want governments to dominate their lives” and that in a more competitive global world the best preparation was “to reduce the role *of government in people’s lives by better targeting spending” and reducing the overall tax burden.
> 
> It is obvious that Abbott and Hockey need to refine their priorities. They are battling to pass their budget. They continue to open new policy fronts with reviews on welfare, tax, federalism, industrial relations, competition policy and the finance system.
> 
> On the budget Hockey was aggressive over the Coalition’s proposal to index fuel taxes. This move has many policy dividends: for revenue, for the environment and for equity. Yet the Greens oppose it, a stance Hockey called “obscene”. Passionately attached to his asset recycling fund to encourage the states to privatise their assets for new infrastructure investments, the Treasurer said the funds would be appropriated directly to the states if Labor tried to delay the process.
> 
> Melbourne Institute head Deborah Cobb-Clark argued the public policy task was how to introduce the needed economic reforms while keeping alive the notion of social contract. She produced research showing that at age 26, people who had grown up in a “welfare” family were “three to four times more likely to be accessing income support” than those from non-welfare families.
> 
> The risk was that any policy change that drove such people “back into the arms of their families will intensify any inter-generational disadvantage”.
> 
> This threw the spotlight on the government’s proposal to cut dole payments for six months for young unemployed not in education, a proposal that seemed friendless at the conference though defended by Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews.
> 
> Cobb-Clark said the answer to the challenge she posed lay in the labour market. There needed to be more initiatives to get young people into work. Apart from a focus on training, this meant “we need a serious conversation on penalty rates”.
> 
> The tone for the conference was set by Warwick McKibbin, former Reserve Bank board member, who kicked off the event with a survey of global economic risk warning that “uncertainty is large” and the guarantee that “some things are going to happen that surprise us”.
> 
> McKibbin said global economic recovery was weak, the liquidity injections into the world finance system had been “incredible”, Europe’s budgets and jobless numbers were unsustainable, risk was not being priced correctly and that, in this environment, “Australia is going to be seen as a safe haven”.
> 
> The consequence would be vast: higher capital inflow into Australia, ongoing upward pressure on the exchange rate and the likely dashing of hopes that Australia’s competitiveness would be restored by a falling exchange rate.
> 
> On the same day as McKibbin spoke, Reserve Bank governor Glenn Stevens said the exchange rate remained high by historical standards but he was optimistic about a “significant” fall in the Australia dollar at some point. Stevens and McKibbin have opposing assessments.
> 
> Garnaut, who says restoration of economic health requires a major depreciation, told this paper: “Warrick McKibbin’s perspective of a new round of capital inflow will be catastrophic for the trade-based industries. Investment is next to dead in all of the trade-exposed industries. Economic expansion in current circumstances, based only on domestic demand, is unsustainable.”
> 
> Garnaut said if the dollar stayed high special measures would be demanded: interest rate cuts to lower the currency plus extra policies to deny any housing price bubble. McKibbin, however, argued that lower interest rates would not lower the dollar: they would merely lift asset prices and foreigners would want to import more capital to hold more of those assets.
> 
> Bill Shorten declared himself a “reformer” but put more emphasis on being a “conserver” pledged to “save what is great about our nation”. The Opposition Leader said Labor stood for change with “fairness and caring”. Labor under Shorten often sounds like a resolute defender of the status quo.
> 
> Bowen rejected any idea Australia had to choose between growth and fairness. His speech highlighted the great chasm in politics: competing reform agendas between Labor and Coalition, with Labor saying the defining difference is fairness.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...options-are-left/story-e6frg74x-1226978268732


----------



## drsmith

Julia said:


> Hopefully some of the experienced senators will pull Ms Lambie into line fairly quickly.
> She certainly doesn't suffer from any self esteem problems.



It seems she has axe to grind with the Libs over a failed pre-selection and after a history with Labor is now trying to pal up to Penny Wong according to the following tabloid article.



> Before she joined up with Mr Palmer, Senator Lambie tried and failed to win Liberal preselection for the Tasmanian federal seat of Braddon.
> 
> Her attempt to win Liberal backing came after she had worked for former Labor senator Nick Sherry.
> 
> In the Liberal preselection ballot in 2012, Senator Lambie did not gain a single vote.
> 
> She later confronted Tasmanian Liberal Party state director Sam McQuestin and accused him of running a “boy’s club”.
> 
> Mr McQuestin rejected the attack, pointing to other female candidates.
> 
> He said she was later automatically expelled from the Liberal Party when she announced she would run against them.
> 
> “She was unwilling to play by our rules,” he said.






> The Government has so far failed to successfully reach out to the combative Senator.
> 
> The only Liberal known to have met with her recently is Tasmanian Stephen Parry, who sought her support to become Senate President.
> 
> Meanwhile, she has struck up a friendship with Labor’s leader in the Senate, Penny Wong, and has had discussions.




We'll know how well that's going soon enough with the upcoming Senate vote on the carbon tax and I'd suggest Stephen Parry got two short words in response to his approach.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...e-prime-minister/story-fnii5v71-1226978353195

In the above link, watch the second video. She has another crack at Tony Abbott in response to a media question about her own conduct.

Uncle Clive made a blue when he signed her up to his team.


----------



## noco

McLovin said:


> Wow. It's all so simple!





Yes it is elementary dear  Watson, unless you have a better idea.

Governments do not create jobs.......private enterprise does.


----------



## Julia

drsmith said:


> It seems she has axe to grind with the Libs over a failed pre-selection and after a history with Labor is now trying to pal up to Penny Wong according to the following tabloid article.



Ah, that provides some perspective.  Thanks, drsmith.  I had no idea about that.

The ABC replayed her remark in the second video.   She is well and truly out of order.  She knows almost nothing and needs to just shut up, be a bit respectful.  I hope someone chews her up and spits her out quickly.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Yes it is elementary dear  Watson, unless you have a better idea.
> 
> Governments do not create jobs.......private enterprise does.




Again you miss the point noco.  Governments are supposed to be like a think tank and provide the vision.  The idea my friend.

Yes it is up to industry and business to provide the jobs but the task of government is to provide the right environment, suggestion and vision so that people can get an idea of where the jobs are going to come from and from that to plan a future for themselves and their families.

Noco, you purport to be on top of liberal philosophy so again I ask you, WHERE ARE THE JOBS GOING TO COME FROM?

And if you go back to my previous posts I have given you plenty of hints of where to perhaps start.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Again you miss the point noco.  Governments are supposed to be like a think tank and provide the vision.  The idea my friend.
> 
> Yes it is up to industry and business to provide the jobs but the task of government is to provide the right environment, suggestion and vision so that people can get an idea of where the jobs are going to come from and from that to plan a future for themselves and their families.
> 
> Noco, you purport to be on top of liberal philosophy so again I ask you, WHERE ARE THE JOBS GOING TO COME FROM?
> 
> And if you go back to my previous posts I have given you plenty of hints of where to perhaps start.





ROFL....You have just answered your own question....The Government is trying to provide the right environment, suggestion and vision but those Labor "DING BATS" are hampering the cause.

Those same ding bats would much prefer to see unemployment rise under the Coalition......In the National interest of course.


----------



## drsmith

Julia said:


> Ah, that provides some perspective.  Thanks, drsmith.  I had no idea about that.
> 
> The ABC replayed her remark in the second video.   She is well and truly out of order.  She knows almost nothing and needs to just shut up, be a bit respectful.  I hope someone chews her up and spits her out quickly.



Even David Marr distanced himself from her comments (ABC's Insiders).


----------



## sptrawler

explod said:


> Again you miss the point noco.  Governments are supposed to be like a think tank and provide the vision.  The idea my friend.
> 
> Yes it is up to industry and business to provide the jobs but the task of government is to provide the right environment, suggestion and vision so that people can get an idea of where the jobs are going to come from and from that to plan a future for themselves and their families.
> .




Yes explod, you've hit it right on the head.

It's the Governments task to provide the right enviroment.

We have one of the highest basic wages, our company tax rate is 30% and our competitors are around 20%.

We have an extremely generous welfare system that anyone who gains citizenship can access, whether they have contributed or not.

So to improve our fiscal position isn't easy. Somethings got to give.

Shorten can talk up a storm, but it doesn't change the underpinning problems.

Labors idea of a 'Big Australia' with a population of 50million, would have only compounded the problem and brought about mass poverty.

Where were they going to find the 'jobs'? or better still where were they going to find the money for the welfare payments for twice as many people?lol

Their immigration programme of bringing people in through Indonesia, wasn't very well focussed on nation building criteria.

To stimulate jobs companies have to be viable, unless they are run as a charity.

It is extremely hard to reduce taxes on companies as well as increase payments on welfare, that is unless you run it like Labor and borrow money.

The only other way is to take it off tax payers, a bit like our public transport system, take more of the full paying users, so more non paying users can travel on it.lol


----------



## drsmith

Julia said:


> Ah, that provides some perspective.  Thanks, drsmith.  I had no idea about that.
> 
> The ABC replayed her remark in the second video.   She is well and truly out of order.  She knows almost nothing and needs to just shut up, be a bit respectful.  I hope someone chews her up and spits her out quickly.



It's not going to be Penny Wong,



> On being described by Senator Lambie as one of her political heroes, Ms Wong told ABC radio: "It's very kind of her. I was going to say to Jacqui when I see her in person: it's not often I'm on the same list as Margaret Thatcher. Women in politics, as we know, have to hold their own and I think Jacqui demonstrates her capacity to do that and good on her."




http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...im-a-political-psychopath-20140707-3bhhh.html


----------



## Calliope

Wong said;



> Women in politics, as we know, have to hold their own and I think Jacqui demonstrates her capacity to do that and good on her."




Penny and Jacqui have at least 'holding their own thing" in common.


----------



## basilio

Clive palmer  is certainly throwing his weight around.

First up on the agenda he has stated  







> he will vote against Coalition plans to abolish the schoolkids’ bonus, the low income superannuation guarantee and a bonus for welfare recipients – at a total cost of more than $9bn.




And it gets better. 

So of course  with this catastrophic hit to the budget its absolutely clear what Tony Abbott must do.

*He has to call a double dissolution and sort out once and for what the Australian people want to see happen.  *Tony can then lay out his plans for raising the pension age to 70, slashing people off Disability pensions, sending refugees back to be tortured, slashing/selling off the ABC, introducing payments for Medicare ect, ect and get a real mandate.

All agree ?  

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...r-switch-threatens-to-blow-9bn-hole-in-budget


----------



## drsmith

Uncle Clive only has one card left now in testing the government's resolve in relation to a DD.

We'll know in the next fortnight or so if he's foolish enough to play it.



> The Abbott government is attempting to swiftly pass the carbon tax repeal package, which the Senate delayed until July 14 when a committee is due to table to a report on the issue.
> 
> The three PUP senators — Glenn Lazarus, Jacqui Lambie and Dio Wang — today joined Labor, the Greens, the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party’s Ricky Muir and independent Nick Xenophon to vote down the Coalition’s so-called “gag motion” aimed at speeding up debate.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...arbon-tax-debate/story-e6frg6xf-1226980411149


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> So of course  with this catastrophic hit to the budget its absolutely clear what Tony Abbott must do.
> 
> *He has to call a double dissolution and sort out once and for what the Australian people want to see happen.  *Tony can then lay out his plans for raising the pension age to 70, slashing people off Disability pensions, sending refugees back to be tortured, slashing/selling off the ABC, introducing payments for Medicare ect, ect and get a real mandate.
> 
> All agree ?
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...r-switch-threatens-to-blow-9bn-hole-in-budget




He is drunk with power and has the Press Gallery eating out of his hand. And why not? He is the best thing they have had since the election. A double dissolution would be a disaster for this country and probably entrench the nasties balance of power and make the house of reps irrevelant. The best thing we can hope for is that the evil PUP Palmer gets convicted soon for misappropiation of Citic Pacific's funds.





* Sieg Heil!  Power drunk Palmer Dominates the Press Club*


----------



## Julia

Calliope said:


> He is drunk with power and has the Press Gallery eating out of his hand. And why not? He is the best thing they have had since the election. A double dissolution would be a disaster for this country and probably entrench the nasties balance of power and make the house of reps irrevelant. The best thing we can hope for is that the evil PUP Palmer gets convicted soon for misappropiation of Citic Pacific's funds.



I agree absolutely.   The ABC in particular is in its element, continually giving time, even on "7.30" to the now ubiquitous Jacquie Lambie who seems to be doing her best to emulate her boss in terms of throwing her weight around.   She was a corporal in the army.  Had years on some sort of disability payment.  Two children to separate fathers.  She calls the Prime Minister a 'political psychopath'.  This was before she has ever met him.

Just unbelievable that the Left media are hanging on her every silly word.


----------



## basilio

Julia said:


> I agree absolutely.   The ABC in particular is in its element, continually giving time, even on "7.30" to the now ubiquitous Jacquie Lambie who seems to be doing her best to emulate her boss in terms of throwing her weight around.   She was a corporal in the army.  Had years on some sort of disability payment.  Two children to separate fathers.  She calls the Prime Minister a 'political psychopath'.  This was before she has ever met him.
> 
> Just unbelievable that the Left media are hanging on her every silly word.




So you reckon you know all about Jacquie Lambie ?  Someone has obviously done a good hatchet  job on her. Perhaps The Australian or our old friend Andrew Bolt?  it sounds like the sort of poisonous dribble we should expect.

By the way I havn't met Tony Abbott and I would have no hesitation in calling him a political psychopath.  It's the perfect description of a politician with no morals and a determination to destroy opposing forces with anything he can find. Very apt


----------



## Calliope

basilio said:


> it sounds like the sort of poisonous dribble we should expect.




Yes, and it alcoming from Jacquie Lambie.


----------



## basilio

So I did a quick Google on Jacqui Lambie and sure enough it was The Telegraph and News Ltd that covered her story.

*Julia I think she is someone you would admire. *She has had a tough time and through force of will has managed to recover. I even thought The telegraph story was fair and reasonable !! 

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...e-federal-budget/story-fni0cx12-1226978876840


----------



## Calliope

Much as I dislike the PUPs, it did my heart good to listen to Christine Milne's hysterical reaction to the PUP's decision to support the the bill to abolish the Carbon Tax. The poor old thing suddenly realised that they have lost control of the Senate and as a wrecking party they are now irrevelant. Their loony supporters will drift away to the support of the real legislation wreckers...the Palmer gang.


----------



## Knobby22

It's interesting to look at the Senate.




The Coalition actually lost a seat in the election.
Greens and Labor together cannot block.
The Liberal Democratic party is actually more like the US style, low taxes no services style politician so he will normally vote with the Coalition. Family First is a bit similar. 

Palmer United need to work with the Greens and Labor to block.

It is actually quite an open Senate and it should be possible to get many of the bills through. the problem is that Abbott is seen as having provided a budget that is poorly balanced and against the promises he made before the election. This has resulted in low popularity meaning he has little political capital.
Interesting times.


----------



## Knobby22

Very funny article in today's Age about the new independent Senators.

My favourite line is:

The mysterious Senator Muir turned out to have a photogenic wife and five children in tow and, as promised, had bought himself a suit, though he had forgotten to have the pants taken up, giving him a fetching, Chaplinesque air.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ut-punching-20140707-3bj04.html#ixzz36qCXXu00




Bit funny having a Parliamentarian that has had a real job.


----------



## Julia

basilio said:


> *Julia I think she is someone you would admire. *She has had a tough time and through force of will has managed to recover.



I think I'm quite able to draw my own conclusions about Ms Lambie without your advice, basilio.  I do not admire anyone who, with no experience and little to offer, is being grossly disrespectful not just to the PM but to others and the parliament in general.

It seems in addition to her fraught personal life she has had a go with both Labor and Liberal before finally finding someone who would take her on in Clive Palmer.




> News
> Palmer United Party senator Jacqui Lambie wants to be prime minister
> 
> Steven Scott
> The Courier-Mail
> July 05, 2014 12:00AM
> 
> A SENATOR who holds the key to passing the Federal Government’s agenda has declared she wants to be prime minister.
> 
> Tasmanian Palmer United Party Senator Jacqui Lambie, who secured only 1501 first-preference votes at the election and has called Prime Minister Tony Abbott a “psychopath” who needs a “bucket of cement” to “toughen up”, yesterday said she “absolutely” aspired to take on his job.
> 
> Senator Lambie, who lists her favourite weapon as an M60 submachine gun and only joined PUP because she was running out of money, has quickly emerged as the most outspoken of the eight new crossbenchers who hold the balance of power.
> 
> Tasmanian Palmer United Party Senator Jacqui Lambie has quickly emerged as the most outspoken of the eight new crossbenchers who hold the balance of power.
> 
> As she prepares to take her seat in the Senate on Monday, Senator Lambie has launched personal attacks against Mr Abbott and insisted she will not do deals with the Liberal Party.
> 
> Branding Mr Abbott a “political psychopath”, she accused him of putting his daughters at risk by “parading” them around during the election campaign last year.
> 
> Mr Abbott has refused to respond to her attack and said he would treat all senators equally.
> 
> But senior Liberals have conceded they are worried that Senator Lambie has an axe to grind against their party.
> 
> *Before she joined up with Mr Palmer, Senator Lambie tried and failed to win Liberal preselection for the Tasmanian federal seat of Braddon.
> 
> Her attempt to win Liberal backing came after she had worked for former Labor senator Nick Sherry.*
> Palmer United Senator Jacqui Lambie tells PM to toughen up


----------



## drsmith

In the Senate, PUP Senator Jacqui Lambie has asked her first question time question.

When asking the second supplementary to her question, she ran out of time before being able to complete the question. Penny Wong then on a point or order stood up on Jacqui's behalf requesting more time be granted for her to complete the question on the basis that was was her first question. 

She was given that extra time as a matter of indulgence.


----------



## basilio

> I think I'm quite able to draw my own conclusions about Ms Lambie without your advice, basilio. I do not admire anyone who, with no experience and little to offer, is being grossly disrespectful not just to the PM but to others and the parliament in general.   Julia




I'm quite sure you are capable of making up your own mind Julia.  But sometimes it doesn't hurt to look at all the angles...

I noticed the story you quoted from The Courier Mail.  That certainly was a hatchet job on Ms Lambie wasn't it ?  By the time you finished reading it I suppose any right minded person just wanted to kick her as far into the sea as they could... 

Which of course was the reason for writing it in the first place.

In that light I suppose that makes The Telegraph story I quoted even more interesting. It comes out of the Murdoch stables but somehow they managed to acknowledge her history and successful attempts at restoring her life (which incidentally was why I thought you might have some time for her) and didn't put a sneer in every second paragraph.

As far as calling Tony Abbott a political psychopath?  As I said - IMO a spot on assessment. In fact I dare say at least half of his own party would privately agree. But of course he is *their* election winning psychopath so there are few complaints there.

I suggest that Jacquie just has the balls to say publicly what most people would recognise as truth. She would have remembered the way Tony Abbott tried to initially seduce the Independents in the last hung Parliament and then trashed them unmercifully when they sided with Labour. And she would not have forgotten the closing Parliamentary speech of the Independent  Member Tony Windsor when describing Tony Abbott's behaviour at that time. 

Jacquie won't take sxxx

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2fRMy5rxuM


----------



## basilio

Final point Julia on how neatly The Courier Mail manages to slice up Jacqui.



> Senator Lambie, who lists her favourite weapon as an M60 submachine gun and only joined PUP because she was running out of money,




Did you notice the comment about her favourite weapon being a M60 machine gun?  WOW!! That  makes her sound like a pretty  dangerous sort of nutter doesn't it when you slip that line into the story. But if you are told (which this story didn't mention)  she was in the ADF then that makes sense doesn't it ? And asking a soldier what their favourite weapon is is quite reasonable - no ?

And then the slur about joining PUP because she was running out of money ? Is that true ? Is it relevant to how she behaves in the Parliament ?  Was she in fact very politically active before hand (she was) ? Or is still a way to blacken a persons name ?

Cheers


----------



## Knobby22

The Courier Mail has the lowest level of journalism in the country.


----------



## drsmith

basilio said:


> And she would not have forgotten the closing Parliamentary speech of the Independent  Member Tony Windsor when describing Tony Abbott's behaviour at that time.
> 
> Jacquie won't take sxxx
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2fRMy5rxuM




She may not take sxxx but she does like dishing it out. 

Don't worry about the press commentary, the video footage of her outbursts speak for themselves.

What she wants to take notice of in relation to Tony Windsor is not that bitter rant but his ultimate political fate. 

What he (and Rob Oakeshott) thought was going to be their great legacy to the nation and to the world now looks like it will be repealed this week. 

I'm sure Jacquie Lambie would want a more successful political legacy than that.


----------



## IFocus

I am sure there will be outrage frothing forth from those who support the budget cuts and complained endlessly  about the spin from Labor little did we know the real experts were waiting in the wings.............


Tony Abbott spends $4.3m on spin doctors



> The Abbott government has created a hub of 37 communication and social media specialists to monitor social media and offer strategic communications advice costing taxpayers almost $4.3 million a year.
> 
> Details released in Senate documents show the ‘‘Strategic Communications Branch’’ was implemented late last year, where the 37 staff are expected to oversee media within the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, including Indigenous Affairs and the Office for Women. According to the documents, staff are expected to monitor social media, offer strategic communications advice and create internal newsletters graphic design support, among other duties.






> Details released to the Senate show the departments of Immigration, Border Protection and Australian Customs have 85 permanent and 10 other staff responsible for media monitoring, internal communication and public relations.
> 
> The cost of employing the 37 staff is taken from the top brackets of public servant grades, while it includes an average  senior executive service wage.
> 
> Before the communications hub was created, there were a ‘‘small number’’ of PM&C staff engaged in speech writing and corporate communications support, the document  showed.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...pin-doctors-20140705-zsxlh.html#ixzz36rDMNhgS


----------



## Calliope

Knobby22 said:


> The Courier Mail has the lowest level of journalism in the country.




I dunno about that Knobs. The AGE and SMH have that honour. It's just sour grapes with you because the guy you said was your last hope, Clive Palmer, is continually exposed by the Courier-Mail for the ratbag he is, and the Fairfax press and ABC sing his praises.

You can read more about the Manchurian Candidate in my post on the "Palmer is Loco" thread.


----------



## Calliope

In a lighter vein.

Tim Blair
Monday, July 07, 2014 (5:50pm)



> It isn’t often that a Fairfax environment writer comes up with the funniest line of the week. Congratulations are due to Tom Arup for composing this gem:
> 
> The Anglican Church has told the Abbott government to change its approach to climate change, urging it to respect and base its policy on scientific evidence.
> 
> The comic power in that paragraph is equal to several kilotons of the finest plutonium. Here we have an organisation founded on belief and faith now demanding that selected scientific opinions inform government policy. These same people think they can talk to the planet’s inventor just by putting their hands together.


----------



## drsmith

Calliope said:


> In a lighter vein.
> 
> Tim Blair
> Monday, July 07, 2014 (5:50pm)



I saw a reference to that particular comment from the Catholic church somewhere in these threads and thought the same thing.


----------



## drsmith

Ricky Muir has hired former New South Wales politician Peter Breen as his policy advisor which might explain the following,



> New senator Ricky Muir is battling to save the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.
> 
> The Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party senator will introduce amendments to the carbon tax repeal bill to stop proposed cuts to the agency's budget that were flagged by the Coalition last year.
> 
> Debate to repeal the carbon tax resumed in the Senate on Tuesday and a vote to scrap the carbon tax is expected by the end of the week.
> 
> Senator Muir's amendments are a signal that he will also oppose a future government bill to axe the agency, which was set up to fund emerging renewable energy technology and research.
> 
> The move could spell fresh trouble for the federal budget, with the government banking on saving $1.3 billion from the agency's abolition.




http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...n-renewable-energy-agency-20140708-3bkgl.html

Referred to as Breenie the Greenie, he joined the Libs in his youth but later joined briefly joined Labor.



> Lismore-based "Breenie the Greenie", a committed environmentalist, told The Sun-Herald he expected a "furious bagging" from Parliament's three Green MPs who would probably feel betrayed.




http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...e-jump-to-labor/2006/05/06/1146335964223.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Breen_(politician)

Major party politics was perhaps not to his liking.


----------



## noco

drsmith said:


> In the Senate, PUP Senator Jacqui Lambie has asked her first question time question.
> 
> When asking the second supplementary to her question, she ran out of time before being able to complete the question. Penny Wong then on a point or order stood up on Jacqui's behalf requesting more time be granted for her to complete the question on the basis that was was her first question.
> 
> She was given that extra time as a matter of indulgence.




She has been nick named the SENUTTER....Some body called her a MOTOR MOUTH.


----------



## basilio

> It isn’t often that a Fairfax environment writer comes up with the funniest line of the week. Congratulations are due to Tom Arup for composing this gem:
> 
> The Anglican Church has told the Abbott government to change its approach to climate change, urging it to respect and base its policy on scientific evidence.
> 
> The comic power in that paragraph is equal to several kilotons of the finest plutonium. Here we have an organisation founded on belief and faith now demanding that selected scientific opinions inform government policy. These same people think they can talk to the planet’s inventor just by putting their hands together.




Isn't this just priceless ? Total and pure comedy really.. Pythonesque in fact.

97% of climate scientists (_just a few selected opinions mind you _) reckon after umpteen years of research, observation, and evidence that the world is warming, we are causing it and that we are in a xhitload of trouble as a result.

Church Leaders decide to refer to and in a practical sense defer to these scientists as knowing what they are talking about on the issue and ask that our Government do like wise. Simply respect the science.

And now wait for it. ... The punch line... the creative insanity... 

Tim Blair decides that being organisations of faith and belief they just can't actually have any capacity to follow anything as temporal as a scientific process.  Nope they should simply ignore what is in plain sight and follow the delusional  rantings of a bunch of total sociopaths who clearly havn't gone past crayons and wouldn't actually understand a science paper if it was read VERY LOUDLY AND VERY SLOWLY TO THEM. 

Actually.. wait for it.  I did see another similarly "brilliant" piece of murderously twisted logic.

*It was when the Heartland Foundation showed pictures of the Unibomber acknowledging the reality of climate change and then comparing climate change believers to serial killers. Perhaps Tim Blair should take the next obvious step and connect The Church to serial killers as well ?
*

Well done Tim. Plenty of laughs for you on ASF.



> Big donors ditch rightwing Heartland Institute over Unabomber billboard
> 
> Extremist US thinktank compared those who believe in man-made climate change to serial killer Ted Kaczynski
> 
> THEODORE KACZYNSKI - 'UNABOMBER'
> Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. The Heartland Institute used his image in its roadside billboard.
> 
> An ultra-conservative thinktank has suffered a mass exodus of corporate donors after running an ad campaign comparing climate change believers to a serial killer.



http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/09/heartland-institute-donors-lost-unabomber-ad

__________________________________________

Yes your right this is a forum on Tony Abbot not Climate Change.  But doesn't stop us from seeing and quoting  really crazy comments does it folks ?


----------



## Calliope

noco said:


> She has been nick named the SENUTTER....Some body called her a MOTOR MOUTH.




That's not fair. Basilio thinks she wonderful. But then his (her?) assessments are often a bit wierd.:screwy: See above.


----------



## Julia

basilio said:


> Did you notice the comment about her favourite weapon being a M60 machine gun?  WOW!! That  makes her sound like a pretty  dangerous sort of nutter doesn't it when you slip that line into the story. But if you are told (which this story didn't mention)  she was in the ADF then that makes sense doesn't it ? And asking a soldier what their favourite weapon is is quite reasonable - no ?



Where have you been since she was elected?   We have heard her say countless times that she was in the army.  It has been reported absolutely everywhere.  Why anyone would want to know what her favourite weapon is beats me.  I couldn't care less and I suspect neither could most Australians.



> And then the slur about joining PUP because she was running out of money ? Is that true ? Is it relevant to how she behaves in the Parliament ?  Was she in fact very politically active before hand (she was) ? Or is still a way to blacken a persons name ?



I'm not privy to her financial circumstances but it has certainly been reported across a wide range of media that she had no money, couldn't even come up with the required fee to pay for her Liberal pre-selection attempt.
Perhaps you need to read a bit more widely, basilio?  It's not just the Courier Mail.
I'm sure Ms Lambie is entirely capable of standing up for herself if she reads something written about her which is not true.  So far I've read nothing that I've not heard her say herself.

I'd have a lot more respect for her, and for you, if you both, as people unqualified to make clinical diagnoses, refrained from bandying about such terms as 'political psychopath'.  
Of course you are a fan for this person because she reflects your own intense dislike for Mr Abbott and his government.  That's fair enough.  



Knobby22 said:


> The Courier Mail has the lowest level of journalism in the country.



Agree that overall it's quite dreadful.  But the only newspaper I read is The Australian so am not really in a position to make proper comparisons.


----------



## Calliope

Keating was right when he said that the Senate was "unrepresentative swill"



> Ricky Muir represented AMEP in Victoria at the 2013 federal election and won on a record-low primary vote of 0.51 percent or 17,122 first preferences.



Wiki

Now after a sudden lurch to the left, he holds the fate of the Carbon Tax in his hands.


----------



## basilio

> Where have you been since she was elected? We have heard her say countless times that she was in the army. It has been reported absolutely everywhere. Why anyone would want to know what her favourite weapon is beats me. I couldn't care less and I suspect neither could most Australians.  Julia




I have to say I have been doing some catching up on Ms Lambie in the past couple of days.  I really didn't know anything beyond her name.

I only have a couple of comments to make regarding Ms Lambie

1) I think she has great courage (or is downright crackers ) in being so forthright regarding Tony Abbott.  I believe her assessment is accurate but actually saying it out loud...

2) I believe PUP and her are in the sights of the Murdoch Press as roadblocks to the Coalitions agenda. I presented that Courier mail article as an example of how to make someone look like an extremist, money grabbing nutter. (I also noted that The Telegraph presently similar material but without the sneers and in context.  That was a surprise.)

When I did further reading I discovered that Ms Lambie had indeed outed herself regarding her career in the Army, psychiatric breakdown, obesity and drug issues and suicide attempt. She decided that rather than have the Press make "horror" leaks of her past to trash her it was a better look to acknowledge them and point out by practice that she had pulled herself together.  :

As I watch all the PUP Representatives I can see Tony Abbott *and *Bill Shorten going grey. On the face of it they won't be cowed by the Government and if a double dissolution is called I can only see the PUP party gaining strength and giving whichever party gains power a headache.


----------



## drsmith

The senate today has blocked the repeal of second round of income tax cuts associated with the carbon tax.

These are the tax cuts Labor reneged on prior to the last election and then changed their minds again after losing office.


----------



## drsmith

basilio said:


> 1) I think she has great courage (or is downright crackers ) in being so forthright regarding Tony Abbott.  I believe her assessment is accurate but actually saying it out loud...



They were just rude personal attacks that speak more about her character than anyone else's.



basilio said:


> As I watch all the PUP Representatives I can see Tony Abbott *and *Bill Shorten going grey.



Bill shorten might well be the king of political psychopathy.

Under the hair colour he sent Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard grey long ago.


----------



## sptrawler

drsmith said:


> The senate today has blocked the repeal of second round of income tax cuts associated with the carbon tax.
> 
> These are the tax cuts Labor reneged on prior to the last election and then changed their minds again after losing office.




It's an interesting situation, when the parliament is deliberately forcing the government to go further into debt, it boils down to economic vandalism.

I can't see how this tactic will end well.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> I have to say I have been doing some catching up on Ms Lambie in the past couple of days.  I really didn't know anything beyond her name.
> 
> I only have a couple of comments to make regarding Ms Lambie
> 
> 1) I think she has great courage (or is downright crackers ) in being so forthright regarding Tony Abbott.  I believe her assessment is accurate but actually saying it out loud...
> 
> 2) I believe PUP and her are in the sights of the Murdoch Press as roadblocks to the Coalitions agenda. I presented that Courier mail article as an example of how to make someone look like an extremist, money grabbing nutter. (I also noted that The Telegraph presently similar material but without the sneers and in context.  That was a surprise.)
> 
> When I did further reading I discovered that Ms Lambie had indeed outed herself regarding her career in the Army, psychiatric breakdown, obesity and drug issues and suicide attempt. She decided that rather than have the Press make "horror" leaks of her past to trash her it was a better look to acknowledge them and point out by practice that she had pulled herself together.  :
> 
> As I watch all the PUP Representatives I can see Tony Abbott *and *Bill Shorten going grey. On the face of it they won't be cowed by the Government and if a double dissolution is called I can only see the PUP party gaining strength and giving whichever party gains power a headache.




And who will suffer the most.......Yes ole mate......YOU and ME.

I just hope if we do have to go to a double dissolution that the average Joe will think long and hard of what the consequences will be.


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> It's an interesting situation, when the parliament is deliberately forcing the government to go further into debt, it boils down to economic vandalism.
> 
> I can't see how this tactic will end well.




Sp, the sooner people begin to understand the tactics of the Fabian Society, the sooner they will understand what is going on in Parliament.......it is worse than economic vandalism......they are swinging a wrecking ball to our standard of living.......They want to see higher unemployment, higher taxes, higher debt,  voter discontent and division within the community and more illegal refugees and to make matters worse they are succeeding with the help of some biased media.

I have never seen such dirty tactics in all my life.


----------



## Julia

drsmith said:


> They were just rude personal attacks that speak more about her character than anyone else's.



Agree absolutely.  Some basic good manners would surely be the more appropriate stance of someone with zero useful experience and a huge amount to learn.  Plus, as already mentioned, the notion that she is qualified to use a clinical term.
Pfft!


drsmith said:


> The senate today has blocked the repeal of second round of income tax cuts associated with the carbon tax.
> 
> These are the tax cuts Labor reneged on prior to the last election and then changed their minds again after losing office.






sptrawler said:


> It's an interesting situation, when the parliament is deliberately forcing the government to go further into debt, it boils down to economic vandalism.
> 
> I can't see how this tactic will end well.



So many people intent on exerting their own personal egos, all determined to make life impossible for the government in its intention to restore a fiscally responsible path.

I'm about at the stage where I'd like a DD election, let Labor/Greens/PUP win, and let them revert to sinking Australia.  Won't worry me personally.  I don't have grandchildren to inherit the debt.


----------



## sptrawler

Julia said:


> Agree absolutely.
> I'm about at the stage where I'd like a DD election, let Labor/Greens/PUP win, and let them revert to sinking Australia.  Won't worry me personally. .




I feel the same way,its funny really, everyone is pushing to just spend, spend, spend, which really is a reflection of our society. 
So maybe we are out of step, we may be dinosaurs.lol
The one thing for sure, if Labor get back in, get ready for massive tax hikes.

I still believe the silent majority aren't stupid, middle Australia has to wear the cost of bad government because they are the major tax payers.
I am sure they can see that they will be footing the bill.

Time will tell, as doc said Abbott is probably playing a long game. 
I know my mate, who works in the council(he is my bellwether), can't believe how the government is being blackmailed by idiots( he calls them worse)lol


----------



## Smurf1976

sptrawler said:


> It's an interesting situation, when the parliament is deliberately forcing the government to go further into debt, it boils down to economic vandalism.
> 
> I can't see how this tactic will end well.




Something I've come across on several occasions relates to management as such.

If you are the manager (owner, boss, supervisor, worker responsible for the job, whatever) of something (anything) and are accountable for the outcome then you need to be able to get on and manage it as appropriate. It just doesn't work if you are responsible on one hand, but on the other hand don't have effective authority to get the job done. Responsibility, at whatever level, and authority at that same level are joined at the hip.

It's the same in any situation from a bus driver to a government. If the bus driver is ordered not to use the brakes then it's not their fault when the inevitable crash occurs. If the government can't implement its' policies then you can't fairly hold them accountable for the outcome either good or bad.

I say that without commenting on any specific policy.


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> Something I've come across on several occasions relates to management as such.
> 
> If you are the manager (owner, boss, supervisor, worker responsible for the job, whatever) of something (anything) and are accountable for the outcome then you need to be able to get on and manage it as appropriate. It just doesn't work if you are responsible on one hand, but on the other hand don't have effective authority to get the job done. Responsibility, at whatever level, and authority at that same level are joined at the hip.
> 
> It's the same in any situation from a bus driver to a government. If the bus driver is ordered not to use the brakes then it's not their fault when the inevitable crash occurs. If the government can't implement its' policies then you can't fairly hold them accountable for the outcome either good or bad.
> 
> I say that without commenting on any specific policy.




Agree completely, I had this same discussion with Sydboy, I said the government is voted in to implement policies. 
They are judged on those policies at the next election, unless some catastrophe happens, like happened with the Whitlam government.

What's happening at the moment is, those that were voted out are banding together to pass legislation that loses money and blocking legislation that saves money.
My guess is the, Royal Commission into unions is probably driving the thrust to call a new election, I wonder if the press union will be probed?


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Agree completely, I had this same discussion with Sydboy, I said the government is voted in to implement policies.
> They are judged on those policies at the next election, unless some catastrophe happens, like happened with the Whitlam government.
> 
> What's happening at the moment is, those that were voted out are banding together to pass legislation that loses money and blocking legislation that saves money.
> My guess is the, Royal Commission into unions is probably driving the thrust to call a new election, I wonder if the press union will be probed?




While I think most of what the Govt has proposed in the budget wont do much to help get the budget on a more stable footing, I've said I believe Labor should just wave everything through.  Give the Government no cover to hide behind when what they do does send us into a recession.  The way things are going they're smoothing the rough edges off Abbott and providing plenty of cover to hide behind when things inevitably get bad.

I do wonder though why the calls for a less obstructionist opposition were so faint to non existent prior to September 2013.


----------



## Calliope

sydboy007 said:


> I do wonder though why the calls for a less obstructionist opposition were so faint to non existent prior to September 2013.




That's obvious. The Coalition in Government never had control of the Senate. It is in the Senate that all the obstruction occurs. Labor/Green free passage of irresponsible bills in the Senate for six years if why we are in such a mess now.


----------



## drsmith

PUP, Ricky Muir, Labor and the Greens have combined in the senate to block the carbon tax repeal.

Media commentary suggests it will have to go back to the reps next week.



> Clive Palmer, pictured, with former Liberal Leader John Hewson, is angry because a new amendment to ensure carbon tax savings are passed back to households has not been presented to the Senate. Pic: Alex Ellinghausen




He looks real angry.

http://www.afr.com/p/national/clive_palmer_threat_to_block_carbon_O6TYRyLen4vayrawl6PqVL


----------



## IFocus

Who would have thought.

Senate in chaos as Palmer blocks carbon tax repeal



> The Federal Government's bid to repeal the carbon tax has backfired, with the Senate rejecting the legislation after powerbroker Clive Palmer claimed he had been "double-crossed" by the Coalition.





Found this really funny from Anthony Albanese



> AlboMP @AlboMP
> How's that pledge that you would refuse to talk or negotiate with any cross bench MPs or Senators working out for you, Tony?


----------



## noco

drsmith said:


> PUP, Ricky Muir, Labor and the Greens have combined in the senate to block the carbon tax repeal.
> 
> Media commentary suggests it will have to go back to the reps next week.
> 
> 
> 
> He looks real angry.
> 
> http://www.afr.com/p/national/clive_palmer_threat_to_block_carbon_O6TYRyLen4vayrawl6PqVL




IMHO, I believe Palmer is angling for a double dissolution because he believes he will gain more seats for PUP.....it also might back fire on him.

If Abbott leaves his run too long, he might find himself replaced with Malcolm Turnbull....Turbull has more charisma but I don't particularly like the idea of him being too far to the left...only time will tell.


----------



## Knobby22

Is Abbott & Co working to help Clive? Yet another free kick.
They said they agreed to the amendment and then didn't put it in.

I said it earlier and I will say it again, if the Libs want a second term it won't be with Abbott and Hockey in charge. It's really incompetence in my view.


----------



## drsmith

noco said:


> IMHO, I believe Palmer is angling for a double dissolution because he believes he will gain more seats for PUP.....it also might back fire on him.
> 
> If Abbott leaves his run too long, he might find himself replaced with Malcolm Turnbull....Turbull has more charisma but I don't particularly like the idea of him being too far to the left...only time will tell.



The government will have another crack next week.

It appears PUP attempted to put an amendment that the clark said could be unconstitutional and needs to go back to the reps.

In Clive's own words,



> 1:30pm: In Clive's own words (from the Senate courtyard a bit earlier), this is what he says happened:
> 
> "Well, we had an amendment and the amendment was very strong that requiring the savings of electricity or gas [companies] to be passed onto the consumer ... [with penalties for non-compliant companies].
> 
> "They [the government] thought it was too harsh initially and said it wasn't a good idea. Then they went to the Clerk and they said it was a tax not a penalty ...*The clerks said it might be declared a tax and therefore not constitutional ..."*




http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/the-pulse-live/politics-live-july-10-2014-20140710-3bnuh.html

Also of interest, Ben Oquist is involved with Clive Palmer and PUP. 



> Ben Oquist is strategy director at The Australia Institute. He is former chief of staff to Bob Brown and then Christine Milne.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/ben-oquist/5505350

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-clive-palmer-and-al-gore-20140626-3awgy.html

It's becoming increasingly obvious that Clive Palmer and his brood have ties with Labor and Green influence and when push is coming to shove in the senate, they're voting accordingly.


----------



## drsmith

Knobby22 said:


> Is Abbott & Co working to help Clive? Yet another free kick.
> They said they agreed to the amendment and then didn't put it in.



The clerks declared that the PUP amendment could be unconstitutional and was withdrawn from senate vote by PUP.

See above.


----------



## basilio

This government will have to think very carefully about how it is going to work.

I can't see how the Budget will be passed in any shape resembling the way it was presented. It is going to be extremely difficult to kill the carbon tax and it seems certain that the other programs they wanted cut will be saved.

Going to a DD on the current budget promises seems like political suicide.

Well at least Tony Abbott has fulfilled his desire to be PM at any cost ...


----------



## drsmith

basilio said:


> I can't see how the Budget will be passed in any shape resembling the way it was presented. It is going to be extremely difficult to kill the carbon tax and it seems certain that the other programs they wanted cut will be saved.



Look at the image above (and below) where Uncle Clive is supposedly angry.

He's as happy as a pig in poop at giving the Abbott government a bit of short term grief and lapping up the media attention.

If he has any political sense, he'll ultimately instruct his senators to pass the carbon tax repeal. The alternative is that he is hoping that by not passing it he will cripple TA prime ministership and Malcolm Turnbull will take over. If that happens, the Left commentariat will eat Malcolm for breakfast. I hope Clive realises this because Malcolm himself doesn't.


----------



## sptrawler

basilio said:


> Well at least Tony Abbott has fulfilled his desire to be PM at any cost ...




Tut tut, you are showing your nasty streak.lol 

It undermines your persona of a caring person.


----------



## Knobby22

drsmith said:


> The alternative is that he is hoping that by not passing it he will cripple TA prime ministership and Malcolm Turnbull will take over.




I think Julia Bishop could have a chance actually.
She hasn't been dirtied and could be a compromise choice.


----------



## basilio

Yep SP I am truly a warm, caring and sharing person.  It so warms the cockles of my heart to seeing Tony Abbott dealing with the consequences of his actions in polarising politics and taking it to the simplest, stupidest levels.  All about Karma I say.

You know what ? *I reckon that the Liberal strategists will have to seriously think about negotiating with the Labor Party on the Budget and other bills.* I'm struggling to see how they will manage to herd  sufficient numbers of the cross benchers into supporting their policies.

And  I also suspect that  if they keep trying and failing to get bills passed in the Senate Malcolm Turnball might be the circuit breaker for the party and the Parliament. Karma again if it happens.


----------



## AAA

The Govt will just chip away geting bills through one at a time. They will get most of what they want through before the end of their first term. Once they are about six months out from the next election they can threaten to go to a DD on anything they are being obstructed on. I don't see the cross benchers risking an early end to their pariamentary career and being close to having to go to the polls the govt doesn't have anything to lose by going a few months early.


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> If he has any political sense, he'll ultimately instruct his senators to pass the carbon tax repeal. The alternative is that he is hoping that by not passing it he will cripple TA prime ministership and Malcolm Turnbull will take over. If that happens, the Left commentariat will eat Malcolm for breakfast. I hope Clive realises this because Malcolm himself doesn't.




...or he'll just cripple TA's Government and stand back and watch the fireworks.


----------



## drsmith

The ABC has covered what happened,



> In the midst of Senate debate on the repeal legislation, the PUP amendment was tabled but then - curiously - withdrawn by PUP itself.
> 
> It later emerged that the Clerk of the Senate had advised PUP that the amendment was unconstitutional because the 250 per cent penalty that applied to companies could be seen as a tax, and would therefore have to pass the House of Representatives first.
> 
> Mr Palmer has disputed the advice.
> 
> "In my mind, that's a penalty, it's a consequence of what you haven't done," he said.
> 
> "However, somehow the clerk said it could be a tax and therefore might not be constitutional.
> 
> "It's not a tax, right? It's a penalty."
> 
> The Government says the "technical" issue should be easily fixed.



It's the clerk's view that counts Clive.

Shill, he obviously wasn't fussed about the outcome as the images show.

Clive late today has again vowed to allow the carbon tax repeal through next week (ABC radio news). 

If he genuinely wants the repeal not to proceed, his tactic may be to present amendments sufficiently repugnant to the other cross bench senators such that enough of them vote it down even though his senators in the end support it.



> Environment Minister Greg Hunt said the minor party had circulated three versions of its amendments and the Government saw the latest one at about 9.15am.
> 
> "We have supported and agreed with all," he said.
> 
> But there may be fresh hurdles ahead, with another crossbench senator, NSW Liberal Democrat David Leyonjhelm, expressing strong reservations about the PUP amendments.
> 
> "The final version of them are very proscriptive, they have extremely high fines for failure to lodge documents and you know it really is going beyond reasonable," he said.
> 
> The Government needs the support of six of the eight crossbenchers to pass any legislation opposed by the Labor and the Greens.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-...sses-ahead-with-carbon-tax-repeal-bid/5588172


----------



## drsmith

drsmith said:


> Also of interest, Ben Oquist is involved with Clive Palmer and PUP.



Ben Oquist was deeply involved in the action today,



> He drew around him his little band of senators, instructing them on their duty. Glenn Lazarus, Jacqui Lambie, Dio Wang. And his outrider, Ricky Muir.
> 
> He cocked an ear towards Ben Oquist, once a power within the Australian Greens and now a strategy director at the Australia Institute think tank and, seated at Clive's left hand, an unlikely but well-informed well of advice on how to drive the Senate mad.




http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...er-makes-tony-abbott-wait-20140710-3bpq7.html


----------



## drsmith

AAA said:


> The Govt will just chip away geting bills through one at a time. They will get most of what they want through before the end of their first term. Once they are about six months out from the next election they can threaten to go to a DD on anything they are being obstructed on. I don't see the cross benchers risking an early end to their pariamentary career and being close to having to go to the polls the govt doesn't have anything to lose by going a few months early.



It's a sound strategy but the politics is such that its foundation is the repeal of the carbon tax. 

With the political friends Clive Palmer and at least two of his flock of 4 are keeping (Jacqui Lambie and Ricky Muir), PUP's ultimate genuineness in repealing this tax is very questionable in my view.

In addition to Clive above, Ricky Muir has former New South Wales politician Peter Breen (Breenie the Greenie) as his policy advisor,  

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...27364&page=157&p=831652&viewfull=1#post831652

and Jacqui Lambie has palled up to Penny Wong.


----------



## banco

At that quantum I'm not surprised it is being classed as a tax.  Plus taxes have to be in separate Bills so they'll need to pass that separately through the House.


----------



## noco

drsmith said:


> It's a sound strategy but the politics is such that its foundation is the repeal of the carbon tax.
> 
> With the political friends Clive Palmer and at least two of his flock of 4 are keeping (Jacqui Lambie and Ricky Muir), PUP's ultimate genuineness in repeal this tax is very questionable in my view.




I am sure that windbag Palmer will eventually pass it as it cost him $6 million last year....He is just showing his strong arm tactics and is like a cat playing with a mouse.......He is getting a lot of publicity from it all and has left the Greens in the back ground.......Palmer has taken over the limelight.


----------



## drsmith

noco said:


> I am sure that windbag Palmer will eventually pass it as it cost him $6 million last year....He is just showing his strong arm tactics and is like a cat playing with a mouse.......He is getting a lot of publicity from it all and has left the Greens in the back ground.......Palmer has taken over the limelight.



I hope you're right but between Labor and Green tentacles penetrating PUP and Clive Palmer and Tony Abbott falling out in 2012, it may run deeper than that. 

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3533614.htm


----------



## drsmith

On matters Clive, he's walked out during an interview with Sarah Ferguson for the ABC's 7:30 program.

With the carbon tax repeal where it is, there hopefully won't be any loose cannon from the Libs in response.


----------



## Julia

drsmith said:


> On matters Clive, he's walked out during an interview with Sarah Ferguson for the ABC's 7:30 program.
> 
> With the carbon tax repeal where it is, there hopefully won't be any loose cannon from the Libs in response.



Sarah Ferguson did a very good job of persisting against Mr Palmer's obfuscation, to the point where he walked out on her.  The contrast with the subsequent interview with Greg Hunt was marked, the latter being polite and remarkably restrained in his comments.

Noco's observation about Palmer angling for a DD might well be correct.   Depends, I suppose, on whether people are starting to see through him yet.

It's absolutely in his own interests to see the carbon tax abolished, so all this stuffing about is pure theatre on his part.  So childish and silly.


----------



## drsmith

Julia said:


> Sarah Ferguson did a very good job of persisting against Mr Palmer's obfuscation, to the point where he walked out on her.  The contrast with the subsequent interview with Greg Hunt was marked, the latter being polite and remarkably restrained in his comments.



Isn't it ironic Clive's associated with something called Media Circus.

Clive's interview helped fill in some of the gaps as to what happened. He claimed the government's approach was pass the carbon tax and move his amendment later as it had to pass through the reps which he baulked at. 

It couldn't happen that way though as a consequence of advice from the clerk. Interestingly in the interview that followed, Greg Hunt didn't mention this aspect either. The Libs I'd suggest are going soft on Clive at the moment in the hope the carbon tax repeal passes next week.

I also suggest he's not endearing himself to other parts of the business community with his commentary, either about them or China.

He was clearly not a happy camper as he walked out.


----------



## drsmith

A former advisor to Tony Windsor is involved in this as well.



> Oquist, the former chief of staff to Greens leaders Bob Brown and Christine Milne, helped engineer events yesterday that led Clive Palmer to keep the carbon tax *despite a public vow to repeal it.
> 
> *Another player is John Clements, a former adviser to independent Tony Windsor and a key negotiator in the dispute over how to ensure consumers get the savings if the tax is scrapped.*






> The government suspects Oquist of trying to kill off the carbon tax repeal one step at a time. He has been advising Palmer in meetings, copied on emails and was in the background at yesterday’s press conference. “Ben’s endgame is clear,” says one source.
> 
> Oquist, who left the Greens after the last election and is now the Strategy Director at The Australia Institute, says yesterday’s political decisions were not his work.




I'd be suspicious too.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...bon-tax-backflip/story-e6frg6xf-1226984998447

My bolds.


----------



## basilio

Why does Tony Abbott really want to kill the price on Carbon ?

Clearly he made it an clarion call in the last election. His argument was that this was going to strangle the economy, throw thousand out people out of work, destroy towns, make the curtains bleach ..(any argument would do)

Two years later one can't point to any clear indication of economic woe caused by carbon price. It seems to have been absorbed into the economy with suitable compensation given to some affected people.  Billions of dollars in compensation have also been given to companies. It only has a short time to run before it becomes morphed into an international carbon pricing scheme where the price will come down.

*It has clearly had an effect on CO2 emissions. Electricity suppliers are using  less coal and more gas/hydro/wind/solar power

*
The theory that cutting the tax will result in cheaper prices for consumers is pretty fanciful. Clive Palmer is attempting to actually make sure that happens.  I believe many businesses are concerned about such a zealous approach to making sure consumers get the benefit of any tax cut. Far better in their pockets they would imagine.

It's also interesting to see the effect of two very capable parliamentary advisors on the PUP team. Parliament is about process.  Without having advisors who understand the  way to get bills  analysed, drafted and negotiated the new PUP Senators would be dead pups. From Abbotts point of view it's a shame he didn't have the foresight to encourage a more government friendly advisor.


----------



## SirRumpole

basilio said:


> Why does Tony Abbott really want to kill the price on Carbon ?




Possibly more worrying is how will he replace the $7 billion a year revenue ?

http://www.afr.com/p/national/bn_year_budget_cost_to_chop_carbon_d6LU7k4n6QNJDGE9j3IA2M


----------



## IFocus

This government is in or running complete chaos


Now it's Tony Abbott's turn to do 'dodgy deals' with minor parties

The chaotic last-minute bargaining in the Senate corridors made the government look like a flock of geese






> Tony Abbott used to tell us that he would not lead a government “depending upon dodgy deals … or wayward independents”.
> 
> “There is no point in basing government on dishonest deals behind closed doors,” he said.




Do they have any idea what they are doing? Apparently sheer arrogance wont work with Clive.



> Thursday when the Senate leader, Eric Abetz, the environment minister, Greg Hunt, manager of government business in the Senate, Mitch Fifield, and their advisers were hammering out the fate of the carbon tax repeal bills with Clive Palmer, his senators and the other crossbenchers in a corridor with a posse of journalists watching.





And this



> But the whole chaotic day would have been less embarrassing if:
> 
> • the prime minister had not already done a pre-emptive media conference hailing the imminent economic unburdening of the nation from the “axing” of the tax.
> 
> • the government had not itself forced through a “gag” motion, which then robbed it of the chance to let the debate continue while the amendment was negotiated.
> 
> • the prime minister had not told voters before the election that they were choosing between the “strong Coalition team” and “more of the same chaos and confusion under Labor”.
> 
> • if he hadn’t been so derisive of the Labor’s governments negotiations with minor parties.




http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...tts-turn-to-do-dodgy-deals-with-minor-parties


----------



## IFocus

What a mess Labor teaching the Coalition how to behave as adults talk about bizarre.

Mathias Cormann trying to put lip stick on a real great big pig


Labor closer to axing regulation that weakens financial safeguards

The Abbott government failed in a bid to delay the parliamentary tabling of its changes to financial advice reforms



> The Abbott government has failed in a bid to delay the parliamentary tabling of its changes to financial advice reforms, with Labor succeeding in a series of procedural manoeuvres that bring the upper house a step closer to striking down the measures.
> 
> The regulation altering elements of Labor’s Future of Financial Advice (Fofa) reforms was registered to begin on 1 July, but the government was entitled to wait until Tuesday next week to formally table it in the Senate.
> 
> Opponents of the changes wanted the regulation tabled as soon as possible because the Senate could then vote to disallow it. There is adequate support among senators for striking down the measures amid concerns about the watering down of protections for consumers receiving financial advice.




http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-regulation-that-weakens-financial-safeguards


----------



## bellenuit

basilio said:


> *It has clearly had an effect on CO2 emissions. Electricity suppliers are using  less coal and more gas/hydro/wind/solar power
> *




The carbon price is causing a reduction in domestic CO2 emissions, but what is the effect of *our* carbon price on global emissions, which is what matters.

If industries have lost business to overseas companies that do not have the add on effects of a carbon price and that causes an increase in CO2 emissions there, then the effect globally could be negligible and possibly make it worse if they use dirtier supply sources.

This information is missing from the debate and without it we may be hurting our industry for no global benefit.


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> This government is in or running complete chaos
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...tts-turn-to-do-dodgy-deals-with-minor-parties



The most relevant bit of the above article.



> Yes, the government was ambushed by yet another Palmer drama – a last-minute, hastily revised amendment to its carbon tax repeal bills that turned out to be unconstitutional on the advice of the clerk of the Senate.


----------



## drsmith

drsmith said:


> Isn't it ironic Clive's associated with something called Media Circus.
> 
> Clive's interview helped fill in some of the gaps as to what happened. He claimed the government's approach was pass the carbon tax and move his amendment later as it had to pass through the reps which he baulked at.
> 
> It couldn't happen that way though as a consequence of advice from the clerk. Interestingly in the interview that followed, Greg Hunt didn't mention this aspect either. The Libs I'd suggest are going soft on Clive at the moment in the hope the carbon tax repeal passes next week.
> 
> I also suggest he's not endearing himself to other parts of the business community with his commentary, either about them or China.
> 
> He was clearly not a happy camper as he walked out.



The transcript of last night's interview is now available.



> SARAH FERGUSON: Having a look at your actual amendment, to be clear about it - who are you saying, rather - who are you saying it should apply to?
> 
> CLIVE PALMER: Well what we're saying in essence is that any generators of gas or electricity in the country that have in their price structure a certain component for carbon, that needs to be reduced and that saving needs to be passed on to - down the line to consumers.
> 
> SARAH FERGUSON: Now there is some confusion around tonight because people who've looked at your amendment think that it goes much further than that, that it applies to any business that is - that has had costs incurred through the carbon tax. Is that what you intended: for it to cover any business?
> 
> CLIVE PALMER: Well I think it's pretty clear what it covers. There's a definition of an electricity producer and a natural gas producer and it covers anyone that generates or deals with that commodity. It doesn't cover anyone else.
> 
> SARAH FERGUSON: So it doesn't cover the airlines, it doesn't cover the supermarkets or anybody else who has carbon tax-associated costs?
> 
> CLIVE PALMER: Well, in a reality when - if the cost structure comes down, market forces will bring their costs down by competition. We know that and that's a good and healthy thing. I mean, if Qantas doesn't want to bring down its savings and pass that on to its consumers, well, one of its competitors will and they'll have to bring their prices down to compete.
> 
> SARAH FERGUSON: You're not saying that your amendment actually includes those other companies within it?
> 
> CLIVE PALMER: No. I don't think it does, actually. But what I am saying is that in the case of electricity and gas producers, they're virtually in a monopoly situation with many of our generators held by state governments. They've got no freedom of choice and there's not a real market. We've seen $45 billion spent in the electricity market, for example. The demand for electricity's come down, the prices have gone up. So, you know, they've got nowhere to go and we're there to help them.




http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2014/s4043773.htm


----------



## drsmith

Clive Palmer adviser Ben Oquist stands behind the PUP leader before a press conference.

It seems he had a falling out with Christine Milne.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ll-green-but-a-pragmatist-20140710-3bq8y.html


----------



## Knobby22

The Libs are used to dealing with career politicians. Clive doesn't care.  He wants to create mayhem and cause pain. The Libs will have to suck up to him to get things past, not act haughty like Abbott has been doing. In fact, his statement that day that he would get his way was like a rag to a red bull. Clive wants to set the agenda, not the other way around.

The Senate has a mind of its own.
The Liberal Democrat Senator a libertarian joined hands with the Family First Senator to prevent the government from income tax breaks that were to disappear with the carbon tax! 

The Coalition need to stand back and reassess how they are going to govern otherwise this term is going to make the Gillard/Rudd previous term look like a picnic. Busting through is not an option. We are in a democracy chaps, the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.


----------



## basilio

Julia Gilliard kept her minority Labour government operational and effective for a full term. That was in spite of the  full press "take no prisoners" assault of Tony Abbott.

The key element in her legislative and  operational success was  excellent communication and negotiation skills. She managed to work with the Independents and Greens on a daily basis. 

I cannot see how Tony Abbott will emulate that feat. Not yet at least.  On all accounts he doesn't have the skills and diplomacy to effectively negotiate with the herd of cats on the cross bench. Frankly I think he would be better coming to terms with the Labour Party in negotiations - but after the way he trashed the last Labour government I just can't see any chance of good will.

*He poisoned the well and now he has drink from it. Karma.*


----------



## noco

drsmith said:


> On matters Clive, he's walked out during an interview with Sarah Ferguson for the ABC's 7:30 program.
> 
> With the carbon tax repeal where it is, there hopefully won't be any loose cannon from the Libs in response.




Doc, that "DUMMY SPIT" with Sarah Ferguson certainly did not do him any favors.......she well and truly  painted him into a corner and he did not know to get out of it so he pulled the plug.

Sooner or later this windbag is going to come unstuck......The chows could yet be his down fall.


----------



## sptrawler

basilio said:


> Julia Gilliard kept her minority Labour government operational and effective for a full term. That was in spite of the  full press "take no prisoners" assault of Tony Abbott.
> 
> The key element in her legislative and  operational success was  excellent communication and negotiation skills. She managed to work with the Independents and Greens on a daily basis.
> 
> I cannot see how Tony Abbott will emulate that feat. Not yet at least.  On all accounts he doesn't have the skills and diplomacy to effectively negotiate with the herd of cats on the cross bench. Frankly I think he would be better coming to terms with the Labour Party in negotiations - but after the way he trashed the last Labour government I just can't see any chance of good will.
> 
> *He poisoned the well and now he has drink from it. Karma.*




Your stetching the truth as per usual, a bit of fact bending


----------



## IFocus

Stephen Koukoulas

Why the Abbott budget was the perfect political poison

The Abbott government has learned the hard way that a wide-ranging policy agenda of small ticket savings annoys almost everyone. 



> A striking feature of the Abbott government’s first budget is that it offended just about every sector or interest group in the economy, while doing precious little to return the budget to surplus.
> 
> The net savings to the budget over the three years to 2016-17 totalled $18.2 billion – or around 0.3 per cent of GDP each year. Such a puny fiscal tightening leaves the budget in deficit in that time, *and the bottom line is worse than the budget numbers left by the previous government in the pre-election fiscal outlook*.







> The government’s budget marketing problem is self-inflicted. Given that most of the scatter-gun of budget measures *were not flagged prior to the election*, voters were surprised to see the government pursue its fiscal objectives in this way. Indeed, during the election campaign in 2013, *the words of Abbott and his fellow frontbenchers were the polar opposite for most issues.*





What is it Syd keeps saying



> If Labor wants to pursue a constructive agenda, the "tough" policies needed to fund it – yet maintain the balanced budget over the cycle – should be directed at a narrower constituency. Even at this distance from the election,* those targets seem obvious: superannuation and corporate welfare. *Those areas would deliver huge savings that are not only fair and equitable, but will help to cover the cost of undoing some of the current government’s policy overreach – and could also fast track the budget to surplus.


----------



## drsmith

noco said:


> Doc, that "DUMMY SPIT" with Sarah Ferguson certainly did not do him any favors.......she well and truly  painted him into a corner and he did not know to get out of it so he pulled the plug.
> 
> Sooner or later this windbag is going to come unstuck......The chows could yet be his down fall.



The following is perhaps the timeframe in which the government is hoping the wheels come off of Clive Palmer and the PUP cart.



> Prime Minister Tony Abbott has flagged the possibility of an election within 12 months if the chaotic scenes of this week's Senate negotiations over the carbon tax repeal continue.
> 
> After telling radio 2GB on Friday morning that it might be time for a poll if the government's ''difficulty'' continued for six to 12 months, Mr Abbott later told reporters at a media conference that his administration was there to govern, not call another election.




http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-new-election-speculation-20140711-3bqyf.html


----------



## Julia

Knobby22 said:


> The Libs are used to dealing with career politicians. Clive doesn't care.  He wants to create mayhem and cause pain. The Libs will have to suck up to him to get things past, not act haughty like Abbott has been doing. In fact, his statement that day that he would get his way was like a rag to a red bull. Clive wants to set the agenda, not the other way around.



Knobby, I agree that Palmer's motivation is to create mayhem and cause pain.  He is determined to wreak his revenge on the Qld LNP dumping him because of his continued demands that his considerable financial contributions to the party over the years should entitle him to favouritism re his infrastructure requirements etc.

I'm not sure if the Libs have been haughty toward Palmer.  Perhaps depends on your interpretation of the word.
Certainly they've been premature in celebrating the removal of the carbon tax, been too quick to be jubilant about getting their legislation through, and sure, I can see that this could qualify as haughty.   At the same time, I don't think they should actually have to suck up to anyone.  One would hope that participants in the parliament come to legislation in a constructive and thoughtful way, rather than just an intent to destroy.



> The Coalition need to stand back and reassess how they are going to govern otherwise this term is going to make the Gillard/Rudd previous term look like a picnic.



Yes, you're right.  So far the populist is running the show.  The Libs eagerly agree to anything Clive Palmer puts up if it will look like ensuring the carbon tax will be abolished.  Business is very worried.  eg who is going to be paying Clive's 250% penalty?
No one seems to know.

Meantime, Ms Lambie is calling for Senator Abetz to be sacked!.  Oh, my goodness.


----------



## basilio

Ms Lambie is certainly forthright isn't she !!

Mind you Senator Abetz is in charge of ensuring the Governments legislation is passed or at the very least not obviously voted down.  Didn't seem to do a very good job yesterday did he ?

Perhaps the whole process needs a bit more finesse ?


----------



## basilio

sptrawler said:


> Your stetching the truth as per usual, a bit of fact bending




Really ?  I thought I fairly summed up the situation of the last Parliament and the current Abbott government.

Perhaps you just have a different opinion to me.


----------



## Knobby22

Julia said:


> Meantime, Ms Lambie is calling for Senator Abetz to be sacked!.  Oh, my goodness.




She's a goer. Nice to see a firebrand in amongst the suits. I actually quite like her and look forward to her banging heads. Sooner or later she will stuff up and the media will eat her alive but I admire her forthrightness. 

She knocked off the Labor candidate in Tassy.

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/meet-tasmanias-likely-senator-jacqui-lambie/


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> The following is perhaps the timeframe in which the government is hoping the wheels come off of Clive Palmer and the PUP cart.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-new-election-speculation-20140711-3bqyf.html





Good luck going to the polls with Tony Abbott's current approval rating.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Julia Gilliard kept her minority Labour government operational and effective for a full term. That was in spite of the  full press "take no prisoners" assault of Tony Abbott.
> 
> The key element in her legislative and  operational success was  excellent communication and negotiation skills. She managed to work with the Independents and Greens on a daily basis.
> 
> I cannot see how Tony Abbott will emulate that feat. Not yet at least.  On all accounts he doesn't have the skills and diplomacy to effectively negotiate with the herd of cats on the cross bench. Frankly I think he would be better coming to terms with the Labour Party in negotiations - but after the way he trashed the last Labour government I just can't see any chance of good will.
> 
> *He poisoned the well and now he has drink from it. Karma.*





So why did they kick her out if she was so good?


----------



## sptrawler

basilio said:


> Really ?  I thought I fairly summed up the situation of the last Parliament and the current Abbott government.
> 
> Perhaps you just have a different opinion to me.




Didn't Labor and the Greens control the senate, and only required the thre independents to control both houses.

To compare that, to trying to control Palmers crew is a bit of a long bow.


----------



## So_Cynical

sptrawler said:


> Didn't Labor and the Greens control the senate, and only required the the independents to control both houses.
> 
> To compare that, to trying to control Palmers crew is a bit of a long bow.




Seriously.

  

Doing deals isn't the NOalition thing.


----------



## wayneL

So_Cynical said:


> Seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> Doing deals isn't the NOalition thing.




The >>>coalition<<< isn't a deal? 

Think about what your saying man!


----------



## sptrawler

So_Cynical said:


> Seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> Doing deals isn't the NOalition thing.




HaHaHa, They could always do a deal like Labor did, with the Greens and Independents.

Labor gave them everything they wanted, then grovelled to them to pass what Labor wanted.lol

What a joke, the Greens got all their policies through, Bob Brown is probably still pi$$ing his pants laughing.

That wasn't negotiation, that was Gillard getting slapped from pillar to post, seems like the left is have memory lapses.lol


----------



## So_Cynical

wayneL said:


> The >>>coalition<<< isn't a deal?
> 
> Think about what your saying man!




2 Nazis agreeing to be ass holes isn't a deal....what's the last big deal they put together?

The GST deal that ruined the democrat's?


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> HaHaHa, They could always do a deal like Labor did, with the Greens and Independents.
> 
> Labor gave them everything they wanted, then grovelled to them to pass what Labor wanted.lol
> 
> What a joke, the Greens got all their policies through, Bob Brown is probably still pi$$ing his pants laughing.
> 
> That wasn't negotiation, that was Gillard getting slapped from pillar to post, seems like the left is have memory lapses.lol




SP both the Greens and Labor sing from the same music book.......THE FABIAN BOOK ON HOW TO RUIN A COUNTRY ECONOMICALLY.


----------



## noco

Will the Green/Labor socialists and PUP take any notice of this warning in the interest of the Nation.

I doubt it for they are all intent on political point scoring and self interest.

Time to sit up and take notice or we will all have to suffer the consequences. 



Fix mess or prepare for deflation, says Don Argus

    The Australian
    July 12, 2014 12:00AM

    Print
    Save for later

Annabel Hepworth
National Business Correspondent
Sydney
Don Argus says it is time to get ‘back to the basics’ of living with balanced budgets.

Don Argus says it is time to get ‘back to the basics’ of living with balanced budgets. Source: News Limited

THE “nonsense” of budget measures being thwarted in the Senate threatens to undermine Australia’s economy at the same time Joe Hockey is pushing to lift growth in the world’s biggest 20 economies, business community elder Don Argus warns.

Writing exclusively in The Weekend Australian, Mr Argus questions how sustainable growth can be achieved in a developed world “awash with debt” and says that getting back to balanced budgets is crucial to living standards.

The comments by the former BHP Billiton chairman and National Australia Bank boss come ahead of next week’s landmark summit in Sydney of hundreds of the world’s business leaders to finalise recommendations on growth-promoting measures in the Group of 20 nations.

The Treasurer — who, along with Tony Abbott and Trade Minister Andrew Robb, will receive the blueprint on Friday — has used Australia’s G20 presidency to get nations to commit to lift growth by two percentage points across five years.

“I am not suggesting yet that we are heading for an era of deflation, but unless this political nonsense around our budget is resolved quickly, we had better prepare ourselves for a period of declining demand which puts downward pressure on prices for goods and services with a resultant decline in private and government spending,” Mr Argus writes.

“That scenario can unfortun*ately lead to deflation, something we have not seen in this country since the early 1930s.” It is time to get “back to the basics” of living with balanced budgets, he writes.

“It is time to talk about growth initiatives which create real value for our economy, it is time to talk about trade-offs, because we are now at a stage where we cannot afford further government or private debt.”

Business is anxious that next week’s B20 summit reach agreement on the recommendations so that business can influence the G20 summit being held in Nov*ember in Brisbane.

Business Council of Australia president Jennifer Westacott said that if the G20 could meet the target of growth of 2 per cent more than trajectory GDP in the next five years, “we will see more jobs created and increased living standards around the world”.

“The global economy is still suffering from lower-than-expected growth, which strongly impacts on job creation and unemployment,” she said. “The only way to get to this target, though, is through structural reform undertaken by all G20 countries under a collective agreement.”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...n-says-don-argus/story-e6frg926-1226986285731


----------



## noco

And here is some more thought to stew over in the National interest.

But do the Green/Labor socialist care?....I think not.

Politicians don’t get it, do they?

    Terry McCrann
    The Australian
    July 12, 2014 12:00AM

    Print
    Save for later

YOU could not have asked for a more stunning, more dismaying and ultimately disgraceful contrast between the brutal reality facing business and the lazy, *utterly promiscuous, disconnect of the Canberra political bubble, than was provided by the events of the week.

For business, the times are a’ continually changing ”” relentlessly, 24/7, on a wide range of fronts. While the changes are always challenging, they also throw up extraordinary opportunities.

Indeed, never before has such a huge premium been placed on the degree and timeliness of business pro-action. Effective pro-action has become the key determinant between extraordinary success and existential threat. In the world of 2014, being reactive is now only a technique for selection of your position in the corporate cemetery.

The overriding message out of Canberra was that the more the people might change, the more things stay so drearily and disappointingly the same. New prime minister, new opposition leader, new Senate powerbroker ”” albeit with the innovative twist that for the first time he or she is not actually in the Senate ”” yet broken and discredited politics as before.

Put aside the specifics of the battles over the carbon tax and the various budget initiatives; each individual proposal or even in aggregate can be a matter or matters for legitimate political and policy disagreement. But there really is precious little sense of that in the gamesmanship we’ve been seeing. And the one thing that has been totally, totally absent, has been any consideration of how it all might impact on business and consumer confidence.

Or further, how not just the final outcomes but the very process of the political game-playing might not only make life unnecessarily difficult for business going forward, but can be doing exactly that, right now. In short, there’s been not the slightest evidence of any consideration by political Canberra that just maybe a rigid political or policy position should be compromised to the greater national good.

On one level it’s obviously been all about Clive. This is the case most obviously with the carbon tax. Only a fool would now conclude that next week he will deliver on his equally solemn version of promising to axe the tax.

And the “all about Clive” applies more generally to his erratic, irrational opposition to almost every budget cut, seemingly “informed” by a unique mix of fiscal fantasy and the objective of just creating havoc for the government and the Prime Minister in particular.

On a more basic and more important level, it’s even more about Opposition Leader Bill Shorten and Labor as the only alternative party of government. You make the country ungovernable for the Coalition you also make it ungovernable for yourself.

Now the counter is to blame Tony Abbott for setting the precedent with the Gillard government. There are three critical rebuttals.

First, Abbott’s aggressive opposition was focused in the lower house where there was a legitimate continuing contest for a governing majority. This is all taking place in the Senate, denying the governing house’s clear majority.

Secondly, Abbott did not cede decision-making to a rump quite so chaotic, irrational and unfocused and so completely irresponsible as Clive and his three PUPpets plus one.

Finally, he could hardly have made the place ungovernable as both Gillard and her treasurer Wayne Swan used to boast about how the overwhelming majority of their legislation went smoothly through the parliament. In any event the times have a’changed; and in the words of a former emperor of the country which is now our best friend in Asia, “not necessarily to our advantage”.

Swan might have been able to genuinely believe that his budget would whirr seamlessly back into balance; that is not even a delusion open to Treasurer Joe Hockey or indeed the alternative treasurer, Chris Bowen.

Then Swan and Gillard could hope that the export of ever more millions of tonnes of iron ore and coal, along with their embedded “carbon (sic) pollution”, to be loosed on the other side of the equator could keep our 20-year unbroken run of growth ticking along.

One doesn’t have to subscribe to the bleakest “dog days” end of the resources boom thesis of Ross Garnaut to yet understand that is not a hope Abbott and Hockey or their Labor successors can any longer confidently cling to.

Yes, we will be selling much greater volumes of coal and iron ore to our north, but the prices will clearly be lower, and when the current raft of major project is completed, there will be precious few new ones in the decade ”” or perhaps even two ”” ahead.

While all the time the volatility and just relentless change of the world keeps pressing in on us. There are the big macro issues, principally what will emerge in China and just exactly how and in what shape will the US emerge from quantitative easing at the end of the year.

And just when you thought you could focus your attention solely to our north and to our east, Europe started to rumble again.

While these macro dynamics are critical to financial markets, we can be very confident about that one thing in the narrower business space: the relentlessness of change.

What happened to education services provider Navitas captured so many themes. Here was a market darling, a great business innovator; it lost one contract and its share price was shredded by one-third. It plummeted from trading at a share price well over the market to at best merely in line with the market.

The most obvious is that one of rapid, continuous and volatile change. No matter how great and original was your business idea, no matter how good your product, you survive only as long as you stay at the cutting edge of price and/or service or innovation.

The real-time globalisation of every business environment dramatically expands and telescopes the growth opportunities but equally the threats. You are now vulnerable every day to a new innovator or innovation, including as was the case with Navitas, when your customer turns competitor.

The overriding theme is of course the globalisation. Operating in the global space is no longer an option for almost every Australian business. If you don’t go after them, they’ll certainly come after you, as we saw ”” fortuitously in this case ”” with Expedia’s bid for Wotif. But in any event we’ve seen time and time again.

Yet in Canberra we have a collective mindset that it can operate politics as usual. We can simply ignore any consequences for the national interface with the rest of the world, otherwise known as reality.

Now, the government, and Hockey very particularly, “gets it”. And indeed Bowen and arguably Shorten also “get it”. But they get it only in government; in opposition they opt out from reality. And what they really opt out of is any understanding of just how corrosive the politics has become.

This is not a call on the opposition to give the government a blank cheque. That would not only be naive but unreasonable.

Further, it would be unrealistic and indeed unrealistic to demand far less expect government and opposition in Canberra to jointly subordinate politics and policy to business convenience.

But for heaven’s sake, surely they can be expected to take some responsibility for the practical good governance of the nation.

To close with another reference from the mid-20th century: in Singapore the guns were pointed the wrong way. In Canberra they are all pointed inward. The consequence threatens to be the same.


----------



## drsmith

drsmith said:


> Clive Palmer adviser Ben Oquist stands behind the PUP leader before a press conference.
> 
> It seems he had a falling out with Christine Milne.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ll-green-but-a-pragmatist-20140710-3bq8y.html



Some more discussion and background in relation to the above article (in the video which has the author of the above article).

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/clive-palmers-problem-with-living-two-lives-20140711-zt4g5.html


----------



## drsmith

RBA boss Glenn Stevens weighs in on matters budget,



> A failure to tackle the budget deficit would erode confidence and *expose Australia to much greater risk.
> 
> “I would fully expect within over the (next) 10-year period, there will be a downturn for some reason of some depth.
> 
> “The question is: can we be in a position to do the things that would make it a shallow and short one?’’ he said.
> 
> “Having a strong fiscal position ahead of any such downturn, which stood us in very good stead in 2008, would be one such thing and a sound monetary policy framework is obviously another.”
> 
> He did not want to comment on delicate *discussions over the passage of the government’s budget through the Senate, however he said there had to be a way of closing the budget gap.
> 
> “As a country, we have voted for some quite important things that are in the education, disability and some other spaces. These are all good things.
> 
> “We didn’t actually vote for the revenue to fund them just yet and so that’s the kind of fundamental issue that will emerge more clearly in a few years’ time,” he said.
> 
> “If we can’t find some way of putting together a set of fiscal *accounts that at least begin the process of addressing these *medium-term issues with measures that start small but then build over time, if we fail to manage to do that here, I’m not sure that this would fill one with great confidence in our capacity to deal with the genuinely serious problem when one day that emerges.
> 
> “Sooner or later something will happen that will bring this stuff into a sharper focus, *especially if we delay action,” he said.
> 
> “We shouldn’t leave it until the gaps emerge and a time when *financial markets might not be so forgiving as they are now to start the measures that will deal with that. We should be starting in a measured way now.”




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...-deepen-downturn/story-e6frg926-1226986292547

http://resources.news.com.au/files/2014/07/11/1226985/947040-aus-file-rba-transcript.pdf

Don Argus weighs in as well,

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...-says-don-argus/story-e6frg926-1226986285731#


----------



## drsmith

drsmith said:


> Some more discussion and background in relation to the above article (in the video which has the author of the above article).
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/clive-palmers-problem-with-living-two-lives-20140711-zt4g5.html



Some questions on matters Green politics from Senator John Madigan,



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fXPHKK3va4


----------



## wayneL

So_Cynical said:


> 2 Nazis agreeing to be ass holes isn't a deal....what's the last big deal they put together?
> 
> The GST deal that ruined the democrat's?




That's a bit over the top IF. I mean the nazi bit, not the apostrophe abuse.


----------



## Calliope

Conservative governmnts are now an aberration in Australia, and in the next round of federal and state elections I expect they will all disappear. It really doesn't matter whether Abbott calls a double disollution or goes full term. He is a goner. We realise we have been sold a pig in a poke by Governments like Abbott's and Newman's telling us they will balance the budgets and sort out the mess left by Labor

That would be fair enough but we thought that by balancing the budget they meant socking the rich, the achievers. A recent poll showed that 59% of the electors favour raising the taxes on the rich. We are now rightly upset that  instead of doing this, they are intent on taking away the entitlements we hold dear. 

The Palmer PUPS have entered the stage at the right time and give heart to those of us who want to see the return of a government which has no aptitude for money management but favours big spending and big borrowing. And gave us six glorious years of extravagent spending.

That is the attitude which best suits our psyche.


----------



## Julia

Is that actually your view, Calliope?  Or if it is, is it tongue in cheek?  The comments of someone else?


----------



## wayneL

Tongue in cheek or not, I agree with Cal, Conservatism is all but dead in everywhere 'cept the US. This does not mean I think that social democracy has carte blanche. It is popular with losers, bludgers and guilt ridden inner city trendies, but I think the majority are crying out for true liberalism, the shape of which is somewhere between classical liberalism and social liberalism. 

But we don't have a viable party that represents that view in Australia.


----------



## Calliope

It's supposed to be satire. I do believe however, that the electorate in future will have no truck with a government which advocates responsible money management. The credit card mentality is now too ingrained.


----------



## IFocus

wayneL said:


> 'cept the US.





Do you mean those old white guys dreaming of southern belles.....


----------



## wayneL

IFocus said:


> Do you mean those old white guys dreaming of southern belles.....




I know lots of guys (and ladies) in my trade in the US. The Internet has enabled us to form broad cross boundary communities (via faceache etc). 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% are conservative and most are < 40 years old.

Conservatism is about moral values, rugged individualism, self regulation and responsibilty. While I'm not really a conservative at all, I respect those values as beneficial for a nation. Incidentally, the vast majority of my Ozzie colleagues think the same way.... head down, bum up, service your customer, treat people with proper values right, look after those less fortunate and &%$# the bludgers.

It is nothing to do with good ol' boys and southern belles.


----------



## SirRumpole

Calliope said:


> It's supposed to be satire. I do believe however, that the electorate in future will have no truck with a government which advocates responsible money management. The credit card mentality is now too ingrained.




Yes and no. People can equate government finances to their own household budget. When times are good, you save or invest in productive capital, shares, property or whatever. When times get bad, you tighten the belt and use some of those savings to prop up your investments that may be losing money. In the national sense, those investments may be retailers who are facing a slump, building contractors etc. You know that in the long run those businesses are viable and the slump is temporary so you give them a cash injection. When times get better and they are doing well you rebuild the public purse from their profits.

Among the unrealistic expectations from some are that you can always have a budget surplus in good times and bad. We have to get over this idea as much as we have to get over the idea that government is there to provide for all our needs in all circumstances. Neither of these ideas is possible or appropriate.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> Among the unrealistic expectations from some are that you can always have a budget surplus in good times and bad. We have to get over this idea as much as we have to get over the idea that government is there to provide for all our needs in all circumstances. Neither of these ideas is possible or appropriate.




+1 as Glen Stevens says, we were fortunate the budget was in surplus when the GFC hit and it is prudent to get it back to surplus, in the event another fiscal shock hits.


----------



## sptrawler

drsmith said:


> RBA boss Glenn Stevens weighs in on matters budget,
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...-deepen-downturn/story-e6frg926-1226986292547
> 
> http://resources.news.com.au/files/2014/07/11/1226985/947040-aus-file-rba-transcript.pdf
> 
> Don Argus weighs in as well,
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...-says-don-argus/story-e6frg926-1226986285731#




That was really interesting reading doc, I think the silent majority understand what Glen Stevens was saying.
Unfortunatelly, there are some that are putting personal vendettas ahead of Australia's well being.

I can understand the Labor parties hatred of Abbott, but what he is proposing is unpopular but necassary, so the public will dislike the coalition for implementing it anyway.

What I can't understand is their unwillingness to let it be implemented, that is just pure bloody mindedness at the expense of Australia's wellbeing.

Just another example of moronic union ideology, if you can't beat the company up, tear it down. Who cares about the job losses they didn't win.lol absolute dicks.


----------



## Julia

Calliope said:


> It's supposed to be satire. I do believe however, that the electorate in future will have no truck with a government which advocates responsible money management. The credit card mentality is now too ingrained.






SirRumpole said:


> Yes and no. People can equate government finances to their own household budget. When times are good, you save or invest in productive capital, shares, property or whatever. When times get bad, you tighten the belt and use some of those savings to prop up your investments that may be losing money.
> 
> Among the unrealistic expectations from some are that you can always have a budget surplus in good times and bad. We have to get over this idea as much as we have to get over the idea that government is there to provide for all our needs in all circumstances. Neither of these ideas is possible or appropriate.



Satire or not, there's some truth in that, Calliope.

However, I think Rumpole sums it up well.  I don't believe the majority of the electorate fail to understand that.



sptrawler said:


> What I can't understand is their unwillingness to let it be implemented, that is just pure bloody mindedness at the expense of Australia's wellbeing.



sp, I might be wrong, but my interpretation would be that the electorate opted for the Libs in the expectation of some responsible fiscal management and would have been prepared to take some pain to that end.
But the government's budget does seem to go against basic instincts of fairness in the way it penalises those who are the most financially and socially disadvantaged.

This is in contrast to the ridiculously generous PPL in the face of a good portion of the electorate believing the taxpayer has no appropriate role in people's choices to have children.

Then, not a single member of the government has done any sort of decent job of selling the ultimate outcome of fiscal responsibility and the need to provide for future recessions and other global events beyond Australia's control.  Neither have they adequately explained how much we are borrowing every day to just pay the interest on the debt.

Another example is the way they have just doggedly maintained the 'we will stop the boats' mantra, causing consternation about the current situation with people being held at sea etc., without properly explaining the sequelae that if the boats are stopped, this allows our generous humanitarian refugee resettlement program to do what it is supposed to in taking in the most genuinely needy people, many of whom have endured years of waiting in various refugee camps throughout the world, their refugee status already confirmed.

If the Prime Minister had some personal charisma, was prepared to perhaps do an 'address to the nation', explaining the longer term objectives, and asking the country to appreciate the need for a conservative approach, along with an altered budget which people could perceive as fair, then I believe the response would be hugely better than it is at present.

Seems to me the government is still functioning in opposition mode, they are secretive and defensive.  This makes the electorate suspicious and reduces confidence.


----------



## So_Cynical

Julia said:


> Another example is the way they have just doggedly maintained the 'we will stop the boats' mantra, causing consternation about the current situation with people being held at sea etc.,* without properly explaining the sequelae that if the boats are stopped, this allows our generous humanitarian refugee resettlement program to do what it is supposed to in taking in the most genuinely needy people, many of whom have endured years of waiting in various refugee camps throughout the world, their refugee status already confirmed.*
> 
> If the Prime Minister had some personal charisma, was prepared to perhaps do an 'address to the nation', explaining the longer term objectives, and asking the country to appreciate the need for a conservative approach, along with an altered budget which people could perceive as fair, then I believe the response would be hugely better than it is at present.




Its more about political point scoring than good policy, you wont ever hear the Noalition talking about the 13000+ refugees that will come to Aust annually while they are in power...but you will hear plenty about boats.


----------



## sptrawler

Julia said:


> sp, I might be wrong, but my interpretation would be that the electorate opted for the Libs in the expectation of some responsible fiscal management and would have been prepared to take some pain to that end.
> But the government's budget does seem to go against basic instincts of fairness in the way it penalises those who are the most financially and socially disadvantaged.
> 
> This is in contrast to the ridiculously generous PPL in the face of a good portion of the electorate believing the taxpayer has no appropriate role in people's choices to have children.
> 
> Then, not a single member of the government has done any sort of decent job of selling the ultimate outcome of fiscal responsibility and the need to provide for future recessions and other global events beyond Australia's control.  Neither have they adequately explained how much we are borrowing every day to just pay the interest on the debt.
> 
> Another example is the way they have just doggedly maintained the 'we will stop the boats' mantra, causing consternation about the current situation with people being held at sea etc., without properly explaining the sequelae that if the boats are stopped, this allows our generous humanitarian refugee resettlement program to do what it is supposed to in taking in the most genuinely needy people, many of whom have endured years of waiting in various refugee camps throughout the world, their refugee status already confirmed.
> 
> If the Prime Minister had some personal charisma, was prepared to perhaps do an 'address to the nation', explaining the longer term objectives, and asking the country to appreciate the need for a conservative approach, along with an altered budget which people could perceive as fair, then I believe the response would be hugely better than it is at present.
> 
> Seems to me the government is still functioning in opposition mode, they are secretive and defensive.  This makes the electorate suspicious and reduces confidence.




Very good points Julia. 
With regard the budget, I personally thought the immediate clamp on spending and a review of the tax base, was probably a prudent move.
It obviously didn't prove to be a popular one, which is understandable, with our current belief of we want it, why can't we have it.
As doc mentioned, maybe Abbott will let things slide untill the chorus of hecklers start begging for change.
I'm not sure an address to the nation would work, there isn't many stations that would run it.
If the ABC were forced to run it, I'm sure they would have a programme immediatelly after to debunk it

I ran the question past my other half the other day, "what do you think of the senate blocking the budget"?
This isn't being indulgent, she hates talking politics and doesn't watch the news.

Her response was, "I hope they have another election and Labor get in, then everyone can get what they deserve".
So Julia, you're not alone in your thinking. lol


----------



## sptrawler

So_Cynical said:


> Its more about political point scoring than good policy, you wont ever hear the Noalition talking about the 13000+ refugees that will come to Aust annually while they are in power...but you will hear plenty about boats.




Groan, the 13,000 through correct channels, aren't a problem they are budgeted for, it's the 50,000 that come in  that weren't expected.:1zhelp:

I can see why you bought a place in the Phillipines, can you give some suggestions to suitable locations.


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> Groan, the 13,000 through correct channels, aren't a problem they are budgeted for, it's the 50,000 that come in  that weren't expected.:1zhelp:
> 
> I can see why you bought a place in the Phillipines, can you give some suggestions to suitable locations.




Sp, I know of a couple from Townsville....she is a Filipino and he is an Auassie. .....They are both on the aged pension.
They sold their house here and moved to the Philippines and are living in luxury.

And guess what?....they still have their aged pension sent to them every fortnight.

Mmmmm cheap living over there mate.

Been there 4 times myself and married one 32 years ago.......but I still prefer here.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Sp, I know of a couple from Townsville....she is a Filipino and he is an Auassie. .....They are both on the aged pension.
> They sold their house here and moved to the Philippines and are living in luxury.
> 
> And guess what?....they still have their aged pension sent to them every fortnight.
> 
> Mmmmm cheap living over there mate.
> 
> Been there 4 times myself and married one 32 years ago.......but I still prefer here.




I've not been to the P'pines so I'm interested in your preference for Aus. Just looking at the news I get the impression that the P'pines can be a dangerous place, political murders, life is cheap, that sort of thing. Does that affect your desire to live there ?


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I've not been to the P'pines so I'm interested in your preference for Aus. Just looking at the news I get the impression that the P'pines can be a dangerous place, political murders, life is cheap, that sort of thing. Does that affect your desire to live there ?




Rumpy, it all depends what part of the Philippines......yes, some places are very dangerous to live but you must remember there are some 700o island over there and there are many safe places to live.


----------



## IFocus

wayneL said:


> Conservatism is about moral values, rugged individualism, self regulation and responsibilty.




I knew a lot of union officials with those valves..............


----------



## Calliope

sptrawler said:


> Her response was, "I hope they have another election and Labor get in, then everyone can get what they deserve".




What they think, and this was Bill Shorten's view on The Insiders this morning, is that a government that attempts to balance the books by bringing in a "horrow" budget, has Buckley's chance of being re-elected. What the people think they deserve is a big-spending, big-borrowing government.

Most have no conception of what a deficit is. We managed very well fo six years under Labor. These were the good times, and the huge borrowings were put to good use to boost the age of entitlement.. 

Let the good times roll.


----------



## noco

Calliope said:


> What they think, and this was Bill Shorten's view on The Insiders this morning, is that a government that attempts to balance the books by bringing in a "horrow" budget, has Buckley's chance of being re-elected. What the people think they deserve is a big-spending, big-borrowing government.
> 
> Most have no conception of what a deficit is. We managed very well fo six years under Labor. These were the good times, and the huge borrowings were put to good use to boost the age of entitlement..
> 
> Let the good times roll.




Yes, so long as people's pockets are being filled with borrowed money they will be more than happy.

Like those $900 cheques Ruddie gave out......I keep telling everyone it was just a loan and now we must all pay it back....No doubt if Abbott was to do the same, he would be a very good fellow.

But you must remember, the Fabian indoctrinated Green/Labor left wing socialist like to spend other peoples money until it all runs out.

THEN, who has to pay eventually....yep...you guessed it.


----------



## SirRumpole

> Conservatism is about moral values, rugged individualism, self regulation and responsibilty.




LOL

Nanny State Family tax benefits introduced by Howard/Costello Conservatives

Paternalistic baby bonus introduced by Howard/Costello Conservatives

Mollycoddling PPL intended to be introduced by Abbott/Hockey Conservatives.

The path to "rugged individualism and responsibility" is education, decimated by Abbott/Pyne Conservatives

The only things I can do are shake my head in disbelief at such myopia or ROFL at such hypocrisy.


----------



## wayneL

IFocus said:


> I knew a lot of union officials with those valves..............




Unions are a collectivist notion, Im calling BS on that IF. Unless you mean official don't live their ow ideology


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> LOL
> 
> Nanny State Family tax benefits introduced by Howard/Costello Conservatives
> 
> Paternalistic baby bonus introduced by Howard/Costello Conservatives
> 
> Mollycoddling PPL intended to be introduced by Abbott/Hockey Conservatives.
> 
> The path to "rugged individualism and responsibility" is education, decimated by Abbott/Pyne Conservatives
> 
> The only things I can do are shake my head in disbelief at such myopia or ROFL at such hypocrisy.






Mollycoddling PPL intended to be introduced by Abbott/Hockey Conservatives.

Hang on Rumpy, whist I am and always will be against  the PPL, wasn't the funds coming from BIG BUSINESS and not the tax payers?

I thought it was Fabian Society rules to play Robin Hood.....Tax the rich to give to the poor.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Mollycoddling PPL intended to be introduced by Abbott/Hockey Conservatives.
> 
> Hang on Rumpy, whist I am and always will be against  the PPL, wasn't the funds coming from BIG BUSINESS and not the tax payers?
> 
> .






> According to reports in News Corp newspapers, the scheme has been fully costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office, showing it will cost taxpayers $6.1 billion over the forward estimates, in addition to the 1.5 per cent business levy, which will be paid by the highest earning 3000 companies.




http://www.essentialbaby.com.au/lif...-scheme-all-the-details-20130818-2s4tn.html


The government actually administers the scheme, which is where the cost to the taxpayer arises.


----------



## drsmith

SirRumpole said:


> http://www.essentialbaby.com.au/lif...e-scheme-all-the-details-20130818-2s4tn.html
> 
> 
> The government actually administers the scheme, which is where the cost to the taxpayer arises.



You might struggle to get an argument over TA's PPL scheme.

I don't think there's anyone here who agrees with it.

That being said on that particular policy, one has to consider the whole when passing judgement on a government and in comparison, what the opposition parties offer as an alternative.


----------



## Julia

drsmith said:


> That being said on that particular policy, one has to consider the whole when passing judgement on a government and in comparison, what the opposition parties offer as an alternative.



Perhaps the Labor supporters could outline what they see as just this, ie if a DD election were to occur and a Labor/Greens/PUP mixture beat the Coalition, what do you think their policies would be (at this stage we have no idea) and what do you think the results would be for Australia?


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> Perhaps the Labor supporters could outline what they see as just this, ie if a DD election were to occur and a Labor/Greens/PUP mixture beat the Coalition, what do you think their policies would be (at this stage we have no idea) and what do you think the results would be for Australia?




We don't have much of an idea of Labor's policies except to copy Abbott's "Dr No" approach, and why not, it worked for him. If people fall for it once, why not again, especially now that the Coalition has shown themselves to be inclined to hit the low paid with taxes and charges permanently, while hitting the rich with a temporary deficit levy. All these were contrary to his stated policy, so the Coalition's  electoral trust is at rock bottom.

If  Labor has the guts they should go for a strengthened mining tax, which was going to be their saviour before they stuffed it up. It's politically popular and economically sensible to hit the big income earners where they can afford it.

 The example set by Norway which taxes its oil and gas producers hard while not suffering a pullout of investment shows that it can be done successfully to the benefit of the nation. Australia already has a resources rent tax on oil and gas production and our gas production has soared.

I think Labor will reverse the tertiary education cuts which will be popular and beneficial to the economy. Having voted against the Medicare co-payment I can't see them keeping it in government, but if it did go into the public hospital system, it could be justified.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> http://www.essentialbaby.com.au/lif...e-scheme-all-the-details-20130818-2s4tn.html
> 
> 
> The government actually administers the scheme, which is where the cost to the taxpayer arises.




Now Rumpy, the public servants and politicians are on the same scheme as Abbott proposed PPL which is fully funded and paid for by you and me and a few others  who are not on social welfare.

Now what I would like to see  before the next election is the Green/Labor left wing socialists promise to give the public servants and politicians  the same deal as they gave mothers in private enterprise and what about all those stay at home Mums who do not work....Also, I want to see them go to the next election promising to bring back the carbon dioxide tax.

I watched Albo being interviewed on the Bolt Report and he was asked, by what percentage has the carbon dioxide tax reduced Global Warming.......he could not answer.

He was also asked certain questions about Clive Palmer but he always diverted the attention back on Tony Abbott........He after the free Labor plug on more than one occasion.


----------



## noco

Julia said:


> Perhaps the Labor supporters could outline what they see as just this, ie if a DD election were to occur and a Labor/Greens/PUP mixture beat the Coalition, what do you think their policies would be (at this stage we have no idea) and what do you think the results would be for Australia?





Much the same as before Julia......keep borrowing, give plenty of hand outs, spend up big, tax us to the high heavens, add it all on the credit card and let the coalition work out how to pay it back and having to do so make the Coalition look bad when they and top economists tell us to tighten the belt....it is a vicious circle and is history repeating itself over and over again.

Ah yes, we all like to see money pouring into our pockets and the Fabians know exactly what they are doing....it is in their book of instructions for all to read and they are doing it in a very subtle way so the naive do not realize what is going on.

I say to all Australians, *WAKE UP BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.*


----------



## boofhead

I'm surprised there is not much individual thinking happening in this thread. Abbott has (like many politicians and others before him) present issues as dichotmoies. The choice of major parties may be a dichotmoy but don't let them corner thinking.

Seems they don't like how something is being done by an opposing foe (but policy may be reasonable) they will have a different policy. Why not fix how it is being done? NBN comes to mind.

Consider the size of the budget and many areas money goes in to you can wonder why other areas are not touched. For example delay or even cancel the F-35 and find some alternative suitable for Australia. By the time the aircraft arrive we will be paying more for it.

Seems that Abbott's comments about being the political lovechild of Bishop and Howard is he hasn't learned from his political father. Howard would make the issue clear, explain how his fix is required, act on it. Howard wouldn't be trying to fight for political points via news daily news bulletins. Nor would Howard waste time on the trivial of reintroduction of titles. Seems Abbott doesn't have focus.

Coalition's changes to Labor's FOFA seem a bit odd especially in what has been reported during the year.

Howard wouldn't be bullied by Palmer. Abbott nears to stop being trying to please everyone and lead. Is it signs there are too many internal fires to control?

It can go on...


----------



## noco

noco said:


> I watched Albo being interviewed on the Bolt Report and he was asked, by what percentage has the carbon dioxide tax reduced Global Warming.......he could not answer.
> 
> He was also asked certain questions about Clive Palmer but he always diverted the attention back on Tony Abbott........He after the free Labor plug on more than one occasion.




Here is the interview with Albo this morning on the carbon tax.


 ANDREW BOLT: Oh, no, no that’s a different issue. That was about whether negotiating a deal to get into Government. But, listen, about this, the Government must now, I think, be considering whether a double dissolution down the track, an early election, is the way to go. And I’m wondering how prepared for that, Labor is. Can I start with the carbon tax. Now, Labor this week voted with Palmer against repealing the carbon tax, and at the last election you promised to get rid of the tax. Why did you break your word?

ANTHONY ALBANESE: We didn’t break our word, Andrew. We voted for exactly what we said we would do, which is, we would get rid of the carbon tax, but replace it with an emissions trading scheme. See, we understand that the science is in –

ANDREW BOLT: You said terminate. I saw Kevin Rudd stand there, “I will terminate the tax.”

ANTHONY ALBANESE: And replace it with an emissions trading scheme. We can’t afford to have no policy on climate change. We think the science is in on climate change, and, what’s more, not only are we not climate sceptics, we’re not market sceptics, either. We want to harness the power of the market through an emissions trading scheme, to use that, to drive that change through the economy.

ANDREW BOLT: Alright. Talking about the emissions trading scheme, the IPC scientist, professor Roger Jones, estimates that, at the very most, if
global warming theory hasn’t been exaggerated, your carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme to achieve the same effect, would cut the world’s temperatures by 4,000ths by one degree by the end of the century. Is he right? 4000ths of one degree?

ANTHONY ALBANESE: Well, Andrew, what we know is that 95% of the
scientists -

ANDREW BOLT; No, no, I’m asking you about that calculation. I’m asking you about that calculation. Is he right, would your policy achieve a cut in the world’s temperature, by the end of the century, by 4,000ths of one degree?

ANTHONY ALBANESE: Well, Andrew, what we know is that we need to act on climate change, and the best way to do it –

ANDREW BOLT: But is that so hard to answer, Anthony? What’s so hard to answer, about that question? You’re asking Australians to pay all this money, what’s the –

ANTHONY ALBANESE: No, no, Andrew, I’m not asking Australians to pay all this money. What I’m asking for, is for the power of the market to drive through change through the economy, so that we drive down emissions.

ANDREW BOLT: To what effect?

ANTHONY ALBANESE: Australians know that 2013 was our hottest year on record.

ANDREW BOLT: I find it amazing -

ANTHONY ALBANESE: You want to talk about scientists –

ANDREW BOLT: I find it amazing that you guys make Australians pay billions, and you can’t even tell us what that – all that paying actually achieves, and you dodge the question repeatedly.

ANTHONY ALBANESE: No, no, I don’t, Andrew –

ANDREW BOLT: Alright, well, tell me how much difference.

ANTHONY ALBANESE: What we’re seeing is that the rest of the world is acting, and that’s the wrong question, Andrew, because –

ANDREW BOLT: Oh, that’s what you guys always say. That’s what you and Tim Flannery always say.

ANTHONY ALBANESE: No, no.

ANDREW BOLT: Pay all this money, we don’t know what it’ll achieve, and if you ask what will it achieve, you say, “Wrong question.€ But listen, Labor’s also –

ANTHONY ALBANESE: That’s not right, Andrew, climate change is real, and we need to act on it.


----------



## So_Cynical

noco said:


> Here is the interview with Albo this morning on the carbon tax.
> 
> ANTHONY ALBANESE: That’s not right, Andrew, climate change is real, and we need to act on it.




So what don't you understand about this?

--------------

A doctor tax to pump 20 billion into medical research is all good but a carbon tax to pump 20 billion into renewables research and DEVELOPMENT is not.


----------



## noco

So_Cynical said:


> So what don't you understand about this?
> 
> --------------
> 
> A doctor tax to pump 20 billion into medical research is all good but a carbon tax to pump 20 billion into renewables research and DEVELOPMENT is not.




What I do understand is what the Alarmists are preaching about Global Warming is "CRAP".......Yes the climate has been changing for thousands of years and will go on changing and is caused by the Sun spots, the angle of the Earth's axis and the proximity to the Sun. .....Earth's traverse  around the Sun is elliptical and not circular hence the reason for climate change . 

Are you going to tell that when Brisbane has its coldest day in 103 years it is caused by man made global warming.

And do you still believe the seas are are going to rise by X amount of metres by the end of this century?

Are you going to tell that because the Ant Arctic has had its coldest winter in years and the fact the ice shelf is increasing and not decreasing as the Alarmists try to make out that it is caused by man made Global warming? 


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/12/coldest-antarctic-june-ever-recorded/

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...e_next_time_a_warmist_hypes_some_hot_weather/


----------



## banco

noco said:


> What I do understand is what the Alarmists are preaching about Global Warming is "CRAP".......Yes the climate has been changing for thousands of years and will go on changing and is caused by the Sun spots, the angle of the Earth's axis and the proximity to the Sun. .....Earth's traverse  around the Sun is elliptical and not circular hence the reason for climate change .




LOL here comes Noco the scientist.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> What I do understand is what the Alarmists are preaching about Global Warming is "CRAP".......Yes the climate has been changing for thousands of years and will go on changing and is caused by the Sun spots, the angle of the Earth's axis and the proximity to the Sun. .....Earth's traverse  around the Sun is elliptical and not circular hence the reason for climate change .
> 
> Are you going to tell that when Brisbane has its coldest day in 103 years it is caused by man made global warming.
> 
> And do you still believe the seas are are going to rise by X amount of metres by the end of this century?
> 
> Are you going to tell that because the Ant Arctic has had its coldest winter in years and the fact the ice shelf is increasing and not decreasing as the Alarmists try to make out that it is caused by man made Global warming?
> 
> 
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/12/coldest-antarctic-june-ever-recorded/
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...e_next_time_a_warmist_hypes_some_hot_weather/




Why do you use weather events to talk about climate change?  

The basics from climate change are that extreme weather events will become more regular.  Heat waves more often, higher daily maximums & minimums, cold snaps less often.  It's pretty much what's been happening around the world.  

Climate change is not the world is going to be hotter all the time everywhere.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13

_Currently, the warmest year on record is 2010, which was 0.66 °C (1.19 °F) above average. Including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 134-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. Only one year during the 20th century””1998””was warmer than 2013.

Most areas of the world experienced above-average annual temperatures, as indicated by the Temperature Percentiles map below. Over land, parts of central Asia, western Ethiopia, eastern Tanzania, and much of southern and western Australia were record warm, as were sections of the Arctic Ocean, a large swath of the southwestern Pacific Ocean along with parts of the central Pacific, and an area of the central Indian Ocean. Only part of the central United States was cooler than average over land. Small regions scattered across the eastern Pacific Ocean and an area in the Southern Ocean south of South America were cooler than average.* No region of the globe was record cold during 2013.*_

The best way to transition our economy to renewables is via a tax and or emissions trading scheme.  It worked marvellously to reduce SO2 emissions and pretty much stopped acid rain.  It allowed the market to determine the most cost efficient manner to achieve the goal set by the Government.

I would prefer a user pays setup for reducing the carbon intensity of the economy than what the "free market" L+NP has proposed which makes all tax payers pay, but gives no reward to individual tax payers for their efforts.  It's like taxing everyone for smoking, but then if you cut back or stop, you still pay.


----------



## Craton

@noco, I totally agree re. Sun spots, our orbit's shape and various cycles of our orbit coupled with our other planetary alignments, scientists are just starting to unravel these interactions. So too, how our geomagnetic field protects our all from being fried from the constant solar wind and solar flares and how it interacts and influences our environment. Tell me, how well is this interaction really understood? 



sydboy007 said:


> _Currently, the warmest year on record is 2010, which was 0.66 °C (1.19 °F) above average. Including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 134-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013.
> _



_

You see, this is what I don't get. Evidence based on a 134 year record when the age of our planet is oh, a little bit longer than that, simply doesn't wash with me.

To my mind, if we had accurate records that were more relevant in time scale to our history, say dating back 10~15,000 yrs, even then that's still just a blip in the scale of all things cosmic, then perhaps I would then say that there is some weight in this so called Climate Change. 

Putting a price sorry, gotta call it what it is, putting a tax on Carbon is just that, another bloody tax and we are all paying for it one way or another. ETS? Plu...ease, do I look that dumb?
ETS is just another marketing ploy to extract tax dollars for govt revenue and the Big Players never ending greed for profit.

If govt's were serious, they would come up with a far better way of tackling this so called issue. However, the real problem is that gov's in 1st world countries are struggling to find enough revenue to fund existing services and cater for the ever aging population so, they come up with these half piped tax revenue streams dreamed up by "economists" and then play the guilt card on the masses. Shame on them!

I do agree that we need to remedy the gross neglect of our Mother Earth, not by targeting specific things like carbon and not by introducing more taxes. This just puts the voter's nose out of joint. Tax incentives, tax credits and other schemes that drive innovation into obtaining real results seems to me the way to go.

Getting the grass roots people, us, on board is crucial in any sweeping reform and it has to be done in a way that is not only equitable but makes sense with tangible results. For us Aussies, with our tiny population, I don't think we feel we can make much of an impact on a global scale per se. Now, if we invent an exhaust purification system that turns emissions into harmless vapor or invent a system that turns H2O into reusable energy, well then, that is something that will have a real impact and would have us on board ASAP. 

Sure there are costs to these technologies but so too in developing the NW shelf or Olympic Dam or the Snowy Hydro scheme. I seem to remember when the Opera House was being built, one could buy a lottery ticket where some of the monies raised would go to funding construction. We are a nation of gamblers so lets us this power to fund innovation across a broad spectrum of industry and science.

Or as we are now so interconnected thanks to Social Media networks, what about govt sponsored/supported crowd funding projects?

Ha, and gotta laugh at Albanese's attempts at answering Bolt's question re. temp change. Climate Change, what a joke! The climate changes daily, nope, make that second by second. Sheesh._


----------



## noco

banco said:


> LOL here comes Noco the scientist.




Typical Fabian.......when you don't have the answers, attack the man's character....that is in the Fabian's DNA.

In my time we were taught the basics in Science and is something that is neglected today.......Perhaps Banco you should go back to school or do some sensible research on the matter yourself.....you just might learn something useful instead of listening to what the Alarmist keep preaching.

I guess you are one of those types , who, if asked by your Fabian comrades to put your head in the fire, you would......use your brain instead of your big mouth and you might get somewhere. You might also get some respect from other members on the ASF as well.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Why do you use weather events to talk about climate change?
> 
> The basics from climate change are that extreme weather events will become more regular.  Heat waves more often, higher daily maximums & minimums, cold snaps less often.  It's pretty much what's been happening around the world.
> 
> Climate change is not the world is going to be hotter all the time everywhere.
> 
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13
> 
> _Currently, the warmest year on record is 2010, which was 0.66 °C (1.19 °F) above average. Including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 134-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. Only one year during the 20th century””1998””was warmer than 2013.
> 
> Most areas of the world experienced above-average annual temperatures, as indicated by the Temperature Percentiles map below. Over land, parts of central Asia, western Ethiopia, eastern Tanzania, and much of southern and western Australia were record warm, as were sections of the Arctic Ocean, a large swath of the southwestern Pacific Ocean along with parts of the central Pacific, and an area of the central Indian Ocean. Only part of the central United States was cooler than average over land. Small regions scattered across the eastern Pacific Ocean and an area in the Southern Ocean south of South America were cooler than average.* No region of the globe was record cold during 2013.*_
> 
> The best way to transition our economy to renewables is via a tax and or emissions trading scheme.  It worked marvellously to reduce SO2 emissions and pretty much stopped acid rain.  It allowed the market to determine the most cost efficient manner to achieve the goal set by the Government.
> 
> I would prefer a user pays setup for reducing the carbon intensity of the economy than what the "free market" L+NP has proposed which makes all tax payers pay, but gives no reward to individual tax payers for their efforts.  It's like taxing everyone for smoking, but then if you cut back or stop, you still pay.




And your point is emphasis on warming of which has been proven there has been no Global warming for 17 + years.

The other point is you talk about more taxes........more costs to the household....I am show that won't win any 'BROWNIES' for the Fabians.


----------



## noco

Craton said:


> @noco, I totally agree re. Sun spots, our orbit's shape and various cycles of our orbit coupled with our other planetary alignments, scientists are just starting to unravel these interactions. So too, how our geomagnetic field protects our all from being fried from the constant solar wind and solar flares and how it interacts and influences our environment. Tell me, how well is this interaction really understood?
> 
> 
> 
> You see, this is what I don't get. Evidence based on a 134 year record when the age of our planet is oh, a little bit longer than that, simply doesn't wash with me.
> 
> To my mind, if we had accurate records that were more relevant in time scale to our history, say dating back 10~15,000 yrs, even then that's still just a blip in the scale of all things cosmic, then perhaps I would then say that there is some weight in this so called Climate Change.
> 
> Putting a price sorry, gotta call it what it is, putting a tax on Carbon is just that, another bloody tax and we are all paying for it one way or another. ETS? Plu...ease, do I look that dumb?
> ETS is just another marketing ploy to extract tax dollars for govt revenue and the Big Players never ending greed for profit.
> 
> If govt's were serious, they would come up with a far better way of tackling this so called issue. However, the real problem is that gov's in 1st world countries are struggling to find enough revenue to fund existing services and cater for the ever aging population so, they come up with these half piped tax revenue streams dreamed up by "economists" and then play the guilt card on the masses. Shame on them!
> 
> I do agree that we need to remedy the gross neglect of our Mother Earth, not by targeting specific things like carbon and not by introducing more taxes. This just puts the voter's nose out of joint. Tax incentives, tax credits and other schemes that drive innovation into obtaining real results seems to me the way to go.
> 
> Getting the grass roots people, us, on board is crucial in any sweeping reform and it has to be done in a way that is not only equitable but makes sense with tangible results. For us Aussies, with our tiny population, I don't think we feel we can make much of an impact on a global scale per se. Now, if we invent an exhaust purification system that turns emissions into harmless vapor or invent a system that turns H2O into reusable energy, well then, that is something that will have a real impact and would have us on board ASAP.
> 
> Sure there are costs to these technologies but so too in developing the NW shelf or Olympic Dam or the Snowy Hydro scheme. I seem to remember when the Opera House was being built, one could buy a lottery ticket where some of the monies raised would go to funding construction. We are a nation of gamblers so lets us this power to fund innovation across a broad spectrum of industry and science.
> 
> Or as we are now so interconnected thanks to Social Media networks, what about govt sponsored/supported crowd funding projects?
> 
> Ha, and gotta laugh at Albanese's attempts at answering Bolt's question re. temp change. Climate Change, what a joke! The climate changes daily, nope, make that second by second. Sheesh.




Mate, I agree 100%.

Queensland used to fund the hospitals with the Golden Casket and that stupid Beattie ( that Labor media tart) went and sold it for about $599,000.....


----------



## sydboy007

Craton said:


> You see, this is what I don't get. Evidence based on a 134 year record when the age of our planet is oh, a little bit longer than that, simply doesn't wash with me.
> 
> To my mind, if we had accurate records that were more relevant in time scale to our history, say dating back 10~15,000 yrs, even then that's still just a blip in the scale of all things cosmic, then perhaps I would then say that there is some weight in this so called Climate Change.




Considering industrial society has occured within a particular climate system, are temperature ranges from thousands of years ago that relevant if it means our current way of life is no longer viable?



Craton said:


> I do agree that we need to remedy the gross neglect of our Mother Earth, not by targeting specific things like carbon and not by introducing more taxes. This just puts the voter's nose out of joint. Tax incentives, tax credits and other schemes that drive innovation into obtaining real results seems to me the way to go.




The Abbott Government is doing it's best to kill of pretty much all public funding into non fossil fuel based energy production.  DA is currently allocating just $1.44B over the forward estimates.   Why kill off the CEF when it has been generating quite good multipliers in private investment?



Craton said:


> Getting the grass roots people, us, on board is crucial in any sweeping reform and it has to be done in a way that is not only equitable but makes sense with tangible results. For us Aussies, with our tiny population, I don't think we feel we can make much of an impact on a global scale per se. Now, if we invent an exhaust purification system that turns emissions into harmless vapor or invent a system that turns H2O into reusable energy, well then, that is something that will have a real impact and would have us on board ASAP.




So you feel it's Ok to lecture the Chinese about how they have to change their way of life, even though they churn out less than 1/3 our per capita CO2 emissions?  Australia is near the top of the emissions league table when looked at on a per capita basis.  Step back from the climate side of things, and just look at how poorly we are performing competitively when we need so much energy to produce a $ of GDP.  Japan and Germany show the way, we should be striving for that if we want to maintain much more than a quarry in this country.



Craton said:


> Now, if we invent an exhaust purification system that turns emissions into harmless vapor or invent a system that turns H2O into reusable energy, well then, that is something that will have a real impact and would have us on board ASAP.
> 
> Sure there are costs to these technologies but so too in developing the NW shelf or Olympic Dam or the Snowy Hydro scheme. I seem to remember when the Opera House was being built, one could buy a lottery ticket where some of the monies raised would go to funding construction. We are a nation of gamblers so lets us this power to fund innovation across a broad spectrum of industry and science.




Do you have any basic understanding of chemistry and the law of thermodynamics?  CO2 is a by-product of energy release, so is H20.  Combine 2 or more elements together and you generally release thermal energy, or most people call it burning.  Burn hydrogen, you get water, burn coal / oil you get mostly CO2 and some H20 and a few other nasties along with it.  The longer the hydrocarbon, the greater the energy produced by CO2.  That's why natural gas CH4, is a better fuel that petrol C8H18, because more of the energy released is from the production of H20 than CO2.  

You can't burn water.  You can use LOTS of energy to break the bonds of H20 and convert it back to the basic elements.  As for turning a power station's emissions into harmless vapour, isn't that what most climate change sceptics already argue is occurring with the odourless invisible gas that's just plant food?  We took the thermal energy created by producing C02, so to turn it into a harmless vapour requires more energy to either pump it into depleted oil fields or more energy to convert it back to C and O, but then why not just avoid the production of CO2 in the first place?


----------



## So_Cynical

Craton said:


> You see, this is what I don't get. Evidence based on a 134 year record when the age of our planet is oh, a little bit longer than that, simply doesn't wash with me.
> 
> To my mind, if we had accurate records that were more relevant in time scale to our history, say dating back 10~15,000 yrs, even then that's still just a blip in the scale of all things cosmic, then perhaps I would then say that there is some weight in this so called Climate Change.




The ice record goes back 800000 years so its not like the Evidence record is only 134 years.  fact is we know that there are many many influences on our climate and most of those are not under the influence of humans, and so logically we can and will do nothing about these.

However there is a few things that we can do something about and so logically this is where we need to focus our attention, nature has spent many millions years locking up carbon (removing it from our atmosphere) leaving us with the atmosphere and climate that we currently enjoy...and because we are not total idiots we need to do what we can to ensure that we don't make a balls up of that.

The coal we burn today is over a million years old and yet is burnt in seconds, by the thousands of tons...every day.


----------



## Calliope

Most people don't know what the Carbon Tax is and couldn't give a hoot whether it goes or stays, and we know that promises of cheaper electricity are a myth. It's important to Abbott because his survival depends on him keeping two key promises. The other is "Stopping the Boats". His opponents know that if they can wreck either of these then they have him by the short and curlies. And if they can root the economy at the same time, that's a bonus, for Clive, Christine and Bill.


----------



## banco

Calliope said:


> Most people don't know what the Carbon Tax is and couldn't give a hoot whether it goes or stays, and we know that promises of cheaper electricity are a myth. It's important to Abbott because his survival depends on him keeping two key promises. The other is "Stopping the Boats". His opponents know that if they can wreck either of these then they have him by the short and curlies. And if they can root the economy at the same time, that's a bonus, for Clive, Christine and Bill.




His problem is nobody gives a hoot whether it goes or stays because its impact on the lives of ordinary Austrlalians has been so minor (despite the fact that he said it would be the end of the world).


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> And your point is emphasis on warming of which has been proven there has been no Global warming for 17 + years.
> 
> The other point is you talk about more taxes........more costs to the household....I am show that won't win any 'BROWNIES' for the Fabians.




HHmmm.  So 9 of the 10 hottest global years has occurred since 2000, yet no global warming has occurred.

Can you please explain how that works.

Abbott says he wants to be the infrastructure PM, yet he is going to kill off the CEF which has:

* Already invested in 39 projects
* Made a 7.9% p.a return on it's investments.
* seen a 3:1 private sector matching investment funds

So why would you want to get rid of a Government investment vehicle that makes a profit and likely could see $10B of Govt funding turned into $40B of investments at a time when we desperately need this kind of investment to cover some of the job loses from the mining CAPEX cliff?  It's the perfect marrying of public and private sectors benefiting the community.  You'd think the L+NP could support something like that.


----------



## sydboy007

banco said:


> His problem is nobody gives a hoot whether it goes or stays because its impact on the lives of ordinary Austrlalians has been so minor (despite the fact that he said it would be the end of the world).




Very true.  When all those Abbott believers open their electricity and gas bills after Christmas they're going to wonder where that $540 worth of savings has gotten to?  Considering only half of that was directly attributable to the electricity sector seems to not be terribly important to Abbott.

Bill Maher made a telling comment about the Republicans in the USA, and I think it's equally applicable to Abbott.  Abbott has been telling too many Zombie lies.  The lies that just wont die.  Rational people keep on disproving them, yet they keep on being resurrected by Abbott in slightly different guises.  Abbott, the PM who can't read an electricity bill, now that's the truth that needs to be recognised.


----------



## Craton

@sydboy007
@So_Cynical

Thanks for the feedback.

<tongue in cheek>
Thermal dynamics? Sure, lots of it occurs with differing opinions. 
Ice cores date back squillions of years sure, so too stock market data albeit not so far.
</tongue in cheek>

Seriously though, the science is huge and as I don’t come from an Academia background, I’m just your average Joe trying to make sense of all this. That also doesn’t mean I have to swallow everything that is fed to me by the “experts”.

Plants need CO2 so more CO2 means more plants ergo, must be a good thing for us too, no?

Are we not just starting to learn how our oceans lock in CO2?

I don’t profess to know it all nor do I have any answers. The big stumbling block in selling this so called Climate Change (make no mistake, I’d really like to see another term used), selling it to us mere mortals is that fact that we are so short lived and have bugger all chance of seeing any results we might implement. 

Also, the issue isn’t just Carbon is it? Transitioning to renewables will not fix our ailing planet will it? 

I still say data from the last 134 years doesn’t wash with me, the hottest years of late could well be a statistical blimp (lies, more lies and damn statistics) further, if it could be shown without a shadow of a doubt that we are indeed changing the climate or warming the planet then I be the first to demand action.
Thing is, I’m not convinced and I reckon our PM thinks the same. That doesn’t mean I support him or his party either.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> Very true.  When all those Abbott believers open their electricity and gas bills after Christmas they're going to wonder where that $540 worth of savings has gotten to?  Considering only half of that was directly attributable to the electricity sector seems to not be terribly important to Abbott.



This is what Labor's been reduced to with its carbon tax.

Economically illiterate debate over the level of savings from its repeal.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> This is what Labor's been reduced to with its carbon tax.
> 
> Economically illiterate debate over the level of savings from its repeal.




Ah, the debate is about what Abbott has told the punters.

The fact the tax has had little economic impact seems to be ignored from the debate.

i wonder if the $45B in spending by the various poles and wires companies hadn't occurred if Abbott woul dhave been able to get his lies believed by so many?  Afterall, he is the PM who couldn't read an electricity bill, so that might explain his confusion??


----------



## drsmith

Well, the goat's throat is about to be cut and that will reduce the cost of energy for all.

What's done with the rest of the beast is another argument altogether.

Clive Palmer admits he was a bit flustered last week.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2014/s4045737.htm

In more ways than one I would suggest.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> Well, the goat's throat is about to be cut and that will reduce the cost of energy for all.
> 
> What's done with the rest of the beast is another argument altogether.
> 
> Clive Palmer admits he was a bit flustered last week.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2014/s4045737.htm
> 
> In more ways than one I would suggest.




Sacrificial goat, so to speak.  With the latest increases in electricity I doubt anyone is going to be rushing to prop up consumer spending with their $40 average quarterly bill reduction.  I estimate my bill might reduce by $8-10.  Couple of return trips to work each qtr.  Just WOW.

Just means in 2024 we'll be so far behind the USA and China that we'll be what comes after a banana republic.

When do you think BHP is going to start the Olympic Dam expansion just as Tony promised???  How many new resource projects will go ahead now the resource and carbon taxes have been removed?


----------



## drsmith

The trouble with Labor is it sacrifices more than the goat.

It sacrificed economic growth with the carbon tax for gaining office.

It sacrificed our border security in the name of blind ideology and maintaining office. Boat arrival reached 1000 per week at one point under the Gillard government but their Green partners didn't mind. Deaths at sea were mere tragedies, mere accidents according to the child senator.

Lastly, they sacrificed their own government and with the abandonment of their own budget savings, they will now do anything to sacrifice the nation's fiscal future under this government.

The abolition of the carbon tax will reduce energy costs to business and competition will ensure prices to the consumer will be lower than they otherwise would have been with the carbon tax.


----------



## SirRumpole

drsmith said:


> The abolition of the carbon tax will reduce energy costs to business and competition will ensure prices to the consumer will be lower than they otherwise would have been with the carbon tax.




The notion that the carbon tax takes money out of he economy is nonsense. It takes money from a dirty economy and puts it into a clean economy. The reduction in consumer electricity demand due to solar pv installations means that more power could be sold cheaply to business, thus reducing their costs. 

Renewable energy suppliers are businesses as well. There is no imperative that coal companies are the only businesses that should be able to make a profit.


----------



## So_Cynical

sydboy007 said:


> Abbott says he wants to be the infrastructure PM, yet he is going to kill off the CEF which has:
> 
> * Already invested in 39 projects
> * Made a 7.9% p.a return on it's investments.
> * seen a 3:1 private sector matching investment funds
> 
> So why would you want to get rid of a Government investment vehicle that makes a profit and likely could see $10B of Govt funding turned into $40B of investments at a time when we desperately need this kind of investment to cover some of the job loses from the mining CAPEX cliff?




No one is talking about the CEF, certainly not the Noalition...i got a letter from the power company last week with the headline "good news, your power bill is going down" didn't mention the 'bad news" that as a result of my power bill going down the Clean Energy fund would be wound up and billions of dollars in green energy DEVELOPMENT and CAPACITY would now be invested/created elsewhere. 

Its a scandal.


----------



## drsmith

SirRumpole said:


> The notion that the carbon tax takes money out of he economy is nonsense.
> 
> It takes money from a dirty economy and puts it into a clean economy. The reduction in consumer electricity demand due to solar pv installations means that more power could be sold cheaply to business, thus reducing their costs.



I didn't say that it does but it does redistribute it by increasing the cost of cheaper forms of energy. The net cost of energy therefore rises and that's reflected in the price increase of electricity due to the carbon tax.

Before we even get to the carbon tax proper, the subsidies offered for solar have to be paid for somewhere in the economy.

I'll leave you to figure that one out.


----------



## SirRumpole

drsmith said:


> Before we even get to the carbon tax proper, the subsidies offered for solar have to be paid for somewhere in the economy.
> 
> I'll leave you to figure that one out.




So does the guaranteed rate of return on investment in poles and wires.

Have a listen to this and do some figuring yourself

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/2014-04-27/5406022


----------



## Logique

sydboy007 said:


> ...9 of the 10 hottest global years has occurred since 2000...



Well, in the inter glacial record since 1880 anyway.



> http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps.html
> 
> ... The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years *in the modern meteorological record* [since 1880] have occurred since the year 2000...


----------



## drsmith

SirRumpole said:


> So does the guaranteed rate of return on investment in poles and wires.
> 
> Have a listen to this and do some figuring yourself
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/2014-04-27/5406022



Over investment in electricity infrastructure such as poles and wires is another issue again. 

As for solar reducing peak demand and hence the demand for more power stations, there is logically the potential for some gain there but what about reliability and to what extent has it been quantified ?

Does it offset the government subsidies into solar ?

If rooftop solar is a valid argument for cheaper infrastructure for peak load, isn't there a case for private sector involvement (a private power company for example offering incentives to electricity uses to install rooftop solar instead of the government) ? 

Smurf may be able to offer some enlightenment on these questions.


----------



## sydboy007

So_Cynical said:


> No one is talking about the CEF, certainly not the Noalition...i got a letter from the power company last week with the headline "good news, your power bill is going down" didn't mention the 'bad news" that as a result of my power bill going down the Clean Energy fund would be wound up and billions of dollars in green energy DEVELOPMENT and CAPACITY would now be invested/created elsewhere.
> 
> Its a scandal.




It may not even be invested elsewhere.  Depending on how the economy responds to the mining CAPEX cliff it might end up invested overseas instead of here.

I just can't understand why you'd want to cancel a form of funding that marries public funds with private funds and makes a return to the tax payers along with encouraging up to $30B in private infrastructure investment.  It's like getting a free lunch, week after week.

If the 7.9% rate of return is maintained to full investment then you'd be looking at $790M in income each year.  It's suddenly become a perpetual funding machine in helping the economy to transition away from fossil fuel energy generation.  How can a supposedly free market oriented Government want to stop that?  It's achieving what DA supposedly wants to achieve for FREE, better than free because it's making a profit.


----------



## explod

Watching parliament in action today,  AND THERE IS NO ACTION.

The libs (ie. the government) do not answer questions and in nearly every sentence bang on about the carbon tax.

There is no vision or guidance on Australia's future, and still no guidance as to where our future jobs are going to come from.

Banging on about the carbon tax and the government debt does no cut it as running the country.


----------



## IFocus

FoA, nice to see all the conservatives working constructively together (doing last minute dodgy back room deals) getting rid of all that ugly red tape (consumer protection) so business can get on with making more jobs (ripping off old pensioners) 

Win win for everyone ( Liberal party sycophants ) 

This is a great government doing great work for all Australians looking after those that are vulnerable (Big Banks)


Tried to find a reference in the Daily Liberal News (aka The Australian) strangely didn't see one.


PUP deal allows government to save its financial advice regulations

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...aves-tony-abbotts-reforms-20140715-3bzj5.html


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> FoA, nice to see all the conservatives working constructively together (doing last minute dodgy back room deals) getting rid of all that ugly red tape (consumer protection) so business can get on with making more jobs (ripping off old pensioners)
> 
> Win win for everyone ( Liberal party sycophants )
> 
> This is a great government doing great work for all Australians looking after those that are vulnerable (Big Banks)
> 
> 
> Tried to find a reference in the Daily Liberal News (aka The Australian) strangely didn't see one.
> 
> 
> PUP deal allows government to save its financial advice regulations
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...aves-tony-abbotts-reforms-20140715-3bzj5.html





Oh come on IFocus....stop this Fabian Society way of getting your message across.

You you are talking nonsense.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Oh come on IFocus....stop this Fabian Society way of getting your message across.
> 
> You you are talking nonsense.




Glad to know you support the Government watering down of the FoFA legislation then.  Next scandal will rightly or wrongly be pinned on the L+NP.


----------



## IFocus

Ah who would have thought next step from "on water operations" has progressed 

Just constantly repeat lies perpetrate fraud in government and operate in secret......


Journalists will face jail over spy leaks under new security laws

George Brandis's new spying laws will include measure to criminalise media reporting of Snowden-style leaks



> it would be easy for Asio to declare special intelligence operations because it simply required the security director-general or deputy director-general to approve.






> “In Australia we lack that fundamental human rights protection and therefore Brandis can get away with inserting a clause into a bill which you wouldn’t be able to do in the UK or in the US,” Barns said.
> 
> “It’s the sort of clause you’d expect to see in Russia or in China and in other authoritarian states but you don’t expect to see it in a democracy. I hope the Senate rejects it because it takes the law further than in jurisdictions which are similar to Australia.”





http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/16/journalists-face-jail-leaks-security-laws


----------



## Julia

Carbon tax repeal has passed the Senate.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> Carbon tax repeal has passed the Senate.




The way things are going, Palmer will make a fool of himself (even more), PUP will implode and the Greens will have the balance of power after the next election, and here we go again.


----------



## overhang

Just like to congratulate the Abbott government on keeping it's first election promise.
The boats are close but not quite there.


----------



## drsmith

It's a good day today.

Winners are grinners.


----------



## So_Cynical

Julia said:


> Carbon tax repeal has passed the Senate.




I remember i was happy back when the Carbon tax legislation was first passed and so now im a little sad...looking back i was happy in 1998 when John Howard launched the Aust Greenhouse office and stumped up half a billion in funding, and then sad when he pulled the plug 6 years later once he didn't need the senate support of the Aust democrats.

I remember i was happy when Turnbull backed Rudds CPRS and if it wasn't for 1 lousy Liberal party room vote it may very well have got thru without the Greens support, then sad when the Greens blocked Rudds CPRS...fact is that its an absolute certainty that i will be happy once again in the not to far distant future. 

The inevitable will not be denied, just such a shame and waste of time and money to be taken one step back by the Coalition every time that Labor takes us 2 steps forward.


----------



## drsmith

So_Cynical said:


> I remember i was happy when Turnbull backed Rudds CPRS and if it wasn't for 1 lousy Liberal party room vote it may very well have got thru without the Greens support, then sad when the Greens blocked Rudds CPRS...fact is that its an absolute certainty that i will be happy once again in the not to far distant future.
> 
> The inevitable will not be denied, just such a shame and waste of time and money to be taken one step back by the Coalition every time that Labor takes us 2 steps forward.



Kevin Rudd took Julia Gillard's advice to have no balls with his CPRS and Julia Gillard after then putting the stake through Kevin's prime-ministership thought she could introduce a new economy wide tax by deception.

Only in Labor la-la land.

The supporters carbon pricing only have Labor to blame for this outcome. It will go down in political text books on how not to conduct major tax policy and be compared to the great success in this area, John Howard's GST.


----------



## wayneL

So_Cynical said:


> I remember i was happy back when the Carbon tax legislation was first passed and so now im a little sad...looking back i was happy in 1998 when John Howard launched the Aust Greenhouse office and stumped up half a billion in funding, and then sad when he pulled the plug 6 years later once he didn't need the senate support of the Aust democrats.
> 
> I remember i was happy when Turnbull backed Rudds CPRS and if it wasn't for 1 lousy Liberal party room vote it may very well have got thru without the Greens support, then sad when the Greens blocked Rudds CPRS...fact is that its an absolute certainty that i will be happy once again in the not to far distant future.
> 
> The inevitable will not be denied, just such a shame and waste of time and money to be taken one step back by the Coalition every time that Labor takes us 2 steps forward.



Comedy gold IF


----------



## drsmith

wayneL said:


> Comedy gold IF



Only the feathers belong to IF.


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> The way things are going, Palmer will make a fool of himself (even more), PUP will implode and the Greens will have the balance of power after the next election, and here we go again.



Meantime, I even had a momentary flash of sympathy for poor Christine Milne today whose despair is palpable.  Must be pure hell for the Greens.


----------



## So_Cynical

drsmith said:


> The supporters carbon pricing only have Labor to blame for this outcome. It will go down in political text books on how not to conduct major tax policy and be compared to the great success in this area, John Howard's GST.




Noalition la la land, your confusing tax policy with economic evolution, the need to transform by pricing via a tax...it was meant to be a driver not a revenue raising exercise...but i really should know better than to expect any real level of understanding from you.

Best of luck with the denial.


----------



## overhang

Julia said:


> Meantime, I even had a momentary flash of sympathy for poor Christine Milne today whose despair is palpable.  Must be pure hell for the Greens.




Good, they could have avoided this years ago but instead they voted against the CPRS because in typical Greens fashion it wasn't extreme enough when both Labor and the opposition leader at the time supported it.  As a result of that we now have to endure Tony Abbott as PM.


----------



## springhill

So_Cynical said:


> Noalition la la land, your confusing tax policy with economic evolution, the need to transform by pricing via a tax...*it was meant to be a driver not a revenue raising exercise*...but i really should know better than to expect any real level of understanding from you.
> 
> Best of luck with the denial.




Complete rubbish. 

10% of carbon tax collections were to go to the UN which in turn was to be passed on to 3rd world economies to assist them to slash carbon 'pollution'.

It was mooted in the early stages to be up to $9-10 Billion per year to the UN.

If it was a driver, revenue to the UN would have ongoingly fallen thereby increasingly diminishing their ability to assist the 3rd world countries cut carbon 'pollution' year on year.

The very definition of a self-defeating exercise.


----------



## drsmith

So_Cynical said:


> Noalition la la land, your confusing tax policy with economic evolution, the need to transform by pricing via a tax...it was meant to be a driver not a revenue raising exercise...but i really should know better than to expect any real level of understanding from you.
> 
> Best of luck with the denial.



If you wish to split hairs about what form of cost impost it was on the electorate, the point remains that Labor government to convince the electorate of merit of such a major cost impost and for that, Labor only has itself to blame.


----------



## drsmith

The carbon tax repeal has passed both houses but the repeal of the mining tax is another story.

The reps has rejected senate amendments to retain the associated spending measures so it's back to the senate for this piece of legislation.



> 11:47am: The House has not agreed with the Senate amendments on the mining tax.
> 
> This statement has just been entered in the live minutes:
> 
> House of Representatives Statement of Reasons for disagreement with certain proposed amendments:
> 
> Senate Amendment Number (1), (2), (3) and (4)
> 
> These amendments passed by the Senate removes from the Bill the Schedules 7, 8, and 9 which relate to the abolition of the Low Income Superannuation Contribution, the abolition of Income Support Bonus and the abolition of the Schoolkids Bonus.
> 
> The removal of these schedules would cost $9.6 billion over the forward estimates to 30 June 2018.  The House of Representatives will not accept amendments which do not remove all elements of the mining tax package.
> 
> Accordingly the House of Representatives does not accept these amendments.




http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/the-pulse-live/politics-live-july-18-2014-20140718-3c4xy.html


----------



## So_Cynical

springhill said:


> Complete rubbish.
> 
> 10% of carbon tax collections were to go to the UN which in turn was to be passed on to 3rd world economies to assist them to slash carbon 'pollution'.




Focusing on the 10% not the 90% please....most of the money went here.

http://www.cleanenergyfinancecorp.com.au/about-us/how-we-are-funded.aspx

For investment in CAPACITY in Australia...Complete FACT.


----------



## IFocus

wayneL said:


> Unions are a collectivist notion, Im calling BS on that IF. Unless you mean official don't live their ow ideology





Off all the Union secretary's and organisers I met there was only a couple of organisers that were true ideologues and they were not many.

The rest were genuine honest  selfless human beings with true moral fibre that got off their butts and who joined up to the union movement because they wanted to make a difference to peoples lives and fight for those that were ripped off of which there were endless amounts. 

In my day the strikes got the headlines (that you and others here apply quoting you ideology endlessly) but the reality was organisers were working 14 hour + days helping workers obtain the basic working conditions and pay rates that awards called for.

It was the union movement that forced the rise in safety culture and practices in the work force not government not business who saw it all as an extra cost when in fact business now understand its all a net saving.

I was a 15 year old apprentice that was illegally trashed by a major employer in Perth. The government agencies knew about the individual and my situation but wouldn't do anything because of his Liberal party connections.

They refused to offer any help what so ever or to even confront the employer.

It was the union movement that came along supported me found another apprenticeship for me and literally gave me a very successful working life / career.

I was not a union member and was told that I was not expected to join.

Yours and others here sprays of ideology certainly apply to some sections of the higher echelons ACTU etc but you ignorance over all about the nuts and bolts is unfortunate.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> Meantime, I even had a momentary flash of sympathy for poor Christine Milne today whose despair is palpable.  Must be pure hell for the Greens.




I support the principle of the carbon tax. The revenue it generated and the solar pv subsidies provided have take a load off the coal fired stations (and that is the problem for the corporate generators). Effectively, consumers are part financing their own power infrastructure. My problem with the tax was that the rate was too high, $10 per tonne would have been sufficient, and the deal to send 10% of the revenue the the UN was unnecessary and wasteful. The Greens , extremists as they are, went too far and killed the concept by their greed. 

But now, it's just the coal and gas industry that get the subsidies as I've pointed out. Until the next election anyway.


----------



## drsmith

SirRumpole said:


> But now, it's just the coal and gas industry that get the subsidies as I've pointed out.



Are you sure ?

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...21961&page=121&p=832976&viewfull=1#post832976


----------



## SirRumpole

drsmith said:


> Are you sure ?
> 
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...21961&page=121&p=832976&viewfull=1#post832976




Lets see how long they last. Even if they do, it's a miniscule amount compared to the coal and gas subsidies.


----------



## noco

So_Cynical said:


> I remember i was happy back when the Carbon tax legislation was first passed and so now im a little sad...looking back i was happy in 1998 when John Howard launched the Aust Greenhouse office and stumped up half a billion in funding, and then sad when he pulled the plug 6 years later once he didn't need the senate support of the Aust democrats.
> 
> I remember i was happy when Turnbull backed Rudds CPRS and if it wasn't for 1 lousy Liberal party room vote it may very well have got thru without the Greens support, then sad when the Greens blocked Rudds CPRS...fact is that its an absolute certainty that i will be happy once again in the not to far distant future.
> 
> The inevitable will not be denied, just such a shame and waste of time and money to be taken one step back by the Coalition every time that Labor takes us 2 steps forward.




Just be honest for once and tell the rest of the Howard proposal.

Howard agreed to an ETS provided the rest of the world went that way.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Just be honest for once and tell the rest of the Howard proposal.
> 
> Howard agreed to an ETS provided the rest of the world went that way.






They are increasingly going that way.


----------



## dutchie

Tony Abbott shows he is worthy of being Australia's Prime Minister.


----------



## sydboy007

Yes Tony, investors are going to flood in Australia to turn us into a coal producing energy super power


----------



## sydboy007

So Eric Abetz believes the Senate has caused too much red tape in relation to asset recyling program.

What is causing this red tape?

Well the Senate has asked that a CBA be done for any privatisation over $100M.  Considering this was a (broken) promise by Abbott for Govt funding prior to the election (admittedly not in relation to the asset recycling program but seems reasonable for moving public assets into the private sector) so I'm not sure why he's so against this.

Then there's a second check ont eh Govt with the Senate being able to veto asset recycling payments to the states.

The only reason I can see the Govt would be against this is that they wont so easily be able to roll out the pork barrel.

There's plenty of bad examples for privatisations of public assets, so it's good to see the Senate trying to avoid these.  It's just an ideological assumption that the private sector is ALWAYS the best option.


----------



## sydboy007

Poor Tony.  Joe's let everyone in on the secret that the PPL scheme was really not even good enough to be written on a paper napkin, released to uncle Rup early to organise press releases, and he still doesn't get why people don't think it's a good idea.

How much longer can Abbott remain pig headed on how little support his signature policy has   It feels like he's held on so long now he feels that giving it up would be too big a loss.

Maybe the PC has summed it up best - http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/childcare/draft/key-points

_The Commission considers that it is unclear that the proposed changes to the Paid Parental Leave scheme ”” which is more generous than the existing scheme and that recommended in the Commission’s 2009 report on paid parental leave ”” would bring significant additional benefits to the broader community beyond those occurring under the existing scheme. There may be a case, therefore, for diverting some funding from the proposed new scheme to another area of government funding, such as ECEC [Early Childhood Education and Care], where more significant family benefits are likely. Such a move could add up to a further $1.5 billion per year to Australian Government assistance for ECEC.

…the workforce participation of mothers of children aged under 15 years is affected by the costs and availability of suitable childcare._


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Poor Tony.  Joe's let everyone in on the secret that the PPL scheme was really not even good enough to be written on a paper napkin, released to uncle Rup early to organise press releases, and he still doesn't get why people don't think it's a good idea.
> 
> How much longer can Abbott remain pig headed on how little support his signature policy has   It feels like he's held on so long now he feels that giving it up would be too big a loss.
> 
> Maybe the PC has summed it up best - http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/childcare/draft/key-points
> 
> _The Commission considers that it is unclear that the proposed changes to the Paid Parental Leave scheme ”” which is more generous than the existing scheme and that recommended in the Commission’s 2009 report on paid parental leave ”” would bring significant additional benefits to the broader community beyond those occurring under the existing scheme. There may be a case, therefore, for diverting some funding from the proposed new scheme to another area of government funding, such as ECEC [Early Childhood Education and Care], where more significant family benefits are likely. Such a move could add up to a further $1.5 billion per year to Australian Government assistance for ECEC.
> 
> …the workforce participation of mothers of children aged under 15 years is affected by the costs and availability of suitable childcare._




No worries Syd....the senate won't allow the bill to go through so Abbott will be off the hook.....he will have all good reason to drop it.......but in doing so I trust the Fabians who believe in every body being equal, will move a private members bill to bring  all the public servants and politicians into line with current Green/Labor Party PPL.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> No worries Syd....the senate won't allow the bill to go through so Abbott will be off the hook.....he will have all good reason to drop it.......but in doing so I trust the Fabians who believe in every body being equal, will move a private members bill to bring  all the public servants and politicians into line with current Green/Labor Party PPL.




Why?  In a country where workers and employers negotiate the terms and conditions of their employment if they've agreed to some form of PPL then why are you so against it?  Or you're only against it when it's public servants and politicians, but have no issue when it's for private sector employees?  Back in 2011-12 over 51% of employers provided some form of PPL.  Even the ASX provides PPL. 3 of the 4 main banks provide it, as does caltex, hsbc, ioof, alcoa, iag.


----------



## ChrisJH

noco said:


> No worries Syd....the senate won't allow the bill to go through so Abbott will be off the hook.....he will have all good reason to drop it.......but in doing so I trust the Fabians who believe in every body being equal, will move a private members bill to bring  all the public servants and politicians into line with current Green/Labor Party PPL.




I don't understand what the Fabian Society has to do with the Abbott government, or Australian politics?


----------



## IFocus

ChrisJH said:


> I don't understand what the Fabian Society has to do with the Abbott government, or Australian politics?




Apparently they are running the entire collective of any one who didn't vote for or worship the new god known as  "Abbott"


Another thing don't turn up here quoting facts or else you will be branded "ABC leftest"


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Why?  In a country where workers and employers negotiate the terms and conditions of their employment if they've agreed to some form of PPL then why are you so against it?  Or you're only against it when it's public servants and politicians, but have no issue when it's for private sector employees?  Back in 2011-12 over 51% of employers provided some form of PPL.  Even the ASX provides PPL. 3 of the 4 main banks provide it, as does caltex, hsbc, ioof, alcoa, iag.




I have always been opposed to PPL.....the reason being :-

a) it is not equal to all employees whether private enterprise or Government public servants.....there should be one system if there is to one at all.

b) what about the stay at homes Mums?....they are not even considered.


----------



## noco

ChrisJH said:


> I don't understand what the Fabian Society has to do with the Abbott government, or Australian politics?




Chris, the Fabian Society has nothing to with the Abbott Government but is has plenty to do with shaping of the Green/Labor coalition.

Julia Gillard, Chris Bowen, Jenny Macklin  and any on the left wing of the Labor Party plus all the Greens are members of the Fabian Society (communism).

I have posted this link on two previous threads and here it is again for you in case you missed it. 


http://www.restoreaustralia.org.au/fabians-and-pm-gillard/	25/06/2014	5 KB


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> I have always been opposed to PPL.....the reason being :-
> 
> a) it is not equal to all employees whether private enterprise or Government public servants.....there should be one system if there is to one at all.
> 
> b) what about the stay at homes Mums?....they are not even considered.




So you believe PPL should be outlawed, or in Howard / Costello speak prohibited content of a workplace agreement?

Seriously, you sound more like a communist every day.  1 type of toothpaste, 1 type of PPL.

Solve housing affordability, you'll solve child care and PPL costs, and get a free work life balance improvement.  Considering the below is the view of your leaders, I don't see any meaningful reform to help with this, hence why we have these bandaid solutions like billions spent on childcare and PPL.

_Rising house prices actually help to make marginal property development viable. There is a shortage of supply out there and what this will do is make supply more readily available_ - Hockey (so higher prices lead to higher priced new construction.  Not sure how that's going to benefit most FHBs and renters).

_If housing prices go up, sure that makes it harder to get into the market, but it also means that everyone who is in the market has a more valuable asset._ - Abbot.  Such simple honesty and why NG is a sacred cow.


----------



## IFocus

noco said:


> I have posted this link on two previous threads and here it is again for you in case you missed it.
> 
> 
> http://www.restoreaustralia.org.au/fabians-and-pm-gillard/	25/06/2014	5 KB




That link is a poor effort of twisted truth IMHO but if thats your thing then good luck


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> That link is a poor effort of twisted truth IMHO but if thats your thing then good luck




You obviously don't like the truth about your beloved Fabian comrades so you deem it twisted.


----------



## SirRumpole

Interesting article about a few lies the Coalition told before the election

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...chieves-the-impossible-unity-among-economists


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> So you believe PPL should be outlawed, or in Howard / Costello speak prohibited content of a workplace agreement?
> 
> Seriously, you sound more like a communist every day.  1 type of toothpaste, 1 type of PPL.




Was there any work place agreement between Labor and pregnant women on their PPL when they introduced their legislation?

A communist??????....FFS....... have you gone loco like Palmer?......I still have the bitter taste of communism from the 50's and 60's......but of course today the Fabians have a different approach in adopting communism...they do it with the subtle approach through the Greens/Labor coalition...they chip away bit by bit so the naive do not notice it until it is too late.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Was there any work place agreement between Labor and pregnant women on their PPL when they introduced their legislation?
> 
> A communist??????....FFS....... have you gone loco like Palmer?......I still have the bitter taste of communism from the 50's and 60's......but of course today the Fabians have a different approach in adopting communism...they do it with the subtle approach through the Greens/Labor coalition...they chip away bit by bit so the naive do not notice it until it is too late.




Well legislating PPL at tax payer expense is a very different concept to employees and employers deciding that it's a condition of employment they would like and probably seems them receive slightly lower pay to help fund it.  Different companies provide different employee benefits to attract talent.  My company provides me with free gym membership in the belief healthy employees are more productive and have less sick days, while also having access to a semi cheap holiday accommodation service as well.  In my last job we used to get nearly free internet and mobile phone plans.  Most smart companies do similar deals with their employees.

As for your views on communism, isn't that what your calling for with a 1 size fits all Govt PPL scheme as opposed to different companies having their own schemes if employees want that as one of their conditions of employment, including public servants and politicians?

Lighten up on your fabian conspiracy theories


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Was there any work place agreement between Labor and pregnant women on their PPL when they introduced their legislation?
> 
> A communist??????....FFS....... have you gone loco like Palmer?......I still have the bitter taste of communism from the 50's and 60's......but of course today the Fabians have a different approach in adopting communism...they do it with the subtle approach through the Greens/Labor coalition...they chip away bit by bit so the naive do not notice it until it is too late.




I see your Fabianism and raise you one IPAism.


----------



## IFocus

SirRumpole said:


> Interesting article about a few lies the Coalition told before the election
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...chieves-the-impossible-unity-among-economists





Certainly rips it up the Coalition this is the telling bit




> Let’s be clear about this. We know they’re not being honest about their real motives for policy. They know we know, too. They don’t care.
> 
> As I’ve explained previously, the Abbott and Hockey budget, if fully implemented, would have taken us a long way towards the free market social and economic model of the US, and away from the social democracy model of much of Europe. But the question remains as to why they would do this. Who benefits from a US style free market system where government minimises its involvement?
> 
> The answer of course is the wealthy and those who already wield power. *The greatest beneficiaries of Abbott and Hockey’s policies are their largest financial backers*, including the financial industry, the mining and energy industries, gambling interests and real estate companies.


----------



## IFocus

I have been thinking the same and wondered if any others would say some thing.

What are a couple of hundred lightly armed Aussies going to do against thousands of armed lunatics fighting a war.

I wonder if the Coalition arrogance extends to pushing Russian armed militias around in its back yard?

Abbott's mission to Ukraine branded 'nuts'



> Australian Defence Force personnel will be walking unprepared into a volatile situation at the MH17 crash site in Ukraine, a senior defence figure has warned.
> 
> Prime Minister Tony Abbott's announcement of Australia's intention to send 190 armed Australian Federal Police and an unknown number of ADF personnel to help recover bodies and evidence from the site has been met with incredulity in some parts of Europe, with one analyst branding it ''nuts''.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...randed-nuts-20140726-3cm8r.html#ixzz38cI4Gywl


----------



## DB008

IFocus said:


> I have been thinking the same and wondered if any others would say some thing.
> 
> What are a couple of hundred lightly armed Aussies going to do against thousands of armed lunatics fighting a war.
> 
> I wonder if the Coalition arrogance extends to pushing Russian armed militias around in its back yard?
> 
> Abbott's mission to Ukraine branded 'nuts'
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...randed-nuts-20140726-3cm8r.html#ixzz38cI4Gywl




I think that TA has done a superb job thus far on the MH17 incident. Even your beloved Bill Shorten has agreed on this.

European leaders who are also involved should be holding their heads in shame - the term "lack of balls" quickly comes to mind.

Obama is, for a better word, a pansy. What is need is leadership during a crisis like this. Someone like JFK during the Cuban missile crisis needs to step up and tell Russia to piss off!


----------



## SirRumpole

DB008 said:


> I think that TA has done a superb job thus far on the MH17 incident. Even your beloved Bill Shorten has agreed on this.




This is a bipartisan operation, and any PM in this position would receive the support of the opposition.

It's worth mentioning that it's a lot easier to get a resolution into the UN Security Council when you actually have a seat on it, which is something the Rudd/Gillard governments worked very hard for.


----------



## Tink

I agree, DB, I think he has done a wonderful job.
His daughter not long arriving home from that flight, a few weeks earlier, would have really hit home.


----------



## DB008

SirRumpole said:


> This is a bipartisan operation, and any PM in this position would receive the support of the opposition.




But I think the ALP would have had a softer approach.



SirRumpole said:


> It's worth mentioning that it's a lot easier to get a resolution into the UN Security Council when you actually have a seat on it, which is something the Rudd/Gillard governments worked very hard for.




Yes, good point and I wholeheartedly agree with you.


----------



## drsmith

SirRumpole said:


> This is a bipartisan operation, and any PM in this position would receive the support of the opposition.
> 
> It's worth mentioning that it's a lot easier to get a resolution into the UN Security Council when you actually have a seat on it, which is something the Rudd/Gillard governments worked very hard for.



No room to move there for Bill.

What though was Labor's motives for that UN seat ?

It took a Coalition government to put it to practical use.


----------



## SirRumpole

drsmith said:


> What though was Labor's motives for that UN seat ?
> 
> It took a Coalition government to put it to practical use.




What an absurd statement. If Labor was currently in power of course they would have used the seat to condemn MH17.

The motives were to give this country more clout internationally which obviously have paid off. If MH17 had not happened, the seat could be used to have more voice in such things as the rise of China in our area. It's an investment that is now paying off and shows foresight on the part of Rudd who kicked the process off and Bob Carr who secured it.


----------



## drsmith

SirRumpole said:


> It's an investment that is now paying off and shows foresight on the part of Rudd who kicked the process off and Bob Carr who secured it.



It was like everything Kevin Rudd did, purchased for his own self aggrandisement.

That we have it during the current MH17 disaster is merely fortuitous.


----------



## SirRumpole

drsmith said:


> It was like everything Kevin Rudd did, purchased for his own self aggrandisement.
> 
> That we have it during the current MH17 disaster is merely fortuitous.




If you want to be that mendacious, it could be said that Abbott and Bishop used the Council seat to make themselves look good in the eyes of the electorate. Now I hope you won't drag this incident down any further than you already have.


----------



## drsmith

I'm not dragging the MH17 incident anywhere. 

I've simply offered my point of view on the UN seat and referred to the above incident in that context.


----------



## SirRumpole

drsmith said:


> I'm not dragging the MH17 incident anywhere.
> 
> I've simply offered my point of view on the UN seat and referred to the above incident in that context.




"Fortuitous" is like winning the lottery. Getting a Security Council seat requires a lot of hard work for which you are prepared to give no credit whatsoever, because the people who secured that seat are on "the other side".

That is mendacity.


----------



## drsmith

On matters lottery and hard work,



> The Federal Government currently spends about $5 billion a year on aid but that is expected to jump to more than $8 billion by 2016.




That was mid 2011 and represents 10% compound growth per annum.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-06/rudd-announces-foreign-aid-overhaul/2784526


----------



## Julia

DB008 said:


> I think that TA has done a superb job thus far on the MH17 incident. Even your beloved Bill Shorten has agreed on this.
> 
> European leaders who are also involved should be holding their heads in shame - the term "lack of balls" quickly comes to mind.
> 
> Obama is, for a better word, a pansy. What is need is leadership during a crisis like this. Someone like JFK during the Cuban missile crisis needs to step up and tell Russia to piss off!



Agree.  Obama is big on the fancy rhetoric and small on real action.

Perhaps an influencing factor is that there were (I think?) no Americans on board MH17?

Also that America has done more than its share of trying to run other nations?

Also that Obama is actually a bit scared of Putin.  Putin is a bully.  Someone like JFK would have stood up to him, but I don't reckon Obama has the b***s.


----------



## banco

Julia said:


> Agree.  Obama is big on the fancy rhetoric and small on real action.
> 
> Perhaps an influencing factor is that there were (I think?) no Americans on board MH17?
> 
> Also that America has done more than its share of trying to run other nations?
> 
> Also that Obama is actually a bit scared of Putin.  Putin is a bully.  Someone like JFK would have stood up to him, but I don't reckon Obama has the b***s.




I'm sure the differing responses from TA and obama have nothing do with the fact that Australia has close to zero trade with russia and so can afford to burn fences whereas Obama needs Putin for the Iran negotiations etc. If only Obama would harden up like TA.


----------



## chiff

My take on the lack of US involvement.
During the coup in Kiev US politicians and head of the CIA were there if you remember.From the Russians point of view the US was undermining Russian interests in a country bordering Russia.One thing to engineer the overthrow of Gadaffi but a different ball-game for the Russians with this  intervention that close to home.This was always going to have sequels and there were, with the annexation of Crimea and separatists in Eastern Ukraine.
The US  are well advised to stay well out...they have done enough already.What if the roles were reversed with Russia agitating on the borders of the US?


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> No room to move there for Bill.
> 
> What though was Labor's motives for that UN seat ?
> 
> It took a Coalition government to put it to practical use.




Feel free to explain why the Coalition opposed the move for a seat tooth and nail, I'll give you a hint political bastardy of which Abbott is the master .


----------



## IFocus

banco said:


> I'm sure the differing responses from TA and obama have nothing do with the fact that Australia has close to zero trade with russia and so can afford to burn fences whereas Obama needs Putin for the Iran negotiations etc. If only Obama would harden up like TA.




+ the Germans are not happy with the US messing in the Euro back yard lots of complexity Geopolitical wise to paint a black and white picture who is the most hairy chested.


----------



## IFocus

DB008 said:


> Even your beloved Bill Shorten has agreed on this.
> 
> European leaders who are also involved should be holding their heads in shame - the term "lack of balls" quickly comes to mind.




1. I don't rate Shorten

2. "lack of balls" means your lack of understanding I suspect unless you are calling for an all out NATO offensive against Russia.


----------



## DB008

IFocus said:


> 1. I don't rate Shorten
> 
> 2. "lack of balls" means your lack of understanding I suspect unless you are calling for an all out NATO offensive against Russia.




If NATO had stepped in when Russia invaded Ukraine (took over the Crimean peninsula/area), the MH17 disaster would not have happened in the first place.

From most of Europe getting their energy from Russia, to the French supplying them warships. Yes, it is a complex situation, but a naughty child sometimes needs a smack on the bottom to keep them inline.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/hollande-defies-critics-over-warship-sale-to-russia-1406035404


----------



## banco

DB008 said:


> If NATO had stepped in when Russia invaded Ukraine (took over the Crimean peninsula/area), the MH17 disaster would not have happened in the first place.
> 
> From most of Europe getting their energy from Russia, to the French supplying them warships. Yes, it is a complex situation, but a naughty child sometimes needs a smack on the bottom to keep them inline.
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/articles/hollande-defies-critics-over-warship-sale-to-russia-1406035404




This naughty child has a nuclear arsenal


----------



## sydboy007

DB008 said:


> European leaders who are also involved should be holding their heads in shame - the term "lack of balls" quickly comes to mind.
> 
> Obama is, for a better word, a pansy. What is need is leadership during a crisis like this. Someone like JFK during the Cuban missile crisis needs to step up and tell Russia to piss off!




Care to provide some specific actions the Europeans and USA should undertake.



Julia said:


> Agree.  Obama is big on the fancy rhetoric and small on real action.
> 
> Perhaps an influencing factor is that there were (I think?) no Americans on board MH17?
> 
> Also that America has done more than its share of trying to run other nations?
> 
> Also that Obama is actually a bit scared of Putin.  Putin is a bully.  Someone like JFK would have stood up to him, but I don't reckon Obama has the b***s.




Exactly how do you propose Obama stand up to Putin.  Some specifics on the "real action" he should take over and above all the sanctions he's put in place.  

Russian oil production is something like 10Mbpd  Like it or not that makes Putin fairly powerful in geopolitics.  The level of European dependence on Russian gas also makes for a tricky response by European leaders.  I'd also argue it is more for Europe to take a stand and lead the actions against Russia than the USA.  eg. the UK could stop the oligarchs buying up overpriced London mansions and football teams for a start.  There's plenty of other countries in similar positions that could shut down the oligarchs escape routes should things turn nasty in Russia.



banco said:


> I'm sure the differing responses from TA and obama have nothing do with the fact that Australia has close to zero trade with russia and so can afford to burn fences whereas Obama needs Putin for the Iran negotiations etc. If only Obama would harden up like TA.




It's funny how half the time the world tells the USA to butt out, and the other half complains they wont stand up and take action.


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> Feel free to explain why the Coalition opposed the move for a seat tooth and nail, I'll give you a hint political bastardy of which Abbott is the master .



See above,

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...27364&page=166&p=834373&viewfull=1#post834373

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...27364&page=166&p=834382&viewfull=1#post834382


----------



## sydboy007

DB008 said:


> If NATO had stepped in when Russia invaded Ukraine (took over the Crimean peninsula/area), the MH17 disaster would not have happened in the first place.
> 
> From most of Europe getting their energy from Russia, to the French supplying them warships. Yes, it is a complex situation, but a naughty child sometimes needs a smack on the bottom to keep them inline.
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/articles/hollande-defies-critics-over-warship-sale-to-russia-1406035404




Lets say Australia wasn't a federation and NSW was having major issues with the Vic-South Republic over many areas of geopolitics.  The NSW Government took an aggressive stance against the Vic-South Republic, only to find their gas supplies were restricted, impacting not only on industrial capacity but households as well.  The economic impact was immediate.  Within a month major employers were shutting down, households reliant on gas in the winter were having trouble cooking and heating.

The above is pretty much the issue Europe has with Russia.  Unless other countries are willing to sell LNG to Europe for less than the cost of liquefaction, there's not much that can be done to help them with this issue.  Russia has already shown it is not above using energy as an economic weapon.

What worries me more is in 10 years time when they have plenty of reminimbi flowing in via the proposed gas pipelines they can take a far more aggressive stance against Europe than they can now.


----------



## noco

drsmith said:


> No room to move there for Bill.
> 
> What though was Labor's motives for that UN seat ?
> 
> It took a Coalition government to put it to practical use.




Rudd is still on the UN Climate Change committee to which Australia through the generosity of Combet at the Can Cun meeting in Mexico gave the UN $599,000 plus 10 % of the carbon tax to the UN climate Change committee.

Rudd desperately want that UN seat with the prospects of  occupying the seat to big note himself with his BS spin and rhetoric to impress other nations that he should eventually be the UN Secretary General. 

It is the 4th time Australia has held that seat which is for a term of 2 years only....there are 129 members of which only 15 have a seat.

Maybe it was wrong for Abbott to oppose the application but he did so because he wanted Gillard at the time to show more representation to Indonesia  when the the borders were left open for a flood of illegal refugees.


----------



## Julia

IFocus said:


> I have been thinking the same and wondered if any others would say some thing.
> 
> What are a couple of hundred lightly armed Aussies going to do against thousands of armed lunatics fighting a war.
> 
> I wonder if the Coalition arrogance extends to pushing Russian armed militias around in its back yard?
> 
> Abbott's mission to Ukraine branded 'nuts'
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...randed-nuts-20140726-3cm8r.html#ixzz38cI4Gywl






SirRumpole said:


> This is a bipartisan operation, and any PM in this position would receive the support of the opposition.
> 
> It's worth mentioning that it's a lot easier to get a resolution into the UN Security Council when you actually have a seat on it, which is something the Rudd/Gillard governments worked very hard for.






SirRumpole said:


> If you want to be that mendacious, it could be said that Abbott and Bishop used the Council seat to make themselves look good in the eyes of the electorate. Now I hope you won't drag this incident down any further than you already have.




I just can't help contrasting the above remarks of Labor acolytes, with their grudging, critical tone, with that of basilio, someone very clearly of the Left in most of my observations, who said on the MH17 thread:


> I think Tony Abbott is going to get some good recognition for the way he has initially led world outrage on the issue and then worked the UN to make effective security council resolutions on investigating the disaster.
> 
> I think the war talk rhetoric has subsided and been replaced with the personal horror of the loss of life and determination to have some sort of justice.
> 
> Good work..




No qualifiers.  No criticisms.  Simply an acknowledgement of good handling of a crisis situation.
I have little in common with basilio's world view, but do appreciate the simple generosity of spirit shown in this post.


----------



## ChrisJH

noco said:


> Rudd desperately want that UN seat with the prospects of  occupying the seat to big note himself with his BS spin and rhetoric to impress other nations that he should eventually be the UN Secretary General.




Do you have anything other than baseless conjecture and BS rhetoric to support your claim that Rudd supported a UN security seat because he wants to be UN Secretary General?  Or do you just like to spout random hyperbole?


----------



## SirRumpole

> I just can't help contrasting the above remarks of Labor acolytes, with their grudging, critical tone, with that of basilio, someone very clearly of the Left in most of my observations, who said on the MH17 thread:




I notice you don't criticise the grudging critical tone of people who can't bring themselves to acknowledge the work done by the previous Labor governments in getting a seat on the security council.

Yes the government has done all it could in this crisis, but it couldn't have done as much as it has without the previous work by Rudd and Bob Carr, so why not give some credit where it's due ?

DB008 seems the only person on this forum capable of being fair minded enough to simply acknowledge that that work gave us an advantage in this situation that we would not otherwise have had.


----------



## noco

ChrisJH said:


> Do you have anything other than baseless conjecture and BS rhetoric to support your claim that Rudd supported a UN security seat because he wants to be UN Secretary General?  Or do you just like to spout random hyperbole?




Thanks for your "kind thoughts" about me...I really appreciate how well you "respect" me.

Chris, I would like to take you back to the thread :- Kevin Rudd :The next UN Secretary General.

I must admit it was a notion on my part at the time and I will stand by it today....Kevin Rudd wanted to be the next UN Secretary General and it back in 2010.....I based it on consensus of the events running up to it all and as you will note in the link below Bob Carr was of the same opinion.

Yes, the Labor Party did put a lot of effort in to securing the 4th Australian seat since 1946 but it did cost a lot of foreign aid, to I believe some 7 or 8 African countries, with the help of the Governor General Quintin Bryce.....in other words these African countries were bribed......I recall from memory the GG's expenses alone ran into some $90,000.  

It was also about that time Kevin Rudd tried to  bring about a peaceful settlement between Russia and the Ukraine and had he been successful, then perhaps the events of the past week with the shooting down of MH17 may not have occurred.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...etarygeneral-job/story-fnihsrf2-1226890042244


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> I notice you don't criticise the grudging critical tone of people who can't bring themselves to acknowledge the work done by the previous Labor governments in getting a seat on the security council.
> 
> Yes the government has done all it could in this crisis, but it couldn't have done as much as it has without the previous work by Rudd and Bob Carr, so why not give some credit where it's due ?
> 
> DB008 seems the only person on this forum capable of being fair minded enough to simply acknowledge that that work gave us an advantage in this situation that we would not otherwise have had.



Can't you recognise that it's a pleasant change to have someone acknowledge the efforts of a PM he otherwise probably dislikes, just for that behaviour itself?  I'd love to see more of this.  There are good people on both sides of politics, and good ideas on both sides.

I didn't and don't want to get into anything to do with Kevin Rudd whom I believe was and always will be essentially motivated by whatever gets Kev noticed.   

Even if we had not got that seat at the UN (which is very temporary afaik) I thought Mr Abbott's response was very good - outraged at the atrocity, compassionate toward the families of the many Australian victims, and outspoken with respect to Putin's attempt to deny any responsibility.   That's what I was focusing on rather than anything to do with the UN which has shown itself to be pretty impotent in most situations.


----------



## sydboy007

Hopefully Tony gets the memo before committing too much in the way of limited funding.

http://www.ycat.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Draft-IA-Roads-Report.pdf

_“Australia has a true gambler’s addiction to roads,” the report says.

“The money spent is not a rational investment. Governments assume that major improvement is just around the corner, if they could just spend more.”_


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> http://www.ycat.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Draft-IA-Roads-Report.pdf



A quick glance to me suggests that main theme is public vs private funding.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> A quick glance to me suggests that main theme is public vs private funding.




The PM wants to be know as Mr Infrastructure, and he's flat out refused to invest in public transport, disregarding that this might produce the biggest returns on investment.

It also looks like the same kind of forecasts that have seen most of the PPP toll roads go broke are the same kind of forecasts being used to push ahead with increased road funding.

Supposedly a key promise for Abbott was any Govt funding over $100M would require a CBA.  He broke that promise twice before the election.

With the budget constrained as it is, we HAVE TO get the best bang for buck we can from the limited $$$ available for infrastructure, otherwise we just fall further behind the rest of the world.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> The PM wants to be know as Mr Infrastructure, and he's flat out refused to invest in public transport, disregarding that this might produce the biggest returns on investment.



He's offering to fund a greater proportion of national road projects relative to the states leaving state governments  with more to invest in public transport such as urban rail but that's another story. 

I'll take it from your response (you didn't disagree) that the above article is indeed about public vs private funding of roads.


----------



## basilio

Yep Tony Abbott has been strong and effective over the the shooting of MH17. But as I said this is not an issue that we want to see turned into a major conflict.

I agree with Julia that it is worthwhile acknowledging some worthwhile, perhaps excellent, actions by politicians. But that still doesn't mean they offer good  government.

For example one could find some great polices by Adolf Hitler particularly in his early years of power. In fact you can find many European leaders who openly admired Adolf's success in reducing unemployment, recreating national pride and pulling the country together from 1932-35.  Winston Churchill incidentally was one of them..

*I have very little time for Tony Abbott.* I think he has singlehandedly destroyed the capacity of the Australian community to have sensible discussions on complex political issues. His use of simplistic slogans like Stop the Boats , and Abolish the Carbon Tax as policy has made intelligent debate very difficult. 

I don't even want to think about his mad  policy on addressing climate change. There isn't a single economic or scientific person in this country who thinks it makes sense. That has to be some sort of record.

The budget however brings together all the one eyed, ideological baggage Tony Abbott carries.  There is an argument for re-balancing our incomes and expenditures as a country over the next decade.  But it isn't a simple black and white issue. This government's budget has decided that the whole problem with the out of whack budget lies with the poor, the old, the unemployed and those with disabilities. So they have coped quite extreme measures in an attempt to "balance the books".  For a look at just how this conversation could/should be addressed check out Ross Gittins analysis. 

It's just  fairer and makes sense - something this government appears incapable of doing.


> *Fairer path to a balanced budget
> *
> Date
> July 28, 2014 - 12:24AM
> 
> Ross Gittins
> 
> Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott are perfectly right in saying we need to get the budget back into surplus, we need to make a start now and that this will inevitably involve unpopular measures.
> 
> But this makes it all the more puzzling that, lacking a majority in the Senate and being unable to claim a "mandate" for breaking many election promises, they should adopt such a highly ideological and unfair collection of budget measures.
> 
> In a three-part essay on John Menadue's blog last week, Dr Michael Keating, former senior econocrat, argues that as a nation we're "unlikely to succeed in charting a viable way forward to fiscal sustainability until governments are prepared to subject their views to a proper conversation based on a clear appreciation of the pros and cons of the different alternatives.
> 
> "Only in that way can the public support be built that is required to achieve future fiscal sustainability. In present circumstances it is hardly surprising that this necessary support is not forthcoming, when less than 12 months ago the government promised in the election to both spend more and tax less and now seeks to impose a most unfair budget on the community with no prior warning nor any such mandate."
> 
> If we are to chart a way forward and establish the necessary public understanding and consensus, he says, we particularly need to drop the ideology surrounding the merits of taxation versus expenditure and consider the claims of each tax and expenditure proposal on its merits.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/fairer-path-to-a-balanced-budget-20140727-3cntl.html#ixzz38lVU51Tt


----------



## drsmith

basilio said:


> *I have very little time for Tony Abbott.* I think he has singlehandedly destroyed the capacity of the Australian community to have sensible discussions on complex political issues. His use of simplistic slogans like Stop the Boats , and Abolish the Carbon Tax as policy has made intelligent debate very difficult.



You think simplistic slogans are limited to one of politics or just Tony Abbott.

Kevin Rudd was going to terminate the carbon tax and, well, we all remember Julia Gillard's one liner on it from the 2010 election campaign.

Simplistic slogans extend right across the political spectrum and they do so because they are effective.


----------



## SirRumpole

> No qualifiers. No criticisms. Simply an acknowledgement of good handling of a crisis situation.
> I have little in common with basilio's world view, but do appreciate the simple generosity of spirit shown in this post.




Fair enough at this stage, but what has the governments actions actually delivered ? A statement of regret on the "downing" of MH17. All very well, but recovery and investigations teams still cannot get into the site to investigate, and remove evidence or bodies.

If Abbott/Bishop used that Security council seat to get a UN task force in to secure the area and protect investigators then I would say that they have achieved something worthwhile.

Call me mean spirited if you like, but all they have produced to date is words.


----------



## Knobby22

I agree strongly with that Ross Gittens article.


----------



## SirRumpole

Knobby22 said:


> I agree strongly with that Ross Gittens article.




So do I. An excellent example of what could have been done if we had a fair minded government instead of the elitist class warriors we currently have.


----------



## orr

Knobby22 said:


> I agree strongly with that Ross Gittens article.




The majority of Australians agree with with Ross Gittens on this issue.This Budget is a dead cat, The Government revved up the 'emergency' rhetoric to meet their ideological ends. It stands now exposed for it's double standards and mixed messages promoted only by the fatuous protestations of its authors.


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> Fair enough at this stage, but what has the governments actions actually delivered ? A statement of regret on the "downing" of MH17. All very well, but recovery and investigations teams still cannot get into the site to investigate, and remove evidence or bodies.
> 
> If Abbott/Bishop used that Security council seat to get a UN task force in to secure the area and protect investigators then I would say that they have achieved something worthwhile.
> 
> Call me mean spirited if you like, but all they have produced to date is words.



And the Labor government would have somehow walked amongst the active warmongering factions, held up their hand with a Peace sign, and before the majesty of their presence, all the warring factions would meekly melt away, providing unimpeded access to the crash zone?  

What do you expect the government to do exactly?

And don't confuse what is the Australian government's responsibility with what is the responsibility of the usually ineffectual UN.


----------



## noco

Julia said:


> And the Labor government would have somehow walked amongst the active warmongering factions, held up their hand with a Peace sign, and before the majesty of their presence, all the warring factions would meekly melt away, providing unimpeded access to the crash zone?
> 
> What do you expect the government to do exactly?
> 
> And don't confuse what is the Australian government's responsibility with what is the responsibility of the usually ineffectual UN.




While that Greenie Ban-Ki-Moon is the UN Secretary General, the UN will remain a toothless tiger.

We need our  Kevvie in the top job to get some action to save the world from disater.LOL


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> And the Labor government would have somehow walked amongst the active warmongering factions, held up their hand with a Peace sign, and before the majesty of their presence, all the warring factions would meekly melt away, providing unimpeded access to the crash zone?
> 
> What do you expect the government to do exactly?
> 
> And don't confuse what is the Australian government's responsibility with what is the responsibility of the usually ineffectual UN.




I don't know what Labor would have done and that situation won't arise so there is no point speculating.

What I  want the government to do now is to publicly request an armed UN task force to go into the area to secure the crash site. If the UN can't even manage that then there is no point going any further, and we have to ask why bother with the UN at all. At least our government can make a stand and try to stimulate action on what should clearly be an international effort of practical purpose, instead of a mealy mouthed statement signifying nothing.


----------



## Julia

Good that you acknowledge the wussiness (not sure if that's a word) of the UN, Rumpole.   Mr Abbott, Ms Bishop et al can hardly all by themselves order some suitably armed UN force to tackle the warring factions.

Do you have any practical suggestions for how a resolution might be achieved, rather than just carping from the sidelines?  Do you think, for example, that Mr Putin bears some responsibility for having his rebel force withdraw, at least long enough to allow investigators to do their job?

It must be heartbreaking for the families of the people who died.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> Good that you acknowledge the wussiness (not sure if that's a word) of the UN, Rumpole.   Mr Abbott, Ms Bishop et al can hardly all by themselves order some suitably armed UN force to tackle the warring factions.
> 
> Do you have any practical suggestions for how a resolution might be achieved, rather than just carping from the sidelines?  Do you think, for example, that Mr Putin bears some responsibility for having his rebel force withdraw, at least long enough to allow investigators to do their job?
> 
> It must be heartbreaking for the families of the people who died.




As I'm not a member of government all any of us can do is "carp from the sidelines".

Tony Abbott can't order anything. But he can make a request for UN protection for recovery teams. 

If the UN turn him down that just shows how useless they are. The Secretary General may feel obliged to defend his organisation by actually doing something positive, otherwise he would be exposing his own weakness.

What has the government got to lose by making a request ?

Of course Putin bears some responsibility, but don't you think you should tell him personally instead of carping from the sidelines ?


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> So do I. An excellent example of what could have been done if we had a fair minded government instead of the elitist class warriors we currently have.




Class warriors?

Well that takes the biscuit Horace,  the most absurdly ironic post on ASF.... ever.


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> Class warriors?
> 
> Well that takes the biscuit Horace,  the most absurdly ironic post on ASF.... ever.




Give that man a cigar


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> Give that man a cigar




Ok, but please,  no photographs.


----------



## Julia

wayneL said:


> Class warriors?
> 
> Well that takes the biscuit Horace,  the most absurdly ironic post on ASF.... ever.



It has plenty of competition from the same author.
I give up, Rumpole.  There are genuine discussions and debates and then there is just determined partisan cussedness.

I'll leave you to it.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> It has plenty of competition from the same author.
> I give up, Rumpole.  There are genuine discussions and debates and then there is just determined partisan cussedness.
> 
> I'll leave you to it.




What  I was saying was summed in in the Ross Gittins article. The majority of the Hockey budget robbed the poor to give to the rich. Simple as that. That's what a class war is about.

 Most of the country including yourself acknowledges that the budget was unfair, I don't see how telling it like it is can be described as "cussedness". Perhaps continued defense of the indefensible is.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> What  I was saying was summed in in the Ross Gittins article. The majority of the Hockey budget robbed the poor to give to the rich. Simple as that. That's what a class war is about.




Come on Rumpy.....please come up with something new.......I have been hearing that talk from the Fabians for the past 70 years.......You know as well I do, people in this country have never been better off than they are now......things always improve under  Liberal/National Government and then become chaotic under a Fabian Government......just look at 20007/2013.......enough said.


http://www.couriermail.com.au/busin...-economic-demise/story-fnkjjoue-1227006208538


----------



## noco

noco said:


> Come on Rumpy.....please come up with something new.......I have been hearing that talk from the Fabians for the past 70 years.......You know as well I do, people in this country have never been better off than they are now......things always improve under  Liberal/National Government and then become chaotic under a Fabian Government......just look at 20007/2013.......enough said.
> 
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/busin...-economic-demise/story-fnkjjoue-1227006208538







*Business
Prime Minister Tony Abbott must act now to reverse Australia’s economic demise

    Jessica Irvine
    News Corp Australia Network
    July 30, 2014 12:00AM


The president of the Business Council of Australia, Catherine Livingstone, this week correctly identified Australia as at a crossroads. But her prescriptions for growth — reducing red tape, harmonising regulations and a greater government focus on promoting winning industries like mining, agriculture and energy — fall short of the mark.

The truth is, business should not be looking to government to set the agenda.

Has done all it can to stimulate the economy ... Reserve Bank Governor Glenn Stevens at t

Has done all it can to stimulate the economy ... Reserve Bank Governor Glenn Stevens at the RBA in Sydney

Reserve Bank governor, Glenn Stevens, said it best last week: “My sense is that in a lot of areas of business people are sitting around tables saying yeah somebody needs to do something and we’re waiting for someone else to do it.”

All governments can really do to help business in the long term is to get out of the way as much as possible. The main way governments interfere with the market is through taxation.

As a party committed to small government, the Coalition should be a natural champion of reforms to increase the base and rate of the GST and use the revenue to fund tax cuts on the rewards from labour and profitmaking investments.

But if a government can’t sell the need to increase excise on petrol to the Greens, what hope have we that it can mount the case for a higher rate of GST — a great big new tax on everything?

Glenn Stevens again: “The key question might ultimately be really whether the current processes can result in collective confidence in the country that we can actually grapple with difficult issues, long term issues, have a sensible conversation and come up with some solutions.”

Australia’s economy does stand at a cross roads; it’s time to push ahead on the path of economic reform.

Prime Minister Abbott has demonstrated honorable leadership on the international stage in the wake of the MH17 tragedy.

At some stage, it will be time to return thoughts to home and the reform challenges we face.

That time is fast approaching.

JESSICA IRVINE IS NATIONAL ECONOMICS EDITOR
Originally published as Our economic dream run is over Comments
*
Abbott is doing his level best to fix the mess left by the Green/Labor left wing socialist but is being hamstrung by idiots in the Senate who have no interest in the welfare of this nation....they only have self interest


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Come on Rumpy.....please come up with something new.......I have been hearing that talk from the Fabians for the past 70 years......




And you keep trotting out your IPA nonsense of total privatisation of every public service so that the LNP  mates in business can build their empires and rip us all off.

You realise that soaring power prices are the result of network privatisation by both Labor and Liberal governments ? That's one example of the IPA dogma of stuff the customer as long as someone can make a profit.
,


----------



## Knobby22

The point Jessica is making is that the Abbott Government has completely failed to sell the reforms. In my view (and many others) it is due to the fact that the budget is a highly ideological and unfair collection of budget measures.

If anything is to be achieved this term there needs to be a game changer. In my view Abbott and Hockey should be shown the door, new leadership of the Liberal party should occur and the budget be recast so as to be fair and then they would be able to get some measures through. 

I heard on the radio the other day the commentator was shocked that people under 30 dislike this government. 
Well, if you were under 30 what's to like? You are told your retirement age is now 70, if you lose your job you will get no unemployment for  6 months (imagine what would happen if you had children or didn't get on with your parents), if you go to Uni your fees are going to at least double, if you do charity for Landcare (I know young people who do work at the weekends for this) the funding has been drastically cut, on the same basis if you are worried about global warming - don't be, you are told that the older unemployed will be given employer subsidies to beat you at getting a job when the unemployment rate at this age is well above 25% and finally houses are too dear to buy as foreign and local investors are buying them all up with government taxation subsidies. 

Well What a surprise! I found it funny that the conservative radio commentator was expressing shock. maybe the Libs should think about appealing to this section of the electorate. If things don't change they will be a one term government.


----------



## artist

wayneL said:


> Class warriors?
> 
> Well that takes the biscuit Horace,  the most absurdly ironic post on ASF.... ever.




“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” 
 - Warren Buffett


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> And you keep trotting out your IPA nonsense of total privatization of every public service so that the LNP  mates in business can build their empires and rip us all off.
> 
> You realise that soaring power prices are the result of network privatisation by both Labor and Liberal governments ? That's one example of the IPA dogma of stuff the customer as long as someone can make a profit.
> ,






Really!!!..... I don't recall ever mentioning anything about privatization.....But nevertheless, it may have to be done to pay off the Green/Labor socialist left wing debt in both state and Federal Governments.

Perhaps you would prefer to lift the GST to 15% as they have done in New Zealand, but Labor and Liberal are terrified to do it for fear of being ostracized.


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> What  I was saying was summed in in the Ross Gittins article. The majority of the Hockey budget robbed the poor to give to the rich. Simple as that.




What?   What you were saying was nothing to do with the budget!    It was all about how Tony Abbott has failed to have the warring sides in the Ukraine parting like Moses with the Red Sea, to allow investigators entry to the crash site.   That no, you had no idea what Labor would have done.   That it was up to Tony Abbott to talk Mr Putin into ordering his acolytes to desist fighting whilst investigators did their job.  Never mind the Dutch with a far greater stake, the Malaysians also, not to mention the Americans.  No, not at all.  All up to Mr Abbott.

And now you start on about the budget, somehow, weirdly, conflating the two utterly different issues.
And fwiw Ross Gittins is well known for presenting the Left view.  He is a reporter.  I'd take a bit more notice of people like Glenn Stevens, Martin Parkinson, Chris Richardson et al.



Knobby22 said:


> The point Jessica is making is that the Abbott Government has completely failed to sell the reforms. In my view (and many others) it is due to the fact that the budget is a highly ideological and unfair collection of budget measures.



Haven't we been all through this before?




> if you lose your job you will get nounemployment



Sigh.   You will receive taxpayer support if you are unemployed if you are studying or training, if you cannot find a job.  That's what Joe Hockey has said.

And re power prices:  I can only comment on my local area, but no privatisation here and prices have about tripled in not too many years.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> What?   What you were saying was nothing to do with the budget!




Huh ? 

Now I'm confused. You quote  WayneL quoting me on class warfare and you said " I give up". I was replying to your comment by referring to the Gittens article.

As to MH17, I gave a simple example of something that it is quite possible for Abbott/Bishop to do (request UN protection for recovery crews), that they haven't done. What is your problem with that suggestion ? Do you have any others ?

 I'd be interested because all I hear is great accolades for actions that have so far produced very little in the way of practical results.


----------



## wayneL

artist said:


> “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
> - Warren Buffett




1) What is Buffet's understanding of Australian socioeconomic situation?

2) Do you think Buffet might just have been commenting on American socioeconomics, rather than Australian?

3) Do you think America's SE situation could possibly different to Australia's?

Astonishingly absurd irony leads straight to astonishingly unintelligent argumentative fallacy!

Sheesh, and the left fancies themselves as intellectuals. The evidence strongly points to the opposite.


----------



## chiff

Anyone know how  the wealth distribution rates in Australia compare to that in the US?For instance twenty percent hold 80 percent of the wealth-something like that that relates to relative equality in the different populations.


----------



## Julia

chiff said:


> Anyone know how  the wealth distribution rates in Australia compare to that in the US?For instance twenty percent hold 80 percent of the wealth-something like that that relates to relative equality in the different populations.




In the wake of an answer to your above question, the next question you could ask might be "why is it so?"


----------



## SirRumpole

chiff said:


> Anyone know how  the wealth distribution rates in Australia compare to that in the US?For instance twenty percent hold 80 percent of the wealth-something like that that relates to relative equality in the different populations.




I'm sure a google for something like "Australia wealth distribution" may reveal something, like perhaps

http://theconversation.com/income-and-wealth-inequality-how-is-australia-faring-23483


----------



## Julia

Knobby22 said:


> The point Jessica is making is that the Abbott Government has completely failed to sell the reforms. In my view (and many others) it is due to the fact that the budget is a highly ideological and unfair collection of budget measures.



Your preferred alternative would appear to be the Labor way of just keeping on spending, increasing debt, so that perhaps you won't have to service that debt, but your children probably will.  
Of course people don't like it when governments cut spending.  But as I've suggested before, for the taxpayer dollars to be made available for your children to have subsidised tertiary education, someone else is going to have to do without, such as the carer of someone with severe disability, dementia, or  someone who has a mental illness who cannot get a much needed psychiatric bed in a psychotic crisis.
We all want what we want, Knobby.

There has always been something to be negative about.  Up to the individual whether that's the only way they see it, or whether instead they'll say  "this situation is what it is, so I have to figure out a way to make the best of it".  Kids doing it tough will need to combine resources and share accommodation.   We've all done that, or most of us.   And that first home doesn't have to be a family home in a good suburb.  Start small after you've done the sums for what return your investment will deliver.  Or live with your parents, or share with friends, in order to buy the first place as an investment.  Lots of choices.  But if you don't believe they exist, then you'll never see them.  Too focused on what you hate.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> someone else is going to have to do without, such as the carer of someone with severe disability, dementia, or  someone who has a mental illness who cannot get a much needed psychiatric bed in a psychotic crisis.




Have you ever given any thought to the possibility that a  reason that there are too few psychiatric beds is that there are too few qualified staff to service them ?

If the taxpayers want services then they should be prepared to contribute something towards the availability of those services.


----------



## Knobby22

I disagree.  

I want the Liberal government to make cuts. There are many ways this can be achieved. I believe in Liberal values as espoused by their founder. 

I don't mind if they make tougher rules and cut out a lot of the middle class welfare that Howard and then Gillard put in.

I have said I agree with some of the policies such as having a small price to pay to visit the doctor (though maybe there should be a smaller limit for pensioners). I am even for the fuel tax rise though I don't see why diesel should miss out.

It is true that as part of the unemployment rules the Coalition will be giving some money to the Salvation Army etc. to help people living on the Street but I think this is a bit harsh. Surely they can achieve their aims in other ways.

Why change the rules to allow banks to sell investment products with commissions rather than giving proper advice (I mean Joe Hockeys's Mum got ripped off). (There is a good article on that in yesterday's Age. An international advisory firm followed a large number of investors and found a large percentage of investors got ripped off without ever realising it and very few got good advice.) 

That the age pension isn't reduced, people have super forced on them now so surely the demands on the age pension will drop over time. It is pretty low as it is. 

Why are we cutting State budgets forcing public hospitals to be downgraded over time with the view of forcing a GST rise. 

Why not give a carrot to encourage people to work to 70 rather than just forcing them to? Some people will not be capable.

I have a view that it is best for all Australia that the kids that go to Uni are the smartest ones, not the richest ones.
Even before Whitlam there was a way for smart kids to go to Uni, there were called scholarships. Why not narrow the number of university courses instead?

I have gripes that the coalition could deal with to lower taxes and meet the budget:

Why are the taxes lower for mining as compared to oil drillers? 
Why are we hearing there will be tax cuts coming at the next election from these savings, isn't this a direct take from the poor and give to the rich approach? 
Why has the company tax fallen? Why are foreign companies allowed to make millions and pay no tax? The fourth largest mining company in the world XStrata has many mines in Australia yet never pays any taxes. (They do donate heavily to both major parties though).
Why have we let investors drive up house prices with tax advantages that ordinary first home buyers cannot compete with and also drain the government coffers? Also why do we let foreign buyers also drive up houses (I thank PM Kev for that!).

Why are we letting people come in with working visas yet not following them up to see they are not being abused?
Why are we bringing in firemen with working visas (for gods sake!) rather than training our own children?

When Howard bought in his tough budget, everyone took bigger and tougher cuts  than these and it was seen as fair. 
He also flagged some of the changes and never lied. Why can't we have a government that does that?


----------



## Knobby22

Julia said:


> Of course people don't like it when governments cut spending.  But as I've suggested before, for the taxpayer dollars to be made available for your children to have subsidised tertiary education, someone else is going to have to do without, such as the carer of someone with severe disability, dementia, or  someone who has a mental illness who cannot get a much needed psychiatric bed in a psychotic crisis.
> .




As stated above, there will be less money due to the cuts to the States, yet we can expect tax cuts in time for the elections! It doesn't follow that if you cut one public service that it will automatically flow to other services that are needed.


----------



## sydboy007

chiff said:


> Anyone know how  the wealth distribution rates in Australia compare to that in the US?For instance twenty percent hold 80 percent of the wealth-something like that that relates to relative equality in the different populations.




We've moved back into a time where capital wins over labour.  Australia has a tax system that rewards converting income into capital gain combined with rewards for speculation.

John oliver shows it pretty well how it is i n the USA, and we're not far behind in Australia

[video=youtube_share;LfgSEwjAeno]http://youtu.be/LfgSEwjAeno?t=12m7s[/video]


----------



## artist

wayneL said:


> 1) What is Buffet's understanding of Australian socioeconomic situation?
> 
> 2) Do you think Buffet might just have been commenting on American socioeconomics, rather than Australian?
> 
> 3) Do you think America's SE situation could possibly different to Australia's?
> 
> Astonishingly absurd irony leads straight to astonishingly unintelligent argumentative fallacy!
> 
> Sheesh, and the left fancies themselves as intellectuals. The evidence strongly points to the opposite.




Basilio offered the opinion that “This government's budget has decided that the whole problem with the out of whack budget lies with the poor, the old, the unemployed and those with disabilities. So they have coped quite extreme measures in an attempt to "balance the books" ”, and quoted Gittins’ article in support of this view.

Knobby22 and SirRumpole said they agree with Gittins. SirRumpole added that he saw this budget’s priorities and policies as those of “the elitist class warriors we currently have.” and Orr thinks that “The majority of Australians agree with with Ross Gittens on this issue.”

Your response was “Class warriors? Well that takes the biscuit Horace, the most absurdly ironic post on ASF.... ever.“

I thought of at least 3 ways in which you might have interpreted SirRumpole’s comment to be “absurdly ironic”, but you didn’t elaborate. So, at its simplest and in the context established above, the issue seems to be one of class warriors and therefore (necessarily) class warfare, a state of affairs that Warren Buffett recognises.

You know, I am sure, that class warfare is not limited to just one country, economy or socioeconomic order in the world, so for someone to hold the opinion that it is present in Australia is not an opinion to be derided or dismissed out of hand.

As to your questions to me:

1)	I have no idea what Buffet's understanding of Australia’s socioeconomic situation is, and I suspect you don’t either. I do know however that he understands that, to the extent that socioeconomic policies in Australia mirror those in USA, then class warfare is being waged here too.

2)	I don’t “think Buffet might just have been commenting on American socioeconomics, rather than Australian .  ” I know for a fact he was referring specifically to his proposed “Buffett Rule”  in USA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffett_Rule and http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...class-has-won/2011/03/03/gIQApaFbAL_blog.html  where, in the video at the bottom of the page, he elaborates a little, and note especially his point at about 2 minutes).

3)	I “think America's SE situation could possibly [be] different to Australia's “, but the differences are small and diminishing, and hence do not invalidate prima facie the use of the term class-warfare in Australia. 

“Astonishingly absurd irony leads straight to astonishingly unintelligent argumentative fallacy!”

Because you accused SirRumpole of the absurd irony, I take it the “astonishingly unintelligent argumentative fallacy” gibe is directed to me. That s an offensive comment to make, and an erroneous assertion.

“Sheesh, and the left fancies themselves as intellectuals. The evidence strongly points to the opposite.” 

An intended insult that deserves only the response that, if you are of the opinion that there are no intellectuals on the left with regard to socioeconomics, you have not read enough.


----------



## sydboy007

So it seems the Abbott Government isn't happy with the ever diminishing $$$ in households pockets after the carbon tax was revoked.

Now they want to whack every internet user, and if you don't actually use it I'm sure some of the companies you buy goods and services from do, with a metadata storage tax.  iiNet are already forecasting it might cost in the $5-10 per month range for each internet subscriber.  Why so expensive you might ask?

Imagine keeping a log of every webpage you visit, every connection you computer makes for say skype or VOIP, file transfers.  You name it, every IP your home and mobile internet connects to will be recorded.  Businesses alone will generate petabytes of fairly sensitive information to be stored at pretty much their own expense so the Government or agencies can access whenever they want to without a warrant.

These stores of metadata will turn into giant honey pots for the hacker world.  Insurance companies will be rubbing their hands over increased policy revenue to insure against data breaches or fines by the Govt.

Factor in that ISPs will now have to come up with some way to automate the stripping out of all private data so that only the metadata is stored.  I'm not sure how likely it is to be a totally manual process.  

Don't be fooled by the term metadata either.  The Govt likes to make out it's not particularly revealing, but just a few days worth of it can show a lot about your personal life.  Studies have already shown using metadata it was possible to determine if someone had an illness, who their friends were, where they worked and lived.  With enough sample points you can have a very intimate understanding of a an individual's life.

Some interesting questions pop up with the policy like:

* If a data breach occurs can the data be relied on in court?  Is it possible to guarantee the data has not been altered after a breach?

* What kind of fines will ISPs face if they incorrectly store private data along with metadata?  It makes the information potentially even more valuable to hackers.

* Roughly $40 a year makes this surveillance tech pointless, and I'd argue anyone doing something illegal would be using VPNs and apps that provide encrypted messaging and voice calls.  SGP technologies has released the android based blackphone that provides near NSA levels of security out of the box for a relatively low price.

So while the $150-200 a month NBN internet plans didn't happen, the Abbott Government does seem to be set on making a significant contribution to the cost of internet access in the near future.  Add this to their draconian plans for protection of geo blocking and the Australia tax on media content, while making ISPs into enforcement  agencies, and we're slowly moving the way towards a covert police state.


----------



## SirRumpole

> while making ISPs into enforcement agencies, and we're slowly moving the way towards a covert police state.




I think you covered the issue well. 

Police just can't be trusted with this sort of data, it has been known for some to maliciously access or alter data to secure convictions.

Also the possible covert selling of data to other parties, like insurance companies, finance companies and  potential employers is of concern.


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> Have you ever given any thought to the possibility that a  reason that there are too few psychiatric beds is that there are too few qualified staff to service them ?



If you think that's the case, then perhaps you could put up some evidence to that effect.
Most people with psychosis, at times of crisis, simply need a safe place where they feel supported.  



> If the taxpayers want services then they should be prepared to contribute something towards the availability of those services.



Indeed.  Which is essentially my point.  In contrast, you and others who criticise the government's attempts to redress Labor's ticking up of the credit card, seem to believe no remedial measures need to be taken.



Knobby22 said:


> As stated above, there will be less money due to the cuts to the States, yet we can expect tax cuts in time for the elections! It doesn't follow that if you cut one public service that it will automatically flow to other services that are needed.



Agree about the tax cuts, Knobby.   I'm sure, however, that you absolutely understand the point I was making in terms of the total 'pool of taxpayer funded dollars'.  Unless you are prepared to sanction an increase in taxes in various areas, and/or an increase in the GST, there is simply only so far the government can make the pool stretch.

You probably don't need to worry anyway.  Given Labor's breathtaking hypocrisy of now not even agreeing with their own measures for savings when they were in government, plus PUP's grandstanding (and ignorance), most of the government's proposed budget will not get through the Senate.

So Australia can go on borrowing to pay the interest and the debt will continue to grow, and everyone will sail on, happy that they are not required to personally make any adjustment to their demands.


----------



## noco

Julia said:


> If you think that's the case, then perhaps you could put up some evidence to that effect.
> Most people with psychosis, at times of crisis, simply need a safe place where they feel supported.
> 
> 
> Indeed.  Which is essentially my point.  In contrast, you and others who criticise the government's attempts to redress Labor's ticking up of the credit card, seem to believe no remedial measures need to be taken.
> 
> 
> Agree about the tax cuts, Knobby.   I'm sure, however, that you absolutely understand the point I was making in terms of the total 'pool of taxpayer funded dollars'.  Unless you are prepared to sanction an increase in taxes in various areas, and/or an increase in the GST, there is simply only so far the government can make the pool stretch.
> 
> You probably don't need to worry anyway.  Given Labor's breathtaking hypocrisy of now not even agreeing with their own measures for savings when they were in government, plus PUP's grandstanding (and ignorance), most of the government's proposed budget will not get through the Senate.
> 
> So Australia can go on borrowing to pay the interest and the debt will continue to grow, and everyone will sail on, happy that they are not required to personally make any adjustment to their demands.




Everybody is happy so long as money is flowing into their pockets from the Government but do not try to take it back because you will make yourself unpopular and that is what is happening now with the current Government.....nobody wants to pay for the previous Governments extravaganza.

You cannot make the poor richer by making the rich poorer.


----------



## sydboy007

http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/co...ons/papers/Final_Report_Part_1/chapter_12.htm

Labor were foolish to ignore it.  Abbott is foolish to ignore it and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce a report that will quite likely have a lot of similar recommendations.  At the very least Hockey could have used some of the recommendations to make the budget a lot fairer.

I would argue a fairer way to balance the budget would be to target some of the 363 tax expenditures available.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam..._Library/pubs/BriefingBook44p/TaxExpenditures

_Tax expenditures are reported in an annual statement by Treasury. In 2012–13, there were 363 tax expenditures provided under the Australian tax system, *the total value of which was estimated at approximately $115 billion, or 7.5% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)*. For comparison, total government direct spending in 2012–13 was about 23.5% of GDP._

Some of the larger tax expenditures - see page 12 of the below report

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam..._Library/pubs/BriefingBook44p/TaxExpenditures


Capital gains tax main residence exemption ”” discount component $16,500M
Capital gains tax main residence exemption $13,500M
Capital gains tax discount for individuals and trusts $4,300M
Exemption of the private health insurance rebate, including expense equivalent $1,450M
Application of statutory formula to value car benefits $810M

Bring back RBLs with super to stop massive tax leakage from those using super for tax minimisation instead of retirement income.

Bring in some form of CGT on the primary residence over a certain value - ~ $800K is the current nation wide median so possibly using that figure and a progressive scale is one way forward.  It provides a massive tax shelter and incentive to have over capitalised property in the country and does little to actually help make a more productive economy.

Work with the states to bring in a broadly based land tax for all commercial and residential properties.  Make some form of concession for farms and resource based industries.  This would be a very efficient tax and allow income and corporate taxes to be reduced.

Last year Treasurer Joe Hockey walked away from a Labor commitment to begin taxing superannuants’ earnings over $100,000 per annum, foregoing over $3 billion in revenue.  As Treasury revealed in the budget, the annual cost of superannuation tax concessions is set to surge in coming years, making the current cost ”” nearly $32 billion ”” look paltry as it rises to a remarkable $50 billion in 2017-18. At that point the cost of superannuation will exceed the cost of the age pension ”” despite one of the core goals of Australia’s superannuation system being to reduce the call on the budget from retirement.

The Government has foregone $7.6B in carbon tax revenue but left all the associated tax breaks and benefits increases in place.


----------



## SirRumpole

> If you think that's the case, then perhaps you could put up some evidence to that effect.
> Most people with psychosis, at times of crisis, simply need a safe place where they feel supported.






> Mental Health Workforce Challenges
> A major issue to be addressed underpinning the implementation of the policy is the current and projected
> nationwide skills shortage in the mental health sector. This skills shortage relates to both a fundamental
> undersupply of mental health professionals
> 4
> in all key disciplines and a pressing need to update knowledge,
> culture and practice in the mental health workforce
> 5
> .
> The immediate challenge will be adding up to 1,700 EFT (three quarters of which are from clinical disciplines)
> to the youth mental health workforce over the next four years. The potential EFT required in the key clinical
> disciplines to implement current youth mental health policy is illustrated in Graph 1
> 
> http://oyh.org.au/sites/oyh.org.au/files/ymh_reform_workforce_report_0.pdf




The report is for youth mental health, but indicates a nationwide shortage of professionals, which would apply to all areas of mental health services.


----------



## SirRumpole

> Indeed. Which is essentially my point. In contrast, you and others who criticise the government's attempts to redress Labor's ticking up of the credit card, seem to believe no remedial measures need to be taken.




That is a gross misrepresentation which is unworthy of you. Many of us have discussed remedial measures which we believe are necessary and are much fairer to all than the current budget.

 If people choose to ignore the alternatives and continue to back a grossly unfair budget in the face of a wider and justified condemnation of it, then one has to wonder about the objectivity of those people.


----------



## wayneL

artist said:


> Basilio offered the opinion that “This government's budget has decided that the whole problem with the out of whack budget lies with the poor, the old, the unemployed and those with disabilities. So they have coped quite extreme measures in an attempt to "balance the books" ”, and quoted Gittins’ article in support of this view.
> 
> Knobby22 and SirRumpole said they agree with Gittins. SirRumpole added that he saw this budget’s priorities and policies as those of “the elitist class warriors we currently have.” and Orr thinks that “The majority of Australians agree with with Ross Gittens on this issue.”
> 
> “



Notwithstanding that criticisms of the budget may be valid, the fallacy here is confirmation bias. That all of the posters mentioned are clearly of the left or center left, agreeing with a leftist commentators is not surprising.



> Your response was “Class warriors? Well that takes the biscuit Horace, the most absurdly ironic post on ASF.... ever. I thought of at least 3 ways in which you might have interpreted SirRumpole’s comment to be “absurdly ironic”, but you didn’t elaborate. So, at its simplest and in the context established above, the issue seems to be one of class warriors and therefore (necessarily) class warfare,



The extreme irony is that Horace's inference was that this government is uniquely motivated by class warfare. Whether or not this government is motivated by class distinction or not is irrelevant, however the inference it is uniquely so is ludicrous, as the the leftist parties are so clearly and openly motivated by class warfare.



> a state of affairs that Warren Buffett recognises.
> 
> You know, I am sure, that class warfare is not limited to just one country, economy or socioeconomic order in the world, so for someone to hold the opinion that it is present in Australia is not an opinion to be derided or dismissed out of hand.




Buffett recognises the state of affairs in his own country and commented on his perception of what the state of play is there. In no way is that necessarily a reflection on the state of play in Australia, as depending on one's point of view, the ledger is probably weighted more to the other side, in this country and elsewhere.



> As to your questions to me:
> 
> 1)	I have no idea what Buffet's understanding of Australia’s socioeconomic situation is, and I suspect you don’t either. I do know however that he understands that, to the extent that socioeconomic policies in Australia mirror those in USA, then class warfare is being waged here too.
> 
> 2)	I don’t “think Buffet might just have been commenting on American socioeconomics, rather than Australian .  ” I know for a fact he was referring specifically to his proposed “Buffett Rule”  in USA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffett_Rule and http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...class-has-won/2011/03/03/gIQApaFbAL_blog.html  where, in the video at the bottom of the page, he elaborates a little, and note especially his point at about 2 minutes).
> 
> 3)	I “think America's SE situation could possibly [be] different to Australia's “, but the differences are small and diminishing, and hence do not invalidate prima facie the use of the term class-warfare in Australia.
> 
> “Astonishingly absurd irony leads straight to astonishingly unintelligent argumentative fallacy!”
> 
> Because you accused SirRumpole of the absurd irony, I take it the “astonishingly unintelligent argumentative fallacy” gibe is directed to me. That s an offensive comment to make, and an erroneous assertion.




As both Rumpole's and your point are clearly and demonstrably fallacious, it is not offensive, merely observational and in no way erroneous.



> “Sheesh, and the left fancies themselves as intellectuals. The evidence strongly points to the opposite.”
> 
> An intended insult that deserves only the response that, if you are of the opinion that there are no intellectuals on the left with regard to socioeconomics, you have not read enough.




Yeah you caught me with my own fallacy there, bygones. There certainly are some intellectuals on the left, even if I find their premise often disingenuous, misrepresentation and class motivated. I just find it irksome to be hypocritically bombarded with fatuous and asinine slogans from both here and on my FB feed.

And just for the record, I am not of the right.


----------



## SirRumpole

> The extreme irony is that Horace's inference was that this government is uniquely motivated by class warfare. Whether or not this government is motivated by class distinction or not is irrelevant, however the inference it is uniquely so is ludicrous, as the the leftist parties are so clearly and openly motivated by class warfare.




I don't believe I ever indicated that I believe that the Coalition is unique in undertaking "class warfare".

However, considering the income and wealth distributions, the class that the Coalition goes into bat for represents a much lower  number of people than those that Labor bat for. I believe I used the word "elitist" describing the Coalition, ie indicating that it represents a small number of high income earning people and businesses.


----------



## basilio

*How to treat your citizens with contempt and disrespect.*

Insist that those out of work and applying for unemployment benefits make 40 job applications a month in order to perhaps receive the benefit. This totally disregards the reality of 10 times more people out of work than any jobs available.

Then, when employers are concerned about having to even view (let alone process) the anticipated deuge of  job applications for non existent jobs, point out a particular Catch 22 in the system.

People on UB can be cut off if they actually send 40 job applications a month. You see each and every job application has to be hand crafted, individually addressed to particular jobs that meet the skills and capacities of the applicant. 

Great work guys.  You will be  well remembered at the next election.


*Jobseekers' payments will be cut if they spam employers, ministers warn*



> Abbott government responds to business concerns over 40-job-a-month target with vow to penalise ‘unsatisfactory’ applications
> 
> 
> Daniel Hurst, political correspondent
> theguardian.com, Wednesday 30 July 2014 18.59 AEST
> Jump to comments (324)
> 
> Hands on a keyboard Jobseekers who use online services to indiscriminately apply for jobs to meet targets will lose payments, the government says. Photograph: Alamy
> 
> Unemployed people face the loss of payments as a punishment for spamming employers with unsatisfactory applications to meet tough job search rules, the Abbott government has warned.




http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-be-cut-if-they-spam-employers-ministers-warn


----------



## sydboy007

basilio said:


> *How to treat your citizens with contempt and disrespect.*
> 
> Insist that those out of work and applying for unemployment benefits make 40 job applications a month in order to perhaps receive the benefit. This totally disregards the reality of 10 times more people out of work than any jobs available.




made all the worse when the Government is:


Removing restrictions on 457 visas so increasing foreign access to the local jobs market
The overall unemployment rate is now 6%, and 13.5% for 15-24 year olds. In May there were 146,000 job vacancies with 720,000 people unemployed. Another 920,000 were underemployed and wanting more hours of work. Underemployment is a very important labour market indicator as, under the terms of internationally agreed labour statistics collection, an individual is counted as employed if working one hour a week for pay or profit.
Altogether, these figures mean 1.64 million people who have no work or not enough work are potentially competing for available job vacancies.
While the labour force underutilisation rate of 13.5% suggests that there are around 10 potential job applicants for each vacancy…
Forecasting jobs growth at less than population growth for the next 5 years so the above 10 candidates per job issue will continue to escalate.

So when there's not enough jobs to go around NOW, and you're forecasting there will be even less jobs to around over the next 5 years, why is the Government allowing the potential for a large increase in 457 visas on top of still above average population growth due to immigration?  The only conclusion I can come to is to put continual pressure on wages.


----------



## ghotib

wayneL said:


> Notwithstanding that criticisms of the budget may be valid, the fallacy here is confirmation bias. That all of the posters mentioned are clearly of the left or center left, agreeing with a leftist commentators is not surprising.



Wayne sweetie, you gotta stop taking your logic lessons from Anthony Watts. 

Confirmation bias is part of human psychological makeup. We've all got it; it just shows up at different times on different issues in different people. Pointing out another person's confirmation bias says nothing about whether they're right or wrong, or even whether they're making a valid or an invalid argument. It just says they're human. And since we're all human, that doesn't add much to a discussion.

Now why don't you go play with that nice Aristotle; he's much cleverer than silly (but human) old Wattsthatagain.


----------



## Julia

Just a couple of points I omitted to address yesterday:


Knobby22 said:


> I have said I agree with some of the policies such as having a small price to pay to visit the doctor (though
> maybe there should be a smaller limit for pensioners).



Good to know.  I spent five minutes with a GP last week = $56 - and then $48 for script not on the PBS.
Then there's another $2000 p.a. for another drug which is no longer on the PBS.  So it's a bit hard to see why someone can't pay $7.   But again, it's obviously not going to get through the Senate anyway.



> I am even for the fuel tax rise though I don't see why diesel should miss out.



Yet even the Greens are possessed of so much hypocrisy that they won't let this through!



> Why change the rules to allow banks to sell investment products with commissions rather than giving proper advice



Agree, but also acknowledge no amount of legislation will ever stop people being taken advantage of if they allow that to happen.



> Why not give a carrot to encourage people to work to 70 rather than just forcing them to? Some people will not be capable.



No one has to work until they are 70.  You can retire tomorrow if you can afford it.   I'd hope that more people will respond by taking the need to provide for their own retirement a bit more seriously.


----------



## Knobby22

Julia said:


> No one has to work until they are 70.  You can retire tomorrow if you can afford it.   I'd hope that more people will respond by taking the need to provide for their own retirement a bit more seriously.




Good point, but if you get sick and can't work or are a labourer and can't work, you can't then claim a pension so are forced to use your super. 

I suppose that this will apply to people 15 years or more off retirement so logically by then you should have a reasonable amount of super so it won't be so bad. 

If you haven't got much super because you are on a low paying job will you be forced to use it all before 70? Maybe this policy just needs a bit of finessing. 

What happens if you blow it all on those dodgy property borrowing schemes? (I can't believe they are allowed - they were brought in by Labor surely the Libs can get rid of them)


----------



## sydboy007

Knobby22 said:


> What happens if you blow it all on those dodgy property borrowing schemes? (I can't believe they are allowed - they were brought in by Labor surely the Libs can get rid of them)




Technically Howard introduced borrowing for SMSFs, Labor then went to make things worse by giving the green light for housing via non recourse loans, and now the spruikers can smell massive amounts of stoopidity and greed in equal parts just waiting to be fleeced.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Technically Howard introduced borrowing for SMSFs, Labor then went to make things worse by giving the green light for housing via non recourse loans, and now the spruikers can smell massive amounts of stoopidity and greed in equal parts just waiting to be fleeced.




Just like the poor health workers were fleeced by the HSU.......Craig Thomson, Michael Williamson and Kath Jackson took from the poor to give to the rich.......all three were on very big salaries and did not need to do what they did to those poorly paid workers.......Greedy union bosses who invariably finish up in Parliament to do it all again.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Just like the poor health workers were fleeced by the HSU.......Craig Thomson, Michael Williamson and Kath Jackson took from the poor to give to the rich.......all three were on very big salaries and did not need to do what they did to those poorly paid workers.......Greedy union bosses who invariably finish up in Parliament to do it all again.




This maybe a first. A post by noco that doesn't mention Fabians


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> This maybe a first. A post by noco that doesn't mention Fabians




No worries Rumpy....pleased to put a smile on your face..

I hate watching grown men cry.

I'll be back.


----------



## Julia

Knobby22 said:


> Good point, but if you get sick and can't work or are a labourer and can't work, you can't then claim a pension so are forced to use your super.



Or live on the dole.  This is, of course, assuming the government's proposals get through which looks very unlikely.  Your point about people doing physical labour is realistic.



> I suppose that this will apply to people 15 years or more off retirement so logically by then you should have a reasonable amount of super so it won't be so bad.



And perhaps, understanding that they won't be able to physically keep up the work they did when they were 20, they will prioritise saving for their retirement.  I imagine this is what the government has in mind when suggesting 70 as the age when someone will become eligible for taxpayer funded pension.



> What happens if you blow it all on those dodgy property borrowing schemes? (I can't believe they are allowed - they were brought in by Labor surely the Libs can get rid of them)



People make choices all the time.  There have always been dodgy operators in all fields.  We have to learn to avoid them.   A reasonable amount of regulation is a good thing, but there's simply no way you can legislate to avoid all human greed and lack of common sense.

If someone 'blows their super' on some get rich quick scheme, then I suppose they will become eligible to be funded in retirement by their fellow Australians who have been a bit more circumspect.  Is that fair?



sydboy007 said:


> Technically Howard introduced borrowing for SMSFs, Labor then went to make things worse by giving the green light for housing via non recourse loans, and now the spruikers can smell massive amounts of stoopidity and greed in equal parts just waiting to be fleeced.



No one is forcing anyone to participate in dodgy schemes.   Why would you expect government to protect people from themselves.
However, I was also less than impressed when borrowing was OK'd for SMSFs, largely because the people who are likely to do it wisely will be far outnumbered by those who have little idea about the responsibilities of properly running their own fund.



noco said:


> Just like the poor health workers were fleeced by the HSU.......Craig Thomson, Michael Williamson and Kath Jackson took from the poor to give to the rich.......all three were on very big salaries and did not need to do what they did to those poorly paid workers.......Greedy union bosses who invariably finish up in Parliament to do it all again.



I haven't followed this in detail, but it seems Kathy Jackson is turning out to be somewhat removed from the angel of purity she set herself up to be.  She seems to be offended that she also should be required to provide answers to the Commission's questions.

PS  Knobby, it's appreciated that we can have a debate without point scoring for the sake of it, and a genuine willingness to see each other's point of view.  Thanks.


----------



## wayneL

ghotib said:


> Wayne sweetie, you gotta stop taking your logic lessons from Anthony Watts.
> 
> Confirmation bias is part of human psychological makeup. We've all got it; it just shows up at different times on different issues in different people. Pointing out another person's confirmation bias says nothing about whether they're right or wrong, or even whether they're making a valid or an invalid argument. It just says they're human. And since we're all human, that doesn't add much to a discussion.
> 
> Now why don't you go play with that nice Aristotle; he's much cleverer than silly (but human) old Wattsthatagain.




Condescension doesn't count as logic Ms Fishy, nor does third person ad hominem.

Yes we all have cognitive biases, awareness of them helps to ameliorate them somewhat. Raging bias and fallacy is not useful for discussion however so when you can set these aside, feel free to add to the debate.


----------



## Ves

wayneL said:


> Yes we all have cognitive biases, awareness of them helps to ameliorate them somewhat.



Actually a lot of the research in the past few years seems to disagree with that.   There is a concept called bias blind spot, in fact awareness can actually make it worse in some cases believe it or not!   Make of it what you will.


----------



## wayneL

Ves said:


> Actually a lot of the research in the past few years seems to disagree with that.   There is a concept called bias blind spot, in fact awareness can actually make it worse in some cases believe it or not!   Make of it what you will.




Cites please.


----------



## Smurf1976

basilio said:


> People on UB can be cut off if they actually send 40 job applications a month. You see each and every job application has to be hand crafted, individually addressed to particular jobs that meet the skills and capacities of the applicant.




It might work in Sydney and Melbourne but it's a ridiculous idea in regional areas including the whole of the NT, Tas and ACT.

How, exactly, does one apply for 40 jobs per month if there aren't 40 jobs to apply for?

Take, for example, the workers about to lose their jobs at Energy Brix (Morwell, Vic). They've got 4 other similar employers in the area (ie coal-fired power stations) they could apply for jobs with and a few other heavy manufacturing type industries. But then what? Short of applying for non-existent jobs at hotels, retail stores and dairy farms, there's not much they can do to actually meet the requirement short of moving to a major city. And moving isn't necessarily a viable option for anyone who owns a house in a region with limited job opportunities.

Or what about the workers at Queenstown (Tas) losing their jobs due to closure of the mine? I doubt there's even 40 actual employers as such in the area, it's basically the mine, a few shops and hotels etc, a tourist railway and that's it. So again their only option is to relocate.

Even for someone who lives in, say, Darwin, Hobart or Adelaide they would still struggle to find 40 jobs for which they are suitable in many cases. Eg someone loses their job in a factory in Adelaide because it closes - it's not as though they just pick 40 other factories and apply for jobs there. To do that, you need to have 40 relevant jobs actually vacant in the first place and that's a big ask when practically every employer with similar work is also struggling to survive. Retraining such workers would make far more sense.

I can see this one ending up turning business owners into Labor supporters once they (1) get sick of the flood of applications for jobs that don't exist in the first place and (2) realise just how pointless an exercise it all is to be wasting everyone's time and money. It's not as though your average business owner is screaming out that nobody ever applies for available positions, now is it? 

A much fairer approach would be to require applying for all suitable jobs within a set distance of the unemployed person's residential address. Otherwise we end up with unemployed truck drivers applying for office jobs that they haven't a clue how to actually do. Etc.


----------



## Ves

wayneL said:


> Cites please.



The term was invented by a lady called Emily Pronin and her team at Princeton.

Think you can find her papers linked off the wiki or do a goggle search.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_blind_spot

It's a pretty fascinating subject.


----------



## SirRumpole

> A much fairer approach would be to require applying for all suitable jobs within a set distance of the unemployed person's residential address. Otherwise we end up with unemployed truck drivers applying for office jobs that they haven't a clue how to actually do. Etc.




I would like to see the government give some thought to helping suitable unemployed to start their own business instead of requiring them to waste their time applying for jobs they will never get.

 A pool of unemployed people could get together to start a cleaning business, or grocery home delivery, or come to your home or office car service/cleaning to name but a few.

Once people get the idea that they can earn money with a degree of freedom from overbearing employers, they may never look back.

Worth a try I reckon.


----------



## wayneL

Ves said:


> The term was invented by a lady called Emily Pronin and her team at Princeton.
> 
> Think you can find her papers linked off the wiki or do a goggle search.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_blind_spot
> 
> It's a pretty fascinating subject.




However, in the studies, the people did not appreciate that they have biases themselves, yes that is a bias blind spot. However one who has an appreciation of their own biases is a different matter.

Interesting indeed, I see it a lot in the field I operate in, both bias and bias blind spots.


----------



## Ves

wayneL said:


> However, in the studies, the people did not appreciate that they have biases themselves, yes that is a bias blind spot. However one who has an appreciation of their own biases is a different matter.
> 
> Interesting indeed, I see it a lot in the field I operate in, both bias and bias blind spots.



There is also the Hansen one (Pronin may again have been involved).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24562289

I agree that it is great to know about biases and logical fallacies,  but there's a possible catch 22 scenario in applying the knowledge.

I think this kind of behavioural psychology is still pretty young,   will be interesting to see how it evolves by the time I'm a much older (and maybe wiser) man.


----------



## Knobby22

Seen on a tshirt in Melbourne

Abbott puts the N in Cuts.


----------



## basilio

> Condescension doesn't count as logic Ms Fishy, nor does third person ad hominem.




You clearly can't even understand  or mount a logical argument can you Wayne ?  That was the thrust of Ghotlibs post sweetie. If you had anything concrete to say about* the content and different options *of Ross Gittins budget analysis you could have argued them.

But you didn't did you ? Far easier to pontificate about cognitive biases isn't it without trying discuss the topic.

And comparing your style to Anthony Watts ? Fair call IMO. You both offer some of the most selective and warped view of scientific evidence I have yet seen.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> You clearly can't even understand  or mount a logical argument can you Wayne ?  That was the thrust of Ghotlibs post sweetie. If you had anything concrete to say about* the content and different options *of Ross Gittins budget analysis you could have argued them.
> 
> But you didn't did you ? Far easier to pontificate about cognitive biases isn't it without trying discuss the topic.
> 
> And comparing your style to Anthony Watts ? Fair call IMO. You both offer some of the most selective and warped view of scientific evidence I have yet seen.




Well you're entitled to your cognitively biased opinion and even to indulge in peurile ad hom, as I am entitled to my opinion of you. But Ill just keep that to myself


----------



## IFocus

Ves said:


> Actually a lot of the research in the past few years seems to disagree with that.   There is a concept called bias blind spot, in fact awareness can actually make it worse in some cases believe it or not!   Make of it what you will.




Thanks for raising this Ves there has been some outstanding examples of the said condition by Abbott and Costello on their fairness / ideology blind spot


----------



## sydboy007

It's a couple of days since I highlighted there's *363 tax expenditures* that could have been targeted to help with the budget.  I knew we had a lot of holes in the tax system, but 363 just in tax expenditures is one of the reasons we have world beating levels of revenue loss.

Instead the argument seems to revolve (devolved) around biased fallacies (or is that phallicies considering the mainly male contributors)

For a stock / economically focussed website so often the discussion is anything but.

Surely there's plenty to discuss in terms of preferable ways for the Government to get the budget on a more balanced footing.  Sayign the current budget attempt is unfair does not automatically make one against getting the budget balanced, though if you are against it then at least don't do a labor / PUP and provide some alternative measures rather than the Abbottesque NO NO NO.

Even taking out the tax free status of the primary residence still leaves plenty of tax expenditures fat that could be hacked into.  Surely plugging some of the holes in the leaky tax sieve is as good, if not better option in a slowing economy, as to spending cuts to move the structure of the budget in a better direction.

I find it incomprehensible the same Govt who thought keeping a log book for 3 months was just tooo onerous believes 40 job applications a month is perfectly reasonable.  Ideology does not make good policy.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> I find it incomprehensible the same Govt who thought keeping a log book for 3 months was just tooo onerous




What a crock of ****e that was by the Coalition. It made a great scare campaign though.


----------



## basilio

> I find it incomprehensible the same Govt who thought keeping a log book for 3 months was just tooo onerous believes 40 job applications a month is perfectly reasonable.  Sydboy 007




I disagree Sydboy on this one.  I think this could be the core of a very, very good idea.

Let's imagine shall we, that say 10,000 job seekers take on board the idea of seriously writing to  some of the largest employers groups  looking for work.  

Imagine if they put together a strong cover letter, an effective resume and a willingness to have a go at a variety of positions if  offered an opportunity.

Imagine if they have access to the email addresses of the HR officers of these orgs, and perhaps a few CEO's as well. Each month they send these, say 200 companies,  *400,000 emails * with resumes touting their skills and willingness to be jump into the workplace - if they are given a chance. *They could even suggest that the companies forward their letters to the PM.s office to show just how committed Australians were to being gainfully employed.*

What do you think would be the effect of such an activity on the people, the companies and the government ? 

Any thoughts ?


----------



## sydboy007

basilio said:


> I disagree Sydboy on this one.  I think this could be the core of a very, very good idea.
> 
> Let's imagine shall we, that say 10,000 job seekers take on board the idea of seriously writing to  some of the largest employers groups  looking for work.
> 
> Imagine if they put together a strong cover letter, an effective resume and a willingness to have a go at a variety of positions if  offered an opportunity.
> 
> Imagine if they have access to the email addresses of the HR officers of these orgs, and perhaps a few CEO's as well. Each month they send these, say 200 companies,  *400,000 emails * with resumes touting their skills and willingness to be jump into the workplace - if they are given a chance. *They could even suggest that the companies forward their letters to the PM.s office to show just how committed Australians were to being gainfully employed.*
> 
> What do you think would be the effect of such an activity on the people, the companies and the government ?
> 
> Any thoughts ?




Hmm.  Trying to decide if there's a level of sarcasm in there or if you're being for real.

Will take it at face value and say:

* The Government has already come out and said the jobs you apply for have to be a fit for your current skill set, so applying for a job and saying you're willing to learn may not pass muster with the dole police.

* I work in IT and have seen a massive down shift in the willingness of employers to help with training of staff.  These days IT companies would much rather compete for the same pool of skilled workers than actually employ someone who's got a bit of talent and initiative and let them skill up on the job.  The expectation these days is to work full time and then use your personal time to gain more skills, sit exams at your own expense.

Look to the resource companies and the way they let their skilled work forces atrophy then had the audacity to whinge when wages took off like a rocket.

Now if you're post was sarcastic, I'm all for it.  Employer groups are already getting worried about being inundated with annoying applications.  If the unemployed help to bring their nightmares into reality I'm sure the BCA and ACCI will be giving Abbott and Abetz plenty of encouragement to get rid of this stoopid idea.

I'd really hoped these though bubble policy decisions would be finished with Labor, but the Abbott Government seems to be bringing them out at least as fast as Rudd ever did.

Still waiting for the supposed adults to show themselves.


----------



## Julia

I've no doubt basilio's post was if not actually sarcastic, very much tongue in cheek.

The government has already conceded that the 40 applications per month was an overreach.
Sadly, just another example of them failing to think something through properly before making an announcement.
And, I suppose, an example of their collective lack of real life/business experience.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> Sadly, just another example of them failing to think something through properly before making an announcement.
> .




Equally sad is their desire for punishment of their class enemy (I don't think that is too strong ), than actually trying to create jobs or find people work.

The main targets for these punitive measures should be young long term unemployed who show no desire to get jobs, and I think we all know that these people exist, although we don't know the proportion of unemployed that they make up. 

People who have been in and out of jobs, or just entering or reentering the workforce should be given the benefit of the doubt and assisted with finding a job, by funding application costs such as transport, professional resume writers and employment agencies.

I agree with Julia that a lot more thought should be put into this problem. The "solutions" proposed by the Coalition is indicative of a lazy one size fits all sledgehammer approach to a complicated problem.


----------



## Bintang

basilio said:


> I
> 
> 
> Imagine if they have access to the email addresses of the HR officers of these orgs, and perhaps a few CEO's as well. Each month they send these, say 200 companies,  *400,000 emails * with resumes touting their skills and willingness to be jump into the workplace - if they are given a chance. *
> 
> What do you think would be the effect of such an activity on the people, the companies and the government ?
> 
> Any thoughts ?*



*

The companies SPAM boxes would get overloaded and the IT guys would be asked to fix it.
Therefore an increase in IT jobs would be one result.*


----------



## orr

Knobby22 said:


> Seen on a tshirt in Melbourne
> 
> Abbott puts the N in Cuts.





Cnuts????... is that something to do with his take on the Monarchy?


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> Equally sad is their desire for punishment of their class enemy (I don't think that is too strong ), than actually trying to create jobs or find people work.



I really don't think that's the basis of their thinking, Rumpole.  More just a lack of understanding of the reality of some people's lives, where - no matter how many training courses they dutifully do - they're just unlikely to get a job.   Technology has removed many of the jobs people like that could do and did with pride.   I do believe that at least most of the government is motivated by the strong belief, which most of us here would share, that a person with a job is going to have a greater sense of self belief, satisfaction at earning for themselves, making a contribution, being part of the mainstream etc than sitting around doing nothing useful.

The liberal philosophy is founded on the notion that governments should not do for anyone what they can do for themselves.  I strongly support that, and expect you do too.

But they need to be realistic.   There are many more unemployed than jobs available, and the unemployed know that.  Yes, it's good to be pro-active in applying for as many jobs as possible, but I expect there's little that's more soul destroying than to have sent off hundreds of applications without receiving so much as an acknowledgement in return.

One of the problems, if I'm understanding the situation correctly, is that the employment agencies receive funding based on how many people are on their books.  Wouldn't it be more sensible for them to be funded only for those people for whom they find a job?



> The main targets for these punitive measures should be young long term unemployed who show no desire to get jobs, and I think we all know that these people exist, although we don't know the proportion of unemployed that they make up.



I don't know either.  Neither do I know the proportion of benefit recipients who spend it largely on booze and cigarettes.   But from more than 12 years with a community agency assessing emergency relief applications, I'd say it is very small indeed.

So I'm appalled by Andrew Forrest's suggestion that all recipients of government benefits, except age pensioners and veterans, should be subjected to a cashless managed income, presumably with a card or vouchers that will restrict what they can buy.

This is effectively saying to people, we don't think you're responsible enough to appropriately work out your own budget, even when most of these folk will have been doing a great job of managing the paltry amount they receive over many years.
It would be to create a second class of citizen.

Yes, Andrew, it was necessary in some grossly dysfunctional aboriginal communities where all the money went on grog, but there is no indication that's the case in the broader community.

I hope the government will dismiss this insulting suggestion.  That really would be class warfare.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Equally sad is their desire for punishment of their class enemy (I don't think that is too strong ), than actually trying to create jobs or find people work.
> 
> The main targets for these punitive measures should be young long term unemployed who show no desire to get jobs, and I think we all know that these people exist, although we don't know the proportion of unemployed that they make up.
> 
> People who have been in and out of jobs, or just entering or reentering the workforce should be given the benefit of the doubt and assisted with finding a job, by funding application costs such as transport, professional resume writers and employment agencies.
> 
> I agree with Julia that a lot more thought should be put into this problem. The "solutions" proposed by the Coalition is indicative of a lazy one size fits all sledgehammer approach to a complicated problem.




It is probably better than a Green/Labor wrecking ball approach.


----------



## basilio

Thanks for the feedback on my proposal for jobseekers to take "seriously" the governments desire for the unemployed to make 40 job applications a month.

I accept it is a far out idea. In effect it is a response to the utter madness of the governments intention of forcing the unemployed to make  ridiculous numbers of job applications for non existent jobs.

My proposal takes on board the challenge of the non existant jobs and invites job seekers to show just what they have to offer as employees and repeatedly invite the largest companies to actively consider them for new positions.

My thinking is  that actually taking on board the governments BS proposal would certainly show up it's stupidity.  But on another level I would like to think that if 10,000/ 50,000/ 100,00 jobseekers did put their best foot forward in a concerted effort to show they were ready, willing and capable of  being employed then the current demonisation of the unemployed would be comprehensively challenged.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> It is probably better than a Green/Labor wrecking ball approach.




Care to explain that comment ?


----------



## SirRumpole

> Technology has removed many of the jobs people like that could do and did with pride.




Yes, and so has a reduced desire for customer contact by businesses.

Three of the big employment prospects for unskilled youth 20 years ago were petrol pump attendants, bank clerks and checkout staff. The first has been almost completely replaced by self service, and the last two are well on the way to that result via ATMs.

I don't think that the creeping casualisation of the work force through technological change and the desire by business for as little contact with the pesky customer as possible has fully made its mark on some of our politicians who seem to think that jobs are as easy to get as they always have been. I think it's just basic laziness and head in the sand attitude by politicians, plus the ivory tower syndrome as well.



> The liberal philosophy is founded on the notion that governments should not do for anyone what they can do for themselves. I strongly support that, and expect you do too.




Yes I do believe that up to a point. 

The government has great resources which it can channel into the solving of problems. Individuals generally have few resources by comparison. Whilst it is beholden on the individual to do as much for him/herself as they can it is also beholden on the government to help future taxpayers to attain that status for the benefit of both. Those individuals who do not make an effort can't expect continual help from the rest of us. Those that do try can and should be helped to remove themselves from the role of a burden to that of a contributor.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Care to explain that comment ?




Rumpy, you stated the Coalition Government were using "sledge hammer" approach on one to fit all, meaning they are determined to cut down on welfare cheats.....however, no matter what governments try to do to reduce unemployment, there will always people who will be unemployable.....people who do not have the intelligence to do some of the most simple things.......I once had a paper products factory......I showed a young employee 23 times how to tie up a bundle of newspaper...he still could not do it after the 23 rd time.......I gave up in the end......the end result was he finished up on the unemployment scarp heap. 

The Green/Labor wrecking ball approach to our economy resulted in higher unemployment, a large deficit, a huge  debt, thousands of businesses going to the wall with so much red tape, a reduction in business confidence, mining ventures put on hold and the wrecking of the live cattle trade with Indonesia.

Now that's what I call a wrecking ball!


----------



## SirRumpole

> One of the problems, if I'm understanding the situation correctly, is that the employment agencies receive funding based on how many people are on their books. Wouldn't it be more sensible for them to be funded only for those people for whom they find a job?




If the first statement is true (I don't know but I'll take your word for it), then there seems to be an incentive for an agency to have full books and not find people jobs. In which case , your second statement makes perfect sense.


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> One of the problems, if I'm understanding the situation correctly, is that the employment agencies receive funding based on how many people are on their books.  Wouldn't it be more sensible for them to be funded only for those people for whom they find a job?(




Problem with this is agencies will screen potential applicants and those with little to no qualifications, or extended periods of unemployment would basically get excluded from assistance.  Why help someone with a low chance of gaining employment if you only get paid on successful outcomes?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...rational-harmful-bias-against-the-unemployed/

_It’s maddening to see such imaginary fears become real barriers to solving our employment crisis. A field study by Northeastern University economics Ph.D. candidate Rand Ghayad and another led by Kory Kroft at University of Toronto sent out fake resumes to employers. *The studies found strong evidence that employers’ willingness to consider applicants dropped like a stone after the candidates had been unemployed for six months.* The companies actually preferred candidates with no relevant experience to those with a background in the field but who’d been out of work for a stretch._

I'm not sure how we overcome this issue.  It's probably similar to other prejudices like against older workers, and sometimes young workers too.

I do feel there is a sense in society that if you're long term unemployed it's because you want to be, or you're just not putting enough effort into finding a job, and that's what the Government was trying to tap into.  I'm glad that so far it looks likely to have failed.  Possibly the increased job insecurity has played a part to this.

The best solution would be to focus on improving the tradeables sector, especially manufacturing to create jobs, but I fear the hollowing out that the RBA has allowed to occur with their high dollar policy will make future employment prospects quite bleak for an extended period.  

Possibly being a bit less risk adverse and creating a fund for startups and small business might be a way forward.  Not sure if it's possible to replicate silicon valley, but certainly there's plenty of talent in the USA we could hire to help with vetting potential companies for Govt assistance in their initial stages.  Make sure they have some skin in the game, and also get some of the rewards of success, along with the Govt.  Done right I'd say it could get to the stage of being like the CEF where the income it earns could eventually lead to it being self funded.  

FIIG has teamed up with with MH Carnegie to provide debt financing - Alternative Debt Service - for companies that were too small for MH Carnegie to take a stake it, but are still screened by them since they have a level of expertise with investing in entrepreneurial and high growth companies.  Those willing to take on the higher risk can gain access to higher yield bonds.  Why can't the Govt do something similar since the banks have pretty much exited this space?  With historically low interest rates the Govt could provide finance to appropriately vetted companies and wouldn't need to charge obscene interest rates, which would hopefully increase the chance of success for the borrowing companies.

We urgently need to move away from being a quarry and house flipping economy before it's too late.


----------



## boofhead

As someone that has been the unemployment system a few times and talked to a few that have worked in it - the system is broken. JSA (Job Services Australia - no idea if it has been renamed yet) companies want to take credit for jobs clients get when the JSA company had nothing to do with it - for the extra finacial rewards. Many develop crappy inhouse training courses to get govt funds. There is a lack of measuring how well the courses work.

Over time the JSA companies evolve to be more efficient at ticking the correct boxes with the govt to keep the money coming in. Far too many that work for the JSA companies don't have their heart and mind in the jobs. It is simply a job for them too. Those that put in the effort are very clear. They actually communicate properly with their unemployed clients. They take an interest in their client and develop an understanding. Such client managers are rare (at least in NW Tasmania) and seem to have their managers on their back more.

Govt ministers views on how the system works is very different to the experience of many those that it is designed to assist. The changes seem to be more about the politics and not about the national best interest. It does drive some people out of the system which makes the unemployment figures look better.

So many of the Work for the Dole programmes are useless. A small number of good projects get the publicity and the majority of the people never learn about how many of the projects exist and how unhelpful for the unemployed they are.

It all looks to me as a case of politics and the desire to look like they are doing something without doing much.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> The Green/Labor wrecking ball approach to our economy resulted in higher unemployment, a large deficit, a huge  debt, thousands of businesses going to the wall with so much red tape, a reduction in business confidence, mining ventures put on hold and the wrecking of the live cattle trade with Indonesia.
> 
> Now that's what I call a wrecking ball!




The real "wrecking ball" was the high AUD brought about by the Labor government's success in avoiding the GFC and a strong financial regulation system (maintained by both Labor and Liberal governments) which meant that Australia was a safe haven for funds while other currencies were crashing through the floor.


----------



## Bintang

boofhead said:


> It all looks to me as a case of politics and the desire to look like they are doing something without doing much.




Boofhead, its a sad tale you tell but none of it is surprising. Just more proof to me that Government spending/welfare is not the solution to social and economic problems.

In fact the opposite is true because the political class get themselves voted into office on the back of promises to spend other peoples' money and the voters vote for them because they think this is a way for them to get ahead with the least amount of effort.

Whenever Labor Government gets into power they display a talent for making things worse. When the Coalition gets into power they try to fix things but never succeed.  Especially now when they are hamstrung by  a Senate which is awash in the most "unrepresentative swill" that our voting system has ever managed to disgorge.


----------



## Julia

sydboy007 said:


> Problem with this is agencies will screen potential applicants and those with little to no qualifications, or extended periods of unemployment would basically get excluded from assistance.  Why help someone with a low chance of gaining employment if you only get paid on successful outcomes?



OK, that's a reasonable point.  However, I don't believe it's impossible to find some compromise that is a considerable improvement on the status quo of being paid per no of clients on the books.
Boofhead has sadly confirmed the reality of the situation.

Perhaps the privatisation of job agencies was the first mistake?   Were things better when the government run CES was functioning?   Not ever having looked for a job in this country I have no idea, but some people will know about this.

I don't find it surprising that people out of work for longer are going to find it more difficult to get a job.
Potential employers will, even subconsciously, consider that no other employer has wanted this person  for x period of time.
In contrast, someone recently retrenched because of their employer falling over will likely be a more appealing candidate.

I'm not sure about assistance to the unemployed to start their own businesses.   So many fail.  I'd have thought anyone who had the talent and initiative to start something themselves would already be doing it.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> I'm not sure about assistance to the unemployed to start their own businesses.   So many fail.  I'd have thought anyone who had the talent and initiative to start something themselves would already be doing it.




Yes, some will fail, maybe most, but they will be out there trying and in doing so may run into prospective employers willing to give a go-getter a job.

Also, some capital is needed to start a business. It's hard to find that when Newstart is widely considered inadequate even for a living allowance. Applicants would have to have a business plan, you wouldn't give just anyone a grant and expect them to think something up.


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> I'm not sure about assistance to the unemployed to start their own businesses.   So many fail.  I'd have thought anyone who had the talent and initiative to start something themselves would already be doing it.




I wasn't referring to funding the unemployed to start their own business, because most would not have the mind set and skills to be successful.

We do need some form of funding for entrepreneurs and companies that have climbed a few rungs on the ladder and finding that access to debt is a constraint on their growth rates.

If the banks, or some other private sector entity were doing this then it wouldn't be too much of an issue, but since you either need real estate as collateral for the banks to be interested, or pay such high interest rates as to make the business non-viable, I think this is the kind of market failure the Govt can step into.

The issue with this kind of program is the politics, because every failure will be harped on by the media and opposition, while successes will be briefly lauded and generally forgotten about.


----------



## IFocus

Goes to the heart of this governments credibility absolutely none, what is Hockey thinking saying the budget numbers are wrong from treasury?


Government holding back on documents



> The federal government is refusing to release more detailed modelling prepared before the budget by Treasury, that shows the likely impact of the proposed measures on different household types.
> 
> Documents released under freedom-of-information legislation to Fairfax Media show the government delivered its budget fully aware its spending cuts would hit poorer households much harder than wealthier ones.
> 
> But two larger documents were withheld from the FOI request, one of 56 pages and the other of 21 pages. It is understood they show clearly how the less wealthy households would suffer far bigger falls in disposable income than richer ones, especially for families with children aged between six and 16.






> Hockey criticised Fairfax Media's report of the Treasury analysis on Monday, saying the figures did not tell the complete story.
> 
> He also denied the data indicated the government knew its budget would hit the poor the hardest. He noted it ''fails to take into account the massive number of concessional payments such as discounted pharmaceuticals, discounted transport, discounted childcare that goes to lower-income households''.
> 
> However, all of these payments had been cut in the federal budget in one way or another.
> 
> Subsidies to pharmaceuticals have been reduced, federal funding for transport discounts are being withdrawn, and there are tougher conditions to get childcare benefits. All these changes will result in lower-income earners being worse off.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...n-documents-20140804-3d4k5.html#ixzz39SUrlflD




> Malevolent? Treasurer Joe Hockey says Fairfax Media's reporting of the budget has been sometimes ''quite malevolent''.
> 
> Fairfax has been trying to provide the public with what Hockey has not - a table that has been in each of the past nine budgets and was missing in this one. Introduced by Hockey's mentor Peter Costello in 2005, it was at first called ''benefits of new measures for families'' and later ''detailed family outcomes''.
> 
> It displays the changes in real household disposable incomes expected as a result of all of the budget measures taken together. It lists the results for up to 17 different family types, among them sole parents, single and double income couples, and couples with and without children.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...one-missing-20140804-3d4k6.html#ixzz39SVDg7ip


----------



## Logique

The plug's been pulled on S18C reform, apparently by the PM himself.

The Coalition will have a job to hold on next time.


----------



## wayneL

Logique said:


> The plug's been pulled on S18C reform, apparently by the PM himself.
> 
> The Coalition will have a job to hold on next time.




Not a hope in Hades, I am already arranging my affairs for a Short'un Labor administration in just over two years time. Between these two mobs of muppets, what a disaster for Australia. 

:1zhelp:


----------



## banco

Logique said:


> The plug's been pulled on S18C reform, apparently by the PM himself.
> 
> The Coalition will have a job to hold on next time.




I expect a big backdown on PPL imminently as they'll want to put out all dirty laundry at once.  Good to see they are keeping their election promises.


----------



## sydboy007

I'll be happy if Abbott is big enough to break his PPL promise next.  They must have got some really bad polling results on the S18C reform /sic and realised they were so far out of touch with the voters they had no chance.


----------



## Bintang

wayneL said:


> Not a hope in Hades, I am already arranging my affairs for a Short'un Labor administration in just over two years time. Between these two mobs of muppets, what a disaster for Australia.
> 
> :1zhelp:




What a sad day if that happens and what pathetically short memories voters have if they think that voting back the clowns we just got rid of can make things better. The best we can do is vote in the mob that is the least incompetent. I think that's what we have now.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> I'll be happy if Abbott is big enough to break his PPL promise next.  They must have got some really bad polling results on the S18C reform /sic and realised they were so far out of touch with the voters they had no chance.




S18C 'reform' was just a thank you to Andrew Bolt for his support, and so he could say he had been hit by 'unfair' legislation.


----------



## IFocus

wayneL said:


> Not a hope in Hades, I am already arranging my affairs for a Short'un Labor administration in just over two years time. Between these two mobs of muppets, what a disaster for Australia.
> 
> :1zhelp:





I just don't think Shorten will be there...........but then I thought that about Abbott.


----------



## IFocus

SirRumpole said:


> S18C 'reform' was just a thank you to Andrew Bolt for his support, and so he could say he had been hit by 'unfair' legislation.




Back lash from indigenous caught Abbotts attention I think George Brandis is a nasty boof head recon the tensions are rising within the adults team.


----------



## IFocus

Chris Berg writes a good piece (ABC of course)


Abbott needs to hit the reset button


> The bottom line for the Prime Minister is this, and it's dire: the Government is unable to legislate its budget policies that voters don't want anyway, writes Chris Berg.






> The Abbott Government is about to learn that the hardest political manoeuvre is changing direction.
> 
> In their times, Kevin Rudd, John Howard and John Hewson tried this tricky exercise. Each fumbled.
> 
> Rudd shelved the emissions trading scheme in April 2010*. This did nothing to restore his prestige. Rudd was shelved by his colleagues two months later.
> 
> Howard tried to adjust WorkChoices when it was clear that the policy lacked popular support. The new fairness test, introduced in May 2007, did not placate WorkChoices' critics. Howard lost government and his seat.
> 
> Hewson released Fightback! in November 1991. Over the next year the Coalition bled support. Hewson tried to relaunch a softer version of the package in December 1992. It didn't help.
> 
> But those leaders had it easy. The Abbott Government is likely going to have to pull this manoeuvre quite a number of times over the next few months.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-05/berg-abbott-needs-to-hit-the-reset-button/5648206


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> Chris Berg writes a good piece (ABC of course)
> 
> 
> Abbott needs to hit the reset button
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-05/berg-abbott-needs-to-hit-the-reset-button/5648206




It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Fairfax, Labor and the Greens want Abbott to back down, then they will be 'all over him' for backing down.

Everyone acknowledges the system needs fixing, nobody wants to fix it, interesting times.lol


----------



## AAA

IFocus said:


> I just don't think Shorten will be there...........but then I thought that about Abbott.




Hope you are right. With Labor's convoluted leader selection process, Tony Abbott should call an election the moment Shorten is challenged. Labor would have to run an election campaign without knowing who they are proposing for PM


----------



## Bintang

AAA said:


> Hope you are right. With Labor's convoluted leader selection process, Tony Abbott should call an election the moment Shorten is challenged. Labor would have to run an election campaign without knowing who they are proposing for PM




I've drafted a short speech for TA to use  when that day comes:

*An Honest Speech*
Voters I am going to be honest with you today. Yes I know that’s hard to believe. But it’s true. And because I’m honest I am not going to make any hollow promises  - today or ever. Because we all know that promises get broken – sometimes with intent but at other times because that other mob are able to block our promises in the swill pen.   Instead I want you to judge me and my party based on what we are and not on what we promise.

*So what are you?* … I hear you asking.

Well for a start we are incompetent.  I swear that every candidate in my party who is standing for election today is individually and collectively incompetent.

Secondly we are greedy. We are greedy for the perks of office and the nice pensions we get after you throw us out of office. But we are not as greedy as the other mob.

Thirdly, we are big-spenders’. Yes we love to spend your money on what we think is best for you but we don’t spend as much as the other mob. 

But here’s the really important part. We are not as incompetent as the other mob. So don’t kid yourselves that by voting for them you will get something better. 

I therefore urge you to make an informed and intelligent choice today and vote for us; the one party that will deliver to Australia the least amount of incompetence during the life of the next parliament. 
*AND THAT IS A PROMISE.*


----------



## Julia

I don't suppose any of you critics about the backflip by the PM today have even remotely considered that the reason he gave was simply stating what is.

In light of the increased threat of home grown terrorism, jihadist trained dopes from the Muslim community who might be attempting to return to Australia and commit what they have learned in Syria, Iraq, etc to effect within Australia, the government really needs to have the complete support of the muslim community here.
If that community has suggested to the government that the revised legislation would be insulting/threatening/whatever word you like to them, then it seems reasonable enough to me that he should be prepared to go along with them.

Yes, we all love to crow when governments of any persuasion break their promises.  But, just personally, I'd rather someone who is prepared to change a promise in light of changed circumstances to one which stubbornly insists on an earlier stand, even when it's not in the national interest.

We might hope that he has now bitten the bullet and will be prepared to take a similar attitude over the dreaded PPL.


----------



## wayneL

Julia said:


> I don't suppose any of you critics about the backflip by the PM today have even remotely considered that the reason he gave was simply stating what is.
> 
> In light of the increased threat of home grown terrorism, jihadist trained dopes from the Muslim community who might be attempting to return to Australia and commit what they have learned in Syria, Iraq, etc to effect within Australia, the government really needs to have the complete support of the muslim community here.
> If that community has suggested to the government that the revised legislation would be insulting/threatening/whatever word you like to them, then it seems reasonable enough to me that he should be prepared to go along with them.
> 
> Yes, we all love to crow when governments of any persuasion break their promises.  But, just personally, I'd rather someone who is prepared to change a promise in light of changed circumstances to one which stubbornly insists on an earlier stand, even when it's not in the national interest.
> 
> We might hope that he has now bitten the bullet and will be prepared to take a similar attitude over the dreaded PPL.



For the plebeians, it not about reality, it's about perceptions.


----------



## basilio

In one practical sense I am delighted to see the government has decided against the changes to the Racial Abuse laws.  It was always a load of ugly, ugly xxxxx that just played into the hands of mindless bigots.

The shame of the situation was that they proposed them in the first place. The fact that they have come to their political senses and dropped the proposals gives the Libs a fighting chance of recovering some of the ground they lost with almost every migrant and community group in the country.

If I have a problem with the decision it is just that there is now one less clearly outrageous policy decision to beat them over the head with. 

But hey... from my count  there are still a score more.


----------



## banco

Julia said:


> I don't suppose any of you critics about the backflip by the PM today have even remotely considered that the reason he gave was simply stating what is.
> 
> In light of the increased threat of home grown terrorism, jihadist trained dopes from the Muslim community who might be attempting to return to Australia and commit what they have learned in Syria, Iraq, etc to effect within Australia, the government really needs to have the complete support of the muslim community here.
> If that community has suggested to the government that the revised legislation would be insulting/threatening/whatever word you like to them, then it seems reasonable enough to me that he should be prepared to go along with them.
> 
> Yes, we all love to crow when governments of any persuasion break their promises.  But, just personally, I'd rather someone who is prepared to change a promise in light of changed circumstances to one which stubbornly insists on an earlier stand, even when it's not in the national interest.
> 
> We might hope that he has now bitten the bullet and will be prepared to take a similar attitude over the dreaded PPL.




We can always count on you to spin something in Tony Abbott's favor.  They made an ill advised promise on the racial discrimination act not realising how sensitive it would be with ethnic communities (probably because the liberal party's policy making apparatus is as white as they come).  Pairing it with the terrorism measures announcement is just cynical media management.


----------



## Tink

Disappointed with Abbott. 

Not even America has sacrificed their freedom for peace.


----------



## SirRumpole

If 18C reform was Brandis's "top priority" as he has said, and it has now been revealed that this policy is a dog and can't get through, then I suggest our Attorney General is incompetent and out of touch and he should resign before he causes the government further embarrassment.


----------



## noco

Freya Newman went out of her way to defame Abbott's daughter Frances by illegally hacking into personal files and it is very obvious she is a Labor hack and deserves all that is coming to her.

Further more the new paper NEW MATLIDA has a  Fabian Society renaissance and when one reads the dozens of their articles it is all anti Abbott and the LNP coalition Government.....

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...cholarship-files/story-fn59niix-1227014638264

https://newmatilda.com/topic/australian-politics


----------



## sydboy007

Tink said:


> Disappointed with Abbott.
> 
> Not even America has sacrificed their freedom for peace.




* CIA tortured "some folks" as admitted by Obama recently

* CIA spying on members of congress

* NSA monitored 125 BILLION phone calls in just ONE MONTH

Yup, freedom all right.


----------



## sydboy007

So now I understand why Abbott and Hockey were so gung ho and happy with the reinflation property bubble in Australia last year.

As the newly minted PM said _"If housing prices go up, sure that makes it harder to get into the market, but it also means that everyone who is in the market has a more valuable asset."_

Labor must have missed the memo to gear up into the property market big time.

http://blog.australiaboomtobust.com/2014/08/propertied-federal-political-class/

*The public should ask “Are the property holdings of our federal politicians negatively influencing policy and causing them to ignore evidence?”*

Australia’s federal political class own an enormous property portfolio, with only 13 of the 226 members (6 per cent) not holding any real estate. In the Senate, 76 members own a total of 202 properties – 2.7 properties per Senator – estimated to be worth around $107 million.

Further, 91 per cent of all Senators own real estate (57 per cent investment/commercial property/vacant land, 41 per cent owner-occupied and 2 per cent recreational), 75 per cent have a mortgage, and the top ten control a colossal 95 properties.

Senator Xenophon maintains an impressive portfolio of eight investment properties, along with Senator Barry O’Sullivan from the National Party who owns an incredible fifty properties (see Table 2). The high concentration of landed gentry in the Senate acts as a vested interest to pass policies which inflates housing (land) prices.

The 150 members in the House of Representatives also have substantial property interests. In total, they own 361 properties – 2.41 properties per member – estimated to be worth around $191 million.

Moreover, 95 per cent of all Representatives own real estate (54 per cent investment/commercial property/vacant land, 43 per cent owner-occupied and 3 per cent recreational), 86 per cent have a mortgage, and the top ten own an astonishing 92 properties. Double-digit property holdings are maintained by David Gillespie (NP, 18 properties), Clive Palmer (PUP, 13 properties), Natasha Griggs (CLP, 12 properties) and Karen Andrews (LIB, 10 properties) (see Table 2).


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> *The public should ask “Are the property holdings of our federal politicians negatively influencing policy and causing them to ignore evidence?”*
> 
> Australia’s federal political class own an enormous property portfolio, with only 13 of the 226 members (6 per cent) not holding any real estate. In the Senate, 76 members own a total of 202 properties – 2.7 properties per Senator – estimated to be worth around $107 million.




As if we didn't know, but it's good to see some actual numbers.


----------



## sydboy007

While there's major difference between the USA and Australian welfare systems, the proposed changes for those under 30 are moving those people to a very USA comparable model.

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/08/did-cutting-jobless-benefits-promote-work-not-so-much/

Two pieces of evidence suggest this “bootstraps” theory might be wrong. First, a new paper from the Boston Fed paper looking at the Not-So-Great Recovery finds that, yes, the unemployed tended to remain so until their UI benefits were exhausted. But their next move wasn’t into a job. Rather, they became “more likely to drop out of the labor force; transitions to a job appear to be unaffected by UI benefit extensions, ” writes Katharine Bradbury in “Labor Market Transitions and the Availability of Unemployment Insurance.” 

http://www.bostonfed.org/economic/wp/wp2014/wp1402.pdf for above

Second, economist Justin Wolfers looks at what happened in North Carolina after the state in July last year lost its eligibility for the federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation program. While employment grew over the next six months, it actually grew a bit slower than in neighboring South Carolina, which has a similar economy. After also comparing North Carolina to Georgia and Tennessee, Wolfers concludes, “The bottom line is that North Carolina looks quite similar to its peers, and certainly not better.” Nor has South Carolina performed better than North Carolina this year after the feds cut long-term UI benefits.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/upshot/north-carolinas-misunderstood-cut-in-jobless-benefits.html for above


----------



## Tink

sydboy007 said:


> * CIA tortured "some folks" as admitted by Obama recently
> 
> * CIA spying on members of congress
> 
> * NSA monitored 125 BILLION phone calls in just ONE MONTH
> 
> Yup, freedom all right.




I don't think they have the C18 in the USA and Canada.


----------



## Julia

banco said:


> We can always count on you to spin something in Tony Abbott's favor.



Sigh.  I would have made far more posts containing criticism about Mr Abbott than otherwise.
This instance is one where the legislation should have just been left alone in the first place.
Right now, I'm for whatever will help to keep Australia safe, and the to this end government needs the co-operation of the Muslim community.



Tink said:


> Disappointed with Abbott.
> 
> Not even America has sacrificed their freedom for peace.






sydboy007 said:


> * CIA tortured "some folks" as admitted by Obama recently
> 
> * CIA spying on members of congress
> 
> * NSA monitored 125 BILLION phone calls in just ONE MONTH
> 
> Yup, freedom all right.



Really, Tink?   What freedoms do you believe you are sacrificing in this instance?


----------



## Tink

I was talking about the 18C, Julia, but Syd's gone off on something else.


----------



## sydboy007

Tink said:


> I was talking about the 18C, Julia, but Syd's gone off on something else.




If someone can't have a discussion about any topic in a way that's not derogatory about another party then they probably shouldn't be having the discussion until they can do it appropriately.

As Julia asked, what freedoms has 18C removed in Australia?

Some specific examples would be welcome rather than vague assumptions.

As for my previous post, you were arguing somehow the USA has more freedoms because they don't have similar 18C legislation.  The point I was making there's a much bigger picture to look at when referrign to freedoms.

Back to 18C, I do find it a bit telling that the PM felt it necessary to tell Bolt before the general public.  Nice to know that the PM has his information flow firstly to those that need to know first.


----------



## wayneL

Let's take a look at 18C



> RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18C
> 
> Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
> (1)  It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
> 
> (a)  the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
> 
> (b)  the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.
> 
> Note:          Subsection (1) makes certain acts unlawful. Section 46P of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 allows people to make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission about unlawful acts. However, an unlawful act is not necessarily a criminal offence. Section 26 says that this Act does not make it an offence to do an act that is unlawful because of this Part, unless Part IV expressly says that the act is an offence.
> 
> (2)  For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it:
> 
> (a)  causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or
> 
> (b)  is done in a public place; or
> 
> (c)  is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.
> 
> (3)  In this section:
> 
> "public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.




Thew application of this section of the statute would seem to me to be extremely subjective.

It could be applied to Christmas, or waving a flag, or wearing a tee-shirt or tattoo. or walking down the high street in Lakemba eating a pork pie etc etc.

It's a bad statute that should be repealed or modified. It can (and has) been used to stitch someone up. It is not a fair or equally applied limit on the freedom of speech.


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> Sigh.  I would have made far more posts containing criticism about Mr Abbott than otherwise.
> This instance is one where the legislation should have just been left alone in the first place.
> Right now, I'm for whatever will help to keep Australia safe, and the to this end government needs the co-operation of the Muslim community.




Possibly the 18C legislation will also act s a clampdown for any of the nutters coming back to the country.  Even if they're not in their basements plotting acts of mass murder, they could be going around inciting hatred and fear mongering if 18C had been removed.

I still remember growing up when it was perfectly acceptable and legal for someone to stand up and call for the bashing and killing of gays.  I can understand why immigrants and those who aren't part of the dominant white culture would have felt threatened by a future without the 18C legislation.

The 18C is probably not perfect, but I'll take it until someone proposes better legislation.


----------



## sydboy007

wayneL said:


> Let's take a look at 18C
> 
> 
> 
> Thew application of this section of the statute would seem to me to be extremely subjective.
> 
> It could be applied to Christmas, or waving a flag, or wearing a tee-shirt or tattoo. or walking down the high street in Lakemba eating a pork pie etc etc.
> 
> It's a bad statute that should be repealed or modified. It can (and has) been used to stitch someone up. It is not a fair or equally applied limit on the freedom of speech.




Would you be able to provide a specific example of rational debate that would fall foul of this law?


----------



## wayneL

I guess a bit OT as far as this thread, but I prefer social behaviour change campaigns, which can be initiated by government or like Beyond Blue's current campaign on discrimination.


----------



## wayneL

sydboy007 said:


> Would you be able to provide a specific example of rational debate that would fall foul of this law?




Perhaps an argument on the inappropriateness of Sharia in Australia could conceivably run foul of this statute... perhaps an argument for the outlawing of Halal? Ban the Burqua etc. 

It may seem absurd at this point in time, but the statute has that potential interpretation.

Even Bolt's prosecution under this statute was a very long and tenuous bow.


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> Perhaps an argument on the inappropriateness of Sharia in Australia could conceivably run foul of this statute... perhaps an argument for the outlawing of Halal? Ban the Burqua etc.
> 
> .




One would think such discussions are covered under 18D , 



> "He pointed out that the Racial Discrimination Act already included another section, 18D, which provided a number of exemptions. This included “anything said or done reasonably and in good faith” while publishing “a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment”."




http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...issioner-backs-tony-abbotts-race-law-decision


----------



## Logique

wayneL said:


> Let's take a look at 18C
> Thew application of this section of the statute would seem to me to be extremely subjective.
> It could be applied to Christmas, or waving a flag, or wearing a tee-shirt or tattoo. or walking down the high street in Lakemba eating a pork pie etc etc.
> 
> It's a bad statute that should be repealed or modified. It can (and has) been used to stitch someone up. It is not a fair or equally applied limit on the freedom of speech.



Correct and well said.

Such legislation can be a double-edged sword. Lawyers picnic.


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> One would think such discussions are covered under 18D ,
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...issioner-backs-tony-abbotts-race-law-decision




18D is still nebulous and extremely subjective



> RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18D
> 
> Exemptions
> Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:
> 
> (a)  in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or
> 
> (b)  in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or
> 
> (c)  in making or publishing:
> 
> (i)  a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or
> 
> (ii)  a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.




Pick an interpretation, any interpretation... the best lawyer wins.

The wording of the legislation is about as vague as it gets... define art... define public interest... define scientific purpose.

At once, 18D nullifies 18C altogether, or can be ignored altogether. It depends on interpretation and mood of the body politik.

This statutes are as bad as they get, total rubbish. Legislature having been so poorly performed, the executive and judicial left to do what the f$$$ they want with it, depending on their politics and propensity for activism.


----------



## Knobby22

I have to say that though Bolt got his facts wrong and distorted the arguments as he usually does, it still surprised me that he lost the court case. So I agree, it can be used to stitch someone up.

The problem was Brandis. He wanted radical change that effectively deleted the act and then said everyone has the right to be bigots. Talk about poor judgement. 

Race Discrimination Commissioner Tim Soutphommasane argues the keep case well but I really respect the guy and am sure he would have supported a redrafting to tighten it up. 

But due to the typical pathetic behaviour of parts of the Coalition front bench, it became toxic. Abbot was right to end it. He needs to shift a few ministers.


----------



## Tink

Agree, Wayne and Logique.

I think a few have been concerned and disappointed for those very reasons. 

It becomes a sort of bullying in the opposite way, imo.

I think we will be sorry in the long run.


----------



## Julia

Tink said:


> I was talking about the 18C, Julia, but Syd's gone off on something else.



No, Tink, Syd didn't go off on something else.  He was responding to your assertion that our freedom is being compromised by 18C and further asserted that not even America does that.  He correctly offered you just a few of the ways freedom is hardly a priority in the USA.

So, if you could explain how you believe 18C removes our freedom that would be good.



Knobby22 said:


> I have to say that though Bolt got his facts wrong and distorted the arguments as he usually does, it still surprised me that he lost the court case. So I agree, it can be used to stitch someone up.
> 
> The problem was Brandis. He wanted radical change that effectively deleted the act and then said everyone has the right to be bigots. Talk about poor judgement.
> 
> Race Discrimination Commissioner Tim Soutphommasane argues the keep case well but I really respect the guy and am sure he would have supported a redrafting to tighten it up.
> 
> But due to the typical pathetic behaviour of parts of the Coalition front bench, it became toxic. Abbot was right to end it. He needs to shift a few ministers.



+1.


----------



## Tink

I just posted why, Julia.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> The problem was Brandis. He wanted radical change that effectively deleted the act and then said everyone has the right to be bigots. Talk about poor judgement




Poor political judgement, but proper philosophical judgement.

The act does not eradicate bigotry, merely attempts to prevent it being expressed.

So now we have the curious situation where we send troops over to the Middle East to shoot at radical Islamists, yet unable in our own country to express distaste for radical Islam for fear of prosecution.

In addition, if I as a middle aged white male were to report folks under section 18C, I would likely be laughed at.

Unfortunately we have, under the tutelage of the left, evolved an obnoxious culture that seeks to be offended at every opportunity and under the most tenuous premise imaginable.

Brandis makes a rhetorical statement, which in an even remotely liberal  =>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism society is absolutely kosher. Even if we view (as is our right) the bigots with disdain and distaste, we should defend the right to express it, even as we collectively try to socially engineer it into extinction.


----------



## Julia

Tink said:


> I just posted why, Julia.



Did you?  Could you direct me to where you did that?  ie explained how our freedom is eroded?


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> So now we have the curious situation where we send troops over to the Middle East to shoot at radical Islamists, yet unable in our own country to express distaste for radical Islam for fear of prosecution.
> 
> .




Islam, as it is a religion and not a race,  is not covered by the act, though the way you hear some of the idiots talk it is not surprising people think it is racist to express disdain. Christianity is regularly attacked with no one saying it is racist to do so. 

Quoting the act: Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin


----------



## IFocus

banco said:


> We can always count on you to spin something in Tony Abbott's favor.  They made an ill advised promise on the racial discrimination act not realising how sensitive it would be with ethnic communities (probably because the liberal party's policy making apparatus is as white as they come).  Pairing it with the terrorism measures announcement is just cynical media management.





+ 1 the pressure was building big time internally Liberals were going to cross the floor etc.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> Islam, as it is a religion and not a race,  is not covered by the act, though the way you hear some of the idiots talk it is not surprising people think it is racist to express disdain. Christianity is regularly attacked with no one saying it is racist to do so.
> 
> Quoting the act: Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin




That's true, but never stopped the left branding any criticism of Islam as racism.


----------



## McLovin

Knobby22 said:


> Islam, as it is a religion and not a race,  is not covered by the act, though the way you hear some of the idiots talk it is not surprising people think it is racist to express disdain. Christianity is regularly attacked with no one saying it is racist to do so.
> 
> Quoting the act: Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin




That's right. And of course the elephant in the room is that contravening 18c is not a crime. Bolt fails to mention that bit while he shrieks like a banshee about freedom of speech.

It's actually a pretty harmless bit of legislation.



> RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 26
> 
> Unlawful acts not offences unless expressly so provided
> Except as expressly provided by this Part, nothing in this Act makes it an offence to do an act or agree with another person to do an act that is unlawful by reason of a provision of Part II or Part IIA.




The only criminal offences in the act are around incitement of hatred/violence toward a person or group because of their race etc. Even in the US, which is far more liberal in this area, speech as conduct is not protected by the First Amendment.


----------



## banco

McLovin said:


> That's right. And of course the elephant in the room is that contravening 18c is not a crime. Bolt fails to mention that bit while he shrieks like a banshee about freedom of speech.
> 
> It's actually a pretty harmless bit of legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> The only criminal offences in the act are around incitement of hatred/violence toward a person or group because of their race etc. Even in the US, which is far more liberal in this area, speech as conduct is not protected by the First Amendment.




The criminal offences as they exist in the Act would almost certainly be unconstitutional in the US.


----------



## McLovin

banco said:


> The criminal offences as they exist in the Act would almost certainly be unconstitutional in the US.




Which ones?

Hating a group based on race is not illegal here or in the US. Inciting violence toward that group is, here (at least in NSW) and in the US, in some states.

And for the record I think 18c should be at least amended. Offending or insulting someone should not be unlawful, imo.


----------



## banco

McLovin said:


> Which ones?
> 
> Hating a group based on race is not illegal here or in the US. Inciting violence toward that group is, here (at least in NSW) and in the US, in some states.
> 
> And for the record I think 18c should be at least amended. Offending or insulting someone should not be unlawful, imo.




In the US the incitement of violence towards a group has to present an imminent threat.  Our laws are drafted much more broadly.


----------



## McLovin

banco said:


> In the US the incitement of violence towards a group has to present an imminent threat.  Our laws are drafted much more broadly.




Yeah fair point. Although that hit-man manual was found to not be protected, but I don't think it ever got to the Supreme Court.


----------



## Julia

McLovin said:


> And for the record I think 18c should be at least amended. Offending or insulting someone should not be unlawful, imo.



Wasn't that more or less George Brandis's point?


----------



## wayneL

Julia said:


> Wasn't that more or less George Brandis's point?




Sure was, but if there's one thing the left have become very good at, is poisoning the debate with excessive,  disingenuous emotion.

Classic is basilio's comment:



> a load of ugly, ugly xxxxx that just played into the hands of mindless bigots.




It causes people to clamber for the perceived high moral ground, obfuscating the merits of a rational debate.


----------



## SirRumpole

McLovin said:


> Offending or insulting someone should not be unlawful, imo.




I take it you don't agree with the defamation laws either ?


----------



## basilio

Why don't we understand what was behind George Brandis desire to emasculate the 18C legislation?

It had been on the books since 1995.  It had been used quite sparingly with any complaints about racist public comments being dealt with by mediation.

Until...

*Until Andrew Bolt came out with his infamous white aboriginal  article which caused an almighty furore. *

Why did it cause a furore ?

Look at the judges findings on this folks.  Andrew Bolt made repeated wrong statements about the people he write about. He also managed as *is his want* to vilify and ridicule them.  The people he maligned took him to court for the deliberate errors and the abuse.

The judge agreed with them. Read his findings if you please rather than the tortured self justifications of Andrew Bolt.

*So, rather than accept that Mr Bolt had written a very erroneous article and heaped a load of  poisonous xxxx onto a range of Aboriginal people,  the IPA et al decided that the law was wrong and had to changed to protect Andrew Bolt and his mates rights to produce whatever lying, inflammatory  drivel he could produce in search of a rabid readership.*

Andrew Bolts best mate of course is George "Everyone has a right to be a BIGOT" Brandis. 

And when the rest of the population understood  what was happening they weren't impressed and made it absolutely clear this was not a good idea. 

For a clinical dissection of just how wrong and vicious Andrew Bolt and his supporters have been  check out the Global Mail story.  The judges findings are not pretty.

Nice and clear now ?  

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-28/bolt-found-guilty-of-breaching-discrimination-act/3025918


*
One Year On: How To Twist And Shout Down A Legal Judgment*
By Alan AustinSeptember 28, 2012



> *During the 12 months since journalist Andrew Bolt was found guilty of breaching racial discrimination laws — on the basis that his published facts were wrong — error and invective have continued to warp the debate.
> *
> Has Australia just experienced one of the great media heists in modern history?
> 
> It's a year since the Eatock v Bolt decision was announced on September 28, 2011, in the Federal Court, a landmark case brought under Australia's Racial Discrimination Act. And much of the subsequent commentary has been — like the Andrew Bolt articles that triggered the case — filled with errors and designed to sting.
> *
> For example, Justice Bromberg's judgment has been seriously misreported. Parts of it have been ignored completely.*
> 
> It's telling that we should still need to ask: What was the real reason Bolt and the Herald and Weekly Times (HWT) were found to be in breach of the Act? How many untruths were published? And what motivated this "offensive conduct reinforcing, encouraging or emboldening racial prejudice"?
> 
> The applicant was Pat Eatock, a fair-skinned Aborigine, who brought the suit on behalf of herself and others, who claimed Melbourne's Herald Sun had accused them of pretending to be Aboriginal to gain benefits fraudulently. *Attempts at conciliation had failed.*
> 
> *Rupert Murdoch’s HWT declined to appeal. Instead, it commenced a vigorous — and extraordinarily successful — campaign in the court of public opinion to undermine the judgment.*
> 
> http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/one-year-on-how-to-twist-and-shout-down-a-legal-judgment/402/


----------



## wayneL

Emotive garbage basilio.

Political discourse is full of untruths, factual omissions, misrepresentation and downright lies.

Every time I listen to Short'un, I run out of fingers and toes keeping track of them... and that's in about the first three minute.

Bolt's factual indiscretions are no worse than what is in every paper every single day, but because it included the word 'aboriginal' the legislation was invoked, which goes to my point about interpretation and stitching up.

Perhaps Bolt deserved a slap around the ear with a wet fish (as does every partisan political commentator, such as that illiberal gobshyte Marr), but not a court case. 

Your post is typical of the hystrionics, the faux outrage, the glaring monumental hypocrisy and double standards of the apology industry of the left.

Then we have Horace trotting out yet another appalling non-sequitur.

This is why I say debate in this country has been poisoned, the left has consciously eradicated the possibility of reasonable, rational debate by appealing to mob mentality and social proof.


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> Then we have Horace trotting out yet another appalling non-sequitur.
> 
> .




Really ? I simply made an inquiry regarding your opinion of the defamation laws. Those laws allow people who have been insulted or offended to get redress. Your condemnation of 18C would indicate that you don't agree with the defamation laws either.

Correct or not ?


----------



## basilio

You are special Wayne. I'll grant that.. So special.

You just can't get it can you ? You so wilfully  blind you can't/won't even read the facts of a court case and the judges summing up to get to some truths. 

And no surprise of course when the facts are so unpalatable

*It was Andrew Bolt who led the charge to trash Aboriginals. * 

Firstly his articles were riddled with untruths and inaccuracies. And they wern't minor ones of course; each untruth was engineered to make the aboriginal person look more and more dishonest/hypocritical. How is that for journalist integrity ? ? 

Secondly he made clear his intention to  ridicule and denigrate these people because of their claims to be aboriginal.

Now who makes these statements?  Bas ? The Looney left ? Nuh . 

*The judge in his summing up of the case.* That, Wayne is why I repeatedly said *Read the Judgment*.   And it's so interesting of course that the Murdoch Press decided not to challenge the case through legal appeal but used the power of their Press to obfuscate just how they had been called out for lying and vilification.

Wayne it's not the Left that has poisoned political debate in Australia in this topic. You have to look to your chief poison pen writer and his media backers for that honour..


----------



## banco

SirRumpole said:


> I take it you don't agree with the defamation laws either ?




What  offending and insulting someone have to do with defamation laws? In any case for what it's worth I don't agree with the defamation laws in Australia. They restrict public debate and are mostly used as a tool of the powerful to silence criticism.


----------



## basilio

For another view on the Governments failure to get support for  revising the Racial Vilification Act check out Gay Alcorns thoughts.





> *Racial vilification laws: checkmate for Andrew Bolt – and George Brandis's ego*
> 
> George Brandis’s proposals were always compromised because they were motivated as a personal favour for just one man: Andrew Bolt
> 
> gay alcorn
> 
> 
> That Tony Abbott personally called Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt to tell him the government was abandoning its promise to wind back racial vilification laws is all you really need to know. Bolt blogged about it before the rest of us were told of Abbott’s “leadership call” to scuttle laws he once considered anathema to the “sacred principle of free speech”.
> 
> Even if you believe – as I do – that to “insult and offend” on racial or any other grounds should not be unlawful in a raucous democracy, the proposed gutting of the racial discrimination act has rightly failed, and failed in a way that tells us something.
> 
> The proposals were always compromised because they were motivated as a personal favour for just one man: Andrew Bolt. As the understated president of the Human Rights Commission, Gillian Triggs, put it, they were “contrivance deliberately to ensure that a Bolt-like case would not emerge again.”
> 
> The Coalition did oppose on free speech grounds the 1995 racial hatred provisions that made it unlawful to “”offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” on the basis of race or ethnicity. *But there was never any great fuss about them after that – they were used sparingly and only in serious cases of racial abuse. The vast majority of cases were resolved at mediation.*
> 
> ....When Bolt was found to have breached the racial discrimination act, he said it was a “terrible day for free speech in this country”. Bolt and his wife Sally Morrell dined with Abbott after the verdict, which makes it fitting that Abbott would ring to tell him on Tuesday that all the promises to the conservative warrior had come to nothing. Bolt himself seemed to grasp at least in part that to have him at the centre of a battle for “freedom” was always fatal.
> 
> “To associate it with me meant so many people of the left thought that any law that could be used against me must be pretty good, and I think that’s poisoned the debate,” he told radio station 2GB.
> 
> Yes Andrew, it did poison the debate. But the “left” didn’t make it all about you. You did, and so did the government.




http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ckmate-for-andrew-bolt-and-george-brandis-ego


----------



## wayneL

Another view?

From the Grauniad? May as well say another view from the Labor/Green axis. 

As far as the judge, yep, judicial activism is alive and well, he really had to stretch the bounds of 18C/D with some convoluted and tenuous reasoning for that one.


----------



## orr

Of the clunkers on the front bench, Brandis would have to be the one to do the australian public the biggest favour by his swift re-location to a park one. Pity the poor pigeons though.


----------



## basilio

> As far as the judge, yep, judicial activism is alive and well, he really had to stretch the bounds of 18C/D with some convoluted and tenuous reasoning for that one. Wayne L




Really Wayne ?  Really ?

Identifying the 18 mistakes /misrepresentations Bolt made in his story? Recognizing the sneering, ridiculing style of the article which was calculated to trash readers views of the people he was writing about ?

Of course IF his reasoning was so convoluted and tenuous then an appeal to a higher court would no doubt have seen this overturned wouldn't it ?  But clearly the Bolt/Murdoch lawyers didn't think there was much point pursuing a legal argument based on facts versus a populist argument relying on their own creative writing skills. 

It's worth comparing what Justice Bronmerg found to be the facts in the trial versus Wayne assertion of  convoluted and tenuous reasoning .



> *The judge made it clear that 18D protects any opinion, however obnoxious or offensive ”” provided it is genuinely held, for academic, artistic or scientific purpose, or in the public interest, or in publishing a fair and accurate media report.*
> 
> He repeatedly reinforced this: "Those opinions will at times be ill-considered. They may be obstinate, exaggerated or simply wrong. But that, of itself, provides no valid basis for the law to curtail the expression of opinion."
> 
> The issue central to the case was not whether Bolt's article was an expression of opinion, but whether the factual allegations on which that opinion was based were accurate. This question occupied most of the court's time and is the subject of the greater part of the judgment.
> 
> *So the case was clearly not about freedom of opinion. It was about freedom to spread untruths.*
> 
> *In Bolt's articles Bromberg found inferences which leave "an erroneous impression", "gratuitous references" based on "a selective misrepresentation", and omissions which "meant that the facts were not truly stated".
> 
> He found assertions "shown to be factually erroneous", comment that was "unsupported by any factual basis and erroneous", asserted facts that were "untrue" and several contentions that were "incorrect" or "grossly incorrec*t".
> *
> His key finding was that "in relation to most of the individuals concerned, the facts asserted in the Newspaper Articles that the people dealt with chose to identify as Aboriginal  have been substantially proven to be untrue". (378)*
> 
> For example, Bolt wrote that
> 
> *Anita Heiss had won "plum jobs reserved for Aborigines" at Koori Radio, at the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Arts Board and at Macquarie University. *(381)
> 
> The Koori Radio job was a voluntary unpaid position. Neither the arts board position nor the university job was reserved for indigenous applicants.
> 
> *Three untruths there.   In one sentence.*
> 
> More damagingly, Bolt asserted that Heiss had made a conscious "decision to identify as Aboriginal" and was "lucky, given how it's helped her career". Bromberg found, however that Ms Heiss "has Aboriginal ancestry and communal recognition as an Aboriginal person." And further, "She did not consciously choose to be Aboriginal. She has not improperly used her Aboriginal identity to advance her career."
> 
> *Bromberg's conclusion was emphatic: "Untruths are at the heart of racial prejudice and intolerance*."




http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/one-year-on-how-to-twist-and-shout-down-a-legal-judgment/402/


----------



## McLovin

Julia]Wasn't that more or less George Brandis's point? [/QUOTE]

I thought he wanted to remove all of 18c.

[QUOTE=SirRumpole said:


> I take it you don't agree with the defamation laws either ?




I do agree with them. There is a chasm of difference between offending someone and making a false statement about that person.


----------



## wayneL

What you can't seem to grasp basilio, is that what Bolt did is du rigeur in the Australian media, most particularly the ABC. *They all do it!*

Bolt's mistake is using the word 'aboriginal', which enabled the leftist activists to drag out 18C on a very farking long bow and torture 18D into submission, essentially via leaps of faith and heresay.

Bolt was commenting on the politics of the Aboriginal industry, perhaps having a shot at what identifies 'Aboriginal', rather than denigrating them as a race. Hardly racism or anything in 18C.

Of course the left can turn anything it wants into racism. I could perhaps accuse the the committee of the Italian club of being self interested sheisters (as a hypothetical example) and be prosecuted on the same basis, if some grubby group leftists wanted to stitch me up.


----------



## SirRumpole

McLovin said:


> I do agree with them. There is a chasm of difference between offending someone and making a false statement about that person.




Andrew Bolt did make false statements about people. A judge said so.



> So Bolt and the Herald and Weekly Times went down. Outside the court, Bolt declared this "a terrible day for free speech''. Not according to the judge: "The intrusion into freedom of expression is of no greater magnitude than that which would have been imposed by the law of defamation if the conduct in question and its impact upon the reputations of many of the identified individuals had been tested against its compliance with that law." Perhaps the Herald Sun and its star journalist should be thankful they're not facing nine separate defamation trials. An appeal is expected - so is some spectacular rhetoric from the now martyred Andrew Bolt.
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...h-the-facts-20110928-1kxba.html#ixzz39gTH2Zf7


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> Andrew Bolt did make false statements about people. A judge said so.




False statements don't necessarily defame, for example I could say basilio is handsome and intelligent, but that wouldn't be defamatory.


----------



## McLovin

SirRumpole said:


> Andrew Bolt did make false statements about people. A judge said so.




I don't believe I said that he didn't, or that I was even talking about Andrew Bolt. All I said was that, imo, someone has the right to offend as much as someone has the right to be offended.


----------



## SirRumpole

McLovin said:


> I don't believe I said that he didn't, or that I was even talking about Andrew Bolt. All I said was that, imo, someone has the right to offend as much as someone has the right to be offended.




Well, I just think that sometimes we have to trade some freedoms in to be a more civilised society. 

Just because people think they have a right to do something doesn't mean that such behaviour is socially acceptable. 

Should we all have the right to walk around the streets naked ? Or to pee in Archibald Fountain ? After all these actions don't even hurt anyone do they ? Why should people be offended by them ?


----------



## Tink

wayneL said:


> Emotive garbage basilio.
> 
> Political discourse is full of untruths, factual omissions, misrepresentation and downright lies.
> 
> Every time I listen to Short'un, I run out of fingers and toes keeping track of them... and that's in about the first three minute.
> 
> Bolt's factual indiscretions are no worse than what is in every paper every single day, but because it included the word 'aboriginal' the legislation was invoked, which goes to my point about interpretation and stitching up.
> 
> Perhaps Bolt deserved a slap around the ear with a wet fish (as does every partisan political commentator, such as that illiberal gobshyte Marr), but not a court case.
> 
> Your post is typical of the hystrionics, the faux outrage, the glaring monumental hypocrisy and double standards of the apology industry of the left.
> 
> Then we have Horace trotting out yet another appalling non-sequitur.
> 
> This is why I say debate in this country has been poisoned, the left has consciously eradicated the possibility of reasonable, rational debate by appealing to mob mentality and social proof.




Excellent post, Wayne.

Everyone has the right to free speech.

That is the bottom line.


----------



## McLovin

SirRumpole said:


> Well, I just think that sometimes we have to trade some freedoms in to be a more civilised society.
> 
> Just because people think they have a right to do something doesn't mean that such behaviour is socially acceptable.
> 
> Should we all have the right to walk around the streets naked ? Or to pee in Archibald Fountain ? After all these actions don't even hurt anyone do they ? Why should people be offended by them ?




Do you want to end up like Britain?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ol...ted-and-bailed-after-Daley-twitter-abuse.html


----------



## SirRumpole

McLovin said:


> Do you want to end up like Britain?
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ol...ted-and-bailed-after-Daley-twitter-abuse.html




You neatly avoided my questions on my previous post, but the case you linked to did not appear to be motivated by racism so I don't know if it would be actionable under our laws. That case is going too far imo.


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> Well, I just think that sometimes we have to trade some freedoms in to be a more civilised society.
> 
> Just because people think they have a right to do something doesn't mean that such behaviour is socially acceptable.
> 
> Should we all have the right to walk around the streets naked ? Or to pee in Archibald Fountain ? After all these actions don't even hurt anyone do they ? Why should people be offended by them ?




Even libertarians recognize a hierarchy of liberties Horace. If by exercising a liberty, it impinges on another's liberty, it can be regulated.

EG I might believe I have the liberty to set up camp in the middle of the Bruce Hwy, ignoring the risk to life an limb, it would be impinging on the liberty of users of the highway of unrestricted thoroughfare, traffic jams notwithstanding.

So even a completely free society decides on a hierarchy of liberties with appropriate means of enforcement. 

Becoming offended is a personal choice, every person has the liberty to not be offended. Today in Australia. becoming offended is an industry and a sport which only serves to divide society. There are better ways to change thinking, legislation just doesn't do it.


----------



## McLovin

SirRumpole said:


> You neatly avoided my questions on my previous post, but the case you linked to did not appear to be motivated by racism so I don't know if it would be actionable under our laws. That case is going too far imo.




If there were no kids around and there is no intent to cause offence, and someone wanted to walk around naked on the street I couldn't care less. It's not my sort of thing but it's not harming me so what do I care. It would help if they were a hot female. Peeing in a fountain has public hygeine consequences so no.

That being said, not all freedoms are equal so taking an extreme position by comparing public nudity to free speech is not really apples v apples. I can, for example, ignore an opinion piece in a the local paper, it's a bit harder to avoid an old dude sunning his junk in the town square.


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> Becoming offended is a personal choice, every person has the liberty to not be offended. Today in Australia. becoming offended is an industry and a sport which only serves to divide society. There are better ways to change thinking, legislation just doesn't do it.




OK I agree that being offended can sometimes be taken too far. The Adam Goodes incident is one example of the extremes to which offence can be taken. IMO Goodes just should have called the kid a bogan and got on with the game.

And if being offended is a personal choice, I go back to the example of walking around naked. Some may take offence if I did that, others not. I may even give amusement to some.  Why should I be arrested if I want to do that ? Where should the line be drawn ?

If a significant section of our community feels offended by something said, especially if what was said has no basis in fact, then I think that is a concern. If offensive comments do have a basis in fact, then I believe that is part of a normal debate and should not be sanctioned. eg there is a lot of debate about Islam and the way they treat women. Muslims may be offended by that , but the fact is that their religion allows women to be treated badly and people have a right to point that out.

So what better ways are there to change thinking in your opinion ? We could have a massive education campaign I suppose, but at what cost ?


----------



## McLovin

Tink said:


> Excellent post, Wayne.
> 
> Everyone has the right to free speech.
> 
> That is the bottom line.




You're ok with this then? These are the same idiots who picketed the funerals of dead soldiers with their stupid "god hates fags" rubbish.



> The Westboro Baptist Church, infamous for its controversial protest, its inflammatory website, and its homophobic rhetoric, has recently decided to expand its repertoire of inappropriateness to include picketing the funerals of the 19 firefighters who died in the line of duty on Sunday in Yarnell, Arizona. Thankfully, between public disapproval, WBC's own lack of follow through, and an Arizona law, this protest is unlikely to succeed.
> 
> It did not take long for the Westboro Baptist Church to begin praising God for "consuming fires" and the deaths of firefighters. According to WBC, God killed 19 firefighters because of same-sex marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> They have also announced its intention to picket the funerals of the 19 deceased firefighters, including with a press release tweeted to several news agencies. In addition to several Bible verses and the names of the deceased, the press release stated in large letters "GOD H8S FAG MARRIAGE!"
> 
> In the name of decency, the public can take solace in the fact that the Westboro Baptist Church has been known to threaten protests that did not occur. For instance, it threatened to protest at the funeral of Boston Marathon bombing victim Krystle Campbell, stating that the bombing occurred because Massachusetts was the first state to allow same-sex marriage, but the group never showed up. As the Arizona protest has not yet been added to the group's protest schedule, it is possible that the group will fail to appear.




I'll go out on a limb and say if it was your relative's funeral you wouldn't be hoisting the freedom of speech flag.

There's a pretty good doco on them by Louis Theroux

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMbfQ117Jts


----------



## SirRumpole

McLovin said:


> it's a bit harder to avoid an old dude sunning his junk in the town square.




Well, whatever turns you on


----------



## IFocus

This is the bit that killed of the whole deal IMHO


*The proposals were always compromised because they were motivated as a personal favour for just one man: Andrew Bolt.* 

Dumb that the 1st thing an AG would want to do is a favour for his mates seems sheer arrogance is no replacement for getting the needs and priorities correct for Australian constituents.

Revealed that Abbott phoned Bolt 1st digs another hole for Abbott


----------



## basilio

wayneL said:


> What you can't seem to grasp basilio, is that what Bolt did is du rigeur in the Australian media, most particularly the ABC. *They all do it!*
> 
> Bolt's mistake is using the word 'aboriginal', which enabled the leftist activists to drag out 18C on a very farking long bow and torture 18D into submission, essentially via leaps of faith and heresay.
> 
> Bolt was commenting on the politics of the Aboriginal industry, perhaps having a shot at what identifies 'Aboriginal', rather than denigrating them as a race. Hardly racism or anything in 18C.
> 
> Of course the left can turn anything it wants into racism. I could perhaps accuse the the committee of the Italian club of being self interested sheisters (as a hypothetical example) and be prosecuted on the same basis, if some grubby group leftists wanted to stitch me up.




Are you serious sweetie ? Have you taken your medication today or you still away with the fairies ?!

In what universe does the ABC make repeated factual mistakes in stories that are also designed to ridicule or denigrate the subject ? You can point these out perhaps ? Or is it just easier to pull ridiculously absurd comments from the usual place you find them.

And furthermore  my feral little  friend you can of course  accuse the committee of your Italian Club of being shysters  *if you actually have some evidence* instead of make believe BS.  Otherwise you might be up  defending a defamation suit ( or perhaps something more colourful ?)

Finally, sweetie, sucking up to me with fine compliments might turn someone elses pretty little head - but I'm still with Noco.  At least I know where I stand with him.


----------



## wayneL

Compliment?

Read it again luvvie


----------



## wayneL

Oh and by the way, it is not my custom to save incidences for future humiliation of cognitively biased tosspots....



basilio said:


> In what universe does the ABC make repeated factual mistakes in stories that are also designed to ridicule or denigrate the subject ? You can point these out perhaps ?




...but a very quick and dirty Gooooooooogle search yielded => http://www.theaustralian.com.au/med...843053678?nk=1eab42a45128e2c6026b195d2ee661d4


----------



## IFocus

wayneL said:


> Oh and by the way, it is not my custom to save incidences for future humiliation of *cognitively biased tosspots*....
> 
> 
> 
> ...but a very quick and dirty Gooooooooogle search yielded => http://www.theaustralian.com.au/med...843053678?nk=1eab42a45128e2c6026b195d2ee661d4




Pot....kettle.......black hole black.....


----------



## CanOz

wayneL said:


> Oh and by the way, it is not my custom to save incidences for future humiliation of cognitively biased tosspots....
> 
> 
> 
> ...but a very quick and dirty Gooooooooogle search yielded => http://www.theaustralian.com.au/med...843053678?nk=1eab42a45128e2c6026b195d2ee661d4




Bloody unreal...:frown:

I used to be such a fan of the ABC, WTF happened?


----------



## noco

CanOz said:


> Bloody unreal...:frown:
> 
> I used to be such a fan of the ABC, WTF happened?




The Green/Labor left wing socialist planted their Fabian comrades into the ABC.....that is why they are so biased.

I bit off topic though for this thread....sorry.


----------



## basilio

Wayne I really, really, REALLY wanted to read just what amazing corrections The Australian could offer on ABC programs.  Unfortunately it's behind a paywall.  

Feel free to post their comments. Always interested in hearing what they can come up with.

Given that you confabulate the ABC with Andrew Bolts lies and invective I'm still interested in seeing something remotely close to that.  I assume the outraged recipients have already started serious legal action on the matter...

________________________________________________________________________________

But lets return to the topic. I thought the principal point about Freedom of Speech was also the freedom to *not *be lied about or otherwise suffer the consequences of another persons "Freedom of Speech" .  Thats why we have defamation laws and why abusive and offensive language  is considered a crime at various levels.


----------



## Julia

wayneL said:


> Becoming offended is a personal choice, every person has the liberty to not be offended. Today in Australia. becoming offended is an industry and a sport which only serves to divide society. There are better ways to change thinking, legislation just doesn't do it.



Sums it up well imo. As a society we have become unbelievably precious and ready to take offence.



McLovin said:


> If there were no kids around and there is no intent to cause offence, and someone wanted to walk around naked on the street I couldn't care less. It's not my sort of thing but it's not harming me so what do I care.



That seems to me also like a reasonable criteria to determine offensiveness.  Personally, I'd be more 'offended' by seeing the naked form of one of Australia's many obese people than by the fact of the nudity itself.




SirRumpole said:


> OK I agree that being offended can sometimes be taken too far. The Adam Goodes incident is one example of the extremes to which offence can be taken. IMO Goodes just should have called the kid a bogan and got on with the game.



I agree, but others will pronounce themselves deeply offended.  I couldn't help thinking when that incident occurred of the number of times Tony Abbott was described as 'walking like an ape'.   Why is it that if some silly kid uses the same expression toward a footballer it's necessarily assumed to be racist?



> If a significant section of our community feels offended by something said, especially if what was said has no basis in fact, then I think that is a concern. If offensive comments do have a basis in fact, then I believe that is part of a normal debate and should not be sanctioned. eg there is a lot of debate about Islam and the way they treat women. Muslims may be offended by that , but the fact is that their religion allows women to be treated badly and people have a right to point that out.



But here you are imposing your culture on muslims, aren't you?   How sure can you be that muslim women feel badly treated?   Much that I've read attests to the reality that many of them choose to be eg covered up, and that they interpret what we perceive as their disadvantaged status within their own society as their men showing respect for them.  No, we don't get it, but likewise, they don't get much of what we believe in either.



> So what better ways are there to change thinking in your opinion ? We could have a massive education campaign I suppose, but at what cost ?



Who are you going to 'educate' about what exactly?   Most of the last several pages just highlights the reality that it's virtually impossible to say what is offensive and what is not, because it's usually very subjective.
I have sufficient faith in the basic sense of our collective sensibility to believe that if something is really utterly unacceptable the public outcry will quickly point to this.

Take as an example the character (can't remember the name), a muslim born and bred in Australia who posted photos of himself with severed heads, boasting about what a great warrior he was.  I don't think there was too much conjecture about whether or not that was offensive.



IFocus said:


> *The proposals were always compromised because they were motivated as a personal favour for just one man: Andrew Bolt.*



Really?   And your evidence for this is?   Seems like a complete assumption to suit your own political persuasion to me.  I think you are grossly exaggerating Andrew Bolt's importance to anyone.



basilio said:


> Are you serious sweetie ? Have you taken your medication today or you still away with the fairies ?!



Are you not the person who has repeatedly decried the use of unpleasant personal attacks?   Sweetie???
What on earth is that about?   And making suggestions about anyone's need for 'medication' is stupidly insulting, especially on a thread about what is offensive.


----------



## IFocus

Julia said:


> Really?   And your evidence for this is?   Seems like a complete assumption to suit your own political persuasion to me.  I think you are grossly exaggerating Andrew Bolt's importance to anyone.




Really.......he is so unimportant to the Liberal party propaganda machine Abbott called him before making the announcement.


----------



## IFocus

Looks like the wheels have fallen off .......more facts from the ABC

Extraordinary neither Abbott or Brandis can explain the policy so they have to use Turnbull who has a brain to do so unbelievable.


Malcolm Turnbull backs Government's anti-terror laws despite being sidelined on controversial data retention plan



> Malcolm Turnbull has emerged to back the Government's proposed new anti-terrorism laws, despite his anger over being sidelined over the plans.
> 
> The Communications Minister was not part of this week's National Security Committee meeting which gave in-principle agreement to controversial data retention plans.
> 
> The ABC understands he is angry he did not know about the plan before reading about it in a newspaper on Tuesday.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-...-laws-as-labors-says-brandis-disaster/5655724


----------



## IFocus

Now we get to real pressure rising.....more facts from the ABC

Unemployment surges to 12-year high at 6.4 per cent; youth jobless figure hits 14 pc 



> Unemployment has jumped to a 12-year high of 6.4 per cent, despite the loss of only 300 jobs.
> 
> Bureau of Statistics figures show the jobless rate surged from June's reading of 6 per cent to 6.4 per cent last month - the worst reading since August 2002.
> 
> Young people have been particularly hard-hit, with unemployment for 15-24-year-olds hitting 14.1 per cent - the highest level since October 2001.
> 
> The jobless rate for the 15-19-year-old subset jumped even more to 20.4 per cent - the highest since April 1997 - and was 30.1 per cent amongst those looking for full-time work.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-07/unemployment-surges-to-12-year-high-at-64-pc/5654926


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Wayne I really, really, REALLY wanted to read just what amazing corrections The Australian could offer on ABC programs.  Unfortunately it's behind a paywall.
> 
> Feel free to post their comments. Always interested in hearing what they can come up with.
> 
> FYI




Instructions on how to get around the Oz paywall abound on this forum and at a multitude of spots around the Interwebzzzz, yet basilio the (confirmationally biased) researcher is unable to figure this out like us who are putatively 'on meds'.



> THE ABC has refused to publish corrections for its errors, so, from this week, we will begin a column where we publish clarifications on behalf of the ABC.
> 
> An ABC News report on January 22 claimed The Royal Australian Navy had burnt the hands of asylum-seekers during a towback to Indonesia.
> 
> The report broadcast the claims of asylum-seekers that they were forced to hold on to hot pipes coming out of an engine when they were transferred on to another boat and taken back to Indonesia on January 6. ABC News also reported that they had been beaten.
> 
> This report, and subsequent reports, were misleading and unsubstantiated. They should not have been broadcast.
> 
> We apologise to Royal Australian Navy, who we accept were doing their job in difficult circumstances and thank them for their efforts. We apologise to our viewers for the inaccurate report.
> 
> A segment on Media Watch on February 17 said The Australian was losing $40 million to $50m a year. This claim was inaccurate. We apologise to The Australian’s editor-in-chief Chris Mitchell for failing to check the claims before publication. We apologise for any distress this may have caused his staff.
> 
> A second segment relating to The Australian newspaper’s finances broadcast on Media Watch on February 24 featured an edited clip of an interview given by Mr Mitchell. We acknowledge this interview was selectively edited, omitting crucial statements by Mr Mitchell which outlined the strength of The Australian’s financial future.
> 
> Media Watch host Paul Barry would like to extend a personal apology for the inaccuracies aired on his program.


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> Now we get to real pressure rising.....more facts from the ABC
> 
> Unemployment surges to 12-year high at 6.4 per cent; youth jobless figure hits 14 pc
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-07/unemployment-surges-to-12-year-high-at-64-pc/5654926




And aren't you Fabians happy about that....so nice to see a smile on your little faces.


----------



## SirRumpole

> But here you are imposing your culture on muslims, aren't you?




Not imposing, just bringing their practises to public attention. We have all seen the examples of forced marriages, female genital mutilation and other horrors practised by a certain section of the community and it's only right to be able to say that these rituals do not fit in with our society.

As for women covering themselves up, I don't find that offensive as long as it is their choice. If we didn't like it we would have to criticise nuns as well wouldn't we ?


----------



## Tink

McLovin, that law changed in '95, I don't remember anything major happening.
I am sure we can all be offended if we wanted to.
I think all people have the right to freedom of speech.
I may not agree with what you want to say, but we all have the right to say it.

Rumpole, nuns don't have just their eyes showing, you can see their face.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> And aren't you Fabians happy about that....so nice to see a smile on your little faces.




If Labor was in power, you would be the first crow on the perch.


----------



## McLovin

Tink said:


> McLovin, that law changed in '95, I don't remember anything major happening.
> I am sure we can all be offended if we wanted to.
> I think all people have the right to freedom of speech.
> I may not agree with what you want to say, but we all have the right to say it.
> 
> Rumpole, nuns don't have just their eyes showing, you can see their face.




 I asked if you have a problem with that group picketing the funerals of dead soliders/firefighters/bombing victims with billboards saying "God hates fags" and shouting obscenities at mourners. I'll infer, from your somewhat vague answer, that no, you don't see a problem with it as its people exercising their freedom of speech. The relatives of the dead are simply being offended because they want to.


----------



## sydboy007

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSVTOMkJdqs

The wonderful Bee Gees (with thanks to Gunnamatta for posting this on another forum)

TestosterTone could croon this“Tragedy”

Here we lie
in a lost and lonely poll result
Held in time
In a world of jeers we slowly fault
Goin’down
we just can’t make intelligent sounds
we really should be hidden from view
not seen by you
heard by you noticed by you

Tragedy
When Brandis is on 15 seconds is too long
It’s tragedy
When the morning moan brings up Testostertone
It’s hard to bear
With no-one who loves us we
govern in fear
Tragedy
When you gain control but you got no soul
It’s tragedy
When the morning moan brings up Testostertone
It’s hard to bear
With no-one who loves us we
Govern in fear
When the electorate’s gone and we must go on

After budget day
The public’s burning effigies
Burning hate
With a yearning flay us alive
Down we go
and we can take the economy as we go
we really should be smeared in pooh
hoisted in plain view
flayed and booed 

Tragedy
When Bariatric Joe needs to stare at his toes
It’s tragedy
When the cabinet cries and leaks little white lies
It’s hard to care
When the party room is sweating
heading for the exit
Tragedy
Do we have the cojones to knife Testostertone?
It’s tragedy
When Eric Abetz is as good as we get
It’s hard to care
As the public despise us we’re
goin’ nowhere

Tragedy…


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> And aren't you Fabians happy about that....so nice to see a smile on your little faces.




Do you think this will get the Govt to focus on important matters rather than Dames and Knights and remvoing anti discrimination laws.

Practically a year in Govt and we've not really seen anything from them that makes me think they actually grasp the magnitude of the mining CAPEX cliff that's going to see the mining sector construction boom go from providing roughly 8% of annual GDP back to somewhere around the historical level of 2%.

With the population ponzi both parties support it's unlikely we'll get a technical recession, for most of us we're going to know we're in a recession due to stagnant to falling wages, real income growth negative, and once the dollar starts to fall the fall in purchasing power is really going to hurt.

So no, I don't have a smile on my face because I know what the unemployment statistics mean noco.  I lived in a welfare family growing up.  I know the stigma attached to it.  I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

I just hope the shock in the rise is enough to get Abbott and co to start to focus on what's important and leave their little ideologically driven agenda alone until they get jobs growth back above population growth.  Is that too much to ask from the adults in charge??


----------



## basilio

> Are you not the person who has repeatedly decried the use of unpleasant personal attacks? Sweetie???
> What on earth is that about? And making suggestions about anyone's need for 'medication' is stupidly insulting, especially on a thread about what is offensive.  Bas



   Quoted By Julia

That was a very special effort wasn't it Julia !  And indeed it could be seen as particularly insulting considering that the topic was whether people should be able to simply ignore nasty personal attacks. 

Perhaps that was of the reasons I used those phrases ?

But in fact there was another reason which perhaps might be considered more charitable. 

For a number of previous posts I was trying to get established that Andrew Bolt  in his infamous  Aboriginality stories had made many nasty, factual errors about the people he was deriding.  To bring some objectivity into the discussion I repeatedly referred to the findings of  the judge in the case. You can check out the summary at will. I also produced the relevant extracts.

Wayne just decided this was simply not sufficiently true /relevant whatever. He said the judge was into judicial activism as distinct from simply deciding on the evidence that Andrew Bolt was repeatedly wrong in his factual assertions as well as deliberately nasty.

The final straw for me was his statement that 



> What you can't seem to grasp basilio, is that what Bolt did is du rigeur in the Australian media, most particularly the ABC. They all do it!




WOW!! What a breathtaking leap of logic and total disregard for reality. It was at that point I decided Wayne was either

1) Off his meds and therefore incapable of ratiional thought  or
2) Completely incapable of  understanding what the judge said in regard to what was written by Andrew Bolt   or
3) Ruthlessly sociopathic enough to totally  disregard the truth and come up with a diversionary falsehood ie everyone else in the media lies as badly as Andrew Bolt in particular the ABC

On balance I thought suggesting the first alternative was the most charitable.

But hey I could be wrong here.


----------



## orr

The calm, articulate and informed voice of Turnbull having to be thrust in front of the clattering fools unable of differentiating their meta-data ......... because the only reason their in their post is because of their alma mater. 
Youth unemployment marching north co-joined to an industry policy vacuum tied to ideological austerity budget  idiocy that has youth unemployment in europe at levels unseen since the 1930's. And J.Hockey is disappointed. Really he is !!! 

And a letter delivered to my house yesterday from the Local Area Command warning of a recent rise in opportunistic crime. Good to see an institution looking after my best interests. go 'Team Australia'

Luckily my children have a 'special' scholarship to ease them into a protected future. So things aren't all that bad. For me. Maybe one will be Attorney General one day, and if not they can still make a nice frock.


----------



## IFocus

noco said:


> And aren't you Fabians happy about that....so nice to see a smile on your little faces.




Tut Tut...I am not a Fabian.......but must admit you using the term so often (like some people use the F word) makes me wish I was. 

More tut tut........I am not happy employment is rising particularity youth unemployment, its disgraceful that the current government is crowing about non issues while the house is on fire.

Of course its all the previous mugs fault........isn't it that this lot have been in power for awhile now and they have passed legislation and formed policy (not) to take Australia into the future (not).

I wonder how much longer Australia will put up with a government driven by ideologues from the right running the show.


----------



## wayneL

basilio said:


> Quoted By Julia
> 
> That was a very special effort wasn't it Julia !  And indeed it could be seen as particularly insulting considering that the topic was whether people should be able to simply ignore nasty personal attacks.
> 
> Perhaps that was of the reasons I used those phrases ?
> 
> But in fact there was another reason which perhaps might be considered more charitable.
> 
> For a number of previous posts I was trying to get established that Andrew Bolt  in his infamous  Aboriginality stories had made many nasty, factual errors about the people he was deriding.  To bring some objectivity into the discussion I repeatedly referred to the findings of  the judge in the case. You can check out the summary at will. I also produced the relevant extracts.
> 
> Wayne just decided this was simply not sufficiently true /relevant whatever. He said the judge was into judicial activism as distinct from simply deciding on the evidence that Andrew Bolt was repeatedly wrong in his factual assertions as well as deliberately nasty.
> 
> The final straw for me was his statement that
> 
> 
> 
> WOW!! What a breathtaking leap of logic and total disregard for reality. It was at that point I decided Wayne was either
> 
> 1) Off his meds and therefore incapable of ratiional thought  or
> 2) Completely incapable of  understanding what the judge said in regard to what was written by Andrew Bolt   or
> 3) Ruthlessly sociopathic enough to totally  disregard the truth and come up with a diversionary falsehood ie everyone else in the media lies as badly as Andrew Bolt in particular the ABC
> 
> On balance I thought suggesting the first alternative was the most charitable.
> 
> But hey I could be wrong here.



I have  posted  the body of the link, shown my point to be absolutely correct; and I am still amused that you believe the ABC to be a paragon of virtue. How naive of you.

Ultimately, your final straw was nothing more than a straw man.

Sorry lover, you painted yourself into a corner there.


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> Tut Tut...I am not a Fabian.......but must admit you using the term so often (like some people use the F word) makes me wish I was.
> 
> More tut tut........I am not happy employment is rising particularity youth unemployment, its disgraceful that the current government is crowing about non issues while the house is on fire.
> 
> Of course its all the previous mugs fault........isn't it that this lot have been in power for awhile now and they have passed legislation and formed policy (not) to take Australia into the future (not).
> 
> I wonder how much longer Australia will put up with a government driven by ideologues from the right running the show.




And they are being restricted by a hostile Senate who are only interested in power and point scoring rather than the interest of the nation.


----------



## SirRumpole

> I have posted the body of the link, show my point to be absolutely correct; and I am still amused that you believe the ABC to beca paragon of virtue. How naive of you.




Everything is relative, and I for one would back the ABC for accuracy and fairness over their range of their services than any other outlet. And so do most people in virtually every media survey that I've seen.


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> Everything is relative, and I for one would back the ABC for accuracy and fairness over their range of their services than any other outlet. And so do most people in virtually every media survey that I've seen.




Horace, I wouldn't give a fat rat's if you thought the ABC had a direct line to the Pope.

Basilio asked for validation of my comments.

I gave one easily found example.... validated, case closed.

I remember the classic example back in the Fraser Labor years: 

Malcolm said = "This budget is designed to win the confidence of the Australian people"

ABC reported = "Today the Prime Minister admitted his budget was nothing more than a confidence trick"

Noice!


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> Horace, I wouldn't give a fat rat's if you thought the ABC had a direct line to the Pope.




And I don't give a rat's if you think the ABC is the devil's lawyer, most people don't agree with you.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/01/22/our-trust-in-media-abc-still-leads-as-commercial-media-struggle/



> Malcolm said = "This budget is designed to win the confidence of the Australian people"
> 
> ABC reported = "Today the Prime Minister admitted his budget was nothing more than a confidence trick"




I find it hard to believe the ABC said that, I think you are having me on.


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> And I don't give a rat's if you think the ABC is the devil's lawyer, most people don't agree with you.
> 
> http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/01/22/our-trust-in-media-abc-still-leads-as-commercial-media-struggle/




Argumentum ad populum, a fallacy.

I have already demonstrated the ABC's duplicity, and veracity of other my other comments unequivocal, irrespective of basilio's hypocritical and childish ad hominem.


----------



## IFocus

noco said:


> And they are being restricted by a hostile Senate who are only interested in power and point scoring rather than the interest of the nation.




Behaving like Abbott I agree its a shocker Abbott could bring on a DD but wont because he will end up with more PUP problems than he has now.


----------



## IFocus

Always a heady mix religion and politics.

Eric Abetz under fire for backing false claims linking abortion to breast cancer

AMA president says it is inappropriate for a minister to cite ‘pseudoscience’ put out by a group pushing its ideology



> A senior government minister, Eric Abetz, has faced criticism from the Australian Medical Association and the Breast Cancer Network of Australia for giving credence to a debunked link between abortion and breast cancer.
> 
> The employment minister, who is also the government’s leader in the Senate, said during a television interview: “I think the studies, and I think they date back from the 1950s, assert that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer.”
> 
> Abetz was defending his support for the upcoming World Congress of Families event in Melbourne where the speakers will include an American anti-abortion campaigner and doctor, Angela Lanfranchi, who also opposes use of the contraceptive pill.




http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...alse-claims-linking-abortion-to-breast-cancer


----------



## IFocus

I think this is terribly unfair and typical left point scoring



Eric Abetz's abortion backtrack: an opportunity to study Liberal spin in its natural habitat



> Abetz’s ‘clarifying’ remarks are a great opportunity to observe Liberal politicians’ spin when they’re caught in the wrong – it’s like watching an animal documentary
> 
> Last night, openly anti-abortion but pro-job-application senator Eric Abetz linked breast cancer and abortion on a TV interview with Channel 10’s the Project.
> 
> This morning, the senator claims he “studiously avoided’’ linking breast cancer with abortion. Not only that but, that he was “cut off before being able to acknowledge that Dr Angela Lanfranchi’s views on this topic were not the accepted medical view’’. This will be news to anyone who watched him gruffly cite previous medical studies, only to witness his collapsing brow when told the Australian Medical Association think Lanfranchi’s views are rubbish.
> 
> Abetz’s clarifying remarks are a classic opportunity to observe up close the how Liberal politicians try to deny they’ve laid a big, steaming turd of stupidity stinking up the nation. Put your best David Attenborough voice on for this.




http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-to-study-liberal-spin-in-its-natural-habitat


----------



## So_Cynical

IFocus said:


> Now we get to real pressure rising.....more facts from the ABC
> 
> *Unemployment surges to 12-year high at 6.4 per cent*; youth jobless figure hits 14 pc




12 years hey..Tony Abbott and John Howard share another dubious achievement.


----------



## Tink

Well said, Wayne.

It is getting ridiculous hearing the squealing of the left, whenever any discussion is mentioned, which I have brought up through a few of these threads.

It just shuts down any discussion and it is wrong. 
ABC is a top contender.

I am hoping that things change somehow, otherwise it does concern me.


----------



## McLovin

Tink said:


> Well said, Wayne.
> 
> It is getting ridiculous hearing the squealing of the left, whenever any discussion is mentioned, which I have brought up through a few of these threads.
> 
> It just shuts down any discussion and it is wrong.
> ABC is a top contender.
> 
> I am hoping that things change somehow, otherwise it does concern me.




What discussions has the left "shut down"?

If you've got a chance could answer the question I asked? Thanks.



McLovin said:


> I asked if you have a problem with that group picketing the funerals of dead soliders/firefighters/bombing victims with billboards saying "God hates fags" and shouting obscenities at mourners. I'll infer, from your somewhat vague answer, that no, you don't see a problem with it as its people exercising their freedom of speech. The relatives of the dead are simply being offended because they want to.


----------



## SirRumpole

> I asked if you have a problem with that group picketing the funerals of dead soliders/firefighters/bombing victims with billboards saying "God hates fags" and shouting obscenities at mourners. I'll infer, from your somewhat vague answer, that no, you don't see a problem with it as its people exercising their freedom of speech. The relatives of the dead are simply being offended because they want to.




I'm not trying to pick an argument, but I'd be interested in what you think should be done about the above ?

I'd suggest there may be  a remedy in law for "disturbing the peace". Is that strong enough ? Otherwise what else would you suggest ?


----------



## McLovin

SirRumpole said:


> I'm not trying to pick an argument, but I'd be interested in what you think should be done about the above ?
> 
> I'd suggest there may be  a remedy in law for "disturbing the peace". Is that strong enough ? Otherwise what else would you suggest ?




Move them on. I don't believe in unabashed freedom of speech. It needs limits. Disturbing the peace sounds good enough to me. It's a pretty dismal state of affairs when a few religious nutters can hurl abuse at the funerals of those who died serving their country.

The only reason I brought it up is because Tink said that 



> Not even America has sacrificed their freedom for peace.




So presumably she thinks this sort of stuff is good.


----------



## wayneL

McLovin said:


> So presumably she thinks this sort of stuff is good.



I don't think you can draw that conclusion Macca.

Here's my perspective FWIW. I spoke earlier of the hierarchy of liberties. 

So we have:
1) The liberty of free speech, in this case to share their view that God is a homophobe
2) The liberty to conduct a funeral in relative peace, without intrusion from activists of one sort or another.

Clearly in the case mentioned, one liberty is impinging on another liberty, viz 1 is impinging on 2. Furthermore, the exercise of these liberties was not coincident, the church group targeted the funeral.

I think the standards we hold in the west would uphold liberty 2 over 1 in this instance, the church group can go make their point elswhere.

So while they have the liberty to be asses, they can do it elswhere and should be moved on.


----------



## McLovin

wayneL said:


> I don't think you can draw that conclusion Macca.
> 
> Here's my perspective FWIW. I spoke earlier of the hierarchy of liberties.
> 
> So we have:
> 1) The liberty of free speech, in this case to share their view that God is a homophobe
> 2) The liberty to conduct a funeral in relative peace, without intrusion from activists of one sort or another.
> 
> Clearly in the case mentioned, one liberty is impinging on another liberty, viz 1 is impinging on 2. Furthermore, the exercise of these liberties was not coincident, the church group targeted the funeral.
> 
> I think the standards we hold in the west would uphold liberty 2 over 1 in this instance, the church group can go make their point elswhere.
> 
> So while they have the liberty to be asses, they can do it elswhere and should be moved on.




That's pretty well reasoned logic, Wayne. And you'd think a mature society would reach the same conclusion.

The problem is that in the US, the Constitution recognises the right to free speech but does not recognise the right to conduct a funeral in relative peace. These sort of outcomes are the result of such an absolute freedom. The US Supreme Court agreed in Snyder v Phelps. That particular case concerned the same group who picketed the funeral of a solider who had been killed in Iraq. 



> In an 8–1 decision (with the judges ruling the same way as they did in United States v. Stevens in 2010),[27] the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Phelps, upholding the Fourth Circuit's decision. Chief Justice John Roberts (as in the Stevens case) wrote the majority opinion stating "What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it, is entitled to 'special protection' under the First Amendment and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous."[28]
> 
> The court's opinion also stated that the memorial service was not disturbed, saying, "Westboro stayed well away from the memorial service, Snyder could see no more than the tops of the picketers' signs, and there is no indication that the picketing interfered with the funeral service itself."[29] The decision also declined to expand the "captive audience doctrine", saying that Snyder was not in a state where he was coerced to hear the negative speech.[30]
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a concurring opinion, emphasizing his view that the decision related only to picketing, and did not take into consideration Westboro Baptist Church's on-line publications that attacked the Snyder family.[31]
> 
> Justice Samuel Alito was the lone dissenting justice in this case, beginning his dissent with, "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case."[28] He concluded, "In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner."[30]




I doubt that a bunch of agrarian slave owners really considered these sort of things when they hurriedly wrote that imperfect document.


----------



## Tink

I would have thought along Wayne's interpretation, McLovin.

You said yourself that you thought it should be changed.

The only reason I mentioned America, at that moment, was because I was disappointed that Abbott had changed his mind.


----------



## McLovin

Tink said:


> I would have thought along Wayne's interpretation, McLovin.
> 
> You said yourself that you thought it should be changed.
> 
> The only reason I mentioned America, at that moment, was because I was disappointed that Abbott had changed his mind.




Fair enough, Tink. I thought you were saying we should go down the path of America.

I don't have a problem with these fools protesting about God hating whoever. It's where they choose to protest. Generally, I think free speech is about having a market of ideas. Once you start to suppress free speech it ferments underground. Having said that, there do need to be limits, like this example.


----------



## sydboy007

McLovin said:


> Fair enough, Tink. I thought you were saying we should go down the path of America.
> 
> I don't have a problem with these fools protesting about God hating whoever. It's where they choose to protest. Generally, I think free speech is about having a market of ideas. Once you start to suppress free speech it ferments underground. Having said that, there do need to be limits, like this example.




I get Brandis and his right to bigotry remarks.  I can even pretty much support it.  Stoopidity is not a crime.

What I have issues with, and the Bolt case was a prime example, is a person who is unable to make an argument without making up the facts themselves.  If you can't make a cogent argument based on verifiable facts, then you really need to rethink your argument, or better yet keep it to yourself, because it wont take long for anyone who's able to critically think and do the odd google search to quickly realise you're full of frass.

So yes, we have the right to free speech, but be respectful in the way you do it.  The Church group you highlighted has shown nothing like the Christian values they supposedly uphold - I certainly doubt you'd ever find a group of atheists trying to make a point in public in a similar way.

If you can't make a truthful argument in a respectful manner, then I hope no one listens, or if they do that they rip your arguments apart and embarrass you in public.


----------



## Tink

Take Two - 

_FAMILY FIRST STEPS UP TO DEFEND FREE SPEECH (Media Release)
Saturday 9 August 2014
In response to the Government abandoning plans to reform Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, Family First Senator Bob Day has committed to introduce the free speech protections himself in the Senate. 
“The main focus of my first term was going to be solely ‘every family, a job and a house’ and I was very committed to this. However, I simply can not stand by and watch a fundamental principle (as free speech) go undefended,” Senator Day said.
“When the Government announced it was amending Section 18C I was very pleased and fully intended to support the Government. 
“Whereas freedom of speech has not been a core Family First policy, it is a principle that transcends all policies. I did not intend to take the running on this but when the Government walked away, someone had to do it,” Senator Day said.
“Someone has to champion the cause of freedom. You can’t allow yourself to be intimidated by any particular group.”
“I agree, no one should be bigoted; no one should be obnoxious; no one should be rude or lewd; no one should be hateful or offensive; but should these things be unlawful? I don’t think so.”
“The Attorney General is far more eloquent and qualified to argue this case than me. However, if he can’t do it, then I guess I will have to.”
“The government has prepared the ground for a debate on free speech and the community is ready for that debate. 
I will move .._


----------



## SirRumpole

> “The government has prepared the ground for a debate on free speech and the community is ready for that debate.



;
The debate has been had. 

The Senators move will be lost. Labor and the Greens will oppose it, if the Coalition support it they will look even more silly than they have so far.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> ;
> The debate has been had.
> 
> The Senators move will be lost. Labor and the Greens will oppose it, if the Coalition support it they will look even more silly than they have so far.




Of course the Greens and the Labor Party will oppose it.....they have to protect their  Muslim votes.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Of course the Greens and the Labor Party will oppose it.....they have to protect their  Muslim votes.




The Liberal premier of NSW was televised sucking up to the Muslim vote by taking part in the feast after Ramadin and making soothing noises about "our Muslim friends", blah blah


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Of course the Greens and the Labor Party will oppose it.....they have to protect their  Muslim votes.




By that logic the Government was looking to repeal part of the anti discrimination laws to curry favour with their supporter base.  I suppose protecting white mainly male votes is all right in your grand scheme of things.


----------



## Tink

Syd, no one should feel intimidated by anyone, and that is the crux of the whole debate.

Everyone keeps talking about equal but its not very equal if we can't all talk, and that has nothing to do with Bolt. 

I said it before, the squealing of the Greens/Labor is getting ridiculous. 

You can't even have a conversation without them crying out. Pathetic.

You just have to watch the ABC for five minutes, says it all.


----------



## sydboy007

Tink said:


> Syd, no one should feel intimidated by anyone, and that is the crux of the whole debate.
> 
> Everyone keeps talking about equal but its not very equal if we can't all talk, and that has nothing to do with Bolt.
> 
> I said it before, the squealing of the Greens/Labor is getting ridiculous.
> 
> You can't even have a conversation without them crying out. Pathetic.
> 
> You just have to watch the ABC for five minutes, says it all.




I'd argue that it's people self censoring rather than laws that you are refering to.  We're in the age of twitter / FB vendedas where som have this desire to see someone turned into a hermit for a silly comment, even if they are probably being more honest making it than when knowing they have an audience.  It's like the majority who can't be bothered making a real difference by being constructive within society can now latch on to campaigns to attack anyone, and in the process make themselves feel better.  Quid pro quo though, that's the cost of free speech.

That said, I can't really see any of the current laws stopping debate based on verifiable facts about pretty much any topic.  It's like those who fear Christmas celebrations will offend other religious groups.  I don't know any muslim in Australia, or any of my non Christian friends overseas, who has ever mentioned having an issue about Christmas.  In Malaysia one of my friends works as concierge in a big shopping centre and was sending me pictures of his group dressed as santa's elves as they wonder around handing out balloons to children or helping to take pictures with santa.  Too many people make up issues when they don't exist.

I do find it funny that you are very pro speech, but very against anyone from making criticisms.  You can't have it both ways.  If you want to support people having the right to say what they want, then you have to support the right of anyone to criticise them for it, even if their criticisms are at times as equally outlandish as the claims some make.

If free speech is so under threat in this country, how do you explain a Govt minister having the right to make outlandish references to 1950s research and cancer abortion links in a TV interview?  Do you believe those criticising him, and they were from the right to the left to the medical professions, should have kept quiet?


----------



## SirRumpole

> It's like those who fear Christmas celebrations will offend other religious groups. I don't know any muslim in Australia, or any of my non Christian friends overseas, who has ever mentioned having an issue about Christmas.




Of course not, Muslims like a good holiday as much as anyone else, Christmas, Easter they will take it.

In fact I think we should observe Islamic holidays as well. How many do they have ? Could we get a week off for Ramadin ?

 And so we don't discriminate, Buddhist and Hindu holidays as well. We don't want them to feel left out do we ?


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> Of course not, Muslims like a good holiday as much as anyone else, Christmas, Easter they will take it.
> 
> In fact I think we should observe Islamic holidays as well. How many do they have ? Could we get a week off for Ramadin ?
> 
> And so we don't discriminate, Buddhist and Hindu holidays as well. We don't want them to feel left out do we ?




Careful.  You're sounding like those lazy Europeans with all their annual leave and heaps of public holidays.

[video=youtube_share;qGJSI48gkFc]http://youtu.be/qGJSI48gkFc[/video]

Tony could just rebrand Work Choices via a similar advertising campaign


----------



## Calliope

Government ministers Brandis, Abetz and Hockey outdid themselves in mouthing inanities and stupidities during the week. But their leader Tony Abbott outdid them all in spouting some of the most confected and cowardly nonsense, in trying to excuse his reasons for dumping changes to Section 18(c) of the Racial Discrimination Act.

With a straight face he put forward the view that repealing this section could jeopardise building "Team Australia". You would have to be very naive to think that Australian Muslims could form any part of a national team whose first loyalties would be to their country and not to Islamism. Their long term view of course, is an "Islamist Australia".

The more cynical among us might think that he is trying to buy votes in marginal electorates in Sydney's west. If he is he is he is being badly advised. He should have first talked with Peter Leahy.



> Professor Leahy said politicians needed to “develop an honest and frank dialogue” with the Australian public.
> 
> “They should advance a narrative that explains that radical Islamism and the terrorism it breeds at home and abroad will remain a significant threat for the long term, it will require considerable effort, the expenditure of blood and treasure and it will, of necessity, restrict our rights and liberties,” he said.
> 
> Professor Leahy is the director of Canberra University’s National Security Institute and part of the Abbott government’s team carrying out a comprehensive review of Defence.
> 
> He said radical Islamists intent on a new world order were already a threat to the survival of nations in the Middle East and Africa.
> 
> If the declared caliphate in Syria and Iraq survived, bases would be established there for attacks on the West and that would embolden “home grown” radicals to attempt attacks in Australia. Military action would be needed to eliminate the threat.


----------



## SirRumpole

> “They should advance a narrative that explains that radical Islamism and the terrorism it breeds at home and abroad will remain a significant threat for the long term, it will require considerable effort, the expenditure of blood and treasure and it will, of necessity, restrict our rights and liberties,” he said.




The question is, what proportion of our Muslim population are radicals prepared to commit jihad and terrorism ?

I don't think anyone knows, but isolating the moderates who could be sources of information against the radicals would not be helping the anti-terrorism cause.


----------



## SirRumpole

Liberal frontbench mutiny or an IPA hoax ?



> Liberal Party members threaten to quit party after Tony Abbott's backdown on changes to race hate laws, says Institute of Public Affairs
> 
> Dozens of disillusioned Liberal Party members have approached the Institute of Public Affairs, the free market think tank says, threatening to quit the party because of Prime Minister Tony Abbott's broken promise on the Racial Discrimination Act.
> 
> The IPA has emailed its supporters pleading for cash to fund a $38,000 attack ad which will use the Prime Minister's own words against him.
> 
> "Tony Abbott has given up but the IPA never will," the email says.
> 
> The IPA will quote from Mr Abbott's speech to the IPA in 2012 when he said "freedom of speech is an essential foundation of democracy".
> 
> And in a further rebuff of the Prime Minister, the IPA is offering donors a copy of his comments signed by the News Corp columnist Andrew Bolt, who was successfully prosecuted under the current laws.
> 
> Mr Abbott phoned Bolt and John Roskam from the IPA to tell them he would be announcing the government would be abandoning its reforms ahead of Tuesday's public announcement.
> 
> Mr Roskam from the IPA urged the Coalition not to underestimate the "white hot anger" of the Liberal faithful in response to the "broken promise".
> 
> "We have been contacted by many IPA members who are also Liberal Party members who have said they will resign their membership from the Liberal Party over this broken promise from the government," he told Fairfax Media.
> 
> "The feeling from many supporters of the Coalition is a combination of deep sadness and disappointment and white hot anger."
> 
> He warned the Liberal Party base was becoming increasingly unhappy about the Coalition's decision to break key election commitments.
> 
> "This comes on top of Tony Abbott increasing taxes, not cutting spending and now implementing potentially a vast government program of surveillance of every Australian," he said.
> 
> "What many people can't understand is that he will compromise on a fundamental freedom but not an expensive, ineffective welfare scheme for the middle class."
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...lic-affairs-20140806-3d8i7.html#ixzz39x5XjcQr




Dear oh dear, will we see a midnight sneak attack by Turnbull and his supporters, a la Gillard/Rudd.

Stay tuned for the next exciting episode !


----------



## sydboy007

Calliope said:


> Government ministers Brandis, Abetz and Hockey outdid themselves in mouthing inanities and stupidities during the week. But their leader Tony Abbott outdid them all in spouting some of the most confected and cowardly nonsense, in trying to excuse his reasons for dumping changes to Section 18(c) of the Racial Discrimination Act.
> 
> With a straight face he put forward the view that repealing this section could jeopardise building "Team Australia". You would have to be very naive to think that Australian Muslims could form any part of a national team whose first loyalties would be to their country and not to Islamism. Their long term view of course, is an "Islamist Australia".
> 
> The more cynical among us might think that he is trying to buy votes in marginal electorates in Sydney's west. If he is he is he is being badly advised. He should have first talked with Peter Leahy.




Well I think if Tony had followed the advice on his need to “develop an honest and frank dialogue” with the Australian public, things would be very different.

Suddenly all those broken promises probably wouldn't have been made  Instead we'd have been having an adult discussion on the best way to manage the mining CAPEX cliff, a budget designed to improve the competitiveness of the country instead of the slash and burn against the poor.

But Tony wasn't frank or honest with the public for many years.  This is the main reason he's in so much trouble now.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Of course not, Muslims like a good holiday as much as anyone else, Christmas, Easter they will take it.
> 
> In fact I think we should observe Islamic holidays as well. How many do they have ? Could we get a week off for Ramadin ?
> 
> And so we don't discriminate, Buddhist and Hindu holidays as well. We don't want them to feel left out do we ?




The Muslims have 5 X 10minute holidays every day.....50 minutes by 5 = 250 minutes per week ..... 250 minutes by 52 = 13,000 minutes per year for each Muslim (9.027 days a year)...that is nearly 2 working weeks...Sorry there is no time off for Ramadin.

Now multiply that by the number of "working Muslims" in Australia and you will be able to calculate  just how many man hours are wasted each year on their knees and  for what benefit? They would become unemployable under those circumstances...is it any wonder unemployment has risen to 6.4% if the unemployed Muslims are taken into account.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> The Muslims have 5 X 10minute holidays every day.....50 minutes by 5 = 250 minutes per week ..... 250 minutes by 52 = 13,000 minutes per year for each Muslim (9.027 days a year)...that is nearly 2 working weeks...Sorry there is no time off for Ramadin.
> 
> Now multiply that by the number of "working Muslims" in Australia and you will be able to calculate  just how many man hours are wasted each year on their knees and  for what benefit? They would become unemployable under those circumstances...is it any wonder unemployment has risen to 6.4% if the unemployed Muslims are taken into account.




Wow.  Are immigrants not responsible for any ill in this country?

The majority of Muslims are similar to the holiday Christians.  They attend major religious festivals, but are otherwise reasonably secular in their lives.

I suppose you would as against Christians praying too?


----------



## Julia

sydboy007 said:


> Well I think if Tony had followed the advice on his need to “develop an honest and frank dialogue” with the Australian public, things would be very different.
> 
> Suddenly all those broken promises probably wouldn't have been made  Instead we'd have been having an adult discussion on the best way to manage the mining CAPEX cliff, a budget designed to improve the competitiveness of the country instead of the slash and burn against the poor.
> 
> But Tony wasn't frank or honest with the public for many years.  This is the main reason he's in so much trouble now.



I agree, syd.   A few days ago I heard a reference in a current affairs program to Barack Obama's weekly address to the nation.  If Mr Abbott had the demeanour to do similarly, perhaps once a month, being honest about the realities Australia needs to face and asking the people to support him and his government, surely there would be a whole different 'feel' to the collective view of the government?

But for as long as I've observed Mr Abbott, he has never demonstrated the sort of personality that people easily warm to.  It's said that privately he's a good bloke.  That may be true, but it just doesn't come across generally.

I was very relieved when the government changed and hoped for a coherent cabinet, sensible undertakings, and a readiness to listen to good advice.  This just hasn't happened.   Instead of getting better, the government seems to going from trips and stumbles to major tumbles.  This last week has been just shocking, and all of it absolutely avoidable.

I've never agreed with the suggestions that Malcolm Turnbull should replace Tony Abbott, the memory of his disastrous brief stint as leader re the Grech affair still strong in my mind.   But, Mr Turnbull seems to have learned from that, has been disciplined in presenting himself as a team player despite his team, at least in the last few days, treating him poorly.  If they'd left it to him to announce the proposed data retention plan, I doubt there would have been the outcry that Abbott etc have caused.

It would be interesting if members could put up a list of government people they'd choose for cabinet as alternatives to those actually in place.

For a start, I'd be shuffling Eric Abetz and George Brandis off to the back bench where they can do less damage.  And Joe Hockey needs to stop whining about how unfair it is that the public are not supporting his budget.  Instead, Mr Hockey, listen to what they're saying and be prepared to make some adjustments.  The electorate is not stupid.


----------



## SirRumpole

> If Mr Abbott had the demeanour to do similarly, perhaps once a month, being honest about the realities Australia needs to face and asking the people to support him and his government, surely there would be a whole different 'feel' to the collective view of the government?




That applies to both sides and has to happen BEFORE an election, not after.

The people can't be lied to, or to have promises broken on the vague premise of "trust us we are here to help you", coherent policies have to be laid down and a debate entered into before elections so we don't end up with a sham government for three years at least.

As for Brandis, would you believe he is a QC ? Anyone so bad at explaining things as he is should never speak for anyone in court.


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> I agree, syd.   A few days ago I heard a reference in a current affairs program to Barack Obama's weekly address to the nation.  If Mr Abbott had the demeanour to do similarly, perhaps once a month, being honest about the realities Australia needs to face and asking the people to support him and his government, surely there would be a whole different 'feel' to the collective view of the government?
> 
> It would be interesting if members could put up a list of government people they'd choose for cabinet as alternatives to those actually in place.




Ijust don't understand the major parties.  Can't they read the continual flow of statistics that show we've been saving around 10% of income since the GFC, a far cry to the negative rates it hit a decade ago.  WE KNOW the storm is brewing.  WE KNOW tough times are coming, yet the political leaders have continued to over promise and under deliver.

No more magic puddings of lower taxes AND increased spending.  No more fantasy land economic projections.  That was the undoing of the Rudd / Gillard Govts, and from what I can see in the current budget is likely to be the undoing of Abbott too.  Look to the WA Govt and their courageous forecasts on iron ore prices that have as much chance of occurring as me winning lotto - no actually there's more chance of me winning lotto.

I had a look at the Liberal lineup.  Can't say I know much of most of them.  When the likes of Andrews, Abetz, Ciobo, Cormann, Fieravanti-Wells, nash, Pyne, oligopoly Robb, and Ryan are some of your best and brightest the alarm bells should be clanging.  No idea if there is any hidden talent on the back bench, but if there is they'd better move them up to the A league soon because the current team seems as brittle as the English cricket team of a decade ago.  They seem to be bowling themselves out on the flattest slowest pitch there is.

Sadly Labor is not offering any believable alternatives.  So far they've not really offered an alternative at all.  Don't they realise they're setting themselves up for Abbott's fate by opposing even decent policy.  FFS support fuel indexation, provide a balanced GP visit fee schedule, look at uni funding and see if maybe we'd be better off with more going to TAFE to replace the growing hordes of boomer retirees who seem to being replaced by 457 visa workers.  maybe talk about what tax expenditures could be reduce or removed to stop the tax revenue bleed.

Bring immigration onto the table and think about reducing it while the economy is slowed and we're unable to afford the infrastructure we need to cope.

I keep wishing a 3rd force in Australian politics would occur.  Why can't we have an Aussie version of Ralph Nader?


----------



## sydboy007

It's reminiscent of the last week

[video=youtube_share;nSSt9KRfx9k]http://youtu.be/nSSt9KRfx9k[/video]


----------



## wayneL

sydboy007 said:


> I keep wishing a 3rd force in Australian politics would occur.




Yes indeed. Problem is, if this third party told the plebs the truth, warts 'n all, with a proper prescription to drag our country back on the right path, how many votes do you think they'll get?


----------



## banco

Julia said:


> I agree, syd.   A few days ago I heard a reference in a current affairs program to Barack Obama's weekly address to the nation.  If Mr Abbott had the demeanour to do similarly, perhaps once a month, being honest about the realities Australia needs to face and asking the people to support him and his government, surely there would be a whole different 'feel' to the collective view of the government?




They've done wonders for Obama's popularity.


----------



## wayneL

banco said:


> They've done wonders for Obama's popularity.




Yes we can't

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/fir...pproval-rating-hits-all-time-low-poll-n173271



> Two words sum up the mood of the nation: Fed up.
> 
> Six in 10 Americans are dissatisfied with the state of the U.S. economy, more than 70 percent believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, and nearly 80 percent are down on the country’s political system, according to the latest NBC News / Wall Street Journal poll.
> 
> The frustration carries over to the nation’s political leaders, with President Barack Obama’s overall approval rating hitting a new low at 40 percent, and a mere 14 percent of the public giving Congress a thumbs up.


----------



## Julia

banco said:


> They've done wonders for Obama's popularity.






wayneL said:


> Yes we can't



Sigh.
I wasn't talking about the effectiveness or otherwise of Obama's talks.  Just the concept.
Which should have been obvious.
Should also have been obvious from the other content of my post that I'd rate the likely effectiveness of Mr Abbott trying any such similar approach as minimal also.


----------



## wayneL

Julia said:


> Sigh.
> I wasn't talking about the effectiveness or otherwise of Obama's talks.  Just the concept.
> Which should have been obvious.
> Should also have been obvious from the other content of my post that I'd rate the likely effectiveness of Mr Abbott trying any such similar approach as minimal also.




Julia, I wasn't responding to you or your points, I was responding to banco's proposition that is was helping his popularity.

Which should have been obvious.

Maybe he is right. That's probably more popularity than he deserves.


----------



## sydboy007

wayneL said:


> Yes indeed. Problem is, if this third party told the plebs the truth, warts 'n all, with a proper prescription to drag our country back on the right path, how many votes do you think they'll get?




Labor were able to achieve some very difficult reforms in the 80s, so I believe the public can be brought along IF you explain it in a logical manner AND the costs of change are fair and seen to be fair by the community.

Howard was able to get the GST through at an election, though yes it nearly cost him it.

Reform is hard, but if you're going into politics to make things better then shouldn't you already be prepared for the difficulties of being in office?  Hockey definitely seems to be ill prepared with his wha wha tantrums against the media and pretty much against voters.

No need to scare the voters, but if you pick a few of the major issues we need to face up, present a reasonably well thought out plan, share the burden, I'm pretty confident you will get the voters support.


----------



## Julia

sydboy007 said:


> Labor were able to achieve some very difficult reforms in the 80s, so I believe the public can be brought along IF you explain it in a logical manner AND the costs of change are fair and seen to be fair by the community.
> 
> Howard was able to get the GST through at an election, though yes it nearly cost him it.
> 
> Reform is hard, but if you're going into politics to make things better then shouldn't you already be prepared for the difficulties of being in office?  Hockey definitely seems to be ill prepared with his wha wha tantrums against the media and pretty much against voters.
> 
> No need to scare the voters, but if you pick a few of the major issues we need to face up, present a reasonably well thought out plan, share the burden, I'm pretty confident you will get the voters support.



Yes, exactly what I was trying to say, thanks, syd.


----------



## ghotib

SirRumpole said:


> <SNIP>
> As for Brandis, would you believe he is a QC ? Anyone so bad at explaining things as he is should never speak for anyone in court.



FWIW, according to a profile in The Saturday Paper this weekend, Brandis "was practising in commercial law whe he entered the senate in 2000. But his appointment as a Queen's Council six years later raised some eyebrows among [Queensland] barristers.

<snip>

"This clearly still rankles with some accomplished lawyers, including colleagues in federal parliament who imply that his elevation in the profession had more to do with politics than merit."

The profile points out that "Since becoming attorney-general, Brandis has had to confront some realities that challenge his liberal philosophy ... saying in a speech in April that 'the more intelligence I read, the more conservative I become.'"

I think this particular government is doing a very bad job, but I also acknowledge that governing is a very, very hard job.


----------



## Julia

wayneL said:


> Julia, I wasn't responding to you or your points, I was responding to banco's proposition that is was helping his popularity.
> 
> Which should have been obvious.



Yes, Wayne, it was obvious.  I don't much care about Obama's popularity or otherwise.  But I do care about Tony Abbott's lack of popularity and was trying to keep the thread on the title.
If they don't pick up their performance, they will be a one term government, and imo the last thing Australia needs is a return to Labor/Greens alliance.

Ghotib put it well:


> I think this particular government is doing a very bad job, but I also acknowledge that governing is a very, very hard job.


----------



## Knobby22

From Steve Keen - Good news in the unemployment rate.

_Hey, great news! Australia’s unemployment rate fell by 0.4 per cent last month! Did you hear?

You didn’t? That’s funny. I was sure Joe would tell you.

What do you mean, it rose by 0.4 per cent? Oh, you’re talking about the ABS figure! Yeah, that’s bad, but if you look at what happened to the Roy Morgan unemployment rate, the news is really good: it’s fallen from 10.6 per cent to 10.2 per cent! If this keeps up, pretty soon unemployment in Australia will be below 10 per cent!

Huh? You thought it was 6.4 per cent -- and that was bad? Actually, that would be really good if that were true.

Herein lies the problem with spin in economic data: sometimes the spin turns your way, sometimes it doesn’t. The ABS uses the internationally sanctioned definition of unemployment, which is similar to Tom Waits’ definition of being drunk: you have to be really, really out of it to qualify. Not only must you not be in employment, but you can’t have done even one hour of paid or unpaid in the four weeks prior to the survey. Nor can you be discouraged by the absence of available jobs either -- you must have applied for something in the previous four weeks -- and you must be available to start immediately.

Hands up all those who think they could survive on one hour’s paid work every four weeks? Thanks Eddie (and you too, Malcolm). And all those who wouldn’t be discouraged from applying for jobs you’re not really qualified for, after years of knockbacks? Thanks Tony (how is the new job going, by the way?). But apart from you three (OK Joe, you four), that excludes from the formal definition a lot of people who really are unemployed._
http://www.businessspectator.com.au...th-about-australias-unemployment-rate-shocker


----------



## banco

The idea that all Abbott needs to do is explain his budget better to get it through is rather patronising. A lof of people understand it just fine and are still opposed to it.


----------



## IFocus

What is it with Hockey?




> TREASURER Joe Hockey today argued his fuel tax increases weren’t unfair to low income earners because they couldn’t afford to own cars anyway.





http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/tre...ch-will-pay-them/story-fnhocwho-1227023404121


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> What is it with Hockey?



He's just stating the facts.



> He later released figures he said showed average weekly expenditure on petrol in absolute terms increased with household income, from $16.36 at the lowest income quintile to $53.87 at the highest income group.
> 
> His statement quoted Census findings that households in relatively disadvantaged areas are less likely to own motor vehicles than those in relatively advantaged areas.
> 
> It said where motor vehicles were owned, households in relatively disadvantaged areas were most likely to own only one car whereas households in relatively advantaged areas were more likely to have two or more cars.




I heard the whole interview with John McGlue. I'm not sure if a transcript will appear.

http://www.abc.net.au/perth/programs/720_drive/


----------



## Macquack

IFocus said:


> What is it with Hockey?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/tre...ch-will-pay-them/story-fnhocwho-1227023404121




Hi there IFocus, has Joe Hockey *actually ever paid for a tank of fuel in his whole privileged life*?


----------



## dutchie

Macquack said:


> Hi there IFocus, has Joe Hockey *actually ever paid for a tank of fuel in his whole privileged life*?




No he has not, and the local fruit shop has to give him a free apple every day too!


----------



## SirRumpole

Macquack said:


> Hi there IFocus, has Joe Hockey *actually ever paid for a tank of fuel in his whole privileged life*?




As the Abbott government prefers to fund roads than public transport, how are all those poor people going to get around to all those jobs they have to apply for ?

I think it just shows who Abbott and Co really care about, or not.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> As the Abbott government prefers to fund roads than public transport, how are all those poor people going to get around to all those jobs they have to apply for ?
> 
> I think it just shows who Abbott and Co really care about, or not.




Plumbers and Electricians don't use public transport to get from one job to the other so good roads are essential for these tradies to get around faster and cut the cost of their services..

Smart thinking.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Plumbers and Electricians don't use public transport to get from one job to the other so good roads are essential for these tradies to get around faster and cut the cost of their services..
> 
> Smart thinking.




I think you will find that tradies usually work within a local area, and don't usually travel on the tollways that the government is proposing to build.


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> I think you will find that tradies usually work within a local area, and don't usually travel on the tollways that the government is proposing to build.




Horace I travel nearly 1000 km a week in my trade.

And I'll tell you what, when I hit that Bruce Hwy in the morning there are tons of tradies obviously not working locally.


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> Horace I travel nearly 1000 km a week in my trade.
> 
> And I'll tell you what, when I hit that Bruce Hwy in the morning there are tons of tradies obviously not working locally.




I suggest that creating multi billion dollar roads for tradies is a waste of resources.

Better to encourage more tradies in local communities, which will create jobs. 

Railways are better for carrying freight. 

As we have found in NSW, allowing private enterprise to run tollways results in closure of other roads in the area that compete with the tollways.

 Better to decentralise business and industries so people don't have to travel so far to get to work plus getting on with an effective NBN so more people can work from home.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Plumbers and Electricians don't use public transport to get from one job to the other so good roads are essential for these tradies to get around faster and cut the cost of their services..
> 
> Smart thinking.




Wow.  So that's why they can never turn up on time.

We just need MORE roads and problem solved...

Or maybe better public transport so there's the option to not have to drive everywhere


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Wow.  So that's why they can never turn up on time.
> 
> We just need MORE roads and problem solved...
> 
> Or maybe better public transport so there's the option to not have to drive everywhere




I am afraid Syd, you have very little knowledge of how, where and when tradies work.....in tough times, one has to go where ever the work is available.

Having been a tradie in the 40's and 50's, I believe I can speak with some authority on the matter....so your theory of staying in the same area where you live to find work, YOU, my friend would starve to death waiting for  work in the area where you live....obviously you would be more than happy to twiddle your fingers all day waiting for that phone call for work in the area where you live........so every phone call you receive for work outside your living area, you will tell the customer, sorry you live to far from me, try someone else...


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> .so every phone call you receive for work outside your living area, you will tell the customer, sorry you live to far from me, try someone else...




I'm afraid I have been told just that when trying to get a plumber


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> I suggest that creating multi billion dollar roads for tradies is a waste of resources.
> 
> Better to encourage more tradies in local communities, which will create jobs.
> 
> Railways are better for carrying freight.
> 
> As we have found in NSW, allowing private enterprise to run tollways results in closure of other roads in the area that compete with the tollways.
> 
> Better to decentralise business and industries so people don't have to travel so far to get to work plus getting on with an effective NBN so more people can work from home.



Thats entirely too idealistic.  While it could work in some industries, it is a pipe dream for others. I specialize in performance and rehabilitative farriery. This takes me all over Brisbane and the coasts and in no way could I stay in my local area. Many enterprises are similarly broad in territory.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I'm afraid I have been told just that when trying to get a plumber




Well, perhaps that plumber has been very lucky to date but when work becomes scarce, and it does at times, then he will have little choice but to pursue work outside his area and if he doesn't then he will starve.

I worked for a large company in Brisbane but spent 2 to 3 years of my time on sheep stations in south western Queensland...wool sold at one Australian pound  for one pound weight of wool and the sheep cockies had heaps of money....we worked 9 hours per day 7 days a week on hourly rates...no prices were ever asked...just do the job and send the bill.....dem days are long gone.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> I worked for a large company in Brisbane but spent 2 to 3 years of my time on sheep stations in south western Queensland...wool sold at one Australian pound  for one pound weight of wool and the sheep cockies had heaps of money....we worked 9 hours per day 7 days a week on hourly rates...no prices were ever asked...just do the job and send the bill.....dem days are long gone.




Luxury



Point is that there is a shortage of tradies these days because most kids want to go into IT or go to uni because they think it will get them a well paid job, even though there are thousands of people with uni degrees who can't find work.

Governments have run down the tech colleges (don't start about which governments did it, they all did), and now we have to bring in 457's to do the jobs our spoiled kids don't want to do.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Luxury
> 
> 
> 
> Point is that there is a shortage of tradies these days because most kids want to go into IT or go to uni because they think it will get them a well paid job, even though there are thousands of people with uni degrees who can't find work.
> 
> Governments have run down the tech colleges (don't start about which governments did it, they all did), and now we have to bring in 457's to do the jobs our spoiled kids don't want to do.




That problem  has existed for some years now and  is the fact that  has made it  too expensive to employ apprentices........In my day, an apprentice received about 12.5% of  of a tradesman's wage and for the first couple of years you were always with a licensed tradesman...this rose to about 60 % in later years.....we did 5 years at college....2 hours two nights per week in our own time and 4 hours per fortnight on practical work in the bosses time.

I do not know who was responsible for lifting the higher pay rates for apprentices, but they sure ruined  the system for future tradesmen.....then some government had the bright idea of 6 weeks bulk training in the bosses time,  hence adding additional cost on to a project...somebody had to pay.

So is it any wonder we are not seeing new tradesmen coming on stream.

How the system works today, I have no idea.


----------



## sydboy007

Joe, JJOOEE.  I think you need to start finessing your economic narrative.  You really do have an image problem.  I hear your pain, what with that deep down feeling you have growing inside that no really likes you, even in your own party.  That's gotta hurt.

So here's some free advice to hopefully help you on to a better path.

I'll just focus on fuel indexation since it's one of the few budget measures that make economic sense in the long term.

So what I think you need to do is highlight that Australian taxation on fuel is the 4th lowest in the OECD.  Bringing back indexation to fuel excise will still mean we''' likely maintain being one of the lowest fuel taxing countries.

You can then highlight how the amount of fuel excise revenue has been falling as the number of kilometres travelled has continually increased since Howard's fated freezing of the excise.

As the second graph shows, road users are increasingly leaners as they're not paying their fair share of road costs.  You can also weave this into your age of entitlement is over rhetoric.  Bolt and The Australian will lap this up in droves, and it's also reasonably good policy.

Now you might have to do something about the fact that even though poor people don't drive that much, they do spend a much larger share of their income on travel.  I'll leave it up to you if you want to tackle that very real issue or not.

So can I suggest you focus more on the economics and less on making so many issues about class.


----------



## overhang

noco said:


> That problem  has existed for some years now and  is the fact that  has made it  too expensive to employ apprentices........In my day, an apprentice received about 12.5% of  of a tradesman's wage and for the first couple of years you were always with a licensed tradesman...this rose to about 60 % in later years.....we did 5 years at college....2 hours two nights per week in our own time and 4 hours per fortnight on practical work in the bosses time.
> 
> I do not know who was responsible for lifting the higher pay rates for apprentices, but they sure ruined  the system for future tradesmen.....then some government had the bright idea of 6 weeks bulk training in the bosses time,  hence adding additional cost on to a project...somebody had to pay.
> 
> So is it any wonder we are not seeing new tradesmen coming on stream.
> 
> How the system works today, I have no idea.




Not sure where you get the idea its too expensive to employ apprentices, award rates for a first year chippy are $305.35 a week or a little over $8 an hour.  Considering these apprentices are often charged out at $50-$70 an hour I hardly think the wages are too exorbitant.  That really is inline with that 12.5% you mentioned too.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> I am afraid Syd, you have very little knowledge of how, where and when tradies work.....in tough times, one has to go where ever the work is available.
> 
> Having been a tradie in the 40's and 50's, I believe I can speak with some authority on the matter....so your theory of staying in the same area where you live to find work, YOU, my friend would starve to death waiting for  work in the area where you live....obviously you would be more than happy to twiddle your fingers all day waiting for that phone call for work in the area where you live........so every phone call you receive for work outside your living area, you will tell the customer, sorry you live to far from me, try someone else...




Lets see if anyone responds to say they've had a tradie recently arrive on time.  The last 4 times I've had someone out 3 of them were more than an hour late while the 4th was half an hour early, which was nearly as annoying as I was sleeping between night shifts.

So I can understand if a tradie has to move around a lot for the work, but if you're going to be late then have the decency to ring up and say sorry I'll be there in roughly XX time and is that still convenient to you.  In the age of the mobile phone there's no excuse not to do this.  The fact is I've used a different tradie each time I needed work done at home due to the poor service.  IF I ever find one that can arrive reasonably on time they'll get repeat business out of me.

Better public transport, and I'd say putting a better bike path system within the cities to make short trips by bike easier and safer, would help to limit the massive level of congestion most main roads now have.  I'd prefer a Government that invested in infrastructure based on the biggest economic dividend provided than based on vote garnering.


----------



## sydboy007

overhang said:


> Not sure where you get the idea its too expensive to employ apprentices, award rates for a first year chippy are $305.35 a week or a little over $8 an hour.  Considering these apprentices are often charged out at $50-$70 an hour I hardly think the wages are too exorbitant.  That really is inline with that 12.5% you mentioned too.




Sheesh.  Even living at home that would barely let you own a vehicle and drive around for work.  $506 a year for TAFE fees comes out of that.  I'd prefer some of the PPL money moved to the TAFE sector.  Give locals the chance to skill up outside the uni sector.  Works very well for the Germans and Scandinavians.


----------



## overhang

drsmith said:


> He's just stating the facts.




It appears it's selective facts when the relevant stat would be how it affects different demographics as a proportion of their income. 







> The analysis by the Australia Institute, a progressive think-tank, replicated Hockey’s figures that the lowest-earning 20% of households paid an average of $16.36 per week on petrol in 2009-10, rising to $53.87 for the highest-earning 20% of households.
> 
> But when expressed as a percentage of mean income for those same groups, the petrol spending represented 4.54% of income for the lowest-earning households but only 1.37% for the highest-earning ones.




http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/14/poor-spend-petrol-anger-hockey


----------



## Julia

From "The World Today", ABC Radio:



> PAT MCGRATH: Over the past few years, Bank of America Merrill Lynch chief economist for Australia Saul Eslake has been one of the most vocal advocates for the reintroduction of the indexation of the fuel excise.
> 
> SAUL ESLAKE: I thought its abolition in 2001 was a candidate for the title of "worst tax policy decision of the last 20 years," although there's a fair amount of competition for that title in my view.
> 
> The point is that it's important to look at the overall package of measures, including for their equity or progressivity, rather than individual ones.
> 
> And the problem I think the Government has is not so much that this specific measure is regressive or unfair, although it is undoubtedly regressive, but that the Government hasn't been able to persuade the population as a whole, or crossbenchers in the Senate, that its package of measures as a whole is by Australian voters standards fair.




Until Mr Hockey recognises this, he'll continue to further alienate voters.


----------



## Knobby22

Julia said:


> From "The World Today", ABC Radio:
> 
> 
> 
> Until Mr Hockey recognises this, he'll continue to further alienate voters.




+1, and the longer he takes the harder it will be.  

clever guy is Saul


----------



## banco

Let's face it unless he's fielding softball questions from Kochie Joe Hockey just isn't that good at being a politician. I used to think he was good at the politics but not so good at policy.  It looks like he's not good at either.


----------



## noco

banco said:


> Let's face it unless he's fielding softball questions from Kochie Joe Hockey just isn't that good at being a politician. I used to think he was good at the politics but not so good at policy.  It looks like he's not good at either.




Can you name one amongst the Green/Labor coalition who could match him....there is not too much talent left in the Labor Party.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Can you name one amongst the Green/Labor coalition who could match him....there is not too much talent left in the Labor Party.




Match him for what ? Unfair budgets ? Paranoia ? Stumbling defense of the indefensible ?

I'm pretty sure Chris Bowen could put down a better budget than Hockey and I hope he soon gets the chance to prove it.


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> Match him for what ? Unfair budgets ? Paranoia ? Stumbling defense of the indefensible ?
> 
> I'm pretty sure Chris Bowen could put down a better budget than Hockey and I hope he soon gets the chance to prove it.




Heaven forfend!

Though it seems this will be reality soon enough... I am learning Greek in preparation.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Match him for what ? Unfair budgets ? Paranoia ? Stumbling defense of the indefensible ?
> 
> I'm pretty sure Chris Bowen could put down a better budget than Hockey and I hope he soon gets the chance to prove it.




Chris Bowen is a Fabian (communist) through and through...he would be worse than the worlds greatest treasurer, the one and only Swannie......borrow more, tax us more and get us into more debt....that is in the Fabian DNR.

I have posted the Fabian modus operandi twice now....would you like me to post it again?


----------



## IFocus

Its all very unfair for Joe now everyone is lining up to stick the boot just like...........well he did in opposition.



'We can't all hop on cows': Ricky Muir takes aim at Joe Hockey over 'poor people don't drive' comments





> Key Senate crossbencher Ricky Muir has criticised the Treasurer's statements about poor people's use of cars, saying not everyone in regional areas can "hop on cows and ride into town".
> 
> Coalition backbenchers and the Opposition have also taken Joe Hockey to task after he claimed poorer Australians would not be hit by increases to the fuel tax because "the poorest people either don't have cars or actually don't drive very far in many cases".
> 
> Victorian Motoring Enthusiasts Party senator Ricky Muir, who opposes the increase to the fuel excise, says people in regional areas generally earn less, but have further to travel and limited access to public transport.
> 
> "I don't think [the Treasurer has] ever lived in a rural, regional, or remote area where he may have been a school leaver, a job seeker, unemployed, low to mid-income where there's no public transport," he said.
> 
> "We can't all hop on cows and ride into town I don't think."


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> Its all very unfair for Joe now everyone is lining up to stick the boot just like...........well he did in opposition.
> 
> 
> 
> 'We can't all hop on cows': Ricky Muir takes aim at Joe Hockey over 'poor people don't drive' comments




Don't you worry about that IF....Hockey has broad shoulders ......You will find it hard to ruffle Joe"s feathers....he has been around too long...sticking the boot in would be like a pin prick to Joe.


----------



## banco

noco said:


> Can you name one amongst the Green/Labor coalition who could match him....there is not too much talent left in the Labor Party.




dreyfus, bowen and wong for a start


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> I have posted the Fabian modus operandi twice now....would you like me to post it again?




Good Lord no, we have troubled you enough already


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Can you name one amongst the Green/Labor coalition who could match him....there is not too much talent left in the Labor Party.




Haven't you heard?  AQUIS has declared a quarantine for the Liberal front bench due to a massive outbreak of foot in mouth.

Joe seems to be foaming at the mouth the last couple of days, Brandis is near terminal from it last week, while Abetz seemed to have been drinking from an old 1950s cup.  Even your super man Tony had it during a couple of interviews last week with his memorable "It is not what you're doing on the internet, it's the sites you're visiting" line.

Hopefully a cup of tea and a bex with an afternoon siesta will help in their recovery.


----------



## wayneL

banco said:


> dreyfus, bowen and wong for a start




As I recall, these three were ministers in the Gillard Rudd debacle and supported/participated in forming their policies.

Furthering thus policy would be be disastrous.

Are you suggesting these three would radically depart from that ideology?


----------



## orr

I'm leaving foot prints to where I've been, But this quote by John Stuart Mill echo's down the ages, 

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/john_stuart_mill.html#p7oXWtFvataBlPpd.99

in your own time noco, or any others, give us your take on the great Mr Stuart Mill.


----------



## banco

wayneL said:


> As I recall, these three were ministers in the Gillard Rudd debacle and supported/participated in forming their policies.
> 
> Furthering thus policy would be be disastrous.
> 
> Are you suggesting these three would radically depart from that ideology?




I'm suggesting they are more competent politicians than Hockey.


----------



## DB008

banco said:


> This naughty child has a nuclear arsenal




So does Israel
So does India
So does Pakistan
So does North Korea


----------



## banco

DB008 said:


> So does Israel
> So does India
> So does Pakistan
> So does North Korea




Which is why they are all dealt with gingerly.

Have you run out dumb talk radio analogies about the naughty corner etc?


----------



## wayneL

orr said:


> I'm leaving foot prints to where I've been, But this quote by John Stuart Mill echo's down the ages,
> 
> "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."
> 
> Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/john_stuart_mill.html#p7oXWtFvataBlPpd.99
> 
> in your own time noco, or any others, give us your take on the great Mr Stuart Mill.



On the other hand, the Great Winston Churchill said:

“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”

NB liberal in the UK context.

As far as the Mill quote, probably spot on in the context of the time. I think he be horrified by todays social democrats.


----------



## wayneL

banco said:


> I'm suggesting they are more competent politicians than Hockey.




Because.........?


----------



## banco

wayneL said:


> Because.........?




Fewer unforced errors.


----------



## IFocus

wayneL said:


> As I recall, these three were ministers in the Gillard Rudd debacle and supported/participated in forming their policies.
> 
> Furthering thus policy would be be disastrous.
> 
> Are you suggesting these three would radically depart from that ideology?





I think a better measure for this current lot is against Howards front bench which did have some very talented and competent ministers.

The Abbott front bench and cabinet in general are not highly regarded by anyone. There are some very capable people on the backbench but generally from the wrong factions or not far enough to the right.

Abbott is still beholden to the right of the party many being laggards from Howards lower order like the speaker Bronwyn Bishop and Kevin Andrews etc.


----------



## wayneL

banco said:


> Fewer unforced errors.




Well I don't grade a politicians capabilities by the number (ie fewest) of gaffs, rather, by policies, both economic and social.

While this lot has been disappointing to say the least, I do not fear for our country under their stewardship.

I am absolutely petrified for Australia if and when Short'un and Komrades - including and particularly Wong, Bowen and Dreyfus... and you can chuck in Plibersek(sp) in that cabal of economic and social vandals - get into power.

I am seriously considering putting my hand up for alien abduction if this comes to pass.


----------



## wayneL

IFocus said:


> I think a better measure for this current lot is against Howards front bench which did have some very talented and competent ministers.
> 
> The Abbott front bench and cabinet in general are not highly regarded by anyone. There are some very capable people on the backbench but generally from the wrong factions or not far enough to the right.
> 
> Abbott is still beholden to the right of the party many being laggards from Howards lower order like the speaker Bronwyn Bishop and Kevin Andrews etc.




As Syd (I think) said, we seriously need a third force in politics. But not from the lunatic fringes like One Nation or The Greens, or one based on a larger than life personality with no agenda apart from... well whatever it is... like the PUPpies; something sensible from the center - like the Oz Democarrots before they metamorphosed into the Greens without the greenwash.

Something along the lines of the Orange Bookers. (Syd will appreciate their stance on land tax)


----------



## sptrawler

Biggest mistake this government did, was say things can't keep going on the same way, we can't spend more than we earn.

That has caused everyone that does, to scream "WHY".

The Fairfax media has fed into the hysteria, because they need to increase circulation to keep their jobs.

It really doesn't matter what showbag Bill says, they were going backwards at 300km/hr.

Someone will have to put the brakes on.


----------



## banco

wayneL said:


> Well I don't grade a politicians capabilities by the number (ie fewest) of gaffs, rather, by policies, both economic and social.
> 
> While this lot has been disappointing to say the least, I do not fear for our country under their stewardship.
> 
> I am absolutely petrified for Australia if and when Short'un and Komrades - including and particularly Wong, Bowen and Dreyfus... and you can chuck in Plibersek(sp) in that cabal of economic and social vandals - get into power.
> 
> I am seriously considering putting my hand up for alien abduction if this comes to pass.




If you are crap at the politics you can forget the policy as it won't get through (as Hockey is finding out).  You think John Howard would have been dumb enough in a million years to make the comments about poor people and driving?


----------



## wayneL

banco said:


> If you are crap at the politics you can forget the policy as it won't get through (as Hockey is finding out).  You think John Howard would have been dumb enough in a million years to make the comments about poor people and driving?




Ήταν ένα καταπληκτικό ηλίθιο πράγμα που λέει και πιστεύω αρκετά ανακριβή. Ακριβώς δεν σκέφτομαι ότι δικαιολογεί την παράδοση της Αυστραλίας πίσω στα χέρια των προαναφερθε'ντων ξοδεύοντας βανδάλων πλεονάσματος. 

Μικρότερος δύο κακών.



> It was a sensationally stupid thing to say and I believe quite incorrect. I just don't think it justifies delivering Australia back into the hands of the aforementioned spendthrifts and profligates.
> 
> Lesser of two evils.


----------



## overhang

We have two dysfunctional major parties, this government deserves to be a one term government at this rate and Labor are in no position to govern for quite some time as the wounds are still fresh from their last endeavor.  I agree with the few others here that we require a third force in politics closer to center.  We are all worse off under this political landscape.


----------



## Knobby22

banco said:


> Let's face it unless he's fielding softball questions from Kochie Joe Hockey just isn't that good at being a politician. I used to think he was good at the politics but not so good at policy.  It looks like he's not good at either.




Very perceptive comment banco.

Today's Age headline is:
"Libs attack Hockey" mentioning 2 Queensland backbenchers and NSW based senator who have attacked him. 
The article also mentions that his 2nd and 3rd most senior advisors have quit since the budget was released - a difference of opinion?

From the Age:
Mr Hockey's gaffe has capped a difficult three months in which the Treasurer has been under fire for puffing a cigar and days later, dancing with his son on budget night before delivering a wide ranging budget cuts, taking a holiday in Fiji during a key parliamentary sitting, complaining that everyone in the media was against him and co-operating with a biography that revealed he wanted an even tougher budget.

I believe he won't be given the chance to muck up a second budget. 
Noco, please tell me when that rag, the Courier Mail attacks him, (or even reports the attacks of the Queensland backbenchers) as this will mean he has lost the backing of Rupert and he will resign soon after. I look forward to reading his autobiography at that point.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Biggest mistake this government did, was say things can't keep going on the same way, we can't spend more than we earn.




But they haven't done this.  Yes we've been told the age of entitlement is over, yet PPL is still a policy priority.

Yes the age of entitlement is over, but what structural balances have been proposed by Abbott and Joe?

You can't ignore the politics of policy.  They have.  You can't try to force through what is patently a grossly unfair budget then wonder why there's such blow back from the public which gives the opposition and non aligned senators the backbone to block the most unfair measures.

Pretty much everyone knows we need to cut back on spending and get the budget balanced in the next few years.  So rather than relying on bracket creep the Government should be broadening the tax base.  Our tax base is increasingly being hollowed out and far too reliant on personal and corporate taxes.  Those taxes have a very high marginal excess burden - estimated to be 24-40% in the Henry review.

In the last 3 months there's been practically a policy vacuum from the Govt.  It is no longer a policy to not be Labor.

We have 363 tax expenditures.  Why not pick 10 to remove.  Probably not a lot of revenue is you pick the ones providing the least tax leakage, but symbolism works.  Quarantine NG to new builds only while grandfathering the current system.  Bring the states in and work out a deal to replace stamp duty with a broadly based land tax.  Share the political pain and show you have true leadership.  Sell it with the question of "Why should only the roughly 5% of households purchasing a property each year provide the largest share of state funding behind GST"?  Frame it as a housing affordability measure by showing a land tax would reduce the need for upfront developer levies so FHBs can see $40-50K reduction in prices.  Frame it as providing the states with the ability to fund their own programs so there is a clear division of responsibility.  Then show how income and corporate taxes will come down as the policy is introduced.

This Government doesn't have a sales problem with the budget.  They have an ideology problem that is blinding them to the fact they're producing very poor policy, the public knows it's unfair and bad policy, and the media is feeding off that.  They've committed funding to a road tunnel in Melbourne estimated to cost $1M per meter, that will produce 80c of economic return for every $ invested.  That is not good policy no matter how much lipstick is put on the pig.

I also find it strange how the media has only become an issue since September 2013.  Why wasn't it a problem before then?

I'd argue the good policy side is the easy part, once you take the ideologically based blinders off.  The hard part is packaging the proposed changes so it's easy to show they are fair.  Once the public can see that, they'll still not like you for taking away some of their lollies, but they'll respect you for having the courage to do it.


----------



## SirRumpole

> Bring the states in and work out a deal to replace stamp duty with a broadly based land tax.




When you say "broadly based", do you mean including the principal place of residence ?


----------



## Julia

sydboy007 said:


> I'd argue the good policy side is the easy part, once you take the ideologically based blinders off.  The hard part is packaging the proposed changes so it's easy to show they are fair.  Once the public can see that, they'll still not like you for taking away some of their lollies, but they'll respect you for having the courage to do it.



Yes, exactly.   With the exception of Julie Bishop who seems not to have caught the foot-in-mouth virus, they seem to have no understanding of the need to carry the electorate with them, or even of how the electorate is perceiving them.  Surely they still run focus groups and do other research for internal purposes?  Maybe they ignore that also.

Agree with banco's comment about how John Howard would have done it so differently.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> Yes, exactly.   With the exception of Julie Bishop who seems not to have caught the foot-in-mouth virus,




Julie Bishop is talking sense, albeit in a motherhood role with general bi-partisan support.

She is actually very well placed if the deck of cards is shuffled, because she may be the wild card that takes the trick having not carrying much baggage to date.

However most of us would want to see how she performs defending the budget or some of the other stuff ups before saying she has the goods to be PM, but  I think she is too smart to get involved in such lowly dealings until the hand is dealt.


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> When you say "broadly based", do you mean including the principal place of residence ?




Yes. Tax all non mining and farming land.

Set up a progressive scale so the tax burden falls on those with land values above the median.

I'm sick of the government putting stuff to reviews and committees do they can avoid making difficult decisions.

If the adults are in charge then start acting like one!


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> Yes. Tax all non mining and farming land.




Why do you want to tax people for owning a home ?

Is this not a disincentive for home ownership ?

Surely we want more people to acquire an asset which can be cashed in later to provide for them in their old age, rather than have people renting and always paying "dead money" to the landlords ?


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> Why do you want to tax people for owning a home ?
> 
> Is this not a disincentive for home ownership ?
> 
> Surely we want more people to acquire an asset which can be cashed in later to provide for them in their old age, rather than have people renting and always paying "dead money" to the landlords ?




Why do you want to tax hard work and capital so highly?  Why does all the public infrastructure spending that generates increases in land values get captured purely by land holders?  A land tax would help to siphon off some of those gains from public spending so it makes the system fairer.

Studies are now showing that home ownership can exacerbate recessions due to the debt levels of mortgages and the anchoring of people to stay in a particular area when they'd be better off moving to an area where employment prospects are better.

If rent is dead money then so is interest.  Rent provides shelter so it is not dead money.  Rental yields are lower than interest costs so I'd argue renting makes economic sense in many cases.  Saving outside the residential housing market is in many ways a better option.  It's hard to sell 5% of your house when you need some extra cash.

We have a taxation system that is heavily biased to taxing hard work and corporate profits, while barely taxing land.  Land taxes are far more efficient in collecting revenue and there' less scope to avoid paying them since it's far harder to hide a block of land that it is cash in the hand.

I'd prefer a system that taxes land, consumption, resources and reduces taxes on capital and income.  I'd prefer a simple tax system with few loopholes, less compliance costs.  I'd like to see within a decade the 363 tax expenditures culled to less than 90 ie a 75% reduction.  I'd like to see all income treated the same rather than encouraging the shifting of income into capital gains.

The above measures would likely be regressive, but that can be fixed with increasing the low income tax offset to help the truly low income.  Increasing the tax free threshold is expensive and poorly targeted help.

There's plenty of policy choices the Govt already has, but they're choosing to ignore them.


----------



## SirRumpole

> Why do you want to tax hard work and capital so highly?




What else is a land tax on the family home other than a tax on hard work and capital ?

People work hard to produce a capital asset and you want to tax them on that.

OK to have a land tax on investment properties because it's someone elses hard work that pays for the asset, not the owner's, but I think the principal place of residence should remain exempt.

If by "363 tax expeditures" you are referring to tax deductible business expenses, then I agree that reducing these would be beneficial as it would make tax avoidance rorts more difficult.


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> What else is a land tax on the family home other than a tax on hard work and capital ?
> 
> People work hard to produce a capital asset and you want to tax them on that.
> 
> OK to have a land tax on investment properties because it's someone elses hard work that pays for the asset, not the owner's, but I think the principal place of residence should remain exempt.
> 
> If by "363 tax expeditures" you are referring to tax deductible business expenses, then I agree that reducing these would be beneficial as it would make tax avoidance rorts more difficult.




Then can you explain why you prefer to tax income and corporate profits more than all land?

I'd argue a land tax is probably easier to get accepted than say having the family home part of the pension asset test.

Land taxes are very stable sources of income.  Much better than the current stamp duty which jumps and falls depending on the level of the economy ie pro cyclical which isn't good.  Do you think it's fair that the roughly 5% of people purchasing a property each year pay a significant portion of state revenue?  After GST it's either number 2 or 3 after pay roll tax - another bad tax on employment.

We need taxes to pay for the services and infrastructure required to run a modern economy.  There's evidence to show a land tax would allow the revenue to be collected in a far more efficient and PROGRESSIVE fashion than income and corporate taxes.  To me that' a win win.  Less tax levels to generate the same level of revenue, with the associated lowering of compliance costs.


----------



## SirRumpole

> I'd argue a land tax is probably easier to get accepted than say having the family home part of the pension asset test.




OK, find a political party to put that up as a policy and see how you go.


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> OK, find a political party to put that up as a policy and see how you go.




And it's that attitude that has got us to where we are.  A narrowly based tax system unable to generate the revenue required to provide the sub standard level of services and infrastructure we have.

Do you have any suggestions for meaningful reform?


----------



## wayneL

It would require a momentous change in paradigm, subject to the scare tactics of vested interests. How can you transition from the current system to a land tax system without victimizing those who have planned around the current system? The changes in economic dynamics are quantum.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> Do you have any suggestions for meaningful reform?




Eliminate the Federal tax deduction for State mining royalties paid by mining companies, phase out negative gearing, eliminate diesel fuel rebate, crack down on multi national companies avoiding tax, recover HECS loans due from people working overseas, phase out Family tax benefits and put some of the savings into child care...


----------



## banco

wayneL said:


> It would require a momentous change in paradigm, subject to the scare tactics of vested interests. How can you transition from the current system to a land tax system without victimizing those who have planned around the current system? The changes in economic dynamics are quantum.




They are doing it in the ACT but phased in over 30 years.


----------



## wayneL

banco said:


> They are doing it in the ACT but phased in over 30 years.




Interesting, any quick and dirty explanations on the net you can direct me to?


----------



## sydboy007

wayneL said:


> It would require a momentous change in paradigm, subject to the scare tactics of vested interests. How can you transition from the current system to a land tax system without victimizing those who have planned around the current system? The changes in economic dynamics are quantum.




Follow the ACT Govt and bring it in over a 20 year period, though I'd prefer to bring it in faster than that.


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> Eliminate the Federal tax deduction for State mining royalties paid by mining companies, phase out negative gearing, eliminate diesel fuel rebate, crack down on multi national companies avoiding tax, recover HECS loans due from people working overseas, phase out Family tax benefits and put some of the savings into child care...




Considering Abbott has been going into bat for the mining companies for years now you're dreaming they'd make nay tax changes that don't increase their profits at locals expense.  Diesel fuel rebate wont happen either - nationals would oppose it as much as the liberals.

Unless the G20 comes up with some way to reign in the global companies getting them to pay more tax is nigh on impossible.  We might have to look at revoking some of our tax treaties since they're being abused ie with Ireland.

HECS loans from those overseas would also be tricky - how do you track them down?  Good idea but in practice I think the costs of debt recovery would eat up most of the revenue collected.  Could maybe put a freeze on passport renewals for anyone with an outstanding HECS debt where regular payments haven't been received.

Phasing out family benefits would be hard, but maybe propose a policy that from a year away there will be no family benefits available to any new recipients.

How do you propose to get the aged pension and super system under control?  They are the 2 biggest spending / revenue loss areas in the budget.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> Considering Abbott has been going into bat for the mining companies for years now you're dreaming they'd make nay tax changes that don't increase their profits at locals expense.  Diesel fuel rebate wont happen either - nationals would oppose it as much as the liberals.




I don't expect the LNP to do any of what I suggested, it will all have to wait for a change of government.



> Unless the G20 comes up with some way to reign in the global companies getting them to pay more tax is nigh on impossible.  We might have to look at revoking some of our tax treaties since they're being abused ie with Ireland.




A courageous government would put this on the G20 agenda.



> HECS loans from those overseas would also be tricky - how do you track them down?  Good idea but in practice I think the costs of debt recovery would eat up most of the revenue collected.  Could maybe put a freeze on passport renewals for anyone with an outstanding HECS debt where regular payments haven't been received.




Passport freeze would be my suggestion



> Phasing out family benefits would be hard, but maybe propose a policy that from a year away there will be no family benefits available to any new recipients.




Yes, your suggestion is the way I would do it.



> How do you propose to get the aged pension and super system under control?  They are the 2 biggest spending / revenue loss areas in the budget.




Make the super system fairer by taxing contributions at the marginal rate, or a proportion thereof.


----------



## IFocus

Well Joe has had his legs cut off so now he is sorry...................for himself I would think



> Treasurer Joe Hockey has been forced to apologise for suggesting the "poorest people either don't have cars or actually don't drive very far" after Prime Minister Tony Abbott and cabinet colleague Christopher Pyne distanced themselves from the comments.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...s-car-crash-20140815-3dsc7.html#ixzz3AWtHEp00


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> Well Joe has had his legs cut off so now he is sorry...................for himself I would think
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...s-car-crash-20140815-3dsc7.html#ixzz3AWtHEp00




Yes you're right IFocus, the budget needs the boot, according to Labor.

What a hoot, the goon show that got us in the fiscal mess, now giving advice. Absolute dicks.

Can't wait to read Wayne Swans book, apparently he supports our assesment of Rudd.

The only idiots who take Labor seriously are Fairfax and the Greens.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/national/a/24733508/labor-says-budget-needs-boot-not-reboot/

All we need now is another Labor/Green Government, to sort out the spending.lol


----------



## noco

ANDREW BOLT.....not the most favorite boy amongst the Fabians, nevertheless he does make a lot of sense as to what  is going on in the Liberal Party.

No fear....no favor.

Maybe it is time for the Liberals to look in the mirror and change direction or else they will finish on the scrape heap with the Labor Party.

Arise the Democratic Liberals.... Senator David Leyonhjelm may have the answers to a new political party to suit the center.



http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...urch-to-the-left/story-fni0ffxg-1227019659286


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> ANDREW BOLT.....not the most favorite boy amongst the Fabians, nevertheless he does make a lot of sense as to what  is going on in the Liberal Party.
> 
> No fear....no favor.
> 
> Maybe it is time for the Liberals to look in the mirror and change direction or else they will finish on the scrape heap with the Labor Party.
> 
> Arise the Democratic Liberals.... Senator David Leyonhjelm may have the answers to a new political party to suit the center.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...urch-to-the-left/story-fni0ffxg-1227019659286




I think the centre would find too many of his policies unpalatable eg


right to own firearms for self defence
deregulated and privatised public transport - bet some British ex pats could let him know how well that worked out for them
no foreign aid except for current emergency assistance
support the deregulation of universities ala current Government policy
The Liberal Democrats would increase opportunities to live and work in Australia...big Australia policy
It's a shame because they have a few policies I think a lot of people would support


assisted suicide
legalisation of marijuana
Adults must be free to make their own lifestyle decisions, including marriage, without interference by the government or any need for its approval.
The Liberal Democrats believe Peel’s Principles of policing should comprise the basis of all police activities.
The LDP does not generally support the criminalisation of victimless crimes and seeks to reduce the intrusion of government into these areas.

Someone just has to come up with some good policy and then bring the voters along in support of it.  It's really that simple.  Hopefully the major parties have started to overcome their deafness and realised we're sick of bad policy and short terminism.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> I think the centre would find too many of his policies unpalatable eg
> 
> 
> right to own firearms for self defence
> deregulated and privatised public transport - bet some British ex pats could let him know how well that worked out for them
> no foreign aid except for current emergency assistance
> support the deregulation of universities ala current Government policy
> The Liberal Democrats would increase opportunities to live and work in Australia...big Australia policy
> It's a shame because they have a few policies I think a lot of people would support
> 
> 
> assisted suicide
> legalisation of marijuana
> Adults must be free to make their own lifestyle decisions, including marriage, without interference by the government or any need for its approval.
> The Liberal Democrats believe Peel’s Principles of policing should comprise the basis of all police activities.
> The LDP does not generally support the criminalisation of victimless crimes and seeks to reduce the intrusion of government into these areas.
> 
> Someone just has to come up with some good policy and then bring the voters along in support of it.  It's really that simple.  Hopefully the major parties have started to overcome their deafness and realised we're sick of bad policy and short terminism.




So what is the solution to our current problems of getting the economy under control?.....what is the solution to keeping the cost of living down?

Any party will win votes so long as  you fill their pockets with borrowed money.......this is how socialism works...use other peoples money until it runs out.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> So what is the solution to our current problems of getting the economy under control?.....what is the solution to keeping the cost of living down?
> 
> Any party will win votes so long as  you fill their pockets with borrowed money.......this is how socialism works...use other peoples money until it runs out.




We have 363 tax expenditures that could be targeted for reduction or elimination.

We waste billions on our military.  The list of poorly managed major projects within defence is disgusting.

We need to stop killing the CSIRO by paper cuts every few years and fund them appropriately so we have the scientific resources to compete in the world.  Abbot has cut yet more funding and now the only lab capable of dealing with diseases like ebola is shutting down.  The fact we don't have a science minister is damning.

There is plenty of taxation reform that could be implemented.  Just about every economist keeps saying we have to move away from taxing income and corporate profits.  This Government is doing nothing to achieve this and in fact has caused a further narrowing of the tax base with an even higher reliance on income taxes.  A higher revenue share collected from indirect taxes is what we need. 

The 2 biggest growth areas of government spending is the aged pension and health.

The largest tax leakage is super.

Howard filled everyone's pockets with borrowed money, because he set up a structural deficit within the budget.  He set spending at a level that was only affordable with a terms of trade boom so large it's more than a once in a century event.  

Now we don't have GNI rising faster than GDP, in fact it's still falling and has a lot further to go before it's back in line with GDP growth, and considering the ToT has probably another 20% or more to fall, it's quite likely that the negative outlook for GNI will continue well after the next election.  Falling real wages is the medium term future for the majority of Australians, which in turn means Govt revenues are not going to be following Howard's golden run when Aussies were net negative savers for awhile.

We wont have another $1T Chinese lead stimulus package to get us out of trouble.  Sorting out the budget and regaining our competitiveness is going to have to be the old fashioned way.


----------



## IFocus

noco said:


> Any party will win votes so long as  you fill their pockets with borrowed money.......this is how socialism works...use other peoples money until it runs out.





So it was the left wing commos that sunk the US through the GFC (remember all that borrowing?)and then printed all the money afterwards............sorry its how the right works expecting the peasants to pay


----------



## orr

noco said:


> So what is the solution to our current problems of getting the economy under control?.....what is the solution to keeping the cost of living down?




Baby steps, baby steps.

I look back at the result of the last Federal Election with an irrepressible glee; seeing the odious Mirrabella nee Penopelopoloplous being well and truly rid of... well at least the Holbrook is safe. 
And Now the Indi independent, The Honourable Mrs McGowen is working with a group of others to change Legislation to allow the cultivation of Industrial Hemp. Canada Grows it . The UK grow It . The Chinese Grow it. 
We have to import it.
There's not a farmer I've met younger than Fifty with or without a degree that doesn't see the advantage as a rotational crop.
You want to help The Australian Economy? Start writing a few letters to to your party and or member of choice asking why it is that you want to hold Australia Back.

If they're honest the reply will be; immaturity of the average, 'ordinary', voter.  Hey noco?


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> We have 363 tax expenditures that could be targeted for reduction or elimination.
> 
> We waste billions on our military.  The list of poorly managed major projects within defence is disgusting.
> 
> We need to stop killing the CSIRO by paper cuts every few years and fund them appropriately so we have the scientific resources to compete in the world.  Abbot has cut yet more funding and now the only lab capable of dealing with diseases like ebola is shutting down.  The fact we don't have a science minister is damning.
> 
> There is plenty of taxation reform that could be implemented.  Just about every economist keeps saying we have to move away from taxing income and corporate profits.  This Government is doing nothing to achieve this and in fact has caused a further narrowing of the tax base with an even higher reliance on income taxes.  A higher revenue share collected from indirect taxes is what we need.
> 
> The 2 biggest growth areas of government spending is the aged pension and health.
> 
> The largest tax leakage is super.
> 
> Howard filled everyone's pockets with borrowed money, because he set up a structural deficit within the budget.  He set spending at a level that was only affordable with a terms of trade boom so large it's more than a once in a century event.
> 
> Now we don't have GNI rising faster than GDP, in fact it's still falling and has a lot further to go before it's back in line with GDP growth, and considering the ToT has probably another 20% or more to fall, it's quite likely that the negative outlook for GNI will continue well after the next election.  Falling real wages is the medium term future for the majority of Australians, which in turn means Govt revenues are not going to be following Howard's golden run when Aussies were net negative savers for awhile.
> 
> We wont have another $1T Chinese lead stimulus package to get us out of trouble.  Sorting out the budget and regaining our competitiveness is going to have to be the old fashioned way.




It could all happen if only the Green/Labor socialist left would get out of the way and show some national interest instead of trying big note themselves with point scoring.


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> So it was the left wing commos that sunk the US through the GFC (remember all that borrowing?)and then printed all the money afterwards............sorry its how the right works expecting the peasants to pay




What has the yanks got to do with Australian politics?

This thread is about the Abbott Government.

I am talking about the stupidity of Governments dangling the carrot in front of the naive like sending out $900 checks to spend on Chinese goods, grog and poker machines....like giving out free insulation.

Fill the voters pockets with money and you will always be popular but then comes the time when the credit card becomes overloaded and at the end of the day, someone has to pay...like you and me so then it is taken out of our pockets and that is when Governments become unpopular.

Socialism is  a wonderful thing until you run out of other people's money.

Get the picture?


----------



## banco

noco said:


> What has the yanks got to do with Australian politics?
> 
> This thread is about the Abbott Government.
> 
> I am talking about the stupidity of Governments dangling the carrot in front of the naive like sending out $900 checks to spend on Chinese goods, grog and poker machines....like giving out free insulation.




A counter-cyclical approach that just about every economist endorsed.


----------



## wayneL

banco said:


> A counter-cyclical approach that just about every economist endorsed.




Correction, an approach every Keynesian economist endorsed. It is a shame these Keynesians didn't endorse counter-cyclical approaches, true to their Keynesian doctrine during the boom; Keynesianism only invoked once the cold hard truth that, no, it is not different this time, smacked them fair between the eyes.

It was also unnecessary and destructive, the consequences of which are beginning to show in the economy at street level.


----------



## SirRumpole

> I am talking about the stupidity of Governments dangling the carrot in front of the naive like sending out $900 checks to spend on Chinese goods, grog and poker machines....like giving out free insulation.




How do you know what people spent the money on ? Maybe they bought a lounge suite, a computer or a TV.

The idea was economic stimulus and it worked.


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> How do you know what people spent the money on ? Maybe they bought a lounge suite, a computer or a TV.
> 
> The idea was economic stimulus and it worked.




Lets do it every week then.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> How do you know what people spent the money on ? Maybe they bought a lounge suite, a computer or a TV..




Like noco said, Chinese goods.



SirRumpole said:


> The idea was economic stimulus and it worked.




Say it often enough, you will eventually believe it.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> Say it often enough, you will eventually believe it.




As will anyone capable of looking at the facts of our performance vs other countries during the GFC.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> How do you know what people spent the money on ? Maybe they bought a lounge suite, a computer or a TV.
> 
> The idea was economic stimulus and it worked.




But Rumpy, I keep saying it over and over again.......those $900 cheques Ruddie gave all the rich and the poor was just a loan and now we have to pay it back and the naive are screaming from the roof tops.

http://fbe.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/796985/1166.pdf

16
test rejects the hypothesis that the impact of the two stimulus packages was the
same (
p
-value = 0.038).
19
In summary, we found a significant increase in gaming expenditures of
approximately 10.4% for the first stimulus and 15.9% for the second stimulus for
a total of approximately 26.3% for the 4 months. A test of the hypothesis that the
impact was the same across the states could not be rejected. However, a test of
the hypothesis that the two stimulus packages had the same impact on EGM
revenues could be rejected (at the .05% level). Payments in the first stimulus
were targeted at low income households
and pensioners. The payments for the
second were given to a wider group with a diverse range of income households
benefitting. This provides corroborating
evidence with numerous media reports at
the time that there was a surge in pokie spending with economic stimulus
payments (see eg. Reilly 2008; Dowling 2009).
20
5. A Short-run Income Elasticity
Using the results reported in Table 2 we can estimate the short-run
aggregate disposable income elasticity for electronic gaming machines. By
rescaling our total 26.3 % increase for 4 months we obtain an approximate 20%
increase for the quarter. The total of the two stimulus packages paid directly to
households was $21 billion and the averag
e total gross disposable income was
measured as $215.4 billion in the last
quarter of 2008 and $198.0 billion in the
first quarter of 2009 (in current dollars).
21
Thus we can use an average of $206.7
billion as the quarterly disposable income which implies that the stimulus


----------



## SirRumpole

> This provides corroborating
> evidence with numerous media reports at
> the time that there was a surge in pokie spending with economic stimulus
> payments (see eg. Reilly 2008; Dowling 2009).




So people who already played the pokies, spent a bit more on them, big deal. What is the actual proportion of those people who received the cheques that play the pokies ? Very small I would say.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> As will anyone capable of looking at the facts of our performance vs other countries during the GFC.



.

How many other countries post GFC, were having a massive resources boom that went on for the following 4 years.
How many countries were screaming for overseas workers and handing out 457visas, as fast as they could print them.

No best to believe the BS and try to re write history. 
Our stmulus wasn't required untill 2011. 
But by then, Labor had blown the budget, blown the surplus and just about everything else it had laid its hands on.

You just have to look at how many senior Labor ministers jumped ship last election, to realise what a disaster the whole Labor experiment was.

Absolute rabble.IMO


----------



## sptrawler

Even Glen Stevens, is saying the Government needs to impliment change, like it or not.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/a/24762360/rbas-stevens-says-confidence-is-worry/


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> Even Glen Stevens, is saying the Government needs to impliment change, like it or not.
> 
> https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/a/24762360/rbas-stevens-says-confidence-is-worry/




Yes sp, it is a must but it will only fall on the deaf ears in the Green/Labor left wing socialist....they care not as long as they succeed in making the LNP fail in their attempt to bring the economy under control after a disastrous 6 years of Green/Labor failures and stuff ups.....these ex union hacks who call themselves politicians, have nothing between those deaf ears......you could blow smoke through one ear and watch it come out the other side.


----------



## Knobby22

Of course we need change, but to take the country with you it has to be seen as fair.

The Libs have made a hash of it and no amount of Newscorp propaganda will turn that around as the number of people buying their papers, or even listening to them is dropping rapidly according to figures leaked to Crikey. People aren't dumb and most don't like having facts twisted. 

Everyone should watch this weeks Media Watch to see even the right in the form of *Alan Jones* is attacking the *Courier Mail* for being biased.  http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/media-watch/FA1335H029S00

As they are on the ropes, the Liberal party is resorting to Nationalism with the Team Australian push which looks like backfiring as though they knew they would alienate some multicultural communities they may struggle to get any gains in the general populace as Palmer with his China comments has just blown up the tactic while it was just getting started.  

("Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."-Samuel Johnson)
(“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.” 
― Joseph Goebbels) 

For an idea what they are up against, there is a picture of Abbott going around in the twittersphere where due to his rapidly increasing hair loss and unfortunate lighting in an interview he looks a bit like a former dictator, and this is where many younger people get their information now. I think they desperately need new media advisors.


----------



## SirRumpole

Knobby22 said:


> As they are on the ropes, the Liberal party is resorting to Nationalism with the Team Australian push which looks like backfiring as though they knew they would alienate some multicultural communities they may struggle to get any gains in the general populace as Palmer with his China comments has just blown up the tactic while it was just getting started.




I wonder when the first use of the term "un Australian" will come in the budget debate battle ?


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> I wonder when the first use of the term "un Australian" will come in the budget debate battle ?




Probably when someone mentions reducing access to NG on housing.


----------



## Calliope

Knobby22 said:


> Everyone should watch this weeks Media Watch to see even the right in the form of *Alan Jones* is attacking the *Courier Mail* for being biased.  http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/media-watch/FA1335H029S00




It is good to see that you now have the support of Alan Jones and the ABC's Jim Middleton in your put down of the Courier-Mail, even though they are problably two of the most biased commentators on the air. I am surprised that  you do not see the irony in that they represent the extreme right and the extreme left. I am pretty sure your dislike of that paper is because of its continual exposure of Clive Palmer's irresponsible behaviour.


----------



## luutzu

Funny look at Abbott


----------



## Julia

Knobby22 said:


> Of course we need change, but to take the country with you it has to be seen as fair.



I think we've all agreed on that several times.



> The Libs have made a hash of it and no amount of Newscorp propaganda will turn that around



That seems unfair to me, based on "The Australian".  I don't ever look at the odious "Courier Mail".
Several of "The Australian"'s journalists have been critical of the breakdown of the budget and certainly also of  the government's bumbled attempts to sell it.

Do you ever read "The Australian", Knobby, or just confine your attention to the "Courier Mail" in order to justify your ongoing apparent dislike of anything Murdoch?



> as the number of people buying their papers, or even listening to them is dropping rapidly according to figures leaked to Crikey.



But of course Fairfax is thriving, huh?    I don't think so, especially given the number of journalists and photographers they have been forced to let go.
We all know there's a clear swing away from newspapers.



> Everyone should watch this weeks Media Watch to see even the right in the form of *Alan Jones* is attacking the *Courier Mail* for being biased.



Goodness, I don't think anyone needs to watch Media Watch to know that Alan Jones and Ray Hadley are simply sensationalist attention-seekers.   Pity for Clive Palmer's sake that they're apparently not on his side, as they could all compete for the highest level of hubris and self interest.



> As they are on the ropes, the Liberal party is resorting to Nationalism with the Team Australian push which looks like backfiring as though they knew they would alienate some multicultural communities they may struggle to get any gains in the general populace as Palmer with his China comments has just blown up the tactic while it was just getting started.



The term Team Australia may not be great, but the sentiment behind it seems reasonable enough to me.
The ABC provided coverage today here;  (transcript plus audio)
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2014/s4071621.htm


----------



## SirRumpole

"Team Australia" is fine when applied in a sporting context , but in the anti terrorism context it smells of "Term Germany" under Hitler. I know Abbott did not mean it that way, but it just shows that his penchant for slogans is getting in the way of a constructive debate.

It's disappointing that some members of the Muslim community boycotted anti-terrorism talks with the government. Have they been frightened off by increasing jingoism in the Coalition's rhetoric, or are they afraid of upsetting some of the radicals ?


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> "Team Australia" is fine when applied in a sporting context , but in the anti terrorism context it smells of "Term Germany" under Hitler. I know Abbott did not mean it that way, but it just shows that his penchant for slogans is getting in the way of a constructive debate.
> 
> It's disappointing that some members of the Muslim community boycotted anti-terrorism talks with the government. Have they been frightened off by increasing jingoism in the Coalition's rhetoric, or are they afraid of upsetting some of the radicals ?




I cringed when I heard that Team Australia BS.  One thing I've been happy about with Australia is our lack of overt nationalism.  yes it comes out on January 26 and the odd international sporting event, but we're not like a lot of the European countries or the USA.

Considering the secret negotions Abbott has going on for the TPP negotiations, and the fact that so far anything that's leaked about them shows the Government is planning to sell us out for some glass beads, along with the prior form they had in the AUS-US FTA negotiations a decade ago, I have to seriously question if Abbott and the rest of his Government are on Team Australia!


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> I cringed when I heard that Team Australia BS.  One thing I've been happy about with Australia is our lack of overt nationalism.  yes it comes out on January 26 and the odd international sporting event, but we're not like a lot of the European countries or the USA.
> 
> Considering the secret negotions Abbott has going on for the TPP negotiations, and the fact that so far anything that's leaked about them shows the Government is planning to sell us out for some glass beads, along with the prior form they had in the AUS-US FTA negotiations a decade ago, I have to seriously question if Abbott and the rest of his Government are on Team Australia!




The TPP MAY benefit the National party and a few farmers, but the rest of the economy will be trashed and sold out to the foreign asset strippers at bargain basement prices.


----------



## banco

SirRumpole said:


> "Team Australia" is fine when applied in a sporting context , but in the anti terrorism context it smells of "Term Germany" under Hitler. I know Abbott did not mean it that way, but it just shows that his penchant for slogans is getting in the way of a constructive debate.
> 
> It's disappointing that some members of the Muslim community boycotted anti-terrorism talks with the government. Have they been frightened off by increasing jingoism in the Coalition's rhetoric, or are they afraid of upsetting some of the radicals ?




I would be very surprised if the Liberals hadn't polled the "team australia" phrase.  Probably plays well with the bogan vote.


----------



## Calliope

sydboy007 said:


> I cringed when I heard that Team Australia BS.




So did I. He does possess a streak of juvenile naivety. Fancy appealing to team Islam to become a part of "Team Australia". After they stopped laughing they would know that they had him by the short and curlies.


----------



## noco

Calliope said:


> So did I. He does possess a streak of juvenile naivety. Fancy appealing to team Islam to become a part of "Team Australia". After they stopped laughing they would know that they had him by the short and curlies.




I guess if there was a team Islam in the middle east and the Muslims asked the Christians and the infidels to be part of the Islamic team, it would be a case of you join us and become  a Muslim or we will kill you......they exploit are racial discrimination act here but you won't find such act in the Islamic countries.


----------



## Knobby22

Julia said:


> I think we've all agreed on that several times.
> 
> 
> That seems unfair to me, based on "The Australian".  I don't ever look at the odious "Courier Mail".
> Several of "The Australian"'s journalists have been critical of the breakdown of the budget and certainly also of  the government's bumbled attempts to sell it.
> 
> Do you ever read "The Australian", Knobby, or just confine your attention to the "Courier Mail" in order to justify your ongoing apparent dislike of anything Murdoch?
> 
> 
> But of course Fairfax is thriving, huh?    I don't think so, especially given the number of journalists and photographers they have been forced to let go.
> We all know there's a clear swing away from newspapers.
> 
> 
> Goodness, I don't think anyone needs to watch Media Watch to know that Alan Jones and Ray Hadley are simply sensationalist attention-seekers.   Pity for Clive Palmer's sake that they're apparently not on his side, as they could all compete for the highest level of hubris and self interest.
> 
> 
> The term Team Australia may not be great, but the sentiment behind it seems reasonable enough to me.
> The ABC provided coverage today here;  (transcript plus audio)
> http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2014/s4071621.htm




Sorry for the long time to reply, I have been leading a very busy life this week.

Worth watching Media Watch. Really is, give it a look.

The Australian have said officially they are advocates for this government though I admit they have much higher standards and allow their reporters some freedom. They do have their agendas that all commentators are to comply with. You must be aware of this. 

Team Australia was another way of saying you are with us or against us. It smells bad to me.
Australians (and New Zealanders too I suspect) have, in the past at least, found overt patriotism distasteful.

Calliope clearly displays the corollary with the Team Muslim statement which is the wolf whistle effect the Team Australia is trying to achieve and of course noco instantly followed. I dislike politicians using tactics developed by Goebbels when he was the minister for public enlightenment. I know they are getting desperate but this is not the way to turn around public sentiment.

I thought someone would ask me for it but here is the picture going around like wildfire  in twitter which is what the 20 somethings use to get information. The words that come with it are - "a recent picture - no comment."


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> I wonder when the first use of the term "un Australian" will come in the budget debate battle ?




Probably when the government announces the tax increases, after the tax 'white paper' is completed.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...cretary-martin-parkinson-20140821-106qe5.html

A quote from the article:


Perhaps it could have been clearer to say that everybody is going to contribute, this is the budget dimension of it and there will be more coming with the tax white paper," Treasury secretary Martin Parkinson said.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-parkinson-20140821-106qe5.html#ixzz3B4kKNTmu

Hopefully all the people who argued the Government shouldn't tighten up on welfare spending, will not complain when their taxes are increased to cover it.


----------



## Calliope

Yes Knobby, going around like wildfire with you help and obvious approval.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> I dislike politicians using tactics developed by Goebbels when he was the minister for public enlightenment.



You seem to be suggesting the use of propaganda is practiced unilaterally by the coalition. That is astonishingly biased Knobby. All parties are guilty of that.... especially those left of center.


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> You seem to be suggesting the use of propaganda is practiced unilaterally by the coalition. That is astonishingly biased Knobby. All parties are guilty of that.... especially those left of center.




They are but give us an example to stress the point. I can think of a couple that Julia Gillard tried but they were pretty incompetent and the press attacked them. Not seeing that at present.


----------



## wayneL

Seriously?



> propaganda
> prɒpəˈgandə/Submit
> noun
> 1.
> information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.
> "he was charged with distributing enemy propaganda"
> s




It would be easier to quote what isn't propaganda.


----------



## Julia

Knobby22 said:


> I thought someone would ask me for it but here is the picture going around like wildfire  in twitter which is what the 20 somethings use to get information. The words that come with it are - "a recent picture - no comment."



Probably no one asked you for it because no one was especially interested.

I can't help wondering why you were so keen to post it?   
Looks 'enhanced' to me and even if that's not the case, so what?

Every time I see Mr Abbott live on screen he looks lean, fit and healthy to me, an example of someone who is self disciplined.  In complete contrast to the Palmosaurus.


----------



## Knobby22

It's just gave us a giggle at work. Not to be taken seriously. the comment was more about the comb over believe it or not.
I'm an oldy here so am not into the twitter stuff. probably shouldn't have posted it in this forum.
Little things like that amuse me though.


----------



## IFocus

Oh god........

Lets see Budget.....disaster......media's fault

Hockey...............epic fail.

Plane crash, hoopla by the bucket full, tough words........right wing commentary happy Abbott's approval rating rises, sigh.

Terrorism, great opportunity .....guess what, talk tough......over reach look like a tosser.

This mob are really a rabble they cannot even get agreement form a centre right senate to pass legislation.

Mean while Labor keep spending all our money.............when will they ever stop?


----------



## explod

What a heap of jumbled rabble on this thread of late, should be in the Gobbledygook Thread.  A bit, no a lot, like the Government at the moment.

And the finesse of Mr Abbot, could just see him with the upper set down Toorak Road, South Yarra, holding his knife and fork with his elbows up ready for take off.  The tongue would be lolling about too.

But just my humble opinion mind.


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> Oh god........
> 
> Lets see Budget.....disaster......media's fault
> 
> Hockey...............epic fail.
> 
> Plane crash, hoopla by the bucket full, tough words........right wing commentary happy Abbott's approval rating rises, sigh.
> 
> Terrorism, great opportunity .....guess what, talk tough......over reach look like a tosser.
> 
> This mob are really a rabble they cannot even get agreement form a centre right senate to pass legislation.
> 
> Mean while Labor keep spending all our money.............when will they ever stop?




Agree with you completly Ifocus, it would be much easier to just let the minority parties dictate your policy, like Labor did.
Then everyone gets a full term and can retire from office, like Labor did, then let the next Government sort the mess.

Well that would have been ok, however the losers are prepared to further cripple the economy.

We end up wearing it. Absolute dicks, they were thrown out, yet they can't let go.lol
Obviously when Labor can't spend our money, they have to try and stop us from saving money. morons


----------



## IFocus

sptrawler said:


> Agree with you completly Ifocus, it would be much easier to just let the minority parties dictate your policy, like Labor did.
> Then everyone gets a full term and can retire from office, like Labor did, then let the next Government sort the mess.
> 
> Well that would have been ok, however the losers are prepared to further cripple the economy.
> 
> We end up wearing it. Absolute dicks, they were thrown out, yet they can't let go.lol
> Obviously when Labor can't spend our money, they have to try and stop us from saving money. morons




Right now Labor are channelling Abbott, no to every thing and no imagination remember cheering for that.

This government has lost its direction thanks to being held captive to the right and vested interests.

Abbott keeps on saying one thing while doing the opposite with complete arrogance same as when in opposition.

The winner out of all this is minor parties.


----------



## Logique

I don't know what they stand for anymore, other than turning on their own constituency and making empty promises.

You have to communicate with people and take them with you. They're no better at this than the last lot.


----------



## sptrawler

Logique said:


> I don't know what they stand for anymore, other than turning on their own constituency and making empty promises.
> 
> You have to communicate with people and take them with you. They're no better at this than the last lot.




Don't they still stand for reducing spending and bringing the budget under control, I just thought it was nobody agrees with that idea.

They don't seem to have a problem telling people what needs to be done, it's just no one wants to do it.lol

A bit like telling a fat person they need to reduce eating, the last thing they want to hear. 

Oh well wait untill round two when they want to increase taxes, then you will hear the other half of the population, they will be saying why us we pay too much already.

You have to communicate and take people with you, that's a cracker, best one I've heard in ages.
As though anyone in our society wants to tighten the belt, best of luck selling that.


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> Don't they still stand for reducing spending and bringing the budget under control, I just thought it was nobody agrees with that idea.
> 
> They don't seem to have a problem telling people what needs to be done, it's just no one wants to do it.lol
> 
> A bit like telling a fat person they need to reduce eating, the last thing they want to hear.
> 
> Oh well wait untill round two when they want to increase taxes, then you will hear the other half of the population, they will be saying why us we pay too much already.
> 
> You have to communicate and take people with you, that's a cracker, best one I've heard in ages.
> As though anyone in our society wants to tighten the belt, best of luck selling that.





Yes SP, as I keep saying everyone is happy while you are filling their pockets with money from the credit card until it becomes overloaded and it all has to be paid back.......I also keep reminding ASF members...those Dudd $900 cheques we received was only a loan and now must be paid back.

Socialism is a wonderful thing until they run out of other people's money.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> .I also keep reminding ASF members...those Dudd $900 cheques we received was only a loan and now must be paid back.




So, what did you do with your $900 , and and you written a cheque to the Treasury for $900 ?


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> Right now Labor are channelling Abbott, no to every thing and no imagination remember cheering for that.
> 
> This government has lost its direction thanks to being held captive to the right and vested interests.
> 
> Abbott keeps on saying one thing while doing the opposite with complete arrogance same as when in opposition.
> 
> The winner out of all this is minor parties.




IFocus, the government is being held captive by a hostile Green/Labor, PUPPY senate who have their own agenda to prevent the Abbott government success in bringing the economy under control.......none of these economic vandals have the national interest at heart...they are not concerned about our young people having to pay  back Labor's disastrous 6 years of economic chaos.......it is all about self interest.


----------



## sptrawler

Well noco it isn't rocket science is it.
The government spends and the government takes in taxes.

The people don't want to reduce the welfare spending bleed, therefore taxes increase.

The problem with that is, you are taking from the productive section of the economy and giving it to the non productive section of the economy.

This in turn makes the productive section more costly and the non productive section becomes more costly.

Funny how no one seems to be able to understand it, maybe you are right and there is a conspiracy.

Labor wanting to up the population to 50million, was an interesting concept, why do we need 30m taxi drivers.


----------



## Logique

sptrawler said:


> Don't they still stand for reducing spending and bringing the budget under control, I just thought it was nobody agrees with that idea...You have to communicate and take people with you, that's a cracker, best one I've heard in ages. *As though anyone in our society wants to tighten the belt*, best of luck selling that.



It can be done sp!  But not by sitting out the back of the parliamentary office, smoking cigars with Mathias Cormann. 

Pollies need to be in touch, i.e. for the information of the Treasurer, petroleum excise tax costs poor people just as much as the cigar smokers.  

A nation that surcharges pensioners and children $7 to visit their doctor is a nation that has lost it's soul. And wants to increase it's public health spending by discouraging preventative medicine. The AMA is correct on this point.

Frankly, I'm glad that Clive Palmer told the Coalition where to get off on their doctor tax.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Don't they still stand for reducing spending and bringing the budget under control, I just thought it was nobody agrees with that idea.
> 
> They don't seem to have a problem telling people what needs to be done, it's just no one wants to do it.lol
> 
> A bit like telling a fat person they need to reduce eating, the last thing they want to hear.
> 
> Oh well wait untill round two when they want to increase taxes, then you will hear the other half of the population, they will be saying why us we pay too much already.
> 
> You have to communicate and take people with you, that's a cracker, best one I've heard in ages.
> As though anyone in our society wants to tighten the belt, best of luck selling that.






noco said:


> IFocus, the government is being held captive by a hostile Green/Labor, PUPPY senate who have their own agenda to prevent the Abbott government success in bringing the economy under control.......none of these economic vandals have the national interest at heart...they are not concerned about our young people having to pay  back Labor's disastrous 6 years of economic chaos.......it is all about self interest.




Riddle me this.  If the dole and disability support is one of the lowest rising costs in the budget why was it targeted - budgeted at $10.5B?  If the rise in medical costs is roughly in line with economic growth, why was it targeted?  Why was a medical research fund created to siphon $7 per GP visit created when there's a budget emergency and the debt is crippling the economy?  The debt isn't but that's the narrative the current Govt has run with for years.

Why was the aged pension, rising much faster than all other forms of welfare, not touched?  Assistance to the aged is budgeted at $55B.  This is the largest outlay of the budget.  Nearly twice that allocated to education, nearly 2.5 times allocated for defence, more than the $52.1B in general revenue assistance to the states.  Why is someone under 30 expected to survive for 6 months without an income in the coming downturn / potential recession but by the treasurers own words "currently, an individual with a home and almost $800,000 in assets still qualifies for the age pension; a couple with a home and almost $1.1 million in assets also qualify for the age pension”. How is that fair?

Why was there no tax reform in the budget?  All we had was bandaid solutions that would in most cases cause major social issues and probably end up costing us more than the proposed savings.

We were told the Govt had a plan, yet voters feel the only plan is attack the poor, unless it's another conspiracy that all the polls are being doctored, even the ones run by newscorp.

Saying we have to wait for the tax white paper is not policy.  It's a cop out.  There's 363 tax expenditures benefiting mainly the top 30% of income earners.  They distort the allocation of scarce capital in the economy.  Why couldn't some of them have been reduced or removed in the budget?  Why is the tax system being narrowed and increasingly reliant on income taxes?  Why is the Government going against treasury advice to increase indirect taxation while reducing income and corporate taxes?

A fair budget wouldn't have the opposition that the Government's unfair budget is getting.  A fair budget is easy to defend.  An unfair budget gets you into wild statements like poor people don't have cars.

Why was it always the previous Govts fault, but this Govt seems to be blameless, and it's always some external party's fault?  It's an uncooperative senate - no more than the previous one.  It's the media.  How is the media any more partisan than prior to October 2013?


----------



## sptrawler

Logique said:


> It can be done sp!  But not by sitting out the back of the parliamentary office, smoking cigars with Mathias Cormann.
> 
> Pollies need to be in touch, i.e. for the information of the Treasurer, petroleum excise tax costs poor people just as much as the cigar smokers.
> 
> A nation that surcharges pensioners and children $7 to visit their doctor is a nation that has lost it's soul. And wants to increase it's public health spending by discouraging preventative medicine. The AMA is correct on this point.
> 
> Frankly, I'm glad that Clive Palmer told the Coalition where to get off on their doctor tax.




I was going to have a shot at the obvious contradiction regarding pollies smoking cigars/ pollies arriving in private jets.

But I really find it a bit of a shock, that someone I thought was open minded, can't see the sense in the idea.
Two points.
1. As far as I know those with an ongoing condition are exempt. I know this because my Mum freaked, I said calm down and find out the facts. She asked her doctor and he told her because she had an ongoing condition it wouldn't affect her.
2. From personal knowledge, those who get things free, overuse it, BIG TIME.
If you don't mind that o.k, the cost will keep escalating exponentionally. 
Whether it is $7 or $5 or 50cents, it has to cost something, or else it is abused, because it is free, it is of no value. 
That's life.

As for the indexed fuel excise, it was introduced by Labor and abolished by Liberal.
To tell you the truth the fuel excise would hurt me, as I have bought a caravan and want to join the grey nomads.
However the ones who are against it, support the carbon tax, weird it is a carbon tax.

The whole problem I have with most of the arguements are, they are against not cutting welfare spending, but against how it is indexed.

The funny thing is, now the average wage is increasing slower than cpi, so it will cost pensioners money to keep the existing system.lol
Another Labor cockup.

All the white sound is confusing the real issues.


----------



## SirRumpole

> Why was the aged pension, rising much faster than all other forms of welfare, not touched?




It was, the rate of indexation was cut, that's one of the reasons the budget was unfair to those on low incomes.


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> It was, the rate of indexation was cut, that's one of the reasons the budget was unfair to those on low incomes.





The pension has increased by 25% over the last 4.5 years - well above the 13% increase in the CPI or the 14% increase in pensioner cost of living.
Just to re-cap, the May Budget announced that the indexation arrangements for the Aged Pension would be changed so that instead of being adjusted upwards twice a year by the greater of male average earnings growth or the pensioner cost of living allowance, it would instead be linked to the consumer price index (CPI), so that it would grow in-line with overall prices and would not increase (or fall) in real terms.
Moreover, under the current low wages growth environment, pensioners are in the fortuitous position whereby their incomes will likely grow faster than average earnings. For instance, last week the ABS revealed that male average earnings rose by only 1.2% in the six months to May – below the 1.4% rise in the pensioner cost of living index. In effect, pensioners currently get to enjoy increases in line with male earnings when income growth is strong and then increases in line with the pensioner cost of living index when income growth is soft – we should all be so lucky.
Considering wages are now growing slower than CPI it means pensioners are likely to still be getting a better deal than the majority of workers.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Riddle me this.  If the dole and disability support is one of the lowest rising costs in the budget why was it targeted - budgeted at $10.5B?  If the rise in medical costs is roughly in line with economic growth, why was it targeted?  Why was a medical research fund created to siphon $7 per GP visit created when there's a budget emergency and the debt is crippling the economy?  The debt isn't but that's the narrative the current Govt has run with for years.
> 
> Why was the aged pension, rising much faster than all other forms of welfare, not touched?  Assistance to the aged is budgeted at $55B.  This is the largest outlay of the budget.  Nearly twice that allocated to education, nearly 2.5 times allocated for defence, more than the $52.1B in general revenue assistance to the states.  Why is someone under 30 expected to survive for 6 months without an income in the coming downturn / potential recession but by the treasurers own words "currently, an individual with a home and almost $800,000 in assets still qualifies for the age pension; a couple with a home and almost $1.1 million in assets also qualify for the age pension”. How is that fair?
> 
> Why was there no tax reform in the budget?  All we had was bandaid solutions that would in most cases cause major social issues and probably end up costing us more than the proposed savings.
> 
> We were told the Govt had a plan, yet voters feel the only plan is attack the poor, unless it's another conspiracy that all the polls are being doctored, even the ones run by newscorp.
> 
> Saying we have to wait for the tax white paper is not policy.  It's a cop out.  There's 363 tax expenditures benefiting mainly the top 30% of income earners.  They distort the allocation of scarce capital in the economy.  Why couldn't some of them have been reduced or removed in the budget?  Why is the tax system being narrowed and increasingly reliant on income taxes?  Why is the Government going against treasury advice to increase indirect taxation while reducing income and corporate taxes?
> 
> A fair budget wouldn't have the opposition that the Government's unfair budget is getting.  A fair budget is easy to defend.  An unfair budget gets you into wild statements like poor people don't have cars.
> 
> Why was it always the previous Govts fault, but this Govt seems to be blameless, and it's always some external party's fault?  It's an uncooperative senate - no more than the previous one.  It's the media.  How is the media any more partisan than prior to October 2013?




Firstly I wish you wouldn't ask so many questions at once, it is really difficult to balance answering you time, with not ignoring the missus and watching the footy.

1. Disability has been rorted for years, not being funny but I do know it has. (I could have qualified, but chose not to).

2.Aged pension, they were only going to change the indexing. Currently it linked to acerage wage, they wanted it linked to cpi. Wasn't access to the dole linked to if you had worked recently, also weren't they going to pay relocation cost to where jobs are?
With regards the pension if someone 55 gives up their job, travels the world, buys porsches and blow all their money, qualify for a taxpayer funded income of $32,000 per year indexed to the average wage. Sounds good to me.

3. So when the tax white paper comes out and the tax scales go back to the baby boomer early years, you'le be fine with that. 50k = 60% in todays terms that would be about the $180k/annum.

The reason they are waiting for a white paper on tax, probably is because the aren't as arrogant/ignorant or stupid as the last government and don't want to shoot from the hip.
That seems novel, as everyone today seems to have all the answers, the problem is most haven't lived long enough to understand the questions.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> It was, the rate of indexation was cut, that's one of the reasons the budget was unfair to those on low incomes.




As Syd and I said, pensioners would get more money if it was linked to cpi, not wages. As the RBA has said on numerous occassions they expect average wages to fall and cpi to be at the upper levels of their range.
But as is usual, the plebs listen to the white sound from the hollow vessels. Priceless
Haven't you read wages are falling, cpi is rising, the dollar is falling which will result in a rise in cpi.

I really do get a laugh out of your posts.lol


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> The pension has increased by 25% over the last 4.5 years - well above the 13% increase in the CPI or the 14% increase in pensioner cost of living.
> Just to re-cap, the May Budget announced that the indexation arrangements for the Aged Pension would be changed so that instead of being adjusted upwards twice a year by the greater of male average earnings growth or the pensioner cost of living allowance, it would instead be linked to the consumer price index (CPI), so that it would grow in-line with overall prices and would not increase (or fall) in real terms.
> Moreover, under the current low wages growth environment, pensioners are in the fortuitous position whereby their incomes will likely grow faster than average earnings. For instance, last week the ABS revealed that male average earnings rose by only 1.2% in the six months to May – below the 1.4% rise in the pensioner cost of living index. In effect, pensioners currently get to enjoy increases in line with male earnings when income growth is strong and then increases in line with the pensioner cost of living index when income growth is soft – we should all be so lucky.
> *Considering wages are now growing slower than CPI it means pensioners are likely to still be getting a better deal than the majority of workers*.




And a lot of people who saved for their retirement, rather than blowing it.
I think you are slowly turning.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> 1. Disability has been rorted for years, not being funny but I do know it has. (I could have qualified, but chose not to).




So that's a good reason to cut off someone under the age of 30 from income support?



sptrawler said:


> 2.Aged pension, they were only going to change the indexing. Currently it linked to acerage wage, they wanted it linked to cpi.




The current system gives pensioners the higher of average wage growth or pensioner cpi.  basically heads they win tails tax payers lose.



sptrawler said:


> With regards the pension if someone 55 gives up their job, travels the world, buys porsches and blow all their money, qualify for a taxpayer funded income of $32,000 per year indexed to the average wage. Sounds good to me.




Interesting to see how sustainable that is when aged support is already 15% of the budget.



sptrawler said:


> 3. So when the tax white paper comes out and the tax scales go back to the baby boomer early years, you'le be fine with that. 50k = 60% in todays terms that would be about the $180k/annum.




Why would that be a sensible and sustainable proposal?  Why not target all the areas that we choose not to tax?  Why not reign in NG?  Why not reign in super tax concessions?  Why not move the tax revenue from direct taxes to indirect taxes like the henry tax review suggested and which the OECD and IMF and pretty much anyone with a basic understanding of how taxation works is recommending?



sptrawler said:


> The reason they are waiting for a white paper on tax, probably is because the aren't as arrogant/ignorant or stupid as the last government and don't want to shoot from the hip.
> That seems novel, as everyone today seems to have all the answers, the problem is most haven't lived long enough to understand the questions.




So you believe there is not a single recommending in the Henry tax review that could have been used in the budget?  

http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/co...ons/papers/final_report_part_1/chapter_12.htm

138 recommendations and the Govt, like Labor, has chosen to ignore them.  How is that rational when we're told there's a budget crisis?  It's only rational when political ideology trumps good policy.

How about

Recommendation 10: Consideration should be given to a revised regime to prevent the alienation of personal services income that would extend to all entities earning a significant proportion of their business income from the personal services of their owner-managers, whether in employee-like or non-employee-like cases. This regime may also apply an arm's length rule to deductions arising from payments to associates to ensure deductions reflect the value of services provided.

Recommendation 13: Gift deductibility should be retained, with the deductibility threshold raised from $2 to $25.

Recommendation 18: The tax on superannuation contributions in the fund should be abolished. Employer superannuation contributions should be treated as income in the hands of the individual, taxed at marginal personal income tax rates and receive a flat-rate refundable tax offset.


An offset should be provided for all superannuation contributions up to an annual cap of $25,000 (indexed). The offset should be set so the majority of taxpayers do not pay more than 15 per cent tax on their contributions. The cap should be doubled for people aged 50 or older.
An annual cap on total contributions should continue to apply.
The offset should replace the superannuation co-contribution and superannuation spouse contribution tax offset.
Compulsory superannuation contributions made by employers should not reduce eligibility for income support or family assistance payments. They should also not form part of the calculation for child support.

Recommendation 51: Ideally, there would be no role for any stamp duties, including conveyancing stamp duties, in a modern Australian tax system. Recognising the revenue needs of the States, the removal of stamp duty should be achieved through a switch to more efficient taxes, such as those levied on broad consumption or land bases. Increasing land tax at the same time as reducing stamp duty has the additional benefit of some offsetting impacts on asset prices.

Recommendation 52: Given the efficiency benefits of a broad land tax, it should be levied on as broad a base as possible. In order to tax more valuable land at higher rates, consideration should be given to levying land tax using an increasing marginal rate schedule, with the lowest rate being zero, with thresholds determined by the per-square-metre value.

Recommendation 53: In the long run, the land tax base should be broadened to eventually include all land. If this occurs, low-value land, such as most agricultural land, would not face a land tax liability where its value per square metre is below the lowest rate threshold.

Recommendation 54: There are a number of incremental reforms that could potentially improve the operation of land tax, including:


ensuring that land tax applies per land holding, not on an entity's total holding, in order to promote investment in land development;
eliminating stamp duties on commercial and industrial properties in return for a broad land tax on those properties; and
investigating various transitional arrangements necessary to achieve a broader land tax.

*Recommendation 135: The Australian government should ensure that the rules governing the development of the Budget encourage trade-offs between tax expenditures and spending programs. Budget decision-making processes should measure and treat tax expenditures and spending programs symmetrically, to ensure that there is no artificial incentive to deliver programs through one mechanism rather than another.*

I wont bother to list the other worthy proposals from the review, but there's plenty of them.


----------



## sptrawler

I agree completly Syd, there should be a complete overhaul of the tax system, also there should be a reigning in on the welfare system and government spending.

All of the above needs doing to make a sustainable Australian society, Labor stuffed it up, but were given leeway to impliment failed policy.

Now we flip governments, yet don't extend that opportunity, it is stupid.

To put in a new manager and say you can't change anything is dumb. It's destined to fail as no change is allowed.

If they impliment something that in three years has a negative effect, you throw them out and overturn it.

What is currently happening, is no change and credibility is being given to absolute F$$$$$wits like palmer and Shorten.
Nothing sensible to add to the debate, yet have to dissagree, Palmer because he hasn't got a clue and Shorten because they stuffed it and have to see the situation worsen to gain any traction.

Let the change happen and vote on it next election, it isn't the end of the world.

If the change is negative it will be recinded next election, ala the carbon tax, the mining tax.
FFS how can you judge before anything is enacted, why have change at all?

By the way, I'm sure the white paper review would take the Henry tax paper into its considerations.
If they didn't, it would be easy for people to use it as reference to argue, I doubt they would risk the validity of the white paper review on that premise.
But it is a straw man arguement, as you would say.lol

I like the idea of your land tax, the price being paid is stupid and doesn't encourage de centralisation, which in my opinion is essential to maintain Australia as we know it.

I did find it funny that you mocked my examples of how easy it is to rort the existing welfare system, yet you support it. Obviously helps make your post look better, but undermines your sincerity.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> So, what did you do with your $900 , and and you written a cheque to the Treasury for $900 ?





That is for me to know and you to find out whether I actually received one and if I did, how I spent it.

Come what may, I will be paying off other peoples pleasure on the pokies in 2008.


----------



## noco

*Recommendation 51: Ideally, there would be no role for any stamp duties, including conveyancing stamp duties, in a modern Australian tax system. Recognising the revenue needs of the States, the removal of stamp duty should be achieved through a switch to more efficient taxes, such as those levied on broad consumption or land bases. Increasing land tax at the same time as reducing stamp duty has the additional benefit of some offsetting impacts on asset prices.*

When the GST was introduced all state stamp duties were supposed to have been abolished but the majority of the Labor states continued to collect which was contrary to the GST agreement.


----------



## Julia

> So you believe there is not a single recommending in the Henry tax review that could have been used in the budget?
> 
> http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/con...chapter_12.htm
> 
> 138 recommendations and the Govt, like Labor, has chosen to ignore them. How is that rational when we're told there's a budget crisis? It's only rational when political ideology trumps good policy.



Didn't the Henry tax review come out while Labor was in government?  Were you raging about nothing being done about it then?  

NZ has a much better Super system.  It's universal and is simply added to the claimant's taxable income.  There is no tax free threshold as applies here, so everyone pays tax at some level.  Simple, and afaik, extremely workable.  There are certainly not the constant squabbles about it as occur here.


----------



## sptrawler

Noco as Syd has said on many occassions, the tax threshold reductions were unsustainable, I sugest they return to the levels, pre Howard reducing them, which was in 2000.

Which was $14,102 + 47 cents for every dollar over $50,000.

Well that wasn't too long ago, but apparently that shouldn't have been raised. 

We certainly wouldn't have a deficit, if they hadn't increased the thresholds, but the Labor hacks would be screaming about tax thresholds.

They really are a bunch of lost souls.
They don't want to be in opposition, yet when they get in power they overspend on poorly thought out policy.

Then when they are in opposition, they don't want to help pay for the debt they have caused. Childish behaviour.IMO

I wonder how much money people would be earning, if as Syd sugests we go to pre Howard threshold increases.
That would sort out all our tax/welfare problems. Wind the tax scales back to 2000 levels, that's only 7 years before Labor got in.
Apparently that caused all the problems, well I can see it will fix them.lol


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> As Syd and I said, pensioners would get more money if it was linked to cpi, not wages. As the RBA has said on numerous occassions they expect average wages to fall and cpi to be at the upper levels of their range.
> But as is usual, the plebs listen to the white sound from the hollow vessels. Priceless
> Haven't you read wages are falling, cpi is rising, the dollar is falling which will result in a rise in cpi.
> 
> I really do get a laugh out of your posts.lol




It depends how long that cycle lasts as to whether pensioners will be better off or not in the long term. Obviously the pensioner advocates have done their sums and have determined that they will be worse off in the long run.

I suggest you take it up with them.

Also, if what you say is true , then Hockey is pretty stupid isn't he ? Trying to make savings but instead giving the pensioners more. What a dill.


----------



## banco

sptrawler said:


> I was going to have a shot at the obvious contradiction regarding pollies smoking cigars/ pollies arriving in private jets.
> 
> But I really find it a bit of a shock, that someone I thought was open minded, can't see the sense in the idea.
> Two points.
> 1. As far as I know those with an ongoing condition are exempt. I know this because my Mum freaked, I said calm down and find out the facts. She asked her doctor and he told her because she had an ongoing condition it wouldn't affect her.




Your mum is going to be in for quite a shock then if the budget gets through. Those with ongoing conditions are not exempt.


----------



## sptrawler

Julia said:


> Didn't the Henry tax review come out while Labor was in government?  Were you raging about nothing being done about it then?
> 
> NZ has a much better Super system.  It's universal and is simply added to the claimant's taxable income.  There is no tax free threshold as applies here, so everyone pays tax at some level.  Simple, and afaik, extremely workable.  There are certainly not the constant squabbles about it as occur here.




The last thing Syd wants is sensible discussion, he ignores that and regurgitates endless pro Labor waffle or offal, he isn't interested in giving any leeway to the Government or their mandate to implement policy.

Sounds like someone who sits in some office overnight, being paid to reply to forums, or someone who has a job that really should be offshored.

My guess is, it will be.


----------



## sptrawler

banco said:


> Your mum is going to be in for quite a shock then if the budget gets through. Those with ongoing conditions are not exempt.




Have you checked up on that? I am so over it. FFS


If I find you are wrong Banco, I will be all over you forever, I am so pi$$ed of with this budget missinformation. I don't forget and i don't forgive, also I expect to be treated the same way.

So We will check out that statement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Well two minutes later first google entry.


Those who have special health needs, such as those with Health Assessments or those on Chronic Disease Management programs, will be exempt from the patient contribution.

Well before this times out, it looks like me and you are going to have issues.lol
Sounds like another brain fart from labor as GG would say.
I hate bad language but you really make me angry, the problem with ill founded scare tactics, it sends us all down the chute.
Also diminishes your credibility.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> It depends how long that cycle lasts as to whether pensioners will be better off or not in the long term. Obviously the pensioner advocates have done their sums and have determined that they will be worse off in the long run.
> 
> I suggest you take it up with them.
> 
> Also, if what you say is true , then Hockey is pretty stupid isn't he ? Trying to make savings but instead giving the pensioners more. What a dill.




No, actually it just showed how little thought you gave to your comment. So really you're the dill.

Hockey made his call pre the wage and cpi results, you made your statement purely on a party based blurb.
That makes you the goon.

Shorten says blah , blah , blah, Sir Rumpole say blah, blah, blah.
You and Banco should maybe get together.lol


----------



## banco

sptrawler said:


> Have you checked up on that? I am so over it. FFS
> 
> 
> If I find you are wrong Banco, I will be all over you forever, I am so pi$$ed of with this budget missinformation. I don't forget and i don't forgive, also I expect to be treated the same way.
> 
> So We will check out that statement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
> 
> Well two minutes later first google entry.
> 
> 
> Those who have special health needs, such as those with Health Assessments or those on Chronic Disease Management programs, will be exempt from the patient contribution.
> 
> Well before this times out, it looks like me and you are going to have issues.lol
> Sounds like another brain fart from labor as GG would say.
> I hate bad language but you really make me angry, the problem with ill founded scare tactics, it sends us all down the chute.
> Also diminishes your credibility.






While it is true that Medicare’s chronic disease management item will be exempt from the $7 GP fee, this is only for one doctors visit a year where the GP plans the patients care for their chronic illnesses.

Australian Medical Association GP spokesman Dr Brian Morton says every other visit the patient with a chronic illness makes to the GP or medical test that is ordered would be hit by a $7 GP fee.

http://www.news.com.au/national/who...their-own-policy/story-fncynjr2-1226926025926

Anyway remember we are in a budget emergency and your mum shouldn't expect to be able to bludge off the taxpayer.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> Hockey made his call pre the wage and cpi results, you made your statement purely on a party based blurb.
> That makes you the goon.




So Hockey makes long term decisions based on short term results that he hasn't got yet ?

I return to my original point. He is a dill, and so are people who believe him.

I can avoid Hockey easily enough, but could you let us know when and where you are going on your caravanning holiday ?

There are some people I like to avoid on the roads if I possibly can.


----------



## sptrawler

banco said:


> While it is true that Medicare’s chronic disease management item will be exempt from the $7 GP fee, this is only for one doctors visit a year where the GP plans the patients care for their chronic illnesses.
> 
> Australian Medical Association GP spokesman Dr Brian Morton says every other visit the patient with a chronic illness makes to the GP or medical test that is ordered would be hit by a $7 GP fee.
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/national/who...their-own-policy/story-fncynjr2-1226926025926
> 
> Anyway remember we are in a budget emergency and your mum shouldn't expect to be able to bludge off the taxpayer.




Well as I said, my mother was worried, she lives in Collie a country town in W.A.
I told her to go and ask the doctor how it will affect her, she is 82 has type2 diabetes and heart tablets.
When she asked the doctor how it would affect her, he said you have an ongoing problem that requires constant monitoring and care, you will not be charged the $7 payment.

Now you can talk it up as much as you want, but untill that is proven wrong, I will take that as being more correct, than someone who has a vested interest in spreading miss information.

My mother and father paid taxes in Australia all their lives, same as I have, so I don't see any welfare they recieve as a bludge. Actually dad died at 70 years old so he more than paid for himself.

They also lived and worked in remote mining towns of W.A in the 1960's, they have more than paid their way.

It's a shame personal greed has overtaken personal ambition IMO. Now it's not so much about how much I can improve myself, it's more about how much can I get for minimal effort. IMO

So getting back to your statement, is my mum in for a shock? Or were you just on the Labor shock and awe hyperbowl crap, a bit like Sir Rumpole.


----------



## banco

sptrawler said:


> Well as I said, my mother was worried, she lives in Collie a country town in W.A.
> I told her to go and ask the doctor how it will affect her, she is 82 has type2 diabetes and heart tablets.
> When she asked the doctor how it would affect her, he said you have an ongoing problem that requires constant monitoring and care, you will not be charged the $7 payment.
> 
> Now you can talk it up as much as you want, but untill that is proven wrong, I will take that as being more correct, than someone who has a vested interest in spreading miss information.
> 
> .




Sounds like you and the good doctor are the ones giving your mum misinformation (assuming she didn't misunderstand him in the first place).  Can you point to this mythical policy that will exempt people with ongoing problems?  Of course not because it doesn't exist.

Funny how you are all for fiscal restraint and "tough budgets" then when the cuts  impact you or yours it's "I pay taxes".


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> Didn't the Henry tax review come out while Labor was in government?  Were you raging about nothing being done about it then?
> 
> NZ has a much better Super system.  It's universal and is simply added to the claimant's taxable income.  There is no tax free threshold as applies here, so everyone pays tax at some level.  Simple, and afaik, extremely workable.  There are certainly not the constant squabbles about it as occur here.




Go through my comments from when Labor was on the treasury benches and you will find I was complaining about them not using the Henry Tax review.


----------



## Logique

sptrawler said:


> ...With regards the pension if *someone 55* gives up their job, travels the world, buys porsches and blow all their money, qualify for a taxpayer funded income of $32,000 per year indexed to the average wage. Sounds good to me...



sp, a bit of a digression, but..55? You mean 65 right?


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Noco as Syd has said on many occassions, the tax threshold reductions were unsustainable, I sugest they return to the levels, pre Howard reducing them, which was in 2000.
> 
> Which was $14,102 + 47 cents for every dollar over $50,000.
> 
> Well that wasn't too long ago, but apparently that shouldn't have been raised.
> 
> We certainly wouldn't have a deficit, if they hadn't increased the thresholds, but the Labor hacks would be screaming about tax thresholds.
> 
> They really are a bunch of lost souls.
> They don't want to be in opposition, yet when they get in power they overspend on poorly thought out policy.
> 
> Then when they are in opposition, they don't want to help pay for the debt they have caused. Childish behaviour.IMO
> 
> I wonder how much money people would be earning, if as Syd sugests we go to pre Howard threshold increases.
> That would sort out all our tax/welfare problems. Wind the tax scales back to 2000 levels, that's only 7 years before Labor got in.
> Apparently that caused all the problems, well I can see it will fix them.lol




When did I ever say taxes should go back to their per 2000 levels.

What I have said is that in total all the Howard and the post 2007 Rudd tax cuts were unsustainable.

The majority of those cuts were funded not by tax reform but by the mining boom.  Now that revenue is back to a level as a % of GDP roughly in line with the pre boom level the budget is in deficit.  So we have a roughly 3% drop in federal taxation revenue.  Pretty much that transitory income jump was spent on tax cuts and increased welfare.  From my way of looking at it, when someone knows they've got a temporary wage increase but sets up new spending that is reliant on at least maintaining that new level of income, they're not particularly good economic managers.

You seem to like ignoring the fact that it was the Howard Govt that gave us the massive increases in wasteful middle class welfare.  Howard was the one to send the budget into structural deficit, and Rudd was a fool in copying the remaining tax cuts after 2007.  Sensible economic managers do not hear the RBA saying inflation is getting out of control and decide to provide billions more in tax cuts and other spending increases, forcing mortgage rates to hit over 9%.


----------



## sydboy007

banco said:


> While it is true that Medicare’s chronic disease management item will be exempt from the $7 GP fee, this is only for one doctors visit a year where the GP plans the patients care for their chronic illnesses.
> 
> Australian Medical Association GP spokesman Dr Brian Morton says every other visit the patient with a chronic illness makes to the GP or medical test that is ordered would be hit by a $7 GP fee.
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/national/who...their-own-policy/story-fncynjr2-1226926025926
> 
> Anyway remember we are in a budget emergency and your mum shouldn't expect to be able to bludge off the taxpayer.




The $7 co-payment also kicks in for vaccinations.  The health minister has already come out and said he doesn't believe this will cause a drop in vaccination rates.  

The new system is also designed to penalise doctors who try to bulk bill without charging the co payment by seeing their income drop to just $31.30 for a level B consultation.  No co-payment no low gap incentive payment from the Govt.  The health minister does talk about a $2 per patient "windfall" for GPs when they charge the $7 co-payment.


----------



## sptrawler

Logique said:


> sp, a bit of a digression, but..55? You mean 65 right?




No I meant 55, that gives the person 10 or so years to blow their money, before becoming eligible for the pension. No point in waiting till 65, enjoy it while still relitively young.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> When did I ever say taxes should go back to their per 2000 levels.
> 
> What I have said is that in total all the Howard and the post 2007 Rudd tax cuts were unsustainable.
> 
> The majority of those cuts were funded not by tax reform but by the mining boom.  Now that revenue is back to a level as a % of GDP roughly in line with the pre boom level the budget is in deficit.  So we have a roughly 3% drop in federal taxation revenue.  Pretty much that transitory income jump was spent on tax cuts and increased welfare.  From my way of looking at it, when someone knows they've got a temporary wage increase but sets up new spending that is reliant on at least maintaining that new level of income, they're not particularly good economic managers.
> 
> You seem to like ignoring the fact that it was the Howard Govt that gave us the massive increases in wasteful middle class welfare.  Howard was the one to send the budget into structural deficit, and Rudd was a fool in copying the remaining tax cuts after 2007.  Sensible economic managers do not hear the RBA saying inflation is getting out of control and decide to provide billions more in tax cuts and other spending increases, forcing mortgage rates to hit over 9%.




Well as I said ,reset the tax levels back to sustainable levels, as they were pre mining boom. Everyone has had fun, now back to reality as per the normal grind years. Obviously the thresholds would have to be higher to reflect higher average wages, but as you say maybe the tax rates shouldn't have been dropped.

Also welfare payments increased at unsustainable rates, over recent years, that needs to be brought back into line also.

We can't change history, but it doesn't mean we can't learn and change the future.


----------



## noco

Having read all the waffle from the main contenders in this discussion, I am more than satisfied you will never keep every one happy all the time, half the time or none of the time at all.

Most people are a greedy jealous bunch......why should he get more than me?......why should I work past 65 and not get the aged pension when I have worked hard and paid taxes all my life......Why should I work at all when I can get the dole or a disability pension ( in many cases not entitled to it)?........Why shouldn't I go to the pub every night and pi$$ my money against the wall......smoke my head off and become a burden to the tax payer because I have a liver problem or lung cancer?......Who said I can't go to a casino or pub and send my savings down the slot of a poker machine and when it is all gone apply for social security and a cheap housing commission unit......Yeah...don't worry about where the money comes from or who has to pay for it......She'll be right mate as we so often hear.

Who said I can't work until I was 76 years of age before applying for a part aged pension......Who said I can't enjoy life with my savings and travel to various parts of the world to see how other people live in other parts of the Western world and third world countries......see how other people around the world live......see how in many parts of the world how many people have to work 55 hours per week on low wages and then have to  live on smell of an oily rag.......see in many of those countries where there is no social security, no aged pension, no health care.....in many of those countries if you you go to a doctor or a hospital it is money up front or you don't get the treatment.....The young ones take care of their elders.

So for Christ sake stop complaining about what you think you should have or what you have not got in comparison to the other person who has been a lot wiser in the way he or she has lived their past life......Many of us have a brain and use it well.......some of us have only half a brain and sort struggle to get by and some have no brain at all but happy to sponge off other people.....you don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer.

I have good idea and it will probably ruffle a few feathers.

I would like to see a new party called the Fabian Party.
Rumpy as the President.
Syd as treasurer.
Ifocus as finance minister.
MacQuack as foreign minister.
Jacquie Lambie as defense minister.
Clive Palmer as minister for mining and infrastructure.

Ah yes....one has to have a laugh at the funny side of present day politics run at times by a bunch of lunatics.
Ya just gotta lov'em.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Ah yes....one has to have a laugh at the funny side of present day politics run at times by a bunch of lunatics.
> Ya just gotta lov'em.




Thanks for that important and meaningful contribution to the debate.

All you have said is "shut up if you don't agree with me".

May I suggest you do the same ?





> .you don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer.




That certainly can be done. Having more people with cash to spend is better for the economy at large than having a few people with lots of loot that they spend most of the day counting or spending on unproductive assets like big houses, boats and aircraft.

Big companies are useless without lots of customers with the money to buy their products.

The trouble with you noco, is that like your leader you are addicted to the one line slogans without giving much thought to what goes on in the real economy.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Thanks for that important and meaningful contribution to the debate.
> 
> All you have said is "shut up if you don't agree with me".
> 
> May I suggest you do the same ?




I haven't said a word old mate.....what have I said that that you don't agree with?......just listening or reading what one says to the other about the way the country should be run is really amusing.....We live in a democracy of free speech...if you don't like the way a government is running the country express your opinion at the ballot box....that is what happened to the last incompetent lot......they messed up big time and got tossed out.....who ever you vote for, you have to accept what the majority want until the next round.....if it burns a hole in your pocket, so be it.....we all have to learn to agree to disagree.

ROFL...


----------



## Julia

> So for Christ sake stop complaining about what you think you should have or what you have not got in comparison to the other person who has been a lot wiser in the way he or she has lived their past life.




Reading through this last page, I also had the above impression.  All this fuss about a $7 co-payment!
In NZ (which, incidentally although struck harder by the GFC and the ChCh earthquake) is now moving upward, the opposite direction to Australia) there have never been free doctor consultations.   Most people pay around $30.  There is no evidence this has caused any adverse effect to primary care, seen children go unvaccinated or any of the other disasters that Labor and its acolytes are predicting will occur here.

Anyway, given the politically based determination of Labor and the minor parties to block the measure in the Senate, it won't be going through, so none of you need worry.

You might instead start to worry when taxes rise and things really do get tough as the country borrows more and more to pay the interest on the debt.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> Reading through this last page, I also had the above impression.  All this fuss about a $7 co-payment!
> 
> 
> In NZ (which, incidentally although struck harder by the GFC and the ChCh earthquake) is now moving upward, the opposite direction to Australia) there have never been free doctor consultations.   Most people pay around $30.  There is no evidence this has caused any adverse effect to primary care, seen children go unvaccinated or any of the other disasters that Labor and its acolytes are predicting will occur here.




I actually paid $50 out of the $70 consultation fee for my last doctor's appointment, but my flu shot cost only $15.

FWIW I think Labor and the Greens took the wrong tack by opposing the co-payment outright. The argument should have been on how it was spent. The Medical Research fund idea is absurd. People will see no value for their payment for 10 years at least. If the money went direct to public hospitals the copayment is justifiable. 



> You might instead start to worry when taxes rise and things really do get tough as the country borrows more and more to pay the interest on the debt.




Modest tax increases across the board is more justifiable than hitting the neediest people. That way everyone contributes. I think that could be justified as long as it is seen that all sectors make a contribution. 

Axing the 1.5% reduction in company tax (where the average percentage rate actually paid by corporations is around 22%) would signal that the government believes the corporate sector should pay as well. At the moment the impression is that "the big end of town" is not pulling their weight.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Having read all the waffle from the main contenders in this discussion, I am more than satisfied you will never keep every one happy all the time, half the time or none of the time at all.
> 
> Most people are a greedy jealous bunch......why should he get more than me?......why should I work past 65 and not get the aged pension when I have worked hard and paid taxes all my life......Why should I work at all when I can get the dole or a disability pension ( in many cases not entitled to it)?........Why shouldn't I go to the pub every night and pi$$ my money against the wall......smoke my head off and become a burden to the tax payer because I have a liver problem or lung cancer?......Who said I can't go to a casino or pub and send my savings down the slot of a poker machine and when it is all gone apply for social security and a cheap housing commission unit......Yeah...don't worry about where the money comes from or who has to pay for it......She'll be right mate as we so often hear.




IF you don't believe people have the right to spend their money as they choose then what do you propose to do?  Should we remove pokie machines and close all the casinos?  Make all forms of gambling illegal?

Do we close all the pubs and bottle shops.  maybe back to prohibition?

Would you like to quote some stats as to the level of fraud within the welfare system?  How does that compare with the fraud going on in the financial services industry?  CBA and the silver doughnut would put any avid welfare cheater to shame.

The level of housing commission units has been declining as a % of total housing, so in relative terms there's less of the population receiving that benefit.

As for being greedy and jealous, can you point to statements within this discussion that show this to be the case?


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Well as I said ,reset the tax levels back to sustainable levels, as they were pre mining boom. Everyone has had fun, now back to reality as per the normal grind years. Obviously the thresholds would have to be higher to reflect higher average wages, but as you say maybe the tax rates shouldn't have been dropped.
> 
> Also welfare payments increased at unsustainable rates, over recent years, that needs to be brought back into line also.
> 
> We can't change history, but it doesn't mean we can't learn and change the future.




So why has Abbott chosen to repeal the carbon tax, but not the associated tax cuts and welfare increases?  He's chosen to give up over $7B in revenue yet not chosen the easiest and most defensible course of action ie the tax is gone so the compensation provided is no longer needed.

Why does Abbott want to shut the CEF when it's generating a return similar to the future fund and encouraging private sector funds on a $2+ basis for each $ of loans provided?  With the mining CAPEX cliff starting to get steep from next year you'd think the Govt would want to encourage as much investment as possible, yet it has seen billions of potential clean energy shelved by it's stance.

is it sensible policy to create a medical fund using $5 of the proposed co-payment when the budget is in deficit?  From the sounds of it this was a policy thought bubble and not particularly well thought out.


----------



## SirRumpole

> IF you don't believe people have the right to spend their money as they choose then what do you propose to do? Should we remove pokie machines and close all the casinos? Make all forms of gambling illegal?




I think it's pertinent to ask whether the people who are now complaining about people spending their money on pokies are the same people who were roundly condemning the Labor government's proposed pokie tax ?


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Have you checked up on that? I am so over it. FFS
> 
> 
> If I find you are wrong Banco, I will be all over you forever, I am so pi$$ed of with this budget missinformation. I don't forget and i don't forgive, also I expect to be treated the same way.
> 
> So We will check out that statement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
> 
> Well two minutes later first google entry.
> 
> 
> Those who have special health needs, such as those with Health Assessments or those on Chronic Disease Management programs, will be exempt from the patient contribution.
> 
> Well before this times out, it looks like me and you are going to have issues.lol
> Sounds like another brain fart from labor as GG would say.
> I hate bad language but you really make me angry, the problem with ill founded scare tactics, it sends us all down the chute.
> Also diminishes your credibility.




just interested to know if you've decided you're correct or Banco is correct?


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> FWIW I think Labor and the Greens took the wrong tack by opposing the co-payment outright. The argument should have been on how it was spent. The Medical Research fund idea is absurd.



I don't think it's absurd of itself.  Medical research, properly targeted is absolutely necessary and should not be left up to the pharmaceutical industry.



> If the money went direct to public hospitals the copayment is justifiable.



Not sure about that.  Shouldn't the public hospital budget be a separate issue?   Aren't the hospitals run by the States?   The $7 going to hospitals would seem to increase an already complicated system.  I'd prefer to see it simply becoming part of supporting Medicare.



> Modest tax increases across the board is more justifiable than hitting the neediest people. That way everyone contributes. I think that could be justified as long as it is seen that all sectors make a contribution.



I don't disagree with that.  Would you include in that a reduction in the tax free threshold?
How about increasing the GST?  Or broadening the base?



> Axing the 1.5% reduction in company tax (where the average percentage rate actually paid by corporations is around 22%) would signal that the government believes the corporate sector should pay as well. At the moment the impression is that "the big end of town" is not pulling their weight.



That may be the perception amongst some, but we need to remember that it's business (and government, of course) that provides jobs and if investment conditions are too onerous, companies will just go elsewhere.

If I hear one more person, eg the female senator for PUP, say "tax the banks - they can afford it", obviously in complete ignorance of the reality that any additional tax applied to banks will simply be passed on to customers, I'll throw up!



sydboy007 said:


> So why has Abbott chosen to repeal the carbon tax, but not the associated tax cuts and welfare increases?  He's chosen to give up over $7B in revenue yet not chosen the easiest and most defensible course of action ie the tax is gone so the compensation provided is no longer needed.



Because, syd, as you well know, he was reckless enough to make such a totally unnecessary pre-election promise and is reluctant to be seen to be breaking yet another promise.  Of course the compensation is no longer relevant or needed.

Mr Abbott made so many promises which he had no need to make in the first place.  Labor was covered in opprobrium, there was obviously going to be a change of government, yet he continued with the sloganeering (is that a word?) and the gratuitous promises.


----------



## SirRumpole

> I don't think it's absurd of itself. Medical research, properly targeted is absolutely necessary and should not be left up to the pharmaceutical industry.




Indeed yes, but under the Coalition plan it is old people who will contribute the most because they see the doctor more and use more medicines.

If you want a fairer system of financing a medical research fund, then increase the Medicare levy so that everyone contributes. The money could then be distributed immediately to those currently doing research and not in 10 years.



> Not sure about that. Shouldn't the public hospital budget be a separate issue? Aren't the hospitals run by the States? The $7 going to hospitals would seem to increase an already complicated system. I'd prefer to see it simply becoming part of supporting Medicare.




Putting the co-payment directly into Medicare would be a better alternative than the research fund.

Yes, the public hospital system is run by the States, but they need to be run Federally, coordinated with the rest of the Health system  run by the Federal government, instead of the States and territories doing their own thing and putting their hands out to the Feds during COAG.



> I don't disagree with that. Would you include in that a reduction in the tax free threshold?
> How about increasing the GST? Or broadening the base?




Just a modest increase in the tax rates across the board. Lowering the threshold hits lower paid people more than others as does increasing the GST rate or broadening the base. Taxing super as a proportion of the highest marginal rate paid by the taxpayer would help correct the disproportionate benefits gained by upper income earners.



> That may be the perception amongst some, but we need to remember that it's business (and government, of course) that provides jobs and if investment conditions are too onerous, companies will just go elsewhere.




As I said, companies are on a good wicket now, because most of them don't pay the amount of tax that they should, by reason of avoidance measures such as cost shifting to foreign tax havens.


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> Because, syd, as you well know, he was reckless enough to make such a totally unnecessary pre-election promise and is reluctant to be seen to be breaking yet another promise.  Of course the compensation is no longer relevant or needed.
> 
> Mr Abbott made so many promises which he had no need to make in the first place.  Labor was covered in opprobrium, there was obviously going to be a change of government, yet he continued with the sloganeering (is that a word?) and the gratuitous promises.




So rather than come out presenting a rational argument as to why he's going to remove the CT compensation, he's instead come up with a load of poorly designed policy.  That's not Labor's fault.  That's not the Senate's fault.  As Rudd was knee capped by a lot of his stoopid promises, so too is Abbott.  Thye are own goals and the sooner people stop trying to lay the blame elsewhere the sooner the Government might actually take ownership of the problems.

I'm sure there'd still be some stupid opposition of policies even if they were all reasonable and economically rational, but the fact is a lot of the current budget policies aren't very rational.  As Abbott and the Liberals have often used the household budget metaphor, if you have 1 area of spending costing 2.8% of your annual spending, and another at 15%, which is easier to cut back on the provide the easier path to spending less?  Yet the Govt has chosen to target income and disability support spending over clamping down on spending on the aged which are the above levels of Govt spending.  Not one tax expenditure was touched in the budget.

If you can argue that the medical research fund is good policy, then why wait 6 to 7 years before it begins to fund any research?  That's what Hockey has provided as the current timeline to hit the $20B target before any research is funded.  

How does that compare with CSIRO funding cuts that are leading to the closure of some research of highly infectious diseases?  When / If funding becomes available in 6 or so years it's highly unlikely the talent we've lost will return.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> IF you don't believe people have the right to spend their money as they choose then what do you propose to do?  Should we remove pokie machines and close all the casinos?  Make all forms of gambling illegal?
> 
> Do we close all the pubs and bottle shops.  maybe back to prohibition?
> 
> Would you like to quote some stats as to the level of fraud within the welfare system?  How does that compare with the fraud going on in the financial services industry?  CBA and the silver doughnut would put any avid welfare cheater to shame.
> 
> The level of housing commission units has been declining as a % of total housing, so in relative terms there's less of the population receiving that benefit.
> 
> As for being greedy and jealous, can you point to statements within this discussion that show this to be the case?




People can spend their money as they please and is non of mine or your business so long as when they run out of money they don't come to the taxpayer for a hand out......I could not care less if they took away casinos, clubs and pubs with poker machines......they would go broke if they depended on me because I have enough brains to know you will never beat them so why waste your money?

Reference housing commission ............as at 1st Q 2014  35,029 were waiting for Government housing......as 2nd Q 30/06/20124 there were 34,632 waiting.

Social welfare fraud is rife in Australia and as the link below shows several have been caught and some $360,000.000 has been either saved or recovered.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current series/tandi/421-440/tandi421.html


Table 1: Compliance and anti-fraud outcomes, 2006–07 to 2008–09 Year	Customers ‘000s	Reviews	Cancelled or adjusted down	Referred to Director of Public Prosecutions	Prosecutions	Convictions	Prosecutions resulting in conviction (%)	Fraud-related Investigations	Debts and savings from fraud investigations

 Year	Customers ‘000s	Reviews	Cancelled or adjusted down	Referred to Director of Public Prosecutions	Prosecutions	Convictions	Prosecutions resulting in conviction (%)	Fraud-related Investigations	Debts and savings from fraud investigations






Table 1: Compliance and anti-fraud outcomes, 2006–07 to 2008–09 Year	Customers ‘000s	Reviews	Cancelled or adjusted down	Referred to Director of Public Prosecutions	Prosecutions	Convictions	Prosecutions resulting in conviction (%)	Fraud-related Investigations	Debts and savings from fraud investigations
2006–07 	6,500 	4,276,281 	628,705 	5,261 	3,400 	3,355 	98.7 	42,000 	$127,000,000
2007–08 	6,520 	4,431,309 	702,624 	5,312 	2,658 	2,624 	98.6 	35,885 	$140,200,000
2008–09 	6,840 	3,867,135 	641,504 	5,082 	3,388 	3,354 	98.9 	26,084 	$113,400,000
Total 		12,574,725 	1,972,833 	15,655 	9,446 	9,333 	98.7 	103,969 	$380,600,000


Source: Centrelink 2010
Australian data

The following section presents data supplied by Centrelink on its compliance and fraud-related activities and outcomes. Unlike the UK Department for Work and Pensions, Centrelink does not provide estimates of fraud but reports on detected errors and fraud prosecution actions and outcomes. Formal fraud investigations are usually initiated through compliance and eligibility reviews. Reviews occur in large numbers each year. There is a crossover of triggers and methods, including routine data-matching, random sampling, identity checks and public tip offs.

Table 1 reports on the outcomes of reviews for the three year period 2006–07 to 2008–09. Of note is the fact that typically, only 15.7 percent of reviews led to cancellations or reductions in payments. Of these, as few as 0.8 percent were referred to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP); with 0.5 percent being prosecuted. Prosecutions resulted in a 98.8 percent conviction rate. Overall, in the three years, 0.04 percent of customers were convicted of fraud. For the same period, fraud investigations were estimated to have produced $380.6m in gross savings and amounts targeted for recovery. This compares with $1.4b in overpayments identified and debts generated from the review process. Fraud therefore accounted for approximately 26.2 percent of invalid payments. Furthermore, on average, only 15.1 percent of investigations resulted in a prosecution referral. In 2008–09, Centrelink referrals accounted for 69 percent of defendants prosecuted by the CDPP (2009: 115–116).
Figure 1: Trends in compliance reviews, 1997–08 to 2008–09 (n)

Trends in compliance reviews, 1997–08 to 2008–09 (n)

Source: Centrelink unpublished data 2010

Table 2 provides a snapshot of fraud across the top 15 benefit types. Within this group, the Single Parenting Payment and Newstart Allowance (unemployment benefit) together accounted for 72 percent of convictions and $33.5m of debt. The Disability Support Pension and Partnered Parenting Payment together accounted for a further 14.7 percent and $7.6m of debt.

Figure 1 shows longer term trends for compliance reviews and adjustments for the 12 year period from 1997–2008 (when Centrelink was established) to 2008–09. They show that, in terms of the number of Centrelink customers, compliance reviews increased by 54.5 percent from an average of 41.1 percent of customers up to 2001–02, to an average 63.4 percent subsequently, while cancellations or adjustments more than doubled from 4.3 percent to 10.1 percent.

Figure 2 shows that referrals to the CDPP have increased less dramatically, with prosecutions and convictions at a fairly stable rate.
Table 2: Fraud across top 15 benefit types, 2008–09 Rank	Benefit type	Convictions	Debt associated with prosecution ($)
1 	Parenting Payment—Single 	1,280 	22,157,531
2 	Newstart Allowance 	1,045 	11,303,971
3 	Disability Support Pension 	301 	5,675,043
4 	Parenting Payment—Partnered 	174 	1,896,174
5 	Youth Allowance Student 	85 	1,180,800
6 	Austudy (Centrelink) 	69 	964,492
7 	Age pension 	59 	1,270,728
8 	Carer (Disability Support) 	44 	600,458
9 	Carer Pension (Other) 	40 	497,621
10 	Carer (Age) 	25 	337,888
11 	Youth Allowance Job Seeker 	26 	168,395
12 	Widow Allowance 	24 	607,314
13 	Family Tax Benefit 	23 	366,385
14 	Sickness Allowance 	17 	179,109
15 	Carers Allowance (Adult) 	16 	63,192

Source: Centrelink unpublished data 2010

Note: Cases can be recorded against more than 1 benefit type

Do your own research next time Syd.


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> Indeed yes, but under the Coalition plan it is old people who will contribute the most because they see the doctor more and use more medicines.
> 
> If you want a fairer system of financing a medical research fund, then increase the Medicare levy so that everyone contributes. The money could then be distributed immediately to those currently doing research and not in 10 years.



Makes sense, if in fact research is funded by Medicare.  I'm not sure that's the case.  You might like to expand on this.



> Yes, the public hospital system is run by the States, but they need to be run Federally, coordinated with the rest of the Health system  run by the Federal government, instead of the States and territories doing their own thing and putting their hands out to the Feds during COAG.



Agree, but that's not really what we're discussing here.   There's a case to be made for just local government plus a federal government, bypassing the states.  Might be worth starting a thread on this.



> Just a modest increase in the tax rates across the board. Lowering the threshold hits lower paid people more than others as does increasing the GST rate or broadening the base. Taxing super as a proportion of the highest marginal rate paid by the taxpayer would help correct the disproportionate benefits gained by upper income earners.



That's still messy.  What about the NZ system where all income is taxable, including pensions, no tax free threshold, and the levels of taxation are appropriately adjusted?



> As I said, companies are on a good wicket now, because most of them don't pay the amount of tax that they should, by reason of avoidance measures such as cost shifting to foreign tax havens.



That happens with a very few companies.  The company tax rate is amongst the highest in the world.  You have ignored my point about needing to be careful not to provide a disincentive to companies to operate here because of the jobs factor.



sydboy007 said:


> So rather than come out presenting a rational argument as to why he's going to remove the CT compensation, he's instead come up with a load of poorly designed policy.  That's not Labor's fault.  That's not the Senate's fault.  As Rudd was knee capped by a lot of his stoopid promises, so too is Abbott.  Thye are own goals and the sooner people stop trying to lay the blame elsewhere the sooner the Government might actually take ownership of the problems.
> 
> I'm sure there'd still be some stupid opposition of policies even if they were all reasonable and economically rational, but the fact is a lot of the current budget policies aren't very rational.  As Abbott and the Liberals have often used the household budget metaphor, if you have 1 area of spending costing 2.8% of your annual spending, and another at 15%, which is easier to cut back on the provide the easier path to spending less?  Yet the Govt has chosen to target income and disability support spending over clamping down on spending on the aged which are the above levels of Govt spending.  Not one tax expenditure was touched in the budget.
> 
> If you can argue that the medical research fund is good policy, then why wait 6 to 7 years before it begins to fund any research?  That's what Hockey has provided as the current timeline to hit the $20B target before any research is funded.
> 
> How does that compare with CSIRO funding cuts that are leading to the closure of some research of highly infectious diseases?  When / If funding becomes available in 6 or so years it's highly unlikely the talent we've lost will return.



Presumably we should take the above as comment, rather than any questions you actually expect any of us to answer.


----------



## SirRumpole

> Makes sense, if in fact research is funded by Medicare. I'm not sure that's the case. You might like to expand on this.




I don't know how medical research is funded at the moment. General revenue is a big bucket of money out of which a lot of things are financed, there doesn't have to be a specific source. I'm just saying that if  medical research is seen as important by this government, then increasing the Medicare levy is a fairer way of financing it, rather than depending mostly on the old who most likely won't see the results of this research.



> That's still messy. What about the NZ system where all income is taxable, including pensions, no tax free threshold, and the levels of taxation are appropriately adjusted?




There has to be a discussion about the relative merits of this system. Does NZ pay Family Tax benefits for example ? 

Maybe if we phased out that system which was bought in by John Howard in a mining boom then we could maintain the current taxation arrangements, or even reduce taxes. Family tax benefits seem to be increasingly unsustainable in the current environment.

What is the purpose of a tax free threshold ? To take a load off low income earners. It also takes a load off the taxation department by not wasting resources on recovering trivial amounts of tax, but I'm open to arguments on what effects abolishing the threshold would have.


----------



## Knobby22

Julia's comment got me interested to look up the NZ tax system, as usual they appear to be advanced compared to Oz. I would love to swap leaders as their Prime Minister, John Key, appears to be very competent and has real experience working internationally. Tell you what, I will swap Tony Abbott, Brandis and Hockey and throw in a patrol boat (wish). 

NZ tax at a glance:

Personal income
Top rate: 33% from $70,000
 30% - $48,001 to $70,000
 17.5% -$14,001 to $48,000
 10.5% - $0 to $14,000 

Company income
28% 

Tax credits
Working for Families credits for low and middle income earners 

Social security & insurance levies etc.
Social security and health: covered by general tax, though many people have private health insurance
 ACC (New Zealand’s unique accident compensation scheme): earners pay 1.45% up to a maximum of $118,191 in earnings. Motorists pay a levy with their annual car registration. Employers pay insurance cover based on industry risk. 

Estate tax
None 

Capital gains & dividends
Capital gains: generally not on New Zealand investments but applies to foreign debt and equity investments 

Dividends
Imputation system to avoid double tax 

Gift duty
None since 2011 

Tax on savings
Little tax relief on contributions to New Zealand retirement schemes, but saving is not compulsory. Tax paid at normal income levels at source but distributions are tax free. No mortgage interest tax benefits except for investment property 

Fringe benefit tax
Paid by employer, up to a rate of 49.25% for employer provided cars, low interest loans, medical insurance premiums, foreign superannuation contributions etc. FBT is tax deductible so employer cost is effectively the same as paying cash remuneration 

Sales & excise tax
Goods and services tax (GST) of 15% on most things.
 Excise tax paid on petrol, tobacco, alcohol


----------



## SirRumpole

> Julia's comment got me interested to look up the NZ tax system, as usual they appear to be advanced compared to Oz.




"Advanced" is a personal assesment, and what works (if it does) in one economy doesn't always work in another.


----------



## Knobby22

True, I am not a tax law specialist, but NZ just appears to have a simpler system that runs at a lower cost to us. I think it is more efficient also, we have so many ways for companies to avoid  tax, they just pay a lower rate and get rid of some of the loopholes but I may be wrong about this. 

I also really love their accident compensation system. 
Instead of following their lead we have followed the US and now we have the overhead of lawyers fees and ambulance chasing adds on TV.

BTW New Zealanders do have a family tax benefit.

Their economy is only as big as Queensland.


----------



## SirRumpole

Knobby22 said:


> True, I am not a tax law specialist, but NZ just appears to have a simpler system that runs at a lower cost to us.
> 
> I also really love their accident compensation system.
> Instead of following their lead we have followed the US and now we have the overhead of lawyers fees and ambulance chasing adds on TV.




I also don't know enough about the NZ system to make comparisons, but I agree that it looks simpler.

Maybe their accident compensation could be compared to our NDIS in the way it works. There certainly are a lot of ads here for compensation lawyers and if NZ have a system that cuts out the legal eagles and gives a higher payout to victims, then I'm all for it.


----------



## wayneL

Total tax take is substantially higher in nz. In addition, the effective tax rate on those with low income is very burdensome.


----------



## sydboy007

Knobby22 said:


> Capital gains & dividends
> Capital gains: generally not on New Zealand investments but applies to foreign debt and equity investments




This seems to be unfair as the wealthier you are the higher the level of capital gains will be as a source of income.

It's probably been done to encourage investment in the local economy, but I'd not be surprised that it's a major source of revenue leakage.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Do your own research next time Syd.




So fraud accounted for 1/4 of cases, while stuff ups were 75%.  Seems some major cost savings could be made by simplifying the system.

I'd love to see you have the same fire in the belly over the financial advice scandals that have seen much higher levels of fraud along with much higher levels of money lost.

Why research a claim someone else has made?  If you're not willing to provide proof to back up your claim then either you're just plain lazy or quite likely to be making things up.


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> Total tax take is substantially higher in nz. In addition, the effective tax rate on those with low income is very burdensome.




With a top personal tax rate of just 33% on incomes over $70,000 is seems as though the rich have a very good deal at the expense of the not so rich.

John Key is a soul mate of our PM, so watch out low income earners, the big bite may not be far away.


----------



## Julia

Knobby22 said:


> Julia's comment got me interested to look up the NZ tax system, as usual they appear to be advanced compared to Oz. I would love to swap leaders as their Prime Minister, John Key, appears to be very competent and has real experience working internationally. Tell you what, I will swap Tony Abbott, Brandis and Hockey and throw in a patrol boat (wish).



Yep, I'd go for that.  Thanks for looking up the NZ system, Knobby.  I've been away too long to remember much.
Actually had some family over last week, one of whom is a financial planner, and from what he says, all is going well with the economy.  Local newspaper articles here have also commented on this and how we are going in the opposite direction.

There's an interesting article in the Weekend Australian on this which I'll try to find later today and post.
It specifically includes reference to the fact that New Zealanders are used to frugal budgets.  There seems to be minimal whining, probably due to John Key & Co's capacity to get the population on side.



SirRumpole said:


> I also don't know enough about the NZ system to make comparisons, but I agree that it looks simpler.
> 
> Maybe their accident compensation could be compared to our NDIS in the way it works. There certainly are a lot of ads here for compensation lawyers and if NZ have a system that cuts out the legal eagles and gives a higher payout to victims, then I'm all for it.



The ACC is not at all like the proposed NDIS (which may never see the light of day imo).  It's not to do with disabilities but, as it says, accidents.   If you are injured you're medically assessed under the ACC, treated, referred for assessment of compensation if that's appropriate and, at least when I was still there, no cost to the individual.   No lawyers busily suing people and companies.   Why on earth Australia doesn't adopt something similar is beyond me.   Australia is a great place to be a lawyer.




SirRumpole said:


> John Key is a soul mate of our PM, so watch out low income earners, the big bite may not be far away.



Perhaps you're confusing him with the Canadian PM?  John Key is an entirely different type of person - great background, independently wealthy, so not doing the job for the $, and afaik not hard right or religiously driven, the characteristics that seem to so mark both Mr Abbott and Mr Harper.

The national and local morale under John Key's compassionate and practical lead, well supported by the ChCh Mayor, during the earthquakes, kept Christchurch going and still does.   As Knobby suggests above, if we could persuade him over here, we'd be looking at a quite different future.


----------



## Knobby22

At present, believe it or not, John Keys is the most popular leader of the western world despite the fact he has been in a long time now. He will probably lose the next election anyway...refer attached.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/australia-features/9171411/key-to-defeat/


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> With a top personal tax rate of just 33% on incomes over $70,000 is seems as though the rich have a very good deal at the expense of the not so rich.
> 
> John Key is a soul mate of our PM, so watch out low income earners, the big bite may not be far away.




John Key is not responsible for the structure of the tax system, he inherited it. Therefore the previous Labour Party disaster worked within the same system (dont know who implemented it in its current form).And as much as I dont feel like publicly agreeing with anything Julia says atm, she is absolutely correct, Key is nothing like Abbott at all.

 So that was a very silly post Horace


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> John Key is not responsible for the structure of the tax system, he inherited it.




He's been PM for six years and hasn't changed anything, so for better or worse he owns it.

And you don't have to be "independently wealthy" as PM to not be in it for the money. A top tax rate of 33% does very nicely for him compared to other countries.



> Key is nothing like Abbott at all.




OK, I'll have to take your word for that. Are you a Kiwi yourself ?


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> He's been PM for six years and hasn't changed anything, so for better or worse he owns it.
> 
> And you don't have to be "independently wealthy" as PM to not be in it for the money. A top tax rate of 33% does very nicely for him compared to other countries.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I'll have to take your word for that. Are you a Kiwi yourself ?




Ok, whatever you say Horace </inmymostpatronizingtone>

....and good God no I am not a Kiwi; lived there 3 years though, been back 18 months.


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> Ok, whatever you say Horace </inmymostpatronizingtone>
> 
> ....and good God no I am not a Kiwi; lived there 3 years though, been back 18 months.




No need to patronise me Wayne, if someone has been PM for six years and hasn't changed the tax rules, then he obviously agrees with them.

And it wasn't me who said that the tax rates in NZ are burdensome for low income earners.


----------



## wayneL

It is more compkex than that. </whichiswhyyoudeservetobepatronized>


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> It is more compkex than that. </whichiswhyyoudeservetobepatronized>




Well why don't you expand your analysis then <insteadofactinglikeaknowitall/>


----------



## wayneL

1/ There has to be an appetite for tax reform

2/  A better system has to be devised that has has cross party support

3/  The new system shouldn't put ones own constituency offside

There are many vectors and potential for unintended consequences, so it is a tall order.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> He's been PM for six years and hasn't changed anything, so for better or worse he owns it.
> 
> .




Abbott was PM for six months, and you were saying he was responsible for the budget situation, left by Labor.

You really do give me a laugh, you must go into a tool box meeting with Bill Shorten, just before smoko, you're a hoot.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> Abbott was PM for six months, and you were saying he was responsible for the budget situation, left by Labor.




Where did I say that ?



> You really do give me a laugh, you must go into a tool box meeting with Bill Shorten, just before smoko, you're a hoot.




I could think of a few words for you too, but Joe would throw me out if I used them. If you can't develop an argument based on anything but abuse then you are not worth conversing with.


----------



## sptrawler

rumpole said:


> The point is that Tony said he would fix all the alleged bad for business things bought in by Labor.
> 
> If GMH, Toyota, Email & co really believed he was going to do that, why wouldn't they hang around instead of queueing up to leave ?
> 
> Can you explain that in a sensible logical manner to me ?




Post 1834 (page 92) of this thread and three pages were spent explaining it wasn't Tony's fault.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> Post 1834 (page 92) of this thread and three pages were spent explaining it wasn't Tony's fault.




Post 1834 by me



> The point is that Tony said he would fix all the alleged bad for business things bought in by Labor.
> 
> If GMH, Toyota, Email & co really believed he was going to do that, why wouldn't they hang around instead of queueing up to leave ?
> 
> Can you explain that in a sensible logical manner to me ?




I was pointing out a lack of confidence in the Abbott government to rectify the situation that they inherited. The car makers packed up and left, even after a return to a Liberal government after which they pronounced "Australia is open for business".

I never said the situation was "their fault" as you said I did, so kindly stop your misrepresentation.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> Post 1834 by me
> 
> 
> 
> I was pointing out a lack of confidence in the Abbott government to rectify the situation that they inherited. The car makers packed up and left, even after a return to a Liberal government after which they pronounced "Australia is open for business".
> 
> I never said the situation was "their fault" as you said I did, so kindly stop your misrepresentation.




The point was, as I said, Abbott had only been in office six months and you were blaming him for not fixing a situation that had been evolving for years. 
There is no misrepresentation in that. 
Your obvious dislike of him and the coalition, clouds your ability to give them a fair go and as can be seen in parliament, your not alone.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> The point was, as I said, Abbott had only been in office six months and you were blaming him for not fixing a situation that had been evolving for years.
> There is no misrepresentation in that.
> Your obvious dislike of him and the coalition, clouds your ability to give them a fair go and as can be seen in parliament, your not alone.




FFS, no one expects anyone to fix a situation after 6 months, but car makers don't announce the withdrawal of billions of dollars of investment unless they believe that there is no prospect of the situation being fixed in the term of this government at least (which may be three years or more). That position is contrary to the Coalition's boast that "Australia is open for business". If you can't see that then you are more short sighted than I thought you were.

I presume you will also argue that the car makers didn't give him a fair deal either.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> FFS, no one expects anyone to fix a situation after 6 months, but car makers don't announce the withdrawal of billions of dollars of investment unless they believe that there is no prospect of the situation being fixed in the term of this government at least (which may be three years or more). That position is contrary to the Coalition's boast that "Australia is open for business". If you can't see that then you are more short sighted than I thought you were.
> 
> I presume you will also argue that the car makers didn't give him a fair deal either.




We discussed the car manufacturers at lengh and the general concensus was, the industry was not financially viable and was only running due to taxpayer handouts.

Whether "Australia is open for business" or not has nothing to do with it. We have a budget running in deficit and a growing Federal debt.
To add to that by propping up a non viable business is dumb. 
It isn't a case of the car makers giving him a fair deal, it's about the car makers investing in their business to make it viable. 
GM could just as easily have invested in the Australian car plant, instead of building the new plant in Korea to manufacture the right hand drive world cars.
If you can't see that, then I feel it is you who is short sighted, but that is only my opinion against yours.


----------



## SirRumpole

> To add to that by propping up a non viable business is dumb.




Every country that still produces cars subsidises it's car industry.

Some people just look at the cost but not the benefits

* Company tax paid by the manufacturers including the component manufactures

* Income tax paid by the employees of the above

* GST paid on the vehicles

Contributing to the withdrawal of the car industry is a very short sighted action 



> The real value of our automotive manufacturing industry
> 
> 4th November, 2013
> 
> The Australian economy would be $21.5 billion smaller if automotive manufacturing leaves the country in 2018. Melbourne and Adelaide will be heavily impacted with significant job losses and a long-term fall in gross regional product (GRP).
> 
> Economic analysis by Monash University’s Centre of Policy Studies and research by the Allen Consulting Group has identified the impacts Australia will see if automotive manufacturing in Australia ceases.
> 
> Releasing a Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries commissioned report with this analysis and research, Chief Executive Tony Weber said without Government support for automotive manufacturing, high-tech jobs and skills will be lost. He also said significant foreign direct investment would cease, as overseas headquarters redirect investments to other automotive manufacturing countries, not to other industries in Australia.
> 
> “This report shows the value of automotive manufacturing to Australia. It details the benefits to Australia as a whole””to the economy, communities, the supply chain and other industries. The FCAI will be using this report as a basis for our submission to the Productivity Commission’s review of the automotive sector. I want to be clear: financial support for the industry is an investment in Australia and this investment needs to be long-term,” Mr Weber said.
> 
> “For that investment, Australians receive significant returns through direct foreign investment, employment, skills, training, technology transfer and research. And the investment also generates spill-overs that flow into other industries and areas of the economy. Without that investment, we lose these long-lasting benefits.”
> 
> Key points from the report
> 
> Automotive manufacturing in Australia receives around $500 million in Government funding each year. For this investment, the Australian economy is $21.5 billion larger (based on an economic welfare net present value calculation).
> The modelling worked on a scenario where Australian automotive manufacturing shuts down over a two-year period from 2017 to 2018.
> On a per person basis, Government assistance to automotive manufacturing is around $18 per person””a very low figure by international standards. The $21.5 billion return equates to $934 per person in benefit.
> Australia would be a very different place without automotive manufacturing. If we lost this important capability:
> Australia’s GDP would be $7.3 billion smaller (in today’s dollars) by 2018.
> Billions in foreign direct investment would cease, as head offices direct investment to other automotive manufacturing countries, not to other industries in Australia.
> Employment losses in Melbourne would equate to some 33,000 jobs in 2018, and around 6,600 in Adelaide. These jobs would eventually return in both cities, but with lower real wages. And employment levels would not return until around 2027 for Melbourne and 2025 for Adelaide.
> The economies of Adelaide and Melbourne would be heavily impacted with gross regional product (GRP) contracted by up to 1.4 per cent and it is likely GRP will be lower than pre-closure levels until the end of 2031, while employment could fall by around 1.5 per cent.
> These impacts do not include the spill-over effects, including to advanced manufacturing and research and development (R&D), which cannot be modelled, but are recognised by chief executives of companies like Boeing, Rio Tinto and Coca-Cola Amatil. These include:
> technology transfers through R&D and innovation;
> lean management techniques and applications; and
> advanced labour skills and manufacturing techniques.
> The report found that if barriers to export were removed and the Australian industry could return to 2008 levels of exports (when 160,000 vehicles were exported), Australia’s consumer welfare would increase by $7.1 billion over time.
> 
> http://www.fcai.com.au/news/news/all/all/341/the-real-value-of-our-automotive-manufacturing-industry


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> Every country that still produces cars subsidises it's car industry.
> 
> Some people just look at the cost but not the benefits
> 
> * Company tax paid by the manufacturers including the component manufactures
> 
> * Income tax paid by the employees of the above
> 
> * GST paid on the vehicles
> 
> Contributing to the withdrawal of the car industry is a very short sighted action




What you are saying is correct, however unless the parent company wishes to invest in the company there is no long term future for it. 
As I said why didn't GM or Ford base the manufacturing of their right hand drive world cars here. I think we all know the reason, just no one wants to admit it, it's expensive to do business here.

The subsidies would just increase, untill you reach a point that the taxpayer is paying GM and Ford, for cars they can't sell.
What do you do then crush them, just to keep the plant open?


----------



## sydboy007

Why is Abbott so wedded to his Chaplaincy program?  Surely in a secular country forcing schools to only higher a religious chaplain is not sound policy.  Why force schools to sack qualified counsellors?

2 High Court judgements against the program yet Abbott is still determined to have his way.  Seems his pig headedness is at PPL levels.

How do you argue that the budget is at emergency levels yet you can throw $250M for school chaplains who are unlikely to have the same level of qualifications as the many counsellors they'll be supplanting?

A PM basing policy on political ideology is one thing, but religious ideology shouldn't have any place when determining how tax payer funds are spent!


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Why is Abbott so wedded to his Chaplaincy program?  Surely in a secular country forcing schools to only higher a religious chaplain is not sound policy.  Why force schools to sack qualified counsellors?
> 
> 2 High Court judgements against the program yet Abbott is still determined to have his way.  Seems his pig headedness is at PPL levels.
> 
> How do you argue that the budget is at emergency levels yet you can throw $250M for school chaplains who are unlikely to have the same level of qualifications as the many counsellors they'll be supplanting?
> 
> A PM basing policy on political ideology is one thing, but religious ideology shouldn't have any place when determining how tax payer funds are spent!




I have to agree with you, religion isn't something tax payers should be funding. IMO


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> Why is Abbott so wedded to his Chaplaincy program?  Surely in a secular country forcing schools to only higher a religious chaplain is not sound policy.  Why force schools to sack qualified counsellors?
> 
> 2 High Court judgements against the program yet Abbott is still determined to have his way.  Seems his pig headedness is at PPL levels.
> 
> How do you argue that the budget is at emergency levels yet you can throw $250M for school chaplains who are unlikely to have the same level of qualifications as the many counsellors they'll be supplanting?
> 
> A PM basing policy on political ideology is one thing, but religious ideology shouldn't have any place when determining how tax payer funds are spent!




Would be interesting to see if churches or similar religious groups are  big financial donors to the Coalition.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> ).... That position is contrary to the Coalition's boast that "Australia is open for business". .




this is where we all misinterpreted the govt's announcement. The whole statement was "Australia is open for business to cease pesky mercantile industrialisation and return us to our true destiny of the poor white trash of Asia".  They can take our freedoms, they can starve us of intelligence and learning, but they can never take our Hills Hoist and Rotary Mower !!!


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> this is where we all misinterpreted the govt's announcement. The whole statement was "Australia is open for business to cease pesky mercantile industrialisation and return us to our true destiny of the poor white trash of Asia".  They can take our freedoms, they can starve us of intelligence and learning, but they can never take our Hills Hoist and Rotary Mower !!!




Good to have you on board Tisme. The quality of debate index just rose a few points.


----------



## Tisme

Thankyou Sir Rumpole. 

I'm sure there are those who may have trouble adapting to the non binary arguments we are prone to, but I think we owe to the world as a whole to stand up for the clandestine analogues who hide in the shadows. With perseverance we may live to bathe in the sunshine on our skin and see our reflections in a mirror. Until then we must take our victims surreptitiously ....


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> Thankyou Sir Rumpole.
> 
> I'm sure there are those who may have trouble adapting to the non binary arguments we are prone to, but I think we owe to the world as a whole to stand up for the clandestine analogues who hide in the shadows. With perseverance we may live to bathe in the sunshine on our skin and see our reflections in a mirror. Until then we must take our victims surreptitiously ....




See you at the next Fabian Society meeting


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> See you at the next Fabian Society meeting




Where, when and what time Rumpy?

Unfortunately poor old Gough has had to put in an apology due to his dementia but you will see Julia, Chris, Jenny and all the greenies....they would not miss a meeting for quids.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Where, when and what time Rumpy?
> 
> Unfortunately poor old Gough has had to put in an apology due to his dementia but you will see Julia, Chris, Jenny and all the greenies....they would not miss a meeting for quids.




I'm sure they will be glad to see you matey


----------



## overhang

His chaplaincy program is part of the reason he will be one term Tony, pushing his backdated ideology onto Australian schools.  This is why we should never have a bible basher as PM.  It infuriates me to no end the effort he is going to as to ensure secular workers are kept out of schools, ffs its the 21st century


----------



## SirRumpole

I ROFL at Christopher Pyne introducing his education "reforms" into Parliament.

He was bemoaning the fact that Chinese Universities were rapidly rising up the rankings.

Chris old chap, the Chinese universities are GOVERNMENT FINANCED.

Have a think about that before you go in the opposite direction.

He also mentioned that Singapore universities were doing well.

Singapore has 6 universities, 5 public and one private. So exactly how does Pyne link deregulation of universities to the performance of those Universities ?


----------



## Tink

A lot of whinging going on here, a voice from the other side, I agree with Tony.

Good on him .


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I'm sure they will be glad to see you matey




Rumpy, I would love to go so please tell me where, when and what time?

Could you possibly send me an agenda?....I would be most interested in their discussion.

How do become a member and what qualifications would I need?

Is there a joining fee and how much?


----------



## sydboy007

Tink said:


> A lot of whinging going on here, a voice from the other side, I agree with Tony.
> 
> Good on him .




So you have no problem with the Government basically discriminating along the lines of religion?  You've got no problem with a fully qualified counsellor losing their job purely because they're not part of an organised religion?

Considering all the long and sordid details coming out at the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse how can the PM think forcing schools to sack secular counsellors to bring in a religions chaplain is good policy?

Just wait for the howls of protests if a school in say Lakemba wants to higher a Muslim chaplain.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Rumpy, I would love to go so please tell me where, when and what time?
> 
> Could you possibly send me an agenda?....I would be most interested in their discussion.
> 
> How do become a member and what qualifications would I need?
> 
> Is there a joining fee and how much?




Where:The next meeting is somewhere in Nigeria, haven't decided yet, but probably in an Internet Cafe in the desert.

Date: As soon as I get Interpol off my case

Agenda & Qualifications: your signature and bank account details

Joining Fee: As much as you have. USD preferred but Gold Bullion accepted.


----------



## Tink

You know what, Syd, I get sick and tired of you lefties whinging and howling.

Yes, I agree with it, rant on....


----------



## SirRumpole

Tink said:


> You know what, Syd, I get sick and tired of you lefties whinging and howling.
> 
> Yes, I agree with it, rant on....




As others got sick of the Righties whinging on during times of a Labor government...


----------



## Tink

That is fine, I said I agreed with it, and I am entitled to my view.

_A spokesperson for the National School Chaplaincy Association welcomed the government's decision.

"Chaplaincy makes a positive difference in the lives of students and is widely considered the best model of holistic care and welfare, as it provides emotional, social and spiritual support," the spokesperson said.

"While we acknowledge the public opinions of some who are opposed to chaplaincy, much of this is based on misinformation. Chaplains are non-judgmental, non-coercive and support all students regardless of the student's issues or worldview."_


----------



## SirRumpole

> Chaplains are non-judgmental, non-coercive and support all students regardless of the student's issues or worldview."




You don't need to be religious to have these qualities.


----------



## overhang

Tink said:


> That is fine, I said I agreed with it, and I am entitled to my view.
> 
> _A spokesperson for the National School Chaplaincy Association welcomed the government's decision.
> 
> "Chaplaincy makes a positive difference in the lives of students and is widely considered the best model of holistic care and welfare, as it provides emotional, social and spiritual support," the spokesperson said.
> 
> "While we acknowledge the public opinions of some who are opposed to chaplaincy, much of this is based on misinformation. Chaplains are non-judgmental, non-coercive and support all students regardless of the student's issues or worldview."_




That is what professional secular counselors are for 

I wonder if your opinion would be different if Muslim clerics were used in most public schools.


----------



## Tink

Overhang, from what I have been told, the counsellors are still there, they work together.
I think there is a lot of misinformation being spread.

It has nothing to do with religion.


----------



## SirRumpole

Tink said:


> Overhang, from what I have been told, the counsellors are still there, they work together.
> I think there is a lot of misinformation being spread.
> 
> It has nothing to do with religion.




Under the Coalition's Chaplaincy programs, the Chaplains have to be religious, unlike Labor's version which gave schools the money and allowed them to choose the Chaplains, religious or secular.

So, the only conclusion you can draw, is that under the Coalitions plan, it's all about religion.


----------



## Tisme

overhang said:


> That is what professional secular counselors are for




Usually Arts Degree graduates with a parchment that reads Psychology, on $100k a year to regurgitate departmental policy procedural answers. That's a lot of money for a trained risk averse parrot.





overhang said:


> I wonder if your opinion would be different if Muslim clerics were used in most public schools.




What's your point? You want to get rid of the ones who are already there? What kid in his/her residual right mind is going to seek counsel from some tribal native who has such a sheep like mentality even the way they dress is governed by some supreme commander in a far off desert; anyone who wears a uniform is going to willingly take orders from someone.

The dilemma is we never know if modern Muslim is subverting our customs and teaching young minds how to hate whitey and cut off people's heads. It's like asking the Catholic clergy to behave....ain't gonna happen.


----------



## overhang

Tink said:


> Overhang, from what I have been told, the counsellors are still there, they work together.
> I think there is a lot of misinformation being spread.
> 
> It has nothing to do with religion.



Tink I don't believe that is the case, I've already heard a secular councilor on the radio who has been told they will lose their job if this passes as they will no longer receive funding for their position.  But if you're correct than what a complete waste of tax players money that is (250 million), so students already have access to a professional counselor then there would be no tax payer requirement for a religious worker.  The tax payer see's no benefit from that, if students are so concerned about seeing a religious worker than they can go to church after hours.


----------



## overhang

Tisme said:


> Usually Arts Degree graduates with a parchment that reads Psychology, on $100k a year to regurgitate departmental policy procedural answers. That's a lot of money for a trained risk averse parrot.



As opposed to someone who bases their faith and advice from a fictional book written 1500 years ago?  No thanks.






> What's your point? You want to get rid of the ones who are already there? What kid in his/her residual right mind is going to seek counsel from some tribal native who has such a sheep like mentality even the way they dress is governed by some supreme commander in a far off desert; anyone who wears a uniform is going to willingly take orders from someone.
> 
> The dilemma is we never know if modern Muslim is subverting our customs and teaching young minds how to hate whitey and cut off people's heads. It's like asking the Catholic clergy to behave....ain't gonna happen.



My point was that Think is quite an outspoken Christian on this forum and would her mind change if her children, grand kids etc were to receive counseling from a member of a different faith.  That is what she expects members of other faiths or non faiths to be ok with regarding this policy and I find it difficult she would like a Muslim cleric association with her children or family.  I notice you point straight to the extremist side of Muslims, do parents want there children also associating with possible kiddy fiddlers from the Catholic church?


----------



## sydboy007

Tink said:


> You know what, Syd, I get sick and tired of you lefties whinging and howling.
> 
> Yes, I agree with it, rant on....




So what comforting words will you give to the secular counsellors losing their jobs to Chaplains?

I'd urge you to understand the policy before sprouting your factually incorrect working together.  Funding is ONLY for religious based chaplaincy.  Funding WILL be cut to hose schools who would prefer to have a non religious counsellor.


----------



## sails

Tink said:


> A lot of whinging going on here, a voice from the other side, I agree with Tony.
> 
> Good on him .




Tink, I agree with you.  The Chaplain at my granddaughter's school has been a wonderful support to both the girls and religion is not pushed on to the kids. It gives kids who are struggling a means of support other than the over burdened guidance officer.


----------



## overhang

sails said:


> Tink, I agree with you.  The Chaplain at my granddaughter's school has been a wonderful support to both the girls and religion is not pushed on to the kids. It gives kids who are struggling a means of support other than the over burdened guidance officer.




Sails it's great to hear your grandchildren have had a positive experience with the chaplaincy program.  But why do you think its a good policy to remove funding for non-secular chaplains?  In an age when the church and state are supposed to be kept separate this is a shift backwards, but should we really be surprised from the PM that reintroduced knights and dames.  One term Tony.


----------



## Julia

Tink said:


> It has nothing to do with religion.



No?   Then why are only religiously trained chaplains eligible for the funding?
Anyone so trained will have at the core of their interactions belief in a god and I just don't believe that in counselling a vulnerable teenager that will not come through.   Do these chaplains even have any qualifications in counselling?

The government says the chaplains will not be permitted to proselytize:   how is that going to be policed?

Years ago I was discussing a medical issue with a GP.  He said "it will help if you believe in the power of prayer".
That's not what you see a doctor for.



Tisme said:


> Usually Arts Degree graduates with a parchment that reads Psychology, on $100k a year to regurgitate departmental policy procedural answers. That's a lot of money for a trained risk averse parrot.



There are some excellent psychologists who most definitely do not fit your caustic description.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> Tisme:- Usually Arts Degree graduates with a parchment that reads Psychology, on $100k a year to regurgitate departmental policy procedural answers. That's a lot of money for a trained risk averse parrot.
> 
> 
> Julia:-There are some excellent psychologists who most definitely do not fit your caustic description.




Having had a discussion with Tisme on another forum about chaplains, he believes that as school psychologist/counsellors are effectively public servants,  that they take the public service route of least resistance by writing a report and submitting it to the principal and then consider their job to be done.

 Chaplains could probably act outside these boundaries and work on a more personal level with the students than the formal level that the psychologists are constrained by.

 I can see his point on this, but I don't believe that religion qualifies a person for this task more than anyone else in the wider community with similar experiences, and that also does not discount the fact that psychologists do important work. Psychologists & chaplains work at different levels, one shouldn't replace another.


----------



## Knobby22

It's about history.
It used to be the micks got taught in their own school system while the Anglicans and Presbyterians got taught in the public school system. Initially it was expected that the local Anglican and similar Christian churches would act as chaplains to the school however as Australia has become more diverse and less religious this has resulted in the system changing and you can only expect it will change further. 

Unfortunately for the Anglicans, this has led to them being removed as the dominant religion in Australia and as a result also led to Christian knowledge in pubic schools not really being taught. Logically this means the end of teaching of Christianity in these schools. If parents want a Christian education at school, then they will need to go private or Catholic. 

I sympathise with Tony and Tink but Australia has changed. 
I don't think a psychologist will serve the same purpose so the chaplaincy program should just be removed as long as there are enough parents who want to end it. In some country towns, with a less diverse population, I am sure that many of the parents would want it retained.


----------



## Tisme

Julia said:


> There are some excellent psychologists who most definitely do not fit your caustic description.




Got any names?


----------



## Tisme

overhang said:


> I notice you point straight to the extremist side of Muslims, do parents want there children also associating with possible kiddy fiddlers from the Catholic church?




How do you know it's extreme ? I understand the coalition of the willing will include Saudi Arabia, where they routinely chop people's heads off...

Catholic fiddler = Hell NO!!


----------



## lindsayf

It baffles me that there is any support for this ludicrous ideologically based injection of doctrine into the secular school system.  It is however reassuring to see the vast majority see it for what it is.
School based support workers, counsellors. social workers, psychologists deal with a wide range of complex social, psychological, personal, familial and educational issues.  They absolutely need to be grounded in evidence based understanding of these issues and how to respond to them.  To achieve this takes years of academic study and practice supervision.  This is not a skill base that is achieved by a Cert IV chaplaincy course ( or other) underpinned by archaic doctrine and dangerous biasses.
As others have said the ultimate result of this will be the displacement of appropriately skilled people for those who are, simply, not.  There is a place, perhaps, for the chaplains to offer doctrinal support to religious children/families - on request.  But other than that - thier interventions will probably be prosletising, judgemental and unhelpful.

I write this on the safe assumption that 99.9% of the 'chaplains' will be christian chaplains.

As a secular tax payer...not happy.


----------



## luutzu

lindsayf said:


> It baffles me that there is any support for this ludicrous ideologically based injection of doctrine into the secular school system.  It is however reassuring to see the vast majority see it for what it is.
> School based support workers, counsellors. social workers, psychologists deal with a wide range of complex social, psychological, personal, familial and educational issues.  They absolutely need to be grounded in evidence based understanding of these issues and how to respond to them.  To achieve this takes years of academic study and practice supervision.  This is not a skill base that is achieved by a Cert IV chaplaincy course ( or other) underpinned by archaic doctrine and dangerous biasses.
> As others have said the ultimate result of this will be the displacement of appropriately skilled people for those who are, simply, not.  There is a place, perhaps, for the chaplains to offer doctrinal support to religious children/families - on request.  But other than that - thier interventions will probably be prosletising, judgemental and unhelpful.
> 
> I write this on the safe assumption that 99.9% of the 'chaplains' will be christian chaplains.
> 
> As a secular tax payer...not happy.




Agree.
It's a very dangerous slippery slope Abbott is putting us on.

Even if chaplains are more qualified than trained counsellor/psychologist, the separation of Church and State is one of the cornerstone of a modern, inclusive democracy. We're a multicultural, multi-faith society living under the rule of law... and I think that has serve our people and our country well; to now put chaplains into state institutions, while I don't think religious leaders of other faith would complain, doing so won't serve all our kids any better than keeping it secular.

I'm not sure what advice a chaplain would give to kids that got pregnant - Christianity and I believe most religion would be against abortion, not saying that that's what ought to be done but in some situation it might be an option; What about the use of condoms; or homosexuality.

If the counsellor is religious, and with this program the gov't is effectively encouraging religion as part of counselling... I don't think we can expect a religious advisor to be secular when it comes to issues like birth controls or sexuality, just to name a couple.

But i think there will be more High Court challenges and hopefully Abbott won't be around for term two.

-------

I hope Abbott and his gov't is not on some messianic mission... Today's headlines seems like we're telling the US and the world our jets are all fired up ready to go bomb some Arabs. 

Is it just me or do we sound like we're rushing the Americans into this war?

ISIS controls a vast area over at least two countries - bigger than Britain I heard; they're well armed and well funded... and we seem to think we could fly over and with combo of smart and carpet bombing raids, they'll surrender and disappear.

God help us...


----------



## Julia

lindsayf said:


> It is however reassuring to see the vast majority see it for what it is
> 
> School based support workers, counsellors. social workers, psychologists deal with a wide range of complex social, psychological, personal, familial and educational issues.  They absolutely need to be grounded in evidence based understanding of these issues and how to respond to them.  To achieve this takes years of academic study and practice supervision.



+1.  Exactly.




luutzu said:


> Even if chaplains are more qualified than trained counsellor/psychologist,



More qualified?   In what way do you think chaplains could be better trained and more qualified to counsel teenagers than the sort of professional lindsayf has described above?
Happy for someone to correct me, but I don't think the average chaplain is necessarily a holder of formal psychotherapeutic qualifications.
The points raised above re how would such a person counsel a kid who is pregnant etc are very well made.


----------



## wayneL

luutzu said:


> ....hopefully Abbott won't be around for term two.




Yeah..... to be replaced by Short'un


luutzu said:


> God help us...




Indeed


----------



## luutzu

Julia said:


> +1.  Exactly.
> 
> 
> 
> More qualified?   In what way do you think chaplains could be better trained and more qualified to counsel teenagers than the sort of professional lindsayf has described above?
> Happy for someone to correct me, but I don't think the average chaplain is necessarily a holder of formal psychotherapeutic qualifications.
> The points raised above re how would such a person counsel a kid who is pregnant etc are very well made.




I was saying that even if it can be argued that chaplains are more qualified. Not saying that they are.
Bad English.


----------



## luutzu

wayneL said:


> Yeah..... to be replaced by Short'un
> 
> 
> Indeed




I don't vote Labor either.
I actually voted a couple times for Howard.


----------



## sails

SirRumpole said:


> ... Psychologists & chaplains work at different levels, one shouldn't replace another.




Based on experience with both chaplains and psychologists, I think that sums it up in a nutshell.


----------



## sydboy007

sails said:


> Based on experience with both chaplains and psychologists, I think that sums it up in a nutshell.




Yet that is what Abbott is proposing.

For a leader of a party that was out defending the right to be a bigot, how can they then turn around and FORCE schools to either go without a counsellor or get a faith based chaplain?

I definitely think some articles in national and regional newspapers needs to occur showing just how many people are at risk of losing their jobs.


----------



## luutzu

sydboy007 said:


> Yet that is what Abbott is proposing.
> 
> For a leader of a party that was out defending the right to be a bigot, how can they then turn around and FORCE schools to either go without a counsellor or get a faith based chaplain?
> 
> I definitely think some articles in national and regional newspapers needs to occur showing just how many people are at risk of losing their jobs.




And of course all chaplains will be Christian of one kind or another. 

Imagine a Rabbi or a Muslim or a Buddhist monk... we'd be outraged and cries of Muslims or Jewish takeovers.


----------



## Julia

The government’s school chaplaincy program has already faced two High Court challenges and may soon face a third. Victoria’s special religious instruction classes are just as controversial, with hundreds of parents withdrawing their children in recent months. Hagar Cohen reports.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/2014-08-31/5699360


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> The government’s school chaplaincy program has already faced two High Court challenges and may soon face a third. Victoria’s special religious instruction classes are just as controversial, with hundreds of parents withdrawing their children in recent months. Hagar Cohen reports.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/2014-08-31/5699360






> However, under law, Access Ministries are not allowed to attempt to convert children. The group’s CEO, Dawn Penney, says* evangelism is not the point of the classes.*
> 
> ‘No, we do not proselytise; it is not something we promote,’ she says. ‘It is clearly in our training that it is not the way that we wish Access Ministries to be seen in the school.’




One wonders then, exactly what the point of the classes are.


----------



## banco

Julia said:


> The government’s school chaplaincy program has already faced two High Court challenges and may soon face a third. Victoria’s special religious instruction classes are just as controversial, with hundreds of parents withdrawing their children in recent months. Hagar Cohen reports.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/2014-08-31/5699360




It remains the only bone that can be given to the the theocons in the Abbott Government (including the PM himself).


----------



## IFocus

Green light for Medibank float 

I guess the question why are they selling a money printing press?


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/green-light-for-medibank-float/story-e6frg8zx-1227041449766


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> Green light for Medibank float
> 
> I guess the question why are they selling a money printing press?
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/green-light-for-medibank-float/story-e6frg8zx-1227041449766




For the same reason Labor sold the Commonwealth Bank to pay off Labor's bad debt.

The coalition is selling Medibankd to pay off Labor's bad debt again.


----------



## So_Cynical

noco said:


> For the same reason Labor sold the Commonwealth Bank to pay off Labor's bad debt.
> 
> The coalition is selling Medibankd to pay off Labor's bad debt again.




And the 3 Telstra floats?

Dont tell me, its all Labor isn't it...even with surging government revenues and almost zero debt, it was Labors fault.


----------



## Tink

_Tolerance is a critical value in a western liberal democracy like Australia. It was for this reason that I intended to address the World Congress of Families meeting in Melbourne tomorrow.

The calls for me not to attend demonstrate the intolerance of the Greens and the left -instead of arguing their case in the public arena they seek to shut down debate. 

-- Kevin Andrews._

Security issues yet again .......the only way they know how.


----------



## noco

So_Cynical said:


> And the 3 Telstra floats?
> 
> Dont tell me, its all Labor isn't it...even with surging government revenues and almost zero debt, it was Labors fault.




Howard sold off Telstra to pay of Keatings Labor debt of $86 billion.

You Fabians have such short memories or perhaps you may have still been in nappies then.


----------



## orr

noco said:


> Howard sold off Telstra to pay of Keatings Labor debt of $86 billion.
> 
> You Fabians have such short memories or perhaps you may have still been in nappies then.




Noco 'old darling' sit down have a horlicks. Now google 'future fund/ telstra' you might learn something about where the money came from and what it was for...
Now for the hard part,  'Neo Conservative Economic Rationalisation' . There's a bit in, it so best you start now. It will explain a lot, even about the sale of the CBA. 

From deep inside the Carapace... orr.

p.s Milan Kundera — 'The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting'............. but it helps to remember the right things.


----------



## explod

banco said:


> It remains the only bone that can be given to the the theocons in the Abbott Government (including the PM himself).




So some of their mates can get on the Board and the CO will get a 5 mil a year pay packet with bonuses.  I think Telstra may even be better than that, let's make it 10 mil plus. 

First lots of shares are usually allocated via brokers to big players to get it all started.  Be a good one to watch noco.


----------



## luutzu

IFocus said:


> Green light for Medibank float
> 
> I guess the question why are they selling a money printing press?
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/green-light-for-medibank-float/story-e6frg8zx-1227041449766




Printing too much money causes inflation


----------



## sydboy007

luutzu said:


> Printing too much money causes inflation




Adding a few zeros to various large banks deposits in the USA and EU doesn't seem to have the same weimar effect like it used to.


----------



## Smurf1976

noco said:


> Howard sold off Telstra to pay of Keatings Labor debt of $86 billion.




I doubt that was the real motivation. It's like saying someone sold off their house to repay the mortgage. Or is closing a business in order to repay business loans. It's not a rational thing to do unless you have either no choice (which wasn't the situation at the time) or some other motivation for wanting out of the house, business etc.

Telstra was sold for ideological reasons and it's the same with most other privatisations.


----------



## explod

sydboy007 said:


> Adding a few zeros to various large banks deposits in the USA and EU doesn't seem to have the same weimar effect like it used to.




Its a bit like the earth heat sink effect woth global warming.  They have spread the paper creation lending ponzie over a much greater area.

The coming weimer will stuff the whole western show this time.

In my very humble opinion, of course.
I


----------



## SirRumpole

Tony Abbott names white settlement as Australia's 'defining moment', remark draws Indigenous ire




> Indigenous figures including the chair of the Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council are furious that Tony Abbott has highlighted white settlement as the defining moment in Australian history.
> 
> The Prime Minister made the comment while he was launching a project on the 100 Defining Moments in Australian History at the National Museum of Australia in Canberra on Friday.
> 
> "The arrival of the First Fleet was the defining moment in the history of this continent. Let me repeat that, it was the defining moment in the history of this continent," he said.
> 
> "It was the moment this continent became part of the modern world."
> 
> His remarks about drew swift condemnation from Warren Mundine, the chair of the Prime Minister's own advisory panel.
> Audio: Disastrously defining: Indigenous Australians criticise Abbott's comments on white settlement (AM)
> 
> "Well it was a defining moment, there's no argument about that. It was also a disastrous defining moment for Indigenous people," Mr Mundine said.
> 
> Mr Abbott said British settlement provided the foundation for Australia to become one of the most prosperous societies on Earth.
> 
> Mr Mundine said that is true, but not everyone is benefiting.
> 
> "Does that mean that Aboriginal people have prospered from that? Of course not," he said.
> 
> "We're miles behind everyone else and in fact I wouldn't be sitting in this job if Aboriginal people did prosper. There wouldn't be a need for the chair of the Indigenous Advisory Council or the council as a whole."
> PM 'not speaking for all Australians'
> 
> The head of the Stolen Generation Council for New South Wales and the ACT, Matilda House, said the Prime Minister's comments are ridiculous.
> 
> "I think politicians really don't think when they make these one-liners," she said.
> 
> "I can't fathom how a ship or a boat sailed into Sydney Harbour can overtake the 60,000 years before."
> 
> The co-chair of the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples, Kirstie Parker, said the Prime Minister is not speaking to all Australians.
> 
> "I think it speaks only to a particular section of Australian society. It doesn't speak to all Australians," she said.
> 
> "That's a pity because I think it sets us back somewhat.
> 
> "This notion that the real Australia, the true Australia, the good and modern Australia started in 1788 is of course offensive to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people."
> 
> Six historians helped compile the list of 100 defining moments, including historian Professor John Maynard, who is also Indigenous.
> 
> "We were a little bit disturbed, to say the least, by that particular comment, the way that it was framed. But as I said, I mean, he's open to have his opinion," he said.
> 
> Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss said white settlement is a significant part of Australia's history but it is not the only thing to be proud of.
> 
> He said it changed the country in very dramatic ways, but he acknowledged the contribution of the Indigenous population.
> 
> "There were Aboriginal people here before. Their way of recording history was different from what there has been since there has been European settlement," he said.
> 
> "We're proud of all of our past."
> 
> Last month, Mr Abbott was criticised for saying Australia had been "unsettled" before the First Fleet arrived.
> 
> "The comments were highly offensive, dismissive of Indigenous peoples and simply incorrect," Senator Nova Peris said.
> 
> Mr Abbott also nominated the birth of Rupert Murdoch's newspaper The Australian in 1964 as another defining moment.
> 
> Professor Maynard, who is director of the Wollotuka Institute at the University of Newcastle, also does not believe the establishment of the newspaper belongs in the top 100.
> 
> "I'm sure we could all put down 100 moments and we'd all have different perspectives on what those 100 would be, but no, I wouldn't have The Australian there as one of the 100 defining moments," he said.
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-30/pm-comment-on-defining-moment-angers-indigenous-groups/5707926




Technically he may be right, but do some things always need to be said ?


----------



## IFocus

How high is the rising unemployment rate again?

The Liberal daily hasn't mentioned it 

Foreign worker influx for Darwin looms



> FOREIGN workers could arrive within months under a new migration scheme for Darwin and other areas hit by chronic skills shortages, amid a political firestorm over the idea.
> 
> The Abbott government insisted the skilled foreign workers could not be paid less than a local employee in the face of furious claims from Labor and unions that wages would be cut.
> 
> Authorities in Darwin and the Pilbara are hoping to gain *approval for the regional migration agreements to fill a growing skills gap, as locals leave their jobs to join giant resource projects.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...for-darwin-looms/story-fn9hm1gu-1227041872161


----------



## sptrawler

Funny I thought when I heard about the Shorten rape allegations, lucky it wasn't Abbott, the media would be feral about it.

Obviously others thought the same way.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/imagine-if-tony-abbott-had-been-accused-of-rape--20140829-109zcr.html


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> Funny I thought when I heard about the Shorten rape allegations, lucky it wasn't Abbott, the media would be feral about it.
> 
> Obviously others thought the same way.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/comment/imagine-if-tony-abbott-had-been-accused-of-rape--20140829-109zcr.html




It's all conjectural unless a complaint is actually made against Abbott, so you can say anything you like about what the media coverage might be, but you have no way of proving it.


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> How high is the rising unemployment rate again?
> 
> The Liberal daily hasn't mentioned it
> 
> Foreign worker influx for Darwin looms
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...for-darwin-looms/story-fn9hm1gu-1227041872161




Yes funny that the Liberals put forward a plan to relocate our unemployed, to areas of employment.
They were shouted down on that too.

Haven't you hear, Ifocus, our unemployed are happy to stay right where they are.


----------



## overhang

sptrawler said:


> Funny I thought when I heard about the Shorten rape allegations, lucky it wasn't Abbott, the media would be feral about it.
> 
> Obviously others thought the same way.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/comment/imagine-if-tony-abbott-had-been-accused-of-rape--20140829-109zcr.html




Well Abbott was charged with indecent assault 







> The case involved an allegation that Mr Abbott, then a 20-year-old student leader in the heady days of campus politics, groped a woman activist on stage before an audience of 200.



 and later dismissed.  I haven't heard Labor or lefties bring this up so I think you have your answer and Vanstone is just creating a storm in a teacup. 
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/17/1089694611809.html


----------



## So_Cynical

IFocus said:


> How high is the rising unemployment rate again?
> 
> The Liberal daily hasn't mentioned it
> 
> Foreign worker influx for Darwin looms
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...for-darwin-looms/story-fn9hm1gu-1227041872161




Did you happen to catch the NBN beat up the other day? a full page with 4 or 5 storys..no mention of the 15 mbps average per household or other broken NBN election promises.


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> Funny I thought when I heard about the Shorten rape allegations, lucky it wasn't Abbott, the media would be feral about it.
> 
> Obviously others thought the same way.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/comment/imagine-if-tony-abbott-had-been-accused-of-rape--20140829-109zcr.html




Odd how Amanda is in making sure the agony Shorten has gone through is somehow a call for sympathy to be directed to Abbott?

Is the hatred so strong and endemic in the Liberal Party that they have no moral compass that allows them to at least be old fashioned polite without meaning it? 

I'm sure Abbott will have his own accusers eventually and perhaps Ms Vanstone will be quick to ride Shorten's pony of empathy ......not!


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> Odd how Amanda is in making sure the agony Shorten has gone through is somehow a call for sympathy to be directed to Abbott?
> 
> Is the hatred so strong and endemic in the Liberal Party that they have no moral compass that allows them to at least be old fashioned polite without meaning it?
> 
> I'm sure Abbott will have his own accusers eventually and perhaps Ms Vanstone will be quick to ride Shorten's pony of empathy ......not!




I think Shorten probably did what Abbott would have done if it was him. Threaten to sue the living daylights out of any media outlet that released the story.


----------



## Tisme

So_Cynical said:


> Did you happen to catch the NBN beat up the other day? a full page with 4 or 5 storys..no mention of the 15 mbps average per household or other broken NBN election promises.




We all know that Turnbull has NFI about anything internet than the average keyboarder warrior. He managed to jag a dot com windfall like so many punters of that time and somehow he became a knowitall when Tony needed to stuff him in a closet somewhere out of sight and out of mind. It's sad to see a good mind withering on the vine, but watch we must.


----------



## drsmith

Malcolm knew how to make money out of the internet whereas someone else only knew how to waste it.


----------



## sptrawler

Tisme said:


> Odd how Amanda is in making sure the agony Shorten has gone through is somehow a call for sympathy to be directed to Abbott?
> 
> Is the hatred so strong and endemic in the Liberal Party that they have no moral compass that allows them to at least be old fashioned polite without meaning it?
> 
> I'm sure Abbott will have his own accusers eventually and perhaps Ms Vanstone will be quick to ride Shorten's pony of empathy ......not!




You obviously weren't in the country, when Abbott was accused of punching a wall near a woman, 30 years ago.
The papers ran with it for weeks, Labor were right in there too.


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> You obviously weren't in the country, when Abbott was accused of punching a wall near a woman, 30 years ago.
> The papers ran with it for weeks, Labor were right in there too.




I confess I wasn't full bottle on the event 30 years ago when Tony was a nobody, but I do remember the fracas in more recent years.

Did Amanda write a piece complaining that if was Kevin is would be worse? I'm guessing no.

I seem to remember News Corp had to read an apology in the Supreme Court to the woman after previously siding with the paragon of Liberal values; Michael Kroger who called her out for being a liar and a nobody?


----------



## sptrawler

Tisme said:


> I confess I wasn't full bottle on the event 30 years ago when Tony was a nobody, but I do remember the fracas in more recent years.
> 
> Did Amanda write a piece complaining that if was Kevin is would be worse? I'm guessing no.
> 
> I seem to remember News Corp had to read an apology in the Supreme Court to the woman after previously siding with the paragon of Liberal values; Michael Kroger who called her out for being a liar and a nobody?




Just an observation, no matter.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> Malcolm knew how to make money out of the internet whereas someone else only knew how to waste it.




I'd more argue that MT was lucky to have invested on the ground floor of the internet revolution than any internet nous.

In some way ozemail is MT going the same path as they heavily invested in dialup and never made the transition to ADSL.

It wasn't untill iinet bought the ailing ozemail shell from MCI in 2005 that the majority of ozemail customers were activelly promoted ADSL.

iPrimus made the same mistake in the early 2000s.  The revenue from dialup customers was far higher than ADSL so it was hard for these companies with massive investments in dialup tech to actively cannibalise their customer base to upgrade to ADSL.

The only smart thing MT did was seeing his Alan Bond moment with MCI and selling out at the tech boom levels.


----------



## Tisme

sydboy007 said:


> The only smart thing MT did was seeing his Alan Bond moment with MCI and selling out at the tech boom levels.




tick


You only have to know about technology to know he is parroting interest groups.

Let's not talk about the 100Gbps (100,000 Mbps) over dark fibre already available in New York to keep their business' ahead of the game


----------



## drsmith

Lordy lordy.

It's blind luck when Malcolm Turnbull succeeds in private enterprise but when Stephen Conroy wastes $billions on fantasy, it's genius. 

Meanwhile, in the real world, the government and enough x-bench senators have reached a deal on the mining tax repeal and associated measures. 



> THE mining tax is set to be scrapped after the Abbott government announced a surprise deal with crossbench senators to overhaul the bill to repeal the impost.
> 
> Finance Minister Mathias Cormann unveiled the changes to the Senate today after thanking the Palmer United Party and other key groups for supporting the new plan to repeal the tax.
> 
> Senator Cormann said the changes would add $10 billion to the budget bottom line over the next four years by repealing the tax and scaling back some of the spending measures linked to it.
> 
> The government’s ideal plan, reintroduced to parliament on Monday, would have added $16.5bn to the budget bottom line, indicating that the government has given up $6.5bn in savings in order to get the mining tax package through the upper house.




Labor and the Greens are screaming.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ining-tax-repeal/story-fn59niix-1227044980509


----------



## drsmith

Stephen Conroy in the senate has just had his bellyache over the impending mining tax repeal.

Now it's Christine Milne's turn.


----------



## Tisme

I'm guessing the mining tax repeal will be linked to superannuation? In other words the working poor won't be able to nest egg for another generation, but happily import labour won't cost as much to the mining companies as a result.

The economy is failing and the govt wants to force a J curve by increasing the trajectory to bottom. Watch out for dead cat bounces and unmanageable mortgage rates to follow.


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> I'm guessing the mining tax repeal will be linked to superannuation? In other words the working poor won't be able to nest egg for another generation, but happily import labour won't cost as much to the mining companies as a result.
> 
> The economy is failing and the govt wants to force a J curve by increasing the trajectory to bottom. Watch out for dead cat bounces and unmanageable mortgage rates to follow.




You guessed right



> Mining tax repeal: Schoolkids bonus kept, super increases delayed as Federal Government strikes deal with Palmer United Party
> By political correspondent Emma Griffiths
> 
> 
> The mining tax is set to be repealed after the Federal Government and the Palmer United Party (PUP) struck a deal to keep the schoolkids bonus until after the next election.
> 
> But the agreement will also further delay superannuation increases for Australian workers, putting them on hold until 2021.
> 
> PUP senator Glenn Lazarus said his party and Motoring Enthusiast senator Ricky Muir would back the deal.
> 
> PUP had insisted it would not back the mining tax repeal unless the schoolkids bonus and other assistance measures were retained.
> 
> Finance Minister Mathias Cormann announced the breakthrough in the Senate.
> 
> "I am pleased to announce that the Government has received indications from a majority of senators in this chamber that they will support our mining tax repeal package subject to amendments which are currently being circulated in the chamber," he said.
> 
> The amendments include:
> 
> Delaying any compulsory increases to employers' superannuation contributions until 2021
> Retaining the low income superannuation contribution until June 31, 2017
> Retaining the income support bonus until December 31, 2016
> Retaining the schoolkids bonus until December 31 2016, and means-testing it to give it to families on an annual household income of $100,000
> 
> "This is not an adverse, unexpected change as it will leave Australian workers with more of their own money pre-retirement which they can spend on paying down their mortgage, spend on other matters or save for their retirement through superannuation as they see fit," Senator Cormann told the Senate.
> 
> "It will also reduce the cost of doing business, helping business employ more Australians."
> Tell us what you think about the Federal Government's deal to scrap the mining tax.
> 
> The superannuation guarantee increased from 9.25 per cent to 9.5 per cent on July 1 2014.
> 
> The previous Labor government announced the rate would continue to increase to 12 per cent by 2019 - a timeframe which was pushed out by the Coalition in its May budget to 2022.
> 
> This bill will push that back even further until July 1, 2025.
> 
> The low income superannuation contribution gives up to $500 a year to help those earning $37,000 or less save for their retirement.
> 
> Labor's leader in the Senate Penny Wong attacked the deal.
> 
> "Another dirty deal they're trying to ram through the chamber, just like we've seen before," she said.
> 
> "Showing as much contempt for this Senate as they show for the Australian people as they break promise after promise after promise."
> 
> Greens leader Christine Milne said the deal was a win for the big mining companies and for PUP leader and mining magnate Clive Palmer.
> 
> "If ever there is a conflict of interest, it is this one," she told the Senate.
> 
> "How is it possible that you can have a coal billionaire voting to vote down a mining tax?"
> 
> Greens senator Scott Ludlam tweeted: "How is this Palmer mining tax deal not the biggest conflict of interest in modern political history".
> 
> Senator Cormann says the changes will improve the budget bottom line by more than $10 billion.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-...ing-tax-deal-with-palmer-united-party/5713116


----------



## Julia

> Greens leader Christine Milne said the deal was a win for the big mining companies and for PUP leader and mining magnate Clive Palmer.
> 
> "If ever there is a conflict of interest, it is this one," she told the Senate.
> 
> "How is it possible that you can have a coal billionaire voting to vote down a mining tax?"
> 
> Greens senator Scott Ludlam tweeted: "How is this Palmer mining tax deal not the biggest conflict of interest in modern political history".



They are correct.   Yet Mr Palmer still seems able to convince some people that he is purely about the interests of the nation.   He will now be seen as a hero amongst the fan base for  supporting the various programs that were supposed to have been funded by the tax.
What a farce.


----------



## Bintang

Julia said:


> They are correct.   Yet Mr Palmer still seems able to convince some people that he is purely about the interests of the nation.   He will now be seen as a hero amongst the fan base for  supporting the various programs that were supposed to have been funded by the tax.
> What a farce.




_Greens leader Christine Milne [is also reported to have] said the government and Palmer United Party were treating the Senate with contempt.

“Within one hour they want to come in here, circulate amendments, just bang them on the desk and say it doesn’t matter what you think about it, we’ve done the deal, we’ve got the numbers, we can ram it through,” Senator Milne said._

I have to laugh  Isn't this exactly what the Green's themselves did together with Labor when THEY had the numbers.  Milnie, gets a wee bitie sensitive when the bootie is on the other footie.


----------



## wayneL

Bintang said:


> _Greens leader Christine Milne [is also reported to have] said the government and Palmer United Party were treating the Senate with contempt.
> 
> “Within one hour they want to come in here, circulate amendments, just bang them on the desk and say it doesn’t matter what you think about it, we’ve done the deal, we’ve got the numbers, we can ram it through,” Senator Milne said._
> 
> I have to laugh  Isn't this exactly what the Green's themselves did together with Labor when THEY had the numbers.  Milnie, gets a wee bitie sensitive when the bootie is on the other footie.




I heard the odious and egregious Milne's petulant whining live and thought exactly the same thing.


----------



## sptrawler

Tisme said:


> I'm guessing the mining tax repeal will be linked to superannuation? In other words the working poor won't be able to nest egg for another generation, but happily import labour won't cost as much to the mining companies as a result.
> :




The working poor still get the extra welfare super payment, and everyone else gets the same contribution.
But imported Labor will still be required, because our unemployed don't want to work in the Northern areas.

What would you sugest, move the mines to the cities, so the unemployed don't need to move.


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> The working poor still get the extra welfare super payment, and everyone else gets the same contribution.
> But imported Labor will still be required, because our unemployed don't want to work in the Northern areas.
> 
> What would you sugest, move the mines to the cities, so the unemployed don't need to move.




That's is a fallacy; you need to get boots on ground before holding court. I have first hand knowledge of the mining industry and there is no shortage of applicants for jobs in the mine camps and support towns. What is happening is the staff in the retail sectors are snaffled by the mining and catering companies, which leaves a temporary gap in placements. It is not viable to be paying high rents in the township waiting for a call, so obviously there are logistics in play. Accommodation availability is a second major obstacle to tenancy.

Insofar as "same", this is not solving the problem already facing the community and it is not the "same" as the LNP backed agreement for the super to ratchet up over the specified time, which even then was way too slow to bring it back to something that would stave off pension impoverishment for the majority. 

I suggest your indignant argument is predicated on the nonsense spoon fed to you by the tribe of your choosing that you are emotionally wedded to. I have no such galvanisation and see things for what they are from a different perspective than Lab, Green, PUP and LNP tragics and their fifth estate propaganda machines like News Corp and Fairfax. A vote for Tisme is a vote for governance, industry, prosperity and cronyism....amen.


----------



## noco

Good to see Abbott has had a victory to make the Fabians irrelevant.......they are furious.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...ets-down-workers/story-e6frg75f-1227045641179


----------



## Knobby22

noco said:


> Good to see Abbott has had a victory to make the Fabians irrelevant.......they are furious.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...ets-down-workers/story-e6frg75f-1227045641179




Dream on. So they got the mining billionaire to get rid of the mining tax (which he always said he would get rid of) but only after massive changes the Coalition didn't want and it is a huge success???? 

 And somehow according to the article it is a "huge political and policy win for the Coalition" and "it demonstrates the Coalition can negotiate legislation through the Senate".

Yeah, right.


----------



## Julia

Knobby22 said:


> Dream on. So they got the mining billionaire to get rid of the mining tax (which he always said he would get rid of) but only after massive changes the Coalition didn't want and it is a huge success????
> 
> And somehow according to the article it is a "huge political and policy win for the Coalition" and "it demonstrates the Coalition can negotiate legislation through the Senate".
> 
> Yeah, right.



Pretty much how I see it also.  That round to Palmer.


----------



## sydboy007

Knobby22 said:


> Dream on. So they got the mining billionaire to get rid of the mining tax (which he always said he would get rid of) but only after massive changes the Coalition didn't want and it is a huge success????
> 
> And somehow according to the article it is a "huge political and policy win for the Coalition" and "it demonstrates the Coalition can negotiate legislation through the Senate".
> 
> Yeah, right.




Com'on.  Noco did say the fabians.  He hasn't quite caught on the the fact that it's right wing ideology that's bogged down his dearest leader.

Certainly the tail is wagging the dog at present, and most likely will unless TA has the balls for a DD.


----------



## drsmith

Clive Palmer is clearly only in politics for himself but if Labor chooses to exile itself from economic debate, the government has no choice but to deal with the other members of the senate. 

Labor didn't expect this deal over the mining tax and as a consequence they are fuming mad. That also reflects the fact that they were hoping to cling to a Labor/Green majority in the senate at the last election even though it was obvious they were going to lose the reps. 

The Libs have got largely what they want out of the mining tax repeal in that the associated spending ultimately goes. While there's a shorter term cost, the key long term structural savings are in tact and superannuation aspect is a bit of ideological icing.

Time will see Clive and his party off and for the sake of the nation, hopefully the sooner the better but the government of the day has to deal with the senate elected as most governments do. It pails into insignificance in comparison to the post-2010 election marriage between Labor and the Greens for office.


----------



## Knobby22

drsmith said:


> Time will see Clive and his party off and for the sake of the nation, hopefully the sooner the better but the government of the day has to deal with the senate elected as most governments do.




Latest poll results show that Clive's vote is stable with the election result showing 5.4% of the Australian public voting for him. So far none of the gloss appears to have rubbed off.


----------



## So_Cynical

Knobby22 said:


> Latest poll results show that Clive's vote is stable with the election result showing 5.4% of the Australian public voting for him. So far none of the gloss appears to have rubbed off.




I imagine that 5.4% would also roughly represent the size of the lunatic/red neck/spoiler vote.


----------



## SirRumpole

At least someone is doing their bit for clean energy

'Australia's largest' solar farm opens at Royalla south of Canberra



> A solar farm that has been billed as Australia's largest has officially opened at Royalla, south of Canberra.
> 
> The Royalla Solar Farm was developed by a Spanish company, is made up of 83,000 solar panels and has the capacity to power more than 4,500 ACT homes.
> 
> The ACT Government said it was the first large-scale solar farm to be connected to the national electricity grid.
> 
> Environment Minister Simon Corbell said it was an important step towards achieving the ACT Government's target of 90 per cent renewable energy for the territory by 2020.
> 
> "Over its lifetime the farm will save over half a million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions," he said.
> 
> "This is a nation-leading project. This is the largest operation solar farm in Australia to date.
> 
> "It is expected to generate an average 37,000 megawatt hours of renewable energy each year for the next 20 years."
> 
> The project is owned by Spanish company Fotowatio Renewable Ventures (FRV) and the opening was attended by the Spanish foreign minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo.
> 
> "If we want to have sustainable development, we must take care of the environment," he said.
> The Royalla solar farm is made up of 83,000 photovoltaic panels. Photo: The Royalla solar farm is made up of 83,000 photovoltaic panels. (ABC News: Jonathon Gul)
> 
> "I'm absolutely convinced that it's very important to go down this path."
> 
> Andrea Fontana from FRV said large scale solar farms relied heavily on government support.
> 
> "It's absolutely important to have support and long-term stability to make investment decisions," he said.
> 
> "It's impossible to attract capital and investors' confidence without long-term policies."
> 
> The ACT's moves towards greater reliance on renewable energy have come at a cost for Canberrans.
> 
> The ACT Government said the cost of reaching its renewable energy target of 90 per cent by 2020 was expected to peak at about $4 per household per week in 2020 before declining.
> 
> It said that cost would be offset by weekly savings of about $4 per household through energy efficiency programs.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-03/royalla-solar-farm-opens-south-of-canberra/5716500


----------



## noco

drsmith said:


> Clive Palmer is clearly only in politics for himself but if Labor chooses to exile itself from economic debate, the government has no choice but to deal with the other members of the senate.
> 
> Labor didn't expect this deal over the mining tax and as a consequence they are fuming mad. That also reflects the fact that they were hoping to cling to a Labor/Green majority in the senate at the last election even though it was obvious they were going to lose the reps.
> 
> The Libs have got largely what they want out of the mining tax repeal in that the associated spending ultimately goes. While there's a shorter term cost, the key long term structural savings are in tact and superannuation aspect is a bit of ideological icing.
> 
> Time will see Clive and his party off and for the sake of the nation, hopefully the sooner the better but the government of the day has to deal with the senate elected as most governments do. It pails into insignificance in comparison to the post-2010 election marriage between Labor and the Greens for office.




The Libs are all smiling while the  Fabians are all as mad as hell


----------



## Smurf1976

drsmith said:


> Clive Palmer is clearly only in politics for himself but if Labor chooses to exile itself from economic debate, the government has no choice but to deal with the other members of the senate.



A bit like the situation at the state level here in Tas. Regardless of what I or anyone else thinks of them, the Greens have at least produced an "alternative budget" as such (as have the Liberals in the past when in opposition) whereas Labor seems to have exiled itself from the debate.

Sure, the Greens' alternative is really just a policy statement since it has no standing as such despite the "budget" term attached to it. But at least they've spelt out clearly what their alternative ideas are despite having limited resources (compared to Labor or the government) with which to do so. 

At both the state and federal level, Labor just don't seem to have their act together. Turn on the news and you hear plenty about the government, Greens and PUP but Labor is basically missing in action.

What's Labor's strategy? Just do nothing and hope that enough people eventually want a change and elect them back into government?


----------



## drsmith

Knobby22 said:


> Latest poll results show that Clive's vote is stable with the election result showing 5.4% of the Australian public voting for him. So far none of the gloss appears to have rubbed off.



Forget present polls.

The question is whether Clive and his party can survive politically to the next election bearing in mind the volatile nature of its leader.


----------



## drsmith

Smurf1976 said:


> What's Labor's strategy? Just do nothing and hope that enough people eventually want a change and elect them back into government?



Small target is standard fare for opposition at this stage of the electoral cycle. In terms of the current budget situation though, Labor has considerable baggage from office which they hope the electorate will forget. 

They were also hoping that Clive Palmer would really be their enemy's enemy and while that will be the case to the extent Clive's personal interests don't align with the nation's or government's interests, it's not to the extent Labor had hoped.

I think Labor is also still counting on the Tony Abbott factor. What a success (not) that's been for them.


----------



## IFocus

Superannuation delay an act of 'wilful sabotage', says Paul Keating

“







> The prime minister and Mr Palmer trotted out the *tawdry argument* that working people are better off with more cash in their hand today than savings for tomorrow.* Yesterday’s decision represents nothing other than the wilful sabotage of the nation’s universal savings scheme.”*
> 
> “This week, Australia’s pool of superannuation savings* topped $1.87tn – larger than the market capitalisation of the Australian Stock Exchange. *That vast pool of savings, which has revolutionised our capital markets and dramatically lowered the cost of Australian capital, exists, in the main, because of compulsory superannuation. You don’t expect conservative governments to believe in much but, at least, you expect them to believe in thrift. This government does not even believe in thrift,” he said.


----------



## drsmith

I remember something about Paul Keating and LAW tax cuts.

Labor should be happy. It's got him off trashing Bob Hawke.


----------



## So_Cynical

So far we have the following gems of wisdom.

Poor people don't drive cars.

By 2023, the average Australian household should only need a 15 Mbps internet connection.

And today's chestnut.

Working people are better off with more cash in their hand today than savings for tomorrow.


----------



## SirRumpole

So_Cynical said:


> And today's chestnut.
> 
> Working people are better off with more cash in their hand today than savings for tomorrow.




So who says "working people" will have more cash in their hands ?

Is there any compulsion for businesses to pass on their savings in super to the workers ?

And even if they do, the workers will more likely pay higher tax on their salaries/wages than they will on their super.

All part of a redistribution of wealth from the lower/middle income earners to the upper income earners.

King John and the Sheriff of Nott must be very happy.


----------



## Julia

So_Cynical said:


> Working people are better off with more cash in their hand today than savings for tomorrow.



Whilst I'm disappointed about the delaying of increased % of compulsory super, the above is essentially quite correct.  People can still choose to voluntarily choose to contribute to Super or save in some other vehicle.

Much of the population seems to resent the compulsory nature of Super contributions, so why wouldn't they be happy about this?

It's all just a bit silly to imply that the only way people will become self funded in retirement is by compulsory contributions.  I don't know a single person who is self funded who has reached that status via compulsory savings.  Rather they've acted entirely on their own initiative.


----------



## IFocus

Julia said:


> I don't know a single person who is self funded who has reached that status via compulsory savings.  Rather they've acted entirely on their own initiative.




Hence the requirement for a compulsory saving scheme particularity at the bottom end of the income scale.

As Keating points out the benefits go way beyond the individual and government revenues / expenditure the scheme benefits Australia as a whole.

Just confirms the class war / idealogical crusade this government has embarked on, its a shame really.


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> Superannuation delay an act of 'wilful sabotage', says Paul Keating
> 
> “




Willful sabotage?.......and Paul Keating said tax cuts would be L-A-W and he reneged......another Labor broken promise....now THAT is willful sabotage.

Kevin Dudd gave out $900 cheques for people to have cash in hand at the time....he didn't seem to worry about the future so long as he made a good fellow of himself by filling peoples pockets....he did not appear to worry about tomorrow or the future and now we are all having to pay it back.  

As other comments have been made, there is nothing stopping any worker making self contributions to their super.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> As other comments have been made, there is nothing stopping any worker making self contributions to their super.




Fact is that the employers will not have to make their contributions either. Do you see employers giving this saving to their employees or just adding it to the profits ? It's a blatant gift to employers at the expense of employees.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Fact is that the employers will not have to make their contributions either. Do you see employers giving this saving to their employees or just adding it to the profits ? It's a blatant gift to employers at the expense of employees.




Rumpy, the employers contribution of super to the employee is another added cost to business like increased wages.......that costs eventually gets passed on and finally, who pays in the end?

The Fabians and their union comrades then start to complain about the cost of living and start demanding higher wages to keep up with the pace.........It is like a dog trying to catch his tail......The higher cost to industry means higher cost to the consumer......higher unemployment........Is it any wonder industry in Australia has been in decline for decades......is it any wonder why so many businesses have gone bankrupt...... is it any wonder why we import more manufactured goods from overseas.......is it any wonder why we have to import overseas labour to work in isolated  places where our lazy dole bludgers and tradies won't go. 

You don't have to be a space scientist to work that out.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Rumpy, the employers contribution of super to the employee is another added cost to business like increased wages.......that costs eventually gets passed on and finally, who pays in the end?
> 
> The Fabians and their union comrades then start to complain about the cost of living and start demanding higher wages to keep up with the pace.........It is like a dog trying to catch his tail......The higher cost to industry means higher cost to the consumer......higher unemployment........Is it any wonder industry in Australia has been in decline for decades......is it any wonder why so many businesses have gone bankrupt...... is it any wonder why we import more manufactured goods from overseas.......is it any wonder why we have to import overseas labour to work in isolated  places where our lazy dole bludgers and tradies won't go.
> 
> You don't have to be a space scientist to work that out.




Everyone pays for everything in the end. we don't want employers complaining that company tax rates are too high to pay for pensions because people haven't got enough super.


----------



## Knobby22

SirRumpole said:


> Everyone pays for everything in the end. we don't want employers complaining that company tax rates are too high to pay for pensions because people haven't got enough super.




What's the point. A lot of us will be dead before we will be of an age able to access it.


----------



## SirRumpole

Knobby22 said:


> What's the point. A lot of us will be dead before we will be of an age able to access it.




Are you kidding , or just commenting on the increasing pension access age ?

The population is ageing and medical technology is keeping us alive at great expense.

There will be a lot of old people around in the years to come who need something to live on.


----------



## dutchie

SirRumpole said:


> There will be a lot of old people around in the years to come who need something to live on.




If the government was not paying $1 billion per month interest on Labor's follies then they may have got some to live on.


----------



## orr

Is it  just me? Or do others see the growing number of unemployed as a 'wasted resource'... and one, that only it seems, to be squandered by the Abbott governments ideological distemper....

There will of course be jobs building and administering more prisons in the years ahead as the crafted underclass of poorest steal to survive.


----------



## sydboy007

I have the feeling Tony must get his economic advice from Joe.  This is what he said during the repeal of the resource tax:

_“We have seen the back of the mining tax – possibly the most foolish tax in the history of our country – a tax that destroyed jobs, a tax that damaged investment, a tax which cost money and a tax which did not raise any revenue,”_

Now, if he's correct in that the tax didn't collect any revenue, how did it destroy jobs and damaged investment?  Half a billion must be along the lines of poor people don't drive cars, or Gina's lose change in the couch maybe.

If the tax was kept it would start to produce a decent level of revenue in a few years, once the large store of depreciation was used up.  Increased revenue would seem to be a good thing when there's a budget emergency, or non emergency.  The Govt can't quite decide which it is these days.

If the tax has been so damaging to the resource industry, why hasn't the Government provided a list of projects that were cancelled due to the tax?

Conversely, with the repeal, and it's been known it would be repealed for pretty much the last year, why is there no announcements of projects canned due to the tax now being scheduled for approval?  How long before the resource industry renaissance begins?

Tony has said a number of times that BHP would get on with the Olympic Dam expansion once the resource and carbon taxes were repealed.  BHP has flatly refuted this.  Who do you believe more?  The one with a political agenda, or the ones spending the money.


----------



## sydboy007

dutchie said:


> If the government was not paying $1 billion per month interest on Labor's follies then they may have got some to live on.




But tax free super for those with pensions over 100K is a worthy revenue drain.  SMSFs with up to $100M balances are perfectly fine.

Or somehow keeping a log book to justify car FBT rates is too onerous but 40 job applications a month for the unemployed is  a fair suck of the sav.  Providing a fee GP visit to get a Chronic disease management plan set up is OK, but each subsequent visit will have a GP copayment slapped on to someone who is likely to already earn a below median income due to their illness is a fair and smart policy.  Save $80 on the GP visits but cost the state Govt hundreds or thousands when the patient ends up in a hospital emergency room.

Abbott has wasted nearly all his political capital on ideologically based cuts to spending, and pretty much ignored any kind of true reform.  He's made palmer, the king of naked self interest, look like a hero for the working poor.

What hope do we have that when the tax white paper is finally released that any of the reforms will have a chance of being implemented when the sales pitch will be up there with poor people don't drive cars and '‘If we’re honest, most of us would accept that a bad boss is a little bit like a bad father or a bad husband … you find that he tends to do more good than harm. He might be a bad boss but at least he’s employing someone while he is in fact a boss.’

We have a leader moving us closer and closer to taking sides in a civil war that even Obama has admitted to not having a strategy to deal with.  Team Australia has the ‘It’s not goodies versus baddies, it’s baddies versus baddies’ doctrine though.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Everyone pays for everything in the end. we don't want employers complaining that company tax rates are too high to pay for pensions because people haven't got enough super.




That sounds like double Dutch to me......It just does not make any sense.


----------



## orr

Scott Morrison; Abbotts Minister for and pervader of septicaemia. Just stating the obvious. If only Scott had some Ebola or Small pox to sprinkle around, too placate his cheer squad. 

Or maybe humanity may request; they need a Doctor up there, rather than a 'Quack'.


----------



## Tisme

*"The secret plot that will ROCK the Abbott government"*

I have a feeling the 60 minutes expose about the Slipper affair this week will reveal what all of us logically thought in the first place.


tinyurl.com/lgmnr2r


----------



## Joe Blow

Let's keep all discussion of the Abbott government in the one thread please. No need for separate threads on the same topic, unless an exceptional case be made that one is required.

Thanks!


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> That sounds like double Dutch to me......It just does not make any sense.




The point is if people don't contribute enough to superannuation to adequately fund their retirements then they rely more on the pension, and tax rates including company tax have to be high to pay those pensions. So employers pay one way or the other.


----------



## noco

What a breath of fresh air we have in Tony Abbott...He has become a great Prime Minister and has come a long way in just 12 months.....He has his hand on the rudder to steer the ship clear of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd iceberg......What a wonderful feeling it is to have a competent leader.

No need to bash Abbott any more....you can't deny it ......he is doing a great job.......so stop pickin' on Tony. 


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...as-a-true-leader/story-fni0ffxg-1227046851006


----------



## So_Cynical

Julia said:


> I don't know a single person who is self funded who has reached that status via compulsory savings.  Rather they've acted entirely on their own initiative.




True that, but its not about this generation..it was always aimed at the mid years boomers, the original plan was to get to 12% compulsory level reasonably quickly > 22 years later and we are still stuck at under 9.5% 

Thanks to the Noalition will be for a while yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_in_Australia


----------



## So_Cynical

dutchie said:


> If the government was not paying $1 billion per month interest on Labor's follies then they may have got some to live on.




If that was a real issue why did they actually increase the deficit?

The Carbon tax raised money ditto the mining tax, yet they're gone? reducing revenue is whos folly?


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> What a breath of fresh air we have in Tony Abbott...He has become a great Prime Minister and has come a long way in just 12 months.....He has his hand on the rudder to steer the ship clear of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd iceberg......What a wonderful feeling it is to have a competent leader.
> 
> No need to bash Abbott any more....you can't deny it ......he is doing a great job.......so stop pickin' on Tony.
> 
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...as-a-true-leader/story-fni0ffxg-1227046851006




Considering even the IPA has turned on Abbott you can't seriously expect anyone to believe that over the last month, let alone the last year, that the Abbott Govt has shown a level of economic and policy competency.

Besides giving up taxation revenue and slashing assistance to the poor, what exactly has Abbott achieved


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> Besides giving up taxation revenue and slashing assistance to the poor, what exactly has Abbott achieved




Stopped the boats ?

He also got rid of the carbon tax and mining tax, although I don't think doing that was to the nations advantage.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Considering even the IPA has turned on Abbott you can't seriously expect anyone to believe that over the last month, let alone the last year, that the Abbott Govt has shown a level of economic and policy competency.
> 
> Besides giving up taxation revenue and slashing assistance to the poor, what exactly has Abbott achieved




Syd, I am out fishing ATM....I am so disappointed as I have only caught two stunned mullet all afternoon.

I am hoping to catch a sweetlip before dark.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> Stopped the boats ?
> 
> He also got rid of the carbon tax and mining tax, although I don't think doing that was to the nations advantage.





And he responded to a plane crash or two whatever that means, but it's gotta be meritorious if Andrew Bolt says so, regardless of the schoolgirl crush he has on Tony.


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> Stopped the boats ?
> 
> He also got rid of the carbon tax and mining tax, although I don't think doing that was to the nations advantage.




That covers the giving up revenue.

Not quite stopped the boats.  reduced them, but not totally stopped.


----------



## explod

So_Cynical said:


> If that was a real issue why did they actually increase the deficit?
> 
> The Carbon tax raised money ditto the mining tax, yet they're gone? reducing revenue is whos folly?




Yeh, well said.

And 600 more being laid off in Victoria with Coles reducing staff.

And fish are getting hard to find in ever drying conditions Noco,  but back to my question repeated for months now,

WHERE ARE THE JOBS COMING FROM ?


----------



## sydboy007

explod said:


> Yeh, well said.
> 
> And 600 more being laid off in Victoria with Coles reducing staff.
> 
> And fish are getting hard to find in ever drying conditions Noco,  but back to my question repeated for months now,
> 
> WHERE ARE THE JOBS COMING FROM ?




Dear Tony has assured South Australia BHP will dust off the Olympic Dam expansion plans once the carbon and resources taxes were repealed.

I'm still waiting.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Dear Tony has assured South Australia BHP will dust off the Olympic Dam expansion plans once the carbon and resources taxes were repealed.
> 
> I'm still waiting.




I'm still waiting for free pink batts, I was dumb enough to pay for my own.

But I must admit, I would rather Abbott called a DD, than implement negotiated half ar$ed comprimises.
I am losing my enthusiasm for the modified policy outcomes, with the Palmer flavour.

I think Abbott should have enacted a mini budget untill the 'white paper' was completed, then put forward a hollistic tax reform/ spending cut budget.

He is looking like a 'save my ar$e' politician, same as the last lot. 
At this point in time.

Kowtowing to minorities, does not a Statesman make, as was shown by Gillard.IMO


----------



## sydboy007

More hyperbole from the Govt, though I'd say it's just outright lies.

_Assistant Infrastructure Minister Jamie Briggs said last night the Coalition was against the idea [of allowing the importation of used vehicle], affirming remarks by *Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane last week…

Mr Briggs said the government had been convinced by the “horrific” New Zealand experience that the easing of restrictions should not extend to used cars._

http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/automotive/report

In it, the PC revealed that New Zealand had gained from opening its market to high quality Japanese used cars, lowering costs for consumers without compromising the safety of its vehicle fleet.

Specifically, the PC found that “prices for second hand Toyota Corollas… of similar mileage were on average almost 20 per cent cheaper in New Zealand than in Australia”. It also quoted a 2005 study by researchers at the Monash University Accident Research Centre, which found that “the used imports [into New Zealand] were as safe as those sold new when compared on a year of manufacture basis, and that the difference in crashworthiness performance between an average used imported vehicle and an average new vehicle was attributable to the date of manufacture of the used vehicle rather than its previous use in its country of origin”.

How exactly does this equate to an “horrific experience” for New Zealand consumers?


----------



## IFocus

Its is quite concerning Abbott ramping up the outrage factor for the recent events in the middle east knowing its good for short term polling, in other words talk about anything bar the budget.

Saved by security as Coalition asks what's next



> So what's next for a government that finds its narrow pre-election agenda largely, and so quickly, fulfilled? In steps national security, writes Jonathan Green.
> 
> And there it was. Just days from its first anniversary the Abbott government came within a freeway extension of delivering its first-term agenda.
> 
> Axe the carbon tax. Check.
> 
> Get rid of the mining tax. Check.
> 
> Stop the boats. Check.
> 
> Which, were it not for the nation's sudden war footing, would leave something of a Peggy Lee moment, a yawning sense of, is that all there is?




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-04/green-saved-by-security/5717304


----------



## IFocus

Then there are the dirty back room deals Abbott promised would never happen on his watch

Joe Hockey distances Government from PUP 'Australia Fund' drive to free taxpayer funds for struggling rural businesses



> The Federal Government has sought to distance itself from a proposal by the Palmer United Party (PUP) to use taxpayers' money to prop up struggling rural businesses, despite voting to set up an inquiry into the idea.
> 
> The Coalition supported a PUP motion to set up a parliamentary inquiry into the so-called Australia Fund, as part of its deal with the PUP to repeal the mining tax.




https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/newreply.php?p=839547&noquote=1


----------



## Julia

sydboy007 said:


> More hyperbole from the Govt, though I'd say it's just outright lies.
> 
> _Assistant Infrastructure Minister Jamie Briggs said last night the Coalition was against the idea [of allowing the importation of used vehicle], affirming remarks by *Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane last week…
> 
> Mr Briggs said the government had been convinced by the “horrific” New Zealand experience that the easing of restrictions should not extend to used cars._
> 
> http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/automotive/report
> 
> In it, the PC revealed that New Zealand had gained from opening its market to high quality Japanese used cars, lowering costs for consumers without compromising the safety of its vehicle fleet.
> 
> Specifically, the PC found that “prices for second hand Toyota Corollas… of similar mileage were on average almost 20 per cent cheaper in New Zealand than in Australia”. It also quoted a 2005 study by researchers at the Monash University Accident Research Centre, which found that “the used imports [into New Zealand] were as safe as those sold new when compared on a year of manufacture basis, and that the difference in crashworthiness performance between an average used imported vehicle and an average new vehicle was attributable to the date of manufacture of the used vehicle rather than its previous use in its country of origin”.
> 
> How exactly does this equate to an “horrific experience” for New Zealand consumers?



Good question.  As someone who owned a Japanese second hand import whilst still living in NZ, my experience was that it was hugely cheaper and every bit as functional.
The Australian government could also take some lessons from the fact that New Zealanders pay far less for many pharmaceutical drugs than do Australians.  One could reasonably expect our government to find out exactly why and follow a similar process of negotiation.


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> Then there are the dirty back room deals Abbott promised would never happen on his watch
> 
> Joe Hockey distances Government from PUP 'Australia Fund' drive to free taxpayer funds for struggling rural businesses
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/newreply.php?p=839547&noquote=1





IFocus, I believe you have stretched the truth about Abbott not doing and deals....negotiating to have bills passed through the senate is nothing like the signed deal Gillard did with the Greens Bob Brown......you can read into all you like, but IMHO that was not the type of deal you are trying to make out about Abbott and the minority parties.

Abbott can negotiate with the Greens, Labor, PUP or the independents but there is no signed and sealed "DIRTY" deal like Gillard and Brown and didn't it cost Gillard plenty..."There will be no carbon dioxide tax under the Government I lead" and the after signing an official deal with the Greens she had to back flip to appease the Greens to stay in power with her minority Government.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Yeh, well said.
> 
> And 600 more being laid off in Victoria with Coles reducing staff.
> 
> And fish are getting hard to find in ever drying conditions Noco,  but back to my question repeated for months now,
> 
> WHERE ARE THE JOBS COMING FROM ?





There are some 130,000 jobs available in remote parts of Australia but the majority are not prepared to accept, so they let in overseas workers on 457 visas and then their commie unions complain like hell about it.

Maybe the solution is to shift the mines closer to the big cities.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Everyone pays for everything in the end. we don't want employers complaining that company tax rates are too high to pay for pensions because people haven't got enough super.





I have just read another version of Superannuation.

Here are some comments from other readers of the Sun Herald.



*Bill Shorten said Abbott postponement of the rate of increase to supper funds was the biggest con job ever on all Australians.
NO Bill it was Labor increasing the tax on supper by $9 billion in your 6 years of Govt.
Employees can choose to add to there superannuation as I did for the last 10 years I worked.
It also means more money in the workers pockets now.
bill b (Reply)
Thu 04 Sep 14 (08:35am)
Justa comment replied to bill b
Thu 04 Sep 14 (10:07am)

Reply to bill b: Yes Shorten was part of the team that promised no change to Superannuation and then Labor broke its promise to the electorate, and made many changes to increase the taxation take and reduce benefits to members.  For me, Shorten is a man of no substance and I think cannot be believed in anything he says.  Nuff’ said.


*
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ments/super_isnt_free_it_comes_from_your_pay/


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> More hyperbole from the Govt, though I'd say it's just outright lies.
> 
> _Assistant Infrastructure Minister Jamie Briggs said last night the Coalition was against the idea [of allowing the importation of used vehicle], affirming remarks by *Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane last week…
> 
> Mr Briggs said the government had been convinced by the “horrific” New Zealand experience that the easing of restrictions should not extend to used cars._
> 
> http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/automotive/report
> 
> In it, the PC revealed that New Zealand had gained from opening its market to high quality Japanese used cars, lowering costs for consumers without compromising the safety of its vehicle fleet.
> 
> Specifically, the PC found that “prices for second hand Toyota Corollas… of similar mileage were on average almost 20 per cent cheaper in New Zealand than in Australia”. It also quoted a 2005 study by researchers at the Monash University Accident Research Centre, which found that “the used imports [into New Zealand] were as safe as those sold new when compared on a year of manufacture basis, and that the difference in crashworthiness performance between an average used imported vehicle and an average new vehicle was attributable to the date of manufacture of the used vehicle rather than its previous use in its country of origin”.
> 
> How exactly does this equate to an “horrific experience” for New Zealand consumers?




Pre lifting the restrictions in NZ everyone was driving around in 20 - 30 year old cars, it was like visiting a set of the "Sulivans".

It is crazy the way we are being held to ransom by Aussie car dealers.
Why we pay $200k for a Porsche 911 when they pay $65k in the U.S is extortion.(not that i would buy one)lol

But I have a run of the mill U.S car, I went to buy a plastic clip that has broken, I was quoted $140 for 14 clips.

Apparently they won't sell them individually, I can buy 10 from the U.S for $9 plus $20 postage.

So should I buy 10 from the U.S for $29, or 14 from my dealer for $140?

Why can't the dealer sell one for $10?

I'm supposed to have sympathy? Nobody has sympathy for my plight, trying to make my savings last?

I either pay $29 for one little plastic clip and have nine usless clips left over, or spend $140 and have 13 left over.

Or I go to Bunnings and get some double sided tape.lol


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> Good question.  As someone who owned a Japanese second hand import whilst still living in NZ, my experience was that it was hugely cheaper and every bit as functional.
> The Australian government could also take some lessons from the fact that New Zealanders pay far less for many pharmaceutical drugs than do Australians.  One could reasonably expect our government to find out exactly why and follow a similar process of negotiation.




AUS-USA FTA has caused the extension of patents on drugs to last years longer than in NZ and a lot of other countries.

Howard went into the deal knowing full well it would cost the PBS hundreds of millions extra each year, but was so desperate to get a deal done he sold out the interests of the country.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> AUS-USA FTA has caused the extension of patents on drugs to last years longer than in NZ and a lot of other countries.
> 
> Howard went into the deal knowing full well it would cost the PBS hundreds of millions extra each year, but was so desperate to get a deal done he sold out the interests of the country.




You really don't have much positive to say about anything, other than Labor.

Yet you criticise their time in office also.

Do I detect an aspiring politician, that lacks the courage to take the definitive step into the void.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> You really don't have much positive to say about anything, other than Labor.
> 
> Yet you criticise their time in office also.
> 
> Do I detect an aspiring politician, that lacks the courage to take the definitive step into the void.




At least I'm not like a lot of members on this forum who criticize without any basis in facts.

Agreeing to extend the patents on pharmaceuticals knowing it will cause a large cost blowout in the PBS is not in my way of thinking good policy or signs of sound economic management skills.

But hey, in your view only no Liberals make decisions that negatively affect the country so it's all good.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> You really don't have much positive to say about anything, other than Labor.
> 
> Yet you criticise their time in office also.
> 
> Do I detect an aspiring politician, that lacks the courage to take the definitive step into the void.




That is a pretty lame counter to a specific assertion made by syd. Do you deny his allegation that part of our US free trade deal was the extension of patents on medicines ?

One wonders what similar deals the Abbott government committed us to so they could trumpet free trade deals with Japan and Korea.

Hey look, a free trade deal WOW !!!, but they never tell us about the fine print that costs us $$$.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> That is a pretty lame counter to a specific assertion made by syd. Do you deny his allegation that part of our US free trade deal was the extension of patents on medicines ?
> 
> One wonders what similar deals the Abbott government committed us to so they could trumpet free trade deals with Japan and Korea.
> 
> Hey look, a free trade deal WOW !!!, but they never tell us about the fine print that costs us $$$.




Here you go Rumpy. have a look at this for starters.....Jobs, jobs and more jobs for Australians.......(This is one is also for Plod ....WHERE ARE THE JOBS COMING FROM ?).......It is all coming into place.....Pity the Green/Labor socialist left wingers hadn't got off their backsides instead introducing big new taxes to pay for their extravaganza 2007/2013.

Thank goodness we now have a mature government with some savvy instead of the dead beat ex union hacks who have nothing to add in the National interest. 

https://www.dfat.gov.au/fta/jaepa/snapshot/

*CONSUMERS

Eyeing up a new car or laptop? It could be best to hold off as the main benefit for Australian consumers will be cheaper appliances and electronics produced in Japan.

International Business professor and former Austrade chief economist Tim Harcourt said consumers wanting cheap cars, plus those in the tourism, education and health care sectors will be the major beneficiaries over the long-term as the agreement strips away prohibitive barriers that can make trade difficult and expensive.*



http://www.news.com.au/finance/econ...ll-for-consumers/story-e6frflo9-1226980714601


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Here you go Rumpy. have a look at this for starters.
> 
> https://www.dfat.gov.au/fta/jaepa/snapshot/
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/finance/econ...ll-for-consumers/story-e6frflo9-1226980714601




Thanks for that noco.

It seems to me though that as Japan has always been a big trading partner for us, and we have maintained a balance of trade surplus with them, then why the necessity for an FTA ? I can only see this having a detrimental effect on our balance of trade with Japan, and I wonder why we would bother with it.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Thanks for that noco.
> 
> It seems to me though that as Japan has always been a big trading partner for us, and we have maintained a balance of trade surplus with them, then why the necessity for an FTA ? I can only see this having a detrimental effect on our balance of trade with Japan, and I wonder why we would bother with it.




If you care to read into ole boy you will observe the deletion of all tariffs imposed upon Australian goods.

Example : My mate had a farm in Vic and used to export 150 tonnes of asparagus to Japan at a time which had  tariff of 15 %....that tariff has now gonnnnnnne!!!


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> If you care to read into ole boy you will observe the deletion of all tariffs imposed upon Australian goods.
> 
> Example : My mate had a farm in Vic and used to export 150 tonnes of asparagus to Japan at a time which had  tariff of 15 %....that tariff has now gonnnnnnne!!!




I'm sure that will be good for your mate, and good luck to him, but it's the overall impact to our economy that counts, and if the FTA results in a worse balance of trade for us, then it's hard to argue that the FTA is beneficial to us overall.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I'm sure that will be good for your mate, and good luck to him, but it's the overall impact to our economy that counts, and if the FTA results in a worse balance of trade for us, then it's hard to argue that the FTA is beneficial to us overall.




OFGS Rumpy, give it a break.

Give me some proof of what you are saying about a worse trade balance.

Didn't you read where we are expected to be in front of exports versus imports from Japan.

If you are astute enough to read the first link I posted, then you will observe the following.

Exports to Japan........$49.53 billion

Imports from Japan.......$21,22 billion

What is the point of my providing you with this information if you don't read it?

This typical of some of our ASF posters...they are so biased .......they do not want the Abbott Government to have success.....How about giving some credit when it is due?


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> That is a pretty lame counter to a specific assertion made by syd. Do you deny his allegation that part of our US free trade deal was the extension of patents on medicines ?
> 
> One wonders what similar deals the Abbott government committed us to so they could trumpet free trade deals with Japan and Korea.
> 
> Hey look, a free trade deal WOW !!!, but they never tell us about the fine print that costs us $$$.




The general concensus is that FTA are essential for Australia to expand its non mineral export base. How these are arrived at is well above my level of knowledge, the economic positives and negatives would be weighed up by our fiscal public servants.

Both sides of politics are calling for free trade adreements, so I would think there is net value to Australia. 
But hey unlike some, I don't profess to be an expert on all subjects, just make observations from my personal experiences and work background.

Generally though  I believe that most politicians, from both sides ,want to try and improve Australia for Australians.
What differs is the general thrust of how they move Australia forward, they impliment change when attaining office and are judged at the next election.
What is happening at the moment and happened with the last Government is, they are being forced into adopting minority party policies, rather than back their own beliefs.
This in turn gives the public a lack of confidence in the Governments resolve to carry out the reforms they were voted in for.

IMO it isn't good for either Party and gives people like Palmer and Milne far too much credibility, which disproportionately exceeds their voter base.


----------



## SirRumpole

> What is happening at the moment and happened with the last Government is, they are being forced into adopting minority party policies, rather than back their own beliefs.




Exactly so, and it could be argued that the Howard government pandered to a minority party (The Nationals) by agreeing to a free trade deal essentially benefitting  farmers at the expense of other sectors like manufacturing and consumers of patent medicines.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Exactly so, and it could be argued that the Howard government pandered to a minority party (The Nationals) by agreeing to a free trade deal essentially benefitting  farmers at the expense of other sectors like manufacturing and consumers of patent medicines.




Do you have some supporting links of the dribble that is coming out of your mouth Rumpy?

Don't you understand the Nationals are in coalition with the Liberals and been for many years....They are one big happy family.

Not like Labor and the Greens....married one day and divorced the next day......or was it a marriage of convenience?


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Don't you understand the Nationals are in coalition with the Liberals and been for many years....They are one big happy family.




Then why don't they merge and become one big happy political party ?


----------



## IFocus

noco said:


> This typical of some of our ASF posters...they are so biased ......




Now who would that be......


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Here you go Rumpy. have a look at this for starters.....Jobs, jobs and more jobs for Australians.......(This is one is also for Plod ....WHERE ARE THE JOBS COMING FROM ?).......It is all coming into place.....Pity the Green/Labor socialist left wingers hadn't got off their backsides instead introducing big new taxes to pay for their extravaganza 2007/2013.
> 
> Thank goodness we now have a mature government with some savvy instead of the dead beat ex union hacks who have nothing to add in the National interest.
> 
> https://www.dfat.gov.au/fta/jaepa/snapshot/
> 
> *CONSUMERS
> 
> Eyeing up a new car or laptop? It could be best to hold off as the main benefit for Australian consumers will be cheaper appliances and electronics produced in Japan.
> 
> International Business professor and former Austrade chief economist Tim Harcourt said consumers wanting cheap cars, plus those in the tourism, education and health care sectors will be the major beneficiaries over the long-term as the agreement strips away prohibitive barriers that can make trade difficult and expensive.*
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/finance/econ...ll-for-consumers/story-e6frflo9-1226980714601




We've had the AUS USA FTA for over a decade now.  So far there's been no jobs boom from it for Australia.  Our deficit with the USA has increased.  Most of our exports that would benefit from an FTA are still waiting another decade or so before the prohibitive tariffs are reduced.

The problem with FTAs is each has different clauses and paper work involved.  So for a SME wanting to use the current FTAs we have they need to manage extremely complex ROOs to confirm they are complying.  It might be of benefit to large multinationals but not so much to the majority of Aussie businesses.

FTAs can also cause a loss of income to the country.  The sticker price may drop, but if we've started to buy from a higher cost country due to an FTA, well the consumer pays less but then Govt tariff revenue has take a much bigger hit and we're left paying higher taxes to cover the short fall.  Diversion of trade happens quite a lot with FTAs.

If you'd bothered to read any of the FTAs you'd see that most of the agricultural exports for Australia have anywhere from a decade to 2 decades before they provide much in the way of benefits to local farmers.  The Japan FTA was very bad in this respect.

As for the article you posted, those cost reductions are available via tarrif reduction.  You don't need an FTA to do that.  We can, and did under the Hawke and Keating Govts, unilaterally cut tariffs on a lot of imports.  Studies show that the country doing this benefits more than countries maintaining high trade barriers.


----------



## Julia

sydboy007 said:


> AUS-USA FTA has caused the extension of patents on drugs to last years longer than in NZ and a lot of other countries.



My understanding is that the price difference is still considerable on many drugs long out of patent in either country.   Can you provide any detail about particular drugs which have what patent life in Australia?
(I'm not arguing with you:  just interested because I don't think it's only to do with any AUS/USA FTA.


----------



## Knobby22

Julia said:


> My understanding is that the price difference is still considerable on many drugs long out of patent in either country.   Can you provide any detail about particular drugs which have what patent life in Australia?
> (I'm not arguing with you:  just interested because I don't think it's only to do with any AUS/USA FTA.




This is where we were foolish: from Wikipedia

Intellectual property

The provisions of the AUSFTA in Ch 17 required Australia to offer stronger protection to American intellectual property. In particular, the minimum term of copyright was extended to 70 years after the author's death. Most economists and others interested in intellectual property issues regarded this as undesirable. A number of prominent American economists took the same view in the case of Eldred v. Ashcroft.

Other key changes included:
special copyright term extension for photographs
broader definition of technological protection measures, narrow exceptions, and review process
protection of temporary copies
stronger protection of electronic rights management information
protection of pay television broadcasts
safe harbour provisions for Internet Service Providers
protection of performers' economic and moral rights in respect of sound recordings
broader civil and criminal offences

For a discussion of the copyright changes, see Rimmer, M. "Robbery Under Arms: Copyright Law and the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement"[7]
 Article 17.10.4 of the AUSFTA also required Australian legislation under which the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration had to notify a pharmaceutical patent holder of intended market entry by a generic competitor. The Australian academic Thomas Alured Faunce has argued that this could facilitate the rent prolongation strategy known as 'evergreening.' [8]


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> My understanding is that the price difference is still considerable on many drugs long out of patent in either country.   Can you provide any detail about particular drugs which have what patent life in Australia?
> (I'm not arguing with you:  just interested because I don't think it's only to do with any AUS/USA FTA.




Maybe this may shed some light

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/he...-chemist-profits/story-fneuz9ev-1226690436025


----------



## Julia

Ah, thanks, Rumpole.  That's what was in the back of my mind from a Radio National program, I think "Background Briefing" of a few months ago.   It was a one hour program on the reasons why Australians are paying so much more than New Zealanders for drugs, and as far as I can recall, the patents issue wasn't even mentioned.

I have a good friend who owns a string of pharmacies throughout Qld and my jaw just drops at his profits!
Chemists receive minimal focus from consumers in terms of how much money they make.  Perhaps the white jacket and avuncular, concerned disposition belies any notion of their being motivated mostly by huge profits.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> Ah, thanks, Rumpole.  That's what was in the back of my mind from a Radio National program, I think "Background Briefing" of a few months ago.   It was a one hour program on the reasons why Australians are paying so much more than New Zealanders for drugs, and as far as I can recall, the patents issue wasn't even mentioned.
> 
> I have a good friend who owns a string of pharmacies throughout Qld and my jaw just drops at his profits!
> Chemists receive minimal focus from consumers in terms of how much money they make.  Perhaps the white jacket and avuncular, concerned disposition belies any notion of their being motivated mostly by huge profits.




I wonder what happened to the idea of pharmacies in supermarkets ? Was the idea for supermarkets to cash in on those huge profits or actually provide a bit of competition for the regular pharmacy and a better deal for the consumer?

Sounds like the pharmacies could do with more competition.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> The general concensus is that FTA are essential for Australia to expand its non mineral export base. How these are arrived at is well above my level of knowledge, the economic positives and negatives would be weighed up by our fiscal public servants.




The Productivity commission doesn't see FTAs as a panacea for true reform

“Trade agreements can distort *comparative advantage between nations and consequently reduce efficient resource allocation”…

Building on its 2010 report which found the benefits to national income accruing from bilateral and regional trade agreements was likely to be modest, the report says another weakness is rules of origin.

“Such complexity adds to the *compliance costs for firms engaging in trade . . . the origin requirements and the complexity of rules are likely to impede competition”…

Alan Mitchell in the left wing AFR had to say about the JAP-AUS FTA

_Almost two-thirds of the potential lift in Australia’s national income would come from the increase in Japanese exports to Australia. It would come as a result of the investment and productivity gains generated by more import competition…

They will…force Australian producers to innovate and lift productivity to survive…

Tariff-free imports are a key strength of the FTA with Japan, but they also expose the fundamental weakness of all bilateral FTAs. Australia can have all the cheap manufactured goods it wants, just as Japan can get all the cheap food it likes, by unilaterally tearing down the remaining barriers to trade.

Yet both nations deny their economies the bulk of the benefits of genuine trade reform while they spoon out market access to one trading partner after another, in stupid, long drawn-out negotiations._

I'm just waiting for Abbott to well and truly sell us out by signing the TPP.  It's a Christmas wishlist for big pharma and the movie studios.  Note the Govt is holding alld ealings on the TPP in secret and so far has provided very little info on the negotiations.  

Oligopoly Robb has said that Australia is prepared to give ground on investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) powers – which allow multinational companies to sue the government – in return for “substantial market access” in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the trade minister, Andrew Robb, said.

Robb predicted the TPP would be a “platform for 21st-century trade rules” as negotiations were being watched closely by other countries but “ambitious market access” was fundamental to its successful completion.

Speaking at the conclusion of the latest round of talks, Robb confirmed he was negotiating on the controversial ISDS clause in return for market access for Australian exporters and that “substantial progress” had been made on the issue.

So before going on to cheer trade distorting FTAs maybe have a read at https://wikileaks.org/tpp/  and see just how much we're likely to be sold out by the Govt in their rush to do a deal.


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> Ah, thanks, Rumpole.  That's what was in the back of my mind from a Radio National program, I think "Background Briefing" of a few months ago.   It was a one hour program on the reasons why Australians are paying so much more than New Zealanders for drugs, and as far as I can recall, the patents issue wasn't even mentioned.
> 
> I have a good friend who owns a string of pharmacies throughout Qld and my jaw just drops at his profits!
> Chemists receive minimal focus from consumers in terms of how much money they make.  Perhaps the white jacket and avuncular, concerned disposition belies any notion of their being motivated mostly by huge profits.




I find the more local pharmacies provide excellent service, especially when compared to priceline or chemist warehouse.



SirRumpole said:


> I wonder what happened to the idea of pharmacies in supermarkets ? Was the idea for supermarkets to cash in on those huge profits or actually provide a bit of competition for the regular pharmacy and a better deal for the consumer?
> 
> Sounds like the pharmacies could do with more competition.




No Govt is willing to take on the Pharmacy Guild when they just have to threaten running a scare campaign.  Just imagine how many pensioners they have calling their local MP, or early mothers fearful of losing their local support.  Makes Abbott's carbon tax scare campaign look like noco's one man fight against the menacing fabian hordes that are about to descent upon us like a plague of locusts.


----------



## SirRumpole

> So before going on to cheer trade distorting FTAs maybe have a read at https://wikileaks.org/tpp/ and see just how much we're likely to be sold out by the Govt in their rush to do a deal.




+1

"Market access" does not mean actual sales. For the US trade agreement, Australian producers will be competing with US producers in their own markets. I'm sure US consumers would be more likely to buy US produced product, just as Australians would be more likely to buy Australian products (if we could find them). And, as you rightly say if the US does an FTA with NZ or one of our other agricultural competitors, that dilutes our "share" of the US market.

 FTA's with larger economies are dangerous to us, as the elephants have a lot of weight to throw around onto people like us.


----------



## sydboy007

Get ready for the Abbott infrastructure pork train

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ig-project-rules/story-fn59niix-1227048290532

_Assistant Infrastructure Minister Jamie Briggs has negotiated the changes with state treasurers and transport ministers in a bid to encourage more projects and to end rows over whether new *motorways and urban railways met Canberra’s cost-benefit benchmarks.

The new guidelines could clear the way for more construction by taking broader factors into *account — including community benefits — when states submit their plans to Infrastructure *Australia.

The Australian was told the new approach would make it easier for Canberra and the states to approve major projects such as the WestConnex in Sydney, the East West Link in Melbourne and the final stage of making the Pacific Highway dual-carriageway from NSW to Queensland.

Mammoth projects that are particularly expensive, such as road and rail tunnels, could emerge as the big winners because of the community gains from removing congestion._

Basically the Government is now saying if the investment doesn't stand up on economic grounds, we'll get someone who used to make traffic forecasts for toll roads and have them provide a figure on potential community benefits that allows the pork to flow.

If the infrastructure isn't self liquidating over time, that means taxes have to be higher or services lower to make up the shortfall.  Those pork barrels ain't free ya know.

This flies totally in the face of recent report that the productivity commission has provided.

http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/infrastructure/report/contents

It would seem the Abott Goverment has ripped out Chapter 2 of the report - Project Selection - and replaced it with Project Pork.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Get ready for the Abbott infrastructure pork train
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ig-project-rules/story-fn59niix-1227048290532
> 
> _Assistant Infrastructure Minister Jamie Briggs has negotiated the changes with state treasurers and transport ministers in a bid to encourage more projects and to end rows over whether new *motorways and urban railways met Canberra’s cost-benefit benchmarks.
> 
> The new guidelines could clear the way for more construction by taking broader factors into *account — including community benefits — when states submit their plans to Infrastructure *Australia.
> 
> The Australian was told the new approach would make it easier for Canberra and the states to approve major projects such as the WestConnex in Sydney, the East West Link in Melbourne and the final stage of making the Pacific Highway dual-carriageway from NSW to Queensland.
> 
> Mammoth projects that are particularly expensive, such as road and rail tunnels, could emerge as the big winners because of the community gains from removing congestion._
> 
> Basically the Government is now saying if the investment doesn't stand up on economic grounds, we'll get someone who used to make traffic forecasts for toll roads and have them provide a figure on potential community benefits that allows the pork to flow.
> 
> If the infrastructure isn't self liquidating over time, that means taxes have to be higher or services lower to make up the shortfall.  Those pork barrels ain't free ya know.
> 
> This flies totally in the face of recent report that the productivity commission has provided.
> 
> http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/infrastructure/report/contents
> 
> It would seem the Abott Goverment has ripped out Chapter 2 of the report - Project Selection - and replaced it with Project Pork.




Wether you like it or not, it still has to be better than pink batts and sending out $900 scratchies.

Lets not forget, after that we were bringing in foriegn workers to fill in the shortfall.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> Wether you like it or not, it still has to be better than pink batts and sending out $900 scratchies.




One you start comparing current policies with previous ones, it means you can't justify the current ones.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Wether you like it or not, it still has to be better than pink batts and sending out $900 scratchies.
> 
> Lets not forget, after that we were bringing in foriegn workers to fill in the shortfall.




Not sure how many got bats - mine are a Government friendly beige - but my household electricity bill was reduced something like 25% in summer and 35-40% in winter.

No argument from me that the programme was poorly managed, but I wont accept it being called a waste of funds. No way for us to actually find out, but I'm sure the electricity and gas retailers have the figures to show just how much energy consumption dropped due to the insulation. 

Previous Govt programmes are not a valid reason for poor policy from the current Govt.  possibly Abbott is resurrecting the Howard era regional rorts programme.  Now that was A grade Liberal / marginal seat Pork.   Even the Auditor General found the regional rorts to be on the exceptional side of poor policy.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Not sure how many got bats - mine are a Government friendly beige - but my household electricity bill was reduced something like 25% in summer and 35-40% in winter.
> 
> No argument from me that the programme was poorly managed, but I wont accept it being called a waste of funds. No way for us to actually find out, but I'm sure the electricity and gas retailers have the figures to show just how much energy consumption dropped due to the insulation.
> 
> Previous Govt programmes are not a valid reason for poor policy from the current Govt.  possibly Abbott is resurecting the Howard era regional rorts programme.  Now that was A grade Liberal / marginal seat Pork.




Wether it was a waste of funds or not isn't the issue, it was the disregard for those who had put batts in at their own expense.

Then were taxed to put it in the roof of landlords and people who couldn't give a $hit about reducing their carbon footprint.

If you're going to use social or enviromental conscience, as an arguement, you have dropped a couple of rungs down the ladder.IMO

Gloating over taxpayer subsidised insulation, that you could obviously have afforded anyway, just makes you as big a rorter as anyone else.

I would much rather see Government funding going into road, rail infrastructure, than insulation in your roof.

Pretty shallow Syd.


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> I wonder what happened to the idea of pharmacies in supermarkets ? Was the idea for supermarkets to cash in on those huge profits or actually provide a bit of competition for the regular pharmacy and a better deal for the consumer?
> 
> Sounds like the pharmacies could do with more competition.



It says everything about the power of the Pharmacy Guild that even such power as maintained by the big supermarkets has taken second place.  About time someone stood up to the Pharmacy Guild.



sptrawler said:


> Wether it was a waste of funds or not isn't the issue, it was the disregard for those who had put batts in at their own expense.



It's no different from those of us who installed rooftop solar systems long before the current ubeaut subsidised system was offered.   We continue to pay more for our electricity in order to subsidise those who adopted the government's generous system.  So have the worst of both worlds, ie the considerable capital cost of installation and the ongoing increased electricity costs to pay for others.
Whacko!  What a great deal.  It is what it is.


----------



## sptrawler

Julia said:


> It says everything about the power of the Pharmacy Guild that even such power as maintained by the big supermarkets has taken second place.  About time someone stood up to the Pharmacy Guild.
> 
> 
> It's no different from those of us who installed rooftop solar systems long before the current ubeaut subsidised system was offered.   We continue to pay more for our electricity in order to subsidise those who adopted the government's generous system.  So have the worst of both worlds, ie the considerable capital cost of installation and the ongoing increased electricity costs to pay for others.
> Whacko!  What a great deal.  It is what it is.




Absolutely, what gets up my nose is those who take the moral high ground and wave their wand at who is being subsidised, when they themselves were subsidised.

Everyone in our society is being subsidised, wether it be because tax rates are too low or welfare payments or pink batts or $900 cheques or subsidised train travel or road and rail infrastructure or health or education or supperannuation.

What has to be acknowledged is we are running at a loss, and focusing on one area isn't going to fix it.
It isn't a Labor or Liberal thing, it's an Australia thing, if it isn't addressed everyones living standard will drop.

Labor had six years and tried but failed.
Liberal have had a tortuous 12 months and haven't been able to implement policy that can be laid squarely at their feet.
It is dumb Labor policy, not to say we disagree with this. 
But as you voted them in we will, with reservation pass it.

However if we are voted in at the next election, we will review the outcomes and if we find it was detrimental, we will revoke it.

Then Shorten would look like he had a brain, but Labor proved they were short on that when in office.lol


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Wether it was a waste of funds or not isn't the issue, it was the disregard for those who had put batts in at their own expense.
> 
> Then were taxed to put it in the roof of landlords and people who couldn't give a $hit about reducing their carbon footprint.
> 
> If you're going to use social or enviromental conscience, as an arguement, you have dropped a couple of rungs down the ladder.IMO
> 
> Gloating over taxpayer subsidised insulation, that you could obviously have afforded anyway, just makes you as big a rorter as anyone else.
> 
> I would much rather see Government funding going into road, rail infrastructure, than insulation in your roof.
> 
> Pretty shallow Syd.




So you support infrastructure pork, but not something that actually helps to save households of all types large licks of money over a couple of decades.  The scheme will more than pay for itself from the  energy savings.  Self liquidating Government infrastructure.

The fact it's good for the environment is a secondary consideration for me.  It's putting $$$ into my pocket, doing the same for my parents as well.

Definitely provides a better outcome than say the baby bonus.


----------



## Bintang

sptrawler said:


> What has to be acknowledged is we are running at a loss, and focusing on one area isn't going to fix it.
> It isn't a Labor or Liberal thing, *it's an Australia thing*, if it isn't addressed everyones living standard will drop.




It's not just an 'Australian thing'. It's a 'developed world/advanced economies' thing. However, relative to the rest (let's just consider OECD) Australia is better than most with 28% public debt to GDP in 2014 versus OECD average of 113%. To put this in perspective consider Europe's basket case, Greece, which has public debt to GDP of 200%. Another sick man of Europe is Portugal with 135% but the sickest of the OECD sick is actually Japan romping in at 230% ahead of Greece. And how about these:
USA      114%
UK        114%
France  110%
Spain    105%
Italy      135%
And then there is our small neighbour New Zealand who who at 56% has double Australia's public debt to GDP.
_Source: Public Debt as a % of GDP in OECD Countries, 2007-2014
https://www.gfmag.com/global-data/economic-data/public-debt-percentage-gdp_

Relative to our peers it seems justified to ask, what is all the fuss about here in Australia. We can put much, much more on the public credit card yet. But that assumes it would be a good thing to  become as sick as they are.
On the contrary, I think the Abbott Government is doing the right thing in trying to reduce Australia's indebtedness now because we will be in better shape to weather the SHTF day that is coming  to all of the world's  over-indebted economies.


----------



## IFocus

Tony Abbott one year on: how the trust was won and lost 

Even then, sure of victory, Abbott stayed a resolutely small target. He refused to put candour before caution. He refused to risk telling voters the truth, *even though his own remorseless campaign against Julia Gillard’s “lie” on the carbon tax proved beyond doubt that honesty was essential for successful reform, and trust for successful leadership.*

*He insisted Labor’s claims that the Coalition would “cut to the bone” were “bare-faced lies”, unwilling to admit his promises of continued spending were incompatible with his promise to return to surplus and solve the “budget emergency” and the “debt and deficit disaster”.*

“In the last week of the campaign, Labor will say anything to sway your vote including the most bare-faced lies about the Coalition … *There are no cuts to health. No cuts to education. Pensions don’t change. *The GST doesn’t change.”

“... My aim is to lead a no-surprises, no-excuses government that says what it means and does what it says.”


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/04/-sp-tony-abbott-one-year-on-how-trust-won-and-lost


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> Tony Abbott one year on: how the trust was won and lost
> 
> Even then, sure of victory, Abbott stayed a resolutely small target. He refused to put candour before caution. He refused to risk telling voters the truth, *even though his own remorseless campaign against Julia Gillard’s “lie” on the carbon tax proved beyond doubt that honesty was essential for successful reform, and trust for successful leadership.*
> 
> *He insisted Labor’s claims that the Coalition would “cut to the bone” were “bare-faced lies”, unwilling to admit his promises of continued spending were incompatible with his promise to return to surplus and solve the “budget emergency” and the “debt and deficit disaster”.*
> 
> “In the last week of the campaign, Labor will say anything to sway your vote including the most bare-faced lies about the Coalition … *There are no cuts to health. No cuts to education. Pensions don’t change. *The GST doesn’t change.”
> 
> “... My aim is to lead a no-surprises, no-excuses government that says what it means and does what it says.”
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/04/-sp-tony-abbott-one-year-on-how-trust-won-and-lost




Oh dear...the good old Guardian headed by the Fabian Society to bash Abbott....every thing they quote is bad and negative...not a good word anywhere to be seen.

Well, at last we have a government headed by an adult leader with a mature team........progress in the development  of Northern Australia is beginning to see the light of day...something that was lacking in the previous government....a new dam 120km south of Darwin is in the making with prospects of opening up new farming, new towns, new roads and schools.....probably the first new dam to be constructed in many years.

But then again, I guess we will see those useless Greenies chaining themselves to trees to save the rare red frogs or pink nosed wombats...OMG I don't want to even think about it.

But of course you would not expect the Guardian to give praise to such an initiative....only negativity...harp on the broken promises.....get over it.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...to-northern-boom/story-e6frg6nf-1227049647727


----------



## sydboy007

Reminds me of the Obama isn't a US citizen claims, though he was quite willing to clear up the question by providing his birth certificate.

http://www.independentaustralia.net...abbotts-citizenship,6859#.VAgnLI2Wt5o.twitter

Abbott can clear the whole thing up in the blink of an eye, of course ”” just show us the RN and it will all be over.

But he and his camp followers don’t seem to want to do that ”” or allow others to release this information. We can only wonder why.

If the British Home Office come back to Magrathea and say they are unable to find the RN, things may move up a notch.


----------



## IFocus

sydboy007 said:


> Reminds me of the Obama isn't a US citizen claims, though he was quite willing to clear up the question by providing his birth certificate.
> 
> http://www.independentaustralia.net...abbotts-citizenship,6859#.VAgnLI2Wt5o.twitter
> 
> Abbott can clear the whole thing up in the blink of an eye, of course ”” just show us the RN and it will all be over.
> 
> But he and his camp followers don’t seem to want to do that ”” or allow others to release this information. We can only wonder why.
> 
> If the British Home Office come back to Magrathea and say they are unable to find the RN, things may move up a notch.





Surely a man of Abbott's integrity and respect for team Australia wouldn't ever let some like this happen?


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> If the British Home Office come back to Magrathea and say they are unable to find the RN, things may move up a notch.






> On 1 August, Magrathea’s email account was hacked and all his emails were deleted. What started as an innocent enquiry has begun to morph into something quite serious ”” and perhaps sinister. Certainly suspicious.




Very interesting and something worthy of investigation by an independent media.

I doubt if the Australian would do it. Four Corners perhaps ?


----------



## banco

With the Ashby/Slipper story on 60 minutes tomorrow the liberals are going to relearn Richard Nixon's adage that it's the coverup not the crime that gets you.


----------



## sydboy007

banco said:


> With the Ashby/Slipper story on 60 minutes tomorrow the liberals are going to relearn Richard Nixon's adage that it's the coverup not the crime that gets you.




Very true.  I don't think Mal Borough will come out with much political life left in him.  Be interesting to see what is said about Pyne and his little fireside chat a couple of weeks before Ashby lodged his claims in court.


----------



## Smurf1976

Julia said:


> It's no different from those of us who installed rooftop solar systems long before the current ubeaut subsidised system was offered.




It's a classic "if you can't beat them, join them" situation with solar.

From an ideological perspective, I favour the cheapest option and that's still centralised generation of electricity. Even if we say no to coal and gas, large scale renewable is still cheaper than small scale - it's just basic economics there.

But I've got solar panels on my roof simply because they are saving me money (that plus I just happen to like technical things generally, but for most people that's not a major factor).

That approach has gone right through society really. Today, there is practically nothing that isn't cross-subsidised in some way from petrol to holidays to food. Very few things are charged on a true cost basis these days, solar is just one example of many (albeit a fairly well known one). 

We've reached the point where the people receiving the benefits are the same people paying the taxes - it's all one big money-go-round as I call it and much of it is pointless. If it were up to me, I'd have welfare for those in genuine need and so on but abolish much of the money shuffling.


----------



## drsmith

To celebrate the Abbott Government's first year in office, it's time for a shameless plug. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-07/abbott-government-marks-one-year-in-office/5725312

http://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.com/Building a Stronger Australia_Booklet.pdf

And of course, the video.


----------



## drsmith

Rob Oakeshott glad he chose Labor in 2010.



> The retired politician said the trio had faced a blunt choice between former prime minister Julia Gillard's "transactional" leadership style versus the "crash or crash through" adversarial style of Tony Abbott following 2010's hung parliament.




Of course he was. He wanted to crash through on a carbon price.

It was the decision that crashed his political career.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/national/a/24919519/im-glad-i-chose-labor-oakeshott/


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> To celebrate the Abbott Government's first year in office, it's time for a shameless plug.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-07/abbott-government-marks-one-year-in-office/5725312
> 
> http://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.com/Building a Stronger Australia_Booklet.pdf
> 
> And of course, the video.





LOL after a couple of red wines...........................rubbish


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> LOL after a couple of red wines...........................rubbish




I could recommend how many to have before Bill Shorten sounds good but that'd be a health hazard.


----------



## SirRumpole

Wiping out Islamic State 'impossible': Julie Bishop

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-impossible-julie-bishop-20140907-10dmty.html

----------------------------------------------------------------

So much for "strong leadership"


----------



## dutchie

SirRumpole said:


> Wiping out Islamic State 'impossible': Julie Bishop
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-impossible-julie-bishop-20140907-10dmty.html
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> So much for "strong leadership"




How is telling what she thinks is the truth not strong leadership?


----------



## SirRumpole

dutchie said:


> How is telling what she thinks is the truth not strong leadership?




Because it's an admission of defeat.

Nazism was an ideology and it was defeated. For Bishop to say that an ideology can't be defeated is a weak kneed statement that flies in the face of history, and is at odds with what Obama is saying that ISIL can be defeated.

Bishop hasn't done herself any favours with that statement.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> Very interesting and something worthy of investigation by an independent media.
> 
> I doubt if the Australian would do it. Four Corners perhaps ?




I'm shocked...I would have bet London to a brick he was a Vatican national.


----------



## dutchie

SirRumpole said:


> Because it's an admission of defeat.
> 
> Nazism was an ideology and it was defeated. For Bishop to say that an ideology can't be defeated is a weak kneed statement that flies in the face of history, and is at odds with what Obama is saying that ISIL can be defeated.
> 
> Bishop hasn't done herself any favours with that statement.




So you would prefer her to lie?
I think she is spot on. The west will never defeat IS (or some other form of it) unless you wipe out Islam (and that is not going to happen). But that does not mean we should not try and contain it as much as possible if it threatens us.
That's her message - she lives in the real world.


----------



## Tisme

Smurf1976 said:


> It's a classic "if you can't beat them, join them" situation with solar.
> 
> From an ideological perspective, I favour the cheapest option and that's still centralised generation of electricity. Even if we say no to coal and gas, large scale renewable is still cheaper than small scale - it's just basic economics there.
> 
> But I've got solar panels on my roof simply because they are saving me money (that plus I just happen to like technical things generally, but for most people that's not a major factor).
> 
> That approach has gone right through society really. Today, there is practically nothing that isn't cross-subsidised in some way from petrol to holidays to food. Very few things are charged on a true cost basis these days, solar is just one example of many (albeit a fairly well known one).
> 
> We've reached the point where the people receiving the benefits are the same people paying the taxes - it's all one big money-go-round as I call it and much of it is pointless. If it were up to me, I'd have welfare for those in genuine need and so on but abolish much of the money shuffling.




I think once we throw away inflammatory and divisive slogans likes "fabian" etc., it would be well worth re visiting the pillars of our nation (including "citizenship") and consider whether we need another hardman like Chifley at the wheel to steer us to the next level of development. 

The LNP have shown us all how to contract our economy to cut costs. Even the poor GDP growth in the last year is based on overpriced junk stocks no one else wants. It's sad to see, but what most suspected, that the Abbott tribe are great at vitriol, obstructionism, opposition and subversion, but no good at leadership. Chifley might not have been a man for all seasons, but he did manage to get some foundations in place in spite of those who would rather take orders from the house of commons upto 1972.  

The joke that we would be $550 better off because of the carbon tax repeal should be a major warning to those who think essential services in the hands of capitalists are mutually beneficial.


----------



## SirRumpole

dutchie said:


> So you would prefer her to lie?
> I think she is spot on. The west will never defeat IS (or some other form of it) unless you wipe out Islam (and that is not going to happen). But that does not mean we should not try and contain it as much as possible if it threatens us.
> That's her message - she lives in the real world.




Sometimes you just have to skirt the edges to keep morale up.

Saying you can NEVER achieve a particular objective renders the persual of that objective meaningless.

I don't think Thatcher or Churchill would have made that sort of statement.


----------



## Tisme

dutchie said:


> How is telling what she thinks is the truth not strong leadership?




It's a convenient lie that foreshadows weakness, not leadership. It is that exasperated capitulation that the uncouth, uncultured, vandals use to cement their brutal fear and bullying.

It's all well and good Julie dusting off Howard's old Cornflakes deputy sheriff's badge and picking fights with giant military machines on behalf of our US and UK masters, but it's another thing to lead inspirationally and aspirationally. 

I think our own backyard might be a good place to start a cleanup of minds, It's pretty obvious we have been importing our own enemy via migration and asylum over a generation; perhaps it's time to put the old time squeeze on those who treat our treason laws with contempt.


----------



## Tisme

banco said:


> With the Ashby/Slipper story on 60 minutes tomorrow the liberals are going to relearn Richard Nixon's adage that it's the coverup not the crime that gets you.




Nothing will happen. The Libs will merely change the laws, deny culpability and none of it will be played out for the public good in the Newscorp papers. 

So long as the opposition have no teeth and no desire to pursue them through the (honest) courts or commissions, the crony Teflon men of the LNP (and ALP, etc) will continue what they do and always have done....... a flaw in the British system.


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> The joke that we would be $550 better off because of the carbon tax repeal should be a major warning to those who think essential services in the hands of capitalists are mutually beneficial.




+1,


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> I think our own backyard might be a good place to start a cleanup of minds, It's pretty obvious we have been importing our own enemy via migration and asylum over a generation; perhaps it's time to put the old time squeeze on those who treat our treason laws with contempt.




+1 again.

You're on form today Tisme


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> I'm shocked...I would have bet London to a brick he was a Vatican national.




Only on Sundays


----------



## banco

Christopher Pyne you lying scumbag:

Education Minister Christopher Pyne has suggested that James Ashby may have "misinterpreted" a discussion they had in which the former speaker's aide claims the senior Liberal promised him a new job and a lawyer in the event he took legal action against his boss Peter Slipper over sexual harassment claims.

Mr Pyne, who has constantly denied "specific knowledge" of Mr Ashby's sexual harassment allegations against Mr Slipper before they were made public, confirmed at a media conference in Adelaide on Monday that he had known the staffer was "uncomfortable" working for the then speaker, and was aware of rumours that long swirled around Mr Slipper.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...er-slipper-20140908-10dt3t.html#ixzz3ChMdrDML


----------



## Julia

sydboy007 said:


> Very true.  I don't think Mal Borough will come out with much political life left in him.  Be interesting to see what is said about Pyne and his little fireside chat a couple of weeks before Ashby lodged his claims in court.



Let's wait and see.  I think most people will continue to be as bored by this salacious little spat as they have been all along.



banco said:


> Christopher Pyne you lying scumbag:



Typical categorical and pejorative declaration, of course, banco.

You were not there.  You cannot know what was said.   
Mr Ashby has made allegations then subsequently withdrawn them elsewhere.

60 Minutes began the program with the information that Mr Ashby 'these days likes to fly under the radar'.
Really?  That will be why he's appearing on one of the country's most facile, headline-grabbing programs.
Usually I avoid it at all costs, but after all the intense promotional promises that a sensational plot would be revealed which would rock the government etc etc, even I was curious enough to watch most of it.

An hour of rehashed, over-wrought stuff with the oh so sympathetic interviewer supporting poor Mr Ashby who was so naive and innocent he had no idea how to just say to his boss that he wasn't up for extra-curricular activity.

He was apparently employed in a position for which he had no specific qualifications or experience at $160,000 p.a.  Even his parents couldn't understand why he could get such a job.  He seems to be either playing a part in the hope of a financially advantageous outcome, or is really just completely naive.  I find it hard to believe the latter option, given his various manipulations in this whole tawdry affair.

One brief expression probably sums it all up:
Pfft!!


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> Because it's an admission of defeat.
> 
> Nazism was an ideology and it was defeated. For Bishop to say that an ideology can't be defeated is a weak kneed statement that flies in the face of history, and is at odds with what Obama is saying that ISIL can be defeated.
> 
> Bishop hasn't done herself any favours with that statement.




So you believe it is our role, to defeat IS, otherwise we are defeated?

Firstly, it would entail a massive invasion of our troops and secondly, defeating IS would necessitate genocide.

You believe Julie Bishop should be advocating those things to show "strong leadership"? 

Frankly, I am astonished that you could be remotely serious.


----------



## overhang

Julia said:


> Let's wait and see.  I think most people will continue to be as bored by this salacious little spat as they have been all along.
> 
> 
> Typical categorical and pejorative declaration, of course, banco.
> 
> You were not there.  You cannot know what was said.
> Mr Ashby has made allegations then subsequently withdrawn them elsewhere.




Whilst it all is a bit of a storm in a teacup I do agree with Banco's assessment that Pyne is a lying little rat.  Of course at the end of the day it's his word against Pynes but he did appear to keep logs and some of his comments were rather random to have just made up (when commenting that Wyatt Roy had contacted Pyne but Pyne wouldn't confirm that to be the case and just let Ashby talk without acknowledgement of what he said).  It's also in Pynes best interest to lie about his knowledge but I'm not sure what Ashby gains by making it up.  

I've never liked the nasal voice and smug private school boy look on the self-entitled brat with the condescending political style anyway but hopefully it may alter how some perceive him in the public eye.


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> So you believe it is our role, to defeat IS, otherwise we are defeated?
> 
> Firstly, it would entail a massive invasion of our troops and secondly, defeating IS would necessitate genocide.
> 
> You believe Julie Bishop should be advocating those things to show "strong leadership"?
> 
> Frankly, I am astonished that you could be remotely serious.




There are other ways to defeat ISIS than in battle.

Cut off their supplies of arms and ammunition, finance and logistical support. Precision strikes against their leadership. Intelligence gathering. The usual ways these things have been done before. I'm amazed that you are short sighted enough to only see a military solution.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> . I'm amazed that you are short sighted enough to only see a military solution.




Yes lopping the heads off the Hydra can be done many ways. I'm not sure Julie has that ability even if she is sitting in Julia Gillard's UN Security council seat....we need a Paul Keating on this one, someone who can insult the enemy within to capitulate and assimilate into our great racist nation.


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> Yes lopping the heads off the Hydra can be done many ways. I'm not sure Julie has that ability even if she is sitting in Julia Gillard's UN Security council seat....we need a Paul Keating on this one, someone who can insult the enemy within to capitulate and assimilate into our great racist nation.




've just been watching Keating's interviews with Kerry O'Brien, and PJK took great delight in boasting that he had to "execute" Bob Hawke.

Maybe similar treatment would be in store for treasonous rabble.

I don't think he goes back to Bankstown much anymore, so there isn't much opportunity for retaliatory strikes.


----------



## SirRumpole

Maybe someone can answer this question.

As part of the mining tax introduced by the Gillard government, miners were allowed to claim State royalty payments as tax deductions.

Will this still apply after the mining tax is rescinded ?


----------



## Knobby22

I am sure James Ashby was encouraged by those in the Liberal Party however he is a solicitous lying scumbag and I am personally glad that Peter Slipper succeeded in having costs awarded against him. 

If he was stupid enough  to believe the assurances of some of the party without getting it in writing (remember Tony Abbotts words) then more fool him.

Ashby should have realised that he would become an untouchable if he lost the case and would not get a job working for the Libs.

Also I noticed the following info which suggest the Libs may have paid up in any case.

_In announcing his intention to drop the case, Mr Ashby said his lawyers, Harmers Workplace Lawyers, had absorbed the $1 million he has incurred in legal fees to date._

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...rting-trial-20140620-zsgdp.html#ixzz3Chm629fr


----------



## SirRumpole

Knobby22 said:


> I am sure James Ashby was encouraged by those in the Liberal Party however he is a solicitous lying scumbag and I am personally glad that Peter Slipper succeeded in having costs awarded against him.
> 
> If he was stupid enough  to believe the assurances of some of the party without getting it in writing (remember Tony Abbotts words) then more fool him.
> 
> Ashby should have realised that he would become an untouchable if he lost the case.




And Ashby had a gay affair with a minor.

I wouldn't trust Christopher Pyne to walk my dog, but Ashby's credibility is pretty close to zero imo.


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> There are other ways to defeat ISIS than in battle.
> 
> Cut off their supplies of arms and ammunition, finance and logistical support. Precision strikes against their leadership. Intelligence gathering. The usual ways these things have been done before. I'm amazed that you are short sighted enough to only see a military solution.



Did you even read the link you posted? That is in fact the strategy. While is might put them back in their box, it will not wipe them out, nor their ideology.

I stand by my earlier comments.


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> Did you even read the link you posted? That is in fact the strategy. While is might put them back in their box, it will not wipe them out, nor their ideology.
> 
> I stand by my earlier comments.




If putting them back in their box means they are no longer operative, then they have been defeated.

I'm sure there are a few Nazis wandering around harbouring desires for "blitzkreig" , but they aren't carrying out their desires so their ideology, while it may remain in some, is not a threat.

If what I said was "the strategy", then why did you bring up the ridiculous proposition that I was suggesting that we should commit genocide ?


----------



## drsmith

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe someone can answer this question.
> 
> As part of the mining tax introduced by the Gillard government, miners were allowed to claim State royalty payments as tax deductions.
> 
> Will this still apply after the mining tax is rescinded ?



You could look a the financial accounts of one of the big miners to see how royalties are treated.

I'd be surprised if that aspect of tax treatment of royalties changed with the mining tax.


----------



## Julia

overhang said:


> Whilst it all is a bit of a storm in a teacup I do agree with Banco's assessment that Pyne is a lying little rat.  Of course at the end of the day it's his word against Pynes but he did appear to keep logs and some of his comments were rather random to have just made up



If that were the case, why would he not have included his latest revelations in his previous affidavit to the court?

You are in no more of a position than banco to know who in this instance is telling the truth.
It's all so paltry and sordid that I don't think too many people really care.  Probably both of them are putting their own interpretations on what was actually said. 


> I'm not sure what Ashby gains by making it up.



Money?, viz 







> www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/jam...eter-slippers-legal-fees-after-aborting-trial



 In the absence of any transcript of conversations, it's all just speculation and imo a waste of time.



> I've never liked the nasal voice and smug private school boy look on the self-entitled brat with the condescending political style anyway but hopefully it may alter how some perceive him in the public eye.



So obviously you are already biased against Mr Pyne which will colour your view.  Others will view Mr Ashby with similar scepticism for the reasons Knobby outlines below.



Knobby22 said:


> I am sure James Ashby was encouraged by those in the Liberal Party however he is a solicitous lying scumbag and I am personally glad that Peter Slipper succeeded in having costs awarded against him.
> 
> If he was stupid enough  to believe the assurances of some of the party without getting it in writing (remember Tony Abbotts words) then more fool him.
> 
> Ashby should have realised that he would become an untouchable if he lost the case and would not get a job working for the Libs.
> 
> Also I noticed the following info which suggest the Libs may have paid up in any case.
> 
> _In announcing his intention to drop the case, Mr Ashby said his lawyers, Harmers Workplace Lawyers, had absorbed the $1 million he has incurred in legal fees to date._
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...rting-trial-20140620-zsgdp.html#ixzz3Chm629fr


----------



## Julia

Mr Ashby might just have further complicated his own situation by his attempts at manipulation.


> Labor to send Ashby claims to prosecutors
> 
> AAP
> September 08, 2014 6:30PM
> 
> A Labor MP wants prosecutors to assess whether James Ashby has committed perjury.
> 
> Michael Danby says Mr Ashby has told contradictory stories to the Federal Court and to TV about whether he was offered a Liberal Party job if he took action against then Speaker Peter Slipper over sexual harassment.
> 
> "Accordingly, I will be writing to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, inviting him to immediately investigate whether perjury has occurred," Mr Danby said in a statement on Monday.
> 
> Mr Danby will also raise the matter in parliament.
> 
> Mr Ashby told the Nine Network on Sunday that federal Liberal frontbencher Christopher Pyne had assured him of a job and a lawyer if he chose to return to the political scene after taking on his employer Mr Slipper.
> 
> Mr Ashby wrote in his diary that Mr Pyne: "Said a lawyer would be paid for as promised and I would have a job - state LNP politics or federal - if I chose to come back."
> 
> But the former adviser said in a Federal Court affidavit in his case against Mr Slipper: "I have not been paid or promised any financial or other benefit or consideration ... if I make any complaint or commence such action."


----------



## Knobby22

Julia said:


> Mr Ashby might just have further complicated his own situation by his attempts at manipulation.




Well put Julia (and found).Mr Ashby duplicity has ensured his own downfall.


----------



## overhang

Julia said:


> If that were the case, why would he not have included his latest revelations in his previous affidavit to the court?



I suspect he mislead the court as he didn't want to jeopardise the job offer Pyne had given him.



> You are in no more of a position than banco to know who in this instance is telling the truth.
> It's all so paltry and sordid that I don't think too many people really care.  Probably both of them are putting their own interpretations on what was actually said.



Well either are you, I'm pointing out I agree with Banco's assessment which you disagreed with.



> Money?, viz
> In the absence of any transcript of conversations, it's all just speculation and imo a waste of time.



Pyne has more to lose than Ashby by telling the truth.  The current government seems to call royal commissions for less.




> So obviously you are already biased against Mr Pyne which will colour your view.  Others will view Mr Ashby with similar scepticism for the reasons Knobby outlines below.



I was kind enough to reveal my predisposition but it doesn't mean my view is wrong,  I suspect the regular space cadets that watch 60 minutes may tend to take Ashby's side.  Who to trust?  A lying politician or a lying politicians assistant.


----------



## sydboy007

If the below is the level of understanding how markets work and how Australian gas exports are now fully integrated into the global LNG trade, then how is it everyone thinks this Govt is somehow capable of rational economic management?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...to-gas-shortage/story-fn59noo3-1227051902353#

_Energy Minister Ian Macfarlane is negotiating with the states to fast-track a fix to the shortage as domestic gas supplies are redirected to the booming export market while new production is vetoed on environmental grounds.

Mr Macfarlane dismissed calls from manufacturers to quarantine gas for the local market and blasted the NSW government for failing to develop its own coal-seam gas fields, sending prices skywards.

“The solution to high gas prices is to flood the market with gas,” Mr Macfarlane said ahead of the government’s looming policy plan for energy and manufacturing.

Some NSW energy customers pay $3 per gigajoule for gas under long-term contracts, but the minister warned the price would rise to more than $10 over the next few years because of limits on CSG production across the state._

To see local gas prices in that range you'd need LNG pricing of $18/GJ.  Spot pricing has been trending down towards the $10GJ range.  KOGAS has been deferring a large number of gas shipments.  The Japanese are teaming up with India to form a major buyers club.  The USA and Canada are bringing LNG terminals online over the next few years with the ability to export gas at the $10-12 GF range.  All this should be known by the resource minister.  If he doesn't then he should be sacked and someone who actually knows how the markets work for the majority of our resource exports put in his place.

It's quite likely now that local gas prices are going to settle at around the $6 GJ range as the gas glut continues to expand.  Most of the LNG being brought online in Australia is at the top of the global cost curve and will barely break even as prices fall back to the $12 range.  Major customers are already agitating for current contracts to be renegotiated, so don't expect any major deals to be announced for Australia any time soon.

I'm waiting for Macfarlane to explain what will happen to the gas if we go full throttle with CSG.  

How much does he believe can be brought to the market over the next few years?  What will the cost be for this new gas production?

Without a reservation policy won't any extra gas be exported to Asia if prices remain higher than the local market?  Doesn't this mean CSG would have to bring enough extra gas to the market to actually cause, at a minimum, Asian LNG prices to fall?  How much production does Macfarlane believe would be required to achieve this goal?

Is it sensible policy to cause excess production that negatively affects the pricing of a major export?

Australia is about the only major gas producer with no energy policy and no reservation policy.  With manufacturing already in retreat, is it sensible to make things even harder by fully linking major domestic users into the global LNG market?

We have a Government who believes wind farms are ugly and is doing it's best to stop any more from being built, yet there's no evidence they have a negative impact on the environment, but they do provide farmers with a reliable income over many years as well as regional employment opportunities over the life of the wind farm.

Compare this with CSG, which most farmers are against, which has been repeatedly shown to leak toxic chemicals from poorly managed wells, and also requires billions of litres of brine to be somehow managed without damaging the local environment.  After a few years he finite resource is depleted and the CSG companies move on.  The benefit to the local community is relatively short lived, especially when compared to wind farms.

Maybe we'd be better off with the Government increasing funding to the CSIRO so they can commercialise their SOLGAS system.  25% higher energy content for a unit of gas using their catalyst and process.  At least it helps to extend a finite resource rather than just using it up as fast as possible.

http://www.csiro.au/Organisation-Structure/Flagships/Energy-Flagship/SolarGas.aspx

-----------------

food for thought

http://www.afr.com/p/business/companies/woodside_coleman_in_fresh_indian_bMf838xSnR7AFKE1Psqc1J

_…It is set to receive its first LNG supplies from Australia in 2015-16 through a 20-year contract signed in 2009 between Petronet LNG and ExxonMobil for LNG from the $54 billion Gorgon venture.

However that contract is said to be among India’s most expensive LNG deals, and reports in India say Petronet has been under pressure from gas buyer GAIL (India) to renegotiate it to a lower price._

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...l-LNG-at-lower-price/articleshow/41813752.cms

_The company had recently offered to supply LNG to FACT at12 dollars per MMBTU (million metric British thermal unit). The price was $16 to $19.5 when the terminal was commissioned late last year.

“We are ready to pass on the benefits of the fall in prices of LNG in the global market to all customers. What is important for us now is to increase the throughput from the terminal,” said Petronet managing director and CEO Ashok K Balyan after the director board meeting here on Thursday.

Balyan, however, conceded that the company had not heard from FACT on resuming gas offtake from the Puthuvype terminal. FACT, which had initially bought LNG from Puthuvype, stopped later saying that the gas price was higher. “They are waiting for some clearances to revive supply,” he said._

http://www.hellenicshippingnews.com...offload-10-17-lng-cargoes-in-oct-nov-sources/

_“Kogas are deferring for the second time so [their] options are now exhausted. I’m not sure how much more assistance the sellers can give,” the source said.

The supply overhang could total more than 1.5 million mt over 2014, with some reports pegging the surplus as high as 30-40 standard sized cargoes, as previously reported by Platt_


----------



## Knobby22

I am very worried on how this will go, Syd.
If poorly handled it could become a major impost on business not to mention consumers that will make the carbon tax look like a cakewalk. 

I know of one company personally that used to make specialty glass her for lighting that was exported world wide but he couldn't compete with the Germans due to high gas prices. If the government does not listen to industry then who are they listening to?

If it is true (as I have read in the Age) that the government is looking a contributing up to $1 billion dollars of taxpayers money to ensure this happens then I am flabbergasted.

So it ain't so Tony.


----------



## sydboy007

Knobby22 said:


> I am very worried on how this will go, Syd.
> If poorly handled it could become a major impost on business not to mention consumers that will make the carbon tax look like a cakewalk.
> 
> I know of one company personally that used to make specialty glass her for lighting that was exported world wide but he couldn't compete with the Germans due to high gas prices. If the government does not listen to industry then who are they listening to?
> 
> If it is true (as I have read in the Age) that the government is looking a contributing up to $1 billion dollars of taxpayers money to ensure this happens then I am flabbergasted.
> 
> So it ain't so Tony.




What annoys me is the Government is using the rise of LNG exports to force through CSG.  I'm just trying to understand if they really don't know what's going on in the gas market (after the metadata fiasco it's a possibility) or they're being very dishonest abut the benefits that expanded CSG production will have when there's no reservation policy.

i suppose it could be a combination of the two.

I'd urge Macfarlane and other Govt members to have a read of the AEMO report

NSW cost structure does not look competitive with the oncoming LNG glut.

Australia wide The weighted average cost is comparable to domestic gas prices at the time of this report, with short term spot prices ranging between AUD2.50 and AUD4.50 per GJ, which are lower relative to longer term contract prices.

An analysis of the above figure reveals that the majority of sources sitting under the weighted average are generally in  production / development or earmarked for near term development, 

The below cost drivers for NSW CSG will be difficult to overcome to make it profitable without unrealistically high LNG pricing forecasts.


----------



## Julia

overhang said:


> Well either are you,



Exactly right.  But I've not made any assessment about who is telling the truth.  Rather, I' ve suggested that probably a conversation occurred from which both participants extracted the meaning most appealing and useful to them.


> I'm pointing out I agree with Banco's assessment which you disagreed with.



I did not agree or disagree with banco's 'assessment'.  I just made the point that, once again, although he wasn't there he had formed a categorical conclusion about who was (if anyone) lying and that he did so in his usual floridly pejorative language.


> I suspect he mislead the court as he didn't want to jeopardise the job offer Pyne had given him.



Even if Mr Pyne had offered him a job (which is very much in dispute) to mislead the court is hardly an indication of good character.  Someone who misleads a court is probably unlikely to balk at misleading, manipulating or misrepresenting in any other less important situation.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> If the below is the level of understanding how markets work and how Australian gas exports are now fully integrated into the global LNG trade, then how is it everyone thinks this Govt is somehow capable of rational economic management?
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...to-gas-shortage/story-fn59noo3-1227051902353#
> 
> _Energy Minister Ian Macfarlane is negotiating with the states to fast-track a fix to the shortage as domestic gas supplies are redirected to the booming export market while new production is vetoed on environmental grounds.
> 
> Mr Macfarlane dismissed calls from manufacturers to quarantine gas for the local market and blasted the NSW government for failing to develop its own coal-seam gas fields, sending prices skywards.
> 
> “The solution to high gas prices is to flood the market with gas,” Mr Macfarlane said ahead of the government’s looming policy plan for energy and manufacturing.
> 
> Some NSW energy customers pay $3 per gigajoule for gas under long-term contracts, but the minister warned the price would rise to more than $10 over the next few years because of limits on CSG production across the state._
> 
> To see local gas prices in that range you'd need LNG pricing of $18/GJ.  Spot pricing has been trending down towards the $10GJ range.  KOGAS has been deferring a large number of gas shipments.  The Japanese are teaming up with India to form a major buyers club.  The USA and Canada are bringing LNG terminals online over the next few years with the ability to export gas at the $10-12 GF range.  All this should be known by the resource minister.  If he doesn't then he should be sacked and someone who actually knows how the markets work for the majority of our resource exports put in his place.
> 
> It's quite likely now that local gas prices are going to settle at around the $6 GJ range as the gas glut continues to expand.  Most of the LNG being brought online in Australia is at the top of the global cost curve and will barely break even as prices fall back to the $12 range.  Major customers are already agitating for current contracts to be renegotiated, so don't expect any major deals to be announced for Australia any time soon.
> 
> I'm waiting for Macfarlane to explain what will happen to the gas if we go full throttle with CSG.
> 
> How much does he believe can be brought to the market over the next few years?  What will the cost be for this new gas production?
> 
> Without a reservation policy won't any extra gas be exported to Asia if prices remain higher than the local market?  Doesn't this mean CSG would have to bring enough extra gas to the market to actually cause, at a minimum, Asian LNG prices to fall?  How much production does Macfarlane believe would be required to achieve this goal?
> 
> Is it sensible policy to cause excess production that negatively affects the pricing of a major export?
> 
> Australia is about the only major gas producer with no energy policy and no reservation policy.  With manufacturing already in retreat, is it sensible to make things even harder by fully linking major domestic users into the global LNG market?
> 
> We have a Government who believes wind farms are ugly and is doing it's best to stop any more from being built, yet there's no evidence they have a negative impact on the environment, but they do provide farmers with a reliable income over many years as well as regional employment opportunities over the life of the wind farm.
> 
> Compare this with CSG, which most farmers are against, which has been repeatedly shown to leak toxic chemicals from poorly managed wells, and also requires billions of litres of brine to be somehow managed without damaging the local environment.  After a few years he finite resource is depleted and the CSG companies move on.  The benefit to the local community is relatively short lived, especially when compared to wind farms.
> 
> Maybe we'd be better off with the Government increasing funding to the CSIRO so they can commercialise their SOLGAS system.  25% higher energy content for a unit of gas using their catalyst and process.  At least it helps to extend a finite resource rather than just using it up as fast as possible.
> 
> http://www.csiro.au/Organisation-Structure/Flagships/Energy-Flagship/SolarGas.aspx
> 
> -----------------
> 
> food for thought
> 
> http://www.afr.com/p/business/companies/woodside_coleman_in_fresh_indian_bMf838xSnR7AFKE1Psqc1J
> 
> _…It is set to receive its first LNG supplies from Australia in 2015-16 through a 20-year contract signed in 2009 between Petronet LNG and ExxonMobil for LNG from the $54 billion Gorgon venture.
> 
> However that contract is said to be among India’s most expensive LNG deals, and reports in India say Petronet has been under pressure from gas buyer GAIL (India) to renegotiate it to a lower price._
> 
> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...l-LNG-at-lower-price/articleshow/41813752.cms
> 
> _The company had recently offered to supply LNG to FACT at12 dollars per MMBTU (million metric British thermal unit). The price was $16 to $19.5 when the terminal was commissioned late last year.
> 
> “We are ready to pass on the benefits of the fall in prices of LNG in the global market to all customers. What is important for us now is to increase the throughput from the terminal,” said Petronet managing director and CEO Ashok K Balyan after the director board meeting here on Thursday.
> 
> Balyan, however, conceded that the company had not heard from FACT on resuming gas offtake from the Puthuvype terminal. FACT, which had initially bought LNG from Puthuvype, stopped later saying that the gas price was higher. “They are waiting for some clearances to revive supply,” he said._
> 
> http://www.hellenicshippingnews.com...offload-10-17-lng-cargoes-in-oct-nov-sources/
> 
> _“Kogas are deferring for the second time so [their] options are now exhausted. I’m not sure how much more assistance the sellers can give,” the source said.
> 
> The supply overhang could total more than 1.5 million mt over 2014, with some reports pegging the surplus as high as 30-40 standard sized cargoes, as previously reported by Platt_




Barnett has been shouted down and undermined, by both Labor and the Liberals, over the issue of domestic LNG reserves and onshore processing.
So it isn't as though they can say, they didn't know. 
Also the media get a lot more circulation bagging Barnett, rather than reporting what he has to say.
It's much better viewing to have McGowan on the news, giving his unbiased opinion.lol


----------



## Tisme

Knobby22 said:


> Also I noticed the following info which suggest the Libs may have paid up in any case.
> 
> _In announcing his intention to drop the case, Mr Ashby said his lawyers, Harmers Workplace Lawyers, had absorbed the $1 million he has incurred in legal fees to date._





Apparently there are some law firms who don't need money to pursue social justice:

_"22 August 2013


 Clive Palmer has alleged this morning that Mal Brough had asked him to fund James Ashby’s legal case against Peter Slipper.  We note that Mal Brough has categorically denied this allegation. To date there has been total confusion and contradictions concerning this meeting between Palmer and Brough, with numerous claims and counter claims as to what supposedly took place at that Coolum lunch. This is just yet another chapter in this saga which is being played out in the context of an electoral battle for the seat of Fisher.

 For abundant clarity, at no stage did James Ashby ask Mal Brough, or indeed anyone, to fund his case. Further, as has been on the public record for some time, there is no third party funding his case. The case is being financially supported by Harmers Workplace Lawyers themselves. Harmers, on occasions, funds cases which they believe have social justice merit, where complainants otherwise would not have access to the courts.

 Also, contrary to many reports, James Ashby has not had a substantive hearing on his claims of sexual harassment against Peter Slipper. That crucial matter is still to be decided. 

 It should also be noted that the Justice Rares decision of last December is still under appeal __awaiting a decision_.


----------



## Tisme

More corruption

http://www.afr.com/p/national/peta_credlin_emails_revealed_at_dKqNsVBmjWAFUjVy09SP1K


----------



## overhang




----------



## Smurf1976

So far as gas is concerned, we've basically made the decision to link east coast (Qld, NSW, ACT, Vic, Tas, SA) gas prices to export parity prices via the LNG plants being built.

That is not a Coalition decision as such, just as is it isn't really a Labor decision either. Rather, it is the inevitable confidence of placing blind faith in "free markets" to allocate resources.

In short, the "free" market has decided that the best use for gas is to export it rather than having factories etc using it here. That maximises profit for gas companies, at the expense of lost opportunities in the broader economy.

In terms of how high it goes and when, well suffice to say that at least one electricity generation company is extremely aware of what's going on and already has their future financial projections and physical operation plans factoring this in. Once gas goes up, that also helps drag electricity prices up. 

As for how high and how much, well it's around another $20 per MWh from a CCGT plant and around another $30 per MWh from a steam plant using gas - that compares with the impact of the carbon tax which ranged between about $9 (CCGT) through to about $32 (least efficient coal plants). With the closure of a number of coal-fired plants in recent times (the most recent being Morwell (aka Energy Brix) which was effectively mothballed a few days ago), gas is to a large extent now the marginal source of generation especially during business hours and thus sets the spot price.

Allowing for the impact on the direct use of gas, noting that this is how most gas is used (ie most gas is not used to generate electricity), the overall impact of the gas price hike is of similar magnitude to the carbon tax but more difficult to workaround given the non-electricity impacts. 

Those figures assume that gas ends up at around $6 per GJ.

In short, neither Labor nor the Coalition seem even slightly interested in manufacturing, energy security or anything of that nature. It's just the old dig it up as fast as we can and sell it mentality. Fast forward 50 years when the gas and iron ore are gone, or 100 years when the decent coal is gone too, and future generations aren't likely to be too impressed with this thinking. And 50 years isn't that long really - it's not as though we're talking about a problem that's 1000 years away or something like that, we're talking about something that's well within the lifetime of a child born today.


----------



## SirRumpole

> In short, the "free" market has decided that the best use for gas is to export it rather than having factories etc using it here. That maximises profit for gas companies, at the expense of lost opportunities in the broader economy.




I never cease to be amazed at the ways this country continually finds  to cut it's own throat.

Tariff reductions (Keating), world oil parity pricing (Fraser), and now export parity on gas.

Simply amazing.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I never cease to be amazed at the ways this country continually finds  to cut it's own throat.
> 
> Tariff reductions (Keating), world oil parity pricing (Fraser), and now export parity on gas.
> 
> Simply amazing.




Yes an now the Government wants to import subs from Japan.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...s-built-overseas/story-fnihslxi-1227052360818


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Yes an now the Government wants to import subs from Japan.
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...s-built-overseas/story-fnihslxi-1227052360818




I'd be happier if they'd stop building the wheel again and take an off the shelf proven design and build it in Australia.

It will still cost more, but at what point is there any point in having a military when you can't produce the fuel to run the equipment, you can build anything but guns and basic ammunition, when your supply lines are so easy to disrupt that the enemy doesn't have to bomb you into submission - just a month or maybe 2 at the most till the lack of transport fuels in the economy stops food being shipped thousands of kilometres.

If I understand correctly the total submarine build could cost up to $80B due to the massive amount of infrastructure that would need to be built to support the project.  If that is true, then possible we just have to accept we can no longer do it in Australia unless we're looking to get into the submarine building business big time.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> I'd be happier if they'd stop building the wheel again and take an off the shelf proven design and build it in Australia.
> 
> It will still cost more, but at what point is there any point in having a military when you can't produce the fuel to run the equipment, you can build anything but guns and basic ammunition, when your supply lines are so easy to disrupt that the enemy doesn't have to bomb you into submission - just a month or maybe 2 at the most till the lack of transport fuels in the economy stops food being shipped thousands of kilometres.
> 
> If I understand correctly the total submarine build could cost up to $80B due to the massive amount of infrastructure that would need to be built to support the project.  If that is true, then possible we just have to accept we can no longer do it in Australia unless we're looking to get into the submarine building business big time.




I guess the problem with building them elsewhere is that other people know your capabilities. Building them here would enable us to insert a "surprise" capability that may be decisive.


----------



## sydboy007

Smurf1976 said:


> In short, neither Labor nor the Coalition seem even slightly interested in manufacturing, energy security or anything of that nature. It's just the old dig it up as fast as we can and sell it mentality. Fast forward 50 years when the gas and iron ore are gone, or 100 years when the decent coal is gone too, and future generations aren't likely to be too impressed with this thinking. And 50 years isn't that long really - it's not as though we're talking about a problem that's 1000 years away or something like that, we're talking about something that's well within the lifetime of a child born today.




It's already here.  Back in 2001 we were 85% self sufficient in liquid fuels.  By next year it's close to 30%.

We have no strategic oil / fuel reserves like japan / USA.

While I don't like the idea, we may have to start looking at coal to liquids very soon if we're going to stop the massive blowout in the trade deficit due to our increasing reliance on fuel imports.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> It's already here.  Back in 2001 we were 85% self sufficient in liquid fuels.  By next year it's close to 30%.
> 
> We have no strategic oil / fuel reserves like japan / USA.
> 
> While I don't like the idea, we may have to start looking at coal to liquids very soon if we're going to stop the massive blowout in the trade deficit due to our increasing reliance on fuel imports.




Oil from algae is a promising alternative

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innov...de-oil-in-less-than-an-hour-180948282/?no-ist


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> I'd be happier if they'd stop building the wheel again and take an off the shelf proven design and build it in Australia.
> 
> It will still cost more, but at what point is there any point in having a military when you can't produce the fuel to run the equipment, you can build anything but guns and basic ammunition, when your supply lines are so easy to disrupt that the enemy doesn't have to bomb you into submission - just a month or maybe 2 at the most till the lack of transport fuels in the economy stops food being shipped thousands of kilometres.
> 
> If I understand correctly the total submarine build could cost up to $80B due to the massive amount of infrastructure that would need to be built to support the project.  If that is true, then possible we just have to accept we can no longer do it in Australia unless we're looking to get into the submarine building business big time.




So if we build 12 Submarines here in Australia at $80 billion, where will the extra $60 billion come from considering we could buy 12 Subs from Japan for $20 billion?

Why are our costs so much higher than Japan?

And given we could save $60 billion, how many Kilometers of new roads and highways could we build for $60 billion?


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> Oil from algae is a promising alternative
> 
> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innov...de-oil-in-less-than-an-hour-180948282/?no-ist




This where it's at !! We can import cooking oil from China and recycle it into diesel trucks



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrv78nG9R04


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> This where it's at !! We can import cooking oil from China and recycle it into diesel trucks
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrv78nG9R04




I never thought you would get down in the gutter Tisme


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> So if we build 12 Submarines here in Australia at $80 billion, where will the extra $60 billion come from considering we could buy 12 Subs from Japan for $20 billion?
> 
> Why are our costs so much higher than Japan?
> 
> And given we could save $60 billion, how many Kilometers of new roads and highways could we build for $60 billion?




The major cost blow out is the ship bulding infrastructure that would need to be built.  Seems the Japanese witht heir still large ship building industry have that infrastructure already available.

That is the question.  Do we continue to prop up local industry or do we import.  Cost is a major consideration, but then so is defence.  So at what point is it deemed to be too costly to do it in house?


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> Oil from algae is a promising alternative
> 
> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innov...de-oil-in-less-than-an-hour-180948282/?no-ist




Still in its infancy in terms of yield.  Would have to be scaled up massively to achieve the economy of scale required.  Not sure if it will provide the import relief we need by 2020.

Some trials in using algae feed via flue gas are being done.  So far costs are not competitive but hopefully as lessons are learnt it gets to the point we could retrofit it to most fossil fuel power stations.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> The major cost blow out is the ship bulding infrastructure that would need to be built.  Seems the Japanese witht heir still large ship building industry have that infrastructure already available.
> 
> That is the question.  Do we continue to prop up local industry or do we import.  Cost is a major consideration, but then so is defence.  So at what point is it deemed to be too costly to do it in house?




So would it not be unreasonable to give our Australian ship builders and the Japanese a specification outlining what we require and expect in a submarine and have both organizations submit a tender with  say a 10% preference to the Australian content.

During my experience of tendering for a project we were given  10 % preference over interstate and a 20 % preference over overseas competitors.


----------



## overhang

noco said:


> So would it not be unreasonable to give our Australian ship builders and the Japanese a specification outlining what we require and expect in a submarine and have both organizations submit a tender with  say a 10% preference to the Australian content.
> 
> During my experience of tendering for a project we were given  10 % preference over interstate and a 20 % preference over overseas competitors.




Sounds reasonable to me.
The difference with this project is we're buying subs that are already established and in use with the Japanese Navy.  We would basically be paying them to just manufacturer that sub for us, they already have all the infrastructure in place.  But for Australia to build the subs would require the research and development into a new sub which then must have all the infrastructure manufactured to produce the sub which would then require intensive testing before we could mass produce the sub.


----------



## banco

noco said:


> So would it not be unreasonable to give our Australian ship builders and the Japanese a specification outlining what we require and expect in a submarine and have both organizations submit a tender with  say a 10% preference to the Australian content.
> 
> During my experience of tendering for a project we were given  10 % preference over interstate and a 20 % preference over overseas competitors.




By all accounts the Australian ship builders are a lot more than 20% more expensive.


----------



## Julia

From "The Australian" today, Newspoll:



> THREE out of five Australians are in favour of the federal government providing humanitarian aid and weapons to forces opposing Islamic State militants, as Tony Abbott holds open the option of going further with increased military support.
> 
> The Prime Minister said no specific request had been made but Australia was talking to its partners and allies about helping to provide “military advisers” and “air capability”.
> 
> Newspoll figures
> 
> Contingency plans could involve special forces, but not infantry, on the frontline to provide advice and training and aircraft to assist or carry out *airstrikes.
> 
> The US has conducted more than 130 airstrikes against militants in Iraq and US President Barack Obama will lay out his “game plan” to defeat Islamic State later this week.
> 
> A Newspoll, conducted exclusively for The Australian over the weekend, revealed that 62 per cent of voters supported the action taken so far by the *Abbott government, which has involved the RAAF providing humanitarian aid drops of food, water and hygiene packs as well as shipments of weapons and ammunition.
> 
> But the poll of 1207 people found 25 per cent of voters were opposed and 13 per cent uncommitted. Men, Coalition supporters and older Australians were most in favour.
> 
> Newspoll shows that 70 per cent of men support the action, with 18 per cent against. Among women, 54 per cent favour the government’s action, with 31 per cent opposed. Three-quarters of Coalition supporters back the action, with 19 per cent opposed, while 53 per cent of Labor supporters are in favour, with 31 per cent against. Support is strongest among older voters with 68 per cent of those older than 50 in favour compared with 56 per cent among those aged between 18 and 34 and 60 per cent support in the 35 to 49-year age group.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> The major cost blow out is the ship bulding infrastructure that would need to be built.  Seems the Japanese witht heir still large ship building industry have that infrastructure already available.
> 
> That is the question.  Do we continue to prop up local industry or do we import.  Cost is a major consideration, but then so is defence.  So at what point is it deemed to be too costly to do it in house?




But I thought I heard Bill Shorten say today that we have the infrastructure and that if he won the next election, he would build the subs in Australia at a cost of $50 billion plus.......so therefore the infrastructure you mentioned which would be needed to start building the subs would cost  $30 billion.

We did build the Collins Class subs here so wouldn't the infrastructure still be in place there in South Australia?


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> But I thought I heard Bill Shorten say today that we have the infrastructure and that if he won the next election, he would build the subs in Australia at a cost of $50 billion plus.......so therefore the infrastructure you mentioned which would be needed to start building the subs would cost  $30 billion.
> 
> We did build the Collins Class subs here so wouldn't the infrastructure still be in place there in South Australia?




I think we are going the way of the British arms industry in the 1950's. Amass the experience and skills to build high quality equipment, and then decide it's all too expensive and let all that expertise rot.

Depending on who you listen to, the Collins is either a lemon, or the problems have now been sorted out and the ships are operating efficiently. From reports they performed well in exercises with the US Navy. If the problems have been sorted, it wold be a shame to let the knowledge bases that built them to disperse in favour of an off the shelf sub whose capabilities are widely known to potential enemies.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I think we are going the way of the British arms industry in the 1950's. Amass the experience and skills to build high quality equipment, and then decide it's all too expensive and let all that expertise rot.
> 
> Depending on who you listen to, the Collins is either a lemon, or the problems have now been sorted out and the ships are operating efficiently. From reports they performed well in exercises with the US Navy. If the problems have been sorted, it wold be a shame to let the knowledge bases that built them to disperse in favour of an off the shelf sub whose capabilities are widely known to potential enemies.




Bit who will pay for the extra $30 billion over and above the cost of the Japanese subs?


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Bit who will pay for the extra $30 billion over and above the cost of the Japanese subs?




You and me old chap.

It's all guesswork though isn't it ? The Collins has never been needed, the F111's were never used in anger, so is any of our defence spending worth the money ?


----------



## IFocus

overhang said:


>






Thanks overhang had a really good laugh


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> You and me old chap.
> 
> It's all guesswork though isn't it ? The Collins has never been needed, the F111's were never used in anger, so is any of our defence spending worth the money ?




I guess it is like an insurance policy........if you don't have it something major will happen.

If an aggressive country observes you are weak in defense, you then become very vulnerable.

Bill Shorten does not seem to care who will pay for the extra cost....probably borrow more like Rudd/Gillard/Rudd did before, get voted out of office and let the next government worry about paying back the money with interest.....Perhaps he might ask the unions to dig deep with some contribution. 


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ine-deal-shorten/story-e6frg8yo-1227053138785


----------



## Smurf1976

From a defence perspective, it seems a bad idea to be buying "off the shelf" equipment manufactured overseas. Do that and should we need to use it in anger, well then (1) our capabilities become extremely well known and (2) we are reliant on foreigners for ongoing support.

That sounds a bit like having the plans for your building security system prominently displayed in the front window for all to see. Should anyone want to break in, they'll know exactly how to evade or disable the system. Same concept with foreign military equipment really.

I can accept that there might be some price difference in local production versus imports, but a 4:1 ration doesn't sound right to me given that Japan is a developed country with relatively high costs. Something just isn't right there - in short I have trouble believing that it's really such a huge difference to build a comparable submarine. Are we comparing similarly equipped vessels here? Or are we comparing a postie bike with a limousine?


----------



## noco

Smurf1976 said:


> From a defence perspective, it seems a bad idea to be buying "off the shelf" equipment manufactured overseas. Do that and should we need to use it in anger, well then (1) our capabilities become extremely well known and (2) we are reliant on foreigners for ongoing support.
> 
> That sounds a bit like having the plans for your building security system prominently displayed in the front window for all to see. Should anyone want to break in, they'll know exactly how to evade or disable the system. Same concept with foreign military equipment really.
> 
> I can accept that there might be some price difference in local production versus imports, but a 4:1 ration doesn't sound right to me given that Japan is a developed country with relatively high costs. Something just isn't right there - in short I have trouble believing that it's really such a huge difference to build a comparable submarine. Are we comparing similarly equipped vessels here? Or are we comparing a postie bike with a limousine?




The costs bandied around are 12 subs from Japan $20 to $25 billion.
12 subs made in Australia $50 to $80 billion.

I should imagine the security system would be secretive only to Australia.

I believe you are talking in the extreme with your statement of comparison.

If it was coming out of your pocket would be prepared to pay the difference?

Just imagine what we could do with the difference in cost......How many dams could we build or how many kilometers of highways could we construct?

The Labor Party reduced out defense spending to 1.8% of GDP....the lowest level since 1938 and now Bill Shorten wants to spend an extra $30 to $55 billion to appease the CFMEU......It really does not make sense.



http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/..._the_lost_soldier_still_fighting_world_war_2/


----------



## noco

From what I read, the Collins Class submarines seemed to be in trouble from start to finish with cost blow outs of almost 100%, delays of 21 to 41 months over scheduled completion.

Almost half of the design and components came from overseas companies .......from diesel electric motors, 400 tonne of acid batteries, torpedo tubes to even the periscopes.

There was bias exhibited by the Left wing Labor Party to a Swedish company..there was persistent  union problems.

So would we once again face these same problems?...No doubt we would.

*During the study, various accusations of foul play by or unsuitability of both submarine designers were made by Australian politicians and the media.[26] These included claims that the similar left-wing political leanings of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and the Swedish Social Democratic Party, both in power at the time, would lead to a pro-Kockums bias, investigations into perceived coaching of IDL/HDW representatives in the questions to be asked at an ALP Caucus briefing session on the project, and public emphasis on security incidents in both Sweden and West Germany.[26] These incidents either lacked supporting evidence or were proven false, and were the result of the Liberal Party attempting to discredit the Labor government, or pro-British politicians and organisations who believed both submarines were inferior to the Vickers Type 2400 offering*
*
Each submarine was constructed in six sections, each consisting of several sub-sections.[37] One of the main criteria of the project was that Australian industries contribute to at least 60% of the work; by the conclusion of the project 70% of the construction and 45% of the software preparation had been completed by Australian-owned companies.[23] Work was sub-contracted out to 426 companies across twelve countries, plus numerous sub-sub-contractors.[35] In many cases, components for the first submarine were constructed by companies outside Australia, while those for the following five boats were replicated by an Australian-owned partner or subsidiary.[38] The project prompted major increases in quality control standards across Australian industries: in 1980, only 35 Australian companies possessed the appropriate quality control certifications for Defence projects, but by 1998 this had increased to over 1,500.[39]

Although the acquisition project organisers originally planned for the first submarine to be constructed overseas, the Cabinet decided as part of the project's approval that all six submarines would be built in Australia; the increases in construction time and cost from not building the lead ship in the winning designer's home shipyard was considered to be offset by the additional experience provided to Australian industries.[40] Even so, two sections of the first submarine were constructed by Kockums' shipyard in Malmo, Sweden*



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collins-class_submarine#Periscopes_and_masts


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> So would we once again face these same problems?...No doubt we would.




Maybe there is doubt that we would face those problems again

I'd like to think that lessons have been learned.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe there is doubt that we would face those problems again
> 
> I'd like to think that lessons have been learned.




Do you really think the Labor Party learn from their mistakes?...The way Bill Shorten was addressing a union rally in Adelaide yesterday, he did not appear to have taken any notice of the Labor Party history of failures.

Bill is still a union leader through and through and will appease the unions at any price with disregard for the consequences of cost to the nation.....He does not have the interest of the rest of the people of Australia nor the interest of the nation as a whole....He is certainly not capable of making hard decisions.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Do you really think the Labor Party learn from their mistakes?...The way Bill Shorten was addressing a union rally in Adelaide yesterday, he did not appear to have taken any notice of the Labor Party history of failures.
> 
> Bill is still a union leader through and through and will appease the unions at any price with disregard for the consequences of cost to the nation.....He does not have the interest of the rest of the people of Australia nor the interest of the nation as a whole....He is certainly not capable of making hard decisions.




Typical ad hominem attack showing your bias again.

 What's the point of having an "off the shelf" weapons system that other people know the capabilities of ? The work has been done fixing problems, but all the Abbott government is concerned about is money. That is why we will soon have no car industry, and by the end of Abbott's term, no industrial capability at all.

 Don't talk to us about "Team Australia" , Mr Abbott, you don't know the meaning of the word.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> He is certainly not capable of making hard decisions.




You had better hope he doesn't learn by the next election, because he is likely to start up witch hunt commissions, Abbott style against your team in two years....and given the extensive corruption of the NSW Lib party and his broken pledges there is a very high probability there is something fishy in Denmark and to paraphrase another Shakespearean quote, Abbott protests too much about the notion of honesty.


----------



## sydboy007

Tisme said:


> You had better hope he doesn't learn by the next election, because he is likely to start up witch hunt commissions, Abbott style against your team in two years....and given the extensive corruption of the NSW Lib party and his broken pledges there is a very high probability there is something fishy in Denmark and to paraphrase another Shakespearean quote, Abbott protests too much about the notion of honesty.




I think the correct term is "specific knowledge"

Suitably vague and not categorically saying I didn't know, just didn't know <insert word>


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Typical ad hominem attack showing your bias again.
> 
> What's the point of having an "off the shelf" weapons system that other people know the capabilities of ? The work has been done fixing problems, but all the Abbott government is concerned about is money. That is why we will soon have no car industry, and by the end of Abbott's term, no industrial capability at all.
> 
> Don't talk to us about "Team Australia" , Mr Abbott, you don't know the meaning of the word.




Rumpy, you have to cleanse your mind of the socialism mentality......socialism believes in industry owned by the state and this why it has failed in the past and will fail again......you just cannot keep propping up unprofitable ventures like the car  or ship building industry....if they cannot stand on their own two feet then they deserve to go out of business.....that is what free enterprise is all about....Don't blame Abbott for the car industry closing up shop....that was happening long before Abbott cam on the scene.......you know full well why they are going so lets not pretend you do not know.

It all depends on how it is run.....I have had 4 business ventures in my life time and always succeeded where others have failed.....one show I bought was running at a loss because the previous owners had no idea of innovation, selling or marketing knowledge....they deserved to go broke and the business would have gone had I not taken it over....Many businesses go broke for many reasons and the unions are one of them.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Rumpy, you have to cleanse your mind of the socialism mentality......socialism believes in industry owned by the state and this why it has failed in the past and will fail again......you just cannot keep propping up unprofitable ventures like the car  or ship building industry....if they cannot stand on their own two feet then they deserve to go out of business.....that is what free enterprise is all about....Don't blame Abbott for the car industry closing up shop....that was happening long before Abbott cam on the scene.......you know full well why they are going so lets not pretend you do not know.
> 
> It all depends on how it is run.....I have had 4 business ventures in my life time and always succeeded where others have failed.....one show I bought was running at a loss because the previous owners had no idea of innovation, selling or marketing knowledge....they deserved to go broke and the business would have gone had I not taken it over....Many businesses go broke for many reasons and the unions are one of them.




Yes, a lot of businesses deserve to go broke for various reasons, hard line unions and management incompetence among them. 

There are other industries which are important, if not essential to the national interest, and high tech manufacturing is one of them, exemplified by the auto and submarine industries, and they don't belong to the "free market" ideology that you espouse.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, a lot of businesses deserve to go broke for various reasons, hard line unions and management incompetence among them.
> 
> There are other industries which are important, if not essential to the national interest, and high tech manufacturing is one of them, exemplified by the auto and submarine industries, and they don't belong to the "free market" ideology that you espouse.




Perhaps we should just educate our young people so they can gain employment overseas and make a quid in countries that give a fig. The auto industries in every country get plenty of govt assistance ....plenty and the bonus for Thailand is they have plenty of peasants who would rather not starve for lack of national income and social infrastructure ... behold Australia's future = seven day work week, scooters, rice and life expectancy not much.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, a lot of businesses deserve to go broke for various reasons, hard line unions and management incompetence among them.
> 
> There are other industries which are important, if not essential to the national interest, and high tech manufacturing is one of them, exemplified by the auto and submarine industries, and they don't belong to the "free market" ideology that you espouse.




Why not?.....we can buy subs from Japan, Germany and France...isn't that the free market?

The Australian Government have made no decision on the Japanese subs so why is Shorten shooting off the rhetoric......That was one huge mistake he made this week.

You say all Abbott thinks about is money, well I am pleased he does because he is taking care of how the taxpayers money is spent.

121,000 jobs were created last month......so I guess you will ask what about the 3000 who may lose their jobs in the ship building industry.....I would suggest we tell their company to look at their costs, innovate and do some marketing research to find new orders instead of relying upon the Government for huge hand outs to prop up and appease the unions.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...nes-is-dangerous/story-e6frg76f-1227054441859


----------



## IFocus

SirRumpole said:


> Typical ad hominem attack showing your bias again.
> 
> What's the point of having an "off the shelf" weapons system that other people know the capabilities of ? The work has been done fixing problems, but all the Abbott government is concerned about is money. That is why we will soon have no car industry, and by the end of Abbott's term, no industrial capability at all.
> 
> Don't talk to us about "Team Australia" , Mr Abbott, you don't know the meaning of the word.




If I remember rightly Australia was trying to buy aircraft off the Japanese not long before the start of WWII likely to have been a conservative government as well.


----------



## Macquack

noco said:


> Why not?.....we can buy subs from Japan, Germany and France...isn't that the free market?




Yeah, but where do we get spare parts from during WWIII?

Which reminds me, where am I going to get spare parts for my Falcon now that Ford has pulled out of Australia? Thanks Tony.

Noco, you must have been a supporter of "Pig Iron Bob" Menzies policy of sending crude iron to Japan so they could make weapons to use against us?


----------



## noco

Macquack said:


> Yeah, but where do we get spare parts from during WWIII?
> 
> Which reminds me, where am I going to get spare parts for my Falcon now that Ford has pulled out of Australia? Thanks Tony.
> 
> 
> 
> Noco, you must have been a supporter of "Pig Iron Bob" Menzies policy of sending crude iron to Japan so they could make weapons to use against us?




Welcome back Macquack.

I think I was a bit too young to understand about PIG IRON BOB but I do understand just how much iron ore was  sent to China between 2007 and 2013.

Maybe the Chinese are building war ships and tanks to invade Australia like Jaquii Lambie states. 

You should be able to get spare parts for your Falcon at the car wreckers.....that is what we had to do during WW11.

WW111 will be all over in hours so I would not worry too much about your Falcon.


----------



## Smurf1976

noco said:


> Why not?.....we can buy subs from Japan, Germany and France...isn't that the free market?



I'm not sure about submarines specifically, but in general terms this "free" market is a government subsidised one.

Look at car manufacturing. Now tell me which countries don't assist our outright protect their automotive industries in some way? Nothing "free" about that market.

It's the same with anything of a big engineering nature. As an example, does anyone seriously think that the US would allow Boeing to fail? Not a chance. It may be privately owned as such, but it's government backed in practice. Same with many such industries.

I'm happy with the concept of a free market, however in practice to achieve that just means that we need to adjust our level of subsidies and protection to match that of other countries. The notion that there is no protection at all is just not how the world works, Australia being about the only significant country to actually try implementing such an approach.


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> The work has been done fixing problems, but all the Abbott government is concerned about is money.



Well, about time someone was concerned about money.  If your Labor government had been permitted to hold sway, they'd have had no compunction about increasing debt levels with no thought about ultimate accountability.

The Abbott government has made mistakes, but the underlying philosophy of trying to ensure the country in forthcoming years is able to withstand shocks, and to provide the funding for essential services is sound, along with the general liberal philosophy of encouraging people not to depend on governments for what they should be doing for themselves.

Their greatest fault has, imo, been failure to properly gauge the mood of the electorate and therefore to take the people along with their well intentioned ideas.   Hopefully, there is now some recognition of this, along with the regrettable need to engage with an inexperienced set of people on the Senate cross benches, and they will improve their public relations from now on.


----------



## drsmith

WW3 ??

Where our subs are manufactured will be the least of our worries if ever there's ever a WW3.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> Well, about time someone was concerned about money.  If your Labor government had been permitted to hold sway, they'd have had no compunction about increasing debt levels with no thought about ultimate accountability.
> 
> .




The Labor party say they made $180 billion of savings during their period in office. They also say they reduced the public service by 5,000. I don't believe that the need to reign in spending was unknown to them. Labor also increased revenue via the carbon tax and compensated low income earners for that impost. The Coalition dispensed with that revenue and are planning to add to the social welfare bill and imposts on the business sector by way of a PPL.

Many of the governments problems are more than just public relations, they relate to fundamental mistakes in strategy bought about by a desire to please their financial backers.


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> Well, about time someone was concerned about money.  If your Labor government had been permitted to hold sway, they'd have had no compunction about increasing debt levels with no thought about ultimate accountability.
> 
> The Abbott government has made mistakes, but the underlying philosophy of trying to ensure the country in forthcoming years is able to withstand shocks, and to provide the funding for essential services is sound, along with the general liberal philosophy of encouraging people not to depend on governments for what they should be doing for themselves.
> 
> Their greatest fault has, imo, been failure to properly gauge the mood of the electorate and therefore to take the people along with their well intentioned ideas.   Hopefully, there is now some recognition of this, along with the regrettable need to engage with an inexperienced set of people on the Senate cross benches, and they will improve their public relations from now on.




What would you highlight from teh budget as meaningful tax / spending reform?

besides the indexation of the fuel excise what else was good?

PPL - increased tax on big business along with higher levels of tax payer funding than the current Labor initiated program.

Resource / Carbon taxes rescinded - $10B deficit in revenue from this.  Compensatory tax cuts for the carbon tax maintained.

Cuts to CSIRO and ABS funding - puts basic research funding further behind our trading partners and makes the stats the Govt and RBA use for determining how the economy is travelling even less reliable.

Funding to state infrastructure without CBAs - against election promises.

Continued to make salary packaging very tax effective.

Doctor copayment to fund a medical (slush) fund - little thought as to what it's supposed to achieve.

$250M for faith based chaplaincy with schools prohibited from maintaining their current non secular counsellors.

lets not forget the extra money borrowed and provided to the RBA last year.

So exactly what well intentioned ideas are you referring to that would help the budget get back to balance?


----------



## Julia

Syd, it's not my responsibility to be an apologist for the government.  I've simply observed a preference for their determination not to continue to rack up debt for future generations to pay.

As you will well know if you've read my past posts, I've criticised plenty of aspects of the government's budget and I don't propose to repeat any of it now.


----------



## banco

Smurf1976 said:


> From a defence perspective, it seems a bad idea to be buying "off the shelf" equipment manufactured overseas. Do that and should we need to use it in anger, well then (1) our capabilities become extremely well known and (2) we are reliant on foreigners for ongoing support.
> 
> That sounds a bit like having the plans for your building security system prominently displayed in the front window for all to see. Should anyone want to break in, they'll know exactly how to evade or disable the system. Same concept with foreign military equipment really.
> 
> I can accept that there might be some price difference in local production versus imports, but a 4:1 ration doesn't sound right to me given that Japan is a developed country with relatively high costs. Something just isn't right there - in short I have trouble believing that it's really such a huge difference to build a comparable submarine. Are we comparing similarly equipped vessels here? Or are we comparing a postie bike with a limousine?




Economies of scale and not needing to reinvent the wheel explain the cost difference.


----------



## SirRumpole

> I can accept that there might be some price difference in local production versus imports, but a 4:1 ration doesn't sound right to me given that Japan is a developed country with relatively high costs. Something just isn't right there - in short I have trouble believing that it's really such a huge difference to build a comparable submarine. Are we comparing similarly equipped vessels here? Or are we comparing a postie bike with a limousine?




Labors NBN was supposed to cost up to $96 billion according to Turnbull before the election.

I don't think we can rule out an inflation of the price of locally produced submarines for the political revenge gained by the Coalition by sticking it up their class enemy, namely Australian unions.


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> Syd, it's not my responsibility to be an apologist for the government.  I've simply observed a preference for their determination not to continue to rack up debt for future generations to pay.
> 
> As you will well know if you've read my past posts, I've criticised plenty of aspects of the government's budget and I don't propose to repeat any of it now.




I'm just not aware of any actions to achieve that goal. Lots of talk but not much in thew way of well created policy.  I've yet to see any indication that the budget deficit is under control. The _unforseen_ drop in iron ore and coal prices is going to hit very hard by the end of the year.  There doesn't seem to be any acknowledgment as yet that the budget is going to suffer a massive revenue short fall.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> I'm just not aware of any actions to achieve that goal. Lots of talk but not much in thew way of well created policy.  I've yet to see any indication that the budget deficit is under control. The _unforseen_ drop in iron ore and coal prices is going to hit very hard by the end of the year.  There doesn't seem to be any acknowledgment as yet that the budget is going to suffer a massive revenue short fall.




We must remember team Australia whereby we must all work together.

In the good times we ask for more and in the bad times we still want more.

As John F.Kennedy once said, "THINK WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY AND NOT WHAT YOUR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR YOU".


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> We must remember team Australia whereby we must all work together.
> 
> In the good times we ask for more and in the bad times we still want more.
> 
> As John F.Kennedy once said, "THINK WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY AND NOT WHAT YOUR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR YOU".




So what is your definition of team Australia?  Is it the same as Abbott's?  I've not really heard him describe what it means.  Is it just blindly following what the Government says?


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> So what is your definition of team Australia?  Is it the same as Abbott's?  I've not really heard him describe what it means.  Is it just blindly following what the Government says?




Nobody should have to explain to you how a team works Syd......it is pure elementary 'dear Watson', meaning people work together for a winning outcome.

As I stated before, we (and more so the unions) are quick to put out our hands to share the wealth of the nation when things are going well....how often have you heard the Green/Labor socialist left wingers demand a share of the countries wealth from minerals?....But at times, like we are experiencing now, the price of our minerals, and in particular iron ore, has had a dramatic drop in price and now is the time when the unions should be saying, OK we will lend a hand or do they adopt the same socialist mentality of expecting the Government to prop them up with subsidies or industry assistance in order to maintain with high wages..

Sometime ago, somebody in their wisdom decided we should entertain a multicultural society, mainly because we are a large country with a low population...we needed more people to foster growth and to a point it has worked.....The problem is now we have created a monster for ourselves by allowing radical religious immigrants from countries who are not prepared to accept the Australian way of life....they form their own ghettos and refuse to assimilate....they want to their own laws and are not prepared to accept ours....They expect welfare because they are either not skilled or do not understand English.

IN MY BOOK, THAT IS NOT TEAM WORK.

As Bill Crosby  says and I go along with what he says, I am tired of it all..





Not new, I’ve seen this before (perhaps the guy found the fountain of youth and is stuck at 83?) but still a refreshing set of thoughts.

Subject: Bill Cosby at 83


Life isn't tied with a bow, but it's still a gift. 
And life isn't fair, but it's good!!











I'm 83.  Except for brief period in the 50s when I was doing my National Service, I've worked 
hard since I was 17.  Except for some serious health challenges, I put in 50-hour weeks, and 
didn't call in sick in nearly 40 years.

I made a reasonable salary, but I didn't inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, it looks as though retirement was a bad idea, and I'm tired. Very tired.

I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth" to people who don't have my work ethic. 
I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and 
give it to people too lazy to earn it.

I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can read dozens of 
stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor"; of Muslims rioting over some slight offence; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't "believers"; of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death 
for "adultery"; of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because 
the Qur'an and Sharia law tells them to.

I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia and 
other Arab countries use our oil money to fund mosques and madrassa Islamic schools to preach 
hate in Australia, New Zealand, UK, America and Canada, while no one from these countries 
are allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia or any other Arab 
country to teach love and tolerance.

I'm tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is
allowed to debate.

I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, 
and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff
white powder up their noses or stick a needle in their arm while they tried to fight It off?

I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of all parties talking about 
innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only 
mistake was getting caught.

I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.

I'm really tired of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions. I'm tired of 
hearing them blame the government, or discrimination or big-whatever for their problems.

I'm also tired and fed up with seeing young men and women in their teens and early 20s be-deck themselves in tattoos and face studs, thereby making themselves un-employable and claiming 
money from the Government.

Yes, I'm damn tired. But I'm also glad to be 83. Because, mostly, I'm not going to have to see 
the world these people are making. I'm just sorry for my granddaughters and their children.
  Thank God I'm on the way out and not on the way in.

There is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on!  
This is your chance to make a difference.




BILL COSBY 




















This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.


----------



## SirRumpole

Wow, that was a rant eh noco ?



Well, good on you for working hard all your life, most people do.

A couple of points though

Drug addiction.

A lot of people would take your position until it happens to be their son or daughter or grandchild who is a drug addict, then it turns out to be the fault of the dirty drug pusher who sold them the stuff. Some people make mistakes with drugs, others make a living out of them. The people who make the mistakes can have their lives turned around, but they need help to do it. Don't just write them off.

"People too lazy to work". 

I think you underestimate the role of technology in job destruction. Jobs for unskilled youth are disappearing fast because of the "self service" mentality, allied with technology and the internet.

 How many kids 30 years ago got jobs pumping petrol, teller staff, sales assistants or bank clerks ? These jobs are being replaced by self service petrol stations, ATMS and internet marketing. The face of the workforce is rapidly changing and there are not enough jobs being created in the unskilled sector to make up for those lost by technology.

Being 83, you probably haven't worked for 20 years or more, so I suggest you may be a bit out of touch with the current situation.

Take care of yourself old chap, and have another cup of Milo and a nap.

Cheers.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Wow, that was a rant eh noco ?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, good on you for working hard all your life, most people do.
> 
> A couple of points though
> 
> Drug addiction.
> 
> A lot of people would take your position until it happens to be their son or daughter or grandchild who is a drug addict, then it turns out to be the fault of the dirty drug pusher who sold them the stuff. Some people make mistakes with drugs, others make a living out of them. The people who make the mistakes can have their lives turned around, but they need help to do it. Don't just write them off.
> 
> "People too lazy to work".
> 
> I think you underestimate the role of technology in job destruction. Jobs for unskilled youth are disappearing fast because of the "self service" mentality, allied with technology and the internet.
> 
> How many kids 30 years ago got jobs pumping petrol, teller staff, sales assistants or bank clerks ? These jobs are being replaced by self service petrol stations, ATMS and internet marketing. The face of the workforce is rapidly changing and there are not enough jobs being created in the unskilled sector to make up for those lost by technology.
> 
> Being 83, you probably haven't worked for 20 years or more, so I suggest you may be a bit out of touch with the current situation.
> 
> Take care of yourself old chap, and have another cup of Milo and a nap.
> 
> Cheers.





Rumpy, I don't think you read into text of the post......That take was written by Bill Crosby who is 83 ...not me.

So why do you regard it as rant when in fact it is reality....As I have stated before an attack on my character does not worry me.....it was you who stated "LETS KEEP IT CIVIL" .....your rude remarks  "*have another cup of Milo and a nap."
*does not become you.
I only stopped working at the beginning of this year albeit 16 hours per week..

With regards to young people going on drugs, they only have themselves to blame and nobody else......your mind controls your body.....They all know what the affect drugs have on their brain and yet they still get involved and then have to be rehabilitated at the expense of the tax payer.

We live in modern times and not the stone age...we have to adapt to innovation and new technology and one of the reason is the high cost of labour, penalty rates on weekends, longer annual leave, leave loading, long service leave etc.etc. etc.....but given all what you say, unemployment has fallen and 121,000 extra jobs have been created much to the horror of the Green/Labor coalition......you cannot tell me workers are not better off than they were 60 years ago.......I started work when we worked a 40 hour a week, had two weeks annual
leave......no leave loading.....no long service leave after 15 years and what do we have today?......All the extras which all add up to the cost of living...those costs are always passed on.......we are a greedy lot and live in a selfish world....bugger you mate so long as I'm alright......believe me, I am the first to help someone I know who is in need....it is a pity others did not think the same way.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Nobody should have to explain to you how a team works Syd......it is pure elementary 'dear Watson', meaning people work together for a winning outcome.
> 
> As I stated before, we (and more so the unions) are quick to put out our hands to share the wealth of the nation when things are going well....how often have you heard the Green/Labor socialist left wingers demand a share of the countries wealth from minerals?....But at times, like we are experiencing now, the price of our minerals, and in particular iron ore, has had a dramatic drop in price and now is the time when the unions should be saying, OK we will lend a hand or do they adopt the same socialist mentality of expecting the Government to prop them up with subsidies or industry assistance in order to maintain with high wages..
> 
> Sometime ago, somebody in their wisdom decided we should entertain a multicultural society, mainly because we are a large country with a low population...we needed more people to foster growth and to a point it has worked.....The problem is now we have created a monster for ourselves by allowing radical religious immigrants from countries who are not prepared to accept the Australian way of life....they form their own ghettos and refuse to assimilate....they want to their own laws and are not prepared to accept ours....They expect welfare because they are either not skilled or do not understand English.
> 
> IN MY BOOK, THAT IS NOT TEAM WORK.




You're political beacon of the light, Howard, said "Australia needs a high level of immigration. I’m a high immigration man. I practiced that in Government."  Isn't he therefore part of the problem you believe has occurred?

Is it unions badgering the Govt for industry assistance, or the corporations?  CEOs seem to benefit as much, if not more than the workers, from all the handouts the Govt provides.  Look at the way companies play off states over pay roll tax exemptions and other incentives to locate their business within their state.  Look at how the large global companies play off countries over tax rates and R&D funding and grants and all the other pork they claim is required to make the host country a viable option.  

Look at the tax treaties Australia has with other countries and how they're used to siphon off billions from this country.  Apple and Google make billions here yet pay hardly any tax.  Is that the fault of the unions?  Look at Glencore making $15B in revenue from coal exports and paying practically no tax here because they were able to "borrow" from the parent company at 9% interest rates, or sold the coal to related companies.  Hundreds of millions in fees ripped out of the local company and sent to related Glencore subsidiaries in low taxing countries.   By your standards that's OK because it's capitalism.  Seems it's doing more harm than socialism.

My second employer was a large IT support company specialising in the airlines.  They had a global reach and were in negotiations with teh NSW Govt for setting up their regional HD here.  It had already been decided, but management told us to keep quiet till the negotiations were completed as they anted to ensure they received the greatest level of support.  Within 5 years the company had shut down the Sydney centre, moved the HD to Cairo and Rio, with the network support moved to Singapore.  That was the beginning of my knowledge of how outsourcing was going to kill off IT jobs in Australia. 

Then we have the $17B in subsidies to the resource sector on an annual basis.  Once again I'm sure you'll blame the unions for that one.

We have an economy based on rent seeking.  Pure and simple.  We have the minister of Trade and Investment saying "We are an oligopoly community. We shouldn't fight it. We should make the most of it. It does provide us with the critical mass and the size and innovation and for that ability to compete with overseas countries."  How is that compatible with a competitive economy?  Seems like we're being told we should be happy to pay higher prices in this country so our local "champions", fat off the local workers, can expand into other countries and sell their products and services at a lower price.

Basically the current Govt you support sees no problems with the path we've followed, nor do they see any problems with the path we're currently walking.


----------



## SirRumpole

I had no intention to offend you noco, but I don't really see why Bill Cosby's opinion is relevant to Australia.


----------



## sydboy007

Why is Joe Hockey not following the 40 other countries who have signed up for Common Reporting Standard which provides for the automatic exchange of financial account information between banks in different countries. It is designed to make it easier to track how money moves around the world so that governments can ensure companies pay their fair share of tax.

Hockey endorsed the standard earlier in the year at the G20 finance ministers meeting.  So why the reluctance to get on board?  Surely he doesn't think Australia would be worse from cracking down on the large multinational companies from shifting profits out of the country?

It's even harder to understand his relucatnce considering an extensive period of industry consultation has been completed and he's sat on the finding for the last couple of months.

Australia is the only G20 nation to have not signed up, and we currently hold the G20 chair.  What kind of message does that send tot he world?

Earlier in the month Hockey and Abbott were loudly complaining about the profit shifting that has been occuring, yet they're dragging their feet to sign up for what looks to be the best way to work with other countries to stop it from occurring.  So what's going on   Why the reluctance to sign up to the Common Reporting Standard 

Could it be that they remember what happened to Labor when they tried to make large companies pay a fairer share of tax in the country?


----------



## SirRumpole

> Could it be that they remember what happened to Labor when they tried to make large companies pay a fairer share of tax in the country?




Just supporting their financial backers.

The sooner we have publicly funded political parties with no other sources of revenue, the sooner this type of political largesse will disappear.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> You're political beacon of the light, Howard, said "Australia needs a high level of immigration. I’m a high immigration man. I practiced that in Government."  Isn't he therefore part of the problem you believe has occurred?
> 
> *Why is Howard part of the problem? ....I am sure he was not responsible for the 50,000 Muslims who illegally entered Australia 2008/2013...Howard had a responsible program of immigration by allowing skilled and professional people into the community*
> 
> Is it unions badgering the Govt for industry assistance, or the corporations?  CEOs seem to benefit as much, if not more than the workers, from all the handouts the Govt provides.  Look at the way companies play off states over pay roll tax exemptions and other incentives to locate their business within their state.  Look at how the large global companies play off countries over tax rates and R&D funding and grants and all the other pork they claim is required to make the host country a viable option.
> 
> *In the majority of cases, industry assistance was sought because of the high demands by the unions....many industries have become non competitive for this very reason.....industry assistance is really another term of socialism.....'help me if you can coz I.m feelin' down".....you never hear the unions coming to the party when a company becomes insolvent because they cannot compete.......rarely do you hear them say we will go back to working 40 hours a week, take 2 weeks annual leave instead of 4....remove leave loading and some of the outlandish penalty rates....oh no.....they would rather complain the Government is not doing enough to save their jobs.....well I say, wake up Australia....your country needs you......I would love to see these union heavies and the union members working for themselves.....I am sure they would starve to death if they thought they could make money working 36 hours per week.*
> 
> 
> Look at the tax treaties Australia has with other countries and how they're used to siphon off billions from this country.  Apple and Google make billions here yet pay hardly any tax.  Is that the fault of the unions?  Look at Glencore making $15B in revenue from coal exports and paying practically no tax here because they were able to "borrow" from the parent company at 9% interest rates, or sold the coal to related companies.  Hundreds of millions in fees ripped out of the local company and sent to related Glencore subsidiaries in low taxing countries.   By your standards that's OK because it's capitalism.  Seems it's doing more harm than socialism.
> 
> *I am not familiar with these so called tax treaties, perhaps you might like to enlighten me.....I do know they all have to pay royalties on what they take out of the ground and I noticed you avoided stating that point to suit your own argument.*
> 
> Then we have the $17B in subsidies to the resource sector on an annual basis.  Once again I'm sure you'll blame the unions for that one.
> 
> *Some details or a link on this point would be appreciated.*
> 
> We have an economy based on rent seeking.  Pure and simple.  We have the minister of Trade and Investment saying "We are an oligopoly community. We shouldn't fight it. We should make the most of it. It does provide us with the critical mass and the size and innovation and for that ability to compete with overseas countries."  How is that compatible with a competitive economy?  Seems like we're being told we should be happy to pay higher prices in this country so our local "champions", fat off the local workers, can expand into other countries and sell their products and services at a lower price.
> 
> * "oligopoly" ????this section of your statement just does not seem to make any sense.*
> 
> Basically the current Govt you support sees no problems with the path we've followed, nor do they see any problems with the path we're currently walking.




So what path are we following and what path should we be following.....I do not believe you understand that most of the path we have to follow has been laid out by previous Government legislation.


----------



## Macquack

SirRumpole said:


> I had no intention to offend you noco, but I don't really see why Bill Cosby's opinion is relevant to Australia.




Bill Cosby is worth $350 million and he is having a whinge and crying poor!

A minimum of $100,000 for poor old Bill to make a speaking engagement sounds like he is doing it really tough.

http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celeb/comedian/bill-cosby-net-worth/


----------



## IFocus

I think Arthur is really to rejoin Australia should fit in nicely


Arthur Sinodinos says donation laundering scheme didn't pass ‘pub test’

Sidelined senator tells corruption inquiry he was not aware FEF money was from prohibited donors and accepts no responsibility


http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...onation-laundering-scheme-didnt-pass-pub-test


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I had no intention to offend you noco, but I don't really see why Bill Cosby's opinion is relevant to Australia.





It is very relevant as far I am concerned because the same thing is happening here and you really cannot deny it.


----------



## noco

Macquack said:


> Bill Cosby is worth $350 million and he is having a whinge and crying poor!
> 
> A minimum of $100,000 for poor old Bill to make a speaking engagement sounds like he is doing it really tough.
> 
> http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celeb/comedian/bill-cosby-net-worth/




How did you decipher that he is crying poor?.....I did not detect any suggestion.

So he has talent as a Comedian...good luck to him......Are you jealous of his success?

So he demands $100,000 to speak at some special engagement......He must be highly regarded to demand that type of money...obviously someone would be making money from his appearance including his government who would most likely take 50% of his $100,000 leaving hm with $50,000.

He has stated a very valid point as to what is going on in the USA and the same thing in Australia and many in Australia think the same thing but remain silent about it for fear of  being branded as a racist or a bigot.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> It is very relevant as far I am concerned because the same thing is happening here and you really cannot deny it.




What are we trying to deny ?

I don't deny there is a drug problem.

I don't deny there is an unemployment problem.

What I do deny is your one eyed view of the people who have these problems and their causes.

As for multiculturalism, I think you have a point. Immigration numbers were high under Howard, and Rudd & Gillard. 

The family reunion program should be abolished in favour of a skills based system. Preference should be given to single people or couples without children to ease the burden on schools which are getting overcrowded.


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> I had no intention to offend you noco, but I don't really see why Bill Cosby's opinion is relevant to Australia.



Perhaps simply because his lament applies across many countries, is not confined to the USA by any means, and is possibly a reflection of what many people his age are feeling.



Macquack said:


> Bill Cosby is worth $350 million and he is having a whinge and crying poor!



Typical misreading.  I didn't see him crying poor anywhere.   He's perfectly entitled to express his concerns.



SirRumpole said:


> Just supporting their financial backers.
> 
> The sooner we have publicly funded political parties with no other sources of revenue, the sooner this type of political largesse will disappear.



No thanks.   I'd regard it as the ultimate insult to have to fund them.


----------



## noco

Julia said:


> Perhaps simply because his lament applies across many countries, is not confined to the USA by any means, and is possibly a reflection of what many people his age are feeling.
> 
> 
> Typical misreading.  I didn't see him crying poor anywhere.   He's perfectly entitled to express his concerns.
> 
> No thanks.   I'd regard it as the ultimate insult to have to fund them.




Julia, since there has been reduced support for unions in recent times, the unions contribution to the Labor coffers has also diminished, so I am sure they would welcome funds from the Government to finance their election efforts.....that would probably be more than the funds they could raise themselves.

I would be curious to know if the HSU has the same support from members as they enjoyed several years ago.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> So what path are we following and what path should we be following.....I do not believe you understand that most of the path we have to follow has been laid out by previous Government legislation.




Are you saying just the previous Labor Government, or all the previous Governments?

_Why is Howard part of the problem? ....I am sure he was not responsible for the 50,000 Muslims who illegally entered Australia 2008/2013...Howard had a responsible program of immigration by allowing skilled and professional people into the community_

He says he was for high immigration.  He actively encouraged it.  As for the 50000 illegal Muslims, how many of them are in Australia?  You might find the below attached spreadsheet enlightening as to exactly where all the immigrants are arriving from.  

_In the majority of cases, industry assistance was sought because of the high demands by the unions....many industries have become non competitive for this very reason.....industry assistance is really another term of socialism.....'help me if you can coz I.m feelin' down".....you never hear the unions coming to the party when a company becomes insolvent because they cannot compete.......rarely do you hear them say we will go back to working 40 hours a week, take 2 weeks annual leave instead of 4....remove leave loading and some of the outlandish penalty rates....oh no.....they would rather complain the Government is not doing enough to save their jobs.....well I say, wake up Australia....your country needs you......I would love to see these union heavies and the union members working for themselves.....I am sure they would starve to death if they thought they could make money working 36 hours per week._

So poor management of the companies had no bearing on their hands out for Government assistance.  You don't think the restrictive zoning laws in Australia for land use haven't caused rents to be so high as to make a lot of businesses uncompetitive compared to countries that provide stronger rights of use?

You seem to be indicating the only thing holding Australian companies back are unions and wages.  Nothing else is relevant?

I'd argue that


lowering the currency - it is far to high when compared to the fall in the ToT over the last 12 months
ensuring the devaluation is real by keeping a lid on wages growth - growth only due to productivity improvements
lifting productivity through myriad reform agendas including high quality infrastructure - all projects to be screened by Infrastructure Australia before funding committed.
ensuring robust domestic competition in all markets to deliver the most efficient businesses - not accepting oligopolies as the The minister for Trade would have us.
supporting demand though welfare for the vulnerable - so that people accept the painful adjustments that need to occur.

are a better option than trying to get our wages down to the levels in Thailand or Malaysia.  

_I am not familiar with these so called tax treaties, perhaps you might like to enlighten me.....I do know they all have to pay royalties on what they take out of the ground and I noticed you avoided stating that point to suit your own argument._

http://www.treasury.gov.au/Policy-Topics/Taxation/Tax-Treaties/HTML

_Then we have the $17B in subsidies to the resource sector on an annual basis. Once again I'm sure you'll blame the unions for that one.

Some details or a link on this point would be appreciated._

I misread.  Was actually $17.6B over 6 years - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-...illions-of-dollars-in-state-subsidies/5545714

http://www.tai.org.au/content/pouring-more-fuel-fire  links to the full report.

_"oligopoly" ????this section of your statement just does not seem to make any sense._

An oligopoly is a market form in which a market or industry is dominated by a small number of sellers (oligopolists). Oligopolies can result from various forms of collusion which reduce competition and lead to higher prices for consumers.[1]

With few sellers, each oligopolist is likely to be aware of the actions of the others. The decisions of one firm therefore influence and are influenced by the decisions of other firms.   Strategic planning by oligopolists needs to take into account the likely responses of the other market participants.

Sounds very much like the Australian economy, though we are often duopolistic rather than oligopoly.  4 main banks with 85%+ of new mortgages since the GFC.  2 airlines.  1 dominant telco with 2 distant wannabees in the mobile space.  2 dominant newspaper conglomerates.  2 Dominant supermarket / liquor chains.  How much do these companies abuse their market power to set prices higher than they would be with genuine competition?


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> No thanks.   I'd regard it as the ultimate insult to have to fund them.




Fair enough, if you want the country run by those with the most money and wanting more, or even more repugnant to you I'm sure, the unions.


----------



## Smurf1976

SirRumpole said:


> How many kids 30 years ago got jobs pumping petrol, teller staff, sales assistants or bank clerks ? These jobs are being replaced by self service petrol stations, ATMS and internet marketing. The face of the workforce is rapidly changing and there are not enough jobs being created in the unskilled sector to make up for those lost by technology.



Even checkout jobs in supermarkets are disappearing in favour of self service now. Fewer jobs but you can be pretty sure that the cost saving won't be passed on in the form of lower prices. No chance of that happening.

I keep hearing that service industries are supposedly the future of employment as manufacturing declines. But all around me I see service jobs disappearing too. Banks, petrol, shops, public transport - all have either drastically cut numbers or done away with entire occupations altogether. No such job as a bus conductor these days. 

There's a valid argument that we can use human effort better than via bus conductors and so on certainly. But the unemployment, and more to the point underemployment, statistics suggest that isn't really happening in practice.


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> Fair enough, if you want the country run by those with the most money and wanting more, or even more repugnant to you I'm sure, the unions.



Yes, valid point.  Both options are equally repugnant.
I'm just a bit fed up with all the corruption attached to donation of funds by business and special interest groups on the one hand and unions extracting money from members for their own political purposes on the other.  Don't know what the answer is, to be honest.


----------



## SirRumpole

> There's a valid argument that we can use human effort better than via bus conductors and so on certainly. But the unemployment, and more to the point underemployment, statistics suggest that isn't really happening in practice.




Very true, and while few people would make a career out of pumping gas or being a bus conductor, a lot of people used those types of jobs to support them while working their way through uni. What do they do now ? Some may have a partner who is working, or parents that support them but a lot of others just can't afford to go to uni and can't get a job because they have no qualifications. 

We are losing generations of workers to technological change, but we still bring in people from overseas in droves. Crazy.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Very true, and while few people would make a career out of pumping gas or being a bus conductor, a lot of people used those types of jobs to support them while working their way through uni. What do they do now ? Some may have a partner who is working, or parents that support them but a lot of others just can't afford to go to uni and can't get a job because they have no qualifications.
> 
> We are losing generations of workers to technological change, but we still bring in people from overseas in droves. Crazy.




No doubt if innovations and new technology  had not taken place as far as self service at the servo, banks and the like, cost of consumer goods may have been higher than they now.

Why are you still pushing your barrow on bringing in overseas workers.......we have been through this before as to the reasons why.....we cannot get our Aussies to leave the comfort of city life to work in remote areas...we cannot get Aussie workers to go and pick fruit because it is too hard work so we allow back packers in on working visas who are not afraid of hard work. 

I do hope we don't have to go through this megalomania again Rumpy.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> No doubt if innovations and new technology  had not taken place as far as self service at the servo, banks and the like, cost of consumer goods may have been higher than they now.
> 
> Why are you still pushing your barrow on bringing in overseas workers.......we have been through this before as to the reasons why.....we cannot get our Aussies to leave the comfort of city life to work in remote areas...we cannot get Aussie workers to go and pick fruit because it is too hard work so we allow back packers in on working visas who are not afraid of hard work.
> 
> I do hope we don't have to go through this megalomania again Rumpy.




If we bring in un skilled people to fill temporary shortages, ok. But we also bring in highly skilled people because we couldn't be bothered training them here. That is condemning generations to the dole because of the ideology that business wants an oversupply of workers to drive down wages. Not megalomania noco, bastardry.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> If we bring in un skilled people to fill temporary shortages, ok. But we also bring in highly skilled people because we couldn't be bothered training them here. That is condemning generations to the dole because of the ideology that business wants an oversupply of workers to drive down wages. Not megalomania noco, bastardry.




How did you decipher all that?......Training is available to who ever wants to do it so why do you say WE couldn't be bothered training them?....That is a furphy....It is up to the individual whether he/she wants to be a plumber, electrician, a carpenter, a boiler maker welder or a fitter and turner,,,,,,the opportunities are there for the taking.....I have a Grand son 23 years of age who did his course in diesel mechanics at his own expense and is now earning well over $120,000 per year in Central Queensland mines....He was not afraid to relocate.....so I don't go along with your argument of an excuse instead of the real reason.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Why is Joe Hockey not following the 40 other countries who have signed up for Common Reporting Standard which provides for the automatic exchange of financial account information between banks in different countries. It is designed to make it easier to track how money moves around the world so that governments can ensure companies pay their fair share of tax.
> 
> Hockey endorsed the standard earlier in the year at the G20 finance ministers meeting.  So why the reluctance to get on board?  Surely he doesn't think Australia would be worse from cracking down on the large multinational companies from shifting profits out of the country?
> 
> It's even harder to understand his relucatnce considering an extensive period of industry consultation has been completed and he's sat on the finding for the last couple of months.
> 
> Australia is the only G20 nation to have not signed up, and we currently hold the G20 chair.  What kind of message does that send tot he world?
> 
> Earlier in the month Hockey and Abbott were loudly complaining about the profit shifting that has been occuring, yet they're dragging their feet to sign up for what looks to be the best way to work with other countries to stop it from occurring.  So what's going on   Why the reluctance to sign up to the Common Reporting Standard
> 
> Could it be that they remember what happened to Labor when they tried to make large companies pay a fairer share of tax in the country?




sydboy, I think you may have jumped the gun about Hockey and Abbott not signing up to the COMMON REPORTING STANDARD.

According to link below, it only comes up for discussion in the G20 Finance Ministers meeting in Cairns and then taken to the G20 meeting in Brisbane later in the year.

I don't know where you received your information from but I would delighted to know. 


http://articles.economictimes.india...l-convention-mutual-administrative-assistance


----------



## boofhead

noco said:


> we cannot get Aussie workers to go and pick fruit because it is too hard work so we allow back packers in on working visas who are not afraid of hard work.




That is not true. Governments seem to be perpetuating that myth.


----------



## Macquack

noco said:


> How did you decipher that he is crying poor?.....I did not detect any suggestion.




This bit -  "*I made a reasonable salary*".

If you are worth 350 million bucks and charge $100,000 for a speaking engagement then you are a blatant liar to say you "made a reasonable salary".


----------



## noco

boofhead said:


> That is not true. Governments seem to be perpetuating that myth.





Do you have some proof?


----------



## noco

Macquack said:


> This bit -  "*I made a reasonable salary*".
> 
> If you are worth 350 million bucks and charge $100,000 for a speaking engagement then you are a blatant liar to say you "made a reasonable salary".





*I'm 83. Except for brief period in the 50s when I was doing my National Service, I've worked
hard since I was 17. Except for some serious health challenges, I put in 50-hour weeks, and
didn't call in sick in nearly 40 years.

I made a reasonable salary, but I didn't inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, it looks as though retirement was a bad idea, and I'm tired. Very tired.
*

I do believe he was referring to his first 40 years of his working life.....I would say he did not belong to a union if he was working 50 hours per week.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> sydboy, I think you may have jumped the gun about Hockey and Abbott not signing up to the COMMON REPORTING STANDARD.
> 
> According to link below, it only comes up for discussion in the G20 Finance Ministers meeting in Cairns and then taken to the G20 meeting in Brisbane later in the year.
> 
> I don't know where you received your information from but I would delighted to know.
> 
> 
> http://articles.economictimes.india...l-convention-mutual-administrative-assistance




http://www.andrewleigh.com/hockey_must_sign_up_for_more_tax_transparency

_In August, over 40 countries joined an Early Adopters Group and committed to fast-tracking implementation of the standard from January 2016. Despite Treasurer Joe Hockey endorsing the standard after the G20 Finance Ministers meeting in February, our name was conspicuously absent from that list._

So the question is why is Hockey complaining about the siphoning of tax revenue out of Australia and not signing up to the early adopters group when 40 other countries have?


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> *I'm 83. Except for brief period in the 50s when I was doing my National Service, I've worked
> hard since I was 17. Except for some serious health challenges, I put in 50-hour weeks, and
> didn't call in sick in nearly 40 years.
> 
> I made a reasonable salary, but I didn't inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, it looks as though retirement was a bad idea, and I'm tired. Very tired.
> *
> 
> I do believe he was referring to his first 40 years of his working life.....I would say he did not belong to a union if he was working 50 hours per week.




So, are you saying that is the life we should aspire to?  Are we mere workers here to just server the economy and elites, or are we here to have a good life?  Do you begrudge all the working conditions we have compared to workers from 100 years ago?

Countries like Sweeden, Switzerland, Sweeden, Norway, Germany, Netherlands, all show you can be a high wage country and competitive.  Japan should probably be in the list too.


----------



## boofhead

noco said:


> Do you have some proof?




I can't find it but I did respond with some information about nuances - for example labour hire companies also owning rental properties.

How about a personal delivery of resume etc. to a berry producer to have them say in the local newspaper locals didn't apply etc. Know of a few locals that applied and never hear a word.

If you have a mole that knows the inner workings of paddock to retailer for swedes processed by Harvest Moon in NW Tasmania you may be enlightened.

Not all harvesting is the same but there is enough out there working the system and perpetuating the myth Aussies don't want to do the work it is frustrating. If anything is brought up in some public forum it is passed off as an isolated case.

If you're ever in NW Tas I'll make arrangements so you can get very deep in the subject and change your mind.


----------



## Julia

sydboy007 said:


> So, are you saying that is the life we should aspire to?  Are we mere workers here to just server the economy and elites, or are we here to have a good life?  Do you begrudge all the working conditions we have compared to workers from 100 years ago?
> 
> Countries like Sweeden, Switzerland, Sweeden, Norway, Germany, Netherlands, all show you can be a high wage country and competitive.  Japan should probably be in the list too.



Syd, all your posts are completely negative about Australia.   One has to wonder why you don't simply up stakes and move to one of the sources of paradise above.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> So, are you saying that is the life we should aspire to?  Are we mere workers here to just server the economy and elites, or are we here to have a good life?  Do you begrudge all the working conditions we have compared to workers from 100 years ago?
> 
> Countries like Sweeden, Switzerland, Sweeden, Norway, Germany, Netherlands, all show you can be a high wage country and competitive.  Japan should probably be in the list too.




What has all that jargon got to do with Bill Crosby?...I think you have strayed a little.


----------



## noco

boofhead said:


> I can't find it but I did respond with some information about nuances - for example labour hire companies also owning rental properties.




Perhaps Terese Rein (Mrs Rudd) could give you all that information.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> http://www.andrewleigh.com/hockey_must_sign_up_for_more_tax_transparency
> 
> _In August, over 40 countries joined an Early Adopters Group and committed to fast-tracking implementation of the standard from January 2016. Despite Treasurer Joe Hockey endorsing the standard after the G20 Finance Ministers meeting in February, our name was conspicuously absent from that list._
> 
> So the question is why is Hockey complaining about the siphoning of tax revenue out of Australia and not signing up to the early adopters group when 40 other countries have?




I would not take too much notice of Andrew Leigh......he has tried to beat up the situation for political point scoring.

Hockey is committed to the *COMMON REPORT STANDARD*



*9.
We are committed to a global response to Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) based
on sound tax poli
cy principles.
Profits should be taxed where economic activities deriving the
profits are performed and where value is created. We continue our full support for the
G20/OECD BEPS Action Plan,
and look forward to progress as set out in the agreed timetable.
By the Brisbane summit, we will start to deliver effective, practical and sustainable measures to
counter BEPS across all industries, including
traditional, digital and digitalised firms
, in an
increasingly globalised economy. We endorse the Common Report
ing Standard for automatic
exchange of tax information on a reciprocal basis
and will work with all relevant parties,
including our financial institutions, to detail our implementation plan at our September meeting.
In parallel, we expect to begin to excha
nge information automatically on tax matters among G20
members by the end of 2015. We call for the early adoption of the standard by those jurisdictions
that are able to do so. We call on all financial centres to match our commitments. We urge all
jurisdic
tions that have not yet complied with the existing standard for exchange of information on
request
to do so and sign the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in
Tax Matters without further delay
. We stand ready to give
tougher incent
ives to those
14
jurisdictions that have not qualified for Phase 2 of the evaluations. We will engage with, and
support low
-
income and developing countries so that they benefit from our work on tax. 

*

https://www.g20.org/sites/default/f...nk Governors Sydney 22-23 February 2014_0.pdf


----------



## Smurf1976

So far as fruit picking etc jobs are concerned, it's very much a case of "locals need not apply" to a large extent.

Well, OK, they might agree to employ a local if you also agree to purchase your accommodation and other services from the contractor harvesting the crop. Needless to say, that doesn't really work if you already have a house with a mortgage and must then pay for duplicate accommodation that you don't need otherwise they won't employ you.

It's not a shortage of workers, it's just that they won't employ people who don't need to purchases the other services the same company is offering (ie hostel accommodation). In practice, those jobs are for backpackers etc only due to this.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> What has all that jargon got to do with Bill Crosby?...I think you have strayed a little.




What has Bill Cosby got to do with this thread ? It's about the Abbott government.

Try and stay on topic please.


----------



## noco

Smurf1976 said:


> So far as fruit picking etc jobs are concerned, it's very much a case of "locals need not apply" to a large extent.
> 
> Well, OK, they might agree to employ a local if you also agree to purchase your accommodation and other services from the contractor harvesting the crop. Needless to say, that doesn't really work if you already have a house with a mortgage and must then pay for duplicate accommodation that you don't need otherwise they won't employ you.
> 
> It's not a shortage of workers, it's just that they won't employ people who don't need to purchases the other services the same company is offering (ie hostel accommodation). In practice, those jobs are for backpackers etc only due to this.




No my friend you are very wrong.

Locals do work picking fruit and I know of some Townsvillians who travel to Bowen during the tomato and mango season....the locals have their own camper vans and the pack packers stop at back packers hostels....The local content is insufficient and that is why they need pack packers as well. However having said that, there are plenty more locals who are on the dole but are too lazy to work. 

So I guess that counters your argument.....You are working on pure supposition without logic..


----------



## chiff

Regards fruit picking-from my knowledge in southern Australia most of the fruit picking is done by contractors hiring pickers.Of course there are exceptions ,but the game has changed in recent years,and it is not as easy for locals to seek this employment.In fact impossible in a lot of areas.


----------



## overlap

noco said:


> It is very relevant as far I am concerned because the same thing is happening here and you really cannot deny it.






noco said:


> How did you decipher that he is crying poor?.....I did not detect any suggestion.
> 
> So he has talent as a Comedian...good luck to him......Are you jealous of his success?
> 
> So he demands $100,000 to speak at some special engagement......He must be highly regarded to demand that type of money...obviously someone would be making money from his appearance including his government who would most likely take 50% of his $100,000 leaving hm with $50,000.
> 
> He has stated a very valid point as to what is going on in the USA and the same thing in Australia and many in Australia think the same thing but remain silent about it for fear of  being branded as a racist or a bigot.




Cosby didn't say what's being attributed to him.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/imtired.asp

http://billcosby.com/2011/09/if-you-got-the-bogus-email-its-time-to-hit-delete/


----------



## explod

Pizza shop at Mornington paying his girls $7.00 per hour and as a side note, squalid dirty conditions.

My Grandson says they are scared to say anything because they may lose their job and not be able to get anything else.

When I was a youngster noco I could walk out of one door and straight into another.

So apart from the guvmint filling the front pages with ISIS propaganda, where are these jobs going to come from noco and when are they going to put it up in the news as our most important issues.


----------



## overlap

chiff said:


> Regards fruit picking-from my knowledge in southern Australia most of the fruit picking is done by contractors hiring pickers.Of course there are exceptions ,but the game has changed in recent years,and it is not as easy for locals to seek this employment.In fact impossible in a lot of areas.




I've lived on a couple of very diverse and 'rich' rural areas. I've done casual agricultural work for pocket money while still at school and several years later when resettling in to a new area. Any half decent jobs in terms of continuity and income is very much about who you know. Further, a lot of the basic jobs that someone could use to get established in the first place don't exist any more because they're mechanised. And in some cases the industries have gone.

It's true there are those who don't want to work and those who 'don't try hard enough', but to say our national and individual problems will be addressed by young and not-so-young folks heading off to the fields is no more realistic in rural areas than the same masses serving each other in coffee in the cities.

Individuals dragging themselves up by the bootstraps does happen but in general most successful folk don't do it that way. Check the real bios of our pollies and others who trumpet this sort of generalist nonsense.


----------



## SirRumpole

overlap said:


> Cosby didn't say what's being attributed to him.
> 
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/imtired.asp
> 
> http://billcosby.com/2011/09/if-you-got-the-bogus-email-its-time-to-hit-delete/




Oh noco, you've done it again

:silly::blbl::nono:


----------



## IFocus

noco said:


> No my friend you are very wrong.
> 
> Locals do work picking fruit and I know of some Townsvillians who travel to Bowen during the tomato and mango season....the locals have their own camper vans and the pack packers stop at back packers hostels....The local content is insufficient and that is why they need pack packers as well. However having said that, there are plenty more locals who are on the dole but are too lazy to work.
> 
> So I guess that counters your argument.....You are working on pure supposition without logic..




Nope in WA its done by Asians being ripped off by other Asians


----------



## IFocus

overlap said:


> I've lived on a couple of very diverse and 'rich' rural areas. I've done casual agricultural work for pocket money while still at school and several years later when resettling in to a new area. Any half decent jobs in terms of continuity and income is very much about who you know. Further, a lot of the basic jobs that someone could use to get established in the first place don't exist any more because they're mechanised. And in some cases the industries have gone.
> 
> It's true there are those who don't want to work and those who 'don't try hard enough', but to say our national and individual problems will be addressed by young and not-so-young folks heading off to the fields is no more realistic in rural areas than the same masses serving each other in coffee in the cities.
> 
> Individuals dragging themselves up by the bootstraps does happen but in general most successful folk don't do it that way. Check the real bios of our pollies and others who trumpet this sort of generalist nonsense.





Thanks overlap for a common sense post


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> What has Bill Cosby got to do with this thread ? It's about the Abbott government.
> 
> Try and stay on topic please.




My post related to *TEAM* work in Australia which related to all Australians irrespective of their color, creed of political views.

I read the statement by Bill Crosby which some say is false...Nevertheless, the contents I fully agree with and is related to this thread in many ways of past discussions for and against the Abbott Government and the Green/Labor Party.

It refers to :-

The spread of wealth.
Religion.
Muslims
Tolerance of other Cultures.
Global Warming.
Terrorists

So we will have to agree to disagree as to the reason why I quoted what I did.....and yes I am tired of it all too.


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> Syd, all your posts are completely negative about Australia.   One has to wonder why you don't simply up stakes and move to one of the sources of paradise above.




Funny, all the negativity from people on this forum when Labor was in Govt and I don't seem to remember you advising them to pick up stumps and move on.

Are you saying the issues I'm highlighting are not important?  At least I take the time to provide alternatives to some of the tricky issues we're facing.

I'm saying we should wish to emulate the success of some other countries rather than try to grind down working conditions till we can compete at the bottom of low wage countries.

How about you take the time to offer some insight on how you'd like to see the Govt move ahead on the competitiveness issues we're facing, or highlight some of the specific actions the Govt has taken the last year to get things moving in the right direction.

What export oriented capacity will we have in 2017?  Car manufacturing gone.  Most of the component manufacturers gone as well.  The education immigration industry will be finding it increasingly difficult to lure overseas students willing to spend a small fortune on studying here when the standards of Australian unis are sometimes lower than their home countries.  Further cuts to the CSIRO and uni funding don't leave us with the capabilities we need to compete in a world where knowledge is the key to wealth.  We'll be left with an increasingly narrow resources based export sector trying to fund pretty much every physical device we use in our daily lives.  That's a future I find increasingly troubling.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> I would not take too much notice of Andrew Leigh......he has tried to beat up the situation for political point scoring.
> 
> Hockey is committed to the *COMMON REPORT STANDARD*




If he's so committed why is he dragging his feet on the issue then?  Even the UK believes it's important enough to have signed up to it already.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> Funny, all the negativity from people on this forum when Labor was in Govt and I don't seem to remember you advising them to pick up stumps and move on.
> 
> Are you saying the issues I'm highlighting are not important?  At least I take the time to provide alternatives to some of the tricky issues we're facing.




Just to say I find your posts valuable syd.

You supply lots of supporting information, and although I may not always agree I find your points worthy of thought.

That's not to say I don't value other opinions as well.


----------



## overlap

overlap said:


> Individuals dragging themselves up by the bootstraps does happen but in general most successful folk don't do it that way. Check the real bios of our pollies and others who trumpet this sort of generalist nonsense.




http://www.idiottax.net/2014/08/when-you-have-no-economic-value.html#.VBTdD_4cRjo

I don't agree with everything he says in his blog, but the key point here is we're being hollowed out and pollies as class don't want to say it (too loudly). This government is the latest in a conga line offering various forms of bread & circuses to keep their show on the road.

more

http://www.idiottax.net/2014/05/divide-conquer-in-tasmania.html#.VBTfK_4cRjo

(Oz is still a pretty good place. Hopefully we won't blow it)

Edit: found the other quote I was looking for

http://www.idiottax.net/2014/07/who-votes-for-clive-palmer.html#.VBThWP4cRjo


> Empty suits from the duopoly who can parrot their lines with perfection and nod with concern from behind their leader on an electorate or state visit never suffer such scrutiny. And why would they? They're part of the approved democratic process of existing only to cancel out someone else's vote.


----------



## Julia

sydboy007 said:


> Funny, all the negativity from people on this forum when Labor was in Govt and I don't seem to remember you advising them to pick up stumps and move on.
> 
> Are you saying the issues I'm highlighting are not important?  At least I take the time to provide alternatives to some of the tricky issues we're facing.



And I clearly recall in the past thanking you for making some constructive suggestions.

But you do repeat over and over again the same stuff about Super, tax etc. even when we've all agreed there are unfair aspects to these just as there are to the Budget, particularly the harsh treatment of young people when there are simply not enough jobs for them.

It's not my responsibility to tell the government or anyone else what they should do to fix what's wrong.  I don't have the qualifications or experience to so presume.

I'm happy that they've fulfilled their election promises of getting rid of the carbon tax and more or less stopping the boats so that at least we can now fulfil our humanitarian refugee program.

I've also said that there are good and bad people and policies on both sides of politics.   I'm in favour of the liberal philosophy of encouraging people to do for themselves all they can rather than expect the government to do it for them.  To that end, I'd like to see curtailment of some of upper end welfare, particularly the abolition of the proposed PPL.  The Labor scheme, if we must have one at all, and I question that, is perfectly adequate.

We live in a free and overall well run country regardless of which party holds power, when compared to much of the rest of the world.   I celebrate that and am grateful to be here.
So, although I'm interested to read various points which people raise as concerns for them, the relentless, repetitive criticism of everything to do with the present government just gets to me after a while, syd.

That said, what you don't do is make nasty personal attacks on individuals, and that's something I do appreciate.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Pizza shop at Mornington paying his girls $7.00 per hour and as a side note, squalid dirty conditions.
> 
> My Grandson says they are scared to say anything because they may lose their job and not be able to get anything else.
> 
> When I was a youngster noco I could walk out of one door and straight into another.
> 
> *Yes but the unions have ruined things since then......higher wages, penalty rates, longer annual leave, leave loading, long service leave......bless their hearts.*
> 
> So apart from the guvmint filling the front pages with ISIS propaganda, where are these jobs going to come from noco and when are they going to put it up in the news as our most important issues.





Unemployment down...........121,000 jobs created.

More jobs are being created since removing the Carbon Dioxide tax,  the Mining tax, green and red tape resulting in increased business confidence = more jobs.......Governments don't create jobs but they create an environment for private enterprise to make it worth while......I must confess though it takes a lot of savvy to understand all that......I hope you have it.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> If he's so committed why is he dragging his feet on the issue then?  Even the UK believes it's important enough to have signed up to it already.




Sydboy, perhaps you should wait until after the G20 finance ministers meeting in Cairns followed by the G20 meeting in Brisbane towards the end of the year before your make any more silly derogatory remarks.

From what I have observed Hockey is fully committed so I really don't know what you are going on about.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Unemployment down...........121,000 jobs created.
> 
> Governments don't create jobs but they create an environment for private enterprise to make it worth while.




There are lots of jobs that governments create that would not be done by private enterprise, so of course governments create jobs. We wouldn't want private armies would we ?

Apart from the armed forces there are those involved in public schools & hospitals, resource management, scientific research and other "public interest" areas that are not important to those only interested in making money.

You really need to take a more balanced view before you write noco.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> There are lots of jobs that governments create that would not be done by private enterprise, so of course governments create jobs. We wouldn't want private armies would we ?
> 
> Apart from the armed forces there are those involved in public schools & hospitals, resource management, scientific research and other "public interest" areas that are not important to those only interested in making money.
> 
> You really need to take a more balanced view before you write noco.




Rumpy, there you go again...twist things around to suit yourself......121,000 did not go into public service.

The discussion related to the Federal Government.

Of course we need public school, police, ambulance, firemen, nurses in the public area but they are all run by the state Government or weren't you aware of that......I will excuse you on this occasion.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Rumpy, there you go again...twist things around to suit yourself......121,000 did not go into public service.
> 
> The discussion related to the Federal Government.
> 
> Of course we need public school, police, ambulance, firemen, nurses in the public area but they are all run by the state Government or weren't you aware of that......I will excuse you on this occasion.




You made a blanket statement that governments don't create jobs. They do. The Federal government is most likely going to create more jobs in ASIO and the AFP to deal with the alleged increased terrorist threat.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> You made a blanket statement that governments don't create jobs. They do. The Federal government is most likely going to create more jobs in ASIO and the AFP to deal with the alleged increased terrorist threat.





121,000 ???????????????? so I pray, you tell me how many jobs out of the 121,000 went into ASIO and AFP?

If the ASIO and AFP  were increased it was to make up what the Green/Labor coalition neglected.....they slashed $millions from those two organizations.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> 121,000 ???????????????? so I pray, you tell me how many jobs out of the 121,000 went into ASIO and AFP?
> 
> If the ASIO and AFP  were increased it was to make up what the Green/Labor coalition neglected.....they slashed $millions from those two organisations.




I don't know. Perhaps you would like to tell us what industries the 121,000 jobs were created in, and how many jobs were lost at the same time, and whether the jobs created were full or part time, temporary, casual or permanent ?

Perhaps some were created in State governments or councils. Should they count ?


----------



## explod

In the past Governments worked with unions and business to produce the best outcomes for the nation overall.

It put money into public (as apposed to private) research to work out better ways to make and do things. Certainly we still have subsidies to farmers but some of these need to be looked at, especially where companies working on and with our soil are taking most of their profits offshore, the Reinhardt's et al.

And I could go on and on.

But noco as the big spokesperson on this thread for the govmint how about you completing some of my lines on how they ARE SUPPOSED TO BE INVOLVED in helping the people they are supposed to represent.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Unemployment down...........121,000 jobs created.
> 
> More jobs are being created since removing the Carbon Dioxide tax,  the Mining tax, green and red tape resulting in increased business confidence = more jobs.......Governments don't create jobs but they create an environment for private enterprise to make it worth while......I must confess though it takes a lot of savvy to understand all that......I hope you have it.




Yeh, at $7 an hour.  Cummorn answer it all Pal.


----------



## Julia

noco said:


> Unemployment down...........121,000 jobs created.
> 
> More jobs are being created since removing the Carbon Dioxide tax,  the Mining tax, green and red tape resulting in increased business confidence = more jobs.......Governments don't create jobs but they create an environment for private enterprise to make it worth while......I must confess though it takes a lot of savvy to understand all that......I hope you have it.



When that jobs figure was announced, there was considerable surprise expressed all round.  121,000?   Really?

Now today, the following is an extract from an article by Terry McCrann:


> As for that jobs number, it was obviously completely wrong.  It'd be the equivalent of nearly two million jobs being created in the US in a single month - trust me, they'd think they were in a boom if they got 500,000.
> 
> There's a much more general message out of it, which the various economists and commentators will almost certainly not learn.
> This is that even 'normal' monthly jobs numbers are meaningless.  A figure of 121,000 looks wrong, so most commentators treated it with caution.  Exactly the same applies to a figure of 21,000.
> 
> But instead, commentators will authoritatively opine that such a figure shows the economy is picking up pace, or the opposite, depending whether it's a plus or minus.




It's a bit like commentators, when the market rises or falls, attributing it to X. Y, or Z.  Mostly they have no idea but like to sound wise.   Ditto all the economists who apparently feel obliged to suggest prior to the Reserve Bank's regular meeting each month that the Reserve will probably do this or that because of A, B or C.
All just unnecessary and often wrong.

So just on the jobs figure, just as with much else in life, if it looks too good to be true, then that is probably because it is.


----------



## noco

Julia said:


> When that jobs figure was announced, there was considerable surprise expressed all round.  121,000?   Really?
> 
> Now today, the following is an extract from an article by Terry McCrann:
> 
> 
> It's a bit like commentators, when the market rises or falls, attributing it to X. Y, or Z.  Mostly they have no idea but like to sound wise.   Ditto all the economists who apparently feel obliged to suggest prior to the Reserve Bank's regular meeting each month that the Reserve will probably do this or that because of A, B or C.
> All just unnecessary and often wrong.
> 
> So just on the jobs figure, just as with much else in life, if it looks too good to be true, then that is probably because it is.





Terry McCrann is a pretty reliable reporter on this subject and maybe he is fairly accurate.

It always had me a bit baffled how the ABS come up with these figures and even the link below is a little confusing.....Unfortunately the 1 hour per week is often taken into account which in my mind should be disregarded.......I tried to research where these 121,000 were employed in various industries for others on the ASF but without success. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-11/abs-labour-force-employment-jobs-data/5736566

http://www.afr.com/p/national/economy/jobless_rate_falls_to_pc_new_jobs_FzWevd3RjupeAvq2TPUcbM


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Unemployment down...........121,000 jobs created.
> 
> More jobs are being created since removing the Carbon Dioxide tax,  the Mining tax, green and red tape resulting in increased business confidence = more jobs.......Governments don't create jobs but they create an environment for private enterprise to make it worth while......I must confess though it takes a lot of savvy to understand all that......I hope you have it.




You are the first who's saying we should believe those job figures.  Did you cotton on to the fact that the total hours worked didn't change much (seasonally adjusted aggregate monthly hours worked increased 0.1 million hours to 1 ,609.5 million hours.).  Somehow I doubt you'd have been so confident of the figures if there's been a - in front of them.

Part of the problem is the $50M ripped out of the ABS in the budget, forcing over 100 staff to be sacked recently.

We're going through one of the greatest economic inflection points in probably the last 100 years, and we're cutting back on the ABS who's data is relied on by the Govt and RBA to set policy.  We're one of the very few developed countries that doesn't have a monthly CPI figure, and we get our first read on GDP over a month later than the USA.

It feels like we're choosing to go in blindfolded with one arm tied behind our backs.  Policy is made on data 2 or 3 months behind the curve, which makes mistakes much more likely.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6202.0
AUGUST KEY POINTS

TREND ESTIMATES (MONTHLY CHANGE)
Employment increased to 11,638,400.
Unemployment increased to 764,100.
Unemployment rate increased 0.1 pts to 6.2%.
Participation rate increased 0.1 pts to 65.0%.
Aggregate monthly hours worked increased 3.2 million hours (0.2%) to 1,613.6 million hours.


----------



## Smurf1976

chiff said:


> Regards fruit picking-from my knowledge in southern Australia most of the fruit picking is done by contractors hiring pickers.Of course there are exceptions ,but the game has changed in recent years,and it is not as easy for locals to seek this employment.In fact impossible in a lot of areas.




Exactly. And here in Tas at least, some of those contractors are also in the business of providing hostel accommodation. No prizes for guessing why, and who they prefer to employ.

Pay minimum wage to some backpacker, get half of it straight back in accommodation fees. A profitable business model yes, but not one that allows anyone already living in the area to obtain such work unless they're single and don't own their home or have an ongoing lease. That's not most people.


----------



## overhang

I think we've been through this all before but most fruit picking jobs are seasonal, they are short term jobs with no guarantees.  To expect someone to relocate for short term work for pretty average wages is quite unreasonable, all though in saying that if I hit rock bottom and couldn't find work then I'd probably have to consider it. 

A hypothetical though, if those jobless were willing to relocate and meet all these fruit picking jobs would we actually be better off as a country? So backpackers on working visas are no longer able to find work as the jobs have now been filled by locals, the word gets out that there is no point backpacking Australia on a working visa as you can't find work.  Subsequently the tourism takes a hit, don't those on working visa's pay a higher tax rate too?  Would we be better off or worse off in that situation?


----------



## SirRumpole

overhang said:


> I think we've been through this all before but most fruit picking jobs are seasonal, they are short term jobs with no guarantees.  To expect someone to relocate for short term work for pretty average wages is quite unreasonable, all though in saying that if I hit rock bottom and couldn't find work then I'd probably have to consider it.
> 
> A hypothetical though, if those jobless were willing to relocate and meet all these fruit picking jobs would we actually be better off as a country? So backpackers on working visas are no longer able to find work as the jobs have now been filled by locals, the word gets out that there is no point backpacking Australia on a working visa as you can't find work.  Subsequently the tourism takes a hit, don't those on working visa's pay a higher tax rate too?  Would we be better off or worse off in that situation?




There are some local orchards in my area and during picking season the land is filled with caravans and tents, so obviously they aren't locals who have homes to go to. May I suggest that some of the grey nomads who travel the country might decide to pick up some extra cash by picking fruit. I think that happens quite a lot.


----------



## overhang

SirRumpole said:


> There are some local orchards in my area and during picking season the land is filled with caravans and tents, so obviously they aren't locals who have homes to go to. May I suggest that some of the grey nomads who travel the country might decide to pick up some extra cash by picking fruit. I think that happens quite a lot.




Did you get a look at the demographic?  I've heard of semi retirees doing that while traveling Australia, seems like a good idea imo and a good way to breakup a long adventure such as traveling our great country.  Doesn't seem the sort of thing a young family could do who have a low socioeconomic status though.


----------



## SirRumpole

overhang said:


> Did you get a look at the demographic?  I've heard of semi retirees doing that while traveling Australia, seems like a good idea imo and a good way to breakup a long adventure such as traveling our great country.  Doesn't seem the sort of thing a young family could do who have a low socioeconomic status though.




I didn't see the demographic. They may be professional fruit pickers who travel around, but i doubt they are locals. So maybe there is a picker/grower network where the growers know they will get experienced people with high productivity, rather than locals who they have to train.


----------



## sydboy007

overhang said:


> I think we've been through this all before but most fruit picking jobs are seasonal, they are short term jobs with no guarantees.  To expect someone to relocate for short term work for pretty average wages is quite unreasonable, all though in saying that if I hit rock bottom and couldn't find work then I'd probably have to consider it.
> 
> A hypothetical though, if those jobless were willing to relocate and meet all these fruit picking jobs would we actually be better off as a country? So backpackers on working visas are no longer able to find work as the jobs have now been filled by locals, the word gets out that there is no point backpacking Australia on a working visa as you can't find work.  Subsequently the tourism takes a hit, don't those on working visa's pay a higher tax rate too?  Would we be better off or worse off in that situation?




More what happens once you're in the industry.  You've got qualifications for other types of work but not had any luck with the lack of employment opportunities as people stay in their jobs and companies are not replacing any workers that do leave.

So you're picking the fruit or veggies every day.  how do you have the time to look for a job more suitable to your skills?  How do you get to job interviews?  Because you're in a more remote area it's going to be difficult. You might get an employer who's understanding, but then you take the day off without pay to attend an interview tha might get you into another interview only to not get he job.  Do that a few times and then you've probably not got the financial resources to continue.

What if the Govt subsidises your costs to move to do crop picking, then by some stroke of luck you get a job more suited to your skills?  Are you forced to repay that money to the Govt?

I can't find the article I was reading recently, but it seems some members of the Govt are agitating the work for the dole to be extended from non profits to small businesses.  I'm sure that will do wonders for the unemployed.


----------



## SirRumpole

Retired Japanese submarine commander says buying Japanese subs "not in Australia's interests"





> Soryu submarine deal: Japanese insiders warn sub program will cost more, hurt Australian jobs
> By North Asia Correspondent Matthew Carney
> 
> 
> Former senior Japanese military personnel have spoken out for the first time against the submarine deal the Abbott Government hopes to conclude with Japan.
> 
> Australia is considering buying 10 state of the art Soryu class submarines from Japan, at a reported price of more than $20 billion.
> 
> But Japanese military insiders have warned that it will cost much more.
> 
> They told the ABC there was great reluctance within the Japanese military to share their expertise, and said it would take Australia decades to perfect the submarines' top secret technology.
> 
> The Federal Government wants to replace its Collins class submarines with Soryus by 2030.
> 
> The technology around the Soryu has been classified as top secret, but insiders have described them as the world's best non-nuclear powered submarine, with the capacity to stay submerged for weeks.
> 
> "It's an issue of hull strength. Japan has secret technology, like special steel and noise reduction. So the issue is how can we share it," Kazuhisa Ogawa, a former government defence adviser and one of Japan's top military analysts, said.
> Video: Watch Matthew Carney's report (7pm TV News NSW)
> 
> He said submarine warfare was decided by how quiet and deep the vessels could go.
> 
> Former Japanese submarine commander Toshihide Yamauchi was at sea for nearly 30 years.
> 
> He said it took Japan 60 years to develop and master the Soryu technology, and he believed they would not just give it all away.
> 
> Mr Yamauchi said Japan may provide just some of its knowledge to Australia.
> 
> "This is not just about building a hull, it's the most advanced submarine in the world and unless Australia studies it intensely and Japan helps, it will take decades," he said.
> 
> "Australia could have many technical and implementation problems."
> What do you think about a potential deal for Soryu submarines between Japan and Australia? Have your say.
> 
> Mr Yamauchi and Mr Ogawa both told the ABC that an Australian budget of $20 billion would mean that all the construction would have to happen in Japan.
> 
> And they said any attempts to do any of the work in Adelaide would double the price.
> Cheaper foreign subs a tough sell
> 
> The price tag for a totally Australian-built sub is unlikely to float - and it looks like the Abbott Government is trying to break the news gently to shipbuilders in South Australia, writes Michael Brissenden.
> 
> Mr Ogawa said if construction happened in Japan it would be bad for Australian jobs, but good for the Japanese economy.
> 
> "If the issue of military secrets can be resolved then Japanese business will be happy it will bring jobs and growth," he said.
> 
> Last week, Opposition Leader Bill Shorten demanded the Coalition Government stand by a pre-election commitment to build Australia's next fleet of submarines in South Australia.
> 
> Mr Shorten addressed a rally of workers from the Australian Submarine Corporation in Adelaide and told workers the nation's defence capabilities relied upon skilled workers as well as soldiers.
> 
> "Australia's security relies on four uniforms: Army, Navy, Air Force and Defence contractor, which is you," Mr Shorten said.
> 
> "If we fight we will win, and when we get rid of the rotten Abbott Government we will build our submarines in Australia, where it should be."
> 
> more at
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-15/japanese-concerns-over-submarine-deal/5743022


----------



## explod

"Many Australians die each year from car accidents, alcohol, falling from ladders, and other everyday causes.

Why must our Prime Minister focus the nation on the small chance that a lunatic may make a bomb and kill some of us.  He admits to the lack of a clear threat, other than the existence of said lunatics.  Let us concentrate instead on doing what we know works, such as better immunistion processes, looking after vulnerable members of our community etc. But maybe there are no votes in that."

by Evert de Graauw, todays Age.

In fact the entire front page of todays paper was a photo of Mr Rabbit and a jet plane taking off.

Our world is becoming a very sad joke.


----------



## overhang

sydboy007 said:


> More what happens once you're in the industry.  You've got qualifications for other types of work but not had any luck with the lack of employment opportunities as people stay in their jobs and companies are not replacing any workers that do leave.
> 
> So you're picking the fruit or veggies every day.  how do you have the time to look for a job more suitable to your skills?  How do you get to job interviews?  Because you're in a more remote area it's going to be difficult. You might get an employer who's understanding, but then you take the day off without pay to attend an interview tha might get you into another interview only to not get he job.  Do that a few times and then you've probably not got the financial resources to continue.
> 
> What if the Govt subsidises your costs to move to do crop picking, then by some stroke of luck you get a job more suited to your skills?  Are you forced to repay that money to the Govt?
> 
> I can't find the article I was reading recently, but it seems some members of the Govt are agitating the work for the dole to be extended from non profits to small businesses.  I'm sure that will do wonders for the unemployed.




Yes very valid points Syd.  On a side note regarding the mining and the relocating, I have some family that works in remote WA mining.  One of them is a recruiter for mining companies, in the past they have had trouble employing those who apply from afar as they are given the job but then never actually make the move which results in lost time and productivity to the mine.  So given they basically won't employ those that haven't made the move it puts prospective employees in a tough predicament, do you make the move before gaining employment but risk the chance you may actually never gain employment?  If you're unskilled it's actually difficult to gain employment in the mines without knowing someone to get you in there.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> "Many Australians die each year from car accidents, alcohol, falling from ladders, and other everyday causes.
> 
> *These are self inflicted incidents which in many cases could be avoided with some extra care.*
> 
> Why must our Prime Minister focus the nation on the small chance that a lunatic may make a bomb and kill some of us.  He admits to the lack of a clear threat, other than the existence of said lunatics.  Let us concentrate instead on doing what we know works, such as better immunistion processes, looking after vulnerable members of our community etc. But maybe there are no votes in that."
> 
> *Would be happy if some radical lunatic sent a rocket into a foot ball stadium killing one or some of your family,  close friend, or comrade Bourke, Bowen or Shorten...... It has been revealed these radicals have hidden 5 rocket launchers in the bush west of Sydney*
> 
> by Evert de Graauw, todays Age.
> 
> In fact the entire front page of todays paper was a photo of Mr Rabbit and a jet plane taking off.
> 
> *So what did you expect him to do?  Ride his push bike to the NT.*
> 
> Our world is becoming a very sad joke.




It is not the world that is becoming a sad joke but the people living in this world.


----------



## Tisme

explod said:


> "Many Australians die each year from car accidents, alcohol, falling from ladders, and other everyday causes.
> 
> Why must our Prime Minister focus the nation on the small chance that a lunatic may make a bomb and kill some of us.  He admits to the lack of a clear threat, other than the existence of said lunatics.  Let us concentrate instead on doing what we know works, such as better immunistion processes, looking after vulnerable members of our community etc. But maybe there are no votes in that."
> 
> by Evert de Graauw, todays Age.
> 
> In fact the entire front page of todays paper was a photo of Mr Rabbit and a jet plane taking off.
> 
> Our world is becoming a very sad joke.




Flawed logic in that piece by Evert.  I also read somewhere that we are actually living an unprecedented period of relative peace, which means I would not be going backwards in my time machine when it arrives in the future.


----------



## Julia

sydboy007 said:


> More what happens once you're in the industry. You've got qualifications for other types of work but not had any luck with the lack of employment opportunities as people stay in their jobs and companies are not replacing any workers that do leave.



What is Labor's plan to fix unemployment, syd?


----------



## noco

Smurf1976 said:


> Exactly. And here in Tas at least, some of those contractors are also in the business of providing hostel accommodation. No prizes for guessing why, and who they prefer to employ.
> 
> Pay minimum wage to some backpacker, get half of it straight back in accommodation fees. A profitable business model yes, but not one that allows anyone already living in the area to obtain such work unless they're single and don't own their home or have an ongoing lease. That's not most people.




I think you are wrong with your statement of paying minimum wages.

All the fruit picking jobs I have known are paid piece meal....that is you get paid for the amount of fruit you pick....so much per kilogram or bag full......you can make money from fruit picking if you are prepared to put your back to it.

If you are a hard worker you will most likely be paid double that of the slow worker who has only picked half of the amount of fruit.....the fruit grower is pretty smart.......he knows how to sort out the sheep from the goats.

Do you get the picture?


----------



## chiff

Yes there is a difference between what they call piece work( or sometimes contract) and being paid on wages.
From my experience most backpackers perform poorly on piece work...once again there are exceptions.Some employers pay wages -not on a piece work basis.It depends on the circumstances.
There were some superior piece workers who were competitive and took the job seriously...nearly always Australian and New Zealanders.
And yes some contractors pay under any award....one Cambodian I came in contact with paid new employees eight dollars an hour,and more experienced  workers could earn up to fifteen dollars an hour.This was five years ago.His employees went on strike but did not get a much better deal.


----------



## boofhead

And you have to factor in what the farmer has done to produce suitable product. For example some products need to be the right size, no insect bites etc. Quality can be extremely variable.


----------



## IFocus

FORMER prime minister John Howard is uneasy about the *Abbott government’s decision to hold royal commissions into the former Labor government. 




> I’m uneasy about the idea of having royal commissions or inquiries into essentially a political decision on which the public has already delivered a verdict,’’ Mr Howard said. *“I don’t think you should ever begin to go down the American path of using the law for narrow targeted political purposes. I think the special prosecutions in the US are appalling.”*
> 
> Mr Howard also commented on the government’s Royal Commission into the Home Insulation Program, a scheme that saw four installers die after it was hurriedly rolled out as part of the *response to the global financial crisis.
> 
> “I am uneasy about those *approaches. I have to say I’m not happy about that but that’s a decision the government makes and, after all, the former government was tipped out on the strength of among other things the failure of the home insulation scheme,’’ Mr Howard said. “There has been coronial investigations.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...o-labor-policies/story-fn59niix-1227058304540


----------



## SirRumpole

IFocus said:


> FORMER prime minister John Howard is uneasy about the *Abbott government’s decision to hold royal commissions into the former Labor government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...o-labor-policies/story-fn59niix-1227058304540




Good to see his former master calling Abbott out for political muckraking.

It has to be pretty bad before Conservatives attack their own.


----------



## chiff

boofhead said:


> And you have to factor in what the farmer has done to produce suitable product. For example some products need to be the right size, no insect bites etc. Quality can be extremely variable.




Yes-say an orchardist wants good quality eating apples picked.....he would pay wages to get unbruised first class apples....not let piece workers go their hardest and produce inferior quality.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Good to see his former master calling Abbott out for political muckraking.
> 
> It has to be pretty bad before Conservatives attack their own.




Perhaps this link is a bit off the thread but it is reply.

It would have been better suited to the the thread , "THE USELESS LABOR PARTY".

Nevertheless, Hawke and Keating have not spoken too kindly of comrade Shorten.

It has to be pretty bad when ex Labor Prime Ministers attack the present Labor Party now in opposition.

People in glass houses should not throw stones.


http://theredandtheblue.org/2014/01/02/labor-pain-even-hawke-and-keating-support-spending-cuts/

*PRESSURE IS RISING on the ALP and its “leader,” Bill Shorten, to stop their mindless obstructionism and allow government spending cuts to pass the Senate; with Labor legends Bob Hawke and Paul Keating lending their imprimatur to the need to urgently restore the federal budget to health, the cynicism and sheer bloody-mindedness of the ALP’s blocking tactics are stripped bare: not that further proof of their hypocrisy is required.

It must be galling, if you’re Bill Shorten, to find two of Labor’s most successful modern leaders publicly repudiating your entire political strategy; that is what Bob Hawke and Paul Keating have, in essence, done, and it’s time Shorten — and his erstwhile colleagues — woke up to themselves.*


----------



## explod

Julia said:


> What is Labor's plan to fix unemployment, syd?




On Syd's behalf, labor are not in government.  But just the other day they suggested alternatives to full constuction of defence machines offshore.

Libs bereft of anything but being the front news stars its seems.

So its Dysneyland starring Mr Rabbit and the noise of discontent and jokes will only get louder as things are headed at the moment.


----------



## Julia

IFocus said:


> FORMER prime minister John Howard is uneasy about the *Abbott government’s decision to hold royal commissions into the former Labor government.



Which is why John Howard was a long term popular prime minister in a way Tony Abbott will never be.
Good on him for having the integrity to speak out.



noco said:


> Perhaps this link is a bit off the thread but it is reply.
> 
> It would have been better suited to the the thread , "THE USELESS LABOR PARTY".



Why?   It's about a former leader of the Liberal Party being honest enough to apply some appropriate criticism to the current PM.  I don't see how that should go into any thread about the Labor Party.


----------



## Macquack

explod said:


> On Syd's behalf, labor are not in government.




Agree.

Also the Labor party did not kill off the automotive industry in this country. Massive mistake that one, unless you are happy with Australia becoming a third world nation.


----------



## noco

Julia said:


> Which is why John Howard was a long term popular prime minister in a way Tony Abbott will never be.
> Good on him for having the integrity to speak out.
> 
> Why?   It's about a former leader of the Liberal Party being honest enough to apply some appropriate criticism to the current PM.  I don't see how that should go into any thread about the Labor Party.





Julia perhaps you read my post again.....it was about my link......I was referring to Rumpoles comment about Howard criticizing Abbott when in actual fact Hawke and Keating were even more severe on Shorten.


----------



## noco

Macquack said:


> Agree.
> 
> Also the Labor party did not kill off the automotive industry in this country. Massive mistake that one, unless you are happy with Australia becoming a third world nation.




The unions did that job all by themselves then expected the Government  to forever give out handouts to an over seas company.

The Labor Government gave Ford billions of tax payers dollars and then the unions would demand higher wages....even when Gillard them the billions they were still mind set to close Ford in 2017 or maybe sooner now.

$80,000 for unskilled workers is a bit rich.


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> What is Labor's plan to fix unemployment, syd?




Considering it's 2 years from an election, Abbott spent most of his time in opposition without articulating a plan, and still seems to have no plan beyond repeal of the mining tax and carbon tax will cause business to begin investing again, why is it now that an opposition party should have these kinds of policies.

That said, I'd be a darned site happier if Labor was more nuanced in their opposition.  If they sounded like that had a bit more of a plan than Abbott, which IMHO wouldn't be that difficult, then the Government would be in a real pickle.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Considering it's 2 years from an election, Abbott spent most of his time in opposition without articulating a plan, and still seems to have no plan beyond repeal of the mining tax and carbon tax will cause business to begin investing again, why is it now that an opposition party should have these kinds of policies.
> 
> That said, I'd be a darned site happier if Labor was more nuanced in their opposition.  If they sounded like that had a bit more of a plan than Abbott, which IMHO wouldn't be that difficult, then the Government would be in a real pickle.




Abbott has plans already in place but your comrades in the senate will not let him implement them.

Rumpy, Shorten should be listening to and taking notice of Uncle Bob and Uncle Paul......all in the interest of the nation of course.


----------



## noco

One thing I must say, since the abolition of the that stupid carbon dioxide tax, which I might add did nothing to affect climate change, my electricity bill has been dramatically reduced.

Tariff 11 ....down by 9.41%

Tariff 31.....down by 18.31%

Tariff 33.....down by 12,11%


----------



## noco

http://www.couriermail.com.au/busin...nary-australians/story-fnihsps3-1227059584643

THE extreme left-wing Australia Institute has been conducting a relentless campaign against the resources industries that are the foundation of Australia’s prosperity.

It grabs at every possible opportunity — from climate change to spurious claims of taxpayer handouts — to try to delegitimise the industry in overall terms and to kill individual projects.

In its latest sally AI had claimed that state and territory governments had provided $17.6 billion in subsidies to the industry over a six-year period.

Well, an analysis of the claim for the Minerals Council of Australia has completely demolished both the claimed subsidy in general and the claimed figure specifically.

Arguably, the demolition even more fundamentally demolishes the AI itself and any claims it had — if you’ll pardon the expression — left to analytical credibility.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> One thing I must say, since the abolition of the that stupid carbon dioxide tax, which I might add did nothing to affect climate change, my electricity bill has been dramatically reduced.
> 
> Tariff 11 ....down by 9.41%
> 
> Tariff 31.....down by 18.31%
> 
> Tariff 33.....down by 12,11%




So, comparing to your previous bill, what was the reduction?

I just got my latest bill - $191.16 for 540kWh or avg 35.4c kWh

For the same period last year $258.21 for 812kWh or avg 31.7c kWh

Care to explain why my average cost per unit of energy consumed has increased?

I'll give you a hint.  It's the fixed costs.  They're continuing to increase as a % of power bills.  All eyes are on the variable cost, but as you can see, a near 50% drop in household consumption, along with your hyped up carbon tax reduction, and we got a 35% reduction in costs.  Pretty much we're at the point now where spending any money to reduce electricity consumption is not going to provide adequate returns for my household.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> http://www.couriermail.com.au/busin...nary-australians/story-fnihsps3-1227059584643
> 
> THE extreme left-wing Australia Institute has been conducting a relentless campaign against the resources industries that are the foundation of Australia’s prosperity.
> 
> It grabs at every possible opportunity ”” from climate change to spurious claims of taxpayer handouts ”” to try to delegitimise the industry in overall terms and to kill individual projects.
> 
> In its latest sally AI had claimed that state and territory governments had provided $17.6 billion in subsidies to the industry over a six-year period.
> 
> Well, an analysis of the claim for the Minerals Council of Australia has completely demolished both the claimed subsidy in general and the claimed figure specifically.
> 
> Arguably, the demolition even more fundamentally demolishes the AI itself and any claims it had ”” if you’ll pardon the expression ”” left to analytical credibility.




Shock and horror.  Mineral council funds research showing....resource companies don't get much subsidies at all.

Whodathunkit.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Considering it's 2 years from an election, Abbott spent most of his time in opposition without articulating a plan, and still seems to have no plan beyond repeal of the mining tax and carbon tax will cause business to begin investing again, why is it now that an opposition party should have these kinds of policies.
> .




Well Syd, at least Abbott doesn't have to find employment for another 50,000 boat people, that would have arrived if Labor/Greens had been re elected.


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> Well Syd, at least Abbott doesn't have to find employment for another 50,000 boat people, that would have arrived if Labor/Greens had been re elected.




+1....but don't you mean another 50,000 on social welfare compliments of the Green/Labor coalition.


----------



## noco

I would say a reshuffle of Abbott's ministry is very imminent....there are one or two changes that should be made IMHO.....there are couple of poor performers and it would not surprise me if Abbott does not  move them around. 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ice-goes-all-kpi/story-fn59niix-1227060844891


----------



## Knobby22

Who would you move on Noco?


----------



## Tisme

sydboy007 said:


> Shock and horror.  Mineral council funds research showing....resource companies don't get much subsidies at all.
> 
> Whodathunkit.




Do you know what "much" subsidies is and the amount? I'd be interested to see what an independent (neutral if that's at all possible) auditor came up with rather than the far left and far right studies you are quoting.


----------



## noco

Knobby22 said:


> Who would you move on Noco?




That is for me to know and you to find out.

If I were to tell you, it would be exploited so it best if I don't say..... But nevertheless the poor performers should be replaced and that applies to who ever is in Government.


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> Do you know what "much" subsidies is and the amount? I'd be interested to see what an independent (neutral if that's at all possible) auditor came up with rather than the far left and far right studies you are quoting.




Don't know if the Australia Institute is left or right, but apparently they produced an audit of mining subsidies.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...energy-subsidies-revealed-20140623-3aoxr.html


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> Don't know if the Australia Institute is left or right, but apparently they produced an audit of mining subsidies.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...energy-subsidies-revealed-20140623-3aoxr.html




They al seem to refer to the sector as a being or person. Interesting how employees of industries do that.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Abbott has plans already in place but your comrades in the senate will not let him implement them.
> 
> Rumpy, Shorten should be listening to and taking notice of Uncle Bob and Uncle Paul......all in the interest of the nation of course.




Please spell out these plans.?

They do not seem to be in place or out there in the public domain to me.

He had a few to dismantle and what I would describe as constructive things but what is "he building" so to speak for Australia and its people.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Please spell out these plans.?
> 
> They do not seem to be in place or out there in the public domain to me.
> 
> He had a few to dismantle and what I would describe as constructive things but what is "he building" so to speak for Australia and its people.




Holy hell plod, don't you read the newspaper or watch TV?.......It has been on for over 12 months.

You can also do your own homework.

To date I have not seen anything from the Fabian indoctrinated Green/Labor left wing socialist.......Even Uncles Bob and Paul don't know what they stand for....perhaps you might like to tell me...but there again you would not be able to because the Green/Labor coalition don't have any plans.


----------



## SirRumpole

Peter Costello says Australia's economic luck is running out as demand for resources falls



> The country's longest serving federal treasurer is warning that Australia's economic luck may be starting to run out as demand for resources begins to wane.
> 
> Addressing a property council event, Peter Costello said the economy was undergoing big changes, and consumers were being left with a sense of uncertainty about the future.
> 
> Mr Costello said with commodity prices falling, Australia's economy would not be protected by China like it was during the global financial crisis.
> 
> "We went on with rising living standards right through 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 after an initial readjustment and Australia boomed in a way we've never seen before. But the luck's beginning to run out," Mr Costello said.
> 
> The former treasurer said for the first time since the 1990s, per capita incomes in Australia were no longer growing.
> 
> "Young people under 50 who have lived through a period of uninterrupted rising incomes are beginning to experience something that's different," he said.
> 
> "Now I'm not saying that we're in recession, far from it. But things are changing and our consumers are anxious - they've stopped spending."
> 
> He gave a more upbeat assessment of the property market, suggesting Australia's strong population growth would continue to sustain it.
> 
> "Building a house is comparatively cheap," he said.
> 
> "What is expensive in Australia is land."
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-17/costello-says-australias-economic-luck-is-running-out/5751286




So Tony, what's the plan for after the resources boom ?


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Holy hell plod, don't you read the newspaper or watch TV?.......It has been on for over 12 months.
> 
> You can also do your own homework.
> 
> To date I have not seen anything from the Fabian indoctrinated Green/Labor left wing socialist.......Even Uncles Bob and Paul don't know what they stand for....perhaps you might like to tell me...but there again you would not be able to because the Green/Labor coalition don't have any plans.





Goodness gracious noco, those you refer to are not in Government.

Answer the question?


----------



## Smurf1976

sydboy007 said:


> Pretty much we're at the point now where spending any money to reduce electricity consumption is not going to provide adequate returns for my household.




A bit off-topic but I've been there, seen this one many times.

To do a proper analysis of energy efficiency, solar, pellets, gas, wood, coal, burnt leaves or shivering in the dark versus using grid electricity requires that you look at the _marginal unit price_ only. Fixed costs are out of the equation completely unless you're evaluating literally disconnecting the mains supply altogether, and the lowest step of a tiered energy rate structure is also usually irrelevant unless you can cut consumption to below the upper limit of the lowest tier.

So it's the rate per kWh you are paying, not the total amount of the bill, that is relevant to any evaluation of alternatives. Eg if your marginal electricity cost is 24c / kWh then that's the relevant figure. That you are also paying $400 a year in supply charges is only relevant if you're considering going off-grid.

Doesn't have a huge amount to do with the Abbott government though. The level of fixed charges is primarily a consequence of the actions of state governments in the 1990's and 00's and to a lesser extent the Australian Governments in power at the time. Abbott hasn't had much to do with this one either good or bad.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Goodness gracious noco, those you refer to are not in Government.
> 
> Answer the question?




I don't have to answer any questions to a bully mate....who do you think you are?.....you do your own homework...anyone with a sound mind all know what Abbott has done and I don't have to spell it out to you..........the lazy opposition are so negative...Uncle Bob and Paul also believe Shorten and his comrades need to change their thinking in the interest of the nation.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> Peter Costello says Australia's economic luck is running out as demand for resources falls
> 
> 
> 
> So Tony, what's the plan for after the resources boom ?




Reduce illegal imigrants.
Reduce Govenment debt, to help hold interest rates down and free up money for infrastructure.
Spend on labour intensive infrastructure.
Reduce Government spending.

So Bill, what's your plan.


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> Reduce illegal imigrants.
> Reduce Govenment debt, to help hold interest rates down and free up money for infrastructure.
> Spend on labour intensive infrastructure.
> Reduce Government spending.
> 
> So Bill, what's your plan.




And save $30 billion by buying Japanese subs.


----------



## noco

noco said:


> And save $30 billion by buying Japanese subs.




Labor's plan will be :-

Bring back the carbon dioxide tax.

Bring back the mining tax that has produced no income,...cost more to administer than returns.

Open the flood gates to illegal immigrants.

Borrow more money ($30 billion ) to subsidize the unions for building of Australian subs.

Prop up the the unions to subsidize unprofitable industries.

Load up the credit card and let the Coalition pay it off.

They will be absolute economic vandals again.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Reduce illegal imigrants.
> Reduce Govenment debt, to help hold interest rates down and free up money for infrastructure.
> Spend on labour intensive infrastructure.
> Reduce Government spending.
> 
> So Bill, what's your plan.




Increase 457 visa immigrants during a period of increasing unemployment.  That's fair tot he local workers.

If reducing Govt debt holds interest rates down, how does that match with the increase in Govt debt over the last 5 years and pretty much the lowest interest rates we've had?  The current deficit will likely be larger than last years, yet I don't see 5 and 10 year Govt bonds increasing in yield.

If spending on labour intensive infrastructure is funnelled to projects that don't generate an economic return, then all we've done is kick the can down the road and made future tax payers poorer.  Infrastructure Australia already has some detailed research on proposed projects and none of them are stacking up on purely financial grounds.  Abbott has so far chosen to ignore their advice.

Reducing Govt spending while the private sector is also cutting back on spending is practically impossible to do - not been done in the post war era.  Cutting back on Govt spending when the private sector is also deleveraging will send us the way of Greece / Spain where debt levels are continuing to climb while GDP falls.


----------



## sydboy007

not sure if this was recknoised a couple of months back

http://www.afr.com/p/national/profe...rdest_hit_for_decision_wZkuLhIkpO43mVUby3aydP

_Accounting graduates will be hardest hit by a government decision to keep the profession on a list of in-demand occupations for skilled migrants, university experts says.

The decision, a boon to employers and a $4.8 billion cash cow for university business schools, *comes despite the Department of Employment, which wanted accounting removed from the list, concluding there was a surplus of accountants and “deteriorating outcomes for graduates . . . relatively low pay rates for bachelor graduates and weak employment outcomes for masters graduates”.*

Universities, who rely on international accounting students as a valuable source of income, and two of the major accounting bodies, who charge foreign accountants for membership and *evaluation of their qualifications for migration, support keeping the occupation on the list.

The government elected to keep accounting on the skilled occupation list, meaning qualified foreign workers can apply for a permanent visa without a sponsor, but to cut the intake from an annual average of 6500 over the past six years to 5000 from July 1.

The AWPA report reveals about half of migrants who said they were accountants between 2009 and 2011 were actually working as accountants or an equally skilled occupation a year after migration.

*More than 40 per cent were working in a lower-skilled occupation or in an unspecified job a year after migration,*_

Seems just another ploy to keep the foreign student dollars coming in for the unis and suppress local wages, along with the population ponzi.


----------



## SirRumpole

Reducing government spending will lead to a recession.

Increase revenue from those who can afford it (the mining industry) and use this to stimulate the rest of the economy.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Reducing government spending will lead to a recession.
> 
> Increase revenue from those who can afford it (the mining industry) and use this to stimulate the rest of the economy.




Rumpy haven't you read the latest news......the mining industry is flat so how are you going extract blood out o a stone?....coal prices down.....iron ore prices down.

Perhaps we might have to have the recession we have to have "ahla Paul Keating........no money is left in the piggy bank since Labor raided it all 2007/2013.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Rumpy haven't you read the latest news......the mining industry is flat so how are you going extract blood out o a stone?....coal prices down.....iron ore prices down.
> 
> Perhaps we might have to have the recession we have to have "ahla Paul Keating........no money is left in the piggy bank since Labor raided it all 2007/2013.




Easy noco, you charge a percentage of their profits. Mineral prices are like most commodity prices, they go up and down. If the miners make less profit, they pay less tax.

As my favourite meerkat would say, Shimple.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> Easy noco, you charge a percentage of their profits. Mineral prices are like most commodity prices, they go up and down. If the miners make less profit, they pay less tax.
> 
> As my favourite meerkat would say, Shimple.




Isn't that what the 30% business tax is meant to do?


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> Isn't that what the 30% business tax is meant to do?





SP, the Green/Labor left wing socialist party will not be happy until all the coal mines are closed and thousands of workers are thrown out of a job.

Without coal, iron ore cannot be smelted so there goes the iron ore mining.....more workers thrown out of jobs.

What hypocrites they are when they have the audacity to criticize Abbott for considering buying subs from Japan and perhaps throwing 3000 out of work


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> Isn't that what the 30% business tax is meant to do?




All companies pay company tax, but most don't dig up our non reneweable resources and leave big holes in the ground after they leave. There needs to be a premium on mining companies ; it's called resource rent.


----------



## bellenuit

SirRumpole said:


> All companies pay company tax, but most don't dig up our non reneweable resources and leave big holes in the ground after they leave. There needs to be a premium on mining companies ; it's called resource rent.




They pay royalties to the states for what they mine. It is the states that own the resources and that is their fee to the miners for what they dig up. I am not sure, but I believe royalties are paid based on the quantity mined and is independent of whether the miner eventually makes a profit or not.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Isn't that what the 30% business tax is meant to do?




Yup.  But with the likes of Glencore shifting profits out of Australia, BHP and RIO using depreciation to cut their tax rates, they don't actually pay anywhere near the 30% corporate tax rate.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> SP, the Green/Labor left wing socialist party will not be happy until all the coal mines are closed and thousands of workers are thrown out of a job.
> 
> Without coal, iron ore cannot be smelted so there goes the iron ore mining.....more workers thrown out of jobs.
> 
> What hypocrites they are when they have the audacity to criticize Abbott for considering buying subs from Japan and perhaps throwing 3000 out of work




Be good to make a distinction between thermal and coking coal.  Coals ain't coals to mimic an old TV ad.

Personally I'd love a future where we don't need coal to produce electricity.  Not sure how feasible it would be to replace coking coal, but that's a far smaller market.

Wouldn't you like a future where we no longer needed to burn a substance that spreads mercury, sulphur, and small particulate matter over large areas?


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> SP, the Green/Labor left wing socialist party will not be happy until all the coal mines are closed and thousands of workers are thrown out of a job.




I can't remember if the UK went down the gurgler when the doyen of then conservative politics shut down their coal mines last century or not? The UK has a very large car industry too as I recall....it's almost like we are deliberately out of lockstep with Europe......


----------



## Tisme

I was reading this article and thinking that increasing goods and services output might be a good idea.. we could call it ....something like Nation Building? A novel idea where we actually grow our great country instead of reducing revenue to reduce spending to reduce cost to reduce revenue to reduce spending to ......

With the net debt figure I'm wondering if that includes the $130bn ish dollars Labor threw into the ledger to cover the employee super shortfall left by the previous govt? It is shown on the dept of finance's own budget papers 2012.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-63-leading-australian-economists?CMP=soc_567


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Be good to make a distinction between thermal and coking coal.  Coals ain't coals to mimic an old TV ad.
> 
> Personally I'd love a future where we don't need coal to produce electricity.  Not sure how feasible it would be to replace coking coal, but that's a far smaller market.
> 
> Wouldn't you like a future where we no longer needed to burn a substance that spreads mercury, sulphur, and small particulate matter over large areas?




Firstly, you are so wrong with your facts about coking coal.......coking coal is the second largest export commodity after iron ore....see the link below....we mine and export more coking coal than steaming coal.

Australia's coal export market represents 27 % of the world supply.

Coking coal has less than .5% sulpher.

So now if the Green/Labor socialist left wing party closes down all the coal mines, and that is what they plan to do, what will silly Billy do with the 57,500 workers who are currently employed in the coal industry?...send them down to Adelaide to build subs....and what will do for base power supply when the sun goes down and the wind stops blowing?....Nuclear would be the way to go but then we would have lots of opposition from the Greens.

The other fallacy the Green/Labor coalition promote from the alarmist propaganda is every time they show coal fired power stations, they show photos of chimney stacks emitting heaps of black smoke...photos that were taken 40 years ago.....to the best of my knowledge modern coal fired power station have anti pollution equipment as required by law and all you see now is a steam vapor being emitted from low large diameter concrete stacks.    

How will he produce power without coal ...coal produces 85 % of Australia's power. 




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal


----------



## boofhead

noco said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal




I didn't see much there except to see China doesn't have many years of their deposits left. Maybe Australia could hold on to some and in 30 years it could be more valuable if some of the competitors that have low volume exports but high reserves don't expand capacity.

http://www.minerals.org.au/resources/coal/exports have figures that are about a year out of date but it shows we exported more thermal coal than coking coal.

I don't know why you think Labor & unions want to close mining - in particular coal mining. Unions are not any mines.


----------



## explod

Geothermal electricity in 24 countries, geothermal heating in 70 countries.  First in 1930's but the petro coal,industry repressed a lot of possibilities.

On solar, storage is improving and a lot of research in other countries is going on in this.

Of course coal etc., cannot be just turned off.  But we are stupid Not adding to what we know by having government led research into cleaner energy.  This type of work has proven to be cost effective and in itself will produce jobs.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Firstly, you are so wrong with your facts about coking coal.......coking coal is the second largest export commodity after iron ore....see the link below....we mine and export more coking coal than steaming coal.
> 
> Australia's coal export market represents 27 % of the world supply.
> 
> Coking coal has less than .5% sulpher.
> 
> So now if the Green/Labor socialist left wing party closes down all the coal mines, and that is what they plan to do, what will silly Billy do with the 57,500 workers who are currently employed in the coal industry?...send them down to Adelaide to build subs....and what will do for base power supply when the sun goes down and the wind stops blowing?....Nuclear would be the way to go but then we would have lots of opposition from the Greens.
> 
> The other fallacy the Green/Labor coalition promote from the alarmist propaganda is every time they show coal fired power stations, they show photos of chimney stacks emitting heaps of black smoke...photos that were taken 40 years ago.....to the best of my knowledge modern coal fired power station have anti pollution equipment as required by law and all you see now is a steam vapor being emitted from low large diameter concrete stacks.
> 
> How will he produce power without coal ...coal produces 85 % of Australia's power.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal




So you prefer a world where we need to burn coal to produce electricity?  I look forward to a future where the economics of renewable energy can compete with fossil fuels.  I look forward to a future where Govts don't subsidise resource companies.

China may not want our coal quite as much as they used to - see below graph for just how big an impact their new policy is going to have on coal producers in Australia.

I don't hear anyone from the centre of politics calling for mines to be immediately closed.  I just hope eventually they are, and long before we've used up all the coal.

As for the hot steam that gets you riled up, it's the fly ash or soot that I'm more worried about.  500 tonnes of it dispersed from a 500MWh plant each year.  Then we're faced with:


Over 50kg of lead, 1.8kg of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium. 
220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.
102kg of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.
Sulfur dioxide (SO2): Takes a major toll on public health, including by contributing to the formation of small acidic particulates that can penetrate into human lungs and be absorbed by the bloodstream. SO2 also causes acid rain, which damages crops, forests, and soils, and acidifies lakes and streams. A typical uncontrolled coal plant emits 14,100 tons of SO2 per year. A typical coal plant with emissions controls, including flue gas desulfurization (smokestack scrubbers), emits 7,000 tons of SO2 per year.
Nitrogen oxides (NOx): NOx pollution causes ground level ozone, or smog, which can burn lung tissue, exacerbate asthma, and make people more susceptible to chronic respiratory diseases. A typical uncontrolled coal plant emits 10,300 tons of NOx per year. A typical coal plant with emissions controls, including selective catalytic reduction technology, emits 3,300 tons of NOx per year.
Mercury: Just 1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury deposited on a 10 hectare lake can make the fish unsafe to eat. A typical uncontrolled coal plants emits approximately 77 kg of mercury each year.
Then we get the more solid wastes like:

Over 125,000 tons of ash and 193,000 tons of sludge from the smokestack scrubber each year.
Toxic substances in the waste—including arsenic, mercury, chromium, and cadmium—can contaminate drinking water supplies and damage vital human organs and the nervous system.

Then we're looking at something like 270B-681B litres of water each year to cool a 500-600MWh plant.  Do you remember during the last drought some of the generators in QLD were operating at reduced capacity because they didn't have enough cooling water?

Hopefully that gives you a better understanding of why I'd prefer we moved away from energy production that leaves us to deal with the above by products.


----------



## Smurf1976

It is somewhat telling as to the real problems that society faces that a thread about the current Australian Government generally, has ended up on the subject of energy.

Our domestic oil production meets only one third of consumption and that figure is rapidly falling. Meanwhile global oil production is struggling to keep pace with demand, indeed it's falling if you exclude the US and Canada, and there's all sorts of wars breaking out or threatening to do so. 

Meanwhile Australian debate about energy focuses almost exclusively on means of generating electricity, in a country where virtually all electricity is produced from domestic resources. Uranium mines, hydro-electric dams, siting of power stations and transmission lines, coal, LNG, carbon tax, solar panels, wind farms, the Renewable Energy Target..... 

We've been debating power generation in Australia at a significant level since the 1970's and yet we've completely missed the fact that our oil production has pretty much collapsed over the past few years. Oil, not electricity, is the real energy problem we're facing and the one that politicians of all persuasions ought to be worried about. 

Seen those "without trucks Australia stops" signs on the back of trucks? What they should really say is "without imported diesel Australia stops" since that's the reality of the situation we're in. Electricity is a far lesser concern at the national level.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> So you prefer a world where we need to burn coal to produce electricity?  I look forward to a future where the economics of renewable energy can compete with fossil fuels.  I look forward to a future where Govts don't subsidise resource companies.
> 
> China may not want our coal quite as much as they used to - see below graph for just how big an impact their new policy is going to have on coal producers in Australia.
> 
> I don't hear anyone from the centre of politics calling for mines to be immediately closed.  I just hope eventually they are, and long before we've used up all the coal.
> 
> As for the hot steam that gets you riled up, it's the fly ash or soot that I'm more worried about.  500 tonnes of it dispersed from a 500MWh plant each year.  Then we're faced with:
> 
> 
> Over 50kg of lead, 1.8kg of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium.
> 220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.
> 102kg of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.
> Sulfur dioxide (SO2): Takes a major toll on public health, including by contributing to the formation of small acidic particulates that can penetrate into human lungs and be absorbed by the bloodstream. SO2 also causes acid rain, which damages crops, forests, and soils, and acidifies lakes and streams. A typical uncontrolled coal plant emits 14,100 tons of SO2 per year. A typical coal plant with emissions controls, including flue gas desulfurization (smokestack scrubbers), emits 7,000 tons of SO2 per year.
> Nitrogen oxides (NOx): NOx pollution causes ground level ozone, or smog, which can burn lung tissue, exacerbate asthma, and make people more susceptible to chronic respiratory diseases. A typical uncontrolled coal plant emits 10,300 tons of NOx per year. A typical coal plant with emissions controls, including selective catalytic reduction technology, emits 3,300 tons of NOx per year.
> Mercury: Just 1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury deposited on a 10 hectare lake can make the fish unsafe to eat. A typical uncontrolled coal plants emits approximately 77 kg of mercury each year.
> Then we get the more solid wastes like:
> 
> Over 125,000 tons of ash and 193,000 tons of sludge from the smokestack scrubber each year.
> Toxic substances in the waste””including arsenic, mercury, chromium, and cadmium””can contaminate drinking water supplies and damage vital human organs and the nervous system.
> 
> Then we're looking at something like 270B-681B litres of water each year to cool a 500-600MWh plant.  Do you remember during the last drought some of the generators in QLD were operating at reduced capacity because they didn't have enough cooling water?
> 
> Hopefully that gives you a better understanding of why I'd prefer we moved away from energy production that leaves us to deal with the above by products.




Rumpy, Smurf is right.....we have strayed from the appropriate thread, however with all that pollution hot air you have stated and given your superior knowledge on the subject, what are your thoughts on how the weeks of bush fires in NSW and Victoria and the current active volcanoes around the world in PNG, the Philippines, Indonesia and Iceland affect the atmosphere?

It is a wonder we are all still alive....I mean surely those bush fires and volcanoes would out weigh pollution from burning coal.

I am sure you have all the answers and I will be disappointed if you don't come up with some more hot air.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Rumpy, Smurf is right.....we have strayed from the appropriate thread, however with all that pollution hot air you have stated and given your superior knowledge on the subject,




Are you talking to me or syd ?


----------



## Tisme

:nuts:

They keep doing that! :headshake


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Are you talking to me or syd ?




My sincere apology Rumpy.....It should have been directed to Syd.


----------



## orr

Smurf1976 said:


> It is somewhat telling as to the real problems that society faces that a thread about the current Australian Government generally, has ended up on the subject of energy.
> 
> Our domestic oil production meets only one third of consumption and that figure is rapidly falling.
> 
> . Oil, not electricity, is the real energy problem we're facing and the one that politicians of all persuasions ought to be worried about.
> 
> Seen those "without trucks Australia stops" signs on the back of trucks? What they should really say is "without imported diesel Australia stops" since that's the reality of the situation we're in.





I'll take this as a Clarion call to our self proclamating 'Infrastructure PM ' to take shovel and pick axe in hand, turn the first sod* on the Melbourne-Brisbane rail freight line and set night sky of the western plains aglow with the fire boxes of hundreds of CHOO-CHOO trains, run on good Aussie coal, not that barbarian Arab Oil, On Aussie steel wheels and tracks not that multi god worshiping Indo-Indian Rubber .

(apologies to Cory Banardi, for sections lifted from the 'bedtime stories' chapter of his recent 'best' seller)

*there's actually a fair whack of it built already.

And remember a 'be-heading ' is only a radical lobotomy, something this government has an intermit knowledge of. Ever wondered why Eric Abetz has that squint, If you look closely you can see where the drill went in, just under the eyebrow. And See now, how much clearer it is to understand Barnaby Joyce's thought patterns.


----------



## orr

Freya Newman

'A 20-year-old whistleblower has pleaded guilty to accessing restricted records linked to revelations that the prime minister’s daughter received an undisclosed $60,000 scholarship.'

She wasn't allowed the whistle blowers defence of Public Interest. 

If you are a member of the voting public and this is of no interest to you; You are guilty of being wilfully ignorant.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/18/frances-abbott-scholarship-whistleblower-pleads-guilty


----------



## Smurf1976

orr said:


> I'll take this as a Clarion call to our self proclamating 'Infrastructure PM ' to take shovel and pick axe in hand, turn the first sod* on the Melbourne-Brisbane rail freight line and set night sky of the western plains aglow with the fire boxes of hundreds of CHOO-CHOO trains, run on good Aussie coal, not that barbarian Arab Oil, On Aussie steel wheels and tracks not that multi god worshiping Indo-Indian Rubber .




So far as infrastructure is concerned, it is by its' very nature a long term investment.

Roads, rail, airports, power, water, gas, fibre / copper communications.... 

It all has a lifespan measured in decades or longer. If we're going to build infrastructure, and this government seems pretty keen on that idea, then we need to be looking at what we need in 2030 and beyond, not what we need today. 

Without focusing on any specific issue, this government seems to have the basic concept right (build infrastructure) but is focused on simply extrapolating and scaling up the past without any real thought to what we're really going to need in the long term.


----------



## Logique

On the Scotland referendum, they voted no to split from the UK.

I haven't heard of a Tasmanian secession movement, but Tasmanians would these days have little choice but to vote no. So tragic for the state to have come to this.


----------



## Knobby22

Logique said:


> On the Scotland referendum, they voted no to split from the UK.
> 
> I haven't heard of a Tasmanian secession movement, but Tasmanians would these days have little choice but to vote no. So tragic for the state to have come to this.




The latest episode of Utopia is a good example of why.
The organisation went to public meetings to see what Tasmania needs and then ignores the recommendations.


----------



## sydboy007

Smurf1976 said:


> So far as infrastructure is concerned, it is by its' very nature a long term investment.
> 
> Roads, rail, airports, power, water, gas, fibre / copper communications....
> 
> It all has a lifespan measured in decades or longer. If we're going to build infrastructure, and this government seems pretty keen on that idea, then we need to be looking at what we need in 2030 and beyond, not what we need today.
> 
> Without focusing on any specific issue, this government seems to have the basic concept right (build infrastructure) but is focused on simply extrapolating and scaling up the past without any real thought to what we're really going to need in the long term.




I'd prefer to see less PPPs with 20% IRR and restrictive clauses eg 1 public bus route to Sydney Airport or compensation if more public transport options are delivered than compete with a toll road.

I've read a lot of research that shows for public infrastrucutre with long life, just think harbour bridge still going strong, it seems fair to have Govt fund it via long term bonds, with mot of the costs covered by low tolls that are requried to repay the principal over 30+ years, along with maintenance costs.  This way future generations who will also benefit will also contribute to the infrastructure.  Some inflation linked bonds underwritten by low tolls would be highly desirable to SMSFs and pension funds around the world.  Funding would be relatively cheap.

I don't see the Abbot Government going down this path.  It's private sector all the way as being more efficient when there's little evidence to back this up.  Private monopolies just privatise the monopoly rents.  At least a Govt owned monopoly can funnel the excess returns back into more infrastructure.


----------



## Tisme

orr said:


> I'll take this as a Clarion call to our self proclamating 'Infrastructure PM '




With this PM it more likely for whom the bell tolls (double entendre boom boom pun ).

By the end of his term all the projects Rudd and Gillard started should be finished intime for him to take credit by not pulling funding to shore up the levee against Labor's big black hole debt thingy or whatever incessant clichÃ© they call it.

When Julie and Tony take up their role as the new world order, thanks to the previously wasteful, but now an LNP initiative, Rudd/Gillard pursuit of a seat on the UN Security council, some poor sap will have to restart real spending and create another giant big new hole tax whatever in the budget......just like the pork barrelling road infrastructure future spending by Howard before he got booted.


----------



## Tisme

Take the Tony test:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-22/tony-abbott-before-after-quiz/5746356

I must admit I failed......


----------



## sydboy007

If Abbott has the cajones, he'll get my support

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...il&utm_content=919843&utm_campaign=pm&modapt=



> Current restrictions on the location of pharmacies and a rule that only pharmacists can own a pharmacy do not ensure the quality of advice provided to a consumer and should be scrapped, the competition policy review found.
> 
> The draft report, put together by a competition review panel chaired by economist Ian Harper, recommended that restrictions on ownership and location of pharmacies be removed "in the long-term interests of consumers".
> 
> That marks a show of solidarity with the recent National Commission of Audit's recommendation that the pharmacy sector be opened up to competition, "including through the deregulation of ownership and location rules."
> 
> "Such restrictions limit the ability of consumers to choose where to obtain pharmacy services and limit the ability of suppliers to meet consumers' demands," the draft review, released today, said.
> Deregulation of the pharmacy sector would likely to spur a wave of acquisitions. The $16 billion pharmaceutical industry has been protected from supermarket competition, but already retail giant Woolworths has shown signs of wanting to leverage its market power to move into the pharmacy game were protections lifted.
> 
> In keeping with its deregulation focus, the draft report also recommended states and territories remove competition restrictions in the tax industry.
> 
> Taxi and hire care regulation should be focused on ensuring minimum standards for consumers rather than supporting a particular business model. This would be best delivered through an independent regulator, the report suggested.
> 
> The report made particular mention of the app Uber as a clear example of how digital technology was disrupting traditional markets and recommended such developments be factored into future policy.
> 
> The panel also said current price signalling prohibitions did not strike the right balance in distinguishing between anti-competitive and pro-competitive conduct.
> 
> Laws prohibiting anti-competitive price signalling and information disclosures were introduced in June 2012, and only apply to the banking sector in relation to taking deposits and making loans.
> 
> "Being confined in their operation to a single industry (banking), the current provisions are also inconsistent with the principle that the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 should apply to all businesses generally," the report said.
> 
> Public price disclosure was useful for consumers and was unlikely to raise significant competition concerns. As a result, the review said there was "no sound basis" for prohibiting public price disclosure.


----------



## luutzu

sydboy007 said:


> If Abbott has the cajones, he'll get my support
> 
> http://www.businessspectator.com.au...il&utm_content=919843&utm_campaign=pm&modapt=




I thought you get you medical advice from the GP that wrote the prescriptions. If you need advice for over the counter medicine, read the instructions. And why can't WOW or WES pharmacies provide the same level of service from their registered pharmacists if they're allowed to operate?

But the $16 billion industry tells you there's more to it than that.


----------



## sydboy007

Obviously Abbott Govt ministers have very different ideas as to what the ending of the age of entitlement should be like

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-wife-to-london-and-rome-20140922-10k6zr.html



> The Abbott government is facing more scrutiny over travel entitlements, with fresh documents revealing Education Minister Christopher Pyne and his wife had a taxpayer-funded $30,000 trip to London and Rome in April.
> 
> The trip included taxpayers being billed $1352 for Mr Pyne to "day let" a room at a swish London hotel before he and his wife, Carolyn, flew back to Australia later that day, and more than $2000 for VIP services at Heathrow Airport.




Just have to say wow about the day let.  I've got 6 nights in london for $860 at the mercure this week.  I also don't understand why I've had to pay for his wife to go on the jaunt with him.

One has to wonder if he'd been handing over his personal credit card if he'd have been as extravagant.  Maybe he's attended the Don Randall school of entitlements


----------



## Smurf1976

sydboy007 said:


> I'd prefer to see less PPPs with 20% IRR and restrictive clauses eg 1 public bus route to Sydney Airport or compensation if more public transport options are delivered than compete with a toll road.



The argument used to be that we needed "reforms" so as to lower costs and make the overall economy more competitive. That sounds reasonable.

But having seen what actually happens, it's very clear that neither the Coalition nor Labor has even the slightest intention of genuinely lowering business costs to improve competitiveness. Rather, it's simply about transferring wealth to selected private owners in the main, and either bashing (Coalition) or boosting (Labor) unions. Nothing about lowering costs in there.

I've understood politics a lot better ever since I realised that the "need to be competitive" line isn't what either of the major parties actually pursue. A bit of lip service perhaps, but not a lot of substance.

No way would we have the likes of Macquarie owning airports (a natural monopoly) and making a fortune if the real aim was to keep costs down. But that's not the aim....


----------



## SirRumpole

Interesting that the PM said in Parliament today that we should "live normally", but prepare for restrictions on our freedom.

I wonder if he realises how contradictory those ideas are.


----------



## sydboy007

Smurf1976 said:


> The argument used to be that we needed "reforms" so as to lower costs and make the overall economy more competitive. That sounds reasonable.
> 
> But having seen what actually happens, it's very clear that neither the Coalition nor Labor has even the slightest intention of genuinely lowering business costs to improve competitiveness. Rather, it's simply about transferring wealth to selected private owners in the main, and either bashing (Coalition) or boosting (Labor) unions. Nothing about lowering costs in there.
> 
> I've understood politics a lot better ever since I realised that the "need to be competitive" line isn't what either of the major parties actually pursue. A bit of lip service perhaps, but not a lot of substance.
> 
> No way would we have the likes of Macquarie owning airports (a natural monopoly) and making a fortune if the real aim was to keep costs down. But that's not the aim....




Very true.  Short term sugar hit to sell of an income producing asset to pay off cheap debt, then shaft the economy with an airport charging some of the highest fees in the world, run by a company that isn't even spending enough on the airport to keep up with depreciation.

Howard was able to brag about what a good economic manager he was, while the most important airport in Australia acts as an economic drag on the tourism sector for decades to come.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> Very true.  Short term sugar hit to sell of an income producing asset to pay off cheap debt, then shaft the economy with an airport charging some of the highest fees in the world, run by a company that isn't even spending enough on the airport to keep up with depreciation.
> 
> Howard was able to brag about what a good economic manager he was, while the most important airport in Australia acts as an economic drag on the tourism sector for decades to come.



The Hawke/Keating government sold a couple of bits and pieces IIRC.

And what was the previous Labor government planning to sell after completion ?



> Originally, NBN Co was to be automatically sold - provided the finance minister of the day felt the price would be right - five years after the network was built.




http://www.theage.com.au/national/greens-force-labors-hand-on-nbn-sale-20101121-182ks.html


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> If Abbott has the cajones, he'll get my support
> 
> http://www.businessspectator.com.au...il&utm_content=919843&utm_campaign=pm&modapt=




I agree about the pharmacies, but liquor sales should be taken out of supermarkets imo. 

Access to liquor is far too easy which is one reason why we have a drinking problem as a nation.


----------



## IFocus

SirRumpole said:


> Interesting that the PM said in Parliament today that we should "live normally", but prepare for restrictions on our freedom.
> 
> I wonder if he realises how contradictory those ideas are.




Certainly getting an uneasy feeling where now every headline is Abbott and terrorism, now its freedoms  bit like when in opposition all you saw was Abbott and Hi Vis with the workers.....we all know how that turned out.

You know its all poll driven when Shorten joins in lock step.


----------



## dutchie

IFocus said:


> Certainly getting an uneasy feeling where now every headline is Abbott and terrorism, now its freedoms  bit like when in opposition all you saw was Abbott and Hi Vis with the workers.....we all know how that turned out.
> 
> You know its all poll driven when Shorten joins in lock step.




Yes spot on IFocus.

ISIS/ISIL/IS making threats to Australians (urging locals to kill Australians) just to bloody improve Abbotts polls!


----------



## SirRumpole

These terror threats are being made online or on social media.

Why aren't these sites being blocked instead of considering monitoring everyone's internet use ?


----------



## sydboy007

Could I implore the Abbott Govt to take on board this IMF Growth-Friendly Fiscal Policy



> Reforms in taxes and government spending can have an important impact on long-run growth. Their design should reflect the conditions of a given country. For example, countries with fiscal space can scale up productive spending in support of long-term growth, such as higher public investment or health and education spending. Where fiscal space is lacking, growth-promoting tax and spending reforms would need to be designed in a budget neutral manner. All fiscal reform packages should be designed to balance growth-equity trade-offs.






> Tax reforms must be considered as a package”” in light of complex trade-offs between the different goals that tax systems try to achieve””and also take into account the administrative dimension. For example, a shift in the tax structure from personal income to consumption taxes, justified to reduce distortions and promote growth, could raise equity concerns due to lower progressivity of consumption relative to personal income taxes. In addition, the assessment of each revenue measure should take into account its impact on tax avoidance and evasion, as well as tax compliance and enforcement costs. *Therefore, while recognizing the limits and potential of each tax instrument, an effective reform should avoid a “tax-by-tax” policy approach.*




Considering the lack of ability to _sell_ policy so far, I'm not hopeful.


----------



## overhang

SirRumpole said:


> These terror threats are being made online or on social media.
> 
> Why aren't these sites being blocked instead of considering monitoring everyone's internet use ?




The media are doing their jobs as they always have but it makes me wonder how many of the target audience for these extremest would have even seen this fatwa if the media hadn't given it coverage?  I think from what we know in Australia this isn't a well organised following.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> The Hawke/Keating government sold a couple of bits and pieces IIRC.
> 
> And what was the previous Labor government planning to sell after completion ?
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/national/greens-force-labors-hand-on-nbn-sale-20101121-182ks.html




I'd argue the sale of CBA and Qantas more fit with the Abbott ideology of privatised competition.

The Howard era of selling a vertically integrate Telstra monopoly, and monopoly airports was not quite as "pure".

There is no competition for the majority of Australian Airports - BNE and OOL are probably the only ones that truly compete with each other.  Telstra had a monopoly network and have spent every day since listing on the ASX making telecommunications as expensive as possible for the rest of us.  I'd love to know how much the legal wranglings and ACCC monitoring has cost since the T1 sale.  Plenty of dead loss money.

But even Labors sale of CBA, which you could argue was helping with moral hazard, hasn't really done much for us because CBA is TBTF and we tax payers will ride in to rescue it should they stuff up too badly.  Same with QF.  The international arm may be let go, but the Govt would definitely step in to keep the domestic airline running should QF stumble badly, though it's return on capital is woeful so we taxpayers who didn't buy into it are better off than the punters who did.

Is it smart to sell an asset that generates a greater return than the cost of debt?  Why are highly geared PPPs seen to be superior to conservatively geared Govt investments?

As for Labor selling the NBN, at least it was a wholesale only monopoly providing legislated open access to everyone.  If Telstra had been sold as separate wholesale and retail companies, well we'd probably have had an FTTN network a decade ago.


----------



## SirRumpole

overhang said:


> The media are doing their jobs as they always have but it makes me wonder how many of the target audience for these extremest would have even seen this fatwa if the media hadn't given it coverage?




Exactly. Why give these people any oxygen to light the fires with ?


----------



## Tisme

sydboy007 said:


> Why are highly geared PPPs seen to be superior to conservatively geared Govt investments?
> 
> .




You ever seen the PPP agreements the govt signs? Does the old saying "all care no responsibility" resonate? The grab for cash is much stronger than the moral dilemma of mortgaging the next generation with a worthless asset at the end of term.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> As for Labor selling the NBN, at least it was a wholesale only monopoly providing legislated open access to everyone.  If Telstra had been sold as separate wholesale and retail companies, well we'd probably have had an FTTN network a decade ago.



They had to build it first and we now all know how well that that was going when Labor was booted from office last year. 

Then there's the question of the price being right as per the quoted article above. What if it could only be sold at a loss ?

Who would want to buy it (or anything else for that matter) at a price that generated a lesser return than the cost of debt ?


----------



## drsmith

On matters budget,



> Back of the envelope calculations indicate the lower iron ore price and terms-of-trade could cut as much as $12 billion from government tax revenues. That would blow the underlying cash deficit out by a further 0.8 percentage points for the 2014-15 financial year, though that doesn’t include the higher spending from the failure to get key budget measures through the senate.




For WA, the situation is even worse with the iron ore price now about $US43 below budget estimates for a shortfall of over $2bn this financial year. The $AUD though has turned in the WA budget's favour though, currently to the tune of about $150m.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/9/23/commodities/theres-more-iron-ore-carnage-come


----------



## Tisme

Someone's been a naughty boy.

I wonder if switching from business to economy is a way to get two tickets for the price of one, then get bumped anyway because airline people know the importance of keeping the domestic political bosses happy? 

At least he managed to get the latest papal instructions for our mostly catholic parliament, first hand.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-wife-to-london-and-rome-20140922-10k6zr.html


----------



## Julia

dutchie said:


> Yes spot on IFocus.
> 
> ISIS/ISIL/IS making threats to Australians (urging locals to kill Australians) just to bloody improve Abbotts polls!




Yep, probably Tony Abbott is behind the entire disaster that is the ME, just so he can play war games and get a lift in the polls.


----------



## Tisme

Julia said:


> Yep, probably Tony Abbott is behind the entire disaster that is the ME, just so he can play war games and get a lift in the polls.




He is milking it though, trying to be the new Menzies, just like Howard tried and surprisingly succeeded somewhat.


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> He is milking it though, trying to be the new Menzies, just like Howard tried and surprisingly succeeded somewhat.




Until the body bags started coming home...


----------



## noco

Julia said:


> Yep, probably Tony Abbott is behind the entire disaster that is the ME, just so he can play war games and get a lift in the polls.




Julia, I hope you are not serious.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Until the body bags started coming home...





Would you sooner see body bags in Queen St Brisbane?


----------



## IFocus

I like how Abbott says terrorist want to take our freedom away then proceeds to do just that.

This bit is really dark



> How much more comfortable you feel knowing that it will be George Brandis deciding when it's OK for ASIO to break into your house or hack your phone without a warrant is one thing. Another is the surreal nature of the debate that caused the Attorney General to announce that torture will be specifically excluded from the list of crimes that an SIO will excuse.
> 
> But the sleeper is section 35P, which creates a criminal offence of disclosing information that relates to an SIO, with a penalty of up to five years in prison.
> 
> This provision attracted some attention from the Joint Committee. It made a few recommendations for changes that the Government has accepted. None of these should make journalists sleep more comfortably.
> 
> The offence catches not just those who leak information, but anyone who republishes it. There are no defences to protect journalists, such as public interest. And note the word "relates". Not just the details of the SIO, but even the fact that it exists, or tangentially connected information, will be caught in the net.
> 
> The offence has two elements:
> 
> That the person disclosed information; and
> That the information related to an SIO.
> 
> That's it. All that has to be proved is that the disclosure was intentional (not accidental), and that the person making it was reckless as to whether it related to an SIO. They don't have to have known that the SIO even existed and, of course, how could they? SIOs are extremely secret squirrel.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-23/bradley-press-freedom-sidelined-in-pursuit-of-security/5761364


----------



## Julia

noco said:


> Julia, I hope you are not serious.



No, of course not.  Just indulging in some rare sarcasm which seems an appropriate response to some of what is posted above.



Tisme said:


> He is milking it though, trying to be the new Menzies, just like Howard tried and surprisingly succeeded somewhat.



Would you care to outline how, instead, he should be managing this situation?


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> I like how Abbott says terrorist want to take our freedom away then proceeds to do just that.
> 
> This bit is really dark
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-23/bradley-press-freedom-sidelined-in-pursuit-of-security/5761364



Don't worry IF.

You're safe.

They can't even use you as a feather duster.


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> I like how Abbott says terrorist want to take our freedom away then proceeds to do just that.
> 
> This bit is really dark
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-23/bradley-press-freedom-sidelined-in-pursuit-of-security/5761364




I suppose if an act of terrorism blew up my investment properties, I would be asking, "why the #### wasn't the Government on to it?
I've got no insurance cover for an act of terrorism.


----------



## medicowallet

Julia said:


> Would you care to outline how, instead, he should be managing this situation?




Yes, he should send the greens over to Iraq to negotiate.

MW


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> Would you care to outline how, instead, he should be managing this situation?




Possibly the Theodore Rosevelt doctrine - Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick.

I believe we need to do something to show IS isn't all powerful and that the west will stand up to repugnant militant Islam.  A few losses and their aura will fade.

I just don't like the posturing and fear mongering of the Government.  The security agencies seem to be doing their jobs effectively with the current laws.  Did we need the media whoring of a potentially imminent threat of a 2 man band?

If we're not putting boots on the ground in the middle east, and only contributing a few air planes to the offensive measures, then our bark seems to be bigger than our bite.  We seem to be talking as if we're taking a leading role in things when we're not even in the back seat yet.

Terrorists have been exhorting for people to take action against the USA / UK / West for decades.  Why are we getting ourselves into such a tizzy over a group that seems to lack reach outside Iraq and Syria?  Why are we multiplying the effectiveness of their propaganda machine?

Report new information once, then ignore then.  Remove the oxygen and the flames will quickly die off.

A couple of hundred thousand dead Syrians and we barely shed a tear.  A couple of westerners beheaded and now we're going to bomb them to kingdom come to use Dubya speak.

Now I'm hearing the USA is sending "moderate" Syrian rebels to a new training facility in Saudi Arabia.  Hopefully it pans out a bit better than their last effort where the training base in Jordan provided IS with their military core.


----------



## sptrawler

dutchie said:


> Yes spot on IFocus.
> 
> ISIS/ISIL/IS making threats to Australians (urging locals to kill Australians) just to bloody improve Abbotts polls!




Todays stabbing of two policemen and a terrorist shot, kind of blows holes in that theory, dutchie.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/25092941/terror-suspect-killed-after-cops-stabbed/

Maybe your and Ifocus's dislike of Abbott, is prejudicing you reasoning.


----------



## dutchie

sptrawler said:


> Todays stabbing of two policemen and a terrorist shot, kind of blows holes in that theory, dutchie.
> 
> https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/25092941/terror-suspect-killed-after-cops-stabbed/
> 
> Maybe your and Ifocus's dislike of Abbott, is prejudicing you reasoning.




My post was sarcastic.


----------



## Julia

medicowallet said:


> Yes, he should send the greens over to Iraq to negotiate.
> 
> MW




Excellent idea.  Might solve one of our domestic problems at the same time.



sptrawler said:


> Todays stabbing of two policemen and a terrorist shot, kind of blows holes in that theory, dutchie.
> 
> https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/25092941/terror-suspect-killed-after-cops-stabbed/
> 
> Maybe your and Ifocus's dislike of Abbott, is prejudicing you reasoning.



I see dutchie has already said he was being sarcastic so has beaten me to it.

ABC Radio reveals once again where its bias lies:  in their repeated news reports the sequence of last night's events, they headline:


> Man who Made Threats Against PM Shot




suggesting he was shot because he made threats.

He was shot because he first stabbed an AFP officer several times, this officer now in a critical condition, and a Victoria Police officer twice, then headed with his weapon in toward the police station.  

Draw your own conclusions as to his further intentions.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> suggesting he was shot because he made threats.




I think that is being hyper critical

The headline is obviously accurate.

People can take it however they  like, according to their own particular political bias.


----------



## sptrawler

dutchie said:


> My post was sarcastic.




My appologies.


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> I think that is being hyper critical
> 
> The headline is obviously accurate.
> 
> People can take it however they  like, according to their own particular political bias.



We will have to disagree on this.  The headline provides a particular slant which does not include the vital fact that the police retaliated after being attacked.


----------



## SirRumpole

Ban the burka-Bernadi

Cory Bernadi wants the burka banned from Parliament house.

Can't say I blame him this time.

Can you imagine trying to have a conversation with someone looking like this ?





http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-24/bernardi-says-burkas-have-no-place-in-parliament-house/5766628


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> Don't worry IF.
> 
> You're safe.
> 
> They can't even use you as a feather duster.




Not surprised by everyone jumping on the nationalistic bandwagon against the baddies (interpretation, suckered by a politician elected on three worded slogans) but I am surprised at how everyone glosses over the loss of  freedoms of the press that are very 1984.

What happens when the lunatic communist left wing Fabian unions get back in and start running the country using the same laws......


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> What happens when the lunatic communist left wing Fabian unions get back in and start running the country using the same laws......



No worries.

We don't have anything remotely anywhere near that in the Australian political spectrum.


----------



## luutzu

SirRumpole said:


> Ban the burka-Bernadi
> 
> Cory Bernadi wants the burka banned from Parliament house.
> 
> Can't say I blame him this time.
> 
> Can you imagine trying to have a conversation with someone looking like this ?
> 
> View attachment 59550
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-24/bernardi-says-burkas-have-no-place-in-parliament-house/5766628




Don't think any Arab-Australian would be going to visit any Parliament in Australia for a while. So the ban is somewhat unnecessary. But yea, I thought that under any circumstances, if the police or security/migration agent need to verify your ID, you are to remove your hat and facial covers so they can do their verification... no?


----------



## luutzu

IFocus said:


> Not surprised by everyone jumping on the nationalistic bandwagon against the baddies (interpretation, suckered by a politician elected on three worded slogans) but I am surprised at how everyone glosses over the loss of  freedoms of the press that are very 1984.
> 
> What happens when the lunatic communist left wing Fabian unions get back in and start running the country using the same laws......




It would take a very brave politician to debate or question the new anti-terror laws now.

But as the Captain said, the delicate balance between freedom and security will have to shift... for some times to come.


----------



## overhang

Heard Abbott in his press conference this morning in New York for the UN security council meeting saying that he is there because Australia is a good global contributor that does the right thing.  Well Tony if that were the case then you would have also attended the UN climate summit held yesterday in New York that featured most world leaders.  It really isn't a good look and certainly doesn't encourage international investment into renewable energy when our PM can't take the matter seriously enough to attend a world summit when he is in the same city the following day.  It's a bit like if I travel to Brisbane I have to see the in-laws, I don't want to but need to do the right thing to keep up appearances.


----------



## Tisme

I have to hand it to him, that was the best speech in the interests of Australia and the World I have heard for a long time. No polywaffle, it was succinct, it was intelligent , it was what we have come to expect from erudite and educated men...hands down David Cameron's words were inspirational. Shame our national leader didn't have the same delivery, but David made Obama look like an apprentice too.


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> I have to hand it to him, that was the best speech in the interests of Australia and the World I have heard for a long time. No polywaffle, it was succinct, it was intelligent , it was what we have come to expect from erudite and educated men...hands down David Cameron's words were inspirational. Shame our national leader didn't have the same delivery, but David made Obama look like an apprentice too.




Tony Abbott's speech was just a rehash of things he has already said. I wasn't particularly inspired by it.

No one has the guts to mention the elephant in the room, which is that ISIL can't conquer anyone without arms and ammunition and from where and how are they getting these ?

If countries are required to put restraints and inconveniences on their citizens, they should be required to put restraints on their manufacturers of arms and ammunition and dry up the supplies of these to people who shouldn't have them. 

If ISIL can't kill people, there is no fun in it for them anymore and they will dry up as a force.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> Tony Abbott's speech was just a rehash of things he has already said. I wasn't particularly inspired by it.
> 
> No one has the guts to mention the elephant in the room, which is that ISIL can't conquer anyone without arms and ammunition and from where and how are they getting these ?
> 
> If countries are required to put restraints and inconveniences on their citizens, they should be required to put restraints on their manufacturers of arms and ammunition and dry up the supplies of these to people who shouldn't have them.
> 
> If ISIL can't kill people, there is no fun in it for them anymore and they will dry up as a force.




You need to listen to David's speech, it included a major swipe at the Islamic community leaders in his own country and the hate they ferment.

I think the unanimous resolution last night in the UN was to ban sales of arms to IS and affiliates.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Tony Abbott's speech was just a rehash of things he has already said. I wasn't particularly inspired by it.
> 
> No one has the guts to mention the elephant in the room, which is that ISIL can't conquer anyone without arms and ammunition and from where and how are they getting these ?
> 
> If countries are required to put restraints and inconveniences on their citizens, they should be required to put restraints on their manufacturers of arms and ammunition and dry up the supplies of these to people who shouldn't have them.
> 
> If ISIL can't kill people, there is no fun in it for them anymore and they will dry up as a force.




Try telling all that waffle to North Korea, Iran, Russia and China.


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> You need to listen to David's speech, it included a major swipe at the Islamic community leaders in his own country and the hate they ferment.




I did hear parts of Cameron's speech and it was very good. I think he is a strong and articulate leader who has a presence on the world stage.



> I think the unanimous resolution last night in the UN was to ban sales of arms to IS and affiliates.




About time. If they hadn't sold arms to Saddam Hussein years ago those arms could not have been captured by ISIS.

The point is of course that these countries could sell to a middleman who then sells to ISIS. This area has always been very porous and un-regulated and needs a special overseeing body to monitor it.


----------



## noco

overhang said:


> Heard Abbott in his press conference this morning in New York for the UN security council meeting saying that he is there because Australia is a good global contributor that does the right thing.  Well Tony if that were the case then you would have also attended the UN climate summit held yesterday in New York that featured most world leaders.  It really isn't a good look and certainly doesn't encourage international investment into renewable energy when our PM can't take the matter seriously enough to attend a world summit when he is in the same city the following day.  It's a bit like if I travel to Brisbane I have to see the in-laws, I don't want to but need to do the right thing to keep up appearances.




If you consider Global warming (oops sorry Climate Change) is crap why would anyone want to go to the UN Climate Summit.

Why would you want to mix with the likes of Ban-ki Moon, Al Gore and Leonardo Di Caprio who are all GREENIES......Di Caprio is a good mate of Al Gore......Ban-ki-Moon walks hand in hand at a rally with Al Gore who all have a mind set that the Climate change is man made when we all know man made CO2 only contributes 3% of carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere......."GET UP" tries to make us believe that man made CO2 is 28 % and guess who is a foundation member of "GET UP" ....the one and only Bill Shorten........It has been confirmed by the ICC there has been no increase in Global temperatures in the past 17 years.....So why would anyone want to go to the UN Climate Summit to listen to incorrect information and lies.

The UN Secretary General should be above politics and not be biased towards one group or the other.

IMHO the UN are a useless bunch of cronies who are only interested in lining their own pockets....particularly Al Gore who is all set up to be an CO2 emissions trader.

Combet gave the UN $599,000 of tax payers money at the Can Cun Mexico Climate Change conference plus 10 % of the the Australia carbon dioxide tax which has just been scrapped. 

So as far as I am concerned Abbott has far more important items on his agenda.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/06...y-man-made-co2-does-not-drive-climate-change/

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/energymyths/myth10.htm


----------



## overhang

noco said:


> If you consider Global warming (oops sorry Climate Change) is crap why would anyone want to go to the UN Climate Summit.
> 
> Why would you want to mix with the likes of Ban-ki Moon, Al Gore and Leonardo Di Caprio who are all GREENIES......Di Caprio is a good mate of Al Gore......Ban-ki-Moon walks hand in hand at a rally with Al Gore who all have a mind set that the Climate change is man made when we all know man made CO2 only contributes 3% of carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere......."GET UP" tries to make us believe that man made CO2 is 28 % and guess who is a foundation member of "GET UP" ....the one and only Bill Shorten........It has been confirmed by the ICC there has been no increase in Global temperatures in the past 17 years.....So why would anyone want to go to the UN Climate Summit to listen to incorrect information and lies.
> 
> The UN Secretary General should be above politics and not be biased towards one group or the other.
> 
> IMHO the UN are a useless bunch of cronies who are only interested in lining their own pockets....particularly Al Gore who is all set up to be an CO2 emissions trader.
> 
> Combet gave the UN $599,000 of tax payers money at the Can Cun Mexico Climate Change conference plus 10 % of the the Australia carbon dioxide tax which has just been scrapped.
> 
> So as far as I am concerned Abbott has far more important items on his agenda.




Our PM shouldn't be as close minded as climate deniers nor should they be an alarmist but some middle ground is what is need from a leader.  Obama and David Cameron have got there but Abbott seems a long way off.  By attending but not making bold statements might give the renewable energy sector some confidence that we are open for business. 

I absolutely will concede though that I don't like the look of having celebrates at an event that I believe should be between world leaders and scientists, climate change shouldn't be about product placement and wins it no creditability from non alarmists. 

It's not the right thread for this so I don't want to go into it but all your points have scientific rebuttals, these are not my rebuttals but rather from experts who actually study the climate for a living. I honestly don't think you will take the rebuttals into account though, I don't think you're prepared for even the remote possibility that you may be wrong on this.  Personally I'm happy to be wrong, I just require most the experts to come out and agree with a peer reviewed paper that concedes the planet isn't warming or that humans have no control over the warming.

Could you please provide some legitimate sources to your claim that 10% of the carbon tax went to the UN, I think in early days this was discussed but was never legislated.  I haven't found anything to indicate either way, a few right wing bloggers have early blogs stating the 10% but nothing recent.  This is a recent article by the SBS that doesn't mention money going to the UN at all 







> How will the government use the money raised from the carbon tax?
> 
> The government says it will use $15.3 billion to assist households affected by the tax through tax cuts and payments. It will also assist industries which may be particularly impacted, as well as invest in research and development of cleaner and more efficient technologies.



But if you can prove otherwise I would love to know.


----------



## noco

overhang said:


> Our PM shouldn't be as close minded as climate deniers nor should they be an alarmist but some middle ground is what is need from a leader.  Obama and David Cameron have got there but Abbott seems a long way off.  By attending but not making bold statements might give the renewable energy sector some confidence that we are open for business.
> 
> I absolutely will concede though that I don't like the look of having celebrates at an event that I believe should be between world leaders and scientists, climate change shouldn't be about product placement and wins it no creditability from non alarmists.
> 
> It's not the right thread for this so I don't want to go into it but all your points have scientific rebuttals, these are not my rebuttals but rather from experts who actually study the climate for a living. I honestly don't think you will take the rebuttals into account though, I don't think you're prepared for even the remote possibility that you may be wrong on this.  Personally I'm happy to be wrong, I just require most the experts to come out and agree with a peer reviewed paper that concedes the planet isn't warming or that humans have no control over the warming.
> 
> Could you please provide some legitimate sources to your claim that 10% of the carbon tax went to the UN, I think in early days this was discussed but was never legislated.  I haven't found anything to indicate either way, a few right wing bloggers have early blogs stating the 10% but nothing recent.  This is a recent article by the SBS that doesn't mention money going to the UN at all
> But if you can prove otherwise I would love to know.




I must concede Combet made a pledge of $599,000 and 10% of the carbon tax collected for the UN Climate Change Committee but like many Labor's promises and pledges they are more often than not broken and it is no surprise to me the ABC, the Age and the Guardian did not report on the back flip......Had it been the conservative government who had reneged on the deal it would have been all over the headlines and a Labor induced senate inquiry......but  ah alas, not a word has been spoken....I am also surprised to learn the UN had not pressed the issue with the then Labor Government.

I do not believe Obama and Cameron are really interested in the UN Climate Change conference and their indulgence is skin deep...they are there because they feel obliged to be there....At least Abbott is up front and does not hide what he believes in.

There are some interesting facts in the link below which has a lot of merit. 


http://www.markmaldridge.com/CARBON-TAX-WHOLE-STORY-UPDATE.html

*On top of my years of interest, reading and speaking on the topic, the information in this report comes from the 4 IPCC reports, The Australian Governments latest comprehensive reports, a variety of credible scientific articles and news broadcasts.   

While the world toils over the whole debate, division appears an important part of the agenda, misinformation, spin, and self-interest clouding the truth, if indeed a simple truth exists. The biggest looser is unfortunately the future of the environment, the one part of the game; both believers and deniers have lost sight of, and the very thing that could unite us all.   

If we study the United Nations IPCC reports, the facts support both sceptics and believers, the world is to continue warming, regardless of any action we take, due to the time lines associated with climate warming, the lead authors and chairman of the reports in the most have been critical of the final result, some what a direct result of the UN’s self interest, the trillions of dollars they will control over the next decade to play the worlds Robin Hood, (10% of our Carbon Tax, will go direct to the UN) appears to have had an impact in their final released reports.   *

**“Australia’s suite of measures appears to have been much more cost effective and to have produced more abatement.”  

So lets get into the facts, Australia produces around 1.2% of the worlds carbon dioxide emissions, of the 3% man contributes to the total out put of Co2, which is only a minor percentage of green house gases and we are not about to shut down, so at the best we may be able to cut back our emissions by 20% on 1990 figures over the next 20 years, at a cost of upwards of 12 billion in the first year alone.   

To the every day Aussie, this means by 2020, twice the amount of people, will have to live on a lot less resources, and endure a much higher cost of living, heading us back to hardships we have all worked hard to put behind us.  

 Australia will join with a hard full of countries that combined emit around 11%, of the worlds 3% contribution to Co2 emissions, while some countries will not only continue on with business as usual, but continue to increase their emissions and seemingly with less environmental protections than we presently have worked hard to achieve.*


----------



## noco

Herewith another link to digest on the ill fated carbon dioxide tax.



http://joannenova.com.au/2014/02/7b...educe-co2-by-0-3-and-cool-us-by-zero-degrees/

*This news was so boringly predictable I almost didn’t post it, but numbers like this of actual outcomes of visionary Big-Government Experiments are hard to come by.

Seven billion dollars works out to $350 per person, and $1,350 per household of four, for one year. If Bill Shorten (leader of the opposition) had to knock on doors to collect this tax, there would be a riot in the street tomorrow.

The Australian reports that the $1,350 from your house for the year to Sept 2013, produced an emissions fall from 543.9 million tons all the way down to 542.1 .*


----------



## IFocus

Tisme said:


> I have to hand it to him, that was the best speech in the interests of Australia and the World I have heard for a long time. No polywaffle, it was succinct, it was intelligent , it was what we have come to expect from erudite and educated men...hands down David Cameron's words were inspirational. Shame our national leader didn't have the same delivery, but David made Obama look like an apprentice too.




Have seen Cameron perform on the floor of the British parliament, makes our current conservative leader leader look 3rd rate and shallow.


----------



## drsmith

On matters dividend imputation,

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ealthy-investors/story-e6frgac6-1227071960565



> THE most important rule when investing is to focus on making profits first and then worry about paying taxes second.
> 
> Australian ultra high net worth (UHNW) investors are naturally acutely aware of this guiding principle primarily because accumulating their affluent positions involved a high degree of concentration when transfiguring their entities’ gross profits into personal net wealth.
> 
> Domestic UHNW investors naturally have sought the lowest, most advantageous tax vehicles for such wealth and, up until recent times, these have been found within the superannuation environment.
> 
> Significantly, since 1987, when the then treasurer Paul Keating introduced dividend imputation or “franking credits”, double taxation of profits wa s no longer an ongoing concern and UHNW investors have refocused their efforts towards seeking out the most accommodative environment — which the advent of superannuation provided.
> 
> *However, later this year, when the framework for the taxation white paper is released, it is likely to engage in a debate about the future of “franking credits” as we currently know them.
> 
> Buried deep within the appendix of the Murray inquiry’s interim report is the critical comment: “The case for retaining dividend imputation is less clear than it was in the past” and, importantly, it goes on to highlight that “the benefits of dividend imputation, particularly in lowering the cost of capital, have arguably declined as Australia’s economy has become more open”.
> 
> The Murray interim report then states that the franking and other issues should be considered as part of the taxation white paper process, unless they are already under active government consideration.
> 
> In recent times, prominent business leaders such as Ken Henry and David Gonski have called for changes to the imputation system on the grounds that the current tax system discourages offshore investment by large Australian corporates — an important factor for a free market economy such as ours.
> 
> Once the framework for the taxation white paper has been released for consultation in late 2014, the federal government will look to take the issue of tax imputation to the next federal election in 2016.*
> 
> Australian UHNW investors are keen to participate in this debate and ensure that an important tax consideration within their investment process is represented during this critical national conversation.
> 
> Patrick Broughan, a tax partner at Deloitte, believes the mechanisms to lower the cost of capital today have changed since 25 years ago, when imputation was first introduced.
> 
> This is because capital is able to be sourced nowadays from international capital markets and there is less reliance on Australian investors through the domestic equities and corporate bond markets.
> 
> Broughan says: “The difficulty is that imputation is likely to bias Australian companies with Australian shareholders to invest in Australian income producing assets, rather than overseas assets.”
> 
> He goes on to add that “when capital is sourced from international capital markets, which is more obvious in the current environment, the original benefit of imputation lowering the cost of capital is less relevant, as this cost would be determined by the international capital markets”.
> 
> If the Murray inquiry is correct that the case for “retaining dividend imputation is less clear than it was in the past”, then what are the alternative systems for the taxation of company and shareholder income and if franking credits become a casualty of this process, what alternate frameworks make sense, not only for institutional markets but also individual investors as well?
> 
> In addressing this, Broughan thinks that in practice “there are very few pure shareholder taxation systems abroad and almost all OECD countries avoid double taxation to some degree coupled with the fact that none provide complete shareholder relief for all corporate taxes paid”.
> 
> It is clear that all systems for the taxation of corporate entities and their shareholders have advantages and disadvantages — no taxation system, either theoretical or practical, has nil disadvantages.
> 
> The taxation white paper will presumably have to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of Australia’s dividend imputation system and decide if Australia should move to a different system or whether modifications can be made to the existing imputation system to ameliorate the deficiencies identified in both the Murray inquiry’s interim report and the earlier Australia’s Future Tax System Report.
> 
> These are obviously momentous decisions that will have direct implications for many Australian individual investors, within and outside of the superannuation environment.
> 
> An argument for the current imputation system is that listed companies like Telstra, BHP Billiton or the big four banks are economically important to the Australian economy, so taxing them is a means to regulate the behaviour of the people that govern and manage them.
> 
> The Murray interim report says that this then “creates a bias for individuals and institutional investors, including superannuation funds, to invest in domestic equities”.
> 
> Another advantage of this system is that there is only one level of taxation imposed on company earnings and no biases against corporate form, dividends or *equity.
> 
> The disadvantages of an imputation system include revenue instability, double taxation on foreign earnings and the potential for a bias towards Australian companies only investing in Australian assets, rather than global assets.
> 
> On this, the Murray interim report is concerned that “dividend imputation may be affecting the development of the domestic corporate bond market” and also that “Mutuals cannot distribute franking credits, unlike institutions with more traditional company structures, which could be affecting competition in banking”.
> 
> No doubt Glenn Stevens and the Reserve Bank of Australia Board would like competition in banking addressed, especially after Treasurer Joe Hockey has made it crystal clear that his government won’t be challenging the “Four Pillars policy”, which serves as a near perfect textbook example of an “oligopolistic” market.
> 
> “Macro-prudential” controls like those employed by the Bank of England may be considered at some point soon but until such time, the Murray interim report may serve to begin the much needed conversation surrounding these issues for regulators, government and investment communities.
> 
> Australian UHNW investors know that the profit motive is paramount but never forget that tax decisions made today have material and visible outcomes tomorrow.
> 
> Larkin Group is a wholesale wealth adviser focusing on high- yielding global investments.




My bolds.


----------



## Calliope

Tisme said:


> I have to hand it to him, that was the best speech in the interests of Australia and the World I have heard for a long time. No polywaffle, it was succinct, it was intelligent , it was what we have come to expect from erudite and educated men...hands down David Cameron's words were inspirational. Shame our national leader didn't have the same delivery, but David made Obama look like an apprentice too.




As a parliamentary statesman he certainly makes Abbott look pedestrian.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-27/british-prime-minister-david-cameron-speaks-to-uk/5773364


----------



## IFocus

Calliope said:


> As a parliamentary statesman he certainly makes Abbott look pedestrian.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-27/british-prime-minister-david-cameron-speaks-to-uk/5773364




Cameron put involvement in the middle east to the parliament..........no hope of that happening here


----------



## Julia

IFocus said:


> Cameron put involvement in the middle east to the parliament..........no hope of that happening here




That's just silly.   The government has the full support of Labor.  If the parliament were to waste its time allowing the Greens to rant on, it would make no difference to the outcome.
Try to be a bit realistic, IF.  Your Labor Party has been at pains at every possible juncture to assure the voting public that they are lock-step with the government on the whole ME and general terrorist issue.


----------



## luutzu

Julia said:


> That's just silly.   The government has the full support of Labor.  If the parliament were to waste its time allowing the Greens to rant on, it would make no difference to the outcome.
> Try to be a bit realistic, IF.  Your Labor Party has been at pains at every possible juncture to assure the voting public that they are lock-step with the government on the whole ME and general terrorist issue.




I think what IFocus meant is we ought to have some debates before going to war. That the PM shouldn't just have the power to send the troops off on "missions" or "operations" without at least some form of debates.

But you're right, it wouldn't be much of a debate anyway.

I think it was John Madison, one of the founding fathers of the US, who said something like - there's no greater wisdom in the constitution of the US than to put the power to declare, and fund, war in the hands of Congress and not in the Executive arm of gov't.


----------



## drsmith

Julia said:


> That's just silly.   The government has the full support of Labor.  If the parliament were to waste its time allowing the Greens to rant on, it would make no difference to the outcome.



Some might be unhappy with Bill Shorten's position on this issue.


----------



## drsmith

drsmith said:


> On matters dividend imputation,
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ealthy-investors/story-e6frgac6-1227071960565
> 
> My bolds.



One area ripe for reform in my view is where companies use their franking credits to structure share buybacks to suit the tax circumstances of specific shareholder groups with an example being the current Telstra buyback.

In short, the options available for a company to distribute capital should either be a capital distribution without franking credits or an income distribution (special dividend) with franking credits to all shareholders at a nominated rate per share.

The ATO should also be able to look sideways at any proposed arrangement that has the capital component of a share buyback at significant odds with the prevailing market price.


----------



## IFocus

Julia said:


> That's just silly.   The government has the full support of Labor.  If the parliament were to waste its time allowing the Greens to rant on, it would make no difference to the outcome.
> Try to be a bit realistic, IF.  Your Labor Party has been at pains at every possible juncture to assure the voting public that they are lock-step with the government on the whole ME and general terrorist issue.




Sending our best off to war shouldn't be done lightly IMHO.

Debate in the house forces questions and the government to make their position clear, public statements can be broken backtracked etc statements in the house hold the individual and or government to account.

The British hold to Westminster conventions for good reason Abbott in particular seeks to break and or avoid. 

It would also have been interesting to possibly see Labor caught out playing politics rather than policy on this and other matters Shorten continues to play small target politics.


----------



## SirRumpole

IFocus said:


> Sending our best off to war shouldn't be done lightly IMHO.
> 
> Debate in the house forces questions and the government to make their position clear, public statements can be broken backtracked etc statements in the house hold the individual and or government to account.
> 
> The British hold to Westminster conventions for good reason Abbott in particular seeks to break and or avoid.
> 
> It would also have been interesting to possibly see Labor caught out playing politics rather than policy on this and other matters Shorten continues to play small target politics.




I agree IFocus.

It's all very well for Shorten and Abbott to make secret deals in a closed room, but in a democracy they need to be held to account in public, and a Parliamentary debate is the best way to allow that to happen. They could do it in a couple of days, there does not seem to be any rush to get our troops/aircraft there considering the Arab states are already participating.


----------



## Julia

IFocus said:


> Debate in the house forces questions and the government to make their position clear, public statements can be broken backtracked etc statements in the house hold the individual and or government to account.
> 
> The British hold to Westminster conventions for good reason Abbott in particular seeks to break and or avoid.
> 
> It would also have been interesting to possibly see Labor caught out playing politics rather than policy on this and other matters Shorten continues to play small target politics.



Yes, those are very reasonable points, IF.  



SirRumpole said:


> there does not seem to be any rush to get our troops/aircraft there considering the Arab states are already participating.



And the government is in fact not rushing into it.   From both Mr Abbott and Ms Bishop they seem pretty considered before making final decisions.  
It would seem at least a bit encouraging that some of the Arab states are being so ready to participate and I heard a couple of days ago that Denmark has also flown some bombing missions.   That we're not just tagging on to the US and UK is good if we must be involved.


----------



## SirRumpole

> It would seem at least a bit encouraging that some of the Arab states are being so ready to participate




The Arab states should be the main protagonists against IS, as they have the most to lose. It's a question of how ready and well equipped they are for the battle.


----------



## IFocus

SirRumpole said:


> The Arab states should be the main protagonists against IS, as they have the most to lose. It's a question of how ready and well equipped they are for the battle.





Unfortunately there is a level of complexity around Arab states fighting and I am surprised so many put their hand up.

Most or all of them are Sunni as are IS, the local tribes in Iraq (Sunni) have joined them (IS) in part because of the sectarian Shia led Iraq government that have marginalized the Iraq Sunni.

Iran likes the Sunni getting belted and no doubt encouraged this, the Arab states are pretty much on a war footing with Iran as Iran uses proxies to fight Sunni governments around the middle east.

The Arab states would not support IS unless they are killing Shia.

IS are being supported by some governments but who?


----------



## SirRumpole

bunyip Asylum seeker thread said:
			
		

> Getting rid of the carbon tax was another sensible move by Abbot – it was an unnecessary burden on industry that was costing jobs while having negligible effect on greenhouse gas emissions.




What about the Abbott government allowing gas prices for consumers and industry to rise 300 percent over the next few years ?

What sort of impact will that have on business and consumers ?

The LNP is open for business is it ? Only for a few gas exporters apparently.

What a crock of a government they are.


http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2014/s4050467.htm


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> What about the Abbott government allowing gas prices for consumers and industry to rise 300 percent over the next few years ?
> 
> What sort of impact will that have on business and consumers ?
> 
> The LNP is open for business is it ? Only for a few gas exporters apparently.
> 
> What a crock of a government they are.
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2014/s4050467.htm




Let's keep it balanced rumpy, Labor were giving Barnett heaps of hassle over his domestic reserve requirement.
I'm sure whatever the outcome is, would be no different if your beloved goon show was still in office.

Labor were also for the offshore processing option, which reduces value adding and job creation, also which Barnett was shouting for.

You seem to be a bit selective, about who you want to blame for a situation, which has been developing for years.

It seems obvious, when the goon show brought in the carbon tax to increase the use of gas and reduce the use of coal, they should have enacted an LNG domestic reserve requirement.

But no they didn't, that would take too much forward thinking. 
Labor in office is somewhat like the old saying? "piss poor planning equals piss poor performance".
They certainly came up trumps on that front.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:
			
		

> You seem to be a bit selective, about who you want to blame for a situation, which has been developing for years.




Are you seem to forget that Labor are now gone and the current government has the chance to correct Labor's mistakes, but no, they are still implementing a policy which will triple domestic gas prices and drive more industries to the wall. 

Just how long do you think you can get away with blaming Labor ? They've been gone a year now.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> Are you seem to forget that Labor are now gone and the current government has the chance to correct Labor's mistakes, but no, they are still implementing a policy which will triple domestic gas prices and drive more industries to the wall.
> 
> Just how long do you think you can get away with blaming Labor ? They've been gone a year now.




For the same amount of time, as you blame LNP for something Labor could have fixed, of course.

I'll judge the LNP at the end of their term, same as I did with Labor, I don't have a problem voting for either.


----------



## boofhead

A part of the WA gas issues relates to where the companies wanted to land. The local people claimed it is sacred and paleotologists that have found dinosaur tracks in the region.


----------



## Julia

sptrawler said:


> For the same amount of time, as you blame LNP for something Labor could have fixed, of course.
> 
> I'll judge the LNP at the end of their term, same as I did with Labor, I don't have a problem voting for either.



+1.  My attitude exactly.



> there does not seem to be any rush to get our troops/aircraft there considering the Arab states are already participating.



Well, Rumpole, I had to laugh this evening when an ABC journalist questioned why it was taking so long for Australia to make up its mind!

There will always be the critics.  Move quickly and you're accused of failing to apply due consideration and consultation.
Be cautious, and they start jumping up and down about unnecessary delays.

PS, might be good, Rumpole, if you took the occasional break from the refrain and actually recognised some of the positive features of the government, particularly in comparison with the last rabble.
Like sptrawler, I'm entirely happy to credit Labor (and even the Greens when it comes to voluntary euthanasia) with some good ideas and some good people, and even IFocus is occasionally able to acknowledge the failings of his own chosen side.
Just a suggestion.


----------



## luutzu

Julia said:


> +1.  My attitude exactly.
> 
> 
> Well, Rumpole, I had to laugh this evening when an ABC journalist questioned why it was taking so long for Australia to make up its mind!
> 
> There will always be the critics.  Move quickly and you're accused of failing to apply due consideration and consultation.
> Be cautious, and they start jumping up and down about unnecessary delays.
> 
> PS, might be good, Rumpole, if you took the occasional break from the refrain and actually recognised some of the positive features of the government, particularly in comparison with the last rabble.
> Like sptrawler, I'm entirely happy to credit Labor (and even the Greens when it comes to voluntary euthanasia) with some good ideas and some good people, and even IFocus is occasionally able to acknowledge the failings of his own chosen side.
> Just a suggestion.




Too long to make up its mind about what? Joining the war against ISIS?

From memory, we've already joined way back when the US was bombing and saving refugees on the mountain top; mind already made up when you send your jets and soldiers over awaiting orders.

All this talk of debates and sending our Foreign Minister to Iraq before deciding... it's just showmanship.


----------



## SirRumpole

> PS, might be good, Rumpole, if you took the occasional break from the refrain and actually recognised some of the positive features of the government,




The only good thing they have done as a matter of policy is stopped the boats.

The rest they have stuffed up.

* allowed the coal companies to controlled power production

* created one of the most unfair budgets in history

* re politicised Infrastructure Australia

* are making a decent education too expensive for many more people

* sold out Australian gas consumers to foreign buyers

* became a laughing stock over 18C

* took money from poor people with the copayment and gave them nothing back for it

* allowed financial advisors to avoid responsibilities to their clients

* is selling a price controller for health insurance premiums which will result in health insurance being unaffordable     for  many

and many others


----------



## IFocus

SirRumpole said:


> Are you seem to forget that Labor are now gone and the current government has the chance to correct Labor's mistakes, but no, they are still implementing a policy which will triple domestic gas prices and drive more industries to the wall.
> 
> Just how long do you think you can get away with blaming Labor ? They've been gone a year now.




Given the criticism of the previous Labor governments I don't get why you would use them as a yard stick.

Lets compare this mob against Howard's government................just a slight difference in the speaker and front bench to start with then there are the treasurers.............. plus Howard has been knocking Abbott from the start.


OK fair enough lets blame Labor


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> Given the criticism of the previous Labor governments I don't get why you would use them as a yard stick.
> 
> Lets compare this mob against Howard's government................just a slight difference in the speaker and front bench to start with then there are the treasurers.............. plus Howard has been knocking Abbott from the start.




I agree Abbott appears to having a massive problem getting most onside, Howard, Hawke and Keating never suffered from this problem.

It really doesn't matter what cuts in spending are made, as long as the public can see the justification. It is obvious by our ballooning deficits that the staus quo can't remain, therefore cuts will be made irrespective of who is in office.

IMO Abbott has commited the same blunder that Rudd made. He gets into office and instead of sitting back and appraoching the issues in a measured, hollistic way, he comes out guns blazing.
He really should have waited untill the review into the tax system was completed, then prepared a plan that included tax and welfare with the justification.

It probably is a result of the pressure the media put on them, to give them something to write. 24 hour news takes some filling.

Having said that, it looks as though they have him on the ropes and it will be difficult to recover.


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> I agree Abbott appears to having a massive problem getting most onside, Howard, Hawke and Keating never suffered from this problem.
> 
> .




The problem people have in this country is the binary attitude to politics. The Labor tragics hold on to the core policies of the past and the Lib tribe don't necessarily know what the Libs stand for, but at least it's not the over controlling socialist, union owned Labor party.

The truth is that Tony and his cohorts started the most decisive brand of inter party obstructionism and viciousness that we have probably ever seen. It wasn't enough that Rudd & Gillard were at each other, they threw stones like primary schoolers egging on a fight at our nation's expense instead of settling down parliament and galvanising us as a nation to get through and come out on top of the heap; their political ambition outstripped their national pride. 

They made their own petards and they are one by one blowing up in their faces, thus the need to be seen as international statesmen warming the UN seat Rudd & Gillard won for the nation, taking their time committing our men and women's lives to war, when the decision has already been made for them by our President Obama.

We all know we have a second tier talent running the show, which is why half of us jump to their defence, why they themselves have to blame the previous incumbents for something they have insufficient nous to modify/fix, why the deficit has doubled under their watch and anyway they aren't Labor so they (Libs) must be doing a good job right?

I don't believe any of you who admit to being swinging voters, your parents have skewed you subliminally. I am the only person I know who really is immune to tribal politics ... I am a God!


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:
			
		

> I am a God!




They are all atheists in here


----------



## Julia

Tisme said:


> I don't believe any of you who admit to being swinging voters, your parents have skewed you subliminally. I am the only person I know who really is immune to tribal politics ... I am a God!




Good to know that you understand more about a bunch of people you've never met than do those people themselves.  Oh, to possess the omnipotence and absolute comprehension and wisdom of a God.


----------



## Smurf1976

SirRumpole said:


> The rest they have stuffed up.




A concern that some (including myself) have with all this is the consequences and difficulty of a future policy reversal. If you're going to run in all guns blazing, then it's wise to have a properly thought out set of policies first.



> * allowed the coal companies to controlled power production




Reversible in practice, though only in the context of resuming a transition. No real ability to "catch up".



> * created one of the most unfair budgets in history




A future government could change policy so it's very reversible. Not a nice set of outcomes for some parts of society in the meantime however.



> * re politicised Infrastructure Australia




Irreversible in terms of the infrastructure that actually gets built. You can't un-build a road etc and then we're stuck with that money having been spent and an asset that's effectively permanent.



> * are making a decent education too expensive for many more people




Another one that's largely reversible as a policy but the effects on individuals can't be reversed easily.



> * sold out Australian gas consumers to foreign buyers




I'd argue it's the worst of the lot although Labor would have done no better. For practical purposes it's an irreversible policy decision both in terms of the gas itself and resultant effects on industry. Once you've signed a contract to export 100% of the gas from a particular field, once you've actually closed down factories that would otherwise have used it locally, well there's no going back really. 



> * allowed financial advisors to avoid responsibilities to their clients




Another "policy can be changed but the effects of it can't" one.



> * is selling a price controller for health insurance premiums




Reversible in theory but virtually no chance of any future government, of any political persuasion, reversing it in practice.

Overall, if you're going to lock in effects lasting half a century or longer then it's wise to at least think about what you're doing first.


----------



## IFocus

Tisme said:


> The problem people have in this country is the binary attitude to politics. The Labor tragics hold on to the core policies of the past and the Lib tribe don't necessarily know what the Libs stand for, but at least it's not the over controlling socialist, union owned Labor party.
> 
> The truth is that Tony and his cohorts started the most decisive brand of inter party obstructionism and viciousness that we have probably ever seen. It wasn't enough that Rudd & Gillard were at each other, they threw stones like primary schoolers egging on a fight at our nation's expense instead of settling down parliament and galvanising us as a nation to get through and come out on top of the heap; their political ambition outstripped their national pride.
> 
> They made their own petards and they are one by one blowing up in their faces, thus the need to be seen as international statesmen warming the UN seat Rudd & Gillard won for the nation, taking their time committing our men and women's lives to war, when the decision has already been made for them by our President Obama.
> 
> We all know we have a second tier talent running the show, which is why half of us jump to their defence, why they themselves have to blame the previous incumbents for something they have insufficient nous to modify/fix, why the deficit has doubled under their watch and anyway they aren't Labor so they (Libs) must be doing a good job right?
> 
> I don't believe any of you who admit to being swinging voters, your parents have skewed you subliminally. I am the only person I know who really is immune to tribal politics ... I am a God!




Good post, nice summary


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> The only good thing they have done as a matter of policy is stopped the boats.
> 
> 
> * allowed the coal companies to controlled power production.




Untill a viable alternative is found to replace coal, it seems stupid to charge ourselves more to use it.
Even the last Government realised their stupidity, they were going to buy the brown coal power stations and shut them down, remember. 
Well history shows how that went, they shut down none. But they charged us for using them anyway, just another dumb tax.
Untill the world comes up with a standard cost base for carbon, you are whipping yourself, to impose it on yourself.
Or as you would say, they are selling out Australian electricity users, to foriegn users.



SirRumpole said:


> * created one of the most unfair budgets in history.




Depends how you look at that, they wanted to link the pension to cpi instead of average wages, that hasn't been passed. So it will be interesting to see if pensions go down in line with average wages.
Also as has been said on numerous occassions they have only addressed the spending side, the tax side is yet to come.



SirRumpole said:


> * re politicised Infrastructure Australia.




Needs to be politicised, the last mob spent nothing on productive infrastructutre, yet we managed to spend plenty.



SirRumpole said:


> * are making a decent education too expensive for many more people.




With the onus being made on students to stay at school forever, which was Labor driven, there are now degrees for everything from surfing to brain surgery. Someone has to pay for it, if you think it should be the taxpayer, you had better have deep pockets.
When we were young only the top 5% of students went to uni, the rest of us left and did apprenticeships or did whatever was going. Now everyone does year 12 and a lot go on to do degrees, that were'nt degrees years ago i.e teachers and nurses, they used to train in hospitals, schools and training college.
Which in itself mitigated a lot of the cost, as they were learning on the job.

Not relating to the above, but, if you are going to pay for multitudes of obscure degrees in irrelivant professions, then expect to pay a lot more tax. Just have a look at what degrees are available.



SirRumpole said:


> * sold out Australian gas consumers to foreign buyers.




Both Labor and the LNP have done this, the only one against it is Barnett in W.A.



SirRumpole said:


> * took money from poor people with the copayment and gave them nothing back for it.




If they are poor, they are on some form of welfare, if they hit retirement age they get a full pension.
Do you really think we are all well off enough to give them a taxpayer funded savings account as well?
Maye you should just give them a cash handout when they hit 65.



SirRumpole said:


> * allowed financial advisors to avoid responsibilities to their clients.




You can't change a complete industry in one foul swoop, well unless you are Labor and don't give a rats. How many advisers do all the banks, credit unions, finance companies, superannuation companies employ?
I think AMP alone employ about 5,000, you can't make massive change overnight or chaos rules, as was shown with Labors shoot from the hip approach.



SirRumpole said:


> * is selling a price controller for health insurance premiums which will result in health insurance being unaffordable     for  many.




Again as per usual, the result of a ballooning deficit requires the Government to either cut spending, increase taxes or sell assetts.
Labor were constantly putting pressure on Barnett in W.A to sell their power generation assetts.
To think this is just an LNP thing is nieve, the only reason Labor are less vocal about it is because of their voter base.
This in turn ends up with them racking up debt, rather than make unpalatable decissions, the end result is the same.


----------



## Julia

+1 sptrawler.  Not that any of your logic will meet with acceptance by the Labor acolytes.

At least the families of the young men who died as a result of Labor's mismanaged pink batts scheme will be compensated by this government, as will those insulation businesses who went to the wall when Labor abruptly pulled the scheme from under them.

Meantime, not content with no longer wreaking havoc on the nation, Gillard, Swan and Rudd continue to publicly share the hatred of one another.  No wonder their government was such a total shambles.
So completely unedifying for the present Labor opposition trying to regain any sort of semblance of intelligence.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:
			
		

> Not relating to the above, but, if you are going to pay for multitudes of obscure degrees in irrelivant professions, then expect to pay a lot more tax. Just have a look at what degrees are available.




That's the only thing you said that I agree with, the rest is just diversion.

The taxpayer should be funding courses that provide skills that are required in the community and don't get funded by business. Medical workers, teachers etc.

But neither side is prioritising funding of particular skills, they just pay 50% of any courses that people want to do regardless of whether those skills are in demand or not.


----------



## Tisme

Julia said:


> Good to know that you understand more about a bunch of people you've never met than do those people themselves.  Oh, to possess the omnipotence and absolute comprehension and wisdom of a God.




Well you must have met Rumpole, because you seem to know what he's thinking all the time.

Very few have a third eye when it comes to politics, most have only one eye.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> That's the only thing you said that I agree with, the rest is just diversion.
> 
> The taxpayer should be funding courses that provide skills that are required in the community and don't get funded by business. Medical workers, teachers etc.
> 
> But neither side is prioritising funding of particular skills, they just pay 50% of any courses that people want to do regardless of whether those skills are in demand or not.




Thanks for agreeing on something, it is somewhat heartwarming to find that our conflicting outlook on life, has at least some common ground.

What did you find wrong with giving people on welfare, that pay no effective tax, a cash payment at retirement?
Rather than making them put some of their taxfree welfare money away now?

How come you don't agree with pensions being linked to cpi, instead of average wages, as the government suggest?
Or do you accept that if wage growth goes negative, so does the pension?
Hard to understand your reasoning on that one, maybe driven by the expectation wages only go up, when in fact the only thing that goes up is the cost of living(cpi).

Don't you agree that Martin Ferguson repeatedly told W.A to sell off its generating assetts? They also reduced W.A Federal grants, by the equivalent of reciepts they recieved from their power generation.
Or do you think only the LNP do that sort of thing?


----------



## Julia

Tisme said:


> Well you must have met Rumpole, because you seem to know what he's thinking all the time.



I don't need to guess at or make assumptions about Rumpole.  He is entirely straightforward and honest in his posted sentiments always.
Neither does he usually put words into the mouths of other people or ascribe to them anything other than what they have said.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:
			
		

> Don't you agree that Martin Ferguson repeatedly told W.A to sell off its generating assetts? They also reduced W.A Federal grants, by the equivalent of reciepts they recieved from their power generation.
> Or do you think only the LNP do that sort of thing?




Regardless of who tells the States to sell their generating assets, I don't agree with the concept. Privatisation of the power system and the guaranteed returns that were given to the Elco's is the main reason that power prices are going through the roof. 

Selling off the NSW power grid probably cost the Labor party the last election in NSW, apart from the Obeid fiasco. Most people would prefer public utilities in the hands of their government rather than private corporations.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> Regardless of who tells the States to sell their generating assets, I don't agree with the concept. Privatisation of the power system and the guaranteed returns that were given to the Elco's is the main reason that power prices are going through the roof.
> 
> Selling off the NSW power grid probably cost the Labor party the last election in NSW, apart from the Obeid fiasco. Most people would prefer public utilities in the hands of their government rather than private corporations.




I agree 100%, I was just pointing out that privatisation isn't party specific, both sides of politics embrace it.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> I agree 100%,




Now that's heartwarming


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> Regardless of who tells the States to sell their generating assets, I don't agree with the concept. Privatisation of the power system and the guaranteed returns that were given to the Elco's is the main reason that power prices are going through the roof.



Not necessarily.  Here, regional Qld, there is just one supplier, government owned Ergon and the power prices have well and truly gone through the roof.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> Not necessarily.  Here, regional Qld, there is just one supplier, government owned Ergon and the power prices have well and truly gone through the roof.




In that case, you know who to blame; the Newman government.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> In that case, you know who to blame; the Newman government.





NO...NO...NO...it was Peter Beattie.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> NO...NO...NO...it was Peter Beattie.




Whatever, it was a government and you can throw them out. You can't throw out a private company.


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> In that case, you know who to blame; the Newman government.






noco said:


> NO...NO...NO...it was Peter Beattie.



noco is right.  It all happened while Labor were still in.

In one sense, additional spending was justified on the additional infrastructure.  Before it happened we'd get sustained black outs every time there was a bit of a storm.   Since all the upgrades, not one.  I don't mind paying for such reliability.


----------



## Smurf1976

sptrawler said:


> I agree 100%, I was just pointing out that privatisation isn't party specific, both sides of politics embrace it.



Agreed although there's some variation between the states and between different assets.

If you look at the actions of the Abbott government, well let's see. We'll pay the states (with taxpayers' money) to sell (to very predictable buyers) their currently profitable assets.

Looks dodgy. Sounds dodgy. The maths says it's dodgy. There's even literally a bribe on offer.

If Labor and unions were involved then the word "corruption" would be used to describe such goings on. Seemingly OK when it's the Coalition and big business doing much the same however.


----------



## Smurf1976

Julia said:


> Here, regional Qld, there is just one supplier, government owned Ergon and the power prices have well and truly gone through the roof.




Prior to the days of deregulation, the cost of "retail" was so low as to not be worth worrying about. Answering phones, sending out bills and marketing the product - that's retail.

What happened is that we added about 10% to everyone's bill, then let people in many areas choose who to buy electricity from in the hope of saving part of this 10% back.

It would, of course, have been far cheaper to just leave it how it was in the first place.


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> Agreed although there's some variation between the states and between different assets.
> 
> If you look at the actions of the Abbott government, well let's see. We'll pay the states (with taxpayers' money) to sell (to very predictable buyers) their currently profitable assets.
> 
> Looks dodgy. Sounds dodgy. The maths says it's dodgy. There's even literally a bribe on offer.
> 
> If Labor and unions were involved then the word "corruption" would be used to describe such goings on. Seemingly OK when it's the Coalition and big business doing much the same however.




For the life of me smurph, I can't understand why any Government would privatise what is an essential service. It is the dumbest thing they could do, the Governments prime function is to provide essential services.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> For the life of me smurph, I can't understand why any Government would privatise what is an essential service. It is the dumbest thing they could do, the Governments prime function is to provide essential services.




They sell them because they are lazy morons who don't want the responsibility of making their assets perform to the public's satisfaction.

 Next time power prices go up and people complain to the government what will be this response ? "It's not our problem, tell it to the power companies".


----------



## Smurf1976

SirRumpole said:


> They sell them because they are lazy morons who don't want the responsibility of making their assets perform to the public's satisfaction.




I've always found it strange that the basic argument is that "governments aren't good at running things".

That being so, if our elected representatives can't find someone (manager, engineer, whoever) to run a few power stations then no way are they fit to even attempt governing an entire state or country which is a MUCH bigger and more difficult task in every way.

Politics seems to be the only career around where openly declaring incompetence is seen as a way to get the job. Truly amazing that we put the future of the entire country, or even just one state, in the hands of such people.

I do wonder about the business nous of politicians at all levels. Here in Hobart the council is offering $1.75 million to fit out a shop (Myer), plus another $3.5 million should the store fail to reach turnover targets. What on earth is going on here? If Myer can't afford to, or won't for some other reason, re-build a store that spectacularly burnt to the ground in 2007 then it seems a dubious business proposition at best to prop it up with ratepayers' funds now. More to the point, there's no mention as to whether or not David Jones (which has no stores in Tas) was approached with a similar offer. To be fair, at the very least DJ's should have been given the opportunity to come up with a proposal should they be interested (and with up to $5.25 million on offer they'd logically have at least had a serious look at the idea).


----------



## Julia

Smurf1976 said:


> Prior to the days of deregulation, the cost of "retail" was so low as to not be worth worrying about. Answering phones, sending out bills and marketing the product - that's retail.
> 
> What happened is that we added about 10% to everyone's bill, then let people in many areas choose who to buy electricity from in the hope of saving part of this 10% back.
> 
> It would, of course, have been far cheaper to just leave it how it was in the first place.



I don't understand your above post being quoted in relation to mine commenting that Ergon is the only supplier of electricity in regional Qld, or to my stated willingness to pay for certainty of supply.

I wasn't at all arguing that it would not have been cheaper to 'leave it how it was in the first place'.  Of course it would.  But that entailed frequent, sustained blackouts which caused massive business and personal inconvenience.


----------



## Smurf1976

Julia said:


> I don't understand your above post being quoted in relation to mine commenting that Ergon is the only supplier of electricity in regional Qld, or to my stated willingness to pay for certainty of supply.



I should probably have put it a bit differently (sitting at home with the flu today, not good.....), but what I mean is that regardless of whether you have 1, 10 or 100 "suppliers", in reality there will only ever be one set of physical infrastructure through which power (or gas) is supplied. It's the same poles and wires no matter whose name appears on the bill.

So "competition" is largely an illusion at the ordinary consumer level since only a small part of the true cost of supply is subject to such competition, the rest remaining a natural monopoly. It's not like, say, airlines where choosing Virgin over Qantas means flying on a physically different plane. 

Networks are a different issue to competition as such. Much has been said about "gold plating" and you're mentioning reliability which I agree is a definite issue and a legitimate driver of investment. But it's not like airlines or shops where multiple competitors may lead to improved service. With electricity, you'll get exactly the same reliability no matter who the supplier is. Hence the failure of broad economic models when applied to electricity, gas or urban water supply - there's minimal real competition in practice.


----------



## SirRumpole

The main opposition for the burka ban seems to come from shrill do-gooders like Christine Milne rather than from the Islamic community. 

The full face covering burka is NOT a requirement of the Islamic faith, obviously, as very few Muslim women actually wear it so it comes down to a matter of choice. We should therefore be free to impose the same restrictions on identity concealment as we wold impose on anyone else who chooses to conceal their identity in public.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> The main opposition for the burka ban seems to come from shrill do-gooders like Christine Milne rather than from the Islamic community.
> 
> The full face covering burka is NOT a requirement of the Islamic faith, obviously, as very few Muslim women actually wear it so it comes down to a matter of choice. We should therefore be free to impose the same restrictions on identity concealment as we wold impose on anyone else who chooses to conceal their identity in public.




I wonder if they would let a bunch of blokes, wearing full face motor cycle helmets, walk in?


----------



## Smurf1976

SirRumpole said:


> The full face covering burka is NOT a requirement of the Islamic faith, obviously, as very few Muslim women actually wear it so it comes down to a matter of choice. We should therefore be free to impose the same restrictions on identity concealment as we wold impose on anyone else who chooses to conceal their identity in public.




Even if it _was_ a requirement of the Islamic "faith", I still see no reason to allow it.

This is Australia, we make our own rules and we require people to have their face clearly visible in some situations and there are justifiable reasons why this is required. End of story.


----------



## noco

Smurf1976 said:


> Even if it _was_ a requirement of the Islamic "faith", I still see no reason to allow it.
> 
> This is Australia, we make our own rules and we require people to have their face clearly visible in some situations and there are justifiable reasons why this is required. End of story.




+ 1...I fully agree.


----------



## SirRumpole

Smurf1976 said:


> Even if it _was_ a requirement of the Islamic "faith", I still see no reason to allow it.
> 
> This is Australia, we make our own rules and we require people to have their face clearly visible in some situations and there are justifiable reasons why this is required. End of story.




Absolutely. My point was that there is no argument along "religious discrimination" lines.


----------



## So_Cynical

SirRumpole said:


> The full face covering burka is NOT a requirement of the Islamic faith, obviously, as *very few Muslim women actually wear it* so it comes down to a matter of choice.




Its a matter of cultural acceptance or rejection.


----------



## orr

Can anybody inform me as to whether, up to this point in time; has some one wearing a burka ever been seated bin the public viewing areas of parliament house?

Mind you though, I did spot Mathias Cormann trying to sneak out the back entrance in one just the other day, on his way to a financial advice seminar, I believe.


----------



## SirRumpole

orr said:


> Can anybody inform me as to whether, up to this point in time; has some one wearing a burka ever been seated bin the public viewing areas of parliament house?
> 
> Mind you though, I did spot Mathias Cormann trying to sneak out the back entrance in one just the other day, on his way to a financial advice seminar, I believe.




Not that I know of, which although I agree with their sentiment, the stupidity of bringing the idea up when it's not necessary to do so is obvious.


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> Not that I know of, which although I agree with their sentiment, the stupidity of bringing the idea up when it's not necessary to do so is obvious.



Before you get too carried away with how unnecessary it may or may not have been, it was reported on ABC's "PM" program this evening that the *interim ruling* was in response to a widespread rumour as follows:

(from PM this evening)



> MARK COLVIN: A rumour about burka clad protesters appears to be behind yesterday's controversial decision to segregate people with face coverings in Parliament House.
> 
> There's been widespread derision and condemnation for the measures.
> 
> The Prime Minister has asked the Speaker to rethink the decision.
> 
> But sources have told PM that it was a bid to stop about 10 protesters disrupting Question Time.




Additional reports indicate the possibility that around ten protestors (as distinct from Muslim women) were planning to create mayhem in the parliament.

Perhaps you'd prefer they'd have been permitted to go ahead and wreak havoc with their identities concealed.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

Julia said:


> Before you get too carried away with how unnecessary it may or may not have been, it was reported on ABC's "PM" program this evening that the *interim ruling* was in response to a widespread rumour as follows:
> 
> (from PM this evening)
> 
> 
> 
> Additional reports indicate the possibility that around ten protestors (as distinct from Muslim women) were planning to create mayhem in the parliament.
> 
> Perhaps you'd prefer they'd have been permitted to go ahead and wreak havoc with their identities concealed.




Thanks Julia,

This puts the Speaker's decision and Tony Abbott's clarification/opposition to burqa ban  in perspective. 

Mice will make mischief.

And then there is female genital mutilation which goes hand in hand with burgadom.

gg


----------



## noco

noco said:


> The costs bandied around are 12 subs from Japan $20 to $25 billion.
> 12 subs made in Australia $50 to $80 billion.
> 
> I should imagine the security system would be secretive only to Australia.
> 
> I believe you are talking in the extreme with your statement of comparison.
> 
> If it was coming out of your pocket would be prepared to pay the difference?
> 
> Just imagine what we could do with the difference in cost......How many dams could we build or how many kilometers of highways could we construct?
> 
> The Labor Party reduced out defense spending to 1.8% of GDP....the lowest level since 1938 and now Bill Shorten wants to spend an extra $30 to $55 billion to appease the CFMEU......It really does not make sense.
> 
> 
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/..._the_lost_soldier_still_fighting_world_war_2/




*Buy the best subs

THANKS to Brendan Nicholson for the most interesting report about retired rear admiral Peter Briggs’s criticisms of the Japanese Soryu-class submarines, which are being considered as a replacement of the Collins class (“Navy veterans critical of Japanese subs”, 1/10). It is worrying that we are considering the Soryu when it has smaller crew quarters and a shorter range than the Collins.

I agree with him when he says we should be considering a nuclear design, such as the French Barracuda, which doesn’t need refuelling for many years. Surely with our vast shoreline we need vessels with extended range rather than the reverse.

In 1990 we could have bought the British nuclear Vanguard submarines for about the same cost as the Collins. But because of our antinuclear policy these were never considered.

Is history going to repeat itself, or are we going to get real, start afresh, and consider revoking our antinuclear stand so we can look at the best submarine to suit our needs? Right now the US navy is building another 10 Virginia-class nuclear-powered subs for $US1.7 billion each, which is less than the budgeted replacement for the Collins. We should be addressing what is the best machine instead of repeating mistakes just because of a policy written years ago.

Colin B. Fraser, Aldgate SA
*


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> Perhaps you'd prefer they'd have been permitted to go ahead and wreak havoc with their identities concealed.




I think the simplest idea is just ban everyone with identity concealing garments from entering the building.


----------



## Calliope

I suppose it's all a matter of modesty.


----------



## Knobby22

Bit of truth in that Calliope.


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> I wonder if they would let a bunch of blokes, wearing full face motor cycle helmets, walk in?




I wonder what would happen if a bunch of Aussie blokes donned a burka each and paraded around in them? Take it one step further, I wonder what would happen if motor cycle members donned a burka each in Qld ?


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> *Buy the best subs
> 
> THANKS to Brendan Nicholson for the most interesting report about retired rear admiral Peter Briggs’s criticisms of the Japanese Soryu-class submarines, which are being considered as a replacement of the Collins class (“Navy veterans critical of Japanese subs”, 1/10). It is worrying that we are considering the Soryu when it has smaller crew quarters and a shorter range than the Collins.
> 
> I agree with him when he says we should be considering a nuclear design, such as the French Barracuda, which doesn’t need refuelling for many years. Surely with our vast shoreline we need vessels with extended range rather than the reverse.
> 
> In 1990 we could have bought the British nuclear Vanguard submarines for about the same cost as the Collins. But because of our antinuclear policy these were never considered.
> 
> Is history going to repeat itself, or are we going to get real, start afresh, and consider revoking our antinuclear stand so we can look at the best submarine to suit our needs? Right now the US navy is building another 10 Virginia-class nuclear-powered subs for $US1.7 billion each, which is less than the budgeted replacement for the Collins. We should be addressing what is the best machine instead of repeating mistakes just because of a policy written years ago.
> 
> Colin B. Fraser, Aldgate SA
> *




I heard the diesel is quieter, but yea, with our vast coastal borders, nuclear ought to be the way... at least worth considering given that a couple of bound of the stuff could fire one for a while.


----------



## Knobby22

Surely we could go with out strength and use coal power subs! 

Seriously though, with the recent developments of batteries, couldn't we have an electric sub, maybe with fuel cells to create hydrogen from sea water to use as power as a backup. We wouldn't need refuelling depots or the problems of nuclear fuel.


----------



## noco

Knobby22 said:


> Surely we could go with out strength and use coal power subs!
> 
> Seriously though, with the recent developments of batteries, couldn't we have an electric sub, maybe with fuel cells to create hydrogen from sea water to use as power as a backup. We wouldn't need refuelling depots or the problems of nuclear fuel.




Yeah...good idea but lets include some port holes as well to let the gases out.l


----------



## luutzu

Knobby22 said:


> Surely we could go with out strength and use coal power subs!
> 
> Seriously though, with the recent developments of batteries, couldn't we have an electric sub, maybe with fuel cells to create hydrogen from sea water to use as power as a backup. We wouldn't need refuelling depots or the problems of nuclear fuel.




That's interesting... Saw a documentary where modern subs now uses seawater as its source of oxygen for breathing - separating the O2 from H2O... might as well use the Hydrogen byproduct to energise.

But why use clean Hydrogen and there's clean coals and fossil.


----------



## Tink

Regarding the burqa or any sort of face covering, helmets etc, personally, I don't think their faces should be covered for security reasons.

Last nights Lateline interview of a Hizb ut-Tahrir leader.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2014/s4103227.htm


----------



## Tisme

Tink said:


> Regarding the burqa or any sort of face covering, helmets etc, personally, I don't think their faces should be covered for security reasons.
> 
> Last nights Lateline interview of a Hizb ut-Tahrir leader.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2014/s4103227.htm




I came around from an operation yesterday just in time to see that "interview". I got the distinct impression the bets are already on within the Muslim community to shun our ways and proceed at full steam with their own empire building Arabic caliphate. Hizb should be encouraged to talk on more shows to get his views across a broader audience; maybe then the ambivalents and bleeding hearts will realise the situation we are in. 

Those old guys with half a brain back in the 19th century dark ages must have known a thing or two about religion  versus a parliamentary system and thus the separation of powers. I'm wondering what punitive provisions were put in place to enforce the rule of law?


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> I'm wondering what punitive provisions were put in place to enforce the rule of law?




Only a few minor punishments like flogging, stoning and cutting off hands.

What a thing to wake up to eh ? You should have had an early operation and woken up to Vanessa O'Hanlon


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> Only a few minor punishments like flogging, stoning and cutting off hands.
> 
> What a thing to wake up to eh ? You should have had an early operation and woken up to Vanessa O'Hanlon




Yes Vanessa...yummy mummy 

I caught the tail end of Q&A this week and I noticed there was that twerp who does the Optus ads and promotes homosexuality. I found him rather rude shouting over Bob, but more to the point I was amazed at how many likes he got on facebook for being obnoxious; the strange thing about Josh Thomas  is that he is a local lad who went to our local school in an affluent suburb and there is no reason anyone can fathom as to why he has a mangled accent.... showmanship is apparently the thing to do these days in the face of sensible and mature conversation and it certainly attracts the low lifes like flies.


----------



## Calliope

What a soft under-belly our democratic system has!!! Our PM is empowered to spend hundreds of millions to drop two bombs in Iraq even though we know there will be seldom targets of opportunity there.

And yet he has no power to root out evil radicals in the Muslim community who support ISIS.

Can anyone tell me what relevance those two bombs have to our homeland security?


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> Yes Vanessa...yummy mummy
> 
> I caught the tail end of Q&A this week and I noticed there was that twerp who does the Optus ads and promotes homosexuality. I found him rather rude shouting over Bob, but more to the point I was amazed at how many likes he got on facebook for being obnoxious; the strange thing about Josh Thomas  is that he is a local lad who went to our local school in an affluent suburb and there is no reason anyone can fathom as to why he has a mangled accent.... showmanship is apparently the thing to do these days in the face of sensible and mature conversation and it certainly attracts the low lifes like flies.




I'm afraid I didn't watch that show, but I saw the obnoxian you refer to on a news clip somewhere.

 Being outrageous and/or "contraversial" is the way to get attention these days, rather than having a reasoned argument, which is why the likes of Jones (Alan) and Bolt (barking) thrive. Trying to argue a point based on evidence or reason is just too hard for most people to understand and the brain dead prefer some twit to utter nonsense as long as it's half entertaining.


----------



## luutzu

Tisme said:


> I came around from an operation yesterday just in time to see that "interview". I got the distinct impression the bets are already on within the Muslim community to shun our ways and proceed at full steam with their own empire building Arabic caliphate. Hizb should be encouraged to talk on more shows to get his views across a broader audience; maybe then the ambivalents and bleeding hearts will realise the situation we are in.
> 
> Those old guys with half a brain back in the 19th century dark ages must have known a thing or two about religion  versus a parliamentary system and thus the separation of powers. I'm wondering what punitive provisions were put in place to enforce the rule of law?




When does the views of a few individuals represents the views of the majority?

I don't know... where I live, those Muslims, not all of them, but a large number of them... in the past couple weeks, they all drabe houses, flag their cars, honk to each other day and night on the roads... But their colours are White and Blue.

I thought it was Black, or maybe green and white... but somehow, these barbarians chose Blue and White as their colours, and a Bulldog as their idol. They even have their children wrap these flags around them man! My neighbour, whom I thought was a Christian Arab, they all wrap their kids in white and blue, bring friends and eskies over the weekend and have a barbie.

I think they've converted the local Canterbury culture to their ways of hate and are not shy about showing it.

dam, I better go throw the pasta and seafood salad they gave us.


----------



## banco

Sloppy Joe screws up again:

Prime Minister Tony Abbott is being urged to "correct" his Treasurer Joe Hockey, who has said the Labor opposition should pass stalled budget measures if it is "honest" about supporting the Iraq mission and its associated costs.

Mr Abbott on Thursday was asked several times whether he backed Mr Hockey's comments, but he declined and instead praised Labor's leader Bill Shorten for his bipartisan approach to the military action against Islamic State extremists.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...r-iraq-war-20141009-113eox.html#ixzz3Fdh2nLA2


----------



## Tisme

luutzu said:


> When does the views of a few individuals represents the views of the majority?
> 
> I don't know... where I live, those Muslims, not all of them, but a large number of them... in the past couple weeks, they all drabe houses, flag their cars, honk to each other day and night on the roads... But their colours are White and Blue.
> 
> I thought it was Black, or maybe green and white... but somehow, these barbarians chose Blue and White as their colours, and a Bulldog as their idol. They even have their children wrap these flags around them man! My neighbour, whom I thought was a Christian Arab, they all wrap their kids in white and blue, bring friends and eskies over the weekend and have a barbie.
> 
> I think they've converted the local Canterbury culture to their ways of hate and are not shy about showing it.
> 
> dam, I better go throw the pasta and seafood salad they gave us.




"within the Muslim community"


----------



## SirRumpole

How to look after your mates and wage a class war in one easy lesson



> Low-income families in Sydney's west, Melbourne's north to suffer most under Coalition budget: NATSEM
> 
> 
> Low-income families in Western Sydney and Melbourne's northern suburbs will suffer the most under new Federal Government budget measures, a study has found.
> 
> Low-to-middle income families could be worse off by more than $3,500 a year, the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM) study found, while low income families with children could lose more than 6.5 per cent of their disposable income.
> 
> A couple with children in the lowest income quintile will, on average, lose 6.6 per cent of their disposable income by 2017-2018 while a top quintile family will actually gain 0.3 per cent.
> 
> The study modelled 19 separate budget measures and also included some additional elements outside the Coalition's 2014-2015 budget.
> 
> These measures differentiate the trajectory of the previous Labor government and that of the Abbott Government's first budget.
> 
> The study identified Broadmeadows, Campbellfield and Coolaroo in Melbourne and Mt Druitt and Whalan in Sydney as the areas hardest hit by the federal budget.
> 
> The report said families in Elizabeth and The Parks in Adelaide will also suffer.
> 
> Some of the suburbs least affected include Wahroonga in Sydney, Cottesloe in Perth, Nhulunbuy in the Northern Territory and Forrest in the national capital.
> 
> The research was funded by the Australian Workplace Innovation and Social Research Centre at the
> University of Adelaide.
> 
> Opposition Leader Bill Shorten, responding to the study, said the budget burden was falling on those least able to afford it.
> 
> "It's all right for senior members [of the Government] to make sure their electorates are paying only a small increase and experiencing small cuts, whereas the rest of Australia has been left to its own devices by the Abbott Government," he said.
> 
> Addressing the Tasmanian Liberal conference in Launceston, Prime Minister Tony Abbott said the budget contained tough but necessary measures.
> 
> "We said before the election that we would bring the budget back under control," he said.
> 
> Mr Abbott also told the gathering that while the campaign to get the budget through the Senate had its "ups and downs", the Government would persevere.
> 
> "Inch by painful inch, step by difficult step, compromise by hard-negotiated compromise, that's exactly what we're doing," he said.
> 
> "So we are getting there. It's not easy. Every single step has to be negotiated through a Senate dominated by our political opponents, but we will never ever give up."
> 
> Commentators this week said that while domestic activity is showing signs of improvement, the federal budget is coming under increased pressure from slower global growth and falling commodity prices.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-...ffer-under-current-budget-natsem-says/5806464


----------



## luutzu

SirRumpole said:


> How to look after your mates and wage a class war in one easy lesson




We all know from America that the rich are job creators, not necessarily Australian jobs or the kind of jobs the non-driving poor are hired to do... but you know, trickle down economics.


----------



## explod

So Mr (R)Abbott is going to shirtfront Putin for murdering Australians.

There is no evidence that Russia had anything at all to do with this crash. There is some growing evidence that a Ukraine warplane shot it down by mistake.

The investigation still has a long way to go and is being held back by political self interests, in particular from the west.

Source, Zero Hedge over the last few months.

It is becoming clear that Mr Abbott's mouth is becoming an embarrasement on the international stage.


----------



## drsmith

explod said:


> So Mr (R)Abbott is going to shirtfront Putin for murdering Australians.
> 
> There is no evidence that Russia had anything at all to do with this crash. There is some growing evidence that a Ukraine warplane shot it down by mistake.
> 
> The investigation still has a long way to go and is being held back by political self interests, in particular from the west.
> 
> Source, Zero Hedge over the last few months.
> 
> It is becoming clear that Mr Abbott's mouth is becoming an embarrasement on the international stage.



Isn't the loopy Left's cause now Islam ?


----------



## explod

drsmith said:


> Isn't the loopy Left's cause now Islam ?




What has the left got to do with the current discussion?

The use of the word "loopy " is there in place of understanding.

And Russia is a totalitarian regime but seems to be moderating towards western ways and trade. Its growing wealth in resources and its trading relationship with the chinese powerhouse make it one to try and work things out with, not try to thump.


----------



## luutzu

explod said:


> So Mr (R)Abbott is going to shirtfront Putin for murdering Australians.
> 
> There is no evidence that Russia had anything at all to do with this crash. There is some growing evidence that a Ukraine warplane shot it down by mistake.
> 
> The investigation still has a long way to go and is being held back by political self interests, in particular from the west.
> 
> Source, Zero Hedge over the last few months.
> 
> It is becoming clear that Mr Abbott's mouth is becoming an embarrasement on the international stage.




I think he unconsciously want to compete with Putin to see whose shirtless pose will win the G20 calendar contest.


----------



## drsmith

luutzu said:


> I think he unconsciously want to compete with Putin to see whose shirtless pose will win the G20 calendar contest.



Wasn't Bill first with the chest beating today ?


----------



## drsmith

explod said:


> What has the left got to do with the current discussion?
> 
> The use of the word "loopy " is there in place of understanding.
> 
> And Russia is a totalitarian regime but seems to be moderating towards western ways and trade. Its growing wealth in resources and its trading relationship with the chinese powerhouse make it one to try and work things out with, not try to thump.



When I was at uni (mid 80's), I can remember someone protesting that if the US disarmed its nukes, that totalitarian regime (your words) would have done the same. 

Perhaps he too saw himself as being understanding.


----------



## luutzu

drsmith said:


> Wasn't Bill first with the chest beating today ?




Bill got to oppose something. Can't lead an opposition that oppose very little.


chest fronting... see the resemblance?


----------



## Smurf1976

explod said:


> Its growing wealth in resources



It doesn't seem to be too commonly realised that Russia produces more oil than Saudi Arabia and is the world's #1 oil producing country.

Russia = 13.3% of world oil production. The other big two being Saudi Arabia (12.65%) and the USA (10%).

For the record, Australia = 0.7%, New Zealand = 0.07%. 

If you look at Russia's economy, they're very much an "oil country" so far as exports and government revenue is concerned. Not quite as dependent on it as the Saudis etc, but it's a very major industry in Russia certainly.

Russia is also the #2 gas producing country at about 19% of the world total. USA is #1 (20%).


----------



## chiff

Perhaps we can get the Australian protagonists in the ring with Putin at Cairns.
First billing will be....Vlad the Lad v Tony the Show Pony....and then Vlad the lad v Bill the Dill.


----------



## chiff

on second thoughts should be    Vlad the Bad


----------



## SirRumpole

The "shirt fronting" statement by Abbott is a piece of pointless machoism by a leader who is virtually powerless to achieve anything when it comes to changing Russia's mind on Ukraine or anything else. Why should Putin listen to us when they don't listen to the the US ?

Abbott's only chance of achieving anything worthwhile (and do we know what he is actually trying to achieve ?), is to get other world leaders to take up our case and act in concert against Russia.

If he can achieve that, then Abbott would have made his mark on the world stage, if not then we get another reminder of our irrelevance in international affairs.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> The "shirt fronting" statement by Abbott is a piece of pointless machoism by a leader who is virtually powerless to achieve anything when it comes to changing Russia's mind on Ukraine or anything else. Why should Putin listen to us when they don't listen to the the US ?
> 
> Abbott's only chance of achieving anything worthwhile (and do we know what he is actually trying to achieve ?), is to get other world leaders to take up our case and act in concert against Russia.
> 
> If he can achieve that, then Abbott would have made his mark on the world stage, if not then we get another reminder of our irrelevance in international affairs.




+ 1 Rumpy....that is good sound thinking


----------



## Calliope

Oh dear!!!




	

		
			
		

		
	
!


----------



## drsmith

luutzu said:


> Bill got to oppose something. Can't lead an opposition that oppose very little.



That doesn't put him beyond criticism.


----------



## drsmith

Calliope said:


> Oh dear!!!



TA's shirtfront comment struck me as not being very prime ministerial.


----------



## bellenuit

drsmith said:


> TA's shirtfront comment struck me as not being very prime ministerial.




I agree. Can you imagine both together at a news conference and Abbott is asked directly about that statement. It will require some embarrassing back tracking.

He seemed to be getting his act together, but that is like a return to his old ways with his foot in his mouth more often than not.


----------



## luutzu

drsmith said:


> That doesn't put him beyond criticism.




I'm not a Labour guy if that's what you mean.

No one's beyond criticism... there's always going to be policies I think is good, others I think not so good - from either party. I just like to put my two cents out there for what it's worth.

I like a couple of things Abbott has done so far... not that that's all I agree with 'cause I just read the headlines... But I like how he tell Holden and GM where to go, to not blackmail the gov't and us taxpayers to fund their ever losing operations else they move offshore. Labour always give in and Holdren always run out of money.

I also agree with not raising the superannuation guarantee.

But then there's all these sports analogies and slogans in more important policies like war and peace, civil liberties, freedom of the press...


----------



## Knobby22

drsmith said:


> TA's shirtfront comment struck me as not being very prime ministerial.




I don't think its smart either, well maybe in a political sense.
Russia has already banned most of our exports including dairy, kangaroo meat etc.
I can see Russia relaxing the restrictions from Europe but leaving us out of their market.
The farmers are really getting it in the neck.

On a related issue, China has put import tariffs on our coal as it is competing too well against their mines. Lovely, so instead of us getting the tax that Labor failed to get happening due to incompetence, China gets it instead. Well done everyone involved. Another lose lose for Australia.


----------



## drsmith

Knobby22 said:


> On a related issue, China has put import tariffs on our coal as it is competing too well against their mines. Lovely, so instead of us getting the tax that Labor failed to get happening due to incompetence, China gets it instead. Well done everyone involved. Another lose lose for Australia.



Is that a suggestion that if we had kept the carbon tax that China would not have gone down this route ?


----------



## Knobby22

drsmith said:


> Is that a suggestion that if we had kept the carbon tax that China would not have gone down this route ?




No, the mining tax, not the carbon tax. And not the Gillard or even the Rudd mining tax which were both flawed. 
And yes, there would have been no reason for China to need the tariff if it existed. The reason they slapped the tariff on Australia is because our coal was too cheap. Now they collect the cash, not us. We seem to have no problem with a petroleum rent tax.


----------



## Julia

drsmith said:


> Wasn't Bill first with the chest beating today ?






drsmith said:


> TA's shirtfront comment struck me as not being very prime ministerial.






bellenuit said:


> I agree. Can you imagine both together at a news conference and Abbott is asked directly about that statement. It will require some embarrassing back tracking.
> 
> He seemed to be getting his act together, but that is like a return to his old ways with his foot in his mouth more often than not.



Just so unedifying, embarrassing really.  From both leaders, but TA in particular.  Shorten is essentially irrelevant.

A little dignity on behalf of Australia would be much more appropriate.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> The "shirt fronting" statement by Abbott is a piece of pointless machoism by a leader who is virtually powerless to achieve anything when it comes to changing Russia's mind on Ukraine or anything else. Why should Putin listen to us when they don't listen to the the US ?
> 
> Abbott's only chance of achieving anything worthwhile (and do we know what he is actually trying to achieve ?), is to get other world leaders to take up our case and act in concert against Russia.
> 
> If he can achieve that, then Abbott would have made his mark on the world stage, if not then we get another reminder of our irrelevance in international affairs.




Yeah but, the machismo just oozes from Tony, he's such a warrior king and Julie is his Boadicea. Between them they must have insulted just about everyone who counts to our economy and security. 

The Ruskies might have driven back many Emperors and invaders in their time, but they never figured on our Tony. They must be shaking in their boots at the thought of an Abbott dressing down.

I'm wondering what next piece of national patriotism Bill Shorty will tease him with, so Tony can gazump him.


----------



## Tisme

Knobby22 said:


> Lovely, so instead of us getting the tax that Labor failed to get happening due to incompetence, China gets it instead. Well done everyone involved. Another lose lose for Australia.




Yes we Australians are really good at negotiating our strengths away. I put it down to the mindset we are a lucky country and as such it's impossible to lose. 

We just agree with what News Corp tells us; who to hate, who to ridicule, who to adore, who to vote for, who to believe and therefore if they don't tell us the economy has gone backwards over the last 12months as it has, that unemployment looks grim as it does, that our neighbours distrust us as they do, then implicitly everything is going swimmingly well.


----------



## Tisme

drsmith said:


> Is that a suggestion that if we had kept the carbon tax that China would not have gone down this route ?





Well it would have made our coal less competitive and therefore less prone to tariffs. Our sales people must be missing a whole lot of margin if they are under pricing the value of the commodity compared to a third world pricing structure.


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> Well it would have made our coal less competitive and therefore less prone to tariffs. Our sales people must be missing a whole lot of margin if they are under pricing the value of the commodity compared to a third world pricing structure.




I've heard of pricing ourselves out of the market, but this is ridiculous.

If ever there was a justification for a MRRT, the China tariff fiasco is it.


----------



## luutzu

Tisme said:


> Yeah but, the machismo just oozes from Tony, he's such a warrior king and Julie is his Boadicea. Between them they must have insulted just about everyone who counts to our economy and security.
> 
> The Ruskies might have driven back many Emperors and invaders in their time, but they never figured on our Tony. They must be shaking in their boots at the thought of an Abbott dressing down.
> 
> I'm wondering what next piece of national patriotism Bill Shorty will tease him with, so Tony can gazump him.




I think we're too disrespectful of other nations, especially ones as large as Russia and China.
John McCain of the US call Russia nothing but a giant gas station; Captain Abbott seems like he want to march to Moscow through the Ukraine and go toe to toe with Putin; There's these think tanks and Western scholars who practically laughs at the idea that China could be a serious contender to the US and Western powers - one, Lutvak or something, even said that he had studied China and conclude that it's a culture that only know tactics and have no strategic thinking - citing that Chinese dynasties last an average of 2 to 3 hundred years each, not realising that Europe and the Roman Empire change its borders and breaks into countless states while China is the only ancient empire that expand still keep most of its territory throughout the thousands years.

I mean these two have a bunch of problems and I'm guessing that they won't be structurally, militarily as powerful as the US and the West any time soon... but they're not countries you ought to talk down to, especially if you're a little Australia with a mere 22 million people.

There's a recent interview with Robert Johnson, one of the men working with Soros to break the Bank of England in 1992. Johnson said that with the West sanctioning Russia over the Ukraine, China and the BRIC are establishing closer ties away from the Western powers, providing alternative markets and exchanges so the West can't just put on a squeeze and their economy just collapse.


----------



## drsmith

SirRumpole said:


> If ever there was a justification for a MRRT, the China tariff fiasco is it.



To suggest we increase our cost base (decrease our economic competitiveness) as a response to tariffs is economic lunacy. 

Two wrongs don't make a right.


----------



## Julia

Tisme said:


> Yes we Australians are really good at negotiating our strengths away. I put it down to the mindset we are a lucky country and as such it's impossible to lose.
> 
> We just agree with what News Corp tells us; who to hate, who to ridicule, who to adore, who to vote for, who to believe and therefore if they don't tell us the economy has gone backwards over the last 12months as it has, that unemployment looks grim as it does, that our neighbours distrust us as they do, then implicitly everything is going swimmingly well.



Really?  If you are dependent on any organisation to explain to you how to think then you deserve whatever source you subscribe to.

I don't believe for a moment that the average Australian deserves the sort of insult you've just delivered to them.
Most people are well able to form their own conclusions.


----------



## Tisme

Julia said:


> Really?  If you are dependent on any organisation to explain to you how to think then you deserve whatever source you subscribe to.
> 
> I don't believe for a moment that the average Australian deserves the sort of insult you've just delivered to them.
> Most people are well able to form their own conclusions.




You have a source for that opinion?


----------



## Julia

Source is the reading of and listening to the opinions of now thousands of Australians across the political spectrum.
A small percentage parrot what Alan Jones et al have pronounced to be The Absolute Truth, but the rest largely demonstrate clear capacity to think for themselves.


----------



## Knobby22

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsOCUFFn4Ug


----------



## Tisme

Knobby22 said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsOCUFFn4Ug




 Nailed it !!!


----------



## Smurf1976

Julia said:


> A small percentage parrot what Alan Jones et al have pronounced to be The Absolute Truth, but the rest largely demonstrate clear capacity to think for themselves.




Agreed that most are capable of thinking for themselves. But if their source of information is limited to one newspaper and and the TV news then they'll be basing that thinking on a narrow viewpoint that may reflect a degree of bias and/or simple lack of interest by the media outlet.

Like most, my own areas or knowledge and interest are limited in terms of the overall range of issues in public debate. If it interests me then I'll think about it and do some research, but there just isn't enough time to check out every issue. Most people would be the same I expect - not many would have done a great deal of research into everything from climate change to industrial relations to asylum seekers.


----------



## Julia

You may or may not be typical of the larger population, Smurf.  Plenty of people have time and interest to read and listen broadly.


----------



## Knobby22

My little you tube clip from Life of Brian cuts both ways.
Obviously it is extreme and people think more for themselves than shown
......but maybe not as much as they should.


----------



## Tisme

Julia said:


> You may or may not be typical of the larger population, Smurf.  Plenty of people have time and interest to read and listen broadly.





I'm sure there are things you know to be absolutely true because you witnessed them, but the media (or general belief) tells a different story? It is certainly the case for me and a few people I know. 

 I have a healthy disdain for (esp.) the print media; the online news is generally rehashed print media so it's hard to know if lies are being compounded or truth reinforced.

The telly news isn't all that much better, for example the ABC morning news after Tony made his daily gaffe; I watched as Michael Rowland and Virginia Trioli talked themselves into shirtfronting meaning an obscure AFL play that was rarely ever called that anyway. They are obviously too young to remember it was a term we sometimes used in the play ground for picking a fight by grabbing a handful of the other bloke's shirt, twisting and lifting to under his chin.


----------



## Tisme

I just thought of a knew clichÃ© for Tony (and Julie):


"By Jingo..." 


seeing as they both have a severe case of jingoism.


----------



## chiff

My understanding of a shirt-front was a shoulder charge hitting an opponent front-on.This has now been outlawed in AFL.
If a person was unaware or not ready for the collision quite a bit of damage could be done.


----------



## overhang

Smurf1976 said:


> Agreed that most are capable of thinking for themselves. But if their source of information is limited to one newspaper and and the TV news then they'll be basing that thinking on a narrow viewpoint that may reflect a degree of bias and/or simple lack of interest by the media outlet.
> 
> Like most, my own areas or knowledge and interest are limited in terms of the overall range of issues in public debate. If it interests me then I'll think about it and do some research, but there just isn't enough time to check out every issue. Most people would be the same I expect - not many would have done a great deal of research into everything from climate change to industrial relations to asylum seekers.




Completely agree.  It seems many people who are less interested in political and world affairs than most of this forum receive their news from few sources.  Having a work colleague that purchases the Herald Sun daily allows me to read the paper without wasting money on the rag, it's more of an editorial than a newspaper.  The use of cartoons followed by alarmist titles are frequent on the front page, the complete lack of impartial reporting, Andrew Bolt is moving further to the front of the paper as the years go by and he will soon be the front page.  Take the East-West link in Victoria for example, as someone who doesn't live in the city I'm quite unaware of the need for the link.  I expect the Herald Sun to inform me of the positive and negatives for such a project and the alternatives given it is such a huge expense to taxpayers.  The Herald Sun has jumped fully on board the proposed East-West link and only give it a positive view point.  The scary part is this is the largest selling newspaper in Victoria.


----------



## Julia

Well, I suppose it's up to the individual and his/her priorities.  I don't subscribe to the notion that the opinions of most people are simply derived from a newspaper or television program.

We constantly have politicians making statements, and commentators offering their view points on them.
We have incessant talk back radio, blogs, and forums such as this where individuals state their views about everything.  People talk to one another about current affairs, expressing their views and listening to the responses of others.  Surely out of all this people will gradually discern what makes sense to them and what is fluff.

I just give a bit more credit to the average Australian than to categorically proclaim that he/she is a sucker for everything that any form of media produces.

But disagree away.  Might indeed be the case that the average Australian is so stupid as to be incapable of forming their own view.


----------



## overhang

Julia said:


> Well, I suppose it's up to the individual and his/her priorities.  I don't subscribe to the notion that the opinions of most people are simply derived from a newspaper or television program.
> 
> We constantly have politicians making statements, and commentators offering their view points on them.
> We have incessant talk back radio, blogs, and forums such as this where individuals state their views about everything.  People talk to one another about current affairs, expressing their views and listening to the responses of others.  Surely out of all this people will gradually discern what makes sense to them and what is fluff.




I certainly think the individuals you mention who engage in this sort of discourse are quite passionate about current affairs and form their views from educating themselves on most matters.  I however don't believe that the average Australian does engage in the many forms of political prospective you mentioned. I may well be wrong which may be a result of the association I have with what an average Australian is.






> But disagree away.  Might indeed be the case that the average Australian is so stupid as to be incapable of forming their own view.



That's a little unfair, know one called the average Australian stupid but rather suggested they may be too disinterested in affairs to educate themselves on topics using multiple sources.  I don't think that's stupid but something they just don't prioritise highly in life.


----------



## Smurf1976

Tisme said:


> I'm sure there are things you know to be absolutely true because you witnessed them, but the media (or general belief) tells a different story? It is certainly the case for me and a few people I know.




Been there, seen that one many times. 

Another one is how to "use" the media to your advantage. One thing I've always admired about environmentalists is that, despite very limited resources and mostly hostile newspaper editors etc, they outright thumped their opponents back in the early days in terms of media abilities. They ran the protests to suit the news cycle whilst the other side didn't have a clue really.

I don't doubt that the facts on practically any issue are available as are multiple opinions. What I doubt is that the majority of the population actually makes a point of ensuring they have heard all of the differing points of view on any particular issue and properly understood them.

If one side has its' case on every news bulletin and can sustain that, whilst the other side gets only an occasional mention, then that's the same principle as advertising. Keep saying it often enough and at least some people will start taking it as fact.


----------



## SirRumpole

I'm not sure that the average Australian is interested in politics enough to actually take the trouble to do an intellectual analysis of the various options available. Most are too busy earning a living to have the time for other than a cursory glance at the tv news before dropping off to sleep in front of a tv soapie. That's not to say that they are intellectually incapable of analysis, but they don't have the time, interest  or energy to do it.

A lot of people wouldn't even vote if they didn't have to and our governments are usually decided by a handful of swinging seats which indicates a lot of people are "rusted ons" anyway who have made p their minds for eternity.

The sad bit is that there is so little choice on the political scene these days. Palmer proved that many people will vote for a goose, just to put a cat in with the pigeons.


----------



## noco

The choice all boils down to who can manage the economy of the country better.

You can chose an adult level headed team who knows what they are doing or you can chose a juvenile team full of ex union hacks who have no idea except how spend up big, tax big and borrow $100,000,000 each day and show nothing for it. 

The choice is simple whether in Federal, State or local.......who can manage our money the best and I don't need links to prove my point.....it is all in the history books

BTW.....I did vote for Bob Hawke once so I am not biased.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> The choice all boils down to who can manage the economy of the country better.
> 
> You can chose an adult level headed team who knows what they are doing or you can chose a juvenile team full of ex union hacks who have no idea except how spend up big, tax big and borrow $100,000,000 each day and show nothing for it.
> 
> The choice is simple whether in Federal, State or local.......who can manage our money the best and I don't need links to prove my point.....it is all in the history books
> 
> BTW.....I did vote for Bob Hawke once so I am not biased.




If they really know what they are doing, it shouldn't be hard to convince people of that. Instead they have to rely on a loony like Palmer for support. As I said in another thread, if cuts are so important, then why insist on bringing in an expensive parental leave system ?


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> If they really know what they are doing, it shouldn't be hard to convince people of that. Instead they have to rely on a loony like Palmer for support. As I said in another thread, if cuts are so important, then why insist on bringing in an expensive parental leave system ?




Th PPL is paid for by a levy on big business...you know it does not come from tax payers so why persist with your rhetoric?...there will also be a certain amount of savings from the scheme that is in vogue ATM.....And don't forget this same scheme exists for public servants and MPs.......I note the Labor MP Kate Ellis is now in the running  for her chop now she is pregnant......or maybe on principle she could say NO.!!!!!!!!!!

Now just as an example of good adult money management, the link below shows how the Queensland State Government is helping "WORKING FAMILIES" and can you believe it, the ALP and the unions are against it....you see this is what I mean about juvenile union hacks in parliament...they just don't have any idea except how to use the credit card..


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...sales-that-arent/story-fnihsr9v-1227094248408


----------



## Julia

overhang said:


> I certainly think the individuals you mention who engage in this sort of discourse are quite passionate about current affairs and form their views from educating themselves on most matters.  I however don't believe that the average Australian does engage in the many forms of political prospective you mentioned. I may well be wrong which may be a result of the association I have with what an average Australian is




This has turned into a petty argument about something insignificant.

My initial response was to this:


> We just agree with what News Corp tells us; who to hate, who to ridicule, who to adore, who to vote for, who to believe and therefore if they don't tell us the economy has gone backwards over the last 12months as it has, that unemployment looks grim as it does, that our neighbours distrust us as they do, then implicitly everything is going swimmingly well




to which I said
.







Julia said:


> Really?  If you are dependent on any organisation to explain to you how to think then you deserve whatever source you subscribe to.
> 
> I don't believe for a moment that the average Australian deserves the sort of insult you've just delivered to them.
> Most people are well able to form their own conclusions.




because I just dislike that sort of judgement  with its patronising assumptions that the average Australian is naive enough to just accept everything which is aired by some news organisation.

I agree that there is political apathy aplenty, but not that most Australians are captive to any particular message from any particular news source, and unable to evaluate for themselves the validity of that message.

Nothing further from me.


----------



## Calliope

The PPL is Abbott's biggest stupidity. Others include;  

His gutless backdown on the repeal of Section 18c because he thought it might cause radical islamists to hate us more than they do now. and,

His blustering nonsense on shirt-fronting Putin.


----------



## Smurf1976

noco said:


> The choice all boils down to who can manage the economy of the country better.
> 
> You can chose an adult level headed team who knows what they are doing or you can chose a juvenile team




Looking at the Abbott government, the term "insecure" comes to mind. A bully boy style of governance - the hallmark of a leader (political or otherwise) who lacks the ability to get things done without undue conflict.

Same goes for the Tas state government. Outlawing protest and neutralising the Industrial Commission. I mean seriously? If they're worried about green protesters in the forests then that's already covered by existing laws. And if they're worried about negotiating pay rates with the public service well that's why we have an Industrial Commission in the first place. It seems to be very much a case of thinking they can't win the debate fairly, so they'll just remove the means for anyone to object and ram through their agenda.

Looking at both state and federal politics, we're in seriously strange territory right now. Liberal / Coalition going down the track of central planning and authoritarian style governance whilst the Greens and Labor have decided that free markets are worth a go. As for the shirt fronting, well that just looks like immaturity and an overly large ego - we're Australia, we're not a major world power that's going to have the Russians heading for the hills anytime soon.   

As for the economy, time will tell on that one. These Australian governments in general (state and federal) seem hugely focused on the cash position of their respective governments and pursuing ideology but that's about it. At a broader level, we're having quite a "Kodak moment" really. Clinging to what worked in the past, hoping that someone keeps buying our coal and trying to resurrect the woodchip wonderland, rather than accepting what's inevitable at some point and embracing change. History shows that you can only stave off the inevitable for so long, ultimately change does happen.

25 years from now, what's the Australian economy going to be like? Listening to the national and state governments, it would seem that it involves a degree of central planning and lots of coal and wood. Maybe it'll work, but I have serious doubts about that.


----------



## IFocus

Smurf1976 said:


> Looking at the Abbott government, the term "insecure" comes to mind. A bully boy style of governance - the hallmark of a leader (political or otherwise) who lacks the ability to get things done without undue conflict.
> 
> Same goes for the Tas state government. Outlawing protest and neutralising the Industrial Commission. I mean seriously? If they're worried about green protesters in the forests then that's already covered by existing laws. And if they're worried about negotiating pay rates with the public service well that's why we have an Industrial Commission in the first place. It seems to be very much a case of thinking they can't win the debate fairly, so they'll just remove the means for anyone to object and ram through their agenda.
> 
> Looking at both state and federal politics, we're in seriously strange territory right now. Liberal / Coalition going down the track of central planning and authoritarian style governance whilst the Greens and Labor have decided that free markets are worth a go. As for the shirt fronting, well that just looks like immaturity and an overly large ego - we're Australia, we're not a major world power that's going to have the Russians heading for the hills anytime soon.
> 
> As for the economy, time will tell on that one. These Australian governments in general (state and federal) seem hugely focused on the cash position of their respective governments and pursuing ideology but that's about it. At a broader level, we're having quite a "Kodak moment" really. Clinging to what worked in the past, hoping that someone keeps buying our coal and trying to resurrect the woodchip wonderland, rather than accepting what's inevitable at some point and embracing change. History shows that you can only stave off the inevitable for so long, ultimately change does happen.
> 
> 25 years from now, what's the Australian economy going to be like? Listening to the national and state governments, it would seem that it involves a degree of central planning and lots of coal and wood. Maybe it'll work, but I have serious doubts about that.




................+ 1


----------



## Tisme

Julia said:


> This has turned into a petty argument about something insignificant.
> 
> .
> 
> because I just dislike that sort of judgement  with its patronising assumptions that the average Australian is naive enough to just accept everything which is aired by some news organisation.
> 
> .




Yes, but is what I postulated true? 

There could be many reasons why "we" accept Newscorp stories as resembling fact or the polar opposite. It could be habit, naivety, ambivalence, antipathy to alternative views, tribalism, etc., but anyway I look at it there is an oligopoly within the news media and a great aversion to reasonable facts, usually by omission, to allow us the opportunity to form an opinion. 

Patronising, condescending, contemptuous, pejorative, ... all loaded words that can muffle debate, but don't change facts.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> Th PPL is paid for by a levy on big business...




I haven't delved into the peccadillos of the PPL, but does the contribution by big business cover all the costs, does big business offset tax against the contribution, does the Govt foot the bill for administration and disbursements, etc?

I can't see the LNP lumbering costs onto the corporates when they used a cocked rifle of levies and taxes against the Labor govt to gain office.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> BTW.....I did vote for Bob Hawke once so I am not biased.




A whole lot of farmers switched votes for Gough too.

I was being lectured last week by a friend who is not just a rusted on or galvanised LNP voter, but  eutectically at one with his political  masters... or at least that was upto recently wherein he has nothing positive to say about the present QLD govt. I'm wondering if he is a bellwether.


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> I haven't delved into the peccadillos of the PPL, but does the contribution by big business cover all the costs, does big business offset tax against the contribution, does the Govt foot the bill for administration and disbursements, etc?
> 
> I can't see the LNP lumbering costs onto the corporates when they used a cocked rifle of levies and taxes against the Labor govt to gain office.




I am not sure what the cost of the present Labor scheme is but that cost will be taken into consideration as a credit towards the PPL.

NB. I am not in favour of the PPL.


----------



## JamesP

The TPP agreements (while quiet now) is what he will forever be remembered for.


----------



## Tisme

JamesP said:


> The TPP agreements (while quiet now) is what he will forever be remembered for.




Given the LNP's obsession with making laws to criminalise people, I expect the TPP will carry punitive provisions to ping Australians based on meta data and free (pirate) downloads? Cheaper medicines or dearer?


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> Given the LNP's obsession with making laws to criminalise people, I expect the TPP will carry punitive provisions to ping Australians based on meta data and free (pirate) downloads? Cheaper medicines or dearer?




We really came out of the Aust/US FTA well didn't we ? Our trade deficit with the USA has doubled or thereabouts. 

Patents on medicines were extended favouring the big pharmaceuticals as was copyrights on literary and musical works also favouring US writers and musicians. And we had to wait 20 years for access to US beef markets.

What sort of crawling wimps did we send to argue our interests in that agreement ?


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> Yes, but is what I postulated true?




Judged by the posts of at least one here who keeps parotting right wing rags like the Courier Mail and Herald Sun, you may well have made a correct postulation.


----------



## orr

I'm full of confidence in more than a few aspects of this government; not least that Bronwyn Bishop will only become more and more _Bezzurka_......... been a long while if ever she's been victim of a wolf whistle, but she blows a mean dog one......


----------



## drsmith

SirRumpole said:


> Judged by the posts of at least one here who keeps parotting right wing rags like the Courier Mail and Herald Sun, you may well have made a correct postulation.



Fairfax and bias go well together.

Today's example is the following headline,



> Offshore detention centres: annual costs hit $1 billion




Last paragraph of the story,



> The estimates committee also heard that 164 asylum seekers arrived in Australia during this calendar year, compared with 20,711 arrivals in the previous year. The big drop had saved the government $2.5 billion, the estimates hearing was told.




That should be the headline.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...nual-costs-hit-1-billion-20141020-118s6i.html

Let's also not forget that former Labor messiah Kevin Rudd said something about housing 10,000 at Manus.

How much would have that cost ?


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> I haven't delved into the peccadillos of the PPL, but does the contribution by big business cover all the costs, does big business offset tax against the contribution, does the Govt foot the bill for administration and disbursements, etc?
> 
> I can't see the LNP lumbering costs onto the corporates when they used a cocked rifle of levies and taxes against the Labor govt to gain office.




So refreshing to note you can express a difference of opinion without attempting to character assassinate someone who may not agree with you.....we have one here who does not know any other way.


----------



## overhang

drsmith said:


> Fairfax and bias go well together.
> 
> Today's example is the following headline,
> 
> 
> 
> Last paragraph of the story,
> 
> 
> 
> That should be the headline.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...nual-costs-hit-1-billion-20141020-118s6i.html
> 
> Let's also not forget that former Labor messiah Kevin Rudd said something about housing 10,000 at Manus.
> 
> How much would have that cost ?




Completely agree Drsmith, just seems like an attempt by Fairfax to undermine what has been the Abbott governments most successful policy.


----------



## Knobby22

Someone should send it to Media Watch. They love this sort of stuff.


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> Fairfax and bias go well together.




The best Fairfax can be called today is a tabloids organisation or TV guide.


----------



## drsmith

When the next ReachTEL poll comes out, it's got my input.


----------



## Logique

The _Friend of the Worker_ and beer sculler has *little chance of being bothered by blue collar types* in his Lower North Shore, Sydney Harbour pile.  Complete with _sous chef_ fish waiter living in the harbourside boatshed. The white house in the pic.

Look away boilermakers, builders and health workers, there are no class traitors here.

Four stories, with a lift.  Bob would have done better to have refused Annabel Crabb's _Kitchen Cabinet_ offer, as John Howard sensibly did.


----------



## Knobby22

I didn't realise former Labor Prime Ministers were meant to live in worker's cottages and leave the grand houses to the "right" people.
Is he bringing the neighbourhood down Logique? He did go to Oxford you know so might be able to engage in sensible conversation at the rowing club.

As far as I am concerned, good on him, success desreves rewards.
Howard did not come from a wealthy family but I would expect him to enjoy success also.

Good on Hawke for going on the show.
I hope Howard reconsiders.


----------



## orr

Knobby22 said:


> Is he bringing the neighbourhood down Logique? He did go to Oxford you know s
> 
> Good on Hawke for going on the show.
> I hope Howard reconsiders.




Hawke went to Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship ... That is a very public scholarship with well known parameters on  the standards required for obtaining it. Tony enjoyed his too. 
 Did any of Hawke's kiddy's enjoy a very secret scholarship doled out as a political favour to the value of $60 odd grand by a strong supporter of the labor party? as Tony's Daughter has from one of his party's sops.
And then when the secret scholarship was brought to the attention of the public, A very important matter of public interest...... 'crucify' the messenger. Very dangerous to embarrass the powerful.. 


 ..... But many apparently accept crooks in the the liberal at what ever level as _de rigueur _ 

Credlin as a '_bag lady_'; There's a nice thought.

Others, Please post links to  News /Lt's coverage of this issue...


----------



## drsmith

Some interesting insights into the internals of the current government,

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/malco...s-in-ministers-jockeying-20141024-11bd8z.html


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> I am not sure what the cost of the present Labor scheme is but that cost will be taken into consideration as a credit towards the PPL.
> 
> NB. I am not in favour of the PPL.




Abbott version is estimated to cost $5.5B, or roughly 3 times the cost of the current system introduced by Labor.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Abbott version is estimated to cost $5.5B, or roughly 3 times the cost of the current system introduced by Labor.




In that case there would be a saving of $1.86 billion from Labor's current scheme which could go to the lNP PPL scheme, leaving $3.72 billion  paid in as a levy from big business.

Personally, I am opposed to such a scheme and also the same scheme that has been operating  for some time with public servants including female politicians.


----------



## IFocus

orr said:


> Did any of Hawke's kiddy's enjoy a very secret scholarship doled out as a political favour to the value of $60 odd grand by a strong supporter of the labor party? as Tony's Daughter has from one of his party's sops.
> And then when the secret scholarship was brought to the attention of the public, A very important matter of public interest...... 'crucify' the messenger. Very dangerous to embarrass the powerful..




This comment made else where made me smile

"In 1974, Gough Whitlam abolished university fees for all Australians. In 2014, Tony Abbott abolished university fees for his daughter."


----------



## joea

IFocus said:


> This comment made else where made me smile
> 
> "In 1974, Gough Whitlam abolished university fees for all Australians. In 2014, Tony Abbott abolished university fees for his daughter."




If you have a "guts ache" go to the toilet!!


----------



## IFocus

joea said:


> If you have a "guts ache" go to the toilet!!




The thread title is " The Abbott Government" feel free to comment about it!!


----------



## sydboy007

Just received an email from change.org on the progress for confirming if Tony Abbott has in fact renounced his UK citizenship.

Tony Abbott's office responds to FOI request: *Form RN cannot be found and/or does not exist*.

How can Tony remain as PM if he cannot prove he is complying with Australian law i.e. he has renounced his UK citizenship?  

This issue occurred 10 years ago when Eric Abetz was elected while still a German Citizen.  He was required to vacate his seat.

I'm wondering what legal ramifications this could have.  Could groups start high court challenges against Government legislation on the basis that the PM may have dual citizenship?

If the current PM cannot prove he has renounced his UK citizenship, then his only option is to stand down, possibly vacating his seat as well, until such time he can provide adequate documentation showing he is complying with Australian law.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> Just received an email from change.org on the progress for confirming if Tony Abbott has in fact renounced his UK citizenship.
> 
> Tony Abbott's office responds to FOI request: *Form RN cannot be found and/or does not exist*.
> 
> How can Tony remain as PM if he cannot prove he is complying with Australian law i.e. he has renounced his UK citizenship?
> 
> This issue occurred 10 years ago when Eric Abetz was elected while still a German Citizen.  He was required to vacate his seat.
> 
> I'm wondering what legal ramifications this could have.  Could groups start high court challenges against Government legislation on the basis that the PM may have dual citizenship?
> 
> If the current PM cannot prove he has renounced his UK citizenship, then his only option is to stand down, possibly vacating his seat as well, until such time he can provide adequate documentation showing he is complying with Australian law.




I'm amazed that questions have not been asked in Parliament on this issue.

Maybe the Opposition also has a few things they don't want exposed, or that the opposition know there are no grounds for enquiring.

Also, what would happen if he did actually renounce his dual citizenship, but this happened AFTER he became an MP ? Would he still be required to stand down ?


----------



## Tisme

I don't think anyone in politics would consider being English is at odds with Australian cultural and political ambition. 

It's bad enough being born English, but to have it thrown in your face must be agony!


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> I don't think anyone in politics would consider being English is at odds with Australian cultural and political ambition.
> 
> :




Maybe not, but there is a small thing called the law, jackass though it is at times.


----------



## IFocus

Political capital bon fire anyone


Fuel price rise: Tony Abbott defends move to bypass Senate to increase petrol excise



> The Government has been unable to get the Senate numbers to increase the excise, so is instead using a Customs tariff to achieve the same outcome without the need for a parliamentary vote.





http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-28/tax-on-petrol-to-increase-on-november-10/5846882


----------



## IFocus

Stephen Koukoulas 


Tony Abbott's recent consideration of GST hikes is more about covering his costly policy priorities than plugging a revenue hole in the budget over the next decade, writes Stephen Koukoulas.



> The facts show that Treasurer Hockey's budget in May delivered government payments, as a share of GDP, at* 25.3 per cent in 2014-15 and it will remain at or above 24.7 per cent throughout the forward estimates. By way of contrast, the last three Labor budgets had government payments to GDP averaging 24.6 per cent.*
> 
> If Mr Abbott and Treasurer Hockey were in fact fiscally tight and their budget cut government payments to, say, 24.1 per cent of GDP, the level delivered in the last full year of the Labor government in 2012-13, the current tax take without hiking the GST would see the budget deficit of 0.1 per cent of GDP in 2015-16 and a surplus in 2016-17 and beyond, even with the expensive spending plans of Mr Abbott.





http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-28/koukoulas-why-is-abbott-considering-a-gst-hike/5845256


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> Tony Abbott's recent consideration of GST hikes is more about covering his costly policy priorities than plugging a revenue hole in the budget over the next decade, writes Stephen Koukoulas.



The funniest thing about about Labor's ranting over the GST is that in government, they got treasury to model raising it and that backfired spectacularly on them in question time today. 

Then there's Labor blocking spending cuts in the senate including their own. Let's not forget it's Labor's legacy this government is trying to deal with.


----------



## sptrawler

Ifocus, you may be enthralled with the status quo, where we keep running a 'fun park' economy. However sooner or later someone has to pay for it.

I just hope it is the slum lords and the property tycoons.lol

The problem with the current stale mate is, the debt becomes bigger and the cuts will eventually become greater.
It's a shame that Labor can't be honest, with the people they are supposed to represent.

Do you think with the debt and deficit blowing out, it will be better for the masses, if they defer cuts?

You know and I know, the longer they defer the cuts, the bigger they will be.


----------



## sptrawler

drsmith said:


> The funniest thing about about Labor's ranting over the GST is that in government, they got treasury to model raising it and that backfired spectacularly on them in question time today.
> 
> Then there's Labor blocking spending cuts in the senate including their own. Let's not forget it's Labor's legacy this government is trying to deal with.




It amazes me Doc, that the Labor barnacles can't see the lunacy to their arguement.

They stuffed it, they had two terms to fix it, now they won't let anyone repair it.

Priceless stupidity.

I think dopy Shorten is thinking, he will be able to say, "look the coalition were going to cut spending, we stopped it"
The coalition will say, "The debt has blown out to $x, put Labor in and it will be 4$x. Sooner or later we go broke".

Labor is being stupid, let the coalition bring in the cuts and fix the economy. Then say we will cut the austerity, Shorten is too dumb for words.


----------



## SirRumpole

Tony Abbott pleaded with the Business Council to argue his case for tax "reform" to the community.

It's a sure sign that he knows that his own credibility with the electorate is so shot that he can't carry the debate himself, so he needs someone else to argue the case for him. How pathetic. A PM that can't argue his case and carry the people with him is a PM not worth having. It's time he went and let someone more articulate take up the case.

And having the business community argue a case in the national interest is also pathetic. They will argue for their own interests and not the interests of the wider community. It's also clear who the government is governing for, and it's not the average voter.


----------



## bigdog

ONE TERM TONY


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Tony Abbott pleaded with the Business Council to argue his case for tax "reform" to the community.
> 
> It's a sure sign that he knows that his own credibility with the electorate is so shot that he can't carry the debate himself, so he needs someone else to argue the case for him. How pathetic. A PM that can't argue his case and carry the people with him is a PM not worth having. It's time he went and let someone more articulate take up the case.
> 
> And having the business community argue a case in the national interest is also pathetic. They will argue for their own interests and not the interests of the wider community. It's also clear who the government is governing for, and it's not the average voter.




This great man is listening to the people and that is his job unlike those dictatorial FABIANS who say "THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER THE GOVERNMENT I LEAD" and then impose it on us whether we liked or not and adding hundreds of dollars to the cost of living.

Abbott said prior to the 2013 election, there would be no increase in the GST during his 3 year term and there will be no increase until after 2016 and it would have been taken to the next election as did John Howard, but the Fabians twist it around when there is any mention of it and the cry is, Abbott has broken his promise not to increase the GST.......but let me remind you that in parliament yesterday during question time the Fabians were caught out when it was revealed by treasury that the Fabians had carried  out modelling to increase the GST during their last term in office......Mr Swan knows all about it and now, so does the whole world........the Fabians were challenged in parliament yesterday to table the document for which they so closely guarded.....what a mob of hypocrites........I will tell you something,  the Fabians would not have had the gutz to have taken it to an election as part of their policy.

Changes to the GST will come up for discussion in the next 2 years and the Fabians should be big enough to have a mature discussion about some variations in the interest of the nation.....the Fabians want it and all the states want it, so the Fabians should  stop playing politics and start acting like adults.

If anyone is short of credibility it is Shorten.


----------



## noco

bigdog said:


> ONE TERM TONY




That remains to be seen, unless of course it is wishful thinking on your part. 2 years to go.


----------



## Tisme

bigdog said:


> ONE TERM TONY




With George Brandis and Julie Bishop already garnering support, he may be a less than one term Tony. 

It's doubtful the Labor party is any threat to a Lib govt at the next election given their inability to politically skewer their enemies.


----------



## dutchie

Tisme said:


> With George Brandis and Julie Bishop already garnering support, he may be a less than one term Tony.
> 
> It's doubtful the Labor party is any threat to a Lib govt at the next election given their inability to politically skewer their enemies.




Abbott will lead the Coalition government to another term.

The electorate will remember the shambolic and costly six years of the Rudd/Gillard governments.

We will be paying for their waste for years.

_We cannot afford to forget._

Labors' refusal to allow the government to rectify the debt will necessitate alternate measures to be considered.


----------



## Tisme

The sloganeering has lost it's impact. No one really believes the sky is going to fall as the imperative was portrayed. It just looks like the govt cant govern or negotiate and apparently Ms Gillard has garnered a new support base from the hindsighters who wonder how she managed to get bills/legislation through an even more hostile opposition.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> This great man is listening to the people and that is his job




Hmmm.  Seems he has slogan deafness then because he's been trying to force on the people he's supposedly listening to a lot of policies that they don't want and which don't particularly address the issue of competitiveness we're facing, nor the looming demographics tsunami.

Still try to force through changes to university education to lock out the poor, changes to unemployment benefits to lock the poor into destitution.

His call for a mature debate about the GST is probably his first attempt to positive reform, but considering the blatant hypocrisy I'm not sure anyone is listening, which is unfortunate.  Providing the states with a better revenue source would help dramatically, but then the states already have the ability to do this via land taxes but they choose to avoid the political backlash.


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> The sloganeering has lost it's impact. No one really believes the sky is going to fall as the imperative was portrayed. It just looks like the govt cant govern or negotiate and apparently Ms Gillard has garnered a new support base from the hindsighters who wonder how she managed to get bills/legislation through an even more hostile opposition.




The Senate dear Watson......she had control of the Senate with her beloved Green Fabians....that was the key to her success.


----------



## So_Cynical

noco said:


> The Senate dear Watson......she had control of the Senate with her beloved Green Fabians....that was the *key to her success*.




A negotiated success, not a blanket (we will pass anything) agreement...a negotiated, bit by bit success.

-------------

1 vote Tony has replaced a Carbon levy that raised money that was used to fund economic capacity with a 2.5 billion dollar direct action give away, with an ETS study and the retention of the climate change office.

Back flips galore.


----------



## noco

So_Cynical said:


> A negotiated success, not a blanket (we will pass anything) agreement...a negotiated, bit by bit success.
> 
> 
> -------------
> 
> 1 vote Tony has replaced a Carbon levy that raised money that was used to fund economic capacity with a 2.5 billion dollar direct action give away, with an ETS study and the retention of the climate change office.
> 
> Back flips galore.




She had a signed agreement with that Fabian comrade of hers, Bob Brown or have you forgotten?

Bring on a Carbon dioxide tax and we will agree to give way to anything you want...that was our Bob. 

I have my doubts about that direct action plan.......I think it will fade away...it certainly is not going to do anything for the environment no more than that stupid Carbon dioxide tax.......That was  Green/Labor con job.


----------



## drsmith

The ETS study period is to see uncle Clive off as a political force.


----------



## Logique

The Senate can be bypassed? What the..?



> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-28/tax-on-petrol-to-increase-on-november-10/5846882
> 
> Prime Minister Tony Abbott has defended the Government's decision to bypass the Senate and push through a fuel tax increase, saying the Coalition has a mandate to fix the budget.
> 
> The Government has been unable to get the Senate numbers to increase the excise, so is instead using a Customs tariff to achieve the same outcome without the need for a parliamentary vote...


----------



## noco

Logique said:


> The Senate can be bypassed? What the..?




Logique, Abbott can only hold that fuel excise for 12 months when it then must go to the Senate and that will probably be the time it is thrown out.


----------



## So_Cynical

noco said:


> She had a signed agreement with that Fabian comrade of hers, Bob Brown or have you forgotten?
> 
> Bring on a Carbon dioxide tax and we will agree to give way to anything you want...that was our Bob.




Short memory? the boats - Malaysia...remember?

or would you prefer that the facts not get in the way? 



drsmith said:


> The ETS study period is to see uncle Clive off as a political force.




May see off 1 vote Tony as well, its his back flip, Tony's ETS / renewable energy agency lie.


----------



## Smurf1976

So_Cynical said:


> Tony's ETS / renewable energy agency lie.




Given that this is a stock market forum, perhaps the most interesting aspect of it all is that Labor is now the "natural" party to vote for if you support free markets as an ideal, with the Liberals moving more toward central planning.

It's a reversal of the historic role and that which one would logically expect. But the Coalition would seem to have ditched its' longstanding view that "the market knows best" in favour of greater government intervention.

Looking specifically at energy, the combined set of actions as they affect electricity, gas and petroleum are pretty much straight out of the energy central planners' text book and a long way removed from the concept of a free market as such.

The unanswered question is to what extent Tony and co "get it" and are taking such actions intentionally, and to what extent they've done it coincidentally amidst a grab for cash.


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> The funniest thing about about Labor's ranting over the GST is that in government, they got treasury to model raising it and that backfired spectacularly on them in question time today.
> 
> Then there's Labor blocking spending cuts in the senate including their own. Let's not forget it's Labor's legacy this government is trying to deal with.






sptrawler said:


> Ifocus, you may be enthralled with the status quo, where we keep running a 'fun park' economy. However sooner or later someone has to pay for it.
> 
> I just hope it is the slum lords and the property tycoons.lol
> 
> The problem with the current stale mate is, the debt becomes bigger and the cuts will eventually become greater.
> It's a shame that Labor can't be honest, with the people they are supposed to represent.
> 
> Do you think with the debt and deficit blowing out, it will be better for the masses, if they defer cuts?
> 
> You know and I know, the longer they defer the cuts, the bigger they will be.






sptrawler said:


> It amazes me Doc, that the Labor barnacles can't see the lunacy to their arguement.
> 
> They stuffed it, they had two terms to fix it, now they won't let anyone repair it.
> 
> Priceless stupidity.
> 
> I think dopy Shorten is thinking, he will be able to say, "look the coalition were going to cut spending, we stopped it"
> The coalition will say, "The debt has blown out to $x, put Labor in and it will be 4$x. Sooner or later we go broke".
> 
> Labor is being stupid, let the coalition bring in the cuts and fix the economy. Then say we will cut the austerity, Shorten is too dumb for words.




So you didn't read the article then


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> So you didn't read the article then




Certainly did and it doesn't change the facts at all.

Labor spent on illogical non revenue generating thought bubbles, while tax reciepts were dropping.
They then tried to plug the ballooning deficits by knee jerk tax policies, that put further pressure on small to medium business.
As is now being revealed, they understood the shortcommings of their illogical bandaid taxes and investigated the obvious, changes to the GST.
But the problem the last Government had, came to the fore again, they couldn't put Australia before themselves and their personal aspirations.

Getting back to the left over debt and current deficit.
The tax system requires overhauling to meet our current expenditure and expected increase in expenditure as the population ages.
The fact Labor want to leave the status quo is irresponsible and dumb, unfortunately many want to believe everything can stay the same.
Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland etc are proof it isn't sustainable, to keep spending more on welfare and services, than you take in tax reciepts.
The fact that Shorten was a party to the government that blew out our debt, and now won't engage in negotiation to remedy the situation, just shows his ignorance and arrogance.IMO


----------



## drsmith

So_Cynical said:


> Short memory? the boats - Malaysia...remember?
> 
> or would you prefer that the facts not get in the way?



How many boats this year without that dodgy deal ?

Even shorter memory.



So_Cynical said:


> May see off 1 vote Tony as well, its his back flip, Tony's ETS / renewable energy agency lie.



Look at the results of recent NSW by-elections,

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/nsw/2014/charlestown_newcastle/default.htm

Politically, uncle Clive's bubble has already burst.


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> So you didn't read the article then



No comments on the points at hand ??

No surprise there.


----------



## sydboy007

Smurf1976 said:


> Given that this is a stock market forum, perhaps the most interesting aspect of it all is that Labor is now the "natural" party to vote for if you support free markets as an ideal, with the Liberals moving more toward central planning.
> 
> It's a reversal of the historic role and that which one would logically expect. But the Coalition would seem to have ditched its' longstanding view that "the market knows best" in favour of greater government intervention.
> 
> Looking specifically at energy, the combined set of actions as they affect electricity, gas and petroleum are pretty much straight out of the energy central planners' text book and a long way removed from the concept of a free market as such.
> 
> The unanswered question is to what extent Tony and co "get it" and are taking such actions intentionally, and to what extent they've done it coincidentally amidst a grab for cash.




Yes, I find DA to be so Soviet Era central planning that it amazes me how they can talk about free markets with a straight face any more.

Now it's a true 20% RET when the original target was set to be a MINIMUM 20%, not an absolute figure.  Even their own handpicked modellers have predicted the RET will save consumers, and more so businesses, money over the long term than reducing it will.

Ths Government is definitely in the pocket of coal.  Me thinks Tony gets most of his infomration from Hector up in Queensland.

http://www.dbct.com.au/hector-instructions


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Certainly did and it doesn't change the facts at all.
> 
> Labor spent on illogical non revenue generating thought bubbles, while tax reciepts were dropping.
> They then tried to plug the ballooning deficits by knee jerk tax policies, that put further pressure on small to medium business.
> As is now being revealed, they understood the shortcommings of their illogical bandaid taxes and investigated the obvious, changes to the GST.
> But the problem the last Government had, came to the fore again, they couldn't put Australia before themselves and their personal aspirations.
> 
> Getting back to the left over debt and current deficit.
> The tax system requires overhauling to meet our current expenditure and expected increase in expenditure as the population ages.
> The fact Labor want to leave the status quo is irresponsible and dumb, unfortunately many want to believe everything can stay the same.
> Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland etc are proof it isn't sustainable, to keep spending more on welfare and services, than you take in tax reciepts.
> The fact that Shorten was a party to the government that blew out our debt, and now won't engage in negotiation to remedy the situation, just shows his ignorance and arrogance.IMO




Yet Abbott has:

* Blocked limiting the costs of Novated leases
* Gave up over $8B in revenue a year from the carbon tax, but kept the increase welfare payments and tax cuts
* Gave up at least $500M from the resource tax, which was projected to start providing reasonable amounts of revenue from the next FY.
* saddling the top 3000 companies with a levy tax to pay for his PPL
* Spending billions on DA to try and encourage companies to not pollute as much as they currently do.
* Is working with the QLD Govt to try and get Adani's Carmichael coal mine to float at a break even cost of $100 a tonne when thermal coal is sitting at $65 and still falling.
* Provided over $8B to the RBA helping to inflate last years deficit.
* 3-1 infrastructure spend in Coalition seats compared to all other parties

So it seems your fiscal managers are happy to spend spend spend, but so far the savings have been poor or draconian and rightly fought against in the senate.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Yet Abbott has:
> 
> * Blocked limiting the costs of Novated leases
> * Gave up over $8B in revenue a year from the carbon tax, but kept the increase welfare payments and tax cuts
> * Gave up at least $500M from the resource tax, which was projected to start providing reasonable amounts of revenue from the next FY.
> * saddling the top 3000 companies with a levy tax to pay for his PPL
> * Spending billions on DA to try and encourage companies to not pollute as much as they currently do.
> * Is working with the QLD Govt to try and get Adani's Carmichael coal mine to float at a break even cost of $100 a tonne when thermal coal is sitting at $65 and still falling.
> * Provided over $8B to the RBA helping to inflate last years deficit.
> * 3-1 infrastructure spend in Coalition seats compared to all other parties
> 
> So it seems your fiscal managers are happy to spend spend spend, but so far the savings have been poor or draconian and rightly fought against in the senate.




The highest carbon dioxide tax in the world = higher manufacturing costs = companies going off shore = higher unemployment.

I thought the Green/Labor party were friends of the hard working families......how can they be when they destroy jobs.

Cut costs, reduce power prices, cut red tape and green tape, reduce union control = more jobs....very clever thinking.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> The highest carbon dioxide tax in the world = higher manufacturing costs = companies going off shore = higher unemployment.
> 
> I thought the Green/Labor party were friends of the hard working families......how can they be when they destroy jobs.
> 
> Cut costs, reduce power prices, cut red tape and green tape, reduce union control = more jobs....very clever thinking.




More jobs ?

Certainly not in the renewable energy sector. The coal industry won't be taking up all those unemployed solar cell installers or compensating the solar and wind companies now going broke.

NO COALition.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> More jobs ?
> 
> Certainly not in the renewable energy sector. The coal industry won't be taking up all those unemployed solar cell installers or compensating the solar and wind companies now going broke.
> 
> NO COALition.




They can join the ones Labor sent broke when they shut down their home insulation debacle, the solar panel manufacturers that went offshore when Labor introduced the carbon tax.
How selective our memory is, that goes for all of us.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Yet Abbott has:
> 
> * Blocked limiting the costs of Novated leases
> * Gave up over $8B in revenue a year from the carbon tax, but kept the increase welfare payments and tax cuts
> * Gave up at least $500M from the resource tax, which was projected to start providing reasonable amounts of revenue from the next FY.
> * saddling the top 3000 companies with a levy tax to pay for his PPL
> * Spending billions on DA to try and encourage companies to not pollute as much as they currently do.
> * Is working with the QLD Govt to try and get Adani's Carmichael coal mine to float at a break even cost of $100 a tonne when thermal coal is sitting at $65 and still falling.
> * Provided over $8B to the RBA helping to inflate last years deficit.
> * 3-1 infrastructure spend in Coalition seats compared to all other parties
> 
> So it seems your fiscal managers are happy to spend spend spend, but so far the savings have been poor or draconian and rightly fought against in the senate.




Yes Syd, as I said it is a shame Shorten won't man up and negotiate sensible tax and welfare reform, rather than let Palmer force silly compromise outcomes.


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> They can join the ones Labor sent broke when they shut down their home insulation debacle, the solar panel manufacturers that went offshore when Labor introduced the carbon tax.
> How selective our memory is, that goes for all of us.





+1....Shhhh...don't mention the Labor stuff ups...that is taboo.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> More jobs ?
> 
> Certainly not in the renewable energy sector. The coal industry won't be taking up all those unemployed solar cell installers or compensating the solar and wind companies now going broke.
> 
> NO COALition.




It is high time the renewable energy stood on its own two feet instead of being subsidized by the Australian Tax payer....It is a useless source of energy when the wind doesn't blow and the Sun doesn't shine......they are both only 15% efficient as against coal fired which is 35%.

Coal fired base load power stations or nuclear will always be required until such times as they can find a way to store power.

It has been recently been proved that wind farms are destroying bird life, eagles in particular., but you never hear anything from the Greens......If there was a dam to be built, the greens would find some way to stop it....maybe it is a habitat for eagles......now that would be different.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> The highest carbon dioxide tax in the world = higher manufacturing costs = companies going off shore = higher unemployment.
> 
> I thought the Green/Labor party were friends of the hard working families......how can they be when they destroy jobs.
> 
> Cut costs, reduce power prices, cut red tape and green tape, reduce union control = more jobs....very clever thinking.




* Trade exposed industries generally were over compensated so face little to no impact from pricing carbon
* Wind farms and solar installers employ a lot more people than the declining coal sector

I'd argue over valued land prices in Australia is harming our competitiveness far far more than the carbon tax ever did.  Just do a comparison of what $350K Euro buys in Berlin and compare that to what $500K buys in SYD or MEL.  You'll be shocked.  $160K euro can land you a brand new 1 BR apartment in mitte (central) berlin.  The $230K equivalent in Australia would barely buy you something 1 hour out of the city.  After spending a week in berlin earlier this month I was shocked at how cheap it is.

Also the reinitroduction of fuel excise indexation will have a larger impact on most households than the removal of the carbon tax.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> It is high time the renewable energy stood on its own two feet instead of being subsidized by the Australian Tax payer....It is a useless source of energy when the wind doesn't blow and the Sun doesn't shine......they are both only 15% efficient as against coal fired which is 35%.
> 
> Coal fired base load power stations or nuclear will always be required until such times as they can find a way to store power.
> 
> It has been recently been proved that wind farms are destroying bird life, eagles in particular., but you never hear anything from the Greens......If there was a dam to be built, the greens would find some way to stop it....maybe it is a habitat for eagles......now that would be different.




Germany and Norway have both shown high levels of renewable energy are quite compatible with competitive economies.  Norway is technically at 98% though exports a great deal of it.

Do you have any proof to backup your claims that windfarms are more harmful to birdlife than coal power stations and mines.

What I can find for Australia is - https://newmatilda.com/2013/10/29/do-wind-farms-really-kill-birds



> Emma Bennett, one of the authors of this article, has conducted over 5500 surveys at six wind farms in Victoria. Her data is consistent with less than one bird being killed per turbine per year. The bulk of published studies from overseas are also consistent with these figures. She also found no rare or threatened species killed by wind farms.
> 
> Further, small wind farms, like the community wind farm in Leonards Hill, can report zero bird collisions, a finding which is consistent with similar sized wind farms overseas. The science strongly suggests that birds avoid flying through smaller wind farms and simply go around them.
> 
> As of the end of 2012, there were 454 turbines in operation in Victoria and 1559 across Australia. In other words, the probable number of birds killed by wind turbine collisions in Victoria for the whole of 2013 would be much lower than the number killed at Box Flat in a single morning of male bonding.
> 
> The 2013 Victorian duck hunting season began in March with an illegal all-species shoot-up at the Box Flat wetland near the small town of Boort. An informant told the Coalition Against Duck Shooting that around 2000 birds were killed, including around 80 Freckled Ducks (an endangered species), and many other species that could not conceivably have been mistaken for ducks.




*



			Wind energy has a much smaller impact on bird species than other forms of electricity generation. Benjamin Sovacool, a Danish energy policy researcher, reviewed available risk estimates and found that wind power and nuclear power produce 0.3-0.4 bird fatalities per gigawatt-hour of electricity produced, whereas fossil-fuel power produces 5.2 bird fatalities per gigawatt-hour of electricity produced.
		
Click to expand...


*


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Germany and Norway have both shown high levels of renewable energy are quite compatible with competitive economies.  Norway is technically at 98% though exports a great deal of it.
> 
> Do you have any proof to backup your claims that windfarms are more harmful to birdlife than coal power stations and mines.
> 
> What I can find for Australia is - https://newmatilda.com/2013/10/29/do-wind-farms-really-kill-birds




How is this for starters?....This is just one wind farm.......Will get some more proof when I find the time.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...on-birds-of-prey/story-e6frg6nf-1227065860153

*EAGLES, falcons and other raptors make up to a third of the estimated 1500 birds killed each year at Australia’s biggest wind farm.

The finding of an independent report for Macarthur Wind Farm operator AGL follows 12 monthly searches of 48 turbines at the 140-turbine operation in Victoria.

After adjusting for birds eaten by scavengers between searches and the total 140 turbines, Australian Ecological Research Services estimated each turbine killed about 10 birds a year.

The analysis said this would include 500 raptors a year.*


----------



## Logique

noco said:


> Logique, Abbott can only hold that fuel excise for 12 months when it then must go to the Senate and that will probably be the time it is thrown out.



Thanks Noco. 

I've been critical of the cigar smoking M.Cormann, but this is a clever political wedge against the Greens.  In the Senate today, Christine Milne is hopping mad about it.  In response, Cormann is taunting her, saying she wants to return money to Big Oil.  

And that 'girlie-man' thing about Bill Shorten, whether pc or not, people will remember that for a long time.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Germany and Norway have both shown high levels of renewable energy are quite compatible with competitive economies.  Norway is technically at 98% though exports a great deal of it.
> 
> Do you have any proof to backup your claims that windfarms are more harmful to birdlife than coal power stations and mines.
> 
> What I can find for Australia is - https://newmatilda.com/2013/10/29/do-wind-farms-really-kill-birds




Wind farms kill 39,000,000 birds each year.......In California, they close the wind farms down in winter to save the birds.....in some areas they are removing some wind farms.

We have 26 wind farms in Australia with another 100 under consideration.

WHY AREN'T THE GREENIES DEMONSTRATING IN THE STREETS AND SHOUTING FROM THE ROOF TOPS....SAVE THE BIRDS.

I will tell you why and it is because it would make a mockery of their renewable energy policy. 


http://www.cfact.org/2013/03/18/wind-turbines-kill-up-to-39-million-birds-a-year/


----------



## Craton

Very interesting about bird kills by wind turbines there noco. I never would have thought this to be an issue, just goes to show eh.

With AGL delaying the Silverton, NSW wind farm project because of the RET uncertainty, this may be another nail in the coffin to the southern hemispheres biggest wind farm projects. Apart from being an eye sore, in light of noco's heads up, threats to the delicate and unique fauna in the area must be thoroughly looked at.
http://www.agl.com.au/about-agl/how-we-source-energy/renewable-energy/silverton-wind-farm

I should mention that AGL are also currently building a solar plant just west of Broken Hill too: http://www.agl.com.au/about-agl/how-we-source-energy/renewable-energy/broken-hill-solar-plant


----------



## So_Cynical

noco said:


> Wind farms kill 39,000,000 birds each year.......In California
> 
> WHY AREN'T THE GREENIES DEMONSTRATING IN THE STREETS AND SHOUTING FROM THE ROOF TOPS....SAVE THE BIRDS.
> 
> I will tell you why and it is because it would make a mockery of their renewable energy policy.




In a thread entitled "The Abbott Government" why bring up green double standards when we should be focusing on Noalition double standards...say like the great RET - Climate Change Authority - ETS back flip with pike.

A simply stunning reversal of stated policy, an almost 100% turn around from the promises at election time, the 2 years leading into the election and the last 12 months since the election...a near complete turn around.


----------



## noco

So_Cynical said:


> In a thread entitled "The Abbott Government" why bring up green double standards when we should be focusing on Noalition double standards...say like the great RET - Climate Change Authority - ETS back flip with pike.
> 
> A simply stunning reversal of stated policy, an almost 100% turn around from the promises at election time, the 2 years leading into the election and the last 12 months since the election...a near complete turn around.




Yes you are right...some of my posts were a little off thread but it was in reply to statements made by Sir Rumpole and Sydboy007.

It often happens as one thing leads to another and it is very easy to get off track.

Speaking of turn a rounds and once again a little of track.......We will never forget Gillards turn a round ...."THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER A GOVERNMENT I LEAD"....LEST WE FORGET.


----------



## sptrawler

So_Cynical said:


> In a thread entitled "The Abbott Government" why bring up green double standards when we should be focusing on Noalition double standards...say like the great RET - Climate Change Authority - ETS back flip with pike.
> 
> A simply stunning reversal of stated policy, an almost 100% turn around from the promises at election time, the 2 years leading into the election and the last 12 months since the election...a near complete turn around.




It will be great when we can all start and worry about the growing debt and how to pay it off.


----------



## Smurf1976

sydboy007 said:


> Germany and Norway have both shown high levels of renewable energy are quite compatible with competitive economies.  Norway is technically at 98%




Yep, Norway is almost entirely (well, 96%) reliant on clean, green hydro-electricity.

Better not tell the Greens about that one.....


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> Yep, Norway is almost entirely (well, 96%) reliant on clean, green hydro-electricity.
> 
> Better not tell the Greens about that one.....




Would hate to compare West Australias topography, with Norway or Germany.
I will give Syd a medal if he can get W.A a viable hydro system.lol
Or an extension cord from the Eastern State grid.


----------



## So_Cynical

sptrawler said:


> Would hate to compare West Australias topography, with Norway or Germany.
> I will give Syd a medal if he can get W.A a viable hydro system.lol
> Or an extension cord from the Eastern State grid.




WA has some of the largest tidal movements any where in the world, absolutely MASSIVE potential for green tidal energy in WA, of course this would cost billions to develop and affect 100's of Kilometres of coast line so would  never pass any environmental assessments.

So could WA produce ALL of its power needs by 100% GHG free generation? the answer is absolutely yes.


----------



## sptrawler

So_Cynical said:


> WA has some of the largest tidal movements any where in the world, absolutely MASSIVE potential for green tidal energy in WA, of course this would cost billions to develop and affect 100's of Kilometres of coast line so would  never pass any environmental assessments.
> 
> So could WA produce ALL of its power needs by 100% GHG free generation? the answer is absolutely yes.




So it would cost billions to develop? To supply a population of 2million, the answer is absolutely yes, get a grip.

What a hoot. That is a greens answer.

Have you looked at a map of Australia? The big bit on the left is W.A.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> So it would cost billions to develop? To supply a population of 2million, the answer is absolutely yes, get a grip.
> 
> What a hoot. That is a greens answer.
> 
> Have you looked at a map of Australia? The big bit on the left is W.A.




$45B+ was spent in 5 years gold plating the east coast networks with the blessings of the major political parties

That kind of money well spent on renewable energy would achieve quite a lot for the country.

So glad you feel Abbott is spending our money so well on PPL and DA, amongst other wasteful programs.

Now we've got the internet tax designed to achieve what exactly?  $40 a year and anyone can avoid it.  Not just anyone, but a whole family or say a terrorist cell.


----------



## Julia

sydboy007 said:


> $45B+ was spent in 5 years gold plating the east coast networks with the blessings of the major political parties



I'm a bit sick of hearing that this was 'gold plating'.  It wasn't at all.  Before the infrastructure was upgraded we had frequent blackouts.  The slightest storm would precipitate many hours of no power.  It happened many times throughout the summer.

Since the upgrades there have not been any black outs at all.
I, for one, and I know many others, are quite happy to pay for this continuity of supply.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> $45B+ was spent in 5 years gold plating the east coast networks with the blessings of the major political parties
> 
> That kind of money well spent on renewable energy would achieve quite a lot for the country.
> 
> So glad you feel Abbott is spending our money so well on PPL and DA, amongst other wasteful programs.
> 
> Now we've got the internet tax designed to achieve what exactly?  $40 a year and anyone can avoid it.  Not just anyone, but a whole family or say a terrorist cell.




I certainly haven't been impressed with this period of Government, however no one is coming up "smelling of roses", Abbott, Shorten, Milne or Palmer.
It is an apalling period in our political history.
The problems keep compounding, and our representitives keep playing childish games.


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> I'm a bit sick of hearing that this was 'gold plating'.  It wasn't at all.  Before the infrastructure was upgraded we had frequent blackouts.  The slightest storm would precipitate many hours of no power.  It happened many times throughout the summer.
> 
> Since the upgrades there have not been any black outs at all.
> I, for one, and I know many others, are quite happy to pay for this continuity of supply.




I've lived the same house for 17 years.  I've not had an unscheduled blackout in the day.  I have had <5 blackouts in the night where I've woken up to a flashing bed side clock.

Possibly some of the network upgrades were actually required, but there's plenty of evidence now coming out that a lot was just to eek out the legislated ROI on capital, especially when you have GBEs borrowing at low interest rates and receiving private sector ROI.

From the Garnaut report



> Electricity use in Australia is falling. From the 1960s to the end of the 20th century, electricity consumption increased at an average annual rate of six per cent. Investment in power stations and electricity networks also rose steadily. Since 2009, however, eastern states’ electricity production has fallen and in Western Australia growth has plateaued since 2011.
> 
> Yet this extraordinary fall in demand has not led to a fall in price, as would occur in a conventional market. Since 2006 the average household has reduced power use by more than seven per cent.
> 
> But in that period the average household power bill has risen more than 85 per cent: from $890 to $1660 a year. One reason is that Australians are funding billions of dollars of infrastructure that falling consumption has made redundant. These price rises are unsustainable, but who will pay for the correction: power companies, governments or – once again – consumers?




Further from the garnaut report and related to the real capex graph



> The comparison of costs between Victoria, where the network providers are in private hands, and New South Wales and Queensland, where the network providers are in state hands, is at the very least a compelling piece of evidence to support this contention. While there are likely to be genuine differences between the states that explain some of these divergences, it is unlikely that these differences explain the majority of these divergences.




We've crippled the economy with extremely expensive electricity, and extremely expensive land.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> I certainly haven't been impressed with this period of Government, however no one is coming up "smelling of roses", Abbott, Shorten, Milne or Palmer.
> It is an apalling period in our political history.
> The problems keep compounding, and our representitives keep playing childish games.




yet you complain about the opposition more than the Govt.  Why is that?


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> yet you complain about the opposition more than the Govt.  Why is that?




Labor, when in Government, enacted a fiscal and social agenda that they felt was best for the country.
History tells us that fiscally we were falling further in debt and their social programes were going to put further pressure on the budget.
They were subsequently voted out and the LNP voted into office.

Now when the elected government wishes to enact a fiscal and social agenda, Labor are being bloody minded and trying to ensure the fiscal situation isn't improved.

It does nothing other than support my belief that generally they are only in politcs for their own ends.

Whether you agree or dissagree with the LNP policies, they are at least prepared to make unpopular decissions that they feel will improve our economy.
The decissions they make may well cost them the next electon, however they are prepared to make that call, unlike what Labor did.

Therefore getting back to me, why am I complaining more about the opposition? 

Labors blocking of any form of fiscal reform IMO, will end up in a drop in the standard of living for everyone in Australia.
We can only have a strong welfare and social system, when we have a strong economy.
What they are doing is continuing with their economic vandalism.

So untill they start and act in a mature manner, that reflects a genuine concern for Australia's wellbeing, they won't be getting my support.


----------



## Julia

+1 to above.  Same goes for the Greens but we expect it from them.  Labor are even refusing to pass budget measures that they themselves proposed when they were in government.  All purely political.


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> Labor, when in Government, enacted a fiscal and social agenda that they felt was best for the country.
> History tells us that fiscally we were falling further in debt and their social programes were going to put further pressure on the budget.
> They were subsequently voted out and the LNP voted into office.
> 
> Now when the elected government wishes to enact a fiscal and social agenda, Labor are being bloody minded and trying to ensure the fiscal situation isn't improved.
> 
> It does nothing other than support my belief that generally they are only in politcs for their own ends.
> 
> Whether you agree or dissagree with the LNP policies, they are at least prepared to make unpopular decissions that they feel will improve our economy.
> The decissions they make may well cost them the next electon, however they are prepared to make that call, unlike what Labor did.
> 
> Therefore getting back to me, why am I complaining more about the opposition?
> 
> Labors blocking of any form of fiscal reform IMO, will end up in a drop in the standard of living for everyone in Australia.
> We can only have a strong welfare and social system, when we have a strong economy.
> What they are doing is continuing with their economic vandalism.
> 
> So untill they start and act in a mature manner, that reflects a genuine concern for Australia's wellbeing, they won't be getting my support.




I know I keep harping on it, but the majority of the Green/Labor democratic socialist do belong to the Fabian Society which is an off shoot of Communism...they are using the Labor Party name as a front for their ideology which is all about central control......As we all know Communism is a movement or political party advocating communism.....a social system based on common ownership of property and central control of industry, mining, agriculture and finance.

Fabians do not believe in free enterprise and profit is a dirty word, hence the reason why they keep using the propaganda that the minerals belong to the citizens of Australia and should therefore reap a large part of their profits. FGS Australia is already reaping some of the profits through royalties and taxes, so why apply a useless Mining tax which has cost more than it has gained.

The Green/Labor party do not want to see the Coalition succeed in bringing  our finances under control......they also know damn well the longer they keep hurting people for the hard decisions that have to made by the coalition to sort out Labor's economic incompetency, the better chance they think they have in getting back  into power.......God help this Country if the Green/Labor Fabian socialist ever get back again.


----------



## luutzu

sptrawler said:


> ...
> .
> We can only have a strong welfare and social system, when we have a strong economy.
> ...
> .




That's not really true.

From the lectures I saw from Robert Reiche (former US Secretary of Labor under Clinton) and Robert Johnson (one of the guys directly working with Soros to break the British pound in 1992) among others... what they argued was that it is the middle class (i think they're just being polite, they really meant the working class, the middle are the doctors and executives)...

anyway, a strong economy first need a well to do middle class; that it is when the working class have money to spend that demand is driven up; when demand is up, businesses (investors) will then invest, thus creating jobs, the multiplier effect etc. and that lead to a strong economy.

The argument that a strong economy is needed to fund welfare and social policies is having things backward. That kind of trickle down economy does not work... and Reiche argued that the main reason the real economic recovery since the GFC is... meh... is because the middle class are too poor in the US, too broke and needing to work too many hours. With little income to spend, demand is low... and giving tax cuts to corporations and the rich so they could then invest is just bad economic policy. That is, what investor would spend money on new machineries or new jobs when there's no demand?

So when Abbott increase costs of university, cut funding to TAFE, make it harder for kids to get some welfare help... only the well to do would want to go to uni, most would go into some unskill labour, some might turn to crime for a quick fix that might lead to prison etc... and then we complain about not having enough skilled engineers and manufacturing to build submarines and trains and infrastructure. 

From Reiche... he said that what Franklin Roosevelt did that saved capitalism and bring the US out of the Great Depression was two things, and only one of it is learnt and implemented by Obama, and it appear the same with Abbott.

The first thing is FDR and the US spend, a lot... not just during WW2 - which they have to and found such investments save the economy... but also spend after WW2. For instance, lending to Europe to rebuild under the Marshall Plan, the US Highway system etc.

The second important thing was to introduction of social programmes through the New Deal - Medicare, Medicaid, minimum wage (i think), financial system reforms, public education, permit unionisation etc. These ensure social security, lift most people out of poverty, give them a decent wage for their work... From these policies, the average folks are not broken from illness, can work and have money to spend, increasing demand etc.

What Obama did was the first very well... saved the world from financial collapse... but then the poor and the broke are forgotten and left to struggle.

I mean, as an investor, why would you invest your money to make anyone rich? If you see a slagging economy with little demand, with little cash out there to pay for things, you'd be crazy to invest and build new factories or new businesses and hire people. You'd be looking overseas.


----------



## sptrawler

luutzu said:


> That's not really true.
> 
> From the lectures I saw from Robert Reiche (former US Secretary of Labor under Clinton) and Robert Johnson (one of the guys directly working with Soros to break the British pound in 1992) among others... what they argued was that it is the middle class (i think they're just being polite, they really meant the working class, the middle are the doctors and executives)...
> 
> anyway, a strong economy first need a well to do middle class; that it is when the working class have money to spend that demand is driven up; when demand is up, businesses (investors) will then invest, thus creating jobs, the multiplier effect etc. and that lead to a strong economy.
> 
> The argument that a strong economy is needed to fund welfare and social policies is having things backward. That kind of trickle down economy does not work... and Reiche argued that the main reason the real economic recovery since the GFC is... meh... is because the middle class are too poor in the US, too broke and needing to work too many hours. With little income to spend, demand is low... and giving tax cuts to corporations and the rich so they could then invest is just bad economic policy. That is, what investor would spend money on new machineries or new jobs when there's no demand?
> 
> So when Abbott increase costs of university, cut funding to TAFE, make it harder for kids to get some welfare help... only the well to do would want to go to uni, most would go into some unskill labour, some might turn to crime for a quick fix that might lead to prison etc... and then we complain about not having enough skilled engineers and manufacturing to build submarines and trains and infrastructure.
> 
> From Reiche... he said that what Franklin Roosevelt did that saved capitalism and bring the US out of the Great Depression was two things, and only one of it is learnt and implemented by Obama, and it appear the same with Abbott.
> 
> The first thing is FDR and the US spend, a lot... not just during WW2 - which they have to and found such investments save the economy... but also spend after WW2. For instance, lending to Europe to rebuild under the Marshall Plan, the US Highway system etc.
> 
> The second important thing was to introduction of social programmes through the New Deal - Medicare, Medicaid, minimum wage (i think), financial system reforms, public education, permit unionisation etc. These ensure social security, lift most people out of poverty, give them a decent wage for their work... From these policies, the average folks are not broken from illness, can work and have money to spend, increasing demand etc.
> 
> What Obama did was the first very well... saved the world from financial collapse... but then the poor and the broke are forgotten and left to struggle.
> 
> I mean, as an investor, why would you invest your money to make anyone rich? If you see a slagging economy with little demand, with little cash out there to pay for things, you'd be crazy to invest and build new factories or new businesses and hire people. You'd be looking overseas.




Quite a meandering patchwork there.
Getting to what Roosevelt did to save capaitalism.
The first, spending a lot of money, we have done that. Unfortunatelly it hasn't produced any jobs.
The second thing he did, you say, was introduce medicare, minimum wage, social welfare and public education. We have all that, but we are finding it difficult to pay for.

You say, 'why would you invest or build new factories, when we have a lagging economy and little demand, you would look overseas'.

I say why would you build new factories, when we have 30% corporate tax(NZ has 22%) and our minimum wage is one of the highest in the developed world, add to that one of the highest cost for energy in the first world. 
I can't think why you would build a factory here, maybe you can give me a reason.

I hope you're right and we don't need a strong economy to fund a strong welfare system.


----------



## sptrawler

luutzu said:


> That's not really true.
> 
> So when Abbott increase costs of university, cut funding to TAFE, make it harder for kids to get some welfare help... only the well to do would want to go to uni, most would go into some unskill labour, some might turn to crime for a quick fix that might lead to prison etc... and then we complain about not having enough skilled engineers and manufacturing to build submarines and trains and infrastructure.
> 
> .




I thought this part of your post really deserves an answer on its merit.

What has university funding got to do with welfare?

When I was at school in the 70's you were tested at year 10, then year 12 and only the top 5% or so of students went to uni.
Subsidising that number isn't an issue, even in 1989 only 10% of students went to uni. 

Now nearly 50% go.


http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/a-matter-of-degrees-20130530-2neo9.html



Guess what, they aren't all doing engineering, now they have degrees for everything from doctors to surfing.

I guess, if we just keep funding everything and increasing taxes to pay for it, all will be fine.

Sounds like the magic roundabout to me.


----------



## luutzu

sptrawler said:


> I thought this part of your post really deserves an answer on its merit.
> 
> What has university funding got to do with welfare?
> 
> When I was at school in the 70's you were tested at year 10, then year 12 and only the top 5% or so of students went to uni.
> Subsidising that number isn't an issue, even in 1989 only 10% of students went to uni.
> 
> Now nearly 50% go.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/a-matter-of-degrees-20130530-2neo9.html
> 
> Guess what, they aren't all doing engineering, now they have degrees for everything from doctors to surfing.
> 
> I guess, if we just keep funding everything and increasing taxes to pay for it, all will be fine.
> 
> Sounds like the magic roundabout to me.




How are most people lifted out of poverty, or lifted into the middle class as they say? Without a trust fund or winning the lotto, most do it through higher education. Now and then you have successful business people, entrepreneurs, who never made it pass year 10, but by far most do well when they have a tertiary qualification.

What does education have to do with welfare? 
For one, when you're educated, you can hold down a job... less chance of unemployment.

Two, you might learn a thing or two, maybe gain some skills, do some thinking and get some innovation going... Or education is just a waste of time and money?

Cutting tax to the rich and international corporations hoping that they'd then spend that tax savings to create jobs, trickling it down... that is pretty stupid. It's better if you've got a skilled workforce, ones with money to spend... and if businesses don't want to invest here to try and sell something to meet that demand, then they can go elsewhere.


----------



## luutzu

sptrawler said:


> Quite a meandering patchwork there.
> Getting to what Roosevelt did to save capaitalism.
> The first, spending a lot of money, we have done that. Unfortunatelly it hasn't produced any jobs.
> The second thing he did, you say, was introduce medicare, minimum wage, social welfare and public education. We have all that, but we are finding it difficult to pay for.
> 
> You say, 'why would you invest or build new factories, when we have a lagging economy and little demand, you would look overseas'.
> 
> I say why would you build new factories, when we have 30% corporate tax(NZ has 22%) and our minimum wage is one of the highest in the developed world, add to that one of the highest cost for energy in the first world.
> I can't think why you would build a factory here, maybe you can give me a reason.
> 
> I hope you're right and we don't need a strong economy to fund a strong welfare system.




You would invest, be that build new factories or start a new business, anywhere where are there strong demand, where you have people who can buy stuff from you. In other words, you start a business because you can make money with it. Low tax rate or low minimum wages plays almost no role in your calculation when the result of that is a non-bankrupt, richer market to sell your goods and services to.

It was Chris Hedge or Robert Reiche who cited Ford... he introduced a very high, for his time, minimum wage to his workers. It wasn't done out of charity... he did it because he employs so many people, he know that other manufacturers will follow or lose their skilled labourers... and in them raising the minimum wages, the American public earns more, become richer, and can afford more of his Model T. 

Ford Motor sold many times more cars soon after that wage hike he started.

So the idea that taxes must be kept ever lower, social safety nets be defunded, the poor and unskilled ought to get off their lazy bums and work two or three jobs. That's a dumb policy brought to our dumb and weak politicians courtesy of corporations and wealthy donors. The only competitiveness in all these is one gov't competing with another gov't to give more tax cuts and more incentives.

Those social programmes FDR introduced was during the great depression, when the country was going to war against Germany and Japan. If they could afford those measures then, and we can't afford it now... we either have no will or wrong sets of policies.

There's only so much social programmes you can cut before there's an uprising. The people is the water that lifts and carries the ship of state, drain that water and that ship ain't going anywhere but upside down. That or tell the rich to all go to the sides and trickle down their wealth, see if that is enough or they'd be too embarrassed and go where the demands and the monies are.


----------



## sptrawler

luutzu said:


> How are most people lifted out of poverty, or lifted into the middle class as they say? Without a trust fund or winning the lotto, most do it through higher education. Now and then you have successful business people, entrepreneurs, who never made it pass year 10, but by far most do well when they have a tertiary qualification.
> 
> What does education have to do with welfare?
> For one, when you're educated, you can hold down a job... less chance of unemployment.
> 
> Two, you might learn a thing or two, maybe gain some skills, do some thinking and get some innovation going... Or education is just a waste of time and money?
> 
> Cutting tax to the rich and international corporations hoping that they'd then spend that tax savings to create jobs, trickling it down... that is pretty stupid. It's better if you've got a skilled workforce, ones with money to spend... and if businesses don't want to invest here to try and sell something to meet that demand, then they can go elsewhere.




So when these companies go elsewhere, where do the uni graduates get work?

Most people are lifted from poverty by having a job, whether that be a council worker or an engineer.

We now have a situation where 50% of students are going to uni, where do you find employment for them, there hasn't been a proportional increase in professional jobs.

Meanwhile the cost of funding their degrees has skyrocketed, it would be nice to have free everything, but that doesn't work. No one is saying they have to pay it up front, only when they earn over a certain amount.

It is a bit like my daughter, she has physical dissabilities and is deaf, if she was on unemployment or dissability benefits she would qualify for hearing aids/ moulds and audioligist would be free.
Because she works and earns $40,000, she has to pay $4,000 for inferior aids, is that fair? 
When someone who gets a degree and can earn a lot more than her, gets a much bigger subsidy ?

I'm not saying one is right or wrong, but there are a lot of inequities in our system, funny that the ones with the loudest voices get the most sympathy.


----------



## orr

sptrawler said:


> I say why would you build new factories, when we have 30% corporate tax(NZ has 22%) and our minimum wage is one of the highest in the developed world, add to that one of the highest cost for energy in the first world.
> I can't think why you would build a factory here, maybe you can give me a reason.




If I lived in a country where the government changed a policy of No tax on my Imported Diesel  fuel to one where diesel fuel was taxed, but where plentifully available domestic Natual Gas could be used as an alternative and would remain untaxed for purposes where untaxed diesel was currently being used. I'd invest in companies involved in suppling the necessary components to unable the change-over. 

But we currently have a of Government of dolts, supported only by the _dimmer bulbs_ of the electorate, trumpeted by demagogues and fools of the media, incapable of creative thinking, captured by later day reactionary 'commissars' of industry to the great detriment of the broader population.

Take a look at what good policy can do ;

http://www.inverelltimes.com.au/sto...grant-for-world-leading-business-in-inverell/

and weep................


----------



## sptrawler

orr said:


> If I lived in a country where the government changed a policy of No tax on my Imported Diesel  fuel to one where diesel fuel was taxed, but where plentifully available domestic Natual Gas could be used as an alternative and would remain untaxed for purposes where untaxed diesel was currently being used. I'd invest in companies involved in suppling the necessary components to unable the change-over.
> 
> But we currently have a of Government of dolts, supported only by the _dimmer bulbs_ of the electorate, trumpeted by demagogues and fools of the media, incapable of creative thinking, captured by later day reactionary 'commissars' of industry to the great detriment of the broader population.
> 
> Take a look at what good policy can do ;
> 
> http://www.inverelltimes.com.au/sto...grant-for-world-leading-business-in-inverell/
> 
> and weep................




That's great.
I think however, we have had a Government of dolts for several years.


----------



## luutzu

sptrawler said:


> So when these companies go elsewhere, where do the uni graduates get work?
> 
> Most people are lifted from poverty by having a job, whether that be a council worker or an engineer.
> 
> We now have a situation where 50% of students are going to uni, where do you find employment for them, there hasn't been a proportional increase in professional jobs.
> 
> Meanwhile the cost of funding their degrees has skyrocketed, it would be nice to have free everything, but that doesn't work. No one is saying they have to pay it up front, only when they earn over a certain amount.
> 
> It is a bit like my daughter, she has physical dissabilities and is deaf, if she was on unemployment or dissability benefits she would qualify for hearing aids/ moulds and audioligist would be free.
> Because she works and earns $40,000, she has to pay $4,000 for inferior aids, is that fair?
> When someone who gets a degree and can earn a lot more than her, gets a much bigger subsidy ?
> 
> I'm not saying one is right or wrong, but there are a lot of inequities in our system, funny that the ones with the loudest voices get the most sympathy.




I'm not saying the current system in Australia is perfect and shouldn't be changed or made fairer, but it seem that we're heading in the direction of the US's Reaganomics of cutting taxes up top and let the poor to fend for themselves - to starve them to make them stronger; cut their wages so they work harder and make the corporations richer which in turn lead to... to same real wages and more efficiency but same wages and tax haven and loopholes.

I don't think uni should be free... the current system is fine by me. But to make it more expensive? Why? Education is pretty much a fixed cost enterprise with very little variable costs involved. That is, costs the same if 20 or 30 students are in the same class... so raising fees is not done for costs/economic reasons, done so more towers and grander buildings can be named after them.

I don't think it's those who speak the loudest, it's often those to speak the softest but whose words have the ears of the powers that be. 

I've seen a few economists and historians and I agree with them that wealth from society never comes from the rich, it comes from the masses. The rich, be that corporations or the upper crust... they have spend all they every spend, create as much wealth or jobs as they see is needed. So it is only when the masses have more cash to increase demand that the then rich start to create jobs and "build wealth"... and often, the masses get to do that because gov't policies give them the opportunities and the means to do it... either from education and training, from funding research and development in the sciences, from funding infrastructure programmes that employs them, from social safety nets that mean they won't have to sell their house and be in debt for the rest of life if they have a serious illness.


----------



## Smurf1976

sptrawler said:


> add to that one of the highest cost for energy in the first world




This and other problems we have today in Australia an be easily explained in one word or two, depending on how you choose to write it.

Neoliberal or neo-liberal.

Those who have forced such failed policies really ought to be locked up I think. Half a human lifetime of messing about and we've gutted our major industries, sent energy costs through the roof and so on.

We need a new way forward. Someone to vote for who isn't pushing this failed neo-liberal rubbish and who isn't Green either. Someone to cut out the cancer that is financialisation and focus on actually growing the beans, rather than trading each of the diminishing number of beans 5000 times over and pretending that doing so is somehow creating real wealth.

So far as politics is concerned, credit where it's due. The predecessors of the Greens understood _exactly_ where we were headed and did so at least as far back as the early 1980's. They knew full well that Australian industry was doomed back then whereas nobody else really "got it" that the game had changed radically circa 1970 and that it was only a matter of time until the factories etc shut down. To what extent that is simply an understanding of something beyond their control, and to what extent the Greens might be involved in the cause as such, I won't claim to know. But they did "get it" a quarter century before most did.


----------



## sptrawler

luutzu said:


> I'm not saying the current system in Australia is perfect and shouldn't be changed or made fairer, but it seem that we're heading in the direction of the US's Reaganomics of cutting taxes up top and let the poor to fend for themselves - to starve them to make them stronger; cut their wages so they work harder and make the corporations richer which in turn lead to... to same real wages and more efficiency but same wages and tax haven and loopholes.
> 
> I don't think uni should be free... the current system is fine by me. But to make it more expensive? Why? Education is pretty much a fixed cost enterprise with very little variable costs involved. That is, costs the same if 20 or 30 students are in the same class... so raising fees is not done for costs/economic reasons, done so more towers and grander buildings can be named after them.
> 
> I don't think it's those who speak the loudest, it's often those to speak the softest but whose words have the ears of the powers that be.
> 
> I've seen a few economists and historians and I agree with them that wealth from society never comes from the rich, it comes from the masses. The rich, be that corporations or the upper crust... they have spend all they every spend, create as much wealth or jobs as they see is needed. So it is only when the masses have more cash to increase demand that the then rich start to create jobs and "build wealth"... and often, the masses get to do that because gov't policies give them the opportunities and the means to do it... either from education and training, from funding research and development in the sciences, from funding infrastructure programmes that employs them, from social safety nets that mean they won't have to sell their house and be in debt for the rest of life if they have a serious illness.




As the article said, in the late 1980's 200,000 students went to uni, now 1,000,000 go to uni. The cost to supply the teachers, courses, materials etc must have increased exponentially. Not to mention the increase in classrooms and universities.
I suppose it just depends where the Government of the day wants to spend the revenue, either taxes increase or spending decreases.
There will always be winners and losers, everyone has their own priorities, dependent on their circumstances.


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> This and other problems we have today in Australia an be easily explained in one word or two, depending on how you choose to write it.
> 
> Neoliberal or neo-liberal.
> 
> Those who have forced such failed policies really ought to be locked up I think. Half a human lifetime of messing about and we've gutted our major industries, sent energy costs through the roof and so on.
> 
> We need a new way forward. Someone to vote for who isn't pushing this failed neo-liberal rubbish and who isn't Green either. Someone to cut out the cancer that is financialisation and focus on actually growing the beans, rather than trading each of the diminishing number of beans 5000 times over and pretending that doing so is somehow creating real wealth.
> 
> So far as politics is concerned, credit where it's due. The predecessors of the Greens understood _exactly_ where we were headed and did so at least as far back as the early 1980's. They knew full well that Australian industry was doomed back then whereas nobody else really "got it" that the game had changed radically circa 1970 and that it was only a matter of time until the factories etc shut down. To what extent that is simply an understanding of something beyond their control, and to what extent the Greens might be involved in the cause as such, I won't claim to know. But they did "get it" a quarter century before most did.




You're right smurph, I don't see any easy way out of the current situation, my feeling is it will get a lot worse before it gets better.


----------



## Tisme

Smurf1976 said:


> The predecessors of the Greens understood _exactly_ where we were headed and did so at least as far back as the early 1980's. They knew full well that Australian industry was doomed back then whereas nobody else really "got it" that the game had changed radically circa 1970 and that it was only a matter of time until the factories etc shut down.




I don't know why anyone wouldn't know the shift was on in the 1970 away from primary and secondary industry to tertiary (service based). Health, community svs, property and business svs were all predicted to rise at a faster rate than the secondary (esp the manufacturing) sector. There was plenty of published modelling done in the sixties, especially post sheep's back  and pig iron policies of Bob Menzies.


----------



## Julia

luutzu said:


> How are most people lifted out of poverty, or lifted into the middle class as they say? Without a trust fund or winning the lotto, most do it through higher education.



Right.  That will be why we have so many people with PhD's driving taxis or drawing unemployment benefits.

Education is important for everyone to a certain level.  But if you expect the taxpaying public to subsidise your ongoing tertiary education, then you should have some expectation of being able to get a job at the conclusion of that education.

If you pursue many years of higher education in obscure fields, then I don't see why the labourer on the average wage should be expected to continue supporting you.


----------



## drsmith

sptrawler said:


> As the article said, in the late 1980's 200,000 students went to uni, now 1,000,000 go to uni.



I wonder how many pass.

My first physics lecture in first year is something that stands out in my memory. The lecturer came in to a theatre packed with all seating occupied, students sitting in the isles and standing at the back. The lecturer started by telling everyone to look to the person on their left and then to the person on their right. He then pronounced "only one in the three of you will pass first year science" and proceeded with the lecture.

There was no one sitting in the isles or standing up the back for his second lecture.

This was in the mid 80's. In that same lecture, he also described mathematics as the language of science. IIRC, about one third passed the first year calculus course that year.


----------



## luutzu

Julia said:


> Right.  That will be why we have so many people with PhD's driving taxis or drawing unemployment benefits.
> 
> Education is important for everyone to a certain level.  But if you expect the taxpaying public to subsidise your ongoing tertiary education, then you should have some expectation of being able to get a job at the conclusion of that education.
> 
> If you pursue many years of higher education in obscure fields, then I don't see why the labourer on the average wage should be expected to continue supporting you.




HECS and HELP are not subsidies, they're more like loans. And it's often a great investment for gov't.


----------



## Tisme

Why is the Abbott Govt wasting monies on an ETS review when there is no ETS, nor will there be under the LNP.

More fiscal irresponsibility by the govt with more taxpayer money being wasted with nothing to show for it.

It's almost like we are being run by girlyboys who can't negotiate without selling the family silver at a discount.


----------



## Smurf1976

Tisme said:


> I don't know why anyone wouldn't know the shift was on in the 1970 away from primary and secondary industry to tertiary (service based).




Popular opinion remained firmly in favour of primary and secondary industry into early this century, indeed it still seems to be that way in some parts of the country today.

There's no long term future in mining iron ore and gas in WA and it will inevitably go the same way as heavy manufacturing and timber did in Tasmania. It wasn't the Greens who really killed anything in the island state, at most they just accelerated by a decade at most something that was inevitable anyway. 

Like most, I didn't see it at the time. How was tourism going to replace heavy industry in an economic sense? I mean really? What I and most others failed to grasp at the time is that there was really no choice in the matter since the death knell had already sounded for manufacturing and the energy and other industries that supported it. 

Looking at the national level, there's the occasional exception but in general every significant manufacturing industry that we ever had is either already shut or not worth further investment into, thus leading to inevitable closure once machinery wears out, becomes outdated etc. 

I won't claim to know how it's really going to work when basically every physical object is imported and all we produce is services. But that's exactly where we're heading, the only question being how long it takes to really get there at the national level. But get there we will, those paying attention will have noticed the writing on the wall for the mining industry some time ago - ultimately it's heading the same way as manufacturing although it will take a while to get there.


----------



## Smurf1976

Tisme said:


> It's almost like we are being run by girlyboys who can't negotiate without selling the family silver at a discount.




Like the Tas state government today. In short:

Unions took them to the Industrial Commission arguing for a public service pay freeze until the middle of next year.

Industrial Commission strongly recommended a pay freeze in the public service for 12 months. So longer than the Unions wanted, but a pay freeze nonetheless.

Government response is that they'll completely ignore the Commission, give workers a pay rise, and sack hundreds in order to pay for it.

These Liberals are making Labor look decidedly mature and sensible in comparison. I mean seriously, you've got someone handing you a solution so you spend $$$ on costly lawyers from interstate to argue against it. And when you lose that argument, you just ignore the umpire anyway. Truly amazing.


----------



## drsmith

Smurf1976 said:


> Industrial Commission strongly recommended a pay freeze in the public service for 12 months. So longer than the Unions wanted, but a pay freeze nonetheless.
> 
> Government response is that they'll completely ignore the Commission, give workers a pay rise, and sack hundreds in order to pay for it.



Pay levels and numbers are two separate issues. The question with the latter is one of need.

A hard-core conservative government I would have thought would have taken the above advice and proceeded with the redundancies. Perhaps that was considered too politically unpalatable.


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> Like the Tas state government today. In short:
> 
> Unions took them to the Industrial Commission arguing for a public service pay freeze until the middle of next year.
> 
> Industrial Commission strongly recommended a pay freeze in the public service for 12 months. So longer than the Unions wanted, but a pay freeze nonetheless.
> 
> Government response is that they'll completely ignore the Commission, give workers a pay rise, and sack hundreds in order to pay for it.
> 
> These Liberals are making Labor look decidedly mature and sensible in comparison. I mean seriously, you've got someone handing you a solution so you spend $$$ on costly lawyers from interstate to argue against it. And when you lose that argument, you just ignore the umpire anyway. Truly amazing.




I'm not sure about the situation in Tassie, but over here in W.A I think the Govt is hell bent on removing people off the payroll and the super obligation.


----------



## sptrawler

drsmith said:


> I wonder how many pass.
> .




I missed that post doc, the problem with universities today isn't how many pass, but how many you can push in.

From that SMH article on universities:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/a-matter-of-degrees-20130530-2neo9.html

An extract:


*Last year, the admission floodgates for most courses were thrown open by the removal of the government cap on how many places it would partially fund for local students. The effect of the change was immediate, with record numbers of students finding places in tertiary study for 2012.

As Glyn Davis, the chairman of Universities Australia, the peak body representing universities, said in a National Press Club address: "Almost every candidate who applied anywhere in Australia was offered a chance to study."*

How we keep subsidising degrees, while relaxing the entrance requirements, is going to take some juggling.lol

Maybe everyone can go to uni, then we can pull straws, to see who picks up the garbage.

It's a bit like degrees in nursing, now they have problems with who cleans up the mess.


----------



## Smurf1976

drsmith said:


> Pay levels and numbers are two separate issues. The question with the latter is one of need.




Government says they want to cut PS numbers by x with an 18 month pay freeze.

Unions say how about a pay freeze until the end of the financial year and do a proper review of the PS staffing levels. 

Government says negotiation or compromise can't happen, therefore will cut an additional number of workers and proceed with a pay rise. 

Logically, I'd think that if the numbers add up then that ought to be sufficient. The unions seem to be being far more reasonable than the government here with their proposal for an immediate pay freeze and review of the PS. It's pretty much a reversal of the position one would logically expect - unions generally aren't keen on either pay freezes or staffing reviews anywhere.

It doesn't affect me personally, but it's doing a pretty good job of turning me into a "rusted on" supporter of anyone other than the Liberals. They're acting like children here, no other way to put it really. 

It comes down to the Liberals' panic approach to everything. What, exactly, is wrong with putting the whole thing on hold until June next year, with a pay freeze in line with what the government wants in the mean time, so as to do a proper review of the PS? That seems pretty sensible to me, and it's a big risk on the part of the unions since they may not like the outcome of the review. 

Something's awfully strange when it's the unions wanting pay freezes and staffing reviews whilst the government wants a pay rise. Strange indeed, and it reflects a lack of maturity and commonsense in my view.

I thought Labor was bad, but this mob are just losing the plot. Where's the political logic in unnecessarily cutting health, education etc simply for the sake of opposing a proper review? I really can't see how that gains too many votes beyond a few hardline right wing types of whom there aren't that many. At this rate, we'll end up with a hung parliament at the next election and another government involving the Greens.....

For what it's worth, Abbott seems to have a similar overall thought process so far as I can tell. We've gone from financially incompetent Labor governments to arrogant Liberals. Neither are doing much good for the country or state in the long term and it virtually ensures that we'll end up with another big swing as voters search for the "least bad" option. Labor and Liberal have both lost the plot in my view.


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> Government says they want to cut PS numbers by x with an 18 month pay freeze.
> 
> Unions say how about a pay freeze until the end of the financial year and do a proper review of the PS staffing levels.
> 
> Government says negotiation or compromise can't happen, therefore will cut an additional number of workers and proceed with a pay rise.
> 
> Logically, I'd think that if the numbers add up then that ought to be sufficient. The unions seem to be being far more reasonable than the government here with their proposal for an immediate pay freeze and review of the PS. It's pretty much a reversal of the position one would logically expect - unions generally aren't keen on either pay freezes or staffing reviews anywhere.
> 
> It doesn't affect me personally, but it's doing a pretty good job of turning me into a "rusted on" supporter of anyone other than the Liberals. They're acting like children here, no other way to put it really.
> 
> It comes down to the Liberals' panic approach to everything. What, exactly, is wrong with putting the whole thing on hold until June next year, with a pay freeze in line with what the government wants in the mean time, so as to do a proper review of the PS? That seems pretty sensible to me, and it's a big risk on the part of the unions since they may not like the outcome of the review.
> 
> Something's awfully strange when it's the unions wanting pay freezes and staffing reviews whilst the government wants a pay rise. Strange indeed, and it reflects a lack of maturity and commonsense in my view.
> 
> I thought Labor was bad, but this mob are just losing the plot. Where's the political logic in unnecessarily cutting health, education etc simply for the sake of opposing a proper review? I really can't see how that gains too many votes beyond a few hardline right wing types of whom there aren't that many. At this rate, we'll end up with a hung parliament at the next election and another government involving the Greens.....
> 
> For what it's worth, Abbott seems to have a similar overall thought process so far as I can tell. We've gone from financially incompetent Labor governments to arrogant Liberals. Neither are doing much good for the country or state in the long term and it virtually ensures that we'll end up with another big swing as voters search for the "least bad" option. Labor and Liberal have both lost the plot in my view.




I think that the situation is such, that there isn't an easy way out, also I believe the unions know this.

Tax reciepts falling, welfare and general Government expenses rising, business confidence in decline. 

People wanting more from the Government and the Government getting less to supply it with.

Like I said in an earlier post, I believe it will get a LOT worse before it gets better, that is if it can get better.
Personally I think a reset in living standards to a new 'norm' is on the way.


----------



## drsmith

sptrawler said:


> Personally I think a rfeset in living standards to a new 'norm' is on the way.



A significant portion of the federal public service with agreements expiring on June 30 this year have failed to get renewals thus resulting in a pay freeze by default. Neither the CPSU or government seem overly fussed about this in my view.

At a union level, I suspect its about numbers preservation in the PS. There may also be less inclination for a fight at a time when questionable conduct within elements of the union movement has had a high media profile in recent years.


----------



## Julia

drsmith said:


> A significant portion of the federal public service with agreements expiring on June 30 this year have failed to get renewals thus resulting in a pay freeze by default. Neither the CPSU or government seem overly fussed about this in my view.
> 
> At a union level, I suspect its about numbers preservation in the PS. There may also be less inclination for a fight at a time when questionable conduct within elements of the union movement has had a high media profile in recent years.



+1.   Agree with both points.


----------



## So_Cynical

Public servant pay freeze coupled with the lousy 1.5% for the defence force all done because of a "budget emergency" that no one other than the Noalition believes in...using up political capital.


----------



## noco

So_Cynical said:


> Public servant pay freeze coupled with the lousy 1.5% for the defence force all done because of a "budget emergency" that no one other than the Noalition believes in...using up political capital.




But the Fabians cut the ADF budget to a low not seen since 1938....1.8% of GDP

The Fabians left a hell of a debt and deficit to the Coalition and that money has to be paid back.

The Fabians imposed a Carbon dioxide tax that cost the tax payers heaps....Remember there would be no carbon tax under a Government I lead...now who said that?

The Fabians allowed 50,000 boat people in which cost the tax payers $11 billion and still costing...That $11 billion could have gone to to an increase in pay for the ADF.

The Fabians caused 1200 people to lose their lives at sea.

The Fabians wasted so much money on hare brain schemes like over priced school hall and roof insulation causing 4 deaths and hundreds of house fires. 

Is it any wonder severe cuts have to be made or do you think we should go on borrowing $100,000 each day like the Fabians did?

Is it right that the tax payers should be paying $1 Billion interest every week on the money the Fabians borrowed?

So don't nonsense about lousy pay increases......where do you think the cuts should be...please don't talk about the PPL...I am opposed to it and it may never get off the ground and I hope it doesn't but if it doesn't the they should  also cut the lucrative PPL to public servants and politicians......Kate Ellis is expecting and she will benefit from the PS scheme....6 months on full pay.


----------



## banco

noco said:


> But the Fabians cut the ADF budget to a low not seen since 1938....1.8% of GDP
> 
> The Fabians left a hell of a debt and deficit to the Coalition and that money has to be paid back.
> 
> The Fabians imposed a Carbon dioxide tax that cost the tax payers heaps....Remember there would be no carbon tax under a Government I lead...now who said that?
> 
> The Fabians allowed 50,000 boat people in which cost the tax payers $11 billion and still costing...That $11 billion could have gone to to an increase in pay for the ADF.
> 
> The Fabians caused 1200 people to lose their lives at sea.
> 
> The Fabians wasted so much money on hare brain schemes like over priced school hall and roof insulation causing 4 deaths and hundreds of house fires.
> 
> Is it any wonder severe cuts have to be made or do you think we should go on borrowing $100,000 each day like the Fabians did?
> 
> Is it right that the tax payers should be paying $1 Billion interest every week on the money the Fabians borrowed?
> 
> So don't nonsense about lousy pay increases......where do you think the cuts should be...please don't talk about the PPL...I am opposed to it and it may never get off the ground and I hope it doesn't but if it doesn't the they should  also cut the lucrative PPL to public servants and politicians......Kate Ellis is expecting and she will benefit from the PS scheme....6 months on full pay.




Apparently the Government has enough money lying around to buy off the agricultural socialists though:

Nationals MPs want the Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce to ask Cabinet to extend the life of cheap loans for farmers in drought stricken areas.

In June the Prime Minister approved concessional loans for Queensland and New South Wales farmers in the grip of drought.

The loans were for five years at an interest rate of four per cent. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-...oval-for-longer-cheaper-drought-loans/5864158


----------



## noco

banco said:


> Apparently the Government has enough money lying around to buy off the agricultural socialists though:
> 
> Nationals MPs want the Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce to ask Cabinet to extend the life of cheap loans for farmers in drought stricken areas.
> 
> In June the Prime Minister approved concessional loans for Queensland and New South Wales farmers in the grip of drought.
> 
> The loans were for five years at an interest rate of four per cent.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-...oval-for-longer-cheaper-drought-loans/5864158




The farmers are very lazy these days, they would sooner put there hand out for Government assistance...to the best of my knowledge Government assistance was not available in the 40's and 50's.

70 odd years ago I know for a fact that farmers prepared for the possibly of bad times of drought and the reason why I say that is because they always had water on their properties and they would also plant and harvest silage in good times and bury it under ground with at least 2 feet of soil over the top....That silage would be good for 11 years and was often used to feed stock when drought hit....I know this to be a fact because I saw it with my own eyes when working on sheep stations in the 40's and 50's....I recently new a sheep farmer from from Richmond in the 80's and I mentioned  it to him and he told me they don't do it any more because it is too much work and trouble to do it.

There is nothing new in droughts and floods in the West......I was marooned on one station for 2 weeks...we were sitting on an island near Meandowa south of Dalby......there were no helicopter drops.....the farmer was well prepared with a pantry full of groceries....they had home grown vegetables, fresh milk from the cow, fresh eggs and they would kill a sheep every 4 days.....No panic ...no worries.

The farmers are not the same farmers......the farmers today are a bunch of softies....you never heard of suicides.


----------



## So_Cynical

noco said:


> But the Fabians
> 
> The Fabians
> 
> The Fabians imposed
> 
> The Fabians allowed
> 
> The Fabians caused
> 
> The Fabians wasted
> 
> the Fabians did?
> 
> the Fabians borrowed?




Thread title is The Abbott Government not blame the Fabians for Nolaition policy.



So_Cynical said:


> Public servant pay freeze coupled with the lousy 1.5% for the defence force all done because of a "budget emergency" that no one other than the Noalition believes in...*using up political capital*.




I'm simply stating that the Noalition isn't making any friends with this sort of behaviour...the General public doesn't actually believe that there is any real reason for these personal cuts thus will vote with their pockets.


----------



## sptrawler

So_Cynical said:


> I'm simply stating that the Noalition isn't making any friends with this sort of behaviour...the General public doesn't actually believe that there is any real reason for these personal cuts thus will vote with their pockets.




They weren't voted in to make friends, they were voted in to make our economy balanced.
So they can keep putting money in the welfare pockets.

If they fail, the situation gets worse, but that seems to be the furthest from peoples mind.lol


----------



## drsmith

The Fairfax press is in usual form.

SMH headline,



> Ebola: Abbott government relents, will send Australian volunteers to treat victims




In the story,



> It is understood Australia has reached an agreement with the British government to treat Australian workers.




The treatment of Australian workers by other involved international parties has always been the basis upon which this government would send people.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...unteers-to-treat-victims-20141104-11grgy.html


----------



## Julia

So_Cynical said:


> the General public doesn't actually believe that there is any real reason for these personal cuts thus will vote with their pockets.



Do you have something to substantiate that claim?   Your own intention does not necessarily translate to that of the 'general public'.
As sptrawler says, they were largely voted in to correct the economic mess left by Labor, and to stop the boats.
They have pretty much done the latter, although Labor said it was impossible, and would be on the way to fixing the economy if Labor were not so hypocritically obstructive.



sptrawler said:


> They weren't voted in to make friends, they were voted in to make our economy balanced.
> So they can keep putting money in the welfare pockets.
> 
> If they fail, the situation gets worse, but that seems to be the furthest from peoples mind.lol



Of course it is.   Too many people want what they want for themselves.  Any understanding of the forward demands for everything the electorate believes it's entitled to seems lacking.  

It's "don't cut this", "don't cut that".  Where the **** do they think the money is going to come from to fund all these feel good social services?


----------



## noco

So_Cynical said:


> Thread title is The Abbott Government not blame the Fabians for Nolaition policy.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm simply stating that the Noalition isn't making any friends with this sort of behaviour...the General public doesn't actually believe that there is any real reason for these personal cuts thus will vote with their pockets.




The general public?????????? and who does the general public consist of in your eyes?...ah yes.....the Fabians and the unions.

Yes the Fabians.......one only has to mention the Fabians and it will always ruffle a few feathers.....but you cannot get away from the fact, the Greens and all the left wings socialists in the Labor party are members of the Fabian Society.....Julia Gillard is a member of the Fabians and a confessed communist.....The Fabians are communists so why do they use the Green/Labor coalition as a shadow for their miserable ideology....Why don't they use the name Communist instead of the Labor Party....it is because they are very subtle and sneaky in the way they go about imposing their ideology...they try to do it without people realizing it...they wolves in sheep's clothing. 

This may not be akin to the thread but Fabians are the reason why the Abbott Government are making some hard decision to clean up the Fabians mess.


----------



## sptrawler

drsmith said:


> The Fairfax press is in usual form.
> 
> SMH headline,
> 
> 
> 
> In the story,
> 
> 
> 
> The treatment of Australian workers by other involved international parties has always been the basis upon which this government would send people.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...unteers-to-treat-victims-20141104-11grgy.html




I was on holidays while all that ebola rhetoric was going on.
It appeared Abbott was being cautious so as not to endanger Australian health workers, while Labor and Fairfax were saying" sod it send them in".lol

I thought, why not send Plibersek and a group of vocal journos in as volunteers, that would shut them up.

It's easy to sit back and expose other people to a deadly virus, when your not putting yourself forward.

Absolute dick heads, forgive the language, but nothing else covers it. 

Labor and Fairfax need to grow up.

When you read the article, Abbot hasn't Relented.

He has ensured there are safeguards for Australian health workers.

What a disgracefull, missleading headline, bloody shamefull SMH.


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> I was on holidays while all that ebola rhetoric was going on.
> It appeared Abbott was being cautious so as not to endanger Australian health workers, while Labor and Fairfax were saying" sod it send them in".lol
> 
> I thought, why not send Plibersek and a group of vocal journos in as volunteers, that would shut them up.
> 
> It's easy to sit back and expose other people to a deadly virus, when your not putting yourself forward.
> 
> Absolute dick heads, forgive the language, but nothing else covers it.
> 
> Labor and Fairfax need to grow up.
> 
> When you read the article, Abbot hasn't Relented.
> 
> He has ensured there are safeguards for Australian health workers.
> 
> What a disgracefull, missleading headline, bloody shamefull SMH.




Isn't great to have an adult Government with real people who think things through first, unlike the Fabians who  rush in like a bull at a gate and let someone else worry about it when the damage is done.


----------



## So_Cynical

Julia said:


> *Do you have something to substantiate that claim?*   Your own intention does not necessarily translate to that of the 'general public'.






			
				Cynical said:
			
		

> the General public doesn't actually believe that there is any real reason for these personal cuts thus will vote with their pockets.




Are you suggesting that people (voters) in general are happy to have their pay frozen or reduced to 1.5% PA pay rises when inflation is running at close to 3%? or budget crisis denial?



Julia said:


> *As sptrawler says, they were largely voted in to correct the economic mess left by Labor*, and to stop the boats.
> They have pretty much done the latter, although* Labor said it was impossible,* and would be on the way to fixing the economy if Labor were not so hypocritically obstructive.




The election was a 2 horse race and the other horse had a heart attack, to somehow spin this as an endorsement of all Noalition policy is a bit of a stretch, Uni fees, an ETS inquiry, reinstatement of knighthoods, wealth tax and medical fund give-away, NBN hatchet job, RET back flip, Cambodia boat people deal, education funding back flip.

Who voted for all that?

Labor never said it was impossible to stop the boats, can you find a link to that? substantiate that claim?

-----------------------

Now can we get this thread back of track..its suppose to be about The Abbott Government and their failings and lies and spin and back flips and denial.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> The farmers are not the same farmers......the farmers today are a bunch of softies....you never heard of suicides.






_Since 1921 (see Table A in the Appendix) the rate of suicide has fluctuated considerably, therefore it is important to look at the rate over time to see where these changes have occurred and what major events may have influence these movements. The age-standardised death rate is the preferred measure to follow changes over time as it takes into account changes in the population size.

For the total population, the suicide rate peaked in 1963, reaching 17.5 per 100 000 persons. However for male suicide deaths the highest rate occurred during the Great Depression of 1930 when the rate reached 28.1 deaths per 100 000, followed by 23.7 in 1963 and 23.6 in 1997. For females, the peak occurred in the 1960s when the rate rose above 10 deaths per 100 000. This increase among women in the 1960s has been attributed in part to the unrestricted availability of hypnotic and sedative drugs.[19]

Over the last decade there has been a gradual decline of male suicide deaths, from 23.6 deaths per 100 000 (1997) to 14.9 deaths per 100 000 (2009). However an increase occurred in 2007 and 2008 (16.2 and 16.7 respectively) after a dip to 13.6 deaths in 2006.  This increase could be attributed to improvements in data collection and review as discussed in Limitations of suicide data.  Data for 2008 and 2009 will be revised, mostly likely upwards, as a result caution needs to be taken when interpreting the most recent data. _

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...brary/pubs/BN/2011-2012/Suicide#_Toc299625618


----------



## Tisme

So_Cynical said:


> Thread title is The Abbott Government not blame the Fabians for Nolaition policy.
> 
> 
> 
> .








I knew we shouldn't have trusted him


----------



## Julia

So_Cynical said:


> Are you suggesting that people (voters) in general are happy to have their pay frozen or reduced to 1.5% PA pay rises when inflation is running at close to 3%? or budget crisis denial?



I have no more idea than you have.  Do a substantial survey and then get back to us rather than make assumptions about what people think.



> Labor never said it was impossible to stop the boats, can you find a link to that? substantiate that claim?



In about one minute - in response to googling "Labor's claims that the boats could not be stopped", several references popped up.  Try it and see for yourself.
This following just happens to be the first one:


> When he was immigration minister O’Connor said boats couldn’t be stopped.
> 
> “Well, of course, it’s absurd to say what Tony Abbott said, which is the boats will be stopped if he were to be elected, within months,” said O’Connor. “He knows that’s a lie. He knows that that is not going to happen.”
> 
> When Tony Burke took over as minister he raised fears that turn-backs would lead to asylum-*seekers drowning (an audacious attack given the 1200 deaths under Labor). “When cornered,” he said of the Coalition, “they’ve even acknowledged that that’s the limitation of their turn back boats policy.”
> 
> Most emphatic of all, of course, was Rudd. When he was trying to undermine Julia Gillard to regain the prime ministership in June last year, he upped the ante on *Abbott’s policy. “He says he will stop the boats and he will send them back to Indonesia, that is an absolute lie,” said Rudd. “He knows that. Everyone who knows this area of policy well knows that. It’s more of a slogan than a substantive policy position.”
> 
> His foreign minister, Bob Carr, agreed. “He is right, it is a lie. The idea that a boat with 200 people on it, delivered into Australian waters by a *people-smuggler, can simply be told to turn around and go back to Indonesia, or that Australian border security forces are going to be able to cart it to an Indonesian port, is a fantasy.”
> 
> Soon after reclaiming the prime ministership, Rudd turned up the volume to 11. “I’m very concerned,” he said of Abbott’s turn-back policy, “I really wonder whether he’s trying to risk some sort of conflict with Indonesia.”
> 
> The most extraordinary observation on Labor’s wrongheadedness was how it was largely endorsed by the ABC, Fairfax press and much of the press *gallery.
> 
> Never mind that turnbacks had worked under the Howard government or that Labor’s approach had triggered only chaos, deaths and a dramatic acceleration of boat arrivals — the political elite criticised the Coalition’s policies.
> 
> Labor’s argument, effectively, was that the Coalition had a pretend plan for a problem that was insoluble; and it had many convinced. In July 2012 Michelle Grattan declared in The Age that turn-backs shouldn’t be tried.
> 
> “It’s not just the danger posed by the turnaround policy; it’s also the Indonesians’ resistance to it that is a problem,” she wrote. In The Sydney Morning Herald Phil Coorey said the Indonesians would “no longer allow it”.
> 
> And in The Australian Financial Review Laura Tingle was arguing not only that the policy was problematic but that it was losing political impact: “When people in focus groups are asked whether they believe Tony Abbott can really ‘stop the boats’, they don’t believe it.”
> 
> The fact is, in five months from December last year, 12 boats were turned back and this year only one boat has delivered asylum-seekers to Australia. Turn-backs worked and the boats were stopped.
> 
> Many people were emphatically wrong, for a long time, yet the air of unreality continues. After Abbott won power last year and started to implement Operation Sovereign Borders, Labor and some journalists saw trouble.
> 
> In November Tingle wrote that the Coalition was preparing “for the inevitable time when ambitious claims made in opposition — such as ‘we will turn back the boats’ — proved to be impossible to implement”.
> 
> Network Ten and Radio *National commentator Paul Bongiorno tweeted: “Government backdown sinks tow back or turn back the boats boast, Indonesia calls the shots as predicted for 3 years.”
> 
> In a new high point of chutzpah three months later, when it was revealed turn-backs had been successful (so Bongiorno had actually been wrong for three years), he tweeted this: “Boat turn backs was always going to work. But at what cost?” Indeed.




"The Australian" 31 October 2014


----------



## Tisme

Julia said:


> In about one minute - in response to googling "Labor's claims that the boats could not be stopped", several references popped up.  Try it and see for yourself.
> This following just happens to be the first one:




We don't really know if the boats have been stopped or not, because the data is cloaked in secrecy provisions; which kinda makes me feel the truth is being concealed.

I suspect when the $3 to 4bn annual costs can longer be sustained the gates on the detention islands will be opened and the flood levies will spill over with the same refugees plus their growing families.... that will be just before the Libs lose to the ALP


----------



## noco

Julia said:


> I have no more idea than you have.  Do a substantial survey and then get back to us rather than make assumptions about what people think.
> 
> 
> In about one minute - in response to googling "Labor's claims that the boats could not be stopped", several references popped up.  Try it and see for yourself.
> This following just happens to be the first one:
> 
> 
> "The Australian" 31 October 2014




Good one Julia.....I was about to do the same myself.

The Fabians are absolutely hopeless and they won't to run the country again.


----------



## IFocus

Meanwhile back at the ranch the house is in flames, must be those nasty Fabians stuth when will they stop wrecking this great government?

Director sentiment keeps falling, half say Federal Government hurting business



> A survey of around 500 board members by the Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) has found that more than 40 per cent now do not believe that the Federal Government understands business, while almost 40 per cent believe it does.
> 
> The survey also finds that almost half of directors now believe the Federal Government's performance is negatively affecting their business decision making, and almost three-quarters noting a negative effect on consumer confidence.




Fabians are the problem



> However, the AICD's chief executive John Colvin said much of the business community's concern is directed towards the Senate, rather than solely at the Government.
> Audio: Business leaders losing confidence in Abbott Government (The World Today)
> 
> "An overwhelming majority of directors believe the make-up of the Senate has an adverse impact on both business confidence and consumer confidence," he noted in the report.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-05/director-sentiment-keeps-falling/5867722


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> Meanwhile back at the ranch the house is in flames, must be those nasty Fabians stuth when will they stop wrecking this great government?
> 
> Director sentiment keeps falling, half say Federal Government hurting business
> 
> 
> 
> Fabians are the problem
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-05/director-sentiment-keeps-falling/5867722




IFocus, don't take too much notice of that propaganda coming out of the ABC.

We all know how biased the ABC is, as it is run by the Fabians, so what else would you expect?

The ABC have got it wrong so many times....The ABC also know how to manipulate the news to discredit the LNP.

It is unfortunate, the naive believe it.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> IFocus, don't take too much notice of that propaganda coming out of the ABC.
> 
> We all know how biased the ABC is, as it is run by the Fabians, so what else would you expect?
> 
> The ABC have got it wrong so many times....The ABC also know how to manipulate the news to discredit the LNP.
> 
> It is unfortunate, the naive believe it.




The naive also believe Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones


I'll take the ABC any day over those two jokers.


----------



## So_Cynical

Julia said:


> I have no more idea than you have.  Do a substantial survey and then get back to us rather than make assumptions about what people think.




Julia ill go out on a limb here and go with a survey of one, people don't like pay freezes and or pay rises that don't at least keep up with inflation...and they dont like cold toast, lying politicians, getting robbed and wetting the bed.


----------



## Smurf1976

noco said:


> IFocus, don't take too much notice of that propaganda coming out of the ABC.




News Ltd, which isn't exactly known for supporting Labor in recent times, is also running the "business says Abbott is crap" line too.

If your natural supporters, business in the case of the Coalition, are saying you're not doing well and a normally favourable media outlet is reporting it well that says it all really.

http://www.themercury.com.au/busine...at-gillard-level/story-fnj6eg8g-1227113359155


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> The naive also believe Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones
> 
> 
> I'll take the ABC any day over those two jokers.




Well, of course you would side with the ABC because it suits your beliefs. 

Alan Jones is not biased after the way he cut down the Newman Government in Queensland.

Andrew Bolt has also been critical of the Abbott Government.

But not the ABC.....they are blatantly biased......I cannot recall where the ABC has been critical of the Fabians.

The ABC break their charter every day of the week.....they are publicly funded and should abide by that charter.


----------



## banco

Smurf1976 said:


> News Ltd, which isn't exactly known for supporting Labor in recent times, is also running the "business says Abbott is crap" line too.
> 
> If your natural supporters, business in the case of the Coalition, are saying you're not doing well and a normally favourable media outlet is reporting it well that says it all really.
> 
> http://www.themercury.com.au/busine...at-gillard-level/story-fnj6eg8g-1227113359155




Well abbott's public standing is built on stopping the boats and trying to look tough with Russia on MH 17 etc. none of which business could care less about.


----------



## noco

banco said:


> Well abbott's public standing is built on stopping the boats and trying to look tough with Russia on MH 17 etc. none of which business could care less about.




It is far better when you hear the whole story.

The Fabians love to cherry pick.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...level-as-gillard/story-e6frg906-1227113303051

*Nine out of 10 business leaders said the Senate’s opposition to budget measures had hurt business confidence, with a similar proportion seeing an affect on consumer sentiment.

“There’s a large frustration building up in the Australian population,” Mr Colvin said.*


----------



## Julia

Tisme said:


> We don't really know if the boats have been stopped or not, because the data is cloaked in secrecy provisions; which kinda makes me feel the truth is being concealed.



Irrelevant.  My post was a response to So Cynical's assertion that Labor had never claimed that it was impossible to stop the boats.
I provided reference to disprove that.




So_Cynical said:


> Julia ill go out on a limb here and go with a survey of one, people don't like pay freezes and or pay rises that don't at least keep up with inflation...and they dont like cold toast, lying politicians, getting robbed and wetting the bed.



Don't be silly.  Your 'survey of one' is your opinion and nothing more.



Smurf1976 said:


> News Ltd, which isn't exactly known for supporting Labor in recent times, is also running the "business says Abbott is crap" line too.



Which perhaps goes to some objectivity on the part of News Ltd, at least "The Australian" ( can't attest to the tabloid rubbish), which is contrary to frequent suggestions on this forum.


----------



## noco

So_Cynical said:


> Julia ill go out on a limb here and go with a survey of one, people don't like pay freezes and or pay rises that don't at least keep up with inflation...and they dont like cold toast, lying politicians, getting robbed and wetting the bed.




We are now paying the price for 6 years of Green/Labor stupidity...Don't you get it?


----------



## drsmith

Not a glowing endorsement by business by any means but within it I note the following,



> However, the AICD's chief executive John Colvin said much of the business community's concern is directed towards the Senate, rather than solely at the Government.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-05/director-sentiment-keeps-falling/5867722?section=business


----------



## Tisme

drsmith said:


> Not a glowing endorsement by business by any means but within it I note the following,
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-05/director-sentiment-keeps-falling/5867722?section=business





If you watched the actual interviews there was not a lot of nice things said about the govt  and it's ability to understand business. The qualifications and comparisons were rather sparse.

It was a news article that had to be printed because of the gathering, but cherrypicked by Newscorp to minimise any lasting damage to it's party.


----------



## drsmith

Tisme said:


> It was a news article that had to be printed because of the gathering, but cherrypicked by Newscorp to minimise any lasting damage to it's party.



The link and quote above is from the ABC, not Newscorp.


----------



## drsmith

Tisme said:


> We don't really know if the boats have been stopped or not, because the data is cloaked in secrecy provisions; which kinda makes me feel the truth is being concealed.



The boats have been stopped.



Tisme said:


> I suspect when the $3 to 4bn annual costs can longer be sustained the gates on the detention islands will be opened and the flood levies will spill over with the same refugees plus their growing families.... that will be just before the Libs lose to the ALP



I like a sense of humour.


----------



## sptrawler

So_Cynical said:


> Are you suggesting that people (voters) in general are happy to have their pay frozen or reduced to 1.5% PA pay rises when inflation is running at close to 3%? or budget crisis denial?
> .




It was o.k to do it under the guise of a wages accord, when Hawke and Keating were in.

Why is it so outragous when the Coalition want to do it?


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> It was o.k to do it under the guise of a wages accord, when Hawke and Keating were in.
> 
> Why is it so outragous when the Coalition want to do it?




Maybe because Hawke and Keating achieved wage restraint by consultation, Abbott wants it done by imposition.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe because Hawke and Keating achieved wage restraint by consultation, Abbott wants it done by imposition.




Yes consultation with the unions, not the members.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> Yes consultation with the unions, not the members.




Four terms for Hawke and two for Keating would indicate that the members weren't too upset.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> Four terms for Hawke and two for Keating would indicate that the members weren't too upset.




Yep and an 18% drop in real wages.


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> Yep and an 18% drop in real wages.




Someone had too pay for Howard's big black hole he left for Hawke.


----------



## sptrawler

Tisme said:


> Someone had too pay for Howard's big black hole he left for Hawke.




And it always helps, when you have future Government ministers, deciding what is best for the worker.lol

I'm sure they had the workers interest at heart.


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> And it always helps, when you have future Government ministers, deciding what is best for the worker.lol
> 
> I'm sure they had the workers interest at heart.




yeah that too ... you must have read the piece in the Courier Mail today about how we should admire PMs regardless of their degree of dickheadedness.   Of course it was written to make us feel ashamed that some rednecks booed his LNP holiness Tony.


----------



## sptrawler

Tisme said:


> yeah that too ... you must have read the piece in the Courier Mail today about how we should admire PMs regardless of their degree of dickheadedness.   Of course it was written to make us feel ashamed that some rednecks booed his LNP holiness Tony.




No I haven't read the Courier Mail, can't get access and not much in it to interest a sandgroper.

Getting back to the issue, if Abbott had control of the unions and could bring about a reduction of 18% in wages.
We wouldn't have a problem now.

There is nothing different with Abbott saying payrises should reflect inflation, or Hawke bringing in wage indexation which tied wage rises to inflation, which by the way they never matched.

The only difference being, the reporters association never worried about it and the union reps worked hand in glove with the Labor, to screw over the workers.

Any talk of a wildcat paystrike, was quickly quelled, by the union saying they would not back it, therefore the workers faced the prospect of civil action.

Also lets not forget the airline pilots and their push for a pay rise, Hawke and Keating did a real number on them.

But hey Abbott is real nasty lol. Hawke screwed over the workers and gets cheered.lol

I think people have short and very selective memories, or are blinded by their unwavering loyalty.

I personally don't give a rats behind who is in, just that they try and do the best for Australia.


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> Someone had too pay for Howard's big black hole he left for Hawke.




Umm, didn't Howard come after Hawke?


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> Umm, didn't Howard come after Hawke?




Uum no.


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> .
> 
> I personally don't give a rats behind who is in, just that they try and do the best for Australia.




Although I agree, I would need to caveat that the best would be my interpretation, which might run counter to others, the ABC and fabians (did I leave any clichÃ©s out?).


----------



## dutchie

Tisme said:


> Uum no.




Time you took some history lessons

Hawke              1983 - 1991
Keating             1991  - 1996
Howard             1996 - 2007

umm doh


----------



## sptrawler

noco said:


> Umm, didn't Howard come after Hawke?




I think he is refering to Howard as treasurer, a bit selective, Howard had to sort out Gough's mess.lol

Now that was a real mess. 

But from a workers point of view it wasn't bad, wages exploded. I was an apprentice at the time and the wage more than doubled in three years.
The downside, inflation took of to high teens and unemplyment followed it. Ah the good old days.


----------



## sptrawler

Tisme said:


> Although I agree, I would need to caveat that the best would be my interpretation, which might run counter to others, the ABC and fabians (did I leave any clichÃ©s out?).




That's true, but having lived in pre mineral boom Australia, and through both booms. 
It kind of gives you an understanding of how bad it can get, unless the excesses are reigned in.

Sunshine and lollipops, can soon turn to thunderclouds and $hit butties.


----------



## Tisme

dutchie said:


> Time you took some history lessons
> 
> Hawke              1983 - 1991
> Keating             1991  - 1996
> Howard             1996 - 2007
> 
> umm doh




Want another crack as repealing that? 

Yes John Howard left a budget mess, unprecedented mismanagement it twas. It's one of the reasons Hawke was voted in.   

He (Howard) was so good he managed double digit unemployment, double digit inflation, double digit interest rates all at the same time...that's three balls in the air simultaneously!!!! No one ever managed that feat before or since.

He left the budget deficit at 3.3% after inheriting 0.3% from Whitlam and it took the Labor years to get it down to 1% by 1997.

This kinda stuff must hurt one eyed people n'est pas?

ummm doh! 

And I don't have a soft spot for Labor ...go figure.


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> That's true, but having lived in pre mineral boom Australia, and through both booms.
> It kind of gives you an understanding of how bad it can get, unless the excesses are reigned in.
> 
> Sunshine and lollipops, can soon turn to thunderclouds and $hit butties.




Yes the rubber band is going to hurt when it snaps back.

I notice Hockey has figured out how to solve the problem = de-educate the population, make them less knowledgeable and therefore cheaper to hire as paper shufflers in the PS:-

_"We’ll find any way we can to take the money out of the universities,” Hockey told the Australian Financial Review on Tuesday._


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:
			
		

> Also lets not forget the airline pilots and their push for a pay rise, Hawke and Keating did a real number on them.
> 
> But hey Abbott is real nasty lol. Hawke screwed over the workers and gets cheered.lol
> 
> I think people have short and very selective memories, or are blinded by their unwavering loyalty.
> 
> I personally don't give a rats behind who is in, just that they try and do the best for Australia.




There was a wage explosion when Hawke was elected, these days people are more restrained which is why they deserve to be compensated for their patience. 

And yes, Abbott is real nasty, like bringing in self increasing taxes like the fuel excise indexation which will constantly erode the paypackets and increase itself due to the inflation it has helped to cause.


----------



## IFocus

Fabians still spending to much when will they stop

Stephen Koukoulas



Rising joblessness and falling iron ore prices spell trouble for Joe Hockey

The economy is not strong enough to withstand the spending cuts and tax hikes to secure the treasurer’s promised surplus




> Joe Hockey’s commitment at the National Press Club in 2012 that *“we will achieve a surplus in our first year in office and we will achieve a surplus for every year of our first term”* is long gone.
> 
> It is a distant memory with the outlook for the budget deficit this year, and in the next two years, much wider under the stewardship of the treasurer than the one he inherited from the Labor government in September 2013. What’s more, the path to budget surplus is at least two years behind what Labor was budgeting for when it framed its policy outlook ahead of the 2013 election.




http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...s-falling-commodity-prices-trouble-joe-hockey


----------



## Logique

Do you reckon Fairfax would have enjoyed publishing this!  Rough game politics.

Julie Bishop's new boyfriend revealed as David Panton
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/cel...revealed-as-david-panton-20141106-11hmq1.html

Let's see if the 'Gillard-as-victim-of-misogyny' crowd speak up on this one.


----------



## IFocus

Logique said:


> Do you reckon Fairfax would have enjoyed publishing this!  Rough game politics.
> 
> Julie Bishop's new boyfriend revealed as David Panton
> http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/cel...revealed-as-david-panton-20141106-11hmq1.html
> 
> Let's see if the 'Gillard-as-victim-of-misogyny' crowd speak up on this one.




Isn't Bishop allowed to have boyfriends?

Didn't see any signs saying ditch the witch


----------



## IFocus

Promise Tracker: The Abbott Government's broken election promises jump from 8 to 12



> Here's how the new promises change the tally: of the 78 promises now being tracked, 15 are delivered, 12 are broken, four are stalled and 47 are in progress.





http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-07/abbott-government-broken-promises-jumps-to-12/5870784


----------



## Logique

A bit of levity, not too partisan. From Tim Blair's blog.


----------



## Calliope

Abbott is punching above his weight. Putin will pat him on his head, make  smoothing noises and tell him to behave himself.



> PRIME Minister Tony Abbott has vowed to have a robust conversation with Vladimir Putin at the APEC summit to ensure the Russian president guarantees he's doing everything possible to assist investigations into the MH17 disaster.
> 
> THE Kremlin has confirmed that Mr Putin will hold formal talks with Mr Abbott in Beijing but says the meeting *"will be short"*.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-to-putin-abbott/story-fn3dxiwe-1227116717531


----------



## noco

Calliope said:


> Abbott is punching above his weight. Putin will pat him on his head, make  smoothing noises and tell him to behave himself.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-to-putin-abbott/story-fn3dxiwe-1227116717531




Got to give Abbott 10 out of 10 to have the gutz to front Putin.......I doubt whether Bill Sh#@en would have fronted Putin.


----------



## Calliope

noco said:


> Got to give Abbott 10 out of 10 to have the gutz to front Putin.......I doubt whether Bill Sh#@en would have fronted Putin.




After all his blather, what choice does he have? Meanwhile Shorten gets it right without the shirt-fronting bullsh!t.



> Mr Shorten this morning said he hoped Mr Abbott would use the meeting to “get to the bottom” of the affair, but predicted Mr Putin would not tell the truth.
> 
> “The Russians support the separatists in the Ukraine, separatists fired the missile which killed people; I don’t believe that the Russians don’t know what’s happening the Opposition Leader told ABC’s Insiders.
> 
> “In other words if they opened up the books and they told us what’s really going on we could get closure for a whole lot of people who are caught up in something well beyond their control with devastating consequences.
> 
> *“Putin is not going to tell us the truth, but Tony Abbott has to at least ask.”*
> Mr Shorten said Mr Abbott’s threat to “shirt-front” Mr Putin “weakened our legitimate outrage” over the attack.
> 
> “But also I think we need to show leadership and be supporting European efforts for peace in eastern Ukraine. That at least might make some sense of a senseless barbarity,” he said.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-...17-probe-shorten/story-fno88it0-1227117275560


----------



## luutzu

Calliope said:


> After all his blather, what choice does he have? Meanwhile Shorten gets it right without the shirt-fronting bullsh!t.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-...17-probe-shorten/story-fno88it0-1227117275560




I agree with you about the shirt-fronting, but I would bet my house that Abbott, the US, UK... they all know what happened. It's all showmanship.

With our eyes over the Ukraine, like it would be over any warzones, the chances of us not knowing what happen is zero. Just I think, and hope, that our leaders, including Abbott, has enough sense to not show it and anger the people to demand war with Russia or something.


----------



## banco

noco said:


> Got to give Abbott 10 out of 10 to have the gutz to front Putin.......I doubt whether Bill Sh#@en would have fronted Putin.




Yeah it takes such balls to have a tense conversation with someone.  What do you think they are going to start throwing punches?


----------



## drsmith

No knitting here,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-...-names-julie-bishop-woman-of-the-year/5877886


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> There was a wage explosion when Hawke was elected .




Your post 4481.
Maybe because Hawke and Keating achieved wage restraint by consultation, Abbott wants it done by imposition. 


You obviously have problems remembering your own story.




SirRumpole said:


> And yes, Abbott is real nasty, like bringing in self increasing taxes like the fuel excise indexation which will constantly erode the paypackets and increase itself due to the inflation it has helped to cause.




The fuel excise indexation was introduce by *Hawke and Keating*, then stopped by Howard.

You really do have an obvious bias that is showing through.


----------



## Julia

On "Insiders" today, when that photo was screened and mention made of the article in Harpers Bazaar, Fran Kelly still had to make it all about Julia Gillard, commenting that Ms Bishop's suggestion that women should just get on with it and stop whining was actually a barb directed at Gillard's misogyny speech.

It was a remark on a par with her support for those who booed Abbott and Howard at the Gough memorial.

What nonsense.  Julie Bishop is not disposed to be part of the feminazi brigade and doesn't need to be precious or over-sensitive.  She does exactly as she suggests, and just gets on with her job.  Great role model imo.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:
			
		

> The fuel excise indexation was introduce by Hawke and Keating, then stopped by Howard.




It matters not who introduced the tax/indexation in the first place, it's a nasty tax, and Abbott is responsible for reintroducing a nasty tax.

 Good on Howard for ending fuel excise indexation, boo to Hawke/Keating for it's introduction in the first place, boo to Abbott for its reintroduction.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> It matters not who introduced the tax/indexation in the first place, it's a nasty tax, and Abbott is responsible for reintroducing a nasty tax.
> 
> Good on Howard for ending fuel excise indexation, boo to Hawke/Keating for it's introduction in the first place, boo to Abbott for its reintroduction.




Rumpy, we need da monya to pay back the Green/Labor credit card.......don't be so mean....every little helps...your contribution at the servo will be welcomed.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Rumpy, we need da monya to pay back the Green/Labor credit card.......don't be so mean....every little helps...your contribution at the servo will be welcomed.




If we had a decent MRRT there would be no need to hit the average consumer.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> If we had a decent MRRT there would be no need to hit the average consumer.




We had one but it was costing more to administer than what was returned....just another Green/Labor hare brain scheme that did not work.

Labor certainly hit the average consumer with their CARBON DIOXIDE tax....you can't get away from that one.


----------



## Calliope

There are no world leaders (let alone Mr Abbott) capable of "shirt fronting" Mr Putin in the manner that  President Reagan (and  MrsThatcher) confronted Mr Gorbachev in 1989.



> The need now, 25 years after the fall of the Berlin wall, is for global leaders to show the strength and resolve that Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher did back then.
> 
> *In 1987, president Reagan, against the advice of nervous US diplomats, stood before the Brandenburg Gate and confronted the Soviets: “Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”* In his determination to end Soviet tyranny in Eastern Europe he was backed by Mrs Thatcher, the Polish leader Lech Walesa and pope John Paul II. The popular uprisings against Moscow’s diktat that followed were unstoppable and the Soviet empire disintegrated. The same qualities of leadership and vision are needed now in the face of Russian expansionist ambitions, especially against Ukraine. Mr Putin must be deterred not only from further belligerence along NATO’s eastern and northern borders, but also to be left in no doubt he will not be let off the hook by the international community as long as he persists in his illegal seizure of Crimea and continues to behave like a poor global citizen in relation to the atrocious shooting down of MH17 by Russian-backed rebels.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...hy-the-wall-fell/story-e6frg71x-1227117664153
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtYdjbpBk6A


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Your post 4481.
> Maybe because Hawke and Keating achieved wage restraint by consultation, Abbott wants it done by imposition.
> 
> You obviously have problems remembering your own story.
> 
> The fuel excise indexation was introduce by *Hawke and Keating*, then stopped by Howard.
> 
> You really do have an obvious bias that is showing through.




Do you believe taxes should be automatically increased, or should the Govt of the day make the case for an increase in tax revenue with each budget?

I do support an increase in fuel excise, but I don't support automatic increases in them, unless we're going to do the same with income tax thresholds as well.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Do you believe taxes should be automatically increased, or should the Govt of the day make the case for an increase in tax revenue with each budget?
> 
> I do support an increase in fuel excise, but I don't support automatic increases in them, unless we're going to do the same with income tax thresholds as well.




I don't particularly like taxes in isolation, they have to be weighed up against proposed spending that they are going to fund.
Some taxes are indexed automatically, e.g smokes, alchohol, whether they should have to be validated every budget is somewhat subjective.

I gave up smoking and tailor my alchohol consumption to my finances, therefore to a degree the amount of tax I pay on these is in my control.

Fuel excise indexing kind of falls into the same criteria, a lot of people on this forum applauded the carbon tax, on the basis it forced people to be more efficient in their electricity usage.

Well indexing fuel, will probably bring about a similar outcome, with vehicle usage and the type of vehicle people chose to fullfill their requirements.


----------



## luutzu

Calliope said:


> There are no world leaders (let alone Mr Abbott) capable of "shirt fronting" Mr Putin in the manner that  President Reagan (and  MrsThatcher) confronted Mr Gorbachev in 1989.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...hy-the-wall-fell/story-e6frg71x-1227117664153
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtYdjbpBk6A






I heard differently about Ukraine and the fall of the original Evil Empire.

With Ukraine, and this I've heard from a few experts on Europe/Russia... is that there were agreements with Gorbachev (?) and US/Europe powers that NATO must not expand beyond Poland. That countries like the Ukraine are historically Russian and must be left within Russian sphere of influence. NATO decided it want Ukraine to join the EU, spy masters work to overthrow the Ukraine's elected, and Moscow friendly, president and here we are.

Just repeating another perspective I heard.

With the fall of USSR... it's not people power or triumph of democratic values... the USSR just went bankrupt. Too many races with the US, a weak centralised Communist economy, probably a fair bit of sanctions, and the final blow came when the US realised most of Soviets cash come from its oil/gas... it tells Saudi Arabia to increase supply and good bye Evil Empire.


----------



## SirRumpole

Treasurer Joe Hockey faces $51 billion deterioration in finances between budget and MYEFO, economists say



> Treasurer Joe Hockey is facing an estimated $51 billion deterioration in Commonwealth finances between the budget and MYEFO, economists say.
> 
> Mr Hockey is due to hand down the Government's Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO) before Christmas, but the combination of a Senate hostile to key savings measures and slumping commodity prices looks set to make his festive season anything but.
> 
> The latest report from independent consultancy Macroeconomics finds savings worth $11 billion annually in four years' time are currently tied up in the Senate and unlikely to pass.
> 
> It also estimates the Commonwealth will lose up to $10 billion in 2017-18 from a deterioration in the economic outlook since the budget in May, particularly due to a further steep slide in the iron ore price.
> 
> The falling iron ore price has slashed Australia's terms of trade – the prices it gets for its exports versus what it pays for imports – and thus lowered national income, hitting both expected corporate and income tax revenues.
> 
> If Macroeconomics' forecasts are on the money, without further spending cuts or tax increases, the Commonwealth budget will be $24 billion in deficit by 2017-18, $21 billion worse than the modest $2.8 billion deficit that was forecast in May's budget.
> 
> Unfortunately, Treasurer Hockey has failed to galvanise broad public support for his budget because of the perception or reality that much of what he has planned is just plain unfair
> Macroeconomics director of budget and forecasting Stephen Anthony
> 
> The worsening conditions and blocked savings will also have smaller, but increasing, effects on the deficits over this financial year and the two following, leading to a cumulative deterioration of $51 billion across the four years of the forward estimates.
> 
> Macroeconomics director of budget and forecasting Stephen Anthony observed that the budget did have almost $40 billion in savings over the four-year forward estimates, and would have been on track to return to surplus in 2018-19, if not for measures being blocked by the Senate and commodity prices falling further.
> 
> While he said Mr Hockey's first budget was an economically sound and overdue attempt at bringing the budget back towards balance, he added it had failed on the political front.
> 
> "Unfortunately, Treasurer Hockey has failed to galvanise broad public support for his budget because of the perception or reality that much of what he has planned is just plain unfair," he noted in the report.
> 
> "He has certainly placed much of the fiscal adjustment burden on the poorest members of the Australian and international community (the unemployed, students, low income pensioners and foreign aid recipients) up to 2017-18, whilst failing to reign in tax concessions for high income earners."
> Unpopular measures 'not worth political pain'
> 
> Worse still argued Dr Anthony, a former Treasury official, many of the most unpopular measures do not actually contribute a large part of the savings.
> 
> "Many of [Mr Hockey's] budget cuts are just not worth the political pain, including the six-month qualifying period for unemployment benefits for persons up to 30 years of age, and the $7 co-payment for GP visits and tests ordered by GPs," he wrote.
> 
> "They divert focus from the passage of the few key structural reforms that were announced on budget night that could help to complete the fiscal repair job (age pension indexation, fuel indexation, state health and education grant indexation changes etc)."
> 
> The political furore over many of the changes means that only around half of the savings and revenue measures announced by Mr Hockey on budget night have so far been passed into law, leaving a $20 billion hole in the Government's budget over the next four years.
> 
> The Government maintains it can still gets its savings through the Senate, although some ministers have conceded they will have to compromise.
> 
> Dr Anthony noted that lowering age pension indexation, tightening family tax benefit part B eligibility, reducing senior health card eligibility and reintroducing fuel excise indexation would cover about half this gap.
> 
> The Government has already moved unilaterally to reintroduce fuel excise indexation but will have to refund oil companies the increase if it does not receive Senate approval within a year.
> 
> The Macroeconomics report suggests the other half of the gap could easily be covered by removing high income superannuation concessions.
> 
> On its modelling, taxing all super contributions at the taxpayer's marginal tax rate would yield $12 billion per annum, some of which could even be returned in low and middle income earner tax cuts.
> 
> Alternatively, the report suggests tinkering with a range of other aged benefits – such as removing the senior supplement and including the family home in assets tests – and a range of efficiencies in medical spending, industry assistance and Government procurement and services to bridge the shortfall.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-11/treasurer-facing-51-billion-budget-black-hole/5880718




Wonder how long Hockey will last as Treasurer ?

Might be time to give Turnbull a go.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Treasurer Joe Hockey faces $51 billion deterioration in finances between budget and MYEFO, economists say
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder how long Hockey will last as Treasurer ?
> 
> Might be time to give Turnbull a go.




The way you shouted your entry to your post, I am sure you will be more than happy about the "deterioration in finances".


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> Treasurer Joe Hockey faces $51 billion deterioration in finances between budget and MYEFO, economists say
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder how long Hockey will last as Treasurer ?
> 
> Might be time to give Turnbull a go.




Obviously Labor's fault that iron ore prices have fallen so far.  I mean it was totally unforeseeable that the oncoming 300M surplus supply in the seaborne trade would cause such a dramatic fall in prices.  The Liberals in WA are still holding to their $110+ forecasts for the next few years. 

So much political capital wasted on PPL / Doctor Tax / Internet Tax / Uni Tax.

Less effort wasted on that and a bit more into bringing the public on on worthwhile issues like an increase of fuel indexation and limiting negative gearing and the ability to use super as a tax minimisation vehicle.

I'm betting the MRRT and Carbon tax revenue is starting to look like the better options now.  Car FBT would have been a nice little increase in revenue as well.

Joe will have to hope the $8B he gave the RBA was shipped overseas so he can start to pull dividends out again.

It would seem the Govt is going through a similar revenue fall as Labor did in the GFC.  As Christopher Pyne has claimed, it would be an easy job to run a surplus with that kind of hit to revenue.  Hopefully Joe is up to the Job Pyne has set him.  Maybe the China FTA will save us like the AUS-US trade deal was supposed to bring in limitless opportunities for us, though the $2B lost to the generics industry and the $200M+ increase to the PBS each year certainly didn't seem to be the kind of _benefits_ that was spruiked.


----------



## SirRumpole

Bill Heffernan doesn't like the FTA with China

China free trade deal could 'turn into disaster' without safeguards, Liberal senator Bill Heffernan says



> A senior Liberal senator is warning a free trade deal with China could "turn into a disaster" for Australia if appropriate safeguards are not put in place.
> 
> In an exclusive interview with the ABC, Bill Heffernan raised the prospect of China cutting its tariffs, but then manipulating its currency to come out ahead.
> 
> "How do you really have a trade agreement with a country that won't put their currency on the market? I mean we should learn from our free trade agreement with the US," Senator Heffernan said.
> 
> "When we signed that agreement we were at 65 cents, when we enacted it the following February we were at 67 cents to the US.
> 
> "We did away with 5 per cent and 15 per cent tariffs and within a few years we found ourselves at a huge trade disadvantage because we had a 45 per cent currency tariff against us because we went parity with the US and above parity at one stage."
> 
> The Government is hoping to seal a deal with Australia's biggest trading partner when the Chinese president Xi Jinping visits Australia this weekend.
> 
> At the present time... it's a non-market currency which makes it very difficult for us [to] manage good times, bad times, high interest rates, low interest rates
> Senator Bill Heffernan
> 
> "Thanks to a lot of focus from Australia and from China over the last 12 months, I think it is very much on track for success in the next few days," Prime Minister Tony Abbott told reporters in Beijing on Monday.
> 
> "Still a few things to finalise, but I think very much on track for success in the next few days."
> 
> While welcoming a possible breakthrough, Mr Heffernan warned Australia could still be a loser because of China's currency.
> 
> "At the present time... it's a non-market currency which makes it very difficult for us [to] manage good times, bad times, high interest rates, low interest rates," he said.
> 
> "In code, it really means we can't win until the currency comes on the market."
> 
> The Federal Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce rejected concerns from his Coalition colleague that China's fixed currency will negate any benefits of a free trade deal.
> 
> Senator Joyce said Australia needs to step up its trade with China so national debt can be paid off.
> 
> "If we don't do a deal with China, if we don't trade with what is now our major trading trading partner, then our capacity to pay our bills and re-float our economy after the disastrous episode of the previous government, is going to be impinged," he said.
> 
> "We have to make sure that our soft commodities - such as wheat, such as beef, such as cotton, such as wool - start flowing in a more formidable form."
> 
> Government sources have told the ABC a deal is looking likely, but some key issues are still being negotiated.
> 
> Mr Abbott said the pact was not perfect and could be changed.
> 
> "We are trying to build a house," he said.
> 
> "Let's build the first storey and then in a year or two we can build the second storey and maybe even a third storey, but let's get things done and I very much hope that we will be able to say that we have got things done within a few days."
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-...s-concerns-over-china-free-trade-deal/5880740


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> Do you believe taxes should be automatically increased, or should the Govt of the day make the case for an increase in tax revenue with each budget?
> 
> I do support an increase in fuel excise, but I don't support automatic increases in them, unless we're going to do the same with income tax thresholds as well.



Without CPI indexation, the value of the fuel excise falls in real terms. The logic in your support for its indexation I assume is that the real value of this excise will be maintained if it's indexed to inflation.

Because of the progressive nature of our income tax system, income tax already rises in real terms due to bracket creep.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Obviously Labor's fault that iron ore prices have fallen so far.  I mean it was totally unforeseeable that the oncoming 300M surplus supply in the seaborne trade would cause such a dramatic fall in prices.  The Liberals in WA are still holding to their $110+ forecasts for the next few years.
> 
> So much political capital wasted on PPL / Doctor Tax / Internet Tax / Uni Tax.
> 
> Less effort wasted on that and a bit more into bringing the public on on worthwhile issues like an increase of fuel indexation and limiting negative gearing and the ability to use super as a tax minimisation vehicle.
> 
> I'm betting the MRRT and Carbon tax revenue is starting to look like the better options now.  Car FBT would have been a nice little increase in revenue as well.
> 
> Joe will have to hope the $8B he gave the RBA was shipped overseas so he can start to pull dividends out again.
> 
> It would seem the Govt is going through a similar revenue fall as Labor did in the GFC.  As Christopher Pyne has claimed, it would be an easy job to run a surplus with that kind of hit to revenue.  Hopefully Joe is up to the Job Pyne has set him.  Maybe the China FTA will save us like the AUS-US trade deal was supposed to bring in limitless opportunities for us, though the $2B lost to the generics industry and the $200M+ increase to the PBS each year certainly didn't seem to be the kind of _benefits_ that was spruiked.





I'm betting the tax changes required, will need to be far more drastic than those we keep mentioning.

Time will tell, untill then enjoy the spend.


----------



## drsmith

sptrawler said:


> I'm betting the tax changes required, will need to be far more drastic than those we keep mentioning.



It will and that's when the impact of the level of resistance in the senate will be sheeted home.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> Without CPI indexation, the value of the fuel excise falls in real terms. The logic in your support for its indexation I assume is that the real value of this excise will be maintained if it's indexed to inflation.
> 
> Because of the progressive nature of our income tax system, income tax already rises in real terms due to bracket creep.




I don't disagree.

What I am arguing is that shouldn't Govt revenue be something that is set forward in the budget each year.  If Abbott wants another $500M in fuel excise revenue each year, shouldn't the treasure ask for it as part of the budget process, or at least set out specific increases over say the term of the Govt?

Automatic CPI increases in revenue is the easy option for the Govt, but doesn't seem particularly fair to tax payers.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> Automatic CPI increases in revenue is the easy option for the Govt, but doesn't seem particularly fair to tax payers.



You said before you support it but with the following caveat on income tax,



sydboy007 said:


> I do support an increase in fuel excise, but I don't support automatic increases in them, unless we're going to do the same with income tax thresholds as well.




What specifically did you have in mind ?


----------



## SirRumpole

drsmith said:


> You said before you support it but with the following caveat on income tax,
> 
> 
> 
> What specifically did you have in mind ?




Don't know what syd had in mind, but Malcolm Fraser proposed tax indexation whereby the income tax threshold was linked to inflation, but people thought it was a con and it got howled down.


----------



## Tisme

sydboy007 said:


> again.
> 
> As Christopher Pyne has claimed, it would be an easy job to run a surplus with that kind of hit to revenue.




I must admit the Libs had six years to crystal ball accurately and they weren't shy claiming Swan was inept when his crystal ball didn't match their MarkII version, with the hindsight option.

Wiping the debt should be a snap for the brains trust in charge now surely?

I'm still wondering why we are being taxed into non productivity, when we are supposed to be a team, Team Australia, and teams go for the win don't they?


----------



## sptrawler

Tisme said:


> I must admit the Libs had six years to crystal ball accurately and they weren't shy claiming Swan was inept when his crystal ball didn't match their MarkII version, with the hindsight option.
> 
> Wiping the debt should be a snap for the brains trust in charge now surely?
> 
> I'm still wondering why we are being taxed into non productivity, when we are supposed to be a team, Team Australia, and teams go for the win don't they?




I suppose a minor difference was, Swann had control of both houses, so any budget measures were passed.

Hockey has to deal with 'looney tunes' and most budget savings are being blocked, or heavily modified.

Team Australia, is going to lose, $300billion and counting, sooner or later the blowout has to be addressed.

Meanwhile enjoy the entertainment.


----------



## banco

sptrawler said:


> I suppose a minor difference was, Swann had control of both houses, so any budget measures were passed.




I think that would be news to Swan.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> I suppose a minor difference was, Swann had control of both houses, so any budget measures were passed.
> 
> Hockey has to deal with 'looney tunes' and most budget savings are being blocked, or heavily modified.
> 
> Team Australia, is going to lose, $300billion and counting, sooner or later the blowout has to be addressed.
> 
> Meanwhile enjoy the entertainment.




I don't think the current senate is any more obstructionist than what we had with the last one.  If anything Abbott has good old Clive and he's been quite willing to support the Government after he's done his song and dance routine.  Labour had plenty of their revenue measures blocked by Abbott.

Still, it will be interesting to see what excuses the current Govt gives about how unforeseeable what is now happening, yet I've been reading plenty of blogs detailing the path we now find ourselves on from more than a year ago.

If the deficit Labor "generated" was all about over spending, isn't it the same for the Abbott Govt?  I suppose at least this time around there wont be an unforseen 35% increase in Chinese debt, in just one year, to help commodity prices surge, so any spending to help cover the income shock wont then be called "wasted" money.

I wonder if the masses are ready for 0.50 USD again, but even that is unlikely to do much for us now we've allowed most of the manufacturing to shut down, siphoned off most of the gas for LNG so we can barely compete to make fertilizer and explosives.  The only bright spot is Chinese tourism, though with the slow burning property crash and slow economy that might not last for too much longer.


----------



## Smurf1976

sydboy007 said:


> I wonder if the masses are ready for 0.50 USD again, but even that is unlikely to do much for us now we've allowed most of the manufacturing to shut down, siphoned off most of the gas for LNG so we can barely compete to make fertilizer and explosives.




Actually, we're not really competitive at making _anything_ these days. It goes way beyond turning gas into fertilizer, we can't even make basic goods like machine parts competitively in Australia these days. That said, the LNG is a serious issue given that it's effectively irreversible no matter what happens going forward. Eg we could cut wages at some point or change the tax system but we're never likely to get gas prices back down.

Fuel excise is an interesting one, the only rational explanation for which is a firm belief that oil supply is going to be a problem (a concept with which I agree) or alternatively as a form of tariff on imports (given that much of the oil we use is imported). Without those two, we'd logically have an energy excise applied equally to coal and gas as well rather than taxing one energy source (oil) but not others.


----------



## Smurf1976

sydboy007 said:


> I wonder if the masses are ready for 0.50 USD again, but even that is unlikely to do much for us now we've allowed most of the manufacturing to shut down, siphoned off most of the gas for LNG so we can barely compete to make fertilizer and explosives.




Actually, we're not really competitive at making _anything_ these days. It goes way beyond turning gas into fertilizer, we can't even make basic goods like machine parts competitively in Australia these days. That said, the LNG is a serious issue given that it's effectively irreversible no matter what happens going forward. Eg we could cut wages at some point or change the tax system but we're never likely to get gas prices back down.

Fuel excise is an interesting one, the only rational explanation for which is a firm belief that oil supply is going to be a problem (a concept with which I agree) or alternatively as a form of tariff on imports (given that much of the oil we use is imported). Without those two, we'd logically have an energy excise applied equally to coal and gas as well rather than taxing one energy source (oil) but not others. 

If all the money raised was spent on roads etc then fuel excise could be considered as a means of paying for that infrastructure mostly by those who use it. But in practice, there's a _very_ loose link between excise and road funding such that it is in practice and energy tax more than a road funding tax.

Politically, the fuel pain will arrive at some future time when oil prices go up and the AUD has dropped. That's when we'll hear the screams about excise. In the meantime, government is basically (in a political sense) taking advantage of falling oil prices to raise a tax at a time when petrol prices aren't much of an issue politically.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> I don't think the current senate is any more obstructionist than what we had with the last one.  If anything Abbott has good old Clive and he's been quite willing to support the Government after he's done his song and dance routine.  Labour had plenty of their revenue measures blocked by Abbott.
> 
> Still, it will be interesting to see what excuses the current Govt gives about how unforeseeable what is now happening, yet I've been reading plenty of blogs detailing the path we now find ourselves on from more than a year ago.
> 
> If the deficit Labor "generated" was all about over spending, isn't it the same for the Abbott Govt?  I suppose at least this time around there wont be an unforseen 35% increase in Chinese debt, in just one year, to help commodity prices surge, so any spending to help cover the income shock wont then be called "wasted" money.
> 
> I wonder if the masses are ready for 0.50 USD again, but even that is unlikely to do much for us now we've allowed most of the manufacturing to shut down, siphoned off most of the gas for LNG so we can barely compete to make fertilizer and explosives.  The only bright spot is Chinese tourism, though with the slow burning property crash and slow economy that might not last for too much longer.




It really is hard to see where our growth is going to come from, we are a high taxing, high wages, high energy cost economy.
Add to that, the fact it is much more efficient to transport raw iron ore, than processed steel.
Then throw in the fact we are a very small market and it really is complicated.

Then supplying one of the best welfare, health and education systems in the world.
Also the highest priced housing, indexed pensions, tax free super, concesionally treated savings and tax deductable investment loans.

Then you have the Federal and State Government costs with the members and their staff, cars, perks and costs.
Add to that the unfunded cost of the Federal and State retired members and their tax free indexed super, plus perks.

Seems like the elastic band is stretched somewhat.lol

Even if taxes are increased in the select areas, the underlying problem of supplying welfare and low personal tax rates has to have some underlying growth to support it.

Where that first world economy is going to come from, to support our first world lifestyle, I certainly can't see it.


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> It really is hard to see where our growth is going to come from, we are a high taxing, high wages, high energy cost economy.
> Add to that, the fact it is much more efficient to transport raw iron ore, than processed steel.
> Then throw in the fact we are a very small market and it really is complicated.
> 
> Then supplying one of the best welfare, health and education systems in the world.
> Also the highest priced housing, indexed pensions, tax free super, concesionally treated savings and tax deductable investment loans.
> 
> Then you have the Federal and State Government costs with the members and their staff, cars, perks and costs.
> Add to that the unfunded cost of the Federal and State retired members and their tax free indexed super, plus perks.
> 
> Seems like the elastic band is stretched somewhat.lol
> 
> Even if taxes are increased in the select areas, the underlying problem of supplying welfare and low personal tax rates has to have some underlying growth to support it.
> 
> Where that first world economy is going to come from, to support our first world lifestyle, I certainly can't see it.





I believe those luxury lurks and perks are about to be cut and not before time.

We have stopped making things here because of the high cost of wages, increased annual leave, leave loading, penalty rates etc. etc. thanks to the unions dating back to the 50's..we are now paying the price......we would need a wage freeze for the next ten years and back to 40 hours a week and do a fair days work for a fair days pay if we were to become competitive again.......not that it is likely to happen.


----------



## banco

noco said:


> I believe those luxury lurks and perks are about to be cut and not before time.
> 
> We have stopped making things here because of the high cost of wages, increased annual leave, leave loading, penalty rates etc. etc. thanks to the unions dating back to the 50's..we are now paying the price......we would need a wage freeze for the next ten years and back to 40 hours a week and do a fair days work for a fair days pay if we were to become competitive again.......not that it is likely to happen.




How about we freeze your pension for a start?


----------



## drsmith

This government never suggested it would deliver a surplus in this term of government.

Wayne Swan delivered a surplus if I recall his words correctly.


----------



## noco

banco said:


> How about we freeze your pension for a start?




Who said I was on a pension?


----------



## sptrawler

banco said:


> How about we freeze your pension for a start?




Apparently that isn't allowed, they aren't even allowed to match indexation to cpi, so noco's safe.


----------



## Julia

banco said:


> How about we freeze your pension for a start?



Unjustified and gratuitous personal assumption there.


----------



## drsmith

Julia said:


> On "Insiders" today, when that photo was screened and mention made of the article in Harpers Bazaar, Fran Kelly still had to make it all about Julia Gillard, commenting that Ms Bishop's suggestion that women should just get on with it and stop whining was actually a barb directed at Gillard's misogyny speech.
> 
> It was a remark on a par with her support for those who booed Abbott and Howard at the Gough memorial.
> 
> What nonsense.  Julie Bishop is not disposed to be part of the feminazi brigade and doesn't need to be precious or over-sensitive.  She does exactly as she suggests, and just gets on with her job.  Great role model imo.



The ABC didn't stop there,



> ABC24 asks an odd and oddly negative - question:




http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg..._anti_fossil_fuel_story_too_fake_for_the_abc/


----------



## drsmith

Vlad's tie is somewhat off centre,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-11/abbott-and-putin-meet-to-discuss-mh17-at-apec-summit/5883592


----------



## sydboy007

Smurf1976 said:


> If all the money raised was spent on roads etc then fuel excise could be considered as a means of paying for that infrastructure mostly by those who use it. But in practice, there's a _very_ loose link between excise and road funding such that it is in practice and energy tax more than a road funding tax.
> 
> Politically, the fuel pain will arrive at some future time when oil prices go up and the AUD has dropped. That's when we'll hear the screams about excise. In the meantime, government is basically (in a political sense) taking advantage of falling oil prices to raise a tax at a time when petrol prices aren't much of an issue politically.




John Oliver had a memorable way of putting it when he was examining how US states use lottery taxes to fund education yesterday.

"Money in state budgets tends to move around a lot.  Trying to add money for just one purpose is a bit like trying to piss in one corner of a swimming pool.  It's going to go all over the place, no mater what you claim."

Pretty much the same when a Government tries to hypothecate revenue and spending to specific areas.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> It really is hard to see where our growth is going to come from, we are a high taxing, high wages, high energy cost economy.
> Add to that, the fact it is much more efficient to transport raw iron ore, than processed steel.
> Then throw in the fact we are a very small market and it really is complicated.
> 
> Then supplying one of the best welfare, health and education systems in the world.
> Also the highest priced housing, indexed pensions, tax free super, concesionally treated savings and tax deductable investment loans.
> 
> Then you have the Federal and State Government costs with the members and their staff, cars, perks and costs.
> Add to that the unfunded cost of the Federal and State retired members and their tax free indexed super, plus perks.
> 
> Seems like the elastic band is stretched somewhat.lol
> 
> Even if taxes are increased in the select areas, the underlying problem of supplying welfare and low personal tax rates has to have some underlying growth to support it.
> 
> Where that first world economy is going to come from, to support our first world lifestyle, I certainly can't see it.




We are actually a quite low energy cost country.  Electricity wholesale prices have been on a downward trend for around a decade.  We're very competitive in terms of wholesale electricity prices.  We're not competitive in the distribution networks or the retail side.  The near doubling of retail prices over the last 6 years was pretty much all due to over spending on infrastructure and retailers increasing their margins.

We did have some of the lowest natural gas prices in the world, until we decided to link ourselves into the Asian market.  We further compounded our problems by allowing 3 gasification plants at curtis island to be built at the same time, while 2 large deep water LNG plants were being built off the WA coast, and a further plant in Darwin was built.  Strangely the management of the various companies didn't foresee the massive boom in costs that occurred.  So now domestic users are facing a potential tripling in wholesale gas prices added on top of a boom in distribution costs, while at the same time the LNG plants sit at near the top of the cost curve and likely to be uncompetitive against the new Russia - China pipelines and USA LNG exports.  To add salt into the wound they now want to build a $1B pipeline to bring northwest shelf gas to the east coast, while we export gas from the east coast to Asia.

Using more efficient taxes would actually help the economy because you could reduce the headline tax rates and still achieve the revenue goals.  Company and pay roll taxes lose around 40c in the dollar collected.  Lower them and replace with land tax that has a 2c in the dollar loss and you could drop company taxes.  Broaden the GST and reduce income taxes and kill off inefficient state taxes like stamp duty.

The promises made during the past election have hamstrung the Govt in their potential options to meet the challenges we're facing.  No one forced themt o make so many rash promises.  How does one increase spending, reduce the deficit, lower taxes all while the economy is slowing and the participation rate continues it's decline?  I'd say either you're lying, or if you believe that's possible, then you shouldn't be responsible for the local raffle, let alone the Australian economy.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> John Oliver had a memorable way of putting it when he was examining how US states use lottery taxes to fund education yesterday.
> 
> "Money in state budgets tends to move around a lot.  Trying to add money for just one purpose is a bit like trying to piss in one corner of a swimming pool.  It's going to go all over the place, no mater what you claim."
> 
> Pretty much the same when a Government tries to hypothecate revenue and spending to specific areas.




Yes, true. 

A way around this problem is for the Federal government to take over some State responsibilities like Kevin Rudd proposed to do with the public hospitals, but on which Labor lost its bottle after they threw Rudd out.

No more blame game over the health system, the Feds are responsible for the lot, and the States have large amounts of revenue freed up that they could use for other things.

But of course, we won't see this under an Abbott government, because they are lazy and they don't want more responsibility in case they stuff up.


----------



## dutchie

banco said:


> I think that would be news to Swan.




So would the fact that he never delivered a surplus.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, true.
> 
> A way around this problem is for the Federal government to take over some State responsibilities like Kevin Rudd proposed to do with the public hospitals, but on which Labor lost its bottle after they threw Rudd out.
> 
> No more blame game over the health system, the Feds are responsible for the lot, and the States have large amounts of revenue freed up that they could use for other things.
> 
> But of course, we won't see this under an Abbott government, because they are lazy and they don't want more responsibility in case they stuff up.




Actually, the states have always been responsible for health.

Queensland's health system was fully funded by the Golden casket under Joh's government until that lazy Labor Premier Beattie sold off the Golden Casket for $599,000,000 because he could not manage the state's economy....He and Anna Bligh tried to reduce unemployment by increasing the public service and then had to borrow money to pay their wages.

Kevin Rudd wanted to deny the states of 60% of the GST to fund the health system, but you can bet your boots that whole slice of the cake would not have gone to health.

I know the lefties keep pounding the bitumen about Abbott's lies but if you fellows were genuine and honest, you would understand that adjustments have to be made as times change......revenues drop.....social security payments have to be continued .....infrastructure and services have to be maintained......and at the same time Labor's debt and deficit has to be paid back.

I have seen history repeating itself over and over again........Labor spends more than it earns.....Labor increases the public servants more than they need.....never gets into surplus....always leaves one hell of a mess for the LNP to clean up......and just when the LNP get things right, they say it is time for a change......the Labor Party gets back into Government and we get on the roller coaster ride again.......around and around we go, upside down and in the end we come to a sudden halt again.  

If it wasn't funny it would be laughable.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Using more efficient taxes would actually help the economy because you could reduce the headline tax rates and still achieve the revenue goals.  Company and pay roll taxes lose around 40c in the dollar collected.  Lower them and replace with land tax that has a 2c in the dollar loss and you could drop company taxes.  Broaden the GST and reduce income taxes and kill off inefficient state taxes like stamp duty.
> 
> The promises made during the past election have hamstrung the Govt in their potential options to meet the challenges we're facing.  No one forced themt o make so many rash promises.  How does one increase spending, reduce the deficit, lower taxes all while the economy is slowing and the participation rate continues it's decline?  I'd say either you're lying, or if you believe that's possible, then you shouldn't be responsible for the local raffle, let alone the Australian economy.




The tax system is going to require a major make over, both sides need to get over the childish crap and address the problem.

Unless the polliticians and the media stop this current circus, consumer confidence is going to be non existent.
While they are all have fun with the argy bargy, the general public know the situation is worsening, they also know it isn't going to improve without changes.

Your last paragraph just highlights how important it is to have a shot at Abbott, rather than just getting on with repairing the issues. It basically undermines your first paragraph, if the tax system needs fixing, fix it, who cares if someone called it wrong, sack him. But that wouldn't be enough, everyone obviously wants him up on the cross, it borders on blood lust.IMO


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> I believe those luxury lurks and perks are about to be cut and not before time.
> 
> We have stopped making things here because of the high cost of wages, increased annual leave, leave loading, penalty rates etc. etc. thanks to the unions dating back to the 50's..we are now paying the price......we would need a wage freeze for the next ten years and back to 40 hours a week and do a fair days work for a fair days pay if we were to become competitive again.......not that it is likely to happen.




Agreed the Federal and State politicians for the LNP should practice free market and be renumerated based on shareholder satisfaction. For fairness the board of directors should be Anglo American, as per most of the big corporations. The productivity markers and kpis would be set at election with full disclosure to shareholders.

The ALP should be paid as a percentage of the national commune income.


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> The tax system is going to require a major make over, both sides need to get over the childish crap and address the problem.




I must admit I was surprised the mining and carbon taxes were repealed, when it could have added heaps of cash to treasury and the LNP could claim it was ALP legacy. Simply insulting Clive everytime it came up for repeal would have ensured it lasted forever and the ALP forever dogged by it.

As it is the saving promised by Campbell Newman doesn't eventuate for another three years and that is only going to offset a projected doubling of power costs in five years ....whoopy!


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> The tax system is going to require a major make over, both sides need to get over the childish crap and address the problem.
> 
> Unless the polliticians and the media stop this current circus, consumer confidence is going to be non existent.
> While they are all have fun with the argy bargy, the general public know the situation is worsening, they also know it isn't going to improve without changes.
> 
> Your last paragraph just highlights how important it is to have a shot at Abbott, rather than just getting on with repairing the issues. It basically undermines your first paragraph, if the tax system needs fixing, fix it, who cares if someone called it wrong, sack him. But that wouldn't be enough, everyone obviously wants him up on the cross, it borders on blood lust.IMO




Half the problem we have is the fact Abbott has backed himself into a corner in terms of tax reform and being able to take action NOW.

He either has to wait to the next election or he has to break promises.

So far he's wiggling around semantics with an excise not being a tax increase, or increasing costs in other ways.

I'd have more respect for Abbott if he'd do what's needed and take the flack for breaking his ill thought promises.  The fact he's in a near holding pattern for 3 years doesn't bode well for us.


----------



## So_Cynical

Tisme said:


> I must admit I was surprised the mining and carbon taxes were repealed, when it could have added heaps of cash to treasury and the LNP could claim it was ALP legacy. Simply insulting Clive everytime it came up for repeal would have *ensured it lasted forever and the ALP forever dogged by it*.




See now that would of been smart, totally uncharacteristic of the Noalition.


----------



## Logique

Bit of a digression, but Matthias Cormann handled himself pretty well on Kitchen Cabinet last night.  

A smart cookie, he cracked Annabelle's chocolate cigar right in half, he wasn't falling into that trap.

Gotta love a guy who likes his _Moules frites_ and _Stella Artois_ replete with stubby holder.


----------



## Smurf1976

sydboy007 said:


> We are actually a quite low energy cost country.  Electricity wholesale prices have been on a downward trend for around a decade.  We're very competitive in terms of wholesale electricity prices.  We're not competitive in the distribution networks or the retail side.




We're competitive as long as you've got a huge demand for power, enough to be dealing directly with a generator, have no need to use the distribution system and don't need gas in your operations.

But we're not at all competitive in the context of smaller manufacturers (ie the vast majority of factories that don't have potlines, cell rooms or electric arc furnaces) or general commercial and residential uses.

So we've still got reasonably cheap electricity as such, it's just that 99.9% of users can't access it cheaply.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Half the problem we have is the fact Abbott has backed himself into a corner in terms of tax reform and being able to take action NOW.
> 
> He either has to wait to the next election or he has to break promises.
> 
> So far he's wiggling around semantics with an excise not being a tax increase, or increasing costs in other ways.
> 
> I'd have more respect for Abbott if he'd do what's needed and take the flack for breaking his ill thought promises.  The fact he's in a near holding pattern for 3 years doesn't bode well for us.





I agree with those sentiments, the longer we leave it the bigger the problem and the general public understands it also.

If iron ore hits $60/Ton we will have an issue, and it won't be the MRRT, or lack of it.
Even Rio and BHP will be looking at closing mines, the flow on unemployment, will be hard felt in W.A.

The whole tax system requires an hollistic approach to make it sustainable. I'm no expert, but can see the current system, is from another era and needs to be revamped.

Propping up ridiculous company models, while burdening start up companies, won't cut it in a global economy.

The list goes on and have been covered endlessly.

However the time is arriving where, if we want to enjoy the trappings of a first world economy, we had better ensure we have one.


----------



## sydboy007

maybe Joe needs to take on board what Treasury Secretary Martin Parkinson said earlier in the year:



> Genuine tax reform… requires more than an across the board cut in tax rates – it is about improving the structure of the tax system to reduce the cost that raising revenue imposes on the economy. In other words, it is as much about how much revenue is raised, as how it is raised.




Though I doubt Joe will want to remember his own uttering as a newly minted treasurer



> The government was committed to “more realistic long-term assumptions on the economic and fiscal outlook




or Mathias Corman



> It is a matter of record that the previous government invariably overestimated revenue and underestimated expenditure. They kept promising surplus budgets and kept delivering more deficits. Our core commitment with this budget update is to draw a line in the sand as the Treasurer said and to provide a believable set of figures




or Christopher Pynes humdinger back in 2011



> Well if there had been a Coalition government for the last five years, Kieran, I think most people accept that we would have had continuing surpluses




not quite so easy in Government as when you're a non responsibility opposition.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> maybe Joe needs to take on board what Treasury Secretary Martin Parkinson said earlier in the year:
> 
> Though I doubt Joe will want to remember his own uttering as a newly minted treasurer
> 
> or Mathias Corman
> 
> or Christopher Pynes humdinger back in 2011
> 
> not quite so easy in Government as when you're a non responsibility opposition.



It's all relative and then there's the senate.

Wayne Swan's surpluses were delivered according to him. The surplus years were here were they not ??

And Bill shorten, he just wants to revive a carbon tax and spend.

As for the reform process, the tax white paper and federation review are on their way. I know you're keen to see it and I'd suggest the white paper will see greater light of day than Labor's Henry Review.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> not quite so easy in Government as when you're a non responsibility opposition.





Well they are going to have to 'man up', before the next election.

My guess, Abbott has to fall on his sword, he has made a target on his back with the no new taxes, Labor and the media have hung on it, like a dog on an ear.

The only way they can throw it, is to replace Abbott, the other option is to have Labor win the next election and let them hand out the flogging.lol


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> My guess, Abbott has to fall on his sword, he has made a target on his back with the no new taxes, Labor and the media have hung on it, like a dog on an ear.




I don't seem to remember you being so negative about the opposition and media when they were gunning for Gillard.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> It's all relative and then there's the senate.
> 
> Wayne Swan's surpluses were delivered according to him. The surplus years were here were they not ??
> 
> And Bill shorten, he just wants to revive a carbon tax and spend.
> 
> As for the reform process, the tax white paper and federation review are on their way. I know you're keen to see it and I'd suggest the white paper will see greater light of day than Labor's Henry Review.




I think the senate is far more conducive for Abbott to get things done than what Gillard had to put up with.

As for this Govt having the ticker for genuine tax reform, I wait in hope, but so far nothing they've attempted, bar the fuel excise increase, makes me think they have any intention to make the taxation system fairer and more efficient.

The fight against the MRRT and car FBT pretty much shows where their efforts are in regards to tax, and its pandering to the rentier classes.  They weren't even willing to mount the argument that with the removal of the carbon tax that the associated welfare increases and tax cuts could be taken back to help fund the revenue loss.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> I think the senate is far more conducive for Abbott to get things done than what Gillard had to put up with.



Rubbish.

Have you been doing too many nights again ?

Labor and its green partners in government had a majority in the senate as you well remember.


----------



## sptrawler

The problem is, as Syd has said, Labor had a falling tax revenue.

They tried to stem the bleed by the introduction of the MRRT and the carbon tax, and increased spending on the social platform.

History shows the MRRT was add hock and poorly implemented, and the carbon tax became an added cost to faltering industry.

Labor were in a perfect position, to gradually introduce the tax changes and reforms required, as the debt and defecit blew out.

I doubt they weren't aware of the options, but chose to ignore them.

Now the coalition, is blamed if they introduce taxes and aren't allowed to cut spending. While Labor sit in the background with a silly grin on their faces.

Even though I am struggling with accepting the non agressive approach, adopted by the coalition, I'm less enamoured with labor.

It kind of comes across to me that labor $hat in the nest, but won't let anyone clean it up.
If labor are going to perform well at the next election, they are going to have to improve their profile, Palmer and Lambie are more relevant.


----------



## overhang

sptrawler said:


> The problem is, as Syd has said, Labor had a falling tax revenue.
> 
> They tried to stem the bleed by the introduction of the MRRT and the carbon tax, and increased spending on the social platform.
> 
> History shows the MRRT was add hock and poorly implemented, and the carbon tax became an added cost to faltering industry.
> 
> Labor were in a perfect position, to gradually introduce the tax changes and reforms required, as the debt and defecit blew out.
> 
> I doubt they weren't aware of the options, but chose to ignore them.
> 
> Now the coalition, is blamed if they introduce taxes and aren't allowed to cut spending. While Labor sit in the background with a silly grin on their faces.
> 
> Even though I am struggling with accepting the non agressive approach, adopted by the coalition, I'm less enamoured with labor.
> 
> It kind of comes across to me that labor $hat in the nest, but won't let anyone clean it up.
> If labor are going to perform well at the next election, they are going to have to improve their profile, Palmer and Lambie are more relevant.




Do you mean the first MRRT or the revised one? The first one would have been very effective but Tony and the miners put a stop to that with the campaign they ran against it.  Or do you believe it overstretched too far and would discourage investment.  Personally I don't think it would have, we have the minerals, it's not like they can just take their business to China for cheap labor.  Of course they can look at other options like volatile Africa but the risks are far greater as MRRT aside Australia offers a stable platform for miners.

I think the public is prepared for cuts and increased taxes but there are 2 things they want.  Fairness and honesty.  This government has failed both those tests with this budget.


----------



## Tisme

drsmith said:


> Rubbish.
> 
> Have you been doing too many nights again ?
> 
> Labor and its green partners in government had a majority in the senate as you well remember.




The Greens were the lessor of two evils to Labor, but still a negative to their stated goals.


----------



## sptrawler

overhang said:


> Do you mean the first MRRT or the revised one? The first one would have been very effective but Tony and the miners put a stop to that with the campaign they ran against it.  Or do you believe it overstretched too far and would discourage investment.  Personally I don't think it would have, we have the minerals, it's not like they can just take their business to China for cheap labor.  Of course they can look at other options like volatile Africa but the risks are far greater as MRRT aside Australia offers a stable platform for miners..




I don't believe a tax should be introduced, to facilitating taking extra taxes, from a sector that has a rapid increase in profits. If it was well thought out it would have encapsulated the banks and Telstra.
The up front exploration costs and development costs in mining are huge, the funding risk is immense. 
Take a look at Fortesque Metals, 4 years ago sunshine and lollipops, today struggling to break even.
They are using their profits to pay down debt.
Tax reform can't be about, you've made plenty of money, we'll just tax the crap out of you. Most company failures are due to tax obligations.
That just encourages tax evasion or under investment.  



overhang said:


> I think the public is prepared for cuts and increased taxes but there are 2 things they want.  Fairness and honesty.  This government has failed both those tests with this budget.




As has been shown, the public isn't prepared for 'cuts' and any suggestion of increased taxes brings a national meltdown.lol

In this budget they said they were only addressing spending cuts. 
They were awaiting the outcome of the 'tax white paper' before deciding on tax increases.
Which would be taken to the next election.

Don't understand your "failed both tests" statement.

But have heard it parroted over and over.

It's a bit like the outrage, when the government sugested indexing pensons to c.p.i, rather than the average wage.
Next there will be an uproar because the pension should go down, in line with average wages, when c.p.i has gone up.lol

So who is being honest?


----------



## overhang

sptrawler said:


> I don't believe a tax should be introduced, to facilitating taking extra taxes, from a sector that has a rapid increase in profits. If it was well thought out it would have encapsulated the banks and Telstra.
> The up front exploration costs and development costs in mining are huge, the funding risk is immense.
> Take a look at Fortesque Metals, 4 years ago sunshine and lollipops, today struggling to break even.
> They are using their profits to pay down debt.
> Tax reform can't be about, you've made plenty of money, we'll just tax the crap out of you. Most company failures are due to tax obligations.
> That just encourages tax evasion or under investment.




You seem to have misunderstood the part where they are only taxed on their profits and they still were able to offset their profits against deprecation which were accelerated for the first 5 years.  Exploration is expensive and most miners don't make it but that's why they receive subsidies *



			A new report finds exploration by coal and energy companies is subsidised by Australian taxpayers by as much as $US3.5 billion ($4 billion) every year in the form of direct spending and tax breaks.
		
Click to expand...


* http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-...-receive-4-billion-dollar-in-subsidie/5881814

In 2001 miners were paying approx 40% of their profits in royalties, they were still mining that stuff out of the ground given that royalty rate, but by 2009 they were paying less than 20%.  
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 60268


I completely reject your statement that most company's fail due to tax obligations, once again they pay tax on profits, if they're paying tax it means there on the right path to success.  Company's fail due to a failed business model for varying reason, competitiveness, productivity, over capitalising but tax rates really aren't high up on the reasons they fail. 


> As has been shown, the public isn't prepared for 'cuts' and any suggestion of increased taxes brings a national meltdown.lol
> 
> In this budget they said they were only addressing spending cuts.
> They were awaiting the outcome of the 'tax white paper' before deciding on tax increases.
> Which would be taken to the next election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who is being honest?




I don't think that has been shown at all.  Do you think the public voted in Abbott expecting $900 cheques in the mail?  I think the the coalition being voted in indicates that Australians are aware that we can't keep spending on borrowed money and now need to start paying that back.  But they want it to be fair and not a class war that Abbott seems to have waged. 

I do hope you're right and they take some sensible tax reform to the next election, in fact I hope both parties target this as a policy platform for the next election.


----------



## sptrawler

overhang said:


> You seem to have misunderstood the part where they are only taxed on their profits and they still were able to offset their profits against deprecation which were accelerated for the first 5 years.  Exploration is expensive and most miners don't make it but that's why they receive subsidies  http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-...-receive-4-billion-dollar-in-subsidie/5881814.




You seem to have missunderstood the part where commodity prices can swing massively from year to year. Just because they make a killing when prices are $200/t, doesn't mean they won't go broke next year if it is $60/t. Some carry huge debts, that need paying back.
I said if you are going to introduce a super profits tax, make it sensible and fair, then companies like Telstra and the Banks will pay also. Add hock back of a napkin taxes, will have to be changed add infinitum.



overhang said:


> I completely reject your statement that most company's fail due to tax obligations, once again they pay tax on profits, if they're paying tax it means there on the right path to success.  Company's fail due to a failed business model for varying reason, competitiveness, productivity, over capitalising but tax rates really aren't high up on the reasons they fail. .



I think you will find payroll tax, superannuation gaurantee and pre paying tax, contributes quite a lot financial strain on SME. One of the accountant based guys may have figures.




overhang said:


> I don't think that has been shown at all.  Do you think the public voted in Abbott expecting $900 cheques in the mail?  I think the the coalition being voted in indicates that Australians are aware that we can't keep spending on borrowed money and now need to start paying that back.  But they want it to be fair and not a class war that Abbott seems to have waged.
> 
> I do hope you're right and they take some sensible tax reform to the next election, in fact I hope both parties target this as a policy platform for the next election.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:
			
		

> I said if you are going to introduce a super profits tax, make it sensible and fair, then companies like Telstra and the Banks will pay also. Add hock back of a napkin taxes, will have to be changed add infinitum.




Interesting that companies pay a flat tax rate while individuals have bracketed tax rates.

Any justifications of this from anyone ?


----------



## overhang

sptrawler said:


> You seem to have missunderstood the part where commodity prices can swing massively from year to year. Just because they make a killing when prices are $200/t, doesn't mean they won't go broke next year if it is $60/t. Some carry huge debts, that need paying back.
> I said if you are going to introduce a super profits tax, make it sensible and fair, then companies like Telstra and the Banks will pay also. Add hock back of a napkin taxes, will have to be changed add infinitum.



That's a fair point, would it be fairer if the royalties were tied to a % of the commodity price rather than a set figure?  I disagree with other companies though, the argument for a mining tax is that these company's are mining something that is owned by Australians and is a finite resource, their business would not exist without these resources.  The same cannot be said for banks and Telstra, they will operate long after the minerals run out (hopefully).


> I think you will find payroll tax, superannuation gaurantee and pre paying tax, contributes quite a lot financial strain on SME. One of the accountant based guys may have figures.



Sorry I thought you were referring to company tax rates.  Yes our wage conditions do put a huge strain on businesses which would be ok in a closed market but in an open world economy where we're trying to compete it certainly puts some businesses at a disadvantage.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> I don't believe a tax should be introduced, to facilitating taking extra taxes, from a sector that has a rapid increase in profits. If it was well thought out it would have encapsulated the banks and Telstra.
> The up front exploration costs and development costs in mining are huge, the funding risk is immense.
> Take a look at Fortesque Metals, 4 years ago sunshine and lollipops, today struggling to break even.
> They are using their profits to pay down debt.
> Tax reform can't be about, you've made plenty of money, we'll just tax the crap out of you. Most company failures are due to tax obligations.
> That just encourages tax evasion or under investment.




The original MRRT would have probably made a lot of the currently uneconomic mining investment, and possibly some of the LNG investment as well, not quite such a hot proposition a few years back.

You've highlighted FMG and they basically have beefed up with an extra 100M tonnes capacity.  BHP and RIO have added something like 300M tonnes.  All the smaller players like GBG / ARI / BCI / AGO may not have wasted the effort.

Vale has just dropped their cost by $5 a tonne with the increased use of their valemax ships.  FMG is toast because every $ in costs they cut just keeps them in their spot as the marginal producer.  If Roy Hill comes online with their sub $60 cost structure that really is the last nail into the FMG coffin - they'd be luck to have an all in breakeven cost of $70, especially when you consider the massive discount they're providing for their lower quality ore.

Another advantage of the MRRT would have been the reduction in pressure on the AUD. We could have followed the examples of Chile or Norway and siphoned the funds in a SWF and invested overseas to further help reduce the pressure on the AUD.  Ideally this should have been done during the Howard years, but by 2007 budget revenue was some $80B higher due to the ToT increase and negative savings rate, so we have something like $33B given back in tax cuts and $40B in extra spending.  True economic management would have saved a few hundred billion from the boom for a rainy day.

The difference been super profits from banks / telstra and the resource companies is once you dig up the resource and use it, there's no more revenue to be received.  The original MRRT would have also seen the Government been like a co investor and the current gloomy conditions would have seen the Govt them helping on the revenue side.  Also, if demand outstrips supple of reosurces and the price triples, quadruples, shouldn't the owners of the resource ie Australia citizens, receive a greater share of the profits?  The increase in profits for the resource companies was pretty much due to the massive increase in demand from China.  You can't really compare that to a company that increases it's profits due to being more efficient or expanding market share.

Most companies do not fail due to tax.  They fail due to poor management in one form or another.  Was it tax that caused RIO to buy Alcan and set itself up with so much debt it nearly collapsed?  Was it tax that made a bunch of companies decide to try and build 3 separate LNG trains at the same time on curtis island, some of them forward sell gas that they didn't have yet, then sounding shocked when costs blew out?  Was it tax that encouraged RIO / BHP / FMG to go on their massive expansion plans that will depress the iron ore market for a couple of decades.  Was it tax that lead to CBA / macquaire to give free reign to their financial planners to literally fleece their customers?


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> I think you will find payroll tax, superannuation gaurantee and pre paying tax, contributes quite a lot financial strain on SME. One of the accountant based guys may have figures.




If a company is not factoring all the costs associated with being in business, then they should get out now.

Certainly payroll tax would be one I'd like to see a broader gst / land tax kill off, along with stamp duty.


----------



## noco

Andrew Robb three Free trade agreements in 12 months.

What did the the lazy Labor Party do during their 6 years?

They sat on their hands and did nothing.


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...|heading|homepage|homepage&itmt=1415841884295


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Andrew Robb three Free trade agreements in 12 months.
> 
> What did the the lazy Labor Party do during their 6 years?
> 
> They sat on their hands and did nothing.
> 
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...|heading|homepage|homepage&itmt=1415841884295




Baloney. Negotiations on these agreements have been going on for years. The reason they were signed now is because the Libs have most likely signed away billions of $$$ of our economy to please a few cattle producers and the National Party.


----------



## drsmith

Tisme said:


> The Greens were the lessor of two evils to Labor, but still a negative to their stated goals.



Labor sold their souls to the Greens in 2010 for office.

They didn't see that as an evil in relation to that goal.


----------



## overhang

noco said:


> Andrew Robb three Free trade agreements in 12 months.
> 
> What did the the lazy Labor Party do during their 6 years?
> 
> They sat on their hands and did nothing.
> 
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...|heading|homepage|homepage&itmt=1415841884295




That's rather naive of you noco.  Labor clearly didn't sit on their hands and do nothing but rather weren't willing to agree on terms that they must have deemed not in the country's best interests.  They could have had the agreement finalised within a day if they wanted to at the expense of our economy.  The bigger question is what have the coalition agreed to that Labor weren't willing to.  It's possible they may have been able to shuffle things around and achieve a better deal but we will never really know I guess.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> The original MRRT would have probably made a lot of the currently uneconomic mining investment, and possibly some of the LNG investment as well, not quite such a hot proposition a few years back.



With that IIRC, financial markets were sceptical as to whether the government would honour the tax losses. Given the way the government attempted to introduce the tax in the first place, that's perhaps not surprising.

The discussion on both versions of the tax from the time are in the following thread.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19464&highlight=mining+tax


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Baloney. Negotiations on these agreements have been going on for years. The reason they were signed now is because the Libs have most likely signed away billions of $$$ of our economy to please a few cattle producers and the National Party.





Yes they were started prior to 2007 by the LNP and then put in the too hard basket by those lazy Labor people.

The Labor party did not have the courage or the expertise to tackle FTA.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Yes they were started prior to 2007 by the LNP and then put in the too hard basket by those lazy Labor people.
> 
> The Labor party did not have the courage or the expertise to tackle FTA.




The FTA that Howard started with the US has resulted in a doubling of our trade deficit with the US.

Thanks Johnny.

No wonder Labor decided to proceed carefully with other FTA's.


----------



## Tisme

drsmith said:


> Labor sold their souls to the Greens in 2010 for office.
> 
> They didn't see that as an evil in relation to that goal.




I think if you use the negotiations as a yardstick of soul selling, the Liberals were way ahead in that endeavour. I do have a good memory of Tony almost selling the Menzies silver to get into power.


----------



## drsmith

Tisme said:


> I think if you use the negotiations as a yardstick of soul selling, the Liberals were way ahead in that endeavour. I do have a good memory of Tony almost selling the Menzies silver to get into power.



I doubt there's any silver there and besides, that was only a comment from a disgruntled former National whose own political career has now ended.

TA wasn't prepared to sell the nation into the carbon tax that Tony Windsor, Rob Oakeshott and the Greens wanted nor was he prepared to sell the nation into the open borders that operated under Labor to pacify their Green partners in government.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Andrew Robb three Free trade agreements in 12 months.
> 
> What did the the lazy Labor Party do during their 6 years?
> 
> They sat on their hands and did nothing.
> 
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...|heading|homepage|homepage&itmt=1415841884295




Lets revisit the wonderful benefits of the AUS-US FTA

$200M a year extra cost to the PBS

$2B+ lost in the generics manufacturing sector

All due to the extension of patents.

Our trade deficit blew out with the USA since the FTA was signed.

Most of the benefits for Australia are still up to a decade away from occurring.

it's easy to sign FTAs when they're dud deals for Team Australia.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> The FTA that Howard started with the US has resulted in a doubling of our trade deficit with the US.
> 
> Thanks Johnny.
> 
> No wonder Labor decided to proceed carefully with other FTA's.




Do you a back up link to justify your claim?


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Do you a back up link to justify your claim?




Do your own research noco, it's in the ABS stats somewhere.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Yes they were started prior to 2007 by the LNP and then put in the too hard basket by those lazy Labor people.
> 
> The Labor party did not have the courage or the expertise to tackle FTA.




The FTAs Labor did sign tended to gain access for agricultural products faster than what the LNP has done in 2 Governments.  So most of the benefits of the Labor FTAs are being received faster.

Also, Labor was against IDS clauses.  We're seeing them introduced in the current FTAs so it's quite possible foreign companies will have more rights to public policy than citizens.  I'm not particularly comforted by the Govts claims that they have protected us from action like Phillip Morris is taking via the HK FTA against plain packaging for cigarettes.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Do you a back up link to justify your claim?




For the U.S., the FTA improved the overall trade deficit situation, creating a trade surplus with Australia which rose 31.7% in the first quarter of 2005, compared to the same timeframe in 2004. U.S. exports to Australia increased 11.7% in the first quarter of 2005 to nearly $3.7 billion for the quarter. Agriculture exports to Australia increased 20%.

According to Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade figures the imbalance in trade between the U.S. and Australia increased substantially during 2007. The United States became Australia's largest import source, with goods and services imported to a value of over A$31 billion. Australia's exports to the U.S., however, amounted to only $15.8 billion AU. It remains unclear what, if any, real benefits the agreement has produced.


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> This government never suggested it would deliver a surplus in this term of government.
> 
> Wayne Swan delivered a surplus if I recall his words correctly.





Weasel words Hockey said they would deliver a surplus every year


----------



## SirRumpole

IFocus said:


> Weasel words Hockey said they would deliver a surplus every year






> Mr Hockey told the National Press Club last year: ‘‘Based on the numbers presented last Tuesday night we will achieve a surplus in our first year in office and we will achieve a surplus for every year of our first term.’’
> Advertisement
> 
> On Monday, Mr Hockey said he had not retreated from the pledge.
> 
> ‘‘Our commitment is emphatic,’’ Mr Hockey told ABC Radio’s AM program.
> 
> ‘‘Based on the numbers published today, we will deliver a surplus in our first year and every year after that.’’




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...s-guarantee-20130128-2dfn9.html#ixzz3IwG4uEf7


----------



## sptrawler

overhang said:


> That's a fair point, would it be fairer if the royalties were tied to a % of the commodity price rather than a set figure?  I disagree with other companies though, the argument for a mining tax is that these company's are mining something that is owned by Australians and is a finite resource, their business would not exist without these resources.  The same cannot be said for banks and Telstra, they will operate long after the minerals run out (hopefully).
> .




There seems to be a one size fits all mentality with tax, I personally don't agree with it.

IMO Syd is on the right track, when he talks about thinking outside the box, with new taxes.

Our whole tax and welfare system, is built around an Australia of 30 years ago, it isn't going to work in the globalised system.

The internet, t.v, electronics,  mass transport and mobile workforces have changed everything.

It is all changing and we have to chage with it, or we won't be able to provide for our lifestyle.

We have to reduce the cost of doing business, to attract investment and create jobs.
We have to reduce personal taxes, so wages don't have to increase, to provide the same lifestyle and incentive.
We have to have a welfare system that isn't a lifestyle choice, but doesn't mean you live in poverty.
We have to have an education system, that ensures those with academic ability reach their potential.
We have to have first world health service.

We also need to raise the money to pay for it all, without having it all implode. That is why I am looking forward to the tax 'white paper', hopefully it will be given more attention than the Henry report.

Time will tell.


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> Weasel words Hockey said they would deliver a surplus every year



Based of the published figures which were those under a Labor government.


----------



## sptrawler

overhang said:


> I disagree with other companies though, the argument for a mining tax is that these company's are mining something that is owned by Australians and is a finite resource, their business would not exist without these resources. .




That is why the tax should in some way be a function of tonnage/price/recovery cost, not a tax on profit.IMO






overhang said:


> The same cannot be said for banks and Telstra, they will operate long after the minerals run out (hopefully).
> .



Banks are using depositors money, to re lend it and make money on it, a bit simplistic but generally.
They make a margin on it, if they are making the same profits as a mining company, why shouldn't they pay the same tax?

The miners are taking on huge risk, with shareholder funds, to make a profit. 

The Banks are taking on huge risk, with shareholder funds, to make a profit.

The only difference is the miner is making profit from selling the raw material, the bank is making a profit from lending them the money to dig it up.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> For the U.S., the FTA improved the overall trade deficit situation, creating a trade surplus with Australia which rose 31.7% in the first quarter of 2005, compared to the same timeframe in 2004. U.S. exports to Australia increased 11.7% in the first quarter of 2005 to nearly $3.7 billion for the quarter. Agriculture exports to Australia increased 20%.
> 
> According to Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade figures the imbalance in trade between the U.S. and Australia increased substantially during 2007. The United States became Australia's largest import source, with goods and services imported to a value of over A$31 billion. Australia's exports to the U.S., however, amounted to only $15.8 billion AU. It remains unclear what, if any, real benefits the agreement has produced.




Maybe the free trade agreements, are primarily designed to align ourselves with select countries.
Somewhat like the EU, if we continue to try and compete as a stand alone country, we will find it increasingly difficult.

Spain, Italy and Greece, would be finding it much more difficult, without the tie to Germany.

It would be nice, to go into economic ties with major economies and be able to tell them how it will be.

The reality is, we can't, but if we don't get agreement who knows where we will end up.

We in reality are a small economy, on a remote island, that enjoys a first world lifestyle.

We support it with a third world economy, our economy is more aligned to a South American model than a European or U.S model.IMO


----------



## banco

sptrawler said:


> That is why the tax should in some way be a function of tonnage/price/recovery cost, not a tax on profit.IMO




The whole point of it being a tax on profit was to temper mining booms (so the rest of the economy doesn't get hollowed out by mining booms).


----------



## sptrawler

banco said:


> The whole point of it being a tax on profit was to temper mining booms (so the rest of the economy doesn't get hollowed out by mining booms).




Well that again supports the arguement for a more hollistic approach, rather than a band aid solution to a symptom.


----------



## Julia

From Rumpole's quote:

"*Based on the numbers presented last Tuesday night* we will achieve a surplus in our first year in office and we will achieve a surplus for every year of our first term."

1.  They would have been Labor's numbers which were shown time after time to be dodgy.
2.  Since then the iron ore price has fallen about 30%.
3.  A more hostile senate than that provided by the Labor/Greens alliance which is preventing some of the budget measures from happening.

None of which should go to any suggestion from me that the government is doing a decent job of negotiating some of these budget measures.  Just pointing out that the quote contained the fundamentally important phrase 'based on the numbers presented last Tuesday night'.

I so long for a little bit of objectivity to replace the endless partisan attempts at point scoring.

Most people I know (and no, of course that is not statistically relevant) voted for the Liberal National coalition on the basis that it was the least worst option.  That is very, very different from voting for the 'best' option.
The result has been mixed, with an impressive resolution to the border control problems (despite the bleating of the Left), the abolition of the carbon tax which disadvantaged our business community internationally, and some other promised measures.

Despite this, Mr Abbott remains personally unpopular.   I don't think anyone voted for him on the basis of his charisma, a difficult to define characteristic that seems to be either there or not.  Even after a full year, I find myself vaguely surprised when a media presenter says "The Prime Minister, Tony Abbott.......".
This is probably quite unfair, but it is what it is.  

He sets a good example with his physical fitness, volunteer work etc, but even this is sneered at.  Why?
We seem to have become so partisan that one side will mock and deride even universally agreed good characteristics?

Malcolm Turnbull is repeatedly favoured over his colleagues as leader, despite having stuffed up woefully when he had his chance.  Is it because he is personable, fluent, more in charge of himself than Tony Abbott seems to be?  Or does he just have that same indefinable charisma that so characterises, for example, Bill Clinton?

I'm really curious to know what constitutes the characteristics of a popular leader.  For me it was John Howard, probably largely because I perceived him as calm, steady, with a clear and logical agenda, and only very, very rare occasions where he spoke inadvisedly, in contrast to the sort of foot in mouth problem exhibited by 'shirtfronting' comments.  Howard seemed to have the capacity to read the electorate, something which escapes both Abbott and Hockey.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:
			
		

> I'm really curious to know what constitutes the characteristics of a popular leader.




FWIW I thought John Howard was a decent person who did a good job as leader. I didn't always agree with his policies but he managed to present them in direct and coherent way and maintained the respect of his colleagues, Peter Costello and a few others excepted, later in his career. 

He was justifiably criticised as being populist and imho did not do a great deal to advance the country, (yes he got a surplus but it was due mainly to asset sales), but he gave the voters a warm and comfortable feeling that there was a steady hand on the tiller, and I suppose that was good enough for most people until they got sick of conservatism and wanted a change.

Contrast that to Mr Abbott who stumbles and bumbles his way around. He can only come up with the three word slogans because he doesn't really understand economics as Peter Costello pointed out, and Joe Hockey who blusters and blathers whenever he gets a hard question. 

Howard and Costello are miles ahead of these two twerps, and no wonder business confidence is declining because it doesn't look like they know what they are doing.


----------



## sptrawler

Julia said:


> Malcolm Turnbull is repeatedly favoured over his colleagues as leader, despite having stuffed up woefully when he had his chance.  Is it because he is personable, fluent, more in charge of himself than Tony Abbott seems to be?  Or does he just have that same indefinable charisma that so characterises, for example, Bill Clinton?.




Turnbull has become yesterdays man.



Julia said:


> I'm really curious to know what constitutes the characteristics of a popular leader.  For me it was John Howard, probably largely because I perceived him as calm, steady, with a clear and logical agenda, and only very, very rare occasions where he spoke inadvisedly, in contrast to the sort of foot in mouth problem exhibited by 'shirtfronting' comments.  Howard seemed to have the capacity to read the electorate, something which escapes both Abbott and Hockey.




Abbott blinked, if he had come in with a package of welfare cuts and tax changes, that would change our economic trajectory, he wouldn't be in the situation he is.IMO

He chose to take the easy call, and leave the hard call untill a committee could be blamed, one wonders if the advisors aren't to blame.

But he wears it.

It is a bit unfortunate, obviously the electorate wanted the economy sorted, they voted for Abbott despite his unpopularity.

He blinked and didn't call a double dissolution, now he is having to bend a squirm to get anything through.

Really it is ending up like the Labor/Green debacle.IMO

The only difference being IMO, Labor were worried about their own situation.

Whereas I do believe the coalition is worried about Australia's situation. If they can do something about recovering lost support, remains to be seen.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Maybe the free trade agreements, are primarily designed to align ourselves with select countries.
> Somewhat like the EU, if we continue to try and compete as a stand alone country, we will find it increasingly difficult.
> 
> Spain, Italy and Greece, would be finding it much more difficult, without the tie to Germany.
> 
> It would be nice, to go into economic ties with major economies and be able to tell them how it will be.
> 
> The reality is, we can't, but if we don't get agreement who knows where we will end up.
> 
> We in reality are a small economy, on a remote island, that enjoys a first world lifestyle.
> 
> We support it with a third world economy, our economy is more aligned to a South American model than a European or U.S model.IMO




Then sell the facts, not some BS about how it will magically provide, what $18B from the China FTA, when pretty much every past FTA has not lived up to the hype.

The costs from the dogs breakfast of ROOs for each FTA makes them beneficial for large companies, not so great for the SMEs who in theory could be the biggest beneficiaries.  The massive amounts of paper work to show your product complies with the ROOS of each FTA you want to benefit from are generally too onerous for SMEs.

The majority of the economic benefits for consumers come from unilateral tariff reductions any ways, though as we see with the car industry and farmers, trying to compete based on some pure economic ideology doesn't always cut it when you go out onto the playing field and find yourself facing a 45 degree uphill battle.  

Just ask the poor Japanese what a benefit they could receive if the Govt stopped protecting local agriculture so much and they paid world prices for food.  Japan has some of the world’s highest food prices. The average Japanese household spends 13.7 percent of its income on food, compared to 9.3 percent in the United Kingdom, and 6.3 percent in the United States. As with pork, Japan’s trade barriers contribute substantially to high consumer prices for other foods. Significant trade restrictions—including high duties (38.5 percent on beef and 40 percent on processed cheese), government-purchasing requirements for wheat and rice, highly restrictive quotas, and a variety of other border measures—substantially increase the prices that Japanese shoppers pay.

To harp on about Japan a bit more, to show how ludicrous the whole trade arena can be, Domestic farmers meet only 44% of total consumption, despite receiving 2.2 trillion yen in subsidies and benefiting from 51.6% tariff protection. The domestic value added would be only 3.0 trillion yen (4.6 trillion yen / 1.516), moreover, if calculated using international prices. Subtracting the 2.2 trillion yen in subsidies from this amount would then leave only 0.8 trillion yen in real value added by domestic producers—equivalent to just 0.17% of Japan’s 470 trillion yen GDP, and that benefit spread across just 2.53M people out of 127M. 

According to the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, the farming population in Japan is 2.53 million, and there are 1.50 million farms, but their agricultural sales are only 500,000 yen (approximately 5,000 dollars) on average. Among the 1.50 million farms, 878,000 claim sales of less than 1 million yen per year; the average household income in Japan, incidentally, is 5.48 million yen.

Sometimes forcing your domestic producers to go with with minimal assistance may be the best way forward - tough love so to speak.  Australian farmers have had to build economies of scale and become very efficient to survive against the massive farm subsidies of Europe and the USA.  Australian rice growers use 50% less water to grow one kilo of rice than the world average.

I'd love for a parliamentary committee to examine our current FTAs and provide some cold hard facts on how much extra trade was developed, and how much trade diversion occurred.  Did the increase in economic activity produce more tax revenue than lost to the tariff reductions?  What was the economic benefit to locals?  Did we get a real price reduction, or did we lose out because the price reduction was less than the tariff originally received ie trade diverted to a higher cost country.

Some may argue that effort at the WTO is wasted, but it's equally valid to argue that FTAs are in general a waste of effort too.  They're managed trade deals at best, and just add increasing layers of complexity to an already difficult area.


----------



## IFocus

sptrawler said:


> Abbott blinked, if he had come in with a package of welfare cuts and tax changes, that would change our economic trajectory, he wouldn't be in the situation he is.IMO
> 
> He chose to take the easy call, and leave the hard call untill a committee could be blamed, one wonders if the advisors aren't to blame.
> 
> But he wears it.
> 
> 
> .




Abbott in opposition promised the world to all and sundry (massive spending) while calling Gillard a liar such is Abbott politics.

Then in government presented one of the most unnecessary idealogical unfair budgets seen for a very long time that *doesn't* address the issue of the structural black hole created by Howard / Costello and the issue of falling revenue which the opposition and all here denied existed. 

The shirt front bravado was sheer stupidity.

Barrie Cassidy sums it all up very nicely



> The opportunity to rub shoulders with global leaders usually gives the prime minister of the day a boost. Not this time, writes Barrie Cassidy.
> 
> Only now are the political negatives from Tony Abbott's threat to Vladimir Putin blindingly obvious, and "shirking the shirtfront" as one television newsreader put it, is only part of the problem






> At home, there is a growing realisation that the country does indeed have both a spending and a revenue problem, no matter what Coalition frontbenchers said in opposition.





http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-14/cassidy-how-a-shirtfront-became-an-own-goal/5889054


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> Based of the published figures which were those under a Labor government.




Yep as the rate of falling revenue was continually misjudged............................just like the current Coalition government is doing right now.


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> The shirt front bravado was sheer stupidity.
> 
> Barrie Cassidy sums it all up very nicely
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-14/cassidy-how-a-shirtfront-became-an-own-goal/5889054




If Abbot had said nothing, Cassidy would have been bleating on that Abbott, was uncaring and scared to front Putin.

It was a no win situation, unlike Rudds outburst about the Chinese and small rodents. lol


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> Yep as the rate of falling revenue was continually misjudged............................just like the current Coalition government is doing right now.



No, no, the budget's fine. Labor says so.

http://www.chrisbowen.net/media-centre/media-releases.do?newsId=6789

And they appose significant measures in the senate including $5bn of their own and Bill shorten and Tanya Plibersek are everybody's friend. Spend here, spend there, spend everywhere.

It's all fine.

Trust Labor.


----------



## drsmith

Paul Kelly on the upcoming FTA with China,



> IN a tangible recasting of Australia-China ties the free trade agreement to be announced on Monday both eliminates market discrimination against Australia and gives many Australian service industries an unmatched position in China’s economy…
> 
> The critical point in the negotiations came when both sides, facing concessions that were too hard politically, agreed to postpone for three years the “deadlock” issues.
> 
> This makes it a two-stage deal. The main items deferred for the next stage are Australia’s decision on investment liberalisation for China’s state-owned enterprises and China’s decision on better entry for our rice, sugar, cotton and canola…
> 
> Referring to the rapidly expanding middle-classing of Asia and China, [Trade and Investment Minister Andrew] Robb says: “...If we can just capture the premium end of some of these Chinese markets we will set up Australia for the next 50 to 100 years...”
> 
> In relation to services, the FTA has about 40 areas where China has improved Australian access so it becomes equivalent or superior to that enjoyed by other nations. An illustration of the potential is the access the Australian aged-care industry will now have to China’s market…
> 
> Services constitute 80 per cent of our gross domestic product but only 15 per cent of exports. [Robb] sees the middle-classing of Asia as the opportunity for a range of expanded services such as finance, insurance, tourism, health and medicine, education, construction and water management....
> 
> Under the FTA, a wide range of Australian agricultural exports (beef, most grains, seafood) will see tariffs reduced to zero between now and 2021.
> 
> On investment, Australia has accorded Chinese private investment the same threshold as US and Japanese investment. This means investment proposals below the $1.08 billion threshold will not require Foreign Investment Review Board approval…
> 
> China has agreed to reverse the higher duties it recently imposed on our coal exports. The coking coal duty will be reduced to zero. The thermal coal duty will be cut from 6 per cent to 4 per cent at once and then phased out across two years.
> 
> Careful provision has been made for China to bring skilled labour to Australia. Temporary access can be negotiated for major projects worth more than $150 million, if the skills are not available in Australia. This would be negotiated on an enterprise-by-enterprise basis…
> 
> “I think we are on the cusp of a new wave of foreign investment from Asia,” [Robb] says, given that China has $4 trillion in reserves, about the size of its equity market.




http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/andrewbolt/


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> Paul Kelly on the upcoming FTA with China,
> 
> 
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/andrewbolt/




Considering how effective the monitoring 457 visas has been I can see the Chinese importing labour by the plane load.

Considering the FTAs Australia already has, with services usually been one of the few areas we've had increased market access, the fact is over decades our companies haven't been able to compete particularly successfully on the global stage.  Our banks are littered with failed attempts to internationalise.  AMP gave up AXA in China.

Farmers may benefit if the Chinese are willing to pay a higher price for produce, but the scope for increasing production is rather limited.

China will work out other ways to protect the home market.  You only have to look at the way they've enacted new rules for credit card payment processing by basically putting the current union pay system as the standard, locking Visa and Mastercard out of the market to see what they're capable of.

Pretty much none of the benefits touted for the AUs-US FTA eventuated.


----------



## IFocus

Just to stick the boot in could the Abbott supporters here please come out and say how proud our PM made us all feel feel from the G20 I thought winging  about domestic issues was particularly relevant and no doubt reverting for the other word leaders.

BTW the only shirt font to Putin goes to the Canadian PM, Abbott offered a wet lettuce / Koala  so much for balls maybe the Australian navy gave him advice on how big the Russian navy is.


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> Just to stick the boot in.........



That's normal transmission from your good self.

All beak and no brains. :


----------



## Julia

I have to admit to being completely puzzled by Mr Abbott's presentation to the world leaders his worries about our domestic budget difficulties.  Seemed extremely inappropriate, but I suppose he was trying to create an atmosphere where each individual could similarly comment on the particular difficulties they face on their own domestic fronts.

Still less than great in an international forum.

Kudos to Stephen Harper for his upfront remark.

I know this is really silly, but I almost feel sorry for Putin who has not been given an opportunity to offer his side of the story on either the Ukraine or the crash of the Malaysian Airlines flight.  (FWIW I suspect the most likely explanation on the latter is not at all that the Russians intentionally shot down a commercial flight, but that some dope on the ground intended the missile to go for an enemy plane.  In other words, a ghastly accident. ) That guess might be completely wrong.

When you look at all the world leaders here this weekend, Putin has years and years of experience over all the others, yet has been treated with consummate rudeness.  Perhaps that's entirely appropriate.  I'm not sure.

If there was any shirtfronting done it was by Obama toward Abbott in a frantic attempt to make himself relevant on the world stage when he no longer is.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> I have to admit to being completely puzzled by Mr Abbott's presentation to the world leaders his worries about our domestic budget difficulties.  Seemed extremely inappropriate, but I suppose he was trying to create an atmosphere where each individual could similarly comment on the particular difficulties they face on their own domestic fronts.
> 
> Still less than great in an international forum.
> 
> Kudos to Stephen Harper for his upfront remark.
> 
> I know this is really silly, but I almost feel sorry for Putin who has not been given an opportunity to offer his side of the story on either the Ukraine or the crash of the Malaysian Airlines flight.  (FWIW I suspect the most likely explanation on the latter is not at all that the Russians intentionally shot down a commercial flight, but that some dope on the ground intended the missile to go for an enemy plane.  In other words, a ghastly accident. ) That guess might be completely wrong.
> 
> When you look at all the world leaders here this weekend, Putin has years and years of experience over all the others, yet has been treated with consummate rudeness.  Perhaps that's entirely appropriate.  I'm not sure.
> 
> If there was any shirtfronting done it was by Obama toward Abbott in a frantic attempt to make himself relevant on the world stage when he no longer is.




The whole G20 thing was a crushing bore with very little output.

Our great leader had the opportunity to make an inspiring speech about making real progress on common problems, but gave an embarrassing list of cop outs on domestic issues which no one else had the slightest interest in. 

Insiders showed photos of the group around the table and they were all bored off their faces. Tony Abbott really hasn't got what it takes to be leader of this country.

I wouldn't feel too sorry for Mr Putin. The Russian Navy's intimidatory showing off our coast just indicates that Putin doesn't really care what others think. I'm sure if he wanted to explain about Ukraine or MH17, he has had plenty of opportunities to do so, both publicly and privately to other world leaders.


----------



## drsmith

Julia said:


> I know this is really silly, but I almost feel sorry for Putin who has not been given an opportunity to offer his side of the story on either the Ukraine or the crash of the Malaysian Airlines flight.  (FWIW I suspect the most likely explanation on the latter is not at all that the Russians intentionally shot down a commercial flight, but that some dope on the ground intended the missile to go for an enemy plane.  In other words, a ghastly accident. ) That guess might be completely wrong.



I don't think anyone is saying he pressed the button but rather that he supplied the weapon for someone else to apply their digit to the aforementioned button and then reclaimed the weapon once the "unintended incident" had occurred. 

It was an incident rather than an accident with Putin being guilty of neglect for providing the rebels with the weapon in the first place. 

TA has led the way in relation to outrage to Russia's involvement and while his shirtfront comment was poor, he's been the one to lead the way for others to follow in their criticism of Putin.


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> Just to stick the boot in could the Abbott supporters here please come out and say how proud our PM made us all *feel feel* from the G20 I thought winging  about domestic issues was particularly relevant and no doubt reverting for the other word leaders.
> 
> BTW the only shirt font to Putin goes to the Canadian PM, Abbott offered a wet lettuce / Koala  so much for balls maybe the Australian navy gave him advice on how big the Russian navy is.




Firstly, I believe you are parroting what you heard on Insiders this morning by that lefty who is a Journo with the Age....He used the term whinging.

Why do you enjoy sinking the boot into Abbott?...that is not very nice coming from a well educated person like you.....I would have thought a well known person like you would have had more respect for our Prime Minister who won the last election with a spectacular massive majority.......would you like someone to sink the boot into you?......We all know, including you, how good Abbott is so why are you asking us to confirm it?

So how do you know what Abbott said to Putin or are you just surmising?

When Shorten was asked what he would have said to Putin, Shorten said "NOTHING"......What a coward...what a sook......no gutz, no glory....He crawled up into the foetal position and kept one eye closed.


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> Just to stick the boot in could the Abbott supporters here please come out and say how proud our PM made us all feel feel from the G20 I thought winging  about domestic issues was particularly relevant and no doubt reverting for the other word leaders.
> 
> BTW the only shirt font to Putin goes to the Canadian PM, Abbott offered a wet lettuce / Koala  so much for balls maybe the Australian navy gave him advice on how big the Russian navy is.




So Abbott used a wet lettuce/koala....I don't think so .......check out this link.


http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...ogy-compensation/story-fni0cx12-1227119850458


----------



## Logique

The lead story at the online SMH? Somebody's having a tantrum about climate change.

Australia suffers another cringeworthy moment during G20 summit
November 17, 2014 - 6:40AM:  http://www.smh.com.au/business/g20/...moment-during-g20-summit-20141117-11nxg9.html

And who is this columnist, and how does she get a byline attacking our PM and by association the nation??  She's the LA Times Johannesburg correspondent. Robyn Dixon: http://twitter.com/robyndixon_lat

The landmark Free Trade Agreement with China, a massive achievement for the nation and for the Abbott Government, comes in as the SMH's 4th listed story. 4th.


----------



## Knobby22

To be fair, only the announcement has happened. The release of the story is today. I bet it's front page news tomorrow. News though appears to have been given some scoops on the detail.

Also today, the ABC cuts will be announced. I know this because all the Newscorp publications have prepared us for it over the weekend.

In the Herald Sun, the Obama/China deal last week was reported in a tiny column of 3 paragraphs on the second page with no pictures and a tiny headline.


----------



## Knobby22

Just looked at the Age and the Trade deal is front page!
The success of the G20 summit is pages 2 and 3.

Not sure what's going on with the SMH.


----------



## sydboy007

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...t-says-business/story-fn59nm2j-1226876184926#



> [ACCI] said that some FTAs were so poorly drafted that most Australian firms selling goods to those countries did not even claim preferences to which they were entitled, because of the cost and delays involved. He said the Korean FTA was the worst…
> 
> …unless technical elements of the Korean deal are redrafted before it is formally ratified, it will become *“unworkable in a commercial sense”, as will the Japanese deal if its compliance clauses are not drafted in a business-friendly way…
> 
> In a recent survey, most Australian exporters told the ACCI the technicalities precluded them from understanding Australia’s FTAs to date…




At least 6 Aussies are languishing in Chinese prisons when their Chinese business partners turned on them and used the rigged legal system them to generally steal companies Australians had helped to start.

I can picture Chinese companies selling off the right of a 457 Visa job in Australia to the highest bidders. They may "pay" Australian wages but likely claw them back in some way.

Stern Hu has showed the Chinese can change the rules of the game any time they like by declaring publicly known information as a state secret.  Australians may want to hold all their business meetings outside the mainland.

The 5000 working holiday visa is good though.  Might help the young Chinese see what life in a relatively free society is like.  It's that kind of soft power than helps to change things for the better.

HSBC did some research earlier this year:



> Australian exporters have been slow to take advantage of the business benefits of FTAs. On average each FTA signed by Australia is used only by 19% of Australian exporters, compared to an average of 26% among Asian exporters using their respective markets’ FTAs.
> 
> The research also found half of the Australian respondents had limited or no understanding of one or more of Australia’s FTAs, citing complexity of trade terms, a lack of understanding of benefits, and deals with non-strategic markets being the key factors behind the subdued uptake…
> 
> Amongst the Australian companies who use an FTA as part of their business strategy, 75% have experienced export growth with the main competitive advantages being access to new markets (nominated by 40%), access to a wider client base (39%) and the creation of new business opportunities (37%).
> 
> Hogan concluded: “Australian exporters that invest the time and resources to understand FTAs and imbed them within their business strategy are seeing clear business benefits. However, greater focus in making FTAs more accessible to Australian businesses – particularly amongst smaller and resource-constrained businesses – s also key.”


----------



## noco

Knobby22 said:


> Just looked at the Age and the Trade deal is front page!
> The success of the G20 summit is pages 2 and 3.
> 
> Not sure what's going on with the SMH.




I would not take too much notice of the AGE.....it is as biased as the ABC.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...t-says-business/story-fn59nm2j-1226876184926#
> 
> 
> 
> At least 6 Aussies are languishing in Chinese prisons when their Chinese business partners turned on them and used the rigged legal system them to generally steal companies Australians had helped to start.
> 
> I can picture Chinese companies selling off the right of a 457 Visa job in Australia to the highest bidders. They may "pay" Australian wages but likely claw them back in some way.
> 
> Stern Hu has showed the Chinese can change the rules of the game any time they like by declaring publicly known information as a state secret.  Australians may want to hold all their business meetings outside the mainland.
> 
> The 5000 working holiday visa is good though.  Might help the young Chinese see what life in a relatively free society is like.  It's that kind of soft power than helps to change things for the better.
> 
> HSBC did some research earlier this year:




I'd be extremely suprised, if China doesn't own us in 50 years or so, anyway.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> I'd be extremely suprised, if China doesn't own us in 50 years or so, anyway.




They've depleted most of their water resources.  They've been siphoning water from other areas to Beijing, but that can only stave off the inevitable.

http://www.economist.com/news/leade...as-desperate-water-shortages-grand-new-canals



> SOON the centrepiece of one of China’s most spectacular engineering projects will be completed, with the opening of sluicegates into a canal stretching over 1,200km (750 miles) from the Yangzi river north to the capital, Beijing. The new channel is only part of the world’s biggest water-diversion scheme. More than 300,000 people have been kicked out to make way for the channel and the expansion of a reservoir in central China that will feed it. But the government is in a hurry, and has paid their complaints little heed.
> 
> China’s leaders see the so-called South-North Water Diversion Project, which has already cost tens of billions of dollars, as crucial to solving a water problem that threatens the country’s development and stability (see article). Grain-growing areas around Beijing have about as much water per person as such arid countries as Niger and Eritrea. Overuse has caused thousands of rivers to disappear. The amount of water available is diminishing fast as the water table drops and rivers dry up; what little is left is often too polluted even for industrial use. The World Bank has said that China’s water crisis costs the country more than 2% of GDP, mostly because of damage to health. The new supply’s arrival in Beijing will thus come as a huge relief to officials. Indeed, so desperate is the lack of water that some have in the past suggested such drastic answers as moving the capital.




Sao Paulo in Brazil is near collapse due to the long running drought there.  Reservoirs down to 4% and likely to be empty by March 2015 without significant rainfall.

Go west young man no longer works in a resource constrained world.


----------



## Craton

sptrawler said:


> I'd be extremely suprised, if China doesn't own us in 50 years or so, anyway.




Wasn't that said of Japan in the '80s?


----------



## Tisme

I have to say the $7 co paymentG20 leaders was a bit ordinary, but the fumbling linked arms handshake has to go down as more cringe worthy than Menzies "did but see her passing by" episode. 

Seems the LA Times isn't all that fussed about us yokels and hicks either:

http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-australia-parochial-20141116-story.html


----------



## sptrawler

Tisme said:


> I have to say the $7 co paymentG20 leaders was a bit ordinary, but the fumbling linked arms handshake has to go down as more cringe worthy than Menzies "did but see her passing by" episode.
> 
> Seems the LA Times isn't all that fussed about us yokels and hicks either:
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-australia-parochial-20141116-story.html
> 
> 
> View attachment 60317




Wow I wonder where they got the "pimply youth moment" and quoting Peter Hartcher, from.

Might be the SMH or another newspaper that can't wait to spread the word. lol

Funny they aren't complimenting Abbott, on the free trade agreement with China and he can't even speak Mandarin.lol

Maybe the fact, he is a Prime Minister, that can keep rodents and sex out of his rhetoric about China helped.

But lets just forget about that, because Abbott didn't say it, best we move on. lol


----------



## Smurf1976

Craton said:


> Wasn't that said of Japan in the '80s?




From what I recall, general thinking back then was that Australia could learn a lot from Japan economically (noting that unemployment was relatively high in Australia during much of the 1980's as manufacturing shed jobs).


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> From what I recall, general thinking back then was that Australia could learn a lot from Japan economically (noting that unemployment was relatively high in Australia during much of the 1980's as manufacturing shed jobs).




Also people had a general preference for U.S, U.K and Aust, over Jap 'crap'.

Now we have, who gives a rats where it's made, I'll throw it away and buy a new one.

This is where the 'Global Economy' is accelerating the decline of our economy.
 We now move our manufacturing to where it is cheapest to produce, meanwhile everyone at home is desperate to buy the cheapest, no matter where it is made.
This is because our wages relative to theirs, lets us by more of their crap, there is always a time lapse as economies decline and others rise.

At least with the FTA with China, we have a time lapse between the reduction tarrifs for our agricultural exports, and China's access to our agricultural land.


----------



## Julia

Smurf1976 said:


> From what I recall, general thinking back then was that Australia could learn a lot from Japan economically (noting that unemployment was relatively high in Australia during much of the 1980's as manufacturing shed jobs).



Yes, I remember how Japan was the envy of the world.  Today it is officially back in recession.


----------



## noco

This link is for all those Andrew Bolt haters who have always maintained he is anti Labor and pro Liberal.

If this link does not prove he is impartial to his haters, then I don't know what will.

It is a pity the ABC did not do the same...

Bolt has been most critical of the Liberal Government and perhaps it is well warranted given the state of the polls ATM......it is hard to follow the reason after the economic mess left behind by Labor......do voters want more or Labor's mismanagement?.....God help the country if they do......let us trust that perhaps the Liberal Government will take notice and change their strategy. 


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...|heading|homepage|homepage&itmt=1416251575128


----------



## Logique

Knobby22 said:


> Just looked at the Age and the Trade deal is front page!
> The success of the G20 summit is pages 2 and 3.
> Not sure what's going on with the SMH.



They need to get a grip at the SMH. 

4th was as high as the China Free Trade Agreement got in the SMH. 

Today's 2nd SMH story is 'PM confuses China with Tasmania..', which when you read it, is an innocuous slip of the tongue, made by most of us on a daily basis.


----------



## noco

Logique said:


> They need to get a grip at the SMH.
> 
> 4th was as high as the China Free Trade Agreement got in the SMH.
> 
> Today's 2nd SMH story is 'PM confuses China with Tasmania..', which when you read it, is an innocuous slip of the tongue, made by most of us on a daily basis.





Yes and you can bet your boots the ABC and the AGE will flog that slip of the tongue to death.....the ABC have already exploited it this morning.....anything to discredit Abbott......they won't be happy until Abbott is replaced.


----------



## Knobby22

Logique said:


> They need to get a grip at the SMH.
> 
> 4th was as high as the China Free Trade Agreement got in the SMH.
> 
> Today's 2nd SMH story is 'PM confuses China with Tasmania..', which when you read it, is an innocuous slip of the tongue, made by most of us on a daily basis.




That didn't even make the Age, or at least I can't find it. Sounds tabloid.
Has the SMH got a new editor? 

The third story in the AGE though was that Canada is backing the United Nations Climate Fund based in South Korea. This puts our Government out in the cold as it looks like we will be the only ones not contributing. Japan, USA etc. have made substantial contributions. The saving of Abbott, that I think he is counting on will be the Republicans resisting it.


----------



## noco

Knobby22 said:


> That didn't even make the Age, or at least I can't find it. Sounds tabloid.
> Has the SMH got a new editor?
> 
> The third story in the AGE though was that Canada is backing the United Nations Climate Fund based in South Korea. This puts our Government out in the cold as it looks like we will be the only ones not contributing. Japan, USA etc. have made substantial contributions. The saving of Abbott, that I think he is counting on will be the Republicans resisting it.




If the Labor Party had left enough money in the kitty we may well have been able to afford it.....How we would  like that $11 billion RUDD/GILLARD/RUDD wasted on their open border policy...we could have given a cool billion to the fund without any worries......and don't forget those $900 cheques Rudd sent you...that was just a loan and now we must pay it back. 

Canada has a far more healthier economy than Australia has.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> This link is for all those Andrew Bolt haters who have always maintained he is anti Labor and pro Liberal.




That's a joke right? I got half way down his blog and read "all digs at bipartisan Abbott and his policies" and that was enough for me!

Noco you make no secret you in no way will ever consider politicians and political parties on their objective merits or demerits. Bolt is merely having a capricious moment which will subside in the highly predictable schoolyard snitch antics against his sworn enemies (anything not badged LNP) he is prone to.


----------



## sydboy007

Tony had better have a chat to his conservative colleges in QLD and WA before they shred the federal budget even more for him.

In Queensland Newman is going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to help build infrastructure to support Adani's rail line construction from the Galilee Basin to the coal port of Abbott point.  The question is why is hte state Govt helping to fund a project that has a $100 break even cost in a market where thermal coal is currently selling at around $64 a tonne and 40% of current production is losing money?  At best Adani will cause lower cost coal producers in Australia to shut down, at worse we'll see continual falls in the thermal coal market resulting in less income for the country as all coal exports drop in price.

Then we have ANZ teaming up with the WA Govt and the China Development bank to fund Baosteel and Aurizon Holdings’ push to establish a big Pilbara iron ore business.  Another 40 million tonnes of supply along with a new port an Anketell.  Once again, why would we support increasing production at the high end of the cost curve in a market already seeing prices in relative free fall due to massive over supply.  With the Chinese reluctant to become too dependant on imports that means Australia is likely to bare the brunt of supply closures.

So why are conservative state Governments acting like centrally planned states?  Why are they forcing through investments to increase supply of commodities already in over supply.  I could understand if the projects could stand on their own with depressed prices, but both are likely to be at the upper end of the cost curve.  The impact on the federal budget will be even bigger as the company tax revenue plummets due to the continued fall in these major exports.


----------



## Julia

From yesterday's "The World Today", ABC Radio:


> The Federal Government is trumpeting the G20 Summit and its global growth target of more than 2 per cent, but economists say don't hold your breath for signs of that growth.
> 
> Professor Fariborz Moshirian of the Institute for Global Finance at the University of New South Wales spoke to our business editor Peter Ryan




The professor seems like a realist.  Here is the transcript, with longer version available on the ABC website:
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2014/s4129942.htm

So much frenzy about what is aspirational in both climate change and economic goals, especially Obama with a hostile congress.  He can grandstand as much as he likes.  Won't make anything happen in the US with the Republicans running things.


----------



## Calliope

sydboy007 said:


> So why are conservative state Governments acting like centrally planned states?  Why are they forcing through investments to increase supply of commodities already in over supply.  I could understand if the projects could stand on their own with depressed prices, but both are likely to be at the upper end of the cost curve.  The impact on the federal budget will be even bigger as the company tax revenue plummets due to the continued fall in these major exports.




I suppose it's because they don't have someone as smart as you to advise them. Pity really, since your expertise is so freely available.


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> From yesterday's "The World Today", ABC Radio:
> 
> 
> The professor seems like a realist.  Here is the transcript, with longer version available on the ABC website:
> http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2014/s4129942.htm
> 
> So much frenzy about what is aspirational in both climate change and economic goals, especially Obama with a hostile congress.  He can grandstand as much as he likes.  Won't make anything happen in the US with the Republicans running things.




I wouldn't be so sure.  I was listening to Senator Rand Paul (R) yesterday talking about various issues and he seems to be supportive of doing something about climate change.  He's also running for President in 2016.

For a republican he seems very centrist in a lot of ways.

Will be interesting to see hwo things pan out

I'd just be happy to see the Govt stop trying to be a spoiler about taking action on climate change.  If the argument is we shouldn't do anything until the major economies do it, then why couldn't Abbott have made it a central theme at the G20 to try and put pressure on the major emitters to come up with some binding targets?


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> I wouldn't be so sure.  I was listening to Senator Rand Paul (R) yesterday talking about various issues and he seems to be supportive of doing something about climate change.  He's also running for President in 2016.
> 
> For a republican he seems very centrist in a lot of ways.
> 
> Will be interesting to see hwo things pan out
> 
> I'd just be happy to see the Govt stop trying to be a spoiler about taking action on climate change.  If the argument is we shouldn't do anything until the major economies do it, then why couldn't Abbott have made it a central theme at the G20 to try and put pressure on the major emitters to come up with some binding targets?




I doubt the major emmitters, would take any notice of anything we told them to do. 
All it would have achieved, is to make us look like a bunch of self opinionated twits. No doubt the Fairfax media and ABC would have had a field day.

But it would have been economic and diplomatic suicide.

Having said that, I could imagine Rudd or even Gillard saying something, out there.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> I doubt the major emmitters, would take any notice of anything we told them to do.
> All it would have achieved, is to make us look like a bunch of self opinionated twits. No doubt the Fairfax media and ABC would have had a field day.
> 
> But it would have been economic and diplomatic suicide.
> 
> Having said that, I could imagine Rudd or even Gillard saying something, out there.




By that logic Abbott and Joe were just sprouting hot air for a couple of days because no one was taking any notice.

Hmm... You could be on the nose with that


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> By that logic Abbott and Joe were just sprouting hot air for a couple of days because no one was taking any notice.
> 
> Hmm... You could be on the nose with that




Well for all the sprouting and self sacrifice, we did in the name of saving the world, under Labor.

It counted for nought, because no one was taking any notice then also.
Maybe we are getting off topic.


----------



## Julia

sptrawler said:


> I doubt the major emmitters, would take any notice of anything we told them to do.
> All it would have achieved, is to make us look like a bunch of self opinionated twits. No doubt the Fairfax media and ABC would have had a field day.
> 
> But it would have been economic and diplomatic suicide.



Agreed.  Australians have an unrealistic notion of how important we are in a global perspective.


----------



## Wysiwyg

Tony Abbott says the Indian P.M. is more than almost a kindred spirit, but almost a brother. After less than a week of meeting the bloke in his role as Indian P.M., Abbott comes up with a shallow statement like that to grow a stronger trading partner.


----------



## sptrawler

Wysiwyg said:


> Tony Abbott says the Indian P.M. is more than almost a kindred spirit, but almost a brother. After less than a week of meeting the bloke in his role as Indian P.M., Abbott comes up with a shallow statement like that to grow a stronger trading partner.




Well it certainly, is better than Kev's description of the Chinese. 
Kev's pre election begging of Bang Bam, to tell Tony not to turn back the boats, that was another classic moment in Australian diplomatic history. lol

I think Abbott being shallow, is probably better than Rudd's, back of the napkin diplomacy, policy development and border protection policy.


----------



## Knobby22

Wysiwyg said:


> Tony Abbott says the Indian P.M. is more than almost a kindred spirit, but almost a brother. After less than a week of meeting the bloke in his role as Indian P.M., Abbott comes up with a shallow statement like that to grow a stronger trading partner.




Well he said almost a brother because he is black and could really at best be a half brother.
Lol.


----------



## sydboy007

Seems the Govt has had a slap down on their gang of 5 supported FOFA castration.  Might not bode well for the inflated price of bank stocks.

Looks like Lambie is on her way to becoming an independent.

We certainly live in interesting times.


----------



## Tisme

I think Tony is in the early stages of a serious headspace problem. His recent behaviours are ill considered even for him.

I hope I'm wrong and let's hope someone is keeping an eye on him.


----------



## sydboy007

This has to be up there with Brandis explaining metadata



> Federal minister Christopher Pyne took to Twitter to beg the ABC not to shut down its South Australian TV production unit.
> 
> “The board must reassure South Australians that the local TV production house of the ABC will remain in South Australia,” Mr Pyne’s petition says.




Make sme think Chris has a decent stash of Kava or Peyote that he's consuming a bit too much of lately.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> This has to be up there with Brandis explaining metadata
> 
> 
> 
> Make sme think Chris has a decent stash of Kava or Peyote that he's consuming a bit too much of lately.




He'll be moaning when the University of Adelaide has to hold chook raffles to raise funds too.


----------



## drsmith

SirRumpole said:


> He'll be moaning when the University of Adelaide has to hold chook raffles to raise funds too.



That would be taking a leaf out of Barack Obama's book.


----------



## sydboy007

Looks like the Chinese colonisation is ready to go forward

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...s-says-bank-boss/story-e6frg8zx-1227127542629



> “We know it is very difficult, but if Australia can give permission for Chinese labourers to help with infrastructure construction, then the mines and other projects we both need will be completed *quickly, and the workers will go back to China. They won’t remain in Australia. Then Australia will employ local people to work in those mines and other infrastructure. That will be good for employment, and therefore beneficial for Australia”.
> 
> Mr Li conceded this would be difficult to pass through the Australian parliament, “but Australian labour costs are too high”.




http://www.afr.com/p/national/developer_urges_visa_relaxation_e0NwiyxGqVFQXEd8BVJltJ



> “…if the related policies concerning the entry of skilled personnel will be relaxed, it will help all of the progress of our related projects and after the completion of those construction projects, those skilled workers will return back to China. So I believe these related policies should be relaxed”…
> 
> “As you know, the visas granted by the US government [are] now extended from one year to five, or even 10 years,” he said. “It’s good.”




Considering the war on youth from the Abbott Govt, I can see them being very receptive to the idea of Chinese companies buying up Australian resources, importing Chinese labour and equipment, building the new mines to continue the surplus supply and depress prices, profit shift ala glencore, and leave us with little to show for the loss of our resources.


----------



## Julia

Knobby22 said:


> Well he said almost a brother because he is black and could really at best be a half brother.
> Lol.



A little while ago he was describing Stephen Harper as like a brother also.  Why on earth does he seem to have this compulsion to overstatement?   It's surely perfectly possible to be welcoming and respectful without resorting to such hyperbole.  Just sounds a bit silly.

Don't people like politicians have access to good coaching on communication?  The government has done quite well in achieving some of their stated aims, but the language and delivery is a constant detraction.

Obama is a good example of the power of words and delivery.  He has done virtually nothing useful during his tenure, is unlikely to alter this record before he leaves, yet apparently inspires people with his oratorical virtuosity.


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> A little while ago he was describing Stephen Harper as like a brother also.  Why on earth does he seem to have this compulsion to overstatement?   It's surely perfectly possible to be welcoming and respectful without resorting to such hyperbole.  Just sounds a bit silly.
> 
> Don't people like politicians have access to good coaching on communication?  The government has done quite well in achieving some of their stated aims, but the language and delivery is a constant detraction.
> 
> Obama is a good example of the power of words and delivery.  He has done virtually nothing useful during his tenure, is unlikely to alter this record before he leaves, yet apparently inspires people with his oratorical virtuosity.




If you call Obama care as virtually nothing then you're hard please. Millions of poor people in the US can now access affordable healthcare and don't face bankruptcy if the have a major accident or illness


----------



## Julia

sydboy007 said:


> If you call Obama care as virtually nothing then you're hard please. Millions of poor people in the US can now access affordable healthcare and don't face bankruptcy if the have a major accident or illness



I've heard plenty of people express their dissatisfaction with Obamacare.  It seems nothing like our Medicare.   Yes, probably a step up from what it was for some sections of the population, but not enough to save his reputation.  

Plenty of not so great American presidents.  He just promised so much with the soaring rhetoric, has failed to live up to it, and is now trying for last gasp redemption via even more promises that he knows he cannot keep.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> I've heard plenty of people express their dissatisfaction with Obamacare.  It seems nothing like our Medicare.   Yes, probably a step up from what it was for some sections of the population, but not enough to save his reputation.
> 
> Plenty of not so great American presidents.  He just promised so much with the soaring rhetoric, has failed to live up to it, and is now trying for last gasp redemption via even more promises that he knows he cannot keep.




Very few US Presidents achieve much of importance.

Their power over home affairs is very limited, and not many have Congress on side. They are basically figureheads to represent US interests on the world stage. Unless it's wartime, they don't have a lot of influence. 

Kennedy probably achieved more than most post war presidents with his "land a man on the moon" directive, but in social reform he had his hands tied a lot of the time as well.


----------



## Tisme

Double dissolution being considered now the Senate has stalled?


----------



## Knobby22

Tisme said:


> Double dissolution being considered now the Senate has stalled?




Not with the polling figures they have.


----------



## noco

It is very clear in my mind parliament as it is, is a shambles due to the bastardy of the senate shenanigans.....Parliament has become totally unworkable and is not in the best interest of this nation.

If the situation does not improve by mid 2015, then Abbott should be replaced and a double dissolution called...it cannot be left any later than mid 2015.......if voters want to go back to the Rudd/Gilaard/Rudd era then so be it....they will just have to suffer the consequences......more debt, more deficits, more borrowings and more heartache.

A double dissolution might also bring some surprises....it has to be done as we can't go on the way we are at present.  



http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...-for-pm-to-fight/story-fnihsr9v-1227128699227


----------



## drsmith

noco said:


> If the situation does not improve by mid 2015, then Abbott should be replaced and a double dissolution called...



The current senate eruption between Jacqui Lambie and PUP are not TA's fault. The government there just needs to be patient and let Jacquie Lambie exhaust her fireworks.

As for the polls, Essential Media (which doesn't seem to have the static of the other polls) is stable at 48/52 in favour of Labor. While still not good for the government, it's nowhere near as bad as Newspoll 45/55 which may be towards the edge of its margin of error.


----------



## Knobby22

noco said:


> It is very clear in my mind parliament as it is, is a shambles due to the bastardy of the senate shenanigans.....Parliament has become totally unworkable and is not in the best interest of this nation.
> 
> If the situation does not improve by mid 2015, then Abbott should be replaced and a double dissolution called...it cannot be left any later than mid 2015.......if voters want to go back to the Rudd/Gilaard/Rudd era then so be it....they will just have to suffer the consequences......more debt, more deficits, more borrowings and more heartache.
> 
> A double dissolution might also bring some surprises....it has to be done as we can't go on the way we are at present.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...-for-pm-to-fight/story-fnihsr9v-1227128699227




I think many of Bolts comments would make Abbott unelectable but I do agree on one thing, where is the new blood? There is great talent in the back benches but we are not seeing it. Abbott needs to change this. Even Bolt says there are some talented women being overlooked. There are some talented men also but we just seem to have the old hacks from the previous Howard government. The good guys like Costello, Vanstone retired and we are left with tired second tier politicians like Warren Truss, Kevin Andrews, Andrew Robb. I'd get of Joe Hockey also. So much wasted talent.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> It is very clear in my mind parliament as it is, is a shambles due to the bastardy of the senate shenanigans.....Parliament has become totally unworkable and is not in the best interest of this nation.
> 
> If the situation does not improve by mid 2015, then Abbott should be replaced and a double dissolution called...it cannot be left any later than mid 2015.......if voters want to go back to the Rudd/Gilaard/Rudd era then so be it....they will just have to suffer the consequences......more debt, more deficits, more borrowings and more heartache.
> 
> A double dissolution might also bring some surprises....it has to be done as we can't go on the way we are at present.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...-for-pm-to-fight/story-fnihsr9v-1227128699227




Correct me if I'm wrong, but currently don't we have a Government providing more debt, more deficits, more borrowings and more heartache?  A year in Govt and the budget seems to be in free fall.  Revenue's plunging, spending increasing at unsustainable rates.  Hockey has said there wont be large cuts in the budget when the MYEFO is released, so exactly what are they doing so differently to Labor?  Have they realised that an economy with increasing unemployment, falling participation rate, lower economic activity, while suffering an income shock due to the fall in the ToT that has a long ways to go yet is a bit harder to manage than they pretended while in opposition?

We have the war on youth with a uni tax that would likely see those studying nursing and education no longer able to afford to do so.  There's no acknowledgement of this looming issue.  The 6 month wait for those under 30 during a time of historically high youth unemployment, while at the same time throwing money at employers to employ those aged over 50.  How is it fair to provide far more support for the over 50s long term unemployed than those under 30?

Possibly the Govt needs to recognise the fact that the electorate didn't give them a mandate to do as they please, that they need to negotiate in good faith, that worth while tax reform is hard.  They should know how easy it is to scare people about change since they were so very effective at it when in opposition.

They've give up $8B in carbon tax revenue and seemingly had no plan on how to make up that shortfall, let alone a plan to plug the leaking tax system from the world leading tax expenditures we have (we beat Italy and Greece on that score).

Ho about some action commensurate with the rhetoric they used pre election?


----------



## basilio

I find it very difficult to give this rabble and rubbish of a government any respect.  I believe it starts with the simple fact of it's total dishonesty piled on top of a PM who came to power parroting  the need for integrity and honesty in government.

The last few days have been the cake.  Turnball comes out with a slash and burn approach to the ABC.  Now this  was this another complete repudiation of the "No cuts to pensions, ABC, schools, Hospital line" that Abbottliar trotted out prior to the last election.

*But worse than this Turnball attempted to say that "black was white". That these weren't cuts but savings. Voodoo economics and Double book accounting at it's finest.*

On Wednesday Abbottliar smoozes the French President with a public avowal that Climate Change needs to be tackled. He then highlights the role of the Clean Energy council in Australia in helping to develop non carbon and energy efficient technology as part of Australia's progress.

*Yep thats the same Clean Energy Council Abbott liar has committed himself to  closing down.* It is is only alive because of the tenacious integrity of its management and the refusal of the Senate to rubber stamp this vandalism.

What xxxxing bare faced cheek!! At some stage this lying clown needs to told in public, upfront and close what a disgraceful, lying piece of merde he is and the damage he is doing to the integrity of our parliamentary system.

Ok . Thats my rant for the day.  You can all go back and tell each other how much unreasonable hate there is for this lying crook. 

But don't  expect anyone not stuck to Andrew Bolts bum to give you any respect for believing the Mad Abbott.




> *ABC, climate change: the Coalition is drowning us in nonsense*
> 
> *In opposition, authenticity and truth-telling was the focus. Now it’s all denials and broken promises*
> 
> Katharine Murphy, deputy political editor
> theguardian.com, Thursday 20 November 2014 11.00 AEST
> Jump to comments (339)
> 
> Australian Broadcasting Corporation ABC Malcolm Turnbull’s denial of Tony Abbott’s election promise to safeguard the ABC’s budget is insulting.
> 
> This morning, on the wireless, I heard the finance minister, Mathias Cormann, say the government wasn’t making cuts to the ABC.
> 
> The day before, I heard the communications minister, Malcolm Turnbull, say Tony Abbott hadn’t actually promised before last September’s election not to cut the budgets of the ABC and SBS. If Abbott had said something like that, then he didn’t mean it; and more likely, we’d all just misunderstood what the prime minister had said.
> 
> Also on Wednesday, I heard the prime minister tell the French president, Francois Hollande, that part of the Australian government’s policy arsenal to combat the risks associated with climate change involved funding an agency called the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.
> 
> What he didn’t tell the French president was the government intends to abolish the CEFC.
> 
> In politics at the present time, we are drowning in nonsense. The nonsense waves are not only lapping, elegantly, at our ankles, they are picking us all up and dumping us head first into the sand.
> 
> The Abbott government is performing so many contortions, and running so rhetorically ragged, it’s hard to see if anything coherent is actually going on.
> 
> The maximum self-harm you can inflict on yourself in politics is to obscure your substance with abject nonsense, and yet federal politics has been seemingly locked in this cycle for the past couple of terms. Labor deadweighted itself with kindergarten intrigues and dysfunctional personality conflicts.
> 
> This government is seemingly intent on deadweighting itself with evasions and too-clever-by-half constructions that can be ripped apart comprehensively in about a minute-and-a-half.




http://www.theguardian.com/australi...ange-the-coalition-is-drowning-us-in-nonsense


----------



## SirRumpole

First there was Juliar, now there should be Abbottoir, because of all the blood and cuts.

I can't remember a more dishonest and universally disliked PM.

 OK, not many liked Rudd, but at least he stood for a few things. Climate change, clean energy, infrastructure. The Abbottoir has no plans, no vision, and very few friends in the electorate.


----------



## Julia

Oh god, can we please rule out "Abottoir".  The months of "Juliar"  were bad enough.  That is even worse.
Surely it's quite possible to express dissatisfaction with a politician using their proper name.


----------



## drsmith

What was it that Julia Gillard said about a carbon tax under a government she led ?

What was it that Kevin Rudd said about the greatest moral challenge of our time ?

What was it both of them said about leadership ambition ?

While it's a shortcoming of our political process, all governments break commitments to some extent, some worse than others. The decisions this government has made need to be considered in that context.


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> What was it that Julia Gillard said about a carbon tax under a government she led ?
> 
> What was it that Kevin Rudd said about the greatest moral challenge of our time ?
> 
> What was it both of them said about leadership ambition ?
> 
> While it's a shortcoming of our political process, all governments break commitments to some extent, some worse than others. The decisions this government has made need to be considered in that context.




You are always a reliable shil for the coalition.


----------



## drsmith

banco said:


> You are always a reliable shil for the coalition.



It's your choice as to whether you offer a reply of substance or engage in name calling.

There's also the option of saying nothing at all.


----------



## overhang

drsmith said:


> What was it that Julia Gillard said about a carbon tax under a government she led ?
> 
> What was it that Kevin Rudd said about the greatest moral challenge of our time ?
> 
> What was it both of them said about leadership ambition ?
> 
> While it's a shortcoming of our political process, all governments break commitments to some extent, some worse than others. The decisions this government has made need to be considered in that context.




I find anyone quite hypocritical that vented their anger at Gillard for breaking an election promise and now won't hold Abbott to the same accountability.  For those that were outraged by the lie then it shouldn't matter if you agree with the policy or not.  Take Andrew Bolt for example who was very outspoken against the carbon tax lie, many times he criticised Gillard for the lie but you won't see him give Abbott any condemnation for breaking the promise not to cut the ABC as he agrees with the decision to cut the ABC.  That's fine he is entitled to agree with that policy but when he condemns Gillard for breaking a promise he is holding double standards as he will not condemn Abbott for the same thing.  It wouldn't be hypocritical if he attacked Gillards policy based just on the policy alone and not the broken promise and then praised Abbotts ABC broken promise.

As someone who has judged both on their broken promises quite negatively I find this quite frustrating to see all these double standards occurring from those with their predisposition.   We are now seeing the right take the exact same path the left did and are making excuses for the lie (Hockey didn't rule out the cuts, they're not cuts but efficiency dividends).


----------



## banco

overhang said:


> I find anyone quite hypocritical that vented their anger at Gillard for breaking an election promise and now won't hold Abbott to the same accountability.  For those that were outraged by the lie then it shouldn't matter if you agree with the policy or not.  Take Andrew Bolt for example who was very outspoken against the carbon tax lie, many times he criticised Gillard for the lie but you won't see him give Abbott any condemnation for breaking the promise not to cut the ABC as he agrees with the decision to cut the ABC.  That's fine he is entitled to agree with that policy but when he condemns Gillard for breaking a promise he is holding double standards as he will not condemn Abbott for the same thing.  It wouldn't be hypocritical if he attacked Gillards policy based just on the policy alone and not the broken promise and then praised Abbotts ABC broken promise.
> 
> As someone who has judged both on their broken promises quite negatively I find this quite frustrating to see all these double standards occurring from those with their predisposition.   We are now seeing the right take the exact same path the left did and are making excuses for the lie (Hockey didn't rule out the cuts, they're not cuts but efficiency dividends).




But it's the context dude.........


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> What was it that Julia Gillard said about a carbon tax under a government she led ?
> 
> What was it that Kevin Rudd said about the greatest moral challenge of our time ?
> 
> What was it both of them said about leadership ambition ?
> 
> While it's a shortcoming of our political process, all governments break commitments to some extent, some worse than others. The decisions this government has made need to be considered in that context.




The situation has definitely changed.  The free fall in iron ore has surprised me, but it wasn't totally unexpected.  Certainlyt he Govt was up there with WA in fairyland forecasts on what I/O pricing was going to be like.

What I think most people are having trouble digesting is the bald two faced morally corrupt way the Govt is handling it.

All the promises being broken and they're arguing they're not actually breaking them.  For a Govt that spent years in opposition going on about integrity they've got none.  Absolutely none.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> The situation has definitely changed.  The free fall in iron ore has surprised me, but it wasn't totally unexpected.  Certainlyt he Govt was up there with WA in fairyland forecasts on what I/O pricing was going to be like.
> 
> What I think most people are having trouble digesting is the bald two faced morally corrupt way the Govt is handling it.
> 
> All the promises being broken and they're arguing they're not actually breaking them.  For a Govt that spent years in opposition going on about integrity they've got none.  Absolutely none.




So now you have got that off your chest, for the 1,000 time, what next?


----------



## Tisme

overhang said:


> I find anyone quite hypocritical that vented their anger at Gillard for breaking an election promise and now won't hold Abbott to the same accountability.  For those that were outraged by the lie then it shouldn't matter if you agree with the policy or not.




My objection to the Gillard attacks was simply that it was vanguarded by supposed adults who would be the next govt. I saw it as a low point in politics where "honourable" members acted like a group of nasty school girls.

Maybe they are proud of themselves, but I could never give them the respect they should be afforded as elite public servants and trustees of our nation. Codes of conduct were all for nought in my opinion.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but currently don't we have a Government providing more debt, more deficits, more borrowings and more heartache?  A year in Govt and the budget seems to be in free fall.  Revenue's plunging, spending increasing at unsustainable rates.  Hockey has said there wont be large cuts in the budget when the MYEFO is released, so exactly what are they doing so differently to Labor?  Have they realised that an economy with increasing unemployment, falling participation rate, lower economic activity, while suffering an income shock due to the fall in the ToT that has a long ways to go yet is a bit harder to manage than they pretended while in opposition?
> 
> We have the war on youth with a uni tax that would likely see those studying nursing and education no longer able to afford to do so.  There's no acknowledgement of this looming issue.  The 6 month wait for those under 30 during a time of historically high youth unemployment, while at the same time throwing money at employers to employ those aged over 50.  How is it fair to provide far more support for the over 50s long term unemployed than those under 30?
> 
> Possibly the Govt needs to recognise the fact that the electorate didn't give them a mandate to do as they please, that they need to negotiate in good faith, that worth while tax reform is hard.  They should know how easy it is to scare people about change since they were so very effective at it when in opposition.
> 
> They've give up $8B in carbon tax revenue and seemingly had no plan on how to make up that shortfall, let alone a plan to plug the leaking tax system from the world leading tax expenditures we have (we beat Italy and Greece on that score).
> 
> Ho about some action commensurate with the rhetoric they used pre election?




Sydboy, I cannot believe how you, Basilio and Rumpole could be so ignorant of the facts why the Abbott Government is struggling to make ends meet.

Are you really serious that you do not understand what the Abbott Government is trying to do to fix the mess the Green/Labor party left this country in and the fact that Abbott is being hamstrung by a senseless bloody minded senate who is obstructing cuts to expenditure of some $28 billion; $6 billion of which Labor were going to cut themselves and are now preventing the Government from doing so....

The Green/Labor coalition are not interested in the welfare of the Australian economy...All they are interested in making sure the Abbott government do not succeed in bringing the our finances under control......The Green/Labor party are only interested in their selfish existence.....The Green/Labor party left wing socialist could not manage our finances between 2007 and 2013 and they are hell bent on making sure the Abbott do not succeed.

The Abbott government therefore has no alternative but to continue in debt and deficit and the Green/Labor party are more than happy to see it happen.....It is time the Green/Labor party showed some gumption and started to co-operate in the national interest.

It makes me sick to death to think how the Green/Labor refuse to accept some responsibility for the current situation in our economy....


----------



## IFocus

How do you cut $250mil from the ABC and claim its not a cut?

Still the expanded spending rate of this Government while claiming their determination to reign in the debt sorta looks a lot like an Italian government.


----------



## sptrawler

overhang said:


> I find anyone quite hypocritical that vented their anger at Gillard for breaking an election promise and now won't hold Abbott to the same accountability.  For those that were outraged by the lie then it shouldn't matter if you agree with the policy or not.  Take Andrew Bolt for example who was very outspoken against the carbon tax lie, many times he criticised Gillard for the lie but you won't see him give Abbott any condemnation for breaking the promise not to cut the ABC as he agrees with the decision to cut the ABC.  That's fine he is entitled to agree with that policy but when he condemns Gillard for breaking a promise he is holding double standards as he will not condemn Abbott for the same thing.  It wouldn't be hypocritical if he attacked Gillards policy based just on the policy alone and not the broken promise and then praised Abbotts ABC broken promise.
> 
> As someone who has judged both on their broken promises quite negatively I find this quite frustrating to see all these double standards occurring from those with their predisposition.   We are now seeing the right take the exact same path the left did and are making excuses for the lie (Hockey didn't rule out the cuts, they're not cuts but efficiency dividends).




O.K, so when can we move on and start and repair the economy.

When will everyone pick up their bottom lips, and get on with reducing spending and increasing taxes.


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> How do you cut $250mil from the ABC and claim its not a cut?
> 
> Still the expanded spending rate of this Government while claiming their determination to reign in the debt sorta looks a lot like an Italian government.




Can't wait to get the Labor boys back in charge of the till.

Yep, let's get the boots into the miners. Like that would be working out well now.lol

Next year the carbon tax was going on fuel and transport, yeh, just when we need it.

Absolute morons.lol


----------



## overhang

sptrawler said:


> O.K, so when can we move on and start and repair the economy.
> 
> When will everyone pick up their bottom lips, and get on with reducing spending and increasing taxes.




Maybe that should have been considered before making the promise....


----------



## So_Cynical

drsmith said:


> It's your choice as to whether you offer a reply of substance or engage in name calling.
> 
> *There's also the option of saying nothing at all.*




Good advise that would also apply to you and the other deniers.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> So now you have got that off your chest, for the 1,000 time, what next?




Well, it's a year since the "adults" got into power with a claimed plan.

I'm still waiting for them to actually produce some decent policy.

Their economic management is running about as well as their promise to roll out a nation wide FTTN by the end of 2016.

When do you think they'll announce a fair way forward to repairing the budget?  With the pension, super off the table it makes it hard to fix things.  Negative gearing seems to be a bridge too far.

You keep saying we've got to wait for the tax white paper.  I hope you're right, but so far nothing this Govt has done makes me think they have any ticker for some meaningful reforms.


----------



## sptrawler

overhang said:


> Maybe that should have been considered before making the promise....




Well that is obvious, but don't you think things need to be fixed.

Even after Gillard broke a promise, she went on to implement it, then she was judged.

The difference this time is nothing is getting done, the problems are worsening, and everyone is standing around poking their tonques out.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:
			
		

> , but so far nothing this Govt has done makes me think they have any ticker for some meaningful reforms.




At least nothing that hits their mates in Vaucluse or Toorak.

Increasing a regressive tax like the GST that hits the less well off, well that's got to be a good thing hasn't it ?


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Can't wait to get the Labor boys back in charge of the till.
> 
> Yep, let's get the boots into the miners. Like that would be working out well now.lol
> 
> Next year the carbon tax was going on fuel and transport, yeh, just when we need it.
> 
> Absolute morons.lol




http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/02/13/myth-of-coalition-govts-howard-the-biggest-spender-of-all/



> If the previous Labor governments delivered growth in real government spending during its first five years in office at the same pace the Howard government had in the years from 2000-01, government spending would be almost 6% (or around $20 billion) greater in 2012-13 than was the case.
> 
> In terms of the facts, the average annual growth in real government spending in five years from 2000-01 under Howard was 4.3%; for Labor in the five years since 2007-08, the average annual increase has been 3.4%, a huge difference given that annual spending is over $360 billion.
> 
> Those five years of excessive government spending during the Howard government have not been cherry-picked to make a point. If we look at the final eight years of the Howard government, the average annual increase was 4.0%; for Labor taking the numbers into the three years of the forward estimates to get an eight year comparison, the average annual rise is 3.2%.
> 
> The extraordinary facts about government spending take into account the unprecedented fiscal stimulus measures from the Labor government that accompanied the global financial crisis. Indeed, in 2008-09, real government spending rose by a massively strong 12.7% as the government worked to sustain the economy and preserve jobs. That spending boost has now been unwound.
> 
> In simple terms, the facts show that in the five years from 2000-01, the Howard government increased real government spending by around 23%. In the five years from 2007-08, when Labor has controlled the budget purse strings, growth in real government spending has been a tick over 17%, including the 12.7% increase in 2008-09 when the GFC was bearing down on the Australian economy, threatening a recession.






> Never once did the Howard government deliver a cut in real spending in any of its 12 budgets. Nor did the Fraser government, for that matter, ever deliver a cut in real spending in its seven budgets. Twenty Coalition budgets and never a fall in real government outlays. This is staggering when put against the perceptions and rhetoric that so often do the rounds.
> 
> For the Labor party, which unquestionably spent up big as the GFC hit, there have been two years in the current period of government where real government spending has fallen, in 2010-11 and this year, 2012-13. *Indeed the cut in government spending this year is the largest cut ever recorded. It is worth noting at this point that there were three years in the Hawke/Keating era where there were cuts in real government spending, so over the last 40 years, the Coalition have never once cut spending while the Labor Party has delivered real cuts in five of its budgets.*



So if you're giving me a choice between a Howard / Fraser  or hake / Keating or Rudd / Gillard Govt, I'll take Labor as they showed they have the balls to stem the increase in spending.


----------



## overhang

sptrawler said:


> Well that is obvious, but don't you think things need to be fixed.
> 
> Even after Gillard broke a promise, she went on to implement it, then she was judged.
> 
> The difference this time is nothing is getting done, the problems are worsening, and everyone is standing around poking their tonques out.




And the exact same argument was used by lefties in relation to climate change.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Well, it's a year since the "adults" got into power with a claimed plan.
> 
> I'm still waiting for them to actually produce some decent policy.
> 
> Their economic management is running about as well as their promise to roll out a nation wide FTTN by the end of 2016.
> 
> When do you think they'll announce a fair way forward to repairing the budget?  With the pension, super off the table it makes it hard to fix things.  Negative gearing seems to be a bridge too far.
> 
> You keep saying we've got to wait for the tax white paper.  I hope you're right, but so far nothing this Govt has done makes me think they have any ticker for some meaningful reforms.




I'm sure there will be just as many problems, getting tax changes through the senate, as there has been getting spending cuts through.

I'm guessing we will still have to go through the process.

Then it will be election time, everyone gets to make their choice again.


----------



## drsmith

banco said:


> But it's the context dude.........



It is.

All governments break commitments after coming to office (and I can only reiterate that this is a shortcoming of our political process) but only Labor was silly enough to think it could sneak an economy wide carbon tax under the electorate.

Cuts to the ABC over which there is currently a lot of squawking is small beer in comparison.


----------



## basilio

There are structural changes that are needed to the economy.  We do have a tax system that has been rorted to death by the rich and the international  business community. We have to address issues of climate change, the end of the mining boom and the effects of an aging population on social security.

These are very real issues that should demand a bipartisan approach to developing long term, fair and balanced policies.

Instead we got a budget that attacked the poorest sectors of the community with absolutely no acknowledgment that pain needs to be shared or that longer term structures need to be addressed. We have a government that was so rabidly obstructionist in opposition it has no mandate or capacity to reach across the political divide and invite constructive policy development.

*And finally we have a government so completely  dishonest in its approach to climate change that it wilfully tries to destroy the RET scheme, the  climate commission , the Clean Energy Bank and any other scheme that was  using the market place to tackle climate change in favour of a non policy of direct action.*


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> It is.
> 
> All governments break commitments after coming to office (and I can only reiterate that this is a shortcoming of our political process) but only Labor was silly enough to think it could sneak an economy wide carbon tax under the electorate.
> 
> Cuts to the ABC over which there is currently a lot of squawking is small beer in comparison.




You can argue that both ways.  If they can't keep relatively small promises how they can be expected to keep big ones?

I expect the only silver lining for Abbott is that he's managed to make Turnbull look like a shifty con artist by trotting him out to say white is black and black is white.

I do think it also goes to the competence of Abbott as a politician.  Was he really going to lose any seats by equivocating prior to the election on whether there were going to be cuts to SBS and ABC?


----------



## sptrawler

basilio said:


> There are structural changes that are needed to the economy.  We do have a tax system that has been rorted to death by the rich and the international  business community. We have to address issues of climate change, the end of the mining boom and the effects of an aging population on social security.
> 
> These are very real issues that should demand a bipartisan approach to developing long term, fair and balanced policies.
> 
> Instead we got a budget that attacked the poorest sectors of the community with absolutely no acknowledgment that pain needs to be shared or that longer term structures need to be addressed. We have a government that was so rabidly obstructionist in opposition it has no mandate or capacity to reach across the political divide and invite constructive policy development.
> 
> *And finally we have a government so completely  dishonest in its approach to climate change that it wilfully tries to destroy the RET scheme, the  climate commission , the Clean Energy Bank and any other scheme that was  using the market place to tackle climate change in favour of a non policy of direct action.*




If people don't like it they will vote them out next election.
Meanwhile let them get on with it. 
We now have a senator voting everything down, because she thinks some people didn't get an appropriate payrise.

If all the senators get a pet sector of the workforce, that they are going to represent, where does it end?

Maybe you could get the car enthusiast senator, to block all legislation unless your view on carbon emmission reduction is adopted.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> If people don't like it they will vote them out next election.
> Meanwhile let them get on with it.
> We now have a senator voting everything down, because she thinks some people didn't get an appropriate payrise.
> 
> If all the senators get a pet sector of the workforce, that they are going to represent, where does it end?
> 
> Maybe you could get the car enthusiast senator, to block all legislation unless your view on carbon emission reduction is adopted.




So basically you're saying the senate should rubber stamp all Govt legislation?

I think the voters generally like the senate as a way to ensure stuff like 6 month waiting for welfare support for under 30s or poorly atrgeted GP co payments or FOFA legislation benefiting the big banks gets debated and generally thrown out because it's not good policy.

I don't seem to recall you having the same attitude to the Gillard Govt.  Seems most calling for the senate to stop being so obstructionist were rather too happy about it doing exactly the same when Labor were in Govt.

I would like the senators opposing revenue savings to provide alternatives.  That might be a way forward, but then again I don't recall any coalition senators offering much in the way of constructive suggestions when in opposition.

Abbott unleashed the US style of blocking everything to create a sense of crisis.  I wonder if he wishes he'd been a bit more of a Team Australia player over his opposition years??


----------



## drsmith

banco said:


> You can argue that both ways.  If they can't keep relatively small promises how they can be expected to keep big ones?



The breaking of a smaller promise is generally not as politically damaging as breaking a bigger one although there is also a dependency on how well a given government politically manages it. That's not an argument, it's a simple reality.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> So basically you're saying the senate should rubber stamp all Govt legislation?
> 
> I think the voters generally like the senate as a way to ensure stuff like 6 month waiting for welfare support for under 30s or poorly atrgeted GP co payments or FOFA legislation benefiting the big banks gets debated and generally thrown out because it's not good policy.
> 
> I don't seem to recall you having the same attitude to the Gillard Govt.  Seems most calling for the senate to stop being so obstructionist were rather too happy about it doing exactly the same when Labor were in Govt.
> 
> I would like the senators opposing revenue savings to provide alternatives.  That might be a way forward, but then again I don't recall any coalition senators offering much in the way of constructive suggestions when in opposition.
> 
> Abbott unleashed the US style of blocking everything to create a sense of crisis.  I wonder if he wishes he'd been a bit more of a Team Australia player over his opposition years??




Hang on Syd, Gillard and Rudd had a favorable senate to allow the Green/Labor left wing socialist to pass legislation with any obstruction.
Abbott tried to block many of the Green/labor hare brain schemes with good reason.....he was trying to save the nation money.


Fuel watch
Grocery watch
Roof insulation
The Carbon tax that Gillard said would never happen.
The mining tax that cost more to administer than what was gained
 Etc Etc
The Green/Labor left wing socialist are blocking savings the Abbott Government want to implement to counter the waste made by Labor 2007/2013.
Bill Shorten is not showing leadership by his aggressive tactics without indicating where he would make savings...He is just a smart alec.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> So basically you're saying the senate should rubber stamp all Govt legislation?
> 
> I think the voters generally like the senate as a way to ensure stuff like 6 month waiting for welfare support for under 30s or poorly atrgeted GP co payments or FOFA legislation benefiting the big banks gets debated and generally thrown out because it's not good policy.
> 
> I don't seem to recall you having the same attitude to the Gillard Govt.  Seems most calling for the senate to stop being so obstructionist were rather too happy about it doing exactly the same when Labor were in Govt.
> 
> I would like the senators opposing revenue savings to provide alternatives.  That might be a way forward, but then again I don't recall any coalition senators offering much in the way of constructive suggestions when in opposition.
> 
> Abbott unleashed the US style of blocking everything to create a sense of crisis.  I wonder if he wishes he'd been a bit more of a Team Australia player over his opposition years??




I was definately against the mining and carbon tax, I also thought the splash of cash was ill timed and poorly enacted. 
I was also vocal against the insulation debacle, mainly due again to the fact it was poorly implemented.IMO 
I wasn't overly fond of Labors idea of a 'big Australia' either.

One way or another it will be self resolving, I think, the next election will be black or white. There won't be many independents survive.IMO


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> So basically you're saying the senate should rubber stamp all Govt legislation?
> 
> ?




Isn't that what the Green/Labor senators did under Rudd/Gillard......we did not see them going against their masters in the lower house and if did, they would have been expelled by the Labor Party machine.


----------



## Julia

sptrawler said:


> So now you have got that off your chest, for the 1,000 time, what next?



Grit your teeth, sptrawler:  Syd can go on repeating it many more times yet.  You might reach the point where you decline to read the repetitive posts.  That largely solves it.



overhang said:


> Maybe that should have been considered before making the promise....



I think we are all agreed about this, overhang.  Mr Abbott made several completely unnecessary promises.  He already had victory in the bag, so why he felt compelled to make promises he must have known would be difficult to keep is a mystery.
However, continuing to repeat this is less than productive at this stage.  Sooner or later, the electorate has to accept reality and understand that ongoing whining about broken promises is pointless, and rather, encourage Labor to work with the government to solve the budgetary problem they left behind.



sptrawler said:


> If people don't like it they will vote them out next election.
> Meanwhile let them get on with it.
> We now have a senator voting everything down, because she thinks some people didn't get an appropriate payrise.
> 
> If all the senators get a pet sector of the workforce, that they are going to represent, where does it end?



Exactly.   That Lambie et al can make such a farce out of the Senate is unbelievable.  
Do we have any Constitutional experts?   Is there a point where a rogue senator, clearly off on her own personal obsession and without regard for objective discourse and policy consideration, is just not permitted to go on disrupting progress of government?



sydboy007 said:


> So basically you're saying the senate should rubber stamp all Govt legislation?



He was not saying that at all.  Why would you seek to twist what others have said?
(The question is rhetorical:  we all know you would find a way to criticise the government even if they managed to fulfil all your wishes, such is your inherent dislike of them.)


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> I was definately against the mining and carbon tax, I also thought the splash of cash was ill timed and poorly enacted.
> I was also vocal against the insulation debacle, mainly due again to the fact it was poorly implemented.IMO
> I wasn't overly fond of Labors idea of a 'big Australia' either.
> 
> One way or another it will be self resolving, I think, the next election will be black or white. There won't be many independents survive.IMO




The mining tax in the original version, with some tweaking, might have stopped us from being in the rather toasted situation we find ourselves in with the extended period of AUD over valuation, over investment in resources, budget funding under pressure, tradeables sector decimated.

The insulation debacle and and splash of cash are likely the reason we didn't sink into recession like pretty much the rest of the world.  It's easy with 20 20 vision and knowing China went on the largest debt binge in history, but at the time I remember the fear and the downward trajectory that NSW was in.  The number of small business cancelling internet and voice services from my employer had me feeling we weren't far off following the US and Eruope into recession.

Howard said "Australia needs a high level of immigration. I’m a high immigration man. I practiced that in Government."  Were you against his big Australia idea too?


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> Grit your teeth, sptrawler:  Syd can go on repeating it many more times yet.  You might reach the point where you decline to read the repetitive posts.  That largely solves it.




How about some even handedness.  People on this forum repeat ad nauseum a lot of untrue things about Labor, yet that seems to be acceptable.



Julia said:


> I think we are all agreed about this, overhang.  Mr Abbott made several completely unnecessary promises.  He already had victory in the bag, so why he felt compelled to make promises he must have known would be difficult to keep is a mystery.
> However, continuing to repeat this is less than productive at this stage.  Sooner or later, the electorate has to accept reality and understand that ongoing whining about broken promises is pointless, and rather, encourage Labor to work with the government to solve the budgetary problem they left behind.




When did anyone on this forum / media say during the Labor Govt "Sooner or later, the electorate has to accept reality and understand that ongoing whining about broken promises is pointless, and rather, encourage the Coalition to work with the government to solve the budgetary problem they left behind"?



Julia said:


> Exactly.   That Lambie et al can make such a farce out of the Senate is unbelievable.
> Do we have any Constitutional experts?   Is there a point where a rogue senator, clearly off on her own personal obsession and without regard for objective discourse and policy consideration, is just not permitted to go on disrupting progress of government?




The original constitution was set up to give a check and balance via the senate.  It might be messy, but it serves the function well and the Australian public has generally been happy to not give absolute power to either political party.  If work choices is the kind of result absolute political power gives us then I'll take the current discord.



Julia said:


> He was not saying that at all.  Why would you seek to twist what others have said?
> (The question is rhetorical:  we all know you would find a way to criticise the government even if they managed to fulfil all your wishes, such is your inherent dislike of them.)




How does the senate let the Govt get on with it without being a rubber stamp?  Do they have the right to criticise and debate the legislation being proposed?  Usually that at least polishes off the rough edges of policy.

I wished Labor or the Greens had had the courage to support the rise in fuel excise, though I don't support the automatic indexation for more than the term of a Govt.  Government should make the case at the budget for the revenue they're raising.

I do wish the non Govt senators would provide some alternatives to the poor Govt policy, but at the end of the day the Govt has to deal with the political situation it finds itself in.  I feel Labor is missing out on a golden opportunity to propose some good policy and show that it is worthy of votes at the next election.  That's when democracy works well.

That Labor has achieved negative growth in Govt expenditure 5 times, the coalition not once in 40 years is something not acknowledged. Howard was the most profligate spending PM and yet Rudd and Gillard are always held up as big spenders.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> The mining tax in the original version, with some tweaking, might have stopped us from being in the rather toasted situation we find ourselves in with the extended period of AUD over valuation, over investment in resources, budget funding under pressure, tradeables sector decimated.?




The mining tax like most things Labor did was done on the back of a napkin. If they had spent the same time developing that, as they did bring in all and sundry for the 2020 think tank, I may have forgiven them.



sydboy007 said:


> The insulation debacle and and splash of cash are likely the reason we didn't sink into recession like pretty much the rest of the world.  It's easy with 20 20 vision and knowing China went on the largest debt binge in history, but at the time I remember the fear and the downward trajectory that NSW was in.  The number of small business cancelling internet and voice services from my employer had me feeling we weren't far off following the US and Eruope into recession.?




We didn't sink into recession because we didn't have the exposure to the CDO's and associated toxic debt.
We were actually on an upward investment cycle ,trying to keep up with China's demand for raw materials. 
The insulation debacle, did nothing other than give money away to landlords and scammers, they should have installed it in welfare housing. Not given it away to people who could afford it anyway.
We weren't on the trajectory that the rest of the world was on, it was an over reaction, blind freddy could see it.
Rudd saw it as a Father Christmas moment, to improve his popularity.
Well, in the next breath we were screaming for workers and 457's, jeez.
Don't rewrite history, it was dumb, it was costly and it was non productive.



sydboy007 said:


> Howard said "Australia needs a high level of immigration. I’m a high immigration man. I practiced that in Government."  Were you against his big Australia idea too?




I don't agree Australia can support 50million people, with the same quality of life.
I know it may sound selfish, but I do enjoy our lifestyle and I don't see many asylum seekers heading for Indonesia.
If our economy grows in a way that it can support more people, well let more in, but I am dead against racing down to the lowest common denominator.

I know you don't believe it, but I would vote Labor if I thought they would improve Australia as a whole.
As you have said on numerous occassions, new and broader based taxes should be considered.
Labor just looked at where they could gouge, that's not the way to do it.IMO
It's childish, it's immature and it's counter productive.IMO


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> How about some even handedness.  People on this forum repeat ad nauseum a lot of untrue things about Labor, yet that seems to be acceptable..



Can you be a bit more precise, what generally do you think has been untrue, I'm not asking for specifics.
But genarally what slur is missdirected 





sydboy007 said:


> When did anyone on this forum / media say during the Labor Govt "Sooner or later, the electorate has to accept reality and understand that ongoing whining about broken promises is pointless, and rather, encourage the Coalition to work with the government to solve the budgetary problem they left behind"?.




Well the obvious answer to that is, there wasn't a budgetary problem left behind.
You can talk it up as much as you like, but the fact is, they inherited a surplus. 
The mining boom was rising for a further 5 years, we had a massive shortfall of skilled labour. 
Gillard gave the o.k for Gina to bring in thousands of construction workers, for Roy Hill, on 457's. 





sydboy007 said:


> The original constitution was set up to give a check and balance via the senate.  It might be messy, but it serves the function well and the Australian public has generally been happy to not give absolute power to either political party.  If work choices is the kind of result absolute political power gives us then I'll take the current discord..



Firstly the result of the last election, is a result of Australians sense of humour, a dry response to an unsavoury choice.
You're probably too young to remember the work choices reality, you are probably remembering the hysteria surrounding it.
In reality, it is probably in force now and has been since Labor were in office.
The basis for Labors scare campaign was, unions couldn't be involved in workplace deals.
Well most workplaces in W.A are on individual contracts anyway.
Can you tell me if you are on an individual agreed contract, or a union agreed wage?
It's just hype, to wow and stun, the gullible.





sydboy007 said:


> How does the senate let the Govt get on with it without being a rubber stamp?  Do they have the right to criticise and debate the legislation being proposed?  Usually that at least polishes off the rough edges of policy..




So when does criticise, extend to block legislation because you don't agree with a payrise. I'm confused.




sydboy007 said:


> I wished Labor or the Greens had had the courage to support the rise in fuel excise, though I don't support the automatic indexation for more than the term of a Govt.  Government should make the case at the budget for the revenue they're raising..




Not only did they have the courage to support it, THEY INTRODUCED IT.



sydboy007 said:


> I do wish the non Govt senators would provide some alternatives to the poor Govt policy, but at the end of the day the Govt has to deal with the political situation it finds itself in.  I feel Labor is missing out on a golden opportunity to propose some good policy and show that it is worthy of votes at the next election.  That's when democracy works well..




They can't propose good policy, because they haven't got a clue.
They were in power for six years, in the last year all they could talk about was more spending.
The only tax changes they talked about was resources, which have tanked and would now be crippled, because no one would have lent them any money.ffs
Or the carbon tax, which was going to go up and be applied to diesel fuel for transport companies, this year.
Jeez for a smart young bloke, you really suprise me.



sydboy007 said:


> That Labor has achieved negative growth in Govt expenditure 5 times, the coalition not once in 40 years is something not acknowledged. Howard was the most profligate spending PM and yet Rudd and Gillard are always held up as big spenders.




Howard inherited a deficit from Keating, the main reason Keating was thrown out was because workers were screwed over.
Having said that, in retrospect it had to be done, because wages were high and unemployment were high.

Getting back to Howard, he ran a tight economy, one of my sons was enjoying life surfing, when Howard changed welfare, my son got fed up with jumping through hoops and got a job. Needless to say he hates Howard.lol

Howard/Costello reduced the deficit and then ran a surplus, rather than just keep running an ever increasing surplus, they reduced personal income tax rates.

The mining boom hadn't really got a head of steam by 2006, so Howard/ Costello started the future fund to mitigate the ballooning cost of commonwealth supperannuation obligations.

These costs are compounding beyond belief, to start the future fund has saved the taxpayer zillions.

So what is the Rudd, Gillard, Rudd legacy?

How about answering that, Syd, with some substance.
That will take some time.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> I don't agree Australia can support 50million people, with the same quality of life.
> I know it may sound selfish, but I do enjoy our lifestyle and I don't see many asylum seekers heading for Indonesia.
> If our economy grows in a way that it can support more people, well let more in, but I am dead against racing down to the lowest common denominator.




Economic growth can be achieved by giving the people who are here a better lifestyle instead of bringing more in. 

Many jobs that were previously done manually are now being done by technology, so we are on an inverse relationship between increased population and increased productivity. More people just means a reduced share per person of our GDP.



			
				sydboy007 said:
			
		

> I do wish the non Govt senators would provide some alternatives to the poor Govt policy, but at the end of the day the Govt has to deal with the political situation it finds itself in. I feel Labor is missing out on a golden opportunity to propose some good policy and show that it is worthy of votes at the next election. That's when democracy works well.




They usually leave that until the election campaign to avoid scrutiny and policy piracy.

Sad though it is, it's the way all parties operate these days.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> Economic growth can be achieved by giving the people who are here a better lifestyle instead of bringing more in.
> 
> Many jobs that were previously done manually are now being done by technology, so we are on an inverse relationship between increased population and increased productivity. More people just means a reduced share per person of our GDP.
> .




It is good to see you agree with me, instead of with the Labor manifesto.

Common sense breaking through. yeh 
We may get you to vote Liberal yet.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> It is good to see you agree with me, instead of with the Labor manifesto.
> 
> Common sense breaking through. yeh
> We may get you to vote Liberal yet.




I will vote Liberal if I believe it's in the national interest.

I don't believe it's in the NI to pack in ever more people that we will find it hard to give jobs to.

That idea was a key failing of both the Howard and Rudd governments who both promoted high immigration.

Unfortunately, the issue is a political hot potato which no party wants to touch.


----------



## Tisme

I love the way many of you skirt the notion of deception, lying, criminality, etc. by our politicians, in favour of comparing the other team's lack of integrity to one's own. The lesser of two evils mantra doesn't excuse the fact that wrong is wrong no matter the degree of wrongness.

And accepting lying as a lay down misere for parliament is lowering the bar rather than elevating the character and honesty of it. Defending the Abbott cronies when they lie like Malcolm did so overtly the other night, damage control or no damage control, is tantamount to complicit approval of deception on the broader community....do you really want to hitch your pony to bare faced liars and trust them to feed and water it?


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> I love the way many of you skirt the notion of deception, lying, criminality, etc. by our politicians, in favour of comparing the other team's lack of integrity to one's own. The lesser of two evils mantra doesn't excuse the fact that wrong is wrong no matter the degree of wrongness.
> 
> And accepting lying as a lay down misere for parliament is lowering the bar rather than elevating the character and honesty of it. Defending the Abbott cronies when they lie like Malcolm did so overtly the other night, damage control or no damage control, is tantamount to complicit approval of deception on the broader community....do you really want to hitch your pony to bare faced liars and trust them to feed and water it?




That was a pretty pathetic attempt by Turnbull to explain away "no cuts". About as pathetic as Brandis trying to say there is no reversal of the burden of proof in anti terrorism legislation. 

Not only do they lie, they don't lie very well.


----------



## drsmith

Tisme said:


> The lesser of two evils mantra doesn't excuse the fact that wrong is wrong no matter the degree of wrongness.



What's your answer then on polling day ?

At the booth you have two choices. Vote for a party (or individual) whom you feel is best (or put another way, least worst) or vote informal.


----------



## Tisme

drsmith said:


> What's your answer then on polling day ?
> 
> At the booth you have two choices. Vote for a party (or individual) whom you feel is best (or put another way, least worst) or vote informal.




I think polling day is too late. It is true we put our welfare in the hands of the few, but that doesn't mean we then rely on the media to keep them on the path they were tasked to follow. We should be using unstacked media like forums to voice our concerns at the calibre and honesty of the elected.

It is really hard to stop blindly supporting a political organisation when it's in our collective DNA to do so. We know we are encoded to be tribal and have a sense of belonging, but how many tribal layers are enough and how many no no conditioning receptors have to be kept switched on? 

We continue to be in a meta self flagellation mode when it comes to politics, even by protest voting for startup parties, rather than actually force change on the prevailing parties to at least communicate the pros and cons of what they are doing without squinty eyes and lizard lips. 

We should be encouraging open forums. The ABC, which is under attack, itself was guilty of censorship when it setup the QANDA discussion board and then proceeded to limit freedom of speech, falsely implied it channelled into the TV program and limited the discussion to it's own topics.....one could only assume there was political interference happening and not of any particular branding.

Social media could be great if it wasn't for the shallow generation who dominate it with likes, disingenuous compliments and flakey commentary. Once again the beacon of fifth estate democracy, the ABC,  limits discussion via no conversations and restricting the topics..... it is merely a programme aid rather than democracy in action as it purports.

So my solution is to encourage people to step back and ponder why they vote, what their own wants and needs are, how the community benefits and do we want progress or stagnation? Does the comfortable pair of slippers we have been wearing exclude the newer improved versions and are our feet suffering?


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> I think polling day is too late. It is true we put our welfare in the hands of the few, but that doesn't mean we then rely on the media to keep them on the path they were tasked to follow. We should be using unstacked media like forums to voice our concerns at the calibre and honesty of the elected.
> 
> It is really hard to stop blindly supporting a political organisation when it's in our collective DNA to do so. We know we are encoded to be tribal and have a sense of belonging, but how many tribal layers are enough and how many no no conditioning receptors have to be kept switched on?
> 
> We continue to be in a meta self flagellation mode when it comes to politics, even by protest voting for startup parties, rather than actually force change on the prevailing parties to at least communicate the pros and cons of what they are doing without squinty eyes and lizard lips.
> 
> We should be encouraging open forums. The ABC, which is under attack, itself was guilty of censorship when it setup the QANDA discussion board and then proceeded to limit freedom of speech, falsely implied it channelled into the TV program and limited the discussion to it's own topics.....one could only assume there was political interference happening and not of any particular branding.
> 
> Social media could be great if it wasn't for the shallow generation who dominate it with likes, disingenuous compliments and flakey commentary. Once again the beacon of fifth estate democracy, the ABC,  limits discussion via no conversations and restricting the topics..... it is merely a programme aid rather than democracy in action as it purports.
> 
> So my solution is to encourage people to step back and ponder why they vote, what their own wants and needs are, how the community benefits and do we want progress or stagnation? Does the comfortable pair of slippers we have been wearing exclude the newer improved versions and are our feet suffering?




Well said old chap !

Tezzles would have been proud of you, as am I.



Q&A Facebook page is rubbish. Too many people saying little of substance. At least here we can discuss instead of just opinionate.


----------



## drsmith

Tisme said:


> So my solution is to encourage people to step back and ponder why they vote, what their own wants and needs are, how the community benefits and do we want progress or stagnation? Does the comfortable pair of slippers we have been wearing exclude the newer improved versions and are our feet suffering?



It's perhaps a little ambitious to think one might change the course of national politics from a general chat section of a stock forum. The political discussion is largely light entertainment and banter typically amongst the usual regulars which I imagine many passers by would find boring if for no other reason than a lesser interest than those regulars (including myself) who post. 

You would more likely have greater influence by joining a political party of your preference but again there, you have to make a choice or start your own with all the purity of an angel if you wish.


----------



## Tisme

drsmith said:


> It's perhaps a little ambitious to think one might change the course of national politics from a general chat section of a stock forum. The political discussion is largely light entertainment and banter typically amongst the usual regulars which I imagine many passers by would find boring if for no other reason than a lesser interest than those regulars (including myself) who post.
> 
> You would more likely have greater influence by joining a political party of your preference but again there, you have to make a choice or start your own with all the purity of an angel if you wish.




There are plenty of clichÃ©s to draw on in regarding to small things :- breakings faggots instead of sticks, acorns, butterfly effect, etc., but perhaps you are right, maybe your opinions are of no consequence in the scheme of things and merely froth and bubble as you imply?

I have no desire to start a political party. I have been actively courted by many political organs in my time and I have a strong public political DNA that courses through my veins...which is why I have the low regard for many who warm their bums on taxpayer seats.

Whether your "purity" comment is meant to be condescending or inflammatory or neither, it is still an aspiration riddled with self serving and egotistical negatives impinging on all sides, but an aspirational benchmark nonetheless. Designing a product with flaws and low quality might make a few quick bucks, but some of us like to know we are buying something approaching good.


----------



## SirRumpole

If Nick Xenophon started a party instead of remaining a one man band I think he would be very successful.

He would have to be prepared to  aim for government and have some clear policies and a vision for the future.

People are getting sick of "spoiler" parties and independents that you don't really know their thinking until they have to accept or reject other's policies.


----------



## drsmith

Tisme said:


> Whether your "purity" comment is meant to be condescending or inflammatory or neither, it is still an aspiration riddled with self serving and egotistical negatives impinging on all sides, but an aspirational benchmark nonetheless.



Without purity, how do you address your own argument ?



Tisme said:


> The lesser of two evils mantra doesn't excuse the fact that wrong is wrong no matter the degree of wrongness.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> If Nick Xenophon started a party instead of remaining a one man band I think he would be very successful.
> 
> He would have to be prepared to  aim for government and have some clear policies and a vision for the future.
> 
> People are getting sick of "spoiler" parties and independents that you don't really know their thinking until they have to accept or reject other's policies.




Like the Airline industry, eventually a startup will gain traction and have some life in it, until the internal factions of the ALP and the LNP starting acting on unity tickets within each organisation.


----------



## drsmith

Tisme said:


> I have no desire to start a political party. I have been actively courted by many political organs in my time and I have a strong public political DNA that courses through my veins...which is why I have the low regard for many who warm their bums on taxpayer seats.



I get the impression from the above that you've looked and haven't liked what you've seen. That doesn't surprise me.

Another option for getting your political views into the broader electorate might be letters to the editor of major newspapers. If it to the editor's liking, that may broaden your reach well beyond this forum.


----------



## SirRumpole

drsmith said:


> I get the impression from the above that you've looked and haven't liked what you've seen. That doesn't surprise me.
> 
> Another option for getting your political views into the broader electorate might be letters to the editor of major newspapers. If it to the editor's liking, that may broaden your reach well beyond this forum.




There are other options. The IPA seems to have a lot of influence over the LNP, whereas GetUp boasts 600,000 members, 10 times more than the Labor party and they claim to be progressive.

 Being an individual party member just doesn't seem to cut it any more, you need to be a lobby group (preferably with money) to get the ear of the people that matter in any party.


----------



## Julia

sydboy007 said:


> How about some even handedness.  People on this forum repeat ad nauseum a lot of untrue things about Labor, yet that seems to be acceptable.



sptrawler has asked you to expand on this which I'd echo.   Endless repetition even of something that might be more or less true seems a bit pointless to me.  
Syd, you do repeat the same things over and over again.  That's your right, I guess.  Just seems a shame that when you have such a good grasp on so much and your posts are well researched, people might be put off reading them because of the same mantras all the time.

sptrawler has also offered a comprehensive response to the rest of your points, much better than I could have come up with, so I'll just say I agree with what he says.



Tisme said:


> It is really hard to stop blindly supporting a political organisation when it's in our collective DNA to do so.



Is it though?   I don't think I can agree with that, tisme.  Most people are able to think for themselves and only a small proportion (some of whom are represented here) blindly support their 'side' thoughtlessly.



> We should be encouraging open forums. The ABC, which is under attack, itself was guilty of censorship when it setup the QANDA discussion board and then proceeded to limit freedom of speech, falsely implied it channelled into the TV program and limited the discussion to it's own topics.....one could only assume there was political interference happening and not of any particular branding.
> 
> Social media could be great if it wasn't for the shallow generation who dominate it with likes, disingenuous compliments and flakey commentary. Once again the beacon of fifth estate democracy, the ABC,  limits discussion via no conversations and restricting the topics..... it is merely a programme aid rather than democracy in action as it purports.



All true.

Somewhere else you seem dismissive of fora like this.   I don't see it as any different from any other environment of social discourse.  It's more convenient in that we can all contribute as we wish at times that suit us, rather than making tedious arrangements to meet somewhere to carry out the same discussion.

Mostly the discussion is civil and reasonably constructive.  I reckon I've learned more during my years here about many things than in various other environments combined.  A well expressed view that disagrees with our own can be a genuine impetus to rethink long held opinions and if nothing else, give us the opportunity to see if our own opinions really can hold up when exposed to criticism by others.

And our very own Logique did have a comment from this forum published in the mainstream media a few years ago.  Someone will remember what exactly it was and where it appeared.  Was it in "Strewth" in The Australian?



SirRumpole said:


> If Nick Xenophon started a party instead of remaining a one man band I think he would be very successful.



Agree.   He's sensible, experienced and thoughtful, able to disagree without being personally insulting or rude.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> There are other options. The IPA seems to have a lot of influence over the LNP, whereas GetUp boasts 600,000 members, 10 times more than the Labor party and they claim to be progressive.
> 
> Being an individual party member just doesn't seem to cut it any more, you need to be a lobby group (preferably with money) to get the ear of the people that matter in any party.




And who is a foundation member of "GET UP".......the good old Fabian Bill Shorten!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## IFocus

sptrawler said:


> We didn't sink into recession because we didn't have the exposure to the CDO's and associated toxic debt.
> We were actually on an upward investment cycle ,trying to keep up with China's demand for raw materials.





Nope, a little reminder during the GFC mining laid off 19% of the work force the up swing came much later drives me nuts when people say mining saved us.

If the retail sector did the same (Australia's biggest employment sector) then game over recession on steroids.......why didn't retail collapse oh thats right that wasteful spending we didn't need.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Can you be a bit more precise, what generally do you think has been untrue, I'm not asking for specifics.
> But genarally what slur is missdirected




That labor was a big spending Govt when they spent far less than Howard.

That Howard was some economic miracle worker when he set up the budget for the terminal structural imbalances we are now seeing.  Howard oversaw the largest narrowing of the taxation base with his halving of capital gains tax and tax free super for the over 60s.  You could also argue his permanent fix to fuel excise has also robbed the budget of billions.

A budget surplus seems to be some sort of magic card waved around that covers up all the bad policy Howard  introduced.  Whitlam, who also produced a budget surplus every year, is reviled as an economic vandal.

Since the halving of CGT the housing sector has made a loss in aggregate terms every year.  The cost to the budget is now substantial - up to $8B in a year.  Other taxes have to make up the shortfall ie income and corporate taxes.

The other perverse effect of the CGT changes was that it turned the Australian banks into giant building societies.  Howard was supposedly running a Govt for the businss sector, yet there was no loan growth for businesses because they were crowded out by the property investors.

The removal of RBLs on super with tax free super for the over 60s has turned the whole system into a massive tax minimisation scheme for the wealthy.  You’ll argue that it doesn’t benefit many people, and that’s true, but the billions in assets now tax free means there’s an ever growing drain on the budget.  



sptrawler said:


> Well the obvious answer to that is, there wasn't a budgetary problem left behind.
> You can talk it up as much as you like, but the fact is, they inherited a surplus.
> The mining boom was rising for a further 5 years, we had a massive shortfall of skilled labour.
> Gillard gave the o.k for Gina to bring in thousands of construction workers, for Roy Hill, on 457's.




Howard set the budget up for a structural deficit.  His spending was set at levels requiring the highest ToT this country has had in the last 60 years.  If he was such a  great economic manger, why did Govt expenditure rise every year.  Surely with a booming economy, and a conservative Govt that believes that Govt should only step in when absolutely necessary, why did spending increase every year.  Labor was able to reduce real expenditures in 2 of 3 years and that was during the beginning of the ToT decline.  Surely that shows a level of economic management that should be applauded.  It’s only been done 5 times in 40 years and the Liberals have never felt the need to do it.

Why did a great economic mnager, with inflation outside the RBA comfort zone of 2-3%, rising interest rates, continue to act against the RBA and increase spending and cut taxes?  Should the budget and the RBA work together to maintain stable inflation?  Howard oversaw the highest interest rates in over 20 years!




sptrawler said:


> Firstly the result of the last election, is a result of Australians sense of humour, a dry response to an unsavoury choice.
> You're probably too young to remember the work choices reality, you are probably remembering the hysteria surrounding it.
> In reality, it is probably in force now and has been since Labor were in office.
> The basis for Labors scare campaign was, unions couldn't be involved in workplace deals.
> Well most workplaces in W.A are on individual contracts anyway.
> Can you tell me if you are on an individual agreed contract, or a union agreed wage?
> It's just hype, to wow and stun, the gullible.





I'm 42.  I remember work choices very well.  Employers able to average hours over a full year and not pay over time if they made you work 50 hours some weeks.  The erosion of working conditions was real.  My friends in the retail service industries started to feel the brunt of it just before the 2007 election.  The fact that productivity declined during the work choices years is often glossed over as well.

By the sounds of it Abbott's scare campaign over the carbon tax was just hype as well then?  I don’t seem to remember the economy going backwards to it, or electricity bills doubling as he claimed in parliament.




sptrawler said:


> So when does criticise, extend to block legislation because you don't agree with a payrise. I'm confused.




So when the Abbott opposition blocked most of Labors revenue raising initiatives that was OK?  Surely after the opposition had their say they should have let all the legislation through unopposed with no modifications?

i do agree Lambie is begin petty and stupid.  Living in NSW I feel the Australian senate system is Grosely unfair.  NSW and Victoria shoudl have far greater say in the senate, but the whole senate setup was designed to allow the smaller states some power against NSW and VIC.  I'd be happy to see senate seats based on population.

What legislation is currently held up that would actually help reduce the deficit?

The only one I can think of is the fuel excise increase.  if the Govt was increasing it by a certain level tot he next election I'd fully support it.  I don't support the automatic indexation as I believe a Govt should make the case for their revenue and expenditure each budget.  Keeps them far more honest.

the GP tax doesn't
it's questionable if the changes to UNI funding and allowing UNIs to charge what they like will reduce the deficit by much.  It may cause it to increase if the education levels in the economy get reduced because of it.



sptrawler said:


> Howard inherited a deficit from Keating, the main reason Keating was thrown out was because workers were screwed over.
> Having said that, in retrospect it had to be done, because wages were high and unemployment were high.
> 
> Getting back to Howard, he ran a tight economy, one of my sons was enjoying life surfing, when Howard changed welfare, my son got fed up with jumping through hoops and got a job. Needless to say he hates Howard.lol
> 
> Howard/Costello reduced the deficit and then ran a surplus, rather than just keep running an ever increasing surplus, they reduced personal income tax rates.
> 
> The mining boom hadn't really got a head of steam by 2006, so Howard/ Costello started the future fund to mitigate the ballooning cost of commonwealth supperannuation obligations.
> 
> These costs are compounding beyond belief, to start the future fund has saved the taxpayer zillions.
> 
> So what is the Rudd, Gillard, Rudd legacy?
> 
> How about answering that, Syd, with some substance.
> That will take some time.




See above as to the structural deficit that Howard left.

Also around half of the Keating deficit was bequeathed to Keating by former Treasurer Howard.  Around  ¾ of the budget deficit was paid off via asset sales, so in real terms the finances of the Govt were not changed.  None of the deficit was paid off due to policies designed to reduce spending.

The Howard Govt presided over the best part of the mining boom in terms of taxation revenue.  The surge in commodities saw national incomes surge.  Labor got the slow taxation growth phase of the boom as the miners had by that time ramped up their investments which saw depreciation absorb large amounts of the tax payable. Labor also had to deal with the decline in Govt finance of nearly 25% due to the GFC.  A deficit of some sort was unavoidable, unless you believe Christopher Pyne with the Liberals able to produce a surplus when Govt revenues have plunged nearly $40B in a year??

Will you be castigating Joe Hockey in a month or so when he comes out to say Govt revenues are $10B lower than expected and the deficit has blown out.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> It is good to see you agree with me, instead of with the Labor manifesto.
> 
> Common sense breaking through. yeh
> We may get you to vote Liberal yet.




But the Liberals are a big Australia party as well.  Howard has admitted to it and unless you can point to something from Abbott saying he wants to see a reduction in immigration.

I'd love the population ponzi to be shut down over the next few years.  The whole focus on GDP growth when real per capita incomes are stagnating and falling is not a good way forward.

But to blame Labor as the sole big Australia party is factually wrong.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> But the Liberals are a big Australia party as well.  Howard has admitted to it and unless you can point to something from Abbott saying he wants to see a reduction in immigration.
> 
> I'd love the population ponzi to be shut down over the next few years.  The whole focus on GDP growth when real per capita incomes are stagnating and falling is not a good way forward.
> 
> But to blame Labor as the sole big Australia party is factually wrong.




Rudd stated, it was Labors belief that the population needed to be increased to 50million. He was gagged and backtracked soon after.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> That labor was a big spending Govt when they spent far less than Howard.
> 
> That Howard was some economic miracle worker when he set up the budget for the terminal structural imbalances we are now seeing.  Howard oversaw the largest narrowing of the taxation base with his halving of capital gains tax and tax free super for the over 60s.  You could also argue his permanent fix to fuel excise has also robbed the budget of billions.
> 
> 
> The removal of RBLs on super with tax free super for the over 60s has turned the whole system into a massive tax minimisation scheme for the wealthy.  You’ll argue that it doesn’t benefit many people, and that’s true, but the billions in assets now tax free means there’s an ever growing drain on the budget. .




The CGT was changed from an extremely cumbersome and time consuming behemoth, called cost base indexing, to the current system.
It was a nightmare for all concerned, to administer and oversee, if the new system required modifying Labor should have done it. 
From your statements, Labor presided over falling tax reciepts, it's there responsibility to sort it, if indeed it needed sorting.

The same applies to super, Howard came into office in 1996 and was chucked out 2007, the super system was introduced in 1992. 
Therefore Howard oversaw the very early days of the super system, and had to address the 'baby boomers' starting to retire.

The balances that people had in super was minimal, even now the majority have very low balances.

In March 2006, Costello allowed people to place a one of $1million deposit into their super, before July 2006.

This was to allow the first 'baby boomers' to top up their super, before retirement.

It made sense really, it would basically take them off the pension system.
Unfortunatelly for them the GFC cleaned a lot out. Therefore post GFC the cost of the super burden would have been relitively low. 

Then Labor took over the reins and responsibility, did they change the taxing on super, they were in charge when the post GFC recovery happened.
Therefore it stands to reason, they oversaw the super cost blow out and did nothing about it.

How come you lay the responsibility at Howards feet?


----------



## sptrawler

Syd I suppose in summary.

You blame CGT, superannuation and negative gearing as the main culprits for our fiscal situation.

Why didn't Labor address any of them, in two terms of office?


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> The CGT was changed from an extremely cumbersome and time consuming behemoth, called cost base indexing, to the current system.
> It was a nightmare for all concerned, to administer and oversee, if the new system required modifying Labor should have done it.
> From your statements, Labor presided over falling tax reciepts, it's there responsibility to sort it, if indeed it needed sorting.
> 
> The same applies to super, Howard came into office in 1996 and was chucked out 2007, the super system was introduced in 1992.
> Therefore Howard oversaw the very early days of the super system, and had to address the 'baby boomers' starting to retire.
> 
> The balances that people had in super was minimal, even now the majority have very low balances.
> 
> In March 2006, Costello allowed people to place a one of $1million deposit into their super, before July 2006.
> 
> This was to allow the first 'baby boomers' to top up their super, before retirement.
> 
> It made sense really, it would basically take them off the pension system.
> Unfortunatelly for them the GFC cleaned a lot out. Therefore post GFC the cost of the super burden would have been relitively low.
> 
> Then Labor took over the reins and responsibility, did they change the taxing on super, they were in charge when the post GFC recovery happened.
> Therefore it stands to reason, they oversaw the super cost blow out and did nothing about it.
> 
> How come you lay the responsibility at Howards feet?




So basically you're saying if Govt A introduces bad policy and Govt B is unable to remove it that Govt B is now fully responsible?

The capital gains calculations pre 2000 were not a night mare.  Accounting s/w pretty much did in automatically, and the ATO had easy to use tables to see what the cost base increase was.  Certanlyf or an investor used to doing their sums on potential returns between different investments it wasn't rocket science.

Look at how hard Abbot fought to stop the relatively small changes to car FBT.  Are you saying he would have not run a massive scare campaign if Labor had decided tobring in RBLs again and to stop promoting the conversion of income into capital gains by removing the halving of CGT?  Abbott couldn't even bring himself to support changes to super pensions affecting just 16000 people.  

The one off $1M into super in 2006 is of minimal concern.  You've avoided the whole issue of tax free super and the fact that for a small minority it is allowing them to minimise their tax on a massive scale.  When some SMSFs have over $100M in assets it's no longer about saving for retirement but shelter assets from taxation.  Shouldn't Howard wear teh blame for this since it was his changes that allowed it to happen?

The post GFC recovery has been extremely weak.  The current Govt is going to face an even worse situation, though in relative terms the downward trend will be similar to what Labor faced when compared to the Howard Govt.

In terms of the facts, the average annual growth in real government spending in five years from 2000-01 under Howard was 4.3%; for Labor in the five years since 2007-08, the average annual increase has been 3.4%, so if Howard was running a tight budget as you say, what would you describe Labor's efforts then?

In simple terms, in the five years from 2000-01, the Howard government increased real government spending by around 23%. In the five years from 2007-08, when Labor had controlled the budget purse strings, growth in real government spending was a tick over 17%, including the 12.7% increase in 2008-09 when the GFC was bearing down on the Australian economy, threatening a recession.  So once again how do say Labor were big spenders when Howard was outspending them by a significant margin?

See the below Govt and private debt graph.  That pretty much explains the Howard Govt magic.  The private sector was on a debt binge and the Govt was able to save.  Greece and Spain are examples where both rivate and Govt sectors are both deleveraging.  It doesn't work.

For the Howard years Fed Govt revenue averaged, over those 11 years, 23.3% of GDP, some 1.7 percentage points above the average of the Hawke/Keating years. In today’s dollars, that is about $25 billion a year or a total of about $275 billion over the course of the Howard government when compared to the tax take under Hawke/Keating.

Since Labor took office in November 2007, in the three completed years of budgeting, the tax to GDP ratio  averaged a comparatively tiny 20.7% – a stark number highlighting the revenue loss from the GFC and the income tax cuts that were delivered in its first three years of office.

If you think that 1% of GDP is small, it isn’t. Even 1% of GDP in todays dollar terms is a whopping $17 billion. The 1.9% of GDP lower tax take Labor experience in their first 3 years was over $96B.  Imagine the deficit levels if they'd spent like Howard.

Or think of it this way, if the Labor government were to raise the tax take to the peak level under the Howard government, it would have been the equivalent of $4,000 a year, every year, for each household.  Do you think Abbott would have supported tax increases like that to balance the budget?

Tax revenue fell by 2.9 percentage points relative to GDP for Labor when compared to Howard.  That's where pretty much where all the deficits come from.

The budget papers estimate that the Abbott government will drop spending to an average of 24.9% of GDP over the forward estimates period. That's a mere 0.2 percentage points below Labor's spending... clearly not enough to close a deficit of 1.4%. The lowest spending in the forward estimates is 24.7% of GDP in 2016-17; at 0.4 percentage points below Labor spending that's still not going to close the deficit. In fact if you compare the difference between Labor's biggest-spending year (2009-10 at 26.0% of GDP) and the Coalition's lowest-spending year (2016-17 at 24.7% of GDP) it's still not enough to close the gap.

Or to put it another way: if Labor cut spending by as much as Tony Abbott's government is cutting, we still would have been in deficit.

Certainly I believe Labor should have implemented far more of the Henry Tax review, but honestly how much of that do you believe Abbott would have supported?  Why hasn't Abbott used some in his first budget to tide him over to the tax white paper is released?  If the argument is they were good policy options then they're likely to still be good options now.  Abbot has wasted his first year in office and burnt massvie amounts of political capital over PPL and the GP tax.

It'll be very interesting to see what excuse are rolled out during the upcoming  MYEFO.  Certainly anything true for the current Govt in terms of revenue short falls was also true for Labor.

So how do you continue to call Labor profligate when the facts show they weren't.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> So basically you're saying if Govt A introduces bad policy and Govt B is unable to remove it that Govt B is now fully responsible .





Absolutely, if Abbott failed to remove the carbon tax or the MRRT, you would be screaming their failure from the roof tops.
You say Labor were bleeding tax income, therefore it is up to them to stem those bleeds.

The main tax bleeds, in your words, weren't even canvased for change, during Labors two terms.



sydboy007 said:


> The one off $1M into super in 2006 is of minimal concern.  You've avoided the whole issue of tax free super and the fact that for a small minority it is allowing them to minimise their tax on a massive scale.  When some SMSFs have over $100M in assets it's no longer about saving for retirement but shelter assets from taxation.  Shouldn't Howard wear teh blame for this since it was his changes that allowed it to happen?.




No Howard isn't responsible, because most of the money has been put in under Labors watch, why didn't they stop it. 
Howards major changes were introduced in 2006, he was chucked out in 2007. The crap you are talking about has manifested since then.



sydboy007 said:


> The post GFC recovery has been extremely weak.  The current Govt is going to face an even worse situation, though in relative terms the downward trend will be similar to what Labor faced when compared to the Howard Govt..




And they will be judged on how well they handle it, the same as Labor was.



sydboy007 said:


> In terms of the facts, the average annual growth in real government spending in five years from 2000-01 under Howard was 4.3%; for Labor in the five years since 2007-08, the average annual increase has been 3.4%, so if Howard was running a tight budget as you say, what would you describe Labor's efforts then?.




Woefull, Labor did nothing but promise more spending on non productive thought bubbles, while tax returns were plumetting. 




sydboy007 said:


> In simple terms, in the five years from 2000-01, the Howard government increased real government spending by around 23%. In the five years from 2007-08, when Labor had controlled the budget purse strings, growth in real government spending was a tick over 17%, including the 12.7% increase in 2008-09 when the GFC was bearing down on the Australian economy, threatening a recession.  So once again how do say Labor were big spenders when Howard was outspending them by a significant margin?.




They spent comensurate with their tax take, Labor didn't.



sydboy007 said:


> Since Labor took office in November 2007, in the three completed years of budgeting, the tax to GDP ratio  averaged a comparatively tiny 20.7% – a stark number highlighting the revenue loss from the GFC and the income tax cuts that were delivered in its first three years of office..




And what did they do to to fix the tax to GDP? 
Did they address the tax free super to over 60's, no.
Did they increase the CGT rate, no.
Did they address negative gearing, no.
What did they do in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, very little, just increased spending.



sydboy007 said:


> Or think of it this way, if the Labor government were to raise the tax take to the peak level under the Howard government, it would have been the equivalent of $4,000 a year, every year, for each household.  Do you think Abbott would have supported tax increases like that to balance the budget?.




Who knows, they had the Henry report and acted on hardly any of it.
The only bits they cherry picked were sections which didn't effect their re election chances.




sydboy007 said:


> Tax revenue fell by 2.9 percentage points relative to GDP for Labor when compared to Howard.  That's where pretty much where all the deficits come from..




Well why didn't they address the fundamental structural problems, I'll tell you why, because they were more worried about hanging on to their pensions, than the Australian economy.



sydboy007 said:


> Certainly I believe Labor should have implemented far more of the Henry Tax review, but honestly how much of that do you believe Abbott would have supported?  Why hasn't Abbott used some in his first budget to tide him over to the tax white paper is released?  If the argument is they were good policy options then they're likely to still be good options now.  Abbot has wasted his first year in office and burnt massvie amounts of political capital over PPL and the GP tax..




There you go blaming Abbott for Labor doing sod all.
How much do I believe Abbott would have supported? who knows Labor never floated any of the required tax measures you talk about.
With the Greens and the three amigos, Labor had the numbers in both houses. Why didn't they try and get tax reform to super, CGT and negative gearing through?
Better still, why didn't they ever sugest it.?



sydboy007 said:


> It'll be very interesting to see what excuse are rolled out during the upcoming  MYEFO.  Certainly anything true for the current Govt in terms of revenue short falls was also true for Labor.
> 
> So how do you continue to call Labor profligate when the facts show they weren't.




No one said they spent too much, just spent unwisely, without first checking how much money is coming in. 
They were cut some slack on the first term, but continued on their merry way through the second term.


----------



## Julia

sptrawler said:


> They spent comensurate with their tax take, Labor didn't.
> 
> No one said they spent too much, just spent unwisely, without first checking how much money is coming in.
> They were cut some slack on the first term, but continued on their merry way through the second term.




Two very fundamental and important points.


----------



## drsmith

Labor's long term commitments into health, education and the NDIS were too much and without the revenue to pay for it although they did get Treasury to model a rise in the GST.


----------



## sptrawler

drsmith said:


> Labor's long term commitments into health, education and the NDIS were too much and without the revenue to pay for it although they did get Treasury to model a rise in the GST.




Yes, but they kept that very quiet.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Absolutely, if Abbott failed to remove the carbon tax or the MRRT, you would be screaming their failure from the roof tops.
> You say Labor were bleeding tax income, therefore it is up to them to stem those bleeds.
> 
> The main tax bleeds, in your words, weren't even canvased for change, during Labors two terms.




I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree then



Julia said:


> Two very fundamental and important points.




What will you're attitude be when the MYEFO shows a $10B+ increase in the deficit?


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree then
> 
> 
> 
> What will you're attitude be when the MYEFO shows a $10B+ increase in the deficit?




I don't see it as dissagrement, we both agree it needs fixing. Where we dissagree is, you are only holding one side of politics to account to fix it.

Whether you like or disslike this Government, at least they are prepared to enact unpopular policy, in an attempt to repair the situation.
At least they have courage of conviction, to do the unpopular thing.

The only unpopular thing Labor did, was introduce the carbon tax, and that was done to placate Bob Brown and the Greens.


----------



## Calliope

After Obama's insolence to Abbott whilst his guest in Australia, the first thing Abbott should do, is get even with him. The best way to do this, if he had the balls, would be to pull our forces out of the Middle East.



> Mr Obama has previously had a warm personal relationship with Mr Abbott. The President has been a frequent telephone caller to Mr Abbott, almost always with a request for Australian support for a US policy or initiative, from troops for the Middle East, US trade initiatives in Asia, or important regional diplomatic matters, especially those involving security.* On every occasion the US President has asked for help, the Australian Prime Minister has provided it*



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...te-change-speech/story-fnpebfcn-1227131290194


----------



## SirRumpole

Calliope said:


> After Obama's insolence to Abbott whilst his guest in Australia, the first thing Abbott should do, is get even with him. The best way to do this, if he had the balls, would be to pull our forces out of the Middle East.
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...te-change-speech/story-fnpebfcn-1227131290194
> 
> 
> View attachment 60399




I don't really think that sort of tripe adds much to the quality of the debate.

However I think Obama's sudden change of mind on climate change is hypocritical to say the least, not that I'm sorry that he's finally come around.

Obama basically gave Rudd the brushoff in Copenhagen when Rudd said urgent action needed to be taken on climate change, and now Obama is trying to present himself as the great world saviour on this issue. 

The word "grandstanding" comes to mind.


----------



## Calliope

SirRumpole said:


> I don't really think that sort of tripe adds much to the quality of the debate.




Exactly. However Obama utters his tripe so eloquently to gullible audiences


----------



## Logique

Peter Hartcher at the SMH is delusional if he thinks Tanya Plibersek deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Julie Bishop!

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/bisho...e-the-tallest-structures-20141121-11rlar.html
Bishop and Plibersek: mighty duo scale the tallest structures - November 22, 2014

Bishop is the genuine article. Plibersek is a public sector operator, and views the world through the same goggles as former PM Gillard.  

I doubt Plibersek will mind hitching a ride on the Bishop bandwagon though!


----------



## noco

Calliope said:


> Exactly. However Obama utters his tripe so eloquently to gullible audiences




It is a well fact Obama is an out and out left wing socialist hence his recent provocation of Abbott......it all adds up.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> It is a well fact Obama is an out and out left wing socialist hence his recent provocation of Abbott......it all adds up.




Wouldn't surprise me if he was a founding member of the Fabian Society too


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Wouldn't surprise me if he was a founding member of the Fabian Society too




Shhhhhhhh, don't mention that The Fabian Society....it has become a dirty word with the left wing socialists, particularly in the Green/Labor left wing socialist party here in Australia.....I listened to AM agenda today and Matt Thistlewait thinks Obama is a good fellow.


----------



## ghotib

noco said:


> It is a well fact Obama is an out and out left wing socialist hence his recent provocation of Abbott......it all adds up.



A well fact? Are you sure it's not an ill fact? 

Or seeing as it's all wet, maybe it's a waterfall fact? 

No. I'd say it's probably a bore fact.

And as it's not a fact at all, it's just a bore.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> It is a well fact Obama is an out and out left wing socialist hence his recent provocation of Abbott......it all adds up.




Would a socialist president have OK'd putting a bullet in Osama's head and dumping him at sea and deported more illegal immigrants than Bush?

I suppose you'd prob call his rolling out of more health care to the poor as socialism, even though it's been shown to have caused health care costs to fall.


----------



## Julia

Calliope said:


> After Obama's insolence to Abbott whilst his guest in Australia, the first thing Abbott should do, is get even with him. The best way to do this, if he had the balls, would be to pull our forces out of the Middle East.



Any such tit for tat behaviour would just be to bring Australia down to Obama's level and wouldn't be to our credit.
Obama has embarrassed himself with his rejection of the usual diplomatic protocols when a guest in another country, particularly egregious in view of Australia's willingness to support America in war.

Apparently even the American ambassador warned Obama against such a message in his speech, and a copy of the speech was not made available to the host country prior to its being delivered which is customary.

Better to leave it to the competent Julie Bishop who seems to have it in hand:


> The Australian this week revealed the Queensland government, as host of last weekend’s G20 summit in Brisbane, was considering a formal complaint to Washington over what it saw as an insulting and provocative speech by the US President that was based on “misinformation” about management of the Great Barrier Reef.
> 
> It is understood that US offic*ials contacted the Queensland government after the revelation in The Australian.
> 
> 
> The Foreign Minister, in New York to chair UN Security Council terrorism talks, this morning said she was “surprised” by Mr Obama’s remarks and had since sent a “detailed briefing” to the Oval Office on the issue.
> 
> Ms Bishop said state and federal agencies had banned resource exploration and capital dredge dumping near the Great Barrier Reef, and were contributing $180 million annually to manage the health of the reef.
> 
> “I wanted to ensure the White House was well aware of the significant steps that the Australian government and the Queensland government were taking to ensure that the Great Barrier Reef is not threatened by climate change, by nutrient run off from agriculture, by mining or drilling,” she told Sky News.
> 
> Ms Bishop said she personally made clear Australia’s position on the reef to the US Secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewell, only days before the Brisbane speech.
> 
> Mr Obama, speaking at the University of Queensland on Saturday, said climate change “here in Australia” means “longer droughts, more wildfires” and “the incredible natural glory of the Great Barrier Reef is threatened”.




The irony in the situation is that Mr Putin, who was treated with some disdain during his visit, has subsequently remarked that he found the atmosphere at the G20 constructive and hospitable (or words to that effect).

And just btw, didn't Kevin Rudd engage in a very similar faux pas when he went to China soon after being elected when he lectured them about human rights?
That was just as much in poor taste imo.

Obama must be feeling very irrelevant when he has to engage in this sort of stuff, "grandstanding" as Rumpole so accurately portrays it.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> I don't see it as dissagrement, we both agree it needs fixing. Where we dissagree is, you are only holding one side of politics to account to fix it.
> 
> Whether you like or disslike this Government, at least they are prepared to enact unpopular policy, in an attempt to repair the situation.
> At least they have courage of conviction, to do the unpopular thing.
> 
> The only unpopular thing Labor did, was introduce the carbon tax, and that was done to placate Bob Brown and the Greens.




Abbott made no changes to the 13/14 FY budget - by your logic he owns that increase in the deficit as he had nearly 9 months to do something.

He's not introduced anything that would tackle the massive deficit heading in for the current FY budget.  The GP co payment doesn't help reduce the deficit.  The uni funding changes don't help either.  Reducing funding to the ATO, ASIC and ABS will be to the long term detriment of the Govt.  The ABS is no longer able to provide reliable employment stats.  CPI figures will likely be less reliable as well.  The Government seems to be half blinding itself during a period where they need the most accurate and timely information they can get to help determine what action needs to be taken.  The ATO has less staff for compliance, so revenue leakage is likely to increase.

What unpopular policy has the Govt actually enacted that will help repair the budget shortfall?  The fuel excise increase is small change.  Doesn't even make up for the revenue lost to removing the carbon tax.

The current Govt has reduced revenue more than it's increased taxation or cut spending.  How is that helping to repair the budget?  Do you agree with making under 30s who lose their jobs through no fault fo their own havign to wait 6 months to get welfare support?  Even if that measure was enacted, it once again doesn't make up for the loss of even the MRRT revenue.

I can sort of understand your argument to wait for the tax white paper, but surely there was some decent spending cuts or tax increases that could have been introduced over the last 14 months?  Hockey has said there wont be any changes to the budget settings when the MYEFO is released, so that means the current growth in the deficit will remain uncehcked till at least the next budget.  Surely if the $10B increase in the deficit that is being forecast turns out to be correct then the Govt should take action before the next budget?  What's a valid reason to do nothing for 6 months?

So Abbott has already racked up $48.5B in debt, and it's now looking like the current budget deficit will be at least $40B, possibly more if the fall in I/O, Coal and LNG prices continues.  We're prob only halfway through the fall in the ToT when compared to previous rise and falls, which is only down 25% from the 2011 peak.  The revenue bleed is unlikely to stop any time soon.  It'll be interesting to see fi the Govt is willign to adjut it's revenue forecasts for the next 3 years.

So exactly when can we expect Abbott and Hockey to start cut spending / raising revenue to balance the books?  The urgency they had on this issue in opposition seems to be lacking now they're in Govt.


----------



## noco

ghotib said:


> A well fact? Are you sure it's not an ill fact?
> 
> Or seeing as it's all wet, maybe it's a waterfall fact?
> 
> No. I'd say it's probably a bore fact.
> 
> And as it's not a fact at all, it's just a bore.




Sorry, I should have said , "it is a  well known fact".
I have cataracts on my eyes and I don't see the screen too well these days.....hoping the problem will be fixed very soon.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Would a socialist president have OK'd putting a bullet in Osama's head and dumping him at sea and deported more illegal immigrants than Bush?
> 
> I suppose you'd prob call his rolling out of more health care to the poor as socialism, even though it's been shown to have caused health care costs to fall.




Hmmmm.....I thought there was a vast difference between a socialist and a Muslim...a socialist has a communist trait, where as a Muslim follows Islam.....or can you be both?..........you could have fooled me.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Hmmmm.....I thought there was a vast difference between a socialist and a Muslim...a socialist has a communist trait, where as a Muslim follows Islam.....or can you be both?..........you could have fooled me.




Are you calling Obama a Muslim ?


----------



## Calliope

Julia said:


> Any such tit for tat behaviour would just be to bring Australia down to Obama's level and wouldn't be to our credit.




In the link I provided;



> On every occasion the US President has asked for help, the Australian Prime Minister has provided it




I think some action is needed to show Obama after his gross bad manners, that  we cannot be taken for granted. Julie bishop should tell the Americans that they can no longer assume we are at their beck and call like lapdogs.

Tanya Plibersek on the other hand loved Obama'a speech, and;



> Opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman Tanya Plibersek yesterday accused Ms Bishop of “berating” the President and said Ms Bishop had created an “absurd” situation.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Abbott made no changes to the 13/14 FY budget - by your logic he owns that increase in the deficit as he had nearly 9 months to do something.
> 
> He's not introduced anything that would tackle the massive deficit heading in for the current FY budget.  The GP co payment doesn't help reduce the deficit.  The uni funding changes don't help either.  Reducing funding to the ATO, ASIC and ABS will be to the long term detriment of the Govt.  The ABS is no longer able to provide reliable employment stats.  CPI figures will likely be less reliable as well.  The Government seems to be half blinding itself during a period where they need the most accurate and timely information they can get to help determine what action needs to be taken.  The ATO has less staff for compliance, so revenue leakage is likely to increase.
> 
> What unpopular policy has the Govt actually enacted that will help repair the budget shortfall?  The fuel excise increase is small change.  Doesn't even make up for the revenue lost to removing the carbon tax.
> 
> The current Govt has reduced revenue more than it's increased taxation or cut spending.  How is that helping to repair the budget?  Do you agree with making under 30s who lose their jobs through no fault fo their own havign to wait 6 months to get welfare support?  Even if that measure was enacted, it once again doesn't make up for the loss of even the MRRT revenue.
> 
> I can sort of understand your argument to wait for the tax white paper, but surely there was some decent spending cuts or tax increases that could have been introduced over the last 14 months?  Hockey has said there wont be any changes to the budget settings when the MYEFO is released, so that means the current growth in the deficit will remain uncehcked till at least the next budget.  Surely if the $10B increase in the deficit that is being forecast turns out to be correct then the Govt should take action before the next budget?  What's a valid reason to do nothing for 6 months?
> 
> So Abbott has already racked up $48.5B in debt, and it's now looking like the current budget deficit will be at least $40B, possibly more if the fall in I/O, Coal and LNG prices continues.  We're prob only halfway through the fall in the ToT when compared to previous rise and falls, which is only down 25% from the 2011 peak.  The revenue bleed is unlikely to stop any time soon.  It'll be interesting to see fi the Govt is willign to adjut it's revenue forecasts for the next 3 years.
> 
> So exactly when can we expect Abbott and Hockey to start cut spending / raising revenue to balance the books?  The urgency they had on this issue in opposition seems to be lacking now they're in Govt.




OMG Syd, when are you going to stop repeating yourself about what Abbott is not doing enough to cut expenditure.

Are you so brainwashed that you cannot see what Abbott is trying to do is being hampered by a bloody minded senseless senate....The Green/Labor socialist left wing Party are offering no suggestions on how to fix the mess left by Labor.

Are you so naive or ignorant that you don't understand what is happening in Canberra.......The Fabians do not want to see the Abbott Government succeed.......they have not one bit of interest in the welfare of this nation except, borrow more, tax more and go into more debt and deficit.

Please don't come back with that stupid argument that Abbott knocked everything Rudd/Gillard/Rudd tried to push through the senate......we all know she had a majority in the senate to rubber stamp all legislation sent there from the lower house.

So please come back to Earth and get your comrades to show some respect and good will for Australia.


----------



## noco

Calliope said:


> In the link I provided;
> 
> 
> 
> I think some action is needed to show Obama after his gross bad manners, that  we cannot be taken for granted. Julie bishop should tell the Americans that they can no longer assume we are at their beck and call like lapdogs.
> 
> Tanya Plibersek on the other hand loved Obama'a speech, and;




Yes and Gillard and Obama were often seen in familiar uncompromising positions from time to time......They both followed the same ideology.


----------



## sydboy007

Calliope said:


> In the link I provided;
> 
> 
> 
> I think some action is needed to show Obama after his gross bad manners, that  we cannot be taken for granted. Julie bishop should tell the Americans that they can no longer assume we are at their beck and call like lapdogs.
> 
> Tanya Plibersek on the other hand loved Obama'a speech, and;




Seems it's mainly Liberal Govts at the beck and call of the US in recent times.

It was Howard that got us mired in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Abbott has plenty of bodies over in Iraq now too.


----------



## Calliope

sydboy007 said:


> Seems it's mainly Liberal Govts at the beck and call of the US in recent times.
> 
> It was Howard that got us mired in Afghanistan and Iraq.
> 
> Abbott has plenty of bodies over in Iraq now too.




Quite true, and we should stop cosying up to American Presidents...starting with this ignorant clown;


----------



## SirRumpole

Calliope said:


> Quite true, and we should stop cosying up to American Presidents...starting with this ignorant clown;




I wonder why what Obama does means so much to you that you stoop to fatuous and facile caricatures such as this ?

Do you actually live in the US, or are you a paid up non resident member of the Tea Party ?

So Obama wants his people to have reasonable health care, so what ? We have had it for decades. Australia hasn't fallen to pieces. It's something we get in return for the taxes we pay and Malcolm Fraser for one paid an electoral price for trying to get rid of Medibank, which shows the support that it has in the electorate.

If Obama wants a similar coverage for Americans then he should be allowed to proceed. It was his stated policy before he became President, and the American people have voted for it, twice.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Seems it's mainly Liberal Govts at the beck and call of the US in recent times.
> 
> It was Howard that got us mired in Afghanistan and Iraq.
> 
> Abbott has plenty of bodies over in Iraq now too.




So why didn't the Labor Party pull the troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq 2007/2013?

Plenty of troops lost under the Labor watch.


----------



## Calliope

> I wonder why what Obama does means so much to you that you stoop to fatuous and facile caricatures such as this ?




I don't give a stuff what Obama does as long as he keeps his nose out of *our* business.


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> Labor's long term commitments into health, education and the NDIS were too much and without the revenue to pay for it although they did get Treasury to model a rise in the GST.




All fully supported by Abbott


----------



## noco

drsmith said:


> Labor's long term commitments into health, education and the NDIS were too much and without the revenue to pay for it although they did get Treasury to model a rise in the GST.




No Doc, Labor were going to finance all those promises with the money they did not get from the mining tax......they committed the money before they received it and you know the result from Labor's botched scheme.

*ZILCH*


----------



## IFocus

I notice some talk on how good Bishop is, lately Bishop has been working over time in raising her political profile mouthing the party line nothing more. Bishop is no intellectual giant I am not aware of her actually building, driving  policy of any worth maybe others can correct me.


Tony Abbott keeps digging himself in deeper, and it makes no sense



> It’s time for Tony – and Julie and Malcolm – to stop digging. The government is in a couple of truly untenable positions. It keeps digging itself in further.
> 
> Take climate change. Tony Abbott and senior ministers were deeply angry at Barack Obama’s show-stealing climate change speech during the G20. *We know because they have been briefing News Ltd columnists to that effect all week – including graphic accounts of how they rang up afterwards and yelled at state department officials for failing to give a “heads up” that the president was going to “dump on” the PM.*
> 
> *Putting aside for one second the extraordinary position we are in when a speech that calls for an ambitious global climate deal and points out Australia has a lot to lose from a warming climate is seen as “dumping” on our prime minister, let’s think about how government ministers could have responded.
> *
> They could have tried to defuse the argument – responding to Obama’s call by pointing out that Australia has promised a new longer-term emissions reduction target and will reveal it soon. In fact, as soon as they said that, *they also chose to escalate the row with some embarrassingly stupid arguments*.





http://www.theguardian.com/australi...gging-himself-in-deeper-and-it-makes-no-sense


----------



## IFocus

noco said:


> No Doc, Labor were going to finance all those promises with the money they did not get from the mining tax......they committed the money before they received it and you know the result from Labor's botched scheme.
> 
> *ZILCH*




Yawn............Abbott supported and promised the same while claiming no tax increases were needed to fund nor were cuts in spending required he was going to fund it all by cutting Labors excessive spending........... 

*14 months of Abbott, debt is still rising and so is Government spending *


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> Yawn............Abbott supported and promised the same while claiming no tax increases were needed to fund nor were cuts in spending required he was going to fund it all by cutting Labors excessive spending...........
> 
> *14 months of Abbott, debt is still rising and so is Government spending *




And whose fault is that...you whistle and I will point.

You just don't get it do you....your repetitive rhetoric is becoming so boring.


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> I notice some talk on how good Bishop is, lately Bishop has been working over time in raising her political profile mouthing the party line nothing more. Bishop is no intellectual giant I am not aware of her actually building, driving  policy of any worth maybe others can correct me.
> 
> 
> Tony Abbott keeps digging himself in deeper, and it makes no sense
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/australi...gging-himself-in-deeper-and-it-makes-no-sense




Wishful thinking by you and the Commo Guardian and the good old Fabian  Lenore Taylor.


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> All fully supported by Abbott



You must like being constantly plucked.

Labor's modelling on the GST was done in secret. This government is at least more out in the open. Labor's modelling only came out because they thought they'd bang this government over the head with it. How daft was that.

This government has also pulled unfunded long term Labor spending from the health and education budgets. Have you forgotten about the states screaming over that at budget time ?

This government with the GST is effectively saying to the states that if they want Labor's long term funding increases to health and education, they need a revenue source. That's at least more honest and fiscally responsible than when Labor promised the money without revealing how they were going to fund it.


----------



## noco

drsmith said:


> You must like being constantly plucked.
> 
> Labor's modelling on the GST was done in secret. This government is at least more out in the open. Labor's modelling only came out because they thought they'd bang this government over the head with it. How daft was that.
> 
> This government has also pulled unfunded long term Labor spending from the health and education budgets. Have you forgotten about the states screaming over that at budget time ?
> 
> This government with the GST is effectively saying to the states that if they want Labor's long term funding increases to health and education, they need a revenue source. That's at least more honest and fiscally responsible than when Labor promised the money without revealing how they were going to fund it.




They promised the money they thought they were going to get from their hare brain schemes....they bought an old cow that could deliver the milk and a duck that could not lay the golden eggs.


----------



## IFocus

You guys can spin the current situation any way you like but I think Abbotts screwed seriously as all the chooks come home to rest.

He is currently behind a very second rate opposition leader (Shorten) who bleats sound awful as he waves through some shocking pieces of legislation (jailing jurnos for tens years etc) if he cannot get ahead of Shorten then clearly there is a problem.

Abbott has constantly looked woeful and now with the ABC cuts a lie on a lie no wonder Bishop is out there looking like a leader with the usual press coverage.


Note the trends are all heading the wrong way.


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> You guys can spin the current situation any way you like but I think Abbotts screwed seriously as all the chooks come home to rest.
> 
> He is currently behind a very second rate opposition leader (Shorten) who bleats sound awful as he waves through some shocking pieces of legislation (jailing jurnos for tens years etc) if he cannot get ahead of Shorten then clearly there is a problem.
> 
> Abbott has constantly looked woeful and now with the ABC cuts a lie on a lie no wonder Bishop is out there looking like a leader with the usual press coverage.
> 
> 
> Note the trends are all heading the wrong way.




Yes, it is unbelievable.......the Green/Labor left wing socialists wreck the economy of this country, they sabotage the recovery and then become good guys......There are so many naive people being polled.

It looks like they really want to go back to the bad old days of the Rudd/Gillrad/Rudd era....OK, if that is what they want, so be it.


----------



## sptrawler

noco said:


> Yes, it is unbelievable.......the Green/Labor left wing socialists wreck the economy of this country, they sabotage the recovery and then become good guys......There are so many naive people being polled.
> 
> It looks like they really want to go back to the bad old days of the Rudd/Gillrad/Rudd era....OK, if that is what they want, so be it.




I certainly wouldn't be backing an outcome this far out, noco.

Channel 10, the SMH, the Age and the ABC, have more problems than Abbott.

They may be pro Labor, but if their following is anything to go by, Abbott hasn't got a worry.


----------



## So_Cynical

A recession in 2015 will not be good for the Government...some recession talk now emerging.

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/572147/20141110/australia-recession-morgan-stanley.htm#.VHHyz9LQq-0

https://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/11/21/australian-news/art-good-recession


----------



## noco

So_Cynical said:


> A recession in 2015 will not be good for the Government...some recession talk now emerging.
> 
> http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/572147/20141110/australia-recession-morgan-stanley.htm#.VHHyz9LQq-0
> 
> https://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/11/21/australian-news/art-good-recession




Maybe it the recession we had to have ( ah la Paul Keating).

And we have no money in the piggy bank to cover it thanks to our Fabian friends.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Maybe it the recession we had to have ( ah la Paul Keating).
> 
> And we have no money in the piggy bank to cover it thanks to our Fabian friends.




The recession to come (if in fact it is not already here) is from the world ecoonomic state AS IT WAS IN THE RECESSION WE HAD TO HAVE. 

Unless of course we pay our workforce a coupla dollars an hour.  But then there would be bugger all tax and the AFL would close down.   We are part of the world stage and all the politica jawboning in the world on who may be right or wrong dose not add up to a fig.


----------



## noco

Maybe, Scott Morrison is the MP we need behind the steering wheel......He is a champion of success and must have more responsibility placed upon his shoulders.
Maybe a New Year  reshuffle is badly needed in the Abbott Government.  

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...he-purse-strings/story-fnihsr9v-1227132424684


----------



## IFocus

The Coalition know how to handle our finances far better than anyone else 

Then this from the Liberal Party Daily

This is the bit like selling Teltra and claiming economic genus



> Based on the float price, Medibank will be the 51st largest listed company, which means index funds, which didn’t participate in the float, will need to buy about $500m worth of shares on-market. They might even end up in a nice vicious cycle: driving the price higher and making it a larger proportion of the index so they have to buy even more.
> 
> In fact it’s a wonder the Prime Minister didn’t take over the press conference yesterday and have a much-needed bask.
> 
> *Except that someone might have pointed out (but didn’t) that taxpayers are forgoing a dividend of $231m that grows each year, and could have borrowed that $5.7 billion for $185.4m in interest, fixed for 10 years.*
> 
> But that would be debt, wouldn’t it, and we can’t have that.







> Smiles all around. Except that with the bond rate at 3.2 per cent taxpayers would be better off keeping Medibank and borrowing the money for infrastructure rather than selling a growth asset.







> Theoretically that’s true, except that in reality over the past 10 years, in government ownership, the company’s profit has grown from $10.4m to $232m. That’s a compound annual growth rate of 36 per cent, and a real credit to George Savvides, who has been chief executive for 12 years.
> 
> It hasn’t been slowing down either: last year’s profit growth was 84 per cent.
> 
> Can he achieve better than 36 per cent profit growth with private owners and a bigger salary and bonus incentive?
> 
> Maybe, but I doubt it. He certainly has ideas for reducing costs and claims that political owners would find uncomfortable.





http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ners-many-losers/story-fnp85lcq-1227132605315


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> The Coalition know how to handle our finances far better than anyone else
> 
> Then this from the Liberal Party Daily
> 
> This is the bit like selling Teltra and claiming economic genus
> 
> ]




That's all fine untill your moronic Labor Party get in, then get rid of private health  tax rebate. You know, the one they tried to get rid of for the whole time they were in office.

If they get back in and get rid of the rebate, it will have been a stroke of genious, the mug punters caught again. As they were with Telstra.

They, like some others, don't think it through.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Thay's all fine untill your moronic Labor Party get in, then get rid of tax private health rebate. That they tried to get rid of for the whole time they were in Government.
> 
> They, like some others, don't think it through.




I've yet to see any evidence that the private health care rebate actually reduces costs in the public system.

A guy at a previous employer fell badly out in a small country town and went to the local hospital.  The nurse asked him if he had private health insurance, but then said "Before you answer that let me advise you that if you say yes we will bill you for everything and you will likely have some form of excess to pay.  If you say no you will get the same treatment and there will be no excess.  So, do you have private health insurance?"  Anyone going to a public hospital due to some form of emergency would be silly to admit to having private health care, because they will likely end up with a lot of out of pocket costs.

To give you another example, the private sector use DES stents at twice the rate of standard stents when compared to the public system (at least in Victoria though it seems to be a general practice across Australia).  DES stents are significantly more expensive than standard stents IIRC 2-3 times the cost.  Studies have shown no statistically significant benefits to this extra cost.  In fact, the public patients had a slightly lower mortality rate after 12 months in a study done in Victoria.

I'd argue winding back some of the funds going into the private health care rebate would be better off going into improving the public system.  The current cost is $3B and it has been the fastest growing cost of the health care budget for the federal Govt.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> I've yet to see any evidence that the private health care rebate actually reduces costs in the public system.
> 
> A guy at a previous employer fell badly out in a small country town and went to the local hospital.  The nurse asked him if he had private health insurance, but then said "Before you answer that let me advise you that if you say yes we will bill you for everything and you will likely have some form of excess to pay.  If you say no you will get the same treatment and there will be no excess.  So, do you have private health insurance?"  Anyone going to a public hospital due to some form of emergency would be silly to admit to having private health care, because they will likely end up with a lot of out of pocket costs.
> 
> To give you another example, the private sector use DES stents at twice the rate of standard stents when compared to the public system (at least in Victoria though it seems to be a general practice across Australia).  DES stents are significantly more expensive than standard stents IIRC 2-3 times the cost.  Studies have shown no statistically significant benefits to this extra cost.  In fact, the public patients had a slightly lower mortality rate after 12 months in a study done in Victoria.
> 
> I'd argue winding back some of the funds going into the private health care rebate would be better off going into improving the public system.  The current cost is $3B and it has been the fastest growing cost of the health care budget for the federal Govt.




Firstly, whats that story got to do with, the point I made regarding Medibanks fiscal performance?

Secondly, if most jump out of private into public, it will be like the U.S where you can't get into a  public hospital. Then if you just have to go to a private, it cost an arm and leg, that you have to pay up front.

What you are describing, is very much in line with the abuse, the doctor co payment is trying to adress.
See your hospital example, really isn't any better than scamming financial planners. You are scamming the taxpayer.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Firstly, whats that story got to do with, the point I made regarding Medibanks fiscal performance?
> 
> Secondly, if most jump out of private into public, it will be like the U.S where you can't get into a  public hospital. Then if you just have to go to a private, it cost an arm and leg, that you have to pay up front.
> 
> What you are describing, is very much in line with the abuse, the doctor co payment is trying to adress.
> See your hospital example, really isn't any better than scamming financial planners. You are scamming the taxpayer.




Don't grasp your point.

Why is it efficient to spent public money to subsidise some patients to go into the private system and get higher priced health care that has no mortality benefits?  Same result at a higher cost.  How does that benefit the Australian public?

If the same level of extra $$$ into the public system could treat more patients than the same level of funding in the private sector, then isn't that the best way forward?  It gets around the increase in patient numbers because you can afford to treat more people.

As for medibank's fiscal performance, what will the Govt invest the sale proceeds in?  Will it generate a higher return than what they were receiving in dividends each year?


----------



## Tisme

I want to know why, if the reduction in debt is so compelling and urgent, why the govt feels it is necessary to sell a highly profitable business to finance new "infrastructure"?

It's not like the LNP have infrastructure in their DNA, like the ALP does, unless it is John Howard pork barrelling and racking up huge future debts before his last tilt at the polls. At least the NBN will be a massive asset in the future, even if it is going to be a kiddie's version (even dark fibre leases might not be viable on our system). 

I would really like to know what it is that drives the LNP men in power the need to sell off the farm? Is it lack of vision, hate for anything Labor initiated, wrecking for the sake of wrecking, power for the sake of power, ...whatever it is it doesn't seem to be sound economics for a pissant country with a pissant population that wants everything the majors have IMO.


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:
			
		

> I would really like to know what it is that drives the LNP men in power the need to sell off the farm? Is it lack of vision, hate for anything Labor initiated, wrecking for the sake of wrecking, power for the sake of power, ...whatever it is it doesn't seem to be sound economics for a pissant country with a pissant population that wants everything the majors have IMO.




Market fundamentalism.

Government's are a distortion in the free market, and so their influence must be removed.

It's all cr@p of course, but that's blind ideology for you.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Don't grasp your point.?




Well I guess that comes down to personal moral compass.



sydboy007 said:


> Why is it efficient to spent public money to subsidise some patients to go into the private system and get higher priced health care that has no mortality benefits?  Same result at a higher cost.  How does that benefit the Australian public??




For one, it saves the Government having to build twice as many hospitals and equip and staff them.



sydboy007 said:


> If the same level of extra $$$ into the public system could treat more patients than the same level of funding in the private sector, then isn't that the best way forward?  It gets around the increase in patient numbers because you can afford to treat more people.?




You still have to be able to handle the extra number of patients and pay for the infrastructure to handle them.



sydboy007 said:


> As for medibank's fiscal performance, what will the Govt invest the sale proceeds in?  Will it generate a higher return than what they were receiving in dividends each year?




Who knows? Who is to say they will recieve the same dividend? From what your saying it should be all Public, then there wouldn't be a dividend.


----------



## Julia

sydboy007 said:


> Don't grasp your point.
> 
> Why is it efficient to spent public money to subsidise some patients to go into the private system and get higher priced health care that has no mortality benefits?  Same result at a higher cost.  How does that benefit the Australian public?



You're making a considerable assumption there.  Perhaps because you live in inner city Sydney with access to the country's best hospitals.  It's a very different story in many regional hospitals where the level of facilities and skills of medical personnel are often second rate.
That is why many people are prepared to pay for private cover, so that they may at least choose a properly qualified doctor.

I don't see what this has to do with the thread topic, however.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> Market fundamentalism.
> 
> Government's are a distortion in the free market, and so their influence must be removed.
> 
> It's all cr@p of course, but that's blind ideology for you.




We talking about professional public servants who call themselves Honourable Members? People who have never really been in private sector profession that isn't closed shop? Talk about wannabe kings. 

Can you imagine Australia now if govt  hadn't borrowed big, nationalised the failed banks, nationalised communications, bought the railways, built big things, etc? We'd be a giant shanty town of hand to mouth labour, like many in the LNP seem to desire ...of course they themselves wouldn't have any power because we would be part of some Asian country by now and they would be working 7 days a weeks until they drop dead of exhaustion at 50 years old.

If we are to go market forces, I volunteer the Liberal party tragics be the first to refund the benefits they have received from the by and large Fabian taxpayer, including pensions, super, allowances, pensioner discounts, et al. It will be tough and it will hard, but it's something I'm prepared for them to do for the sake of our national debt and free enterprise.


----------



## IFocus

Tisme said:


> I want to know why, if the reduction in debt is so compelling and urgent, why the govt feels it is necessary to sell a highly profitable business to finance new "infrastructure"?




Its actually worse than that its a business thats growing its profit margins hence dividend to the government.


----------



## sptrawler

Tisme said:


> I want to know why, if the reduction in debt is so compelling and urgent, why the govt feels it is necessary to sell a highly profitable business to finance new "infrastructure"?.




I guess it is to try and limit the interest payment, on ever increasing debt.


Tisme said:


> At least the NBN will be a massive asset in the future, even if it is going to be a kiddie's version (even dark fibre leases might not be viable on our system). .




That is an assumption, currently it's return, isn't looking great.



Tisme said:


> I would really like to know what it is that drives the LNP men in power the need to sell off the farm? Is it lack of vision, hate for anything Labor initiated, wrecking for the sake of wrecking, power for the sake of power, ...whatever it is it doesn't seem to be sound economics for a pissant country with a pissant population that wants everything the majors have IMO.




I would really like to know, what drives Labor to always make promises that they can't pay for. For the sake of a social agenda, that sends us broke, every time.


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> I guess it is to try and limit the interest payment, on ever increasing debt.
> 
> 
> .




But they aren't using the proceeds to reduce debt!?


----------



## sptrawler

Tisme said:


> But they aren't using the proceeds to reduce debt!?




No, but they aren't borrowing more to fund infrastructure build, that should produce income.

It's a bit like Westfarmers, selling off assetts then buying more assetts, they feel will give better returns or build the company.


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> Its actually worse than that its a business thats growing its profit margins hence dividend to the government.




What's the saying? "don't rely on past performance, as an indicator of future earnings".lol

Maybe the Government knows something you don't, no that couldn't happen.


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> No, but they aren't borrowing more to fund infrastructure build, that should produce income.
> 
> .




Well that's not what they have been saying afaik. If the sale hadn't proceeded the associated infrastructure wouldn't either. 

Lets hope the money is redirected to another high yield growth prospect that can return an immediate benefit to the community to offset the $1/4 billion loss of annual income. I just hope it isn't another Howard style warchest that will be spent on the flagging rural sector to shore up the flagging NP voter base.

I know I will now be looking for a different provider, knowing my dollars aren't helping the taxation base.


----------



## sptrawler

Tisme said:


> Well that's not what they have been saying afaik. If the sale hadn't proceeded the associated infrastructure wouldn't either.
> 
> Lets hope the money is redirected to another high yield growth prospect that can return an immediate benefit to the community to offset the $1/4 billion loss of annual income. I just hope it isn't another Howard style warchest that will be spent on the flagging rural sector to shore up the flagging NP voter base.
> .




Well it will produce some jobs, the people who work for medibank are still working, and the ones required to build the new infrastucture get jobs.

Maybe the ones that lose their jobs from the ABC?


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> Well it will produce some jobs, the people who work for medibank are still working, and the ones required to build the new infrastucture get jobs.
> 
> Maybe the ones that lose their jobs from the ABC?




Yes perhaps it gives reason to shed more PS jobs ....$250 million/annum equates to what...about 1000 superannuated Canberra jobs?


----------



## Smurf1976

sptrawler said:


> I would really like to know, what drives Labor to always make promises that they can't pay for. For the sake of a social agenda, that sends us broke, every time.



I think it has more to do with the broader economic circumstances at the time than with who is in power.

At the national level, Liberal messed up in the early 1980's and more recently it was Labor who messed up.

At the state level, Labor sent Victoria practically broke in the 1980's whilst Liberal did the same thing in Tasmania. More recently, the Liberals have made promises they can't afford here in Tas which is just what Labor did federally.

There's a cycle to all of this, it comes and goes. Labor and Liberal have both messed up in a big way at various times either nationally or at the state level. And both have also cleaned up the mess left by the other.


----------



## Tisme

Change of pace....what influence does Peta Credlin have and does she have too much of it as some media sources imply?

I'm not talking Pru Goward style accusations of pillow talk with a prime minister, or Olivia Wirth and her bedfellow, but nonetheless if she provides sound advice to Abbott or if she drives her own agenda that is the reason for the awkward situations Abbot finds himself in (e.g. talking $7 co payments to G20 leaders)?


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> Change of pace....what influence does Peta Credlin have and does she have too much of it as some media sources imply?
> 
> I'm not talking Pru Goward style accusations of pillow talk with a prime minister, or Olivia Wirth and her bedfellow, but nonetheless if she provides sound advice to Abbott or if she drives her own agenda that is the reason for the awkward situations Abbot finds himself in (e.g. talking $7 co payments to G20 leaders)?




Who knows what influence Ms Credlin has. Tony Abbott doesn't seem to be full of visionary ideas himself, he just goes to IPA meetings and agrees with everything they say.

 Frankly I don't think he has the brains to do much critical thinking, it's too much trouble for him, so he lets others do the thinking for him.


----------



## drsmith

SirRumpole said:


> Frankly I don't think he has the brains to do much critical thinking, it's too much trouble for him, so he lets others do the thinking for him.



There's not much critical thinking in that observation,



> He graduated with a Bachelor of Economics (BEc) and a Bachelor of Laws (LLB)[12] from the University of Sydney




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Abbott


----------



## Knobby22

Have you noticed that Newscorp are starting to turn against the Prime Minister? 
He has been effectively given a deadline in August next year to turn around the polls otherwise Newscorp (Rupert?) will actively work to change the leader.
His papers are also advocating against the Treasurer (as posted by Noco). I predict Joe will lose treasury after Christmas in the silly season.

Also today in the Age it was revealed by a retired Treasury whistleblower that the taxation department has effectively quartered the staff looking at the behaviour of large companies and it is a free for all now for avoiding taxes with all the large accounting consulting companies arranging tax havens. 

Do you feel that maybe the big end of town is calling the shots in the Abbott government? I do, and I think that Abbott is being forced to do things he doesn't agree with, hence Sir Rumpole's comment above.


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> I think it has more to do with the broader economic circumstances at the time than with who is in power.
> 
> At the national level, Liberal messed up in the early 1980's and more recently it was Labor who messed up.
> 
> At the state level, Labor sent Victoria practically broke in the 1980's whilst Liberal did the same thing in Tasmania. More recently, the Liberals have made promises they can't afford here in Tas which is just what Labor did federally.
> 
> There's a cycle to all of this, it comes and goes. Labor and Liberal have both messed up in a big way at various times either nationally or at the state level. And both have also cleaned up the mess left by the other.




I'd agree with that assessment, smurph, no one party has a monopoly on intellegence. Just answering the one sided criticism, to hopefully add balance.

As happened in the Rudd Gillard years.


----------



## sptrawler

Knobby22 said:


> Do you feel that maybe the big end of town is calling the shots in the Abbott government? I do, and I think that Abbott is being forced to do things he doesn't agree with, hence Sir Rumpole's comment above.




So what do you base that reasoning on?


----------



## Julia

Tisme said:


> Well that's not what they have been saying afaik. If the sale hadn't proceeded the associated infrastructure wouldn't either.



What I've understood to be the intent is the proceeds of the Medibank sale goes to the States to assist them with 'asset recycling'.  I'm unsure of the definition of said asset recycling but gather it translates roughly to "here's some money to encourage you to sell off e.g. power companies currently owned by Qld state govt, and put those funds into new infrastructure".



sptrawler said:


> Well it will produce some jobs, the people who work for medibank are still working, and the ones required to build the new infrastucture get jobs.
> 
> Maybe the ones that lose their jobs from the ABC?



The ABC employees who have lost their jobs will still be sooking over it years from now.  Irrelevant that all other media organisations have been downsizing for some time now.

I'm more concerned about what effect the privatisation of Medibank Private will have on premiums and services for customers.



SirRumpole said:


> Who knows what influence Ms Credlin has. Tony Abbott doesn't seem to be full of visionary ideas himself, he just goes to IPA meetings and agrees with everything they say.



And you know this how?



> Frankly I don't think he has the brains to do much critical thinking, it's too much trouble for him, so he lets others do the thinking for him.



Right.   It's of course usual that Rhodes scholars demonstrate this lack of intelligence and capacity to think.



sptrawler said:


> So what do you base that reasoning on?



Perhaps just a simple dislike of Tony Abbott?

And perhaps don't underestimate the value of Peta Credlin, Olivia Wirth et al because they are women and are in a subsidiary role.   These women are smart and very experienced, often with more talent than their bosses.
That's why they are there in just such an advisory role.


----------



## Knobby22

sptrawler said:


> So what do you base that reasoning on?




Let's see if noco's posts come true. If they don't then I must be wrong.
The retired treasury officials comments are a worry though.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:
			
		

> Right. It's of course usual that Rhodes scholars demonstrate this lack of intelligence and capacity to think.




So what is his vision for this country ?

* stop the boats

* get rid of the carbon and mining taxes, but keep the spending associated with them 

* discourage people from getting tertiary education, and therefore reduce professional services available to the community

* blame the unemployed for not being able to get non existent jobs

* blame and tax the elderly for having to see the doctor more often

Yes, I would say that demonstrates a capability for not being able to think straight, apart from the asylum seeker issue.


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> Yawn............Abbott supported and promised the same while claiming no tax increases were needed to fund nor were cuts in spending required he was going to fund it all by cutting Labors excessive spending...........
> 
> *14 months of Abbott, debt is still rising and so is Government spending *




I watched Question time today and how Bill Shorten raved on about Abbott's broken promises under suspension of standing orders.

Before the 2013 election, Wayne Swan and Gillard told voters 500 times there would be a surplus of $2 billion and lots of people believed it, but alas, it was all a big lie...... now correct me if I am wrong, but I should imagine Swan believed he was going to bank $124 billion from the mining tax he did not receive.....What a "GOOSE".

So after the election and when an audit is done, Abbott finds he is stuck with not a $2 billion surplus but a $122 billion deficit in the budget.

Yes Abbott made some promises which he should not have made and he is paying dearly for it today as the Green/Labor socialist left wing coalition flog it to death....What a grubby lot these Fabians are.

So after the election he finds this massive lie put up by the Labor Party...What is he supposed to do?....go on borrowing $100,000,000 per day to finance Labor's lie or does he now find  he has to break some promises by cutting back on expenditure including $6 billion of Labor's own cuts which they now have reneged on..

If Labor had been honest in September 2013, perhaps Abbott may have had a different view.

But we all know Labor are economic vandals who have no idea how manage our our finances whether it be  Federal or State and Labor has the audacity to say "Every thing fine....what does it matter that we pay a $1billion a week in interest"....let our children and grand children pay it back......who cares?......Well, I tell you what, the Liberal Party cares and are trying to do something about it only to have to it sabotaged by a wreckless bloody minded Labor Party who only have self interest and no interest whatsoever in the National interest.  .


----------



## IFocus

Julia said:


> Right.   It's of course usual that Rhodes scholars demonstrate this lack of intelligence and capacity to think.




Just out of interest what has Abbott done in his political career that demonstrates his high level of intellect?

Abbott has been the macho  hit-man, bully boy.




> Perhaps just a simple dislike of Tony Abbott?




I think he certainly lacks appeal but has form in being particularly nasty piece of work. 



> And perhaps don't underestimate the value of Peta Credlin, Olivia Wirth et al because they are women and are in a subsidiary role.   These women are smart and very experienced, often with more talent than their bosses.
> That's why they are there in just such an advisory role.




I think Abbotts success in winning government is completely due to his staff as he changed dramatically after Credlin started who I rate very highly a great political operator.

Howards staff started to resign towards the end of his last term and the wheels completely fell off as a result.


----------



## sydboy007

Tisme said:


> Well that's not what they have been saying afaik. If the sale hadn't proceeded the associated infrastructure wouldn't either.
> 
> Lets hope the money is redirected to another high yield growth prospect that can return an immediate benefit to the community to offset the $1/4 billion loss of annual income. I just hope it isn't another Howard style warchest that will be spent on the flagging rural sector to shore up the flagging NP voter base.
> 
> I know I will now be looking for a different provider, knowing my dollars aren't helping the taxation base.




I hear they're planning to upgrade the Adelaide Darwin rail line to allow even more excess capacity.


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> You're making a considerable assumption there.  Perhaps because you live in inner city Sydney with access to the country's best hospitals.  It's a very different story in many regional hospitals where the level of facilities and skills of medical personnel are often second rate.
> That is why many people are prepared to pay for private cover, so that they may at least choose a properly qualified doctor.
> 
> I don't see what this has to do with the thread topic, however.




No assumption necessary Julia

In relation to heart stents, a fairly common procedure, standard stents are $8000 while DES stents cost around $20K.  These figures may be a bit old, but it gives you a rough idea of the cost difference.

In Victoria the private system does it's best to limit the use of DES stents to a maximum of 30% of patients.  The private system uses DES stents at up to twice the rate of the public sector.

So to treat 20,000 patients in the public system with a maximum of 30% using DES and the rest standard stents, you come to a total cost of $232M.  

Compare this to the private sector who at 50% DES and 50% standard and you treat 20,000 people for a total cost of $280M.

If you read the study done in Victoria you can see that there was a slight increase in mortality rates in the private sector for patients receiving stents.  Not statistically high enough to be worried about, but certainly showed there was no patient benefit for the extra $48M as the above scenario shows.

So the cost difference could provide nearly 4000 extra patients with an operation within the public system when compared to the private, with slightly better mortality rates.  Surely treating the highest number of patients with available funding limits should be the goal of Govt policy?

As to relevance, SP said in reply to IFocus



> That's all fine untill your moronic Labor Party get in, then get rid of private health tax rebate. You know, the one they tried to get rid of for the whole time they were in office.
> 
> If they get back in and get rid of the rebate, it will have been a stroke of genious, the mug punters caught again. As they were with Telstra.




My argument is that it's debatable if the private healthcare rebate actually improves waiting times and health care in general.  Further research needs to be done to actually show what it has achieved, and since healthcare is so wrapped up in the looming aging tsunami, you'd think we should be trying to reduce costs as much as we can.  So is it sensible policy to be spending millions extra in the private system when there's no improved patient outcome, while also providing extra tax payer subsidies for this?  Maybe it is, but maybe we'd be better served cutting back on the $3B cost of the private health care rebate and using those funds to increase the number of patients the public system can cope with.

I'd argue further means testing changes in relation to the private health care rebate would be one way to help balance the budget, but it is a current Govt stated policy to eventually remove any form of means testing on it.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> My argument is that it's debatable if the private healthcare rebate actually improves waiting times and health care in general.  Further research needs to be done to actually show what it has achieved, and since healthcare is so wrapped up in the looming aging tsunami, you'd think we should be trying to reduce costs as much as we can.  So is it sensible policy to be spending millions extra in the private system when there's no improved patient outcome, while also providing extra tax payer subsidies for this?  Maybe it is, but maybe we'd be better served cutting back on the $3B cost of the private health care rebate and using those funds to increase the number of patients the public system can cope with..




Well if they remove the rebate as was mooted a few years back, I know three seperate individuals on low incomes, who were going to drop private cover. The rebate was remained and they stayed in, you obviously don't know many people on the $40 - $60k bracket.



sydboy007 said:


> I'd argue further means testing changes in relation to the private health care rebate would be one way to help balance the budget, but it is a current Govt stated policy to eventually remove any form of means testing on it.



I'd argue, that people who have private health insurance are made to use it, rather than abuse the public system.


----------



## noco

I am going stick my neck out here and no doubt will cope some flax about it.

IMHO, I believe two seniors members of the LNP have to made sacrificial lambs to pull the LNP out of the quagmire they find themselves in.

Abbott has to replaced with Scot Morrison and Hockey with Turnbull followed by a double dissolution before mid 2015.....This will give time for them to settle in and to get the broken promises monkey off their backs.

I have lost count the number of times Labor changed leaders in both state and Federal when they found the polls were not in their favor.

I would not like to predict the outcome of a double dissolution but I can see little alternative for parliament to continue to  function as it is........I have never seen such disarray in Government in all my born days.


----------



## banco

noco said:


> I am going stick my neck out here and no doubt will cope some flax about it.
> 
> IMHO, I believe two seniors members of the LNP have to made sacrificial lambs to pull the LNP out of the quagmire they find themselves in.
> 
> Abbott has to replaced with Scot Morrison and Hockey with Turnbull followed by a double dissolution before mid 2015.....This will give time for them to settle in and to get the broken promises monkey off their backs.
> 
> I have lost count the number of times Labor changed leaders in both state and Federal when they found the polls were not in their favor.
> 
> I would not like to predict the outcome of a double dissolution but I can see little alternative for parliament to continue to  function as it is........I have never seen such disarray in Government in all my born days.




Scott Morrison comes across as a thug (and if you believe the leaks from cabinet his public image isn't far off how he is in private).  They would lose badly with him. 

Turnbull has sullied himself by trying to claim black is white and white is black with regards to Abbott's statements about the ABC.


----------



## sptrawler

banco said:


> Scott Morrison comes across as a thug (and if you believe the leaks from cabinet his public image isn't far off how he is in private).  They would lose badly with him.
> 
> Turnbull has sullied himself by trying to claim black is white and white is black with regards to Abbott's statements about the ABC.




I can't see Abbott being rolled. 
In the early days of the coalition government, I thought he may well fall on his sword.
However, when you consider the unabated personal attacks on him since gaining office, you would expect him to be further behind in the polls. I think he is actually doing o.k, Shorten is the one not gaining traction.IMO

For all the hyperbowl, I think the silent majority realise the frustrating situation the coalition is dealing with.

Time will tell, one thing Abbott has shown, he doesn't panic and calls the long game pretty well.


----------



## noco

banco said:


> Scott Morrison comes across as a thug (and if you believe the leaks from cabinet his public image isn't far off how he is in private).  They would lose badly with him.
> 
> Turnbull has sullied himself by trying to claim black is white and white is black with regards to Abbott's statements about the ABC.




Perhaps we need a thug to deal with a thug on the opposite side.

It is a pity Abbott didn't have a bit thug in him as well.


----------



## Julia

sydboy007 said:


> No assumption necessary Julia
> 
> In relation to heart stents, a fairly common procedure, standard stents are $8000 while DES stents cost around $20K.  These figures may be a bit old, but it gives you a rough idea of the cost difference.



You are responding to my post by picking on one single procedure.  I was commenting on your more general question:


> Why is it efficient to spent public money to subsidise some patients to go into the private system and get higher priced health care that has no mortality benefits? Same result at a higher cost. How does that benefit the Australian public?



which I took to apply to the subsidy of private cover generally, not just applying to stents.

You might like to put up some proof that there are no mortality benefits in choosing private care in the regions.  Even just the last couple of years at Rockhampton and Bundaberg Hospitals show an alarming mortality rate in everyday procedures.
Fine for you on the doorstep of St. Vincents.

My point was that it's especially in the regions where public hospital care is often woeful, private cover at least provides patients with the capacity to choose to have a doctor with proven expertise, rather than some young house surgeon who is learning.
Your whole argument presumes competence on the part of the treating medical personnel.  I can assure you this is absolutely not a given in regional hospitals.

They wouldn't even do stents at local hospital.  Rather the patient would be flown to Brisbane so ultimately much more expensive if cost is your main concern.


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> You are responding to my post by picking on one single procedure.  I was commenting on your more general question:
> 
> which I took to apply to the subsidy of private cover generally, not just applying to stents.




I gave stents as one example to show the private system can cause health care costs to rise.  It seems valid to question why the private system uses the more expensive option so much when there's no benefit to patients.  It wouldn't surprise me if the private system is padding the costs in a similar way with other procedures.  If putting more money into the public system provides an increase in treatments compared to the private system, then isn't that the better way forward?



Julia said:


> You might like to put up some proof that there are no mortality benefits in choosing private care in the regions.  Even just the last couple of years at Rockhampton and Bundaberg Hospitals show an alarming mortality rate in everyday procedures.
> Fine for you on the doorstep of St. Vincents.
> 
> My point was that it's especially in the regions where public hospital care is often woeful, private cover at least provides patients with the capacity to choose to have a doctor with proven expertise, rather than some young house surgeon who is learning.
> Your whole argument presumes competence on the part of the treating medical personnel.  I can assure you this is absolutely not a given in regional hospitals.
> 
> They wouldn't even do stents at local hospital.  Rather the patient would be flown to Brisbane so ultimately much more expensive if cost is your main concern.




It's been a decade or so since the private health care rebate was introduced.  I've googled many times to see if there's been any studies as to the cost / benefit and I can't really find anything satisfactory.

You'd think a program that's now costing $3B a year, and pretty much the fastest growing cost in the health care budget, that there'd be some form of evidence by now that the money is well spent.

With the current stick and carrot approach, it would be possible to reduce the rebate to below the thresholds where by if you don't have private health insurance you pay the extra tax.  Most people would probably find it's cheaper to keep their cover than pay the extra tax.  You could then keep the rebate targeted to those on lower incomes.

To sell the scheme the Govt could use some of the savings to increase public funding to try and resolve some of the issues you've highlighted.

Seems a lot fairer way to move towards a balanced budget than making the under 30s wait 6 months for welfare assistance when they're retrenched, especially when youth unemployment is already so high.

We can no longer afford to have large Govt programs that don't show a clear benefit to society.  That was able to occur when the ToT keep going up every year and national income was rising fast.  Now that process is in reverse, and only half way complete, so we need to be a lot more sensible with the way Govt spending is done.  Cuts have to be made somewhere and with the pension and super off limits other options need to be examined.

Other options are land taxes and quarantining negative gearing to the income produced from the asset.  maybe pushing the CGT reduction out from 12 months to 5 years to reward longer term investors.

It's a shame our political class don't have this kind of reform on their agendas at present.


----------



## Logique

Talk of a re-shuffle, and frankly something has to give.

For starters, 

Scott Morrison to Communications - take the axe to Ultimo by all means, but leave the regional ABC, and Classic FM alone

Malcolm Turnbull to Treasurer - sell, sell, sell those policies

Julie Bishop doing well, stays in Foreign Affairs 

Matthias Cormann doing well, stays in Finance


----------



## Tisme

banco said:


> .
> 
> Turnbull has sullied himself by trying to claim black is white and white is black with regards to Abbott's statements about the ABC.




He took one for the team, but I agree it was an ambulance pass that capped off my belief he has lost his mojo and ticker. He's just seat warming now, trying to smooth the public perturbations of a Jack in the box PM.


----------



## orr

No conviction; my personal preference would of been a gaol sentence with a release date in the lead up to the next election. My utopian ideal squashed. The freedom of a very brave young girl prevailed.
reported in the free press;

_No conviction will be recorded against a 21-year-old whistleblower for accessing confidential files that revealed the prime minister’s daughter, Frances Abbott, received an undisclosed $60,000 scholarship. _


----------



## Tisme

orr said:


> No conviction; my personal preference would of been a gaol sentence with a release date in the lead up to the next election. My utopian ideal squashed. The freedom of a very brave young girl prevailed.
> reported in the free press;
> 
> _No conviction will be recorded against a 21-year-old whistleblower for accessing confidential files that revealed the prime minister’s daughter, Frances Abbott, received an undisclosed $60,000 scholarship. _




Should never have gone that far, but yet again indicates the Dickensian depths some people will go to in order to intimidate and deter freedom of information that is in the public interest.

I hope the taxation department is looking at ways of getting a slice of that $60k gift


----------



## sptrawler

Tisme said:


> I hope the taxation department is looking at ways of getting a slice of that $60k gift




Would that be for all scholarships, or only ones that are awarded to relatives of people, you don't like?


----------



## banco

Logique said:


> Talk of a re-shuffle, and frankly something has to give.
> 
> For starters,
> 
> Scott Morrison to Communications - take the axe to Ultimo by all means, but leave the regional ABC, and Classic FM alone




If the ABC has any brains they'll cut the regional ABC to the bone as that's the only part the coalition (well the nationals) care about and will make further cuts less likely.


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> Would that be for all scholarships, or only ones that are awarded to relatives of people, you don't like?




Only the ones that pursue others for outing cronyism that is linked to possible corruption of chartered process. No doubt the institution involved receives some kind of taxpayer funding?


----------



## Tisme

banco said:


> If the ABC has any brains they'll cut the regional ABC to the bone as that's the only part the coalition (well the nationals) care about and will make further cuts less likely.




I say drop the netball, the soccer, country league AFL and NRL, agri business, etc and go back to our traditional Australian roots = broadcast year old UK programs.


----------



## Boggo

Tisme said:


> I say drop the netball, the soccer, country league AFL and NRL, agri business, etc and go back to our traditional Australian roots = broadcast year old UK programs.




I say drop the sound engineers who monitor the electronics that monitor inbound phone calls (every other network dropped them over 10 years ago), drop the twice daily mail delivery to individual desks (a practice that ceased to exist in the real world 20 years ago) and halve the inverted pyramid management structure and associated excessive remuneration and I reckon the current spotlight may extinguish.


----------



## sptrawler

Tisme said:


> Only the ones that pursue others for outing cronyism that is linked to possible corruption of chartered process. No doubt the institution involved receives some kind of taxpayer funding?




So you are saying she didn't earn the scholarship on merit? That should be easy to prove


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> So you are saying she didn't earn the scholarship on merit? That should be easy to prove




Well apparently and overtly she wasn't as talented as some of the obvious candidates, which precipitated the mischief based on the belief of injustice of favouritism over merit .... bit like the Liberal Party preselection process really


----------



## sptrawler

Tisme said:


> Well apparently and overtly she wasn't as talented as some of the obvious candidates, which precipitated the mischief based on the belief of injustice of favouritism over merit .... bit like the Liberal Party preselection process really




When you listen to the media or read the papers, the last thing that would give you a favourable outcome, would be the Abbott name.

Any mischief that can be perpetrated against Abbott, seems to get a very good airing.lol


----------



## boofhead

It seems Abbott finally admitted he made the comments, https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/25602952/pm-admits-to-abc-sbs-no-cuts-comment/

Labor's fault. Seems he has issues admitting things are softer like iron ore pricing etc. which is impacting.


----------



## noco

boofhead said:


> It seems Abbott finally admitted he made the comments, https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/25602952/pm-admits-to-abc-sbs-no-cuts-comment/
> 
> Labor's fault. Seems he has issues admitting things are softer like iron ore pricing etc. which is impacting.




But don't you remember just before the 2013 election Gillard and Swan said 500 times there would a surplus of $2 billion.....then it was an $11 billion ldeficit, then $17 billion, the $22 billion all in one week.....that was by Penny Wong, but the true figure was $122 billion deficit......How could she be out that far?.....No wonder Abbott had to break his promise of no cuts.....Grrrrrr


----------



## boofhead

noco said:


> But don't you remember just before the 2013 election Gillard and Swan said 500 times there would a surplus of $2 billion.....then it was an $11 billion ldeficit, then $17 billion, the $22 billion all in one week.....that was by Penny Wong, but the true figure was $122 billion deficit......How could she be out that far?.....No wonder Abbott had to break his promise of no cuts.....Grrrrrr




You're ignoring what I wrote or you're irrational once the word Labor is mentioned. I mentioned a downward trend which is impacting both sides in the last few years. Things are softer and softening more than the govt is prepared to acknowledge.

Where is the $122 billion deficit figure from? I'm having trouble finding it. Are you having issues like Joyce with deficit and debt distinctions?

As for ABC - Abbott wasted PR in having ministers try to spin the cuts over the last half week or more. It reduces public trust that coalition members are trying to twist and turn rhetoric about ABC cuts then the PM eventually decides to fess up. Seems their default position is to pull the wool over the eyes of the public instead of being a man (it is a dig at Cormann's comment).

I don't understand why you're spending time trying to defend the Coalition for mistakes and PR spin. All the excuse finding and spin is wasting time and effort. Instead they could talk about the actual issues and then they can better sell cuts and changes. Abbott and co. need to focus on the job and develop policy instead of being stuck in the politics hence why Abbott looks like he is stuck in opposition mode.

We have PR losing trust and has issues with voter satisfacton then taking actions that do not help himself, his part or nation. What a waste of effort.


----------



## sptrawler

boofhead said:


> You're ignoring what I wrote or you're irrational once the word Labor is mentioned. I mentioned a downward trend which is impacting both sides in the last few years. Things are softer and softening more than the govt is prepared to acknowledge.
> 
> Where is the $122 billion deficit figure from? I'm having trouble finding it. Are you having issues like Joyce with deficit and debt distinctions?
> 
> As for ABC - Abbott wasted PR in having ministers try to spin the cuts over the last half week or more. It reduces public trust that coalition members are trying to twist and turn rhetoric about ABC cuts then the PM eventually decides to fess up. Seems their default position is to pull the wool over the eyes of the public instead of being a man (it is a dig at Cormann's comment).
> 
> I don't understand why you're spending time trying to defend the Coalition for mistakes and PR spin. All the excuse finding and spin is wasting time and effort. Instead they could talk about the actual issues and then they can better sell cuts and changes. Abbott and co. need to focus on the job and develop policy instead of being stuck in the politics hence why Abbott looks like he is stuck in opposition mode.
> 
> We have PR losing trust and has issues with voter satisfacton then taking actions that do not help himself, his part or nation. What a waste of effort.




+1 
They need to move on from the rhetoric and get on with doing the job.
They just need to man up and say it needs doing, get over it. They're not winning any hearts dribbling on and trying to work with a hostile senate. 
Lay out the tax and spending plan, sell it to the general public, then the Senate have no option.

The way it is going, is death by indecision.


----------



## sptrawler

Logique said:


> Talk of a re-shuffle, and frankly something has to give.
> 
> For starters,
> 
> Scott Morrison to Communications - take the axe to Ultimo by all means, but leave the regional ABC, and Classic FM alone
> 
> Malcolm Turnbull to Treasurer - sell, sell, sell those policies
> 
> Julie Bishop doing well, stays in Foreign Affairs
> 
> Matthias Cormann doing well, stays in Finance




I would say they only need to flip Joe and Malcolm.

Morrison has a great handle on border protection, leave him there, a resurgence of boats would be damaging.

Joe likes t.v and it would suit his persona. 
Everyone thinks Turnbull would make a great treasurer, give him a go. It would be easily faciltated with the release of the 'white paper'.

Joe would cop a bit of flack in the media, but he's already copped heaps of that anyway, goes with the job.


----------



## banco

sptrawler said:


> When you listen to the media or read the papers, the last thing that would give you a favourable outcome, would be the Abbott name.
> 
> Any mischief that can be perpetrated against Abbott, seems to get a very good airing.lol




I think the abbott name would give you a favourable outcome with a big liberal party donor.


----------



## Smurf1976

Boggo said:


> halve the inverted pyramid management structure and associated excessive remuneration and I reckon the current spotlight may extinguish.




The problem with cuts in the public service, be it the ABC or any other form of PS, is that it tends to make this problem worse rather than better. They cut programs (by which I mean activities in a generic sense not necessarily TV / radio programs as such although they'd be in the mix in the case of the ABC) and cut staff who actually do something useful but the managers remain. End result = even fewer actual workers per manager employee, thus making the organisation less efficient not more efficient.

Even worse, with fewer staff and fewer activities to actually manage, the managers then start coming up with all sorts of weird and not so wonderful ideas to justify their own positions. In short, business complains about the amount of "red tape" imposed on them (a valid point) but the amount of internal red tape within some government departments is beyond ridiculous. 

Once the cuts come in, you end up with things like staff with 25 years experience who used to manage, say, a $1 million program and who did nothing wrong now needing one, two or even three levels of management sign off in order to spend $20. And getting such approval tends to mean a written report or at least an email filled with facts and figures that takes hours to write. It then becomes impossible to actually get the job done, since what used to take a few minutes (just buy the $20 item) now takes hours or even weeks worth of time. 

I'm not anti-PS or anti-ABC by any means, but the approach to cuts in the PS over the years has a been a seriously flawed one. Ask a "front line" worker in any of these places and I'd bet that at least two thirds would love to get things done more efficiently and cheaply. It's the bureaucracy and endless rules created by unnecessary managers which slow everything down to snail's pace. 

What's really needed is a proper review into how these places ought to operate and be structured. Just cutting x% compounds the problem if there's no direction as to where the cuts will be targeted since those deciding where to cut internally are unlikely to put their job on the list of things no longer required. 

As for the ABC, it's an important organisation and needs to remain publicly funded to a decent level in my view. That doesn't preclude efficiency, but it's one of those things that's not intended to ever be profitable as that's not its' purpose. The last thing we need is a government "commercialising" it with a view to privatisation (and with practically everything else sold off, I wouldn't be surprised if this is proposed at some point).


----------



## Smurf1976

boofhead said:


> Things are softer and softening more than the govt is prepared to acknowledge.




Note the divergence between the ASX versus the US markets. Things aren't going too well for Australia at the moment....


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> Note the divergence between the ASX versus the US markets. Things aren't going too well for Australia at the moment....




That would be your biggest understatement yet.IMO 

Meanwhile everyone is poking their tonques out at Abbott and calling him names, while the house burns down.lol,lol,lol


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> That would be your biggest understatement yet.IMO
> 
> Meanwhile everyone is poking their tonques out at Abbott and calling him names, while the house burns down.lol,lol,lol




Yes, why can't the whingers suck it up and accept the cuts the Razor Gang are trying to implement....tell that stupid bloody minded disfunctional senate to start thinking about the National interest instead  of self interest. 

Bring on a DD and get rid of the riff raff.


----------



## noco

boofhead said:


> You're ignoring what I wrote or you're irrational once the word Labor is mentioned. I mentioned a downward trend which is impacting both sides in the last few years. Things are softer and softening more than the govt is prepared to acknowledge.
> 
> Where is the $122 billion deficit figure from? I'm having trouble finding it. Are you having issues like Joyce with deficit and debt distinctions?
> 
> As for ABC - Abbott wasted PR in having ministers try to spin the cuts over the last half week or more. It reduces public trust that coalition members are trying to twist and turn rhetoric about ABC cuts then the PM eventually decides to fess up. Seems their default position is to pull the wool over the eyes of the public instead of being a man (it is a dig at Cormann's comment).
> 
> I don't understand why you're spending time trying to defend the Coalition for mistakes and PR spin. All the excuse finding and spin is wasting time and effort. Instead they could talk about the actual issues and then they can better sell cuts and changes. Abbott and co. need to focus on the job and develop policy instead of being stuck in the politics hence why Abbott looks like he is stuck in opposition mode.
> 
> We have PR losing trust and has issues with voter satisfacton then taking actions that do not help himself, his part or nation. What a waste of effort.




Perhaps this link might help you to understand about the $123 billion deficit...I was close with $122 billion.

http://www.financeminister.gov.au/media/2014/0925-final-budget-outcome.html

*2013-14 Final Budget Outcome

The Final Budget Outcome (FBO) for the 2013-14 financial year is a budget report card on the previous Government’s irresponsible fiscal and economic management.

Despite Labor initially forecasting a surplus of $5.4 billion for the 2013-14 financial year, and keeping this forecast surplus for eight successive budget updates, today’s FBO confirms a $48.5 billion deficit. 

This is more than a $30 billion deterioration in the year since former Treasurer Wayne Swan delivered his final Budget.

This deterioration consisted of a write-down in total revenue of more than $18 billion, and policy decisions of just over $11 billion.

This FBO confirms Labor delivered six successive deficits totalling $240 billion with many more to come. Including 2013-14, Labor left the Government with future deficits of $123 billion over the forward estimates to 30 June 2017. 

If no policy action was taken to repair the budget position the Government inherited, gross debt would have spiralled to $667 billion over the medium term and continued to grow.  It is the equivalent of $25,000 for every Australian.  This is Labor’s legacy of debt for all Australians.

In the 2013-14 Budget, Labor finally gave up on their farce of ‘delivering a budget surplus in 2012-13’.  At that time they wrote down receipts by $17 billion for the 2013-14 financial year alone, and more than $60 billion over the forward estimates.

On the eve of the 2013 Federal Election, then Treasurer Chris Bowen had to go even further in his 2013 Economic Statement, by writing down receipts a further $7.8 billion for 2013-14 and over $33 billion across the forward estimates.*


----------



## Julia

sptrawler said:


> +1
> They need to move on from the rhetoric and get on with doing the job.
> They just need to man up and say it needs doing, get over it. They're not winning any hearts dribbling on and trying to work with a hostile senate.
> Lay out the tax and spending plan, sell it to the general public, then the Senate have no option.
> 
> The way it is going, is death by indecision.



Agree and to boofhead's preceding post.

Tony Abbott's lack of gumption was really brought home to me when, flicking through the radio dial a few days ago, I heard the awful Alan Jones berating him over something.  Abbott ummed and ahed, became stutteringly defensive and essentially cowered in the face of the attack.
That is absolutely the last thing he should be doing.  The Prime Minister being talked down to and mocked by a shock jock?   Why does he allow this?  Way past time to start demonstrating some strength of character, telling the electorate clearly why we need to make cuts etc.


----------



## sptrawler

Julia said:


> Agree and to boofhead's preceding post.
> 
> Tony Abbott's lack of gumption was really brought home to me when, flicking through the radio dial a few days ago, I heard the awful Alan Jones berating him over something.  Abbott ummed and ahed, became stutteringly defensive and essentially cowered in the face of the attack.
> That is absolutely the last thing he should be doing.  The Prime Minister being talked down to and mocked by a shock jock?   Why does he allow this?  Way past time to start demonstrating some strength of character, telling the electorate clearly why we need to make cuts etc.




Absolutely, time he grew a pair, or let someone like Morrison get in there.


----------



## Tisme

Julia said:


> Agree and to boofhead's preceding post.
> 
> Tony Abbott's lack of gumption was really brought home to me when, flicking through the radio dial a few days ago, I heard the awful Alan Jones berating him over something.  Abbott ummed and ahed, became stutteringly defensive and essentially cowered in the face of the attack.
> .




Aspergers?


----------



## sptrawler

Tisme said:


> Aspergers?




There is a little bit of a nasty streak in you, isn't there.

You guy's can't make up your minds, can you.

One minute Abbott is an 'attack dog'

next he has aspergers and cowers under attack.

Just be honest and qualify your remarks by saying, "I've never met Abbott, but hate him intensley"


----------



## Calliope

sptrawler said:


> There is a little bit of a nasty streak in you, isn't there.




Yes. I thought his comment on another thread was gratuitous and nasty.



> It's not like Abbott is managing very well either, but the truth is he probably receives far more than $800k as a package... just his charity work alone must bring in a modest income for the groceries and bills


----------



## sydboy007

Smurf1976 said:


> Note the divergence between the ASX versus the US markets. Things aren't going too well for Australia at the moment....




With everyone knowing the AUD is on the way down you'd have to be crazy going long AUD assets, unless of course you're moving out of Yen or Euro.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Perhaps this link might help you to understand about the $123 billion deficit...I was close with $122 billion.
> 
> http://www.financeminister.gov.au/media/2014/0925-final-budget-outcome.html
> 
> *2013-14 Final Budget Outcome
> 
> The Final Budget Outcome (FBO) for the 2013-14 financial year is a budget report card on the previous Government’s irresponsible fiscal and economic management.
> 
> Despite Labor initially forecasting a surplus of $5.4 billion for the 2013-14 financial year, and keeping this forecast surplus for eight successive budget updates, today’s FBO confirms a $48.5 billion deficit.
> 
> This is more than a $30 billion deterioration in the year since former Treasurer Wayne Swan delivered his final Budget.
> 
> This deterioration consisted of a write-down in total revenue of more than $18 billion, and policy decisions of just over $11 billion.
> 
> This FBO confirms Labor delivered six successive deficits totalling $240 billion with many more to come. Including 2013-14, Labor left the Government with future deficits of $123 billion over the forward estimates to 30 June 2017.
> 
> If no policy action was taken to repair the budget position the Government inherited, gross debt would have spiralled to $667 billion over the medium term and continued to grow.  It is the equivalent of $25,000 for every Australian.  This is Labor’s legacy of debt for all Australians.
> 
> In the 2013-14 Budget, Labor finally gave up on their farce of ‘delivering a budget surplus in 2012-13’.  At that time they wrote down receipts by $17 billion for the 2013-14 financial year alone, and more than $60 billion over the forward estimates.
> 
> On the eve of the 2013 Federal Election, then Treasurer Chris Bowen had to go even further in his 2013 Economic Statement, by writing down receipts a further $7.8 billion for 2013-14 and over $33 billion across the forward estimates.*




I have issue with blaming Labor for future deficits.  Other's have blamed labor for not making changes to the tax system to spend within their means.  The falling ToT and the plunge in Govt revenue from the GFC and far too many tax cuts (labor should never have tried to out bid Howard in the 07 election) are not relevant in the debt and deficit discussion.  So the ball is in the Abbott Govt court, and so far they seemed to have dropped it big time.

I seem to remember the coalition saying they could have run surpluses every year Labor was in office, yet it's looking like the deficit this FY might be one of the largest in Australian history.  Might even beat last years inflated deficit depending on if China can resist kicking the can down the road.

If the Govt had been offering decent policy and tax reform, I'd be behind them and telling the senate to get out of the way.  But so far there's been very little fair and meaningful reform.  Youth unemployment should be a nation shame already, yet you support the Govt forcing the under 30s to try and live for 6 months with no income.  That's not the kind of Australia I want us to become.  We're already too much like the USA.  Turning our backs on those who can't find a job in recessionary conditions, and with 14% youth unemployment that's the only way you can describe the current situation.  Currently there's something like 7 unemployed for every job vacancy, yet the Govt wants the unemployed to send off 40 job applications a month.  Who comes's up witht hat kind of idiotic policy?  No need to do a but Labor rant.  That's the past.  What's Abbott going to do about the here and now and immediate future to the next election? 

The GP co payment was poorly targeted.  Tighten it up and it might be useful, but forget the medical slush fund and use the money to reduce the deficit.  Making the universities like the USA is also not the way to go.  The brownstone Unis will charge as much as they can, like the Ivy league colleges do in the USA, while the rest of the unis will bump their fees up as well.  There's already not enough nurses and teachers studying.  Making the economics even worse for those careers is just plain stupid.

Hockey's ending the age of entitlement made me hope we were going to see some meaningful reform in the current budget.  There's nothing in it that's going to help make the tax system more efficient and fairer.

if Hockey does nothing after the MYEFO is released, he needs to resign and get someone in who's willing to put some hard work in to begin treasurer.  A few more % of debt to GDP and we'll probably be on negative watch from at least S&P who have already said 30% is the point of a downgrade for Australia.  Interest rates will be rising before then and the support the Govt balance sheet has given the banks will be gone.  I fear we might have to get to that banana republic moment before the political class starts to take some serious action.


----------



## Logique

Julia said:


> Agree and to boofhead's preceding post.
> 
> Tony Abbott's lack of gumption was really brought home to me when, flicking through the radio dial a few days ago, I heard the awful Alan Jones berating him over something.  Abbott ummed and ahed, became stutteringly defensive and essentially cowered in the face of the attack.
> That is absolutely the last thing he should be doing.  The Prime Minister being talked down to and mocked by a shock jock?   Why does he allow this?  Way past time to start demonstrating some strength of character, telling the electorate clearly why we need to make cuts etc.



Making it worse, we have to see Peter Costello brushing them aside, in the Senate and on Bolt


----------



## orr

Like dogs chase cars leads to the question 'What do they do when they catch them???'
So now we have the Abbott government, 'chased office and caught it, hasn't got a clue what to do with it, Except maybe Morrison, who's busy mauling the tyres. And is that that Turnbull, on the grass, licking his bollocks, Pyne chasing his tail 'almost got it, almost got it'


----------



## Tisme

Calliope said:


> Yes. I thought his comment on another thread was gratuitous and nasty.




I think you are showing your indefatigable loyalty to a party, est-ce pas?

I'm sure with all the vitriol Abbott built his career on, he is able to absorb a few barbs now and again. Let's face the truth, he is best at being a snipe, disingenuous, damaging and obstropolous; he's just not PM material, he's a an embarrassment to thinking people everywhere. 

Still reckon he's got something going on up top....... that interview clip of him flummoxed and obviously out to the world, the disconnect with the occasion and content, etc reminds me of Cassius Clay post career.


----------



## Tisme

orr said:


> . And is that that Turnbull, on the grass, licking his bollocks, Pyne chasing his tail 'almost got it, almost got it'





I see Malcolm dropped his boss in it yesterday and admitted Abbott lied about the ABC safety net.  

My internet posts on this board must be getting through to him, coz none of you wowsers seem to be able to break the shackles of your parent's political bias and subservience


----------



## drsmith

Knobby22 said:


> Have you noticed that Newscorp are starting to turn against the Prime Minister?
> He has been effectively given a deadline in August next year to turn around the polls otherwise Newscorp (Rupert?) will actively work to change the leader.
> His papers are also advocating against the Treasurer (as posted by Noco). I predict Joe will lose treasury after Christmas in the silly season.
> 
> Also today in the Age it was revealed by a retired Treasury whistleblower that the taxation department has effectively quartered the staff looking at the behaviour of large companies and it is a free for all now for avoiding taxes with all the large accounting consulting companies arranging tax havens.
> 
> Do you feel that maybe the big end of town is calling the shots in the Abbott government? I do, and I think that Abbott is being forced to do things he doesn't agree with, hence Sir Rumpole's comment above.




Did you watch David Leyonhjelm on Insiders last weekend ?

http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2014/s4134246.htm

It's true that the performance of his senior ministers has been highly variable but TA has shown great loyalty to his team. At some point though he will have to reshuffle but at the moment he is biding his time in my view and that will have to happen some stage next year if the underperformers don't improve (of which I agree Joe Hockey has been poor).

While TA is obviously not the world's greatest orator, he's no idiot. Let's not forget that many said he wouldn't be PM and it was his political strategy that played a significant part in bringing down the Rudd government in 2010. I do agree however that he needs to improve the team behind him. There is a point when loyalty becomes a fault.

Perhaps you could post a link for The Age article you mention above.


----------



## Calliope

Tisme said:


> I think you are showing your indefatigable loyalty to a party, est-ce pas?




Au contraire, my comment was made in regard to your inference that Abbott took kickbacks from charities.


----------



## Tisme

Calliope said:


> Au contraire, my comment was made in regard to your inference that Abbott took kickbacks from charities.




Is that all! Well it's well documented he has taken payment for "charity work" and excuses it as him being the drawcard for sponsorship at such events. see Tim Mathieson and his (Abbott's)  indigenous volunteer work articles


----------



## Tisme

https://independentaustralia.net/po...costly-indigenous-community-volunteering,5628

I love it when pollies get a serve for distortion of truth (lying)


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> https://independentaustralia.net/po...costly-indigenous-community-volunteering,5628
> 
> I love it when pollies get a serve for distortion of truth (lying)




Not to mention billing the taxpayer for flogging his own book or going to some Liberal mate's wedding.

Yes, I know they all do it to some extent, but Abbott's efforts seem more blatantly dishonest than most.


----------



## Calliope

Tisme said:


> Is that all! Well it's well documented he has taken payment for "charity work" and excuses it as him being the drawcard for sponsorship at such events. see Tim Mathieson and his (Abbott's)  indigenous volunteer work articles




Surely you're joking. Do you mean *this Tim Mathieson?* Gillard's live-in gigolo? Hardly a credible source.:rolleye



> Friends have told Australia's Woman's Day magazine that they have known for months that the couple's relationship was in trouble - and it didn't help matters when it was recently revealed that Miss Gillard has personally repaid $A4243 (£2,500) to the Department of Finance because Mr Mathieson was said to have misused her taxpayer-funded car when she was Prime Minister



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-lover-living-caravan-bush.html#ixzz3K7xLcIeN



> I love it when pollies get a serve for distortion of truth (lying)




Yes, especially when it comes from a leftist rag called Independent Australia.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> I have issue with blaming Labor for future deficits.  Other's have blamed labor for not making changes to the tax system to spend within their means.  The falling ToT and the plunge in Govt revenue from the GFC and far too many tax cuts (labor should never have tried to out bid Howard in the 07 election) are not relevant in the debt and deficit discussion.  So the ball is in the Abbott Govt court, and so far they seemed to have dropped it big time.
> 
> I seem to remember the coalition saying they could have run surpluses every year Labor was in office, yet it's looking like the deficit this FY might be one of the largest in Australian history.  Might even beat last years inflated deficit depending on if China can resist kicking the can down the road.
> 
> If the Govt had been offering decent policy and tax reform, I'd be behind them and telling the senate to get out of the way.  But so far there's been very little fair and meaningful reform.  Youth unemployment should be a nation shame already, yet you support the Govt forcing the under 30s to try and live for 6 months with no income.  That's not the kind of Australia I want us to become.  We're already too much like the USA.  Turning our backs on those who can't find a job in recessionary conditions, and with 14% youth unemployment that's the only way you can describe the current situation.  Currently there's something like 7 unemployed for every job vacancy, yet the Govt wants the unemployed to send off 40 job applications a month.  Who comes's up witht hat kind of idiotic policy?  No need to do a but Labor rant.  That's the past.  What's Abbott going to do about the here and now and immediate future to the next election?
> 
> The GP co payment was poorly targeted.  Tighten it up and it might be useful, but forget the medical slush fund and use the money to reduce the deficit.  Making the universities like the USA is also not the way to go.  The brownstone Unis will charge as much as they can, like the Ivy league colleges do in the USA, while the rest of the unis will bump their fees up as well.  There's already not enough nurses and teachers studying.  Making the economics even worse for those careers is just plain stupid.
> 
> Hockey's ending the age of entitlement made me hope we were going to see some meaningful reform in the current budget.  There's nothing in it that's going to help make the tax system more efficient and fairer.
> 
> if Hockey does nothing after the MYEFO is released, he needs to resign and get someone in who's willing to put some hard work in to begin treasurer.  A few more % of debt to GDP and we'll probably be on negative watch from at least S&P who have already said 30% is the point of a downgrade for Australia.  Interest rates will be rising before then and the support the Govt balance sheet has given the banks will be gone.  I fear we might have to get to that banana republic moment before the political class starts to take some serious action.



\
Your argument is very weak.....you lefties just won't accept the Green/Labor left wing socialist wrecked the economy, they are sabotaging the recovery, they have no policies of their own on how fix their own mess, they won't even support their own $6 billion cuts and now you expect Abbott to turn things around in 14 months.

The figures are there for all to plainly see.

How about becoming realistic and admit to the massive Green/Labor mismanagement in 2007/2013 which is the  reason why we find ourselves in the current situation. 

Get those bloody minded left wing socialists to show some national interest for a change instead of trying to make a  bad situation worse..


----------



## sptrawler

Tisme said:


> coz none of you wowsers seem to be able to break the shackles of your parent's political bias and subservience




If anyone seems to be shackled by blind bias, it would appear to be yourself.

There seems to be plenty of coalition voters on here, being critical of the governments performance.

It just lacks the venom against Abbott, I for one, have never seen or heard him ranting and swearing in anger.
Which Rudd did on numerous occassions, one such occassion, targeted at a service woman on a plane.

I haven't seen him make a venemous unfounded personal attack on the world stage, to bolster his standing, by playing the gender card.
As Gillard did.

Can you highlight one occassion where Abbott has verbally abused anyone?
Everytime I've seen or heard him, he appears to disslike confontation, as it was with the Allan Jones interview.

If anything, I think he is too curteous.

As I said in an earlier post, he needs to grow a pair, or move over and let someone else have a go. 

Your constant personal attack on him, seems to undermine your arguements, as they are immediately seen as biased.

Anyway back to matters of politics and policy.


----------



## Smurf1976

Meanwhile, in the real world, the house is on fire whilst the children in Canberra argue about whose fault it is.

Did the fire start because someone ran around throwing kerosene everywhere?

Or did the fire start because someone else lit a match and dropped it amidst the kero?

Either way, the place is burning and we'd be wise to focus on putting the fire out whilst there's still something left to burn.


----------



## Calliope

sptrawler said:


> As I said in an earlier post, he needs to grow a pair, or move over and let someone else have a go.




He keeps digging himself into bigger holes. All he had to do yesterday in parliament was get up and say;

"Yes, I made a stupid election promise which on mature reflection I realised was unsupportable".

I think now would be a good time for him to swap jobs with Julie Bishop. I think he would make an adequate Foreign Minister. After all he has made so many "best friends" in the Asian Pacific region, excluding Obama.


----------



## orr

Smurf1976 said:


> whilst there's still something left to burn.




Coal??? the furniture?? ahh... the unemployed youth....... no correlation with expotentiial increase  in 'ice' use of course; along with  ruining  good sets of young kidneys for a lot of over padded old farts. se' la vie............


----------



## Julia

sptrawler said:


> If anyone seems to be shackled by blind bias, it would appear to be yourself.
> 
> There seems to be plenty of coalition voters on here, being critical of the governments performance.
> 
> It just lacks the venom against Abbott, I for one, have never seen or heard him ranting and swearing in anger.
> Which Rudd did on numerous occassions, one such occassion, targeted at a service woman on a plane.
> 
> I haven't seen him make a venemous unfounded personal attack on the world stage, to bolster his standing, by playing the gender card.
> As Gillard did.
> 
> Can you highlight one occassion where Abbott has verbally abused anyone?
> Everytime I've seen or heard him, he appears to disslike confontation, as it was with the Allan Jones interview.
> 
> If anything, I think he is too curteous.
> 
> As I said in an earlier post, he needs to grow a pair, or move over and let someone else have a go.
> 
> Your constant personal attack on him, seems to undermine your arguments, as they are immediately seen as biased.




I do agree.  Tisme, your attacks are particularly personal and vicious.  Reading your words it feels to me as though you are spitting venom at the screen.

And your assumptions about your fellow ASF members are often gratuitously nasty and absolutely presumptuous, viz as example


> My internet posts on this board must be getting through to him, coz none of you wowsers seem to be able to break the shackles of your parent's political bias and subservience




This apparently with reference to Malcolm Turnbull.

1.  You have no idea whether any of us may have contacted Mr Turnbull and/or what suggestions we may have made to him.

2.  You have no idea about any bias or otherwise that may or may not have existed in any of our parents.

3.  You have no basis whatsoever for suggesting 'subservience' on the part of anyone.

4.  What gives you the right to address your fellow members as 'wowsers'?  You seem to believe that being an anonymous contributor on an internet forum confers on you the right to vituperative commentary toward others.    No wonder people stop contributing.



Tisme said:


> I love it when pollies get a serve for distortion of truth (lying)



No, you love it when the people you loathe and detest get a serve for anything at all, regardless of whether or not it's justified.


----------



## Calliope

Excellent post Julia. Right on the ball.


----------



## SirRumpole

Hi Joe,

Is there a "tongue in cheek" icon anywhere ?


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> Meanwhile, in the real world, the house is on fire whilst the children in Canberra argue about whose fault it is.
> 
> Did the fire start because someone ran around throwing kerosene everywhere?
> 
> Or did the fire start because someone else lit a match and dropped it amidst the kero?
> 
> Either way, the place is burning and we'd be wise to focus on putting the fire out whilst there's still something left to burn.




Too true smurph, whoever is in power is going to have to make some very unpopular decissions.

Labor may well catch the fire, when it is well established.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> \
> Your argument is very weak.....you lefties just won't accept the Green/Labor left wing socialist wrecked the economy, they are sabotaging the recovery, they have no policies of their own on how fix their own mess, they won't even support their own $6 billion cuts and now you expect Abbott to turn things around in 14 months.
> 
> The figures are there for all to plainly see.
> 
> How about becoming realistic and admit to the massive Green/Labor mismanagement in 2007/2013 which is the  reason why we find ourselves in the current situation.
> 
> Get those bloody minded left wing socialists to show some national interest for a change instead of trying to make a  bad situation worse..




* The Abbott Govt was in office for nearly 2/3s of the previous budget.  They didn't make any changes to it accept to add $8B+ in borrowings which they have to the RBA

* The current budget is all the Abbott Govts.  The adults are in charge Noco.  Read the memo.  When the MYEFO is released showing the Hockey projected deficit is going to balloon by billions I hope you'll give him the same lecturing that you were so happy to provide to Swan.  They'll have to increase the future projected budget deficits as well.

Remember, the Labor deficits were due only to over spending.  There is no revenue issue.  The ToT is not relevant.  Falling iron ore and coal and LNG prices don't affect the budget.  Falling worker participation doesn't affect the budget.  Aging of the population doesn't either.  So the Govt doesn't need to raise taxes.  They just have to cut cut cut till they balance the budget.  Well at least that's what Tony kept saying while in opposition.


----------



## Knobby22

I think the penny has finally dropped though for Abbott, sydboy.

I look forward to seeing a new Treasurer next year with a "bit of a clue" able to frame a budget that is balanced and able to set Australia on the right course. I am sure they could get stuff through the Senate if they had a decent argument. I don't want to see this government, no matter how much they desrve it, going down as the worst Liberal Government ever. We need them to get their act together for Australia's sake. 

From the ABC today.

_With only five full sitting days left in the parliamentary year, Prime Minister Tony Abbott was keen to start 2015 on the front foot.

Yesterday, he told Coalition MPs and senators there were one or two "barnacles" on the Government but they would be knocked off by Christmas.

One of those "barnacles" was the $7 GP co-payment, which did not have sufficient support to pass the Senate.

The Government is yet to even introduce legislation to enact the measures in the Lower House and was now unlikely to do so.

Sources had told the ABC the Coalition was "willing to go back to the drawing board".

The Government was also expected to make further changes to its $5.5 billion paid parental leave scheme, a signature policy for Mr Abbott._


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> * The Abbott Govt was in office for nearly 2/3s of the previous budget.  They didn't make any changes to it accept to add $8B+ in borrowings which they have to the RBA
> 
> * The current budget is all the Abbott Govts.  The adults are in charge Noco.  Read the memo.  When the MYEFO is released showing the Hockey projected deficit is going to balloon by billions I hope you'll give him the same lecturing that you were so happy to provide to Swan.  They'll have to increase the future projected budget deficits as well.
> 
> Remember, the Labor deficits were due only to over spending.  There is no revenue issue.  The ToT is not relevant.  Falling iron ore and coal and LNG prices don't affect the budget.  Falling worker participation doesn't affect the budget.  Aging of the population doesn't either.  So the Govt doesn't need to raise taxes.  They just have to cut cut cut till they balance the budget.  Well at least that's what Tony kept saying while in opposition.




Well they certainly have their 'feet under the table' now, the disasterous passage of the last budget has to be addressed.
It will be interesting to see how Abbott addresses the situation, and if he has learnt anything from his term in government so far.
IMO if he doesn't address the constant barrage of criticism, with some serious 'nation building' dialogue and hollistic policy, he will be flipped before the next election.

He needs to get over the mister nice guy approach, he hasn't got the charisma. 
IMO he needs to start and act as people percieve him, hard no nonsense and to the point.


----------



## IFocus

Knobby22 said:


> I think the penny has finally dropped though for Abbott, sydboy.
> 
> I look forward to seeing a new Treasurer next year with a "bit of a clue" able to frame a budget that is balanced and able to set Australia on the right course. I am sure they could get stuff through the Senate if they had a decent argument. I don't want to see this government, no matter how much they desrve it, going down as the worst Liberal Government ever. We need them to get their act together for Australia's sake.
> 
> [/I]




By all accounts Abbott was heavily involved in the drafting of the budget hence I suspect its heavy ideological bent rather than a real plan to tackle the on going fall in revenue. 

What is interesting Abbott has said no changes to the cabinet until the end of next year note the cabinet or front bench hasn't changed in 5 years, historic apparently never been done before by any party.

When will the back bench rebellion start or do the right still have an iron grip on power?


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> By all accounts Abbott was heavily involved in the drafting of the budget hence I suspect its heavy ideological bent rather than a real plan to tackle the on going fall in revenue.
> 
> What is interesting Abbott has said no changes to the cabinet until the end of next year note the cabinet or front bench hasn't changed in 5 years, historic apparently never been done before by any party.
> 
> When will the back bench rebellion start or do the right still have an iron grip on power?




That's interesting, I don't know how long Christian Porter, will sit quietly.

Here is a Paul Sheehan article on him.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/chris...ias-future-prime-minister-20131211-2z6bx.html

He was certainly a standout, in W.A politics.


----------



## banco

sptrawler said:


> He needs to get over the mister nice guy approach, he hasn't got the charisma.
> IMO he needs to start and act as people percieve him, hard no nonsense and to the point.




Do you want his approval ratings to really crater?


----------



## Knobby22

IFocus said:


> By all accounts Abbott was heavily involved in the drafting of the budget hence I suspect its heavy ideological bent rather than a real plan to tackle the on going fall in revenue.
> 
> What is interesting Abbott has said no changes to the cabinet until the end of next year note the cabinet or front bench hasn't changed in 5 years, historic apparently never been done before by any party.
> 
> When will the back bench rebellion start or do the right still have an iron grip on power?




It is bemusing. I didn't realise that the cabinet and the front bench had not changed over such a large period.
If Maggie Thatcher was in charge, she would have sacked half of them by now, as she did with the Tory's. It appears Abbott isn't much of a leader. He won't last till August if he doesn't make some changes.


----------



## boofhead

Maybe the lack of needed changes in positions is a sign of the fragility of internal party politics. Abbott, Turnball and Hockey had some close contests for leadership then add in more openly far more right leaning politicians like Bernardi etc. maybe there is a bit of gunpower and Abbott is running around putting out the party fires instead of the national fires.


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> Well they certainly have their 'feet under the table' now, the disasterous passage of the last budget has to be addressed.
> It will be interesting to see how Abbott addresses the situation, and if he has learnt anything from his term in government so far.
> IMO if he doesn't address the constant barrage of criticism, with some serious 'nation building' dialogue and hollistic policy, he will be flipped before the next election.
> 
> He needs to get over the mister nice guy approach, he hasn't got the charisma.
> IMO he needs to start and act as people percieve him, hard no nonsense and to the point.




Abbott, as you say is too nicer a guy.......he is well educated......he knows what has to be done to fix the economy of Australia, but lacks that killer instinct neede in a leader.

He needs the charisma of Pierce Brosnan, the comedy of Bob Hope and some of the thuggery of the Green/Labor CFMEU.

Wow, what a combination.......but it ain't gonna happen.....with Abbott, it is what you see is what you get.


----------



## noco

Janet Albrechtsen, has some good advice for Tony Abbott.

He must confess to his broken promises or face a further drop in the polls...He has little alternative...just do it before the end of this parliament session or else he will hear about it from Labor right through the Xmas break and thereafter..

Maybe he fears more ridicule and then his position as PM becomes more untenable.......Better to bear the pain now than the shame later....the longer he leaves it go, the worse it will become.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...7134824790?sv=1563e87ab7e44ea66931fc943f28a4a


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> Meanwhile, in the real world, the house is on fire whilst the children in Canberra argue about whose fault it is.
> 
> Did the fire start because someone ran around throwing kerosene everywhere?
> 
> Or did the fire start because someone else lit a match and dropped it amidst the kero?
> 
> Either way, the place is burning and we'd be wise to focus on putting the fire out whilst there's still something left to burn.




It appears to be very difficult to even identify the fire, let alone fight it.lol

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ve-7-gp-copayment-policy-20141126-11ul0w.html
This has been the archilles heel, of medicare since its inception. Labor will have to address it, if they attain office.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-...budget-too-hard-too-soon-20141126-11u72n.html

No let's just let the debt blow out, to the point where we are screaming for a bail out.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> It appears to be very difficult to even identify the fire, let alone fight it.lol
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ve-7-gp-copayment-policy-20141126-11ul0w.html
> This has been the archilles heel, of medicare since its inception. Labor will have to address it, if they attain office.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-...budget-too-hard-too-soon-20141126-11u72n.html
> 
> No let's just let the debt blow out, to the point where we are screaming for a bail out.




As has been repeatedly pointed out, the $7 co payment has nothing to do with debt or deficit, it won't help to fix either of them.

What we have here is a government that says its trying to reduce debt, but dreams up looney ways of shooting themselves in the foot.

Why not  cut out the tax credit for mining company royalties for starters ? Keep the carbon tax revenue, tax superannuation at the marginal rate if you want to reduce the deficit .


----------



## sydboy007

launch some decent policy seems th ebest way forward.

Quarantine NG and frame it as making the tax system fairer, more efficient and aimed at helping those under 40 get into the housing market.

Stop throwing money at the states to privatise infrastructure if theirs not a clear community benefit.

Stop being so focused on roads and let the productivity commission and infrastructure Australia guide where limited funds will produce the best results.

cajole the states to either argue the case for a broadening / increase in the gst or bring in a broadly based land tax to help fund their community obligations.  Frame it as helping to make public infrastructure self funding by being able to get some of the uplift in land value back rather than the increase being pocketed solely by those who benefit from the infrastructure spending.

Bring back reasonable benefit limits for super and have them increase annual to the CPI.  Frame it as stopping super being treated as a tax minimisation system for the rich.  ATO should have figures readily available as to how much could be saved.

Bring in a reverse mortgage scheme for pensioners and stop treating the largest financial asset most people have as being invisible for access to the aged pension.  Frame it as an intergenerational equity issue where the falling participation rate means there's less tax payers for an increasing number of pensioners.  Everyone needs to chip in to keep the tax and welfare system sustainable.

Good policy is hard to argue against, especially when you use the right frame to show the why as we all as the how.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> launch some decent policy seems th ebest way forward.
> 
> Quarantine NG and frame it as making the tax system fairer, more efficient and aimed at helping those under 40 get into the housing market.
> 
> Stop throwing money at the states to privatise infrastructure if theirs not a clear community benefit.
> 
> Stop being so focused on roads and let the productivity commission and infrastructure Australia guide where limited funds will produce the best results.
> 
> cajole the states to either argue the case for a broadening / increase in the gst or bring in a broadly based land tax to help fund their community obligations.  Frame it as helping to make public infrastructure self funding by being able to get some of the uplift in land value back rather than the increase being pocketed solely by those who benefit from the infrastructure spending.
> 
> Bring back reasonable benefit limits for super and have them increase annual to the CPI.  Frame it as stopping super being treated as a tax minimisation system for the rich.  ATO should have figures readily available as to how much could be saved.
> 
> Bring in a reverse mortgage scheme for pensioners and stop treating the largest financial asset most people have as being invisible for access to the aged pension.  Frame it as an intergenerational equity issue where the falling participation rate means there's less tax payers for an increasing number of pensioners.  Everyone needs to chip in to keep the tax and welfare system sustainable.
> 
> Good policy is hard to argue against, especially when you use the right frame to show the why as we all as the how.




IMO, You are know starting to talk a more balanced scenario.

All you need to do, is start and focus on the welfare system, to make it a back stop position not a desired position.

Aside from that, your ideas have a lot of merit.

You just have to get away from the belief, that all those that have saved money, should pay more.

Likewise all those that spend their money, deserve more.

There has to be a reward for being responsible, and there should be a safety net, for being irresponsible.

To punish the responsible, and overly reward the irresponsible, just encourages mediocity.IMO

How you can encourage, endeavour, sacrifice and striving, when you reward and excuse unproductive behaviour, is hard to reconcile.

Just as Abbott talked cuts to spending, you now are suggesting increasing the tax base.

The door swings both ways.

You suggest RBL's fixed to cpi, yet spat the dummy when pensions were to be linked to cpi.
If it's fair, let it be fair.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> launch some decent policy seems th ebest way forward.
> 
> Quarantine NG and frame it as making the tax system fairer, more efficient and aimed at helping those under 40 get into the housing market.
> 
> Stop throwing money at the states to privatise infrastructure if theirs not a clear community benefit.
> 
> Stop being so focused on roads and let the productivity commission and infrastructure Australia guide where limited funds will produce the best results.
> 
> cajole the states to either argue the case for a broadening / increase in the gst or bring in a broadly based land tax to help fund their community obligations.  Frame it as helping to make public infrastructure self funding by being able to get some of the uplift in land value back rather than the increase being pocketed solely by those who benefit from the infrastructure spending.
> 
> Bring back reasonable benefit limits for super and have them increase annual to the CPI.  Frame it as stopping super being treated as a tax minimisation system for the rich.  ATO should have figures readily available as to how much could be saved.
> 
> Bring in a reverse mortgage scheme for pensioners and stop treating the largest financial asset most people have as being invisible for access to the aged pension.  Frame it as an intergenerational equity issue where the falling participation rate means there's less tax payers for an increasing number of pensioners.  Everyone needs to chip in to keep the tax and welfare system sustainable.
> 
> Good policy is hard to argue against, especially when you use the right frame to show the why as we all as the how.




What a shame the Green/Labor coalition didn't have the right policies 2007/2013......if they had implemented the right policies we would not be in the mess we are today....Strange as it may seem but Shorten does not have any policies either.


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> IMO, You are know starting to talk a more balanced scenario.
> 
> All you need to do, is start and focus on the welfare system, to make it a back stop position not a desired position.
> 
> Aside from that, your ideas have a lot of merit.
> 
> You just have to get away from the belief, that all those that have saved money, should pay more.
> 
> Likewise all those that spend their money, deserve more.
> 
> There has to be a reward for being responsible, and there should be a safety net, for being irresponsible.
> 
> To punish the responsible, and overly reward the irresponsible, just encourages mediocity.IMO
> 
> How you can encourage, endeavour, sacrifice and striving, when you reward and excuse unproductive behaviour, is hard to reconcile.
> 
> Just as Abbott talked cuts to spending, you now are suggesting increasing the tax base.
> 
> The door swings both ways.
> 
> You suggest RBL's fixed to cpi, yet spat the dummy when pensions were to be linked to cpi.
> If it's fair, let it be fair.





It is true...you cannot make the poor richer by making the rich poorer and that is the philosophy of the Labor Party.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> As has been repeatedly pointed out, the $7 co payment has nothing to do with debt or deficit, it won't help to fix either of them.
> .




Through to the keeper.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> Why not  cut out the tax credit for mining company royalties for starters ? Keep the carbon tax revenue, tax superannuation at the marginal rate if you want to reduce the deficit .




Beautifull, just beautifull.

Shut down mining, most will go broke at the moment anyway.

Increase the carbon tax to include transport companies, as was meant to happen in 2015.lol

Make superannuation a compulsory, extra tax. 
Why not just up the tax rates?

Can't follow your reasoning, other than to pay for welfare.lol


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> Beautifull, just beautifull.
> 
> Thanks, I am
> 
> Shut down mining, most will go broke at the moment anyway.
> 
> Minerals are a diminishing resource, prices will go up in the long term. Maybe the states should collect royalties by value not volume
> 
> Increase the carbon tax to include transport companies, as was meant to happen in 2015.lol
> 
> Don't  know about that. Instead of abolishing the carbon tax entirely, the rate could be reduced to say $10 a tonne. It wold still bring in revenue, but would take a load of business.
> 
> 
> Make superannuation a compulsory, extra tax.
> Why not just up the tax rates?
> 
> Tax super contributions at the marginal rate instead of 15%. Currently it's one of the biggest tax dodges around for the rich.
> 
> 
> Can't follow your reasoning, other than to pay for welfare.lol
> 
> Well, I think the family tax benefit (introduced by the welfare socialist John Howard ) should be phased out, so that's one welfare expense reduced.




See comments in red above


----------



## Tisme

Calliope said:


> Yes, especially when it comes from a leftist rag called Independent Australia.




News is only valid if it's not from the left? 

I had a feeling you would bite on that one, but fact remains fact.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> See comments in red above



I'll number them as they don't show up on the response page:

1. If States collected Royalties on value versus as against volume, they would be in deep $hit at the moment.

2.So now you're saying modify the carbon tax, where you were saying keep the carbon tax, subtle difference.

But it still cost Qantas $100million of its $300million loss, then showbag Bill was saying bail them out?

Sounds like another shoot from the hip, missed it last time shot.
At least Syd thinks it through a bit.

3, Super is a compulsory deduction from your pay, it is taken on the understanding you can't use it, but the financial systems can. 
For you foregoing that money, it is taxed at 15%.
What you are saying is, it should be taken from you at your marginal rate. 
Why not just up the marginal rate by 1 or 2%?  Taking 9% of you pay at the top rate is a bit rough?

4. The family tax benefit was introduced to help promote a positive population growth, most first world countries have a negative population growth.
It was introduced, same as the child allowance to help promote famillies as the costs to have famillies increased.
Much easier just to get rid of it and import people ala Labor policy.


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> If anyone seems to be shackled by blind bias, it would appear to be yourself.
> 
> There seems to be plenty of coalition voters on here, being critical of the governments performance.
> 
> It just lacks the venom against Abbott, I for one, have never seen or heard him ranting and swearing in anger.
> Which Rudd did on numerous occassions, one such occassion, targeted at a service woman on a plane.
> 
> I haven't seen him make a venemous unfounded personal attack on the world stage, to bolster his standing, by playing the gender card.
> As Gillard did.
> 
> Can you highlight one occassion where Abbott has verbally abused anyone?
> Everytime I've seen or heard him, he appears to disslike confontation, as it was with the Allan Jones interview.
> 
> If anything, I think he is too curteous.
> 
> As I said in an earlier post, he needs to grow a pair, or move over and let someone else have a go.
> 
> Your constant personal attack on him, seems to undermine your arguements, as they are immediately seen as biased.
> 
> Anyway back to matters of politics and policy.




Yes I can to all your requests, but it would be easier if you looked up hansard yourself.

Having a go at me won't change the facts and that you seem very eager to be an apologist for Tony = ratified my initial barb about (wasting) voting.

In fairness to me, and Rumpole will attest, I was not so kind to previous Labor leaders either, but they aren't running the country at this time. This thread is the Abbott one and on topic.


----------



## Julia

sydboy007 said:


> Bring back reasonable benefit limits for super and have them increase annual to the CPI.  Frame it as stopping super being treated as a tax minimisation system for the rich.  ATO should have figures readily available as to how much could be saved.
> 
> Bring in a reverse mortgage scheme for pensioners and stop treating the largest financial asset most people have as being invisible for access to the aged pension.  Frame it as an intergenerational equity issue where the falling participation rate means there's less tax payers for an increasing number of pensioners.  Everyone needs to chip in to keep the tax and welfare system sustainable.
> 
> Good policy is hard to argue against, especially when you use the right frame to show the why as we all as the how.



Agree with these points, syd.  Well made.  The government needs to address the very basics of fairness in order to get the electorate back on side.  I'm not sure they have much comprehension of the strength of the feeling in the electorate in order to do this.


----------



## sptrawler

Tisme said:


> Yes I can to all your requests, but it would be easier if you looked up hansard yourself.
> 
> Having a go at me won't change the facts and that you seem very eager to be an apologist for Tony = ratified my initial barb about (wasting) voting.
> 
> In fairness to me, and Rumpole will attest, I was not so kind to previous Labor leaders either, but they aren't running the country at this time. This thread is the Abbott one and on topic.




Not aplogising for Abbott at all, just asking you substantiate the personal attack.
Being impartial, I personally don't think Abbott is handling the position well. 
However suggesting he has an affliction is a bit out there, people with the affliction may take offence


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> * The Abbott Govt was in office for nearly 2/3s of the previous budget.  They didn't make any changes to it accept to add $8B+ in borrowings which they have to the RBA
> 
> * The current budget is all the Abbott Govts.  The adults are in charge Noco.  Read the memo.  When the MYEFO is released showing the Hockey projected deficit is going to balloon by billions I hope you'll give him the same lecturing that you were so happy to provide to Swan.  They'll have to increase the future projected budget deficits as well.
> 
> Remember, the Labor deficits were due only to over spending.  There is no revenue issue.  The ToT is not relevant.  Falling iron ore and coal and LNG prices don't affect the budget.  Falling worker participation doesn't affect the budget.  Aging of the population doesn't either.  So the Govt doesn't need to raise taxes.  They just have to cut cut cut till they balance the budget.  Well at least that's what Tony kept saying while in opposition.




Perhaps you should read my post # 4823 again only this time absorb the contents a little more closely and particularly the high lighted section below.

*This FBO confirms Labor delivered six successive deficits totalling $240 billion with many more to come. Including 2013-14, Labor left the Government with future deficits of $123 billion over the forward estimates to 30 June 2017. .*

Yes the adults are in charge and the kiddies are on the other side of the chamber, commonly known as the opposition.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:
			
		

> 4. The family tax benefit was introduced to help promote a positive population growth, most first world countries have a negative population growth.




It didn't work though did it ? They had to bring in a baby bonus as well.

Taking money with taxes and giving it back with benefits is not an efficient way of achieving a purpose. If encouraging people to have children is the objective (which is social engineering anyway), the best way to do it is spend some of the tax money on child care services instead of returning it as a general grant that doesn't necessarily get spent on children.


----------



## SirRumpole




----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> IMO, You are know starting to talk a more balanced scenario.
> 
> All you need to do, is start and focus on the welfare system, to make it a back stop position not a desired position.
> 
> Aside from that, your ideas have a lot of merit.
> 
> You just have to get away from the belief, that all those that have saved money, should pay more.
> 
> Likewise all those that spend their money, deserve more.
> 
> There has to be a reward for being responsible, and there should be a safety net, for being irresponsible.
> 
> To punish the responsible, and overly reward the irresponsible, just encourages mediocity.IMO
> 
> How you can encourage, endeavour, sacrifice and striving, when you reward and excuse unproductive behaviour, is hard to reconcile.
> 
> Just as Abbott talked cuts to spending, you now are suggesting increasing the tax base.
> 
> The door swings both ways.
> 
> You suggest RBL's fixed to cpi, yet spat the dummy when pensions were to be linked to cpi.
> If it's fair, let it be fair.




I have no problem with rewards for being responsible.  I do have a problem when a small minority of people are able to take obscene advantage of the super system and use it as a tax minimisation scheme.  When Howard removed RBLs and brought it tax free super the ATO were advising only 2.4% of people accessing their funds were hitting either limit.  So why remove it when the impact was pretty much no impact?  Even today, when you factor in CPI increases, RBLs would still impact relatively few.  In the last year RBLs were relevant 2006–07 the lump sum limit was $678,149, while half as a pension limit was was $1,356,291.  That was for each individual.  So a couple could have had over $2.5M in super.  Are you telling me that was not enough to have for a comfortable retirement?  The figures today would be $822,748 / $1,645,496.  Over $3M in super for a couple.  Surely that's enough money to have huge amounts of Govt support to accumulate?  $3M generating 5% from bonds is $150K a year tax free.  Yes an extreme example, but it's those extremes that are bleeding the budget.

Could you point to some specific examples where I "...encourage, endeavour, sacrifice and striving, when you reward and excuse unproductive behaviour, is hard to reconcile."

What cuts to spending has Abbott proposed?  He's further narrowed the tax base, with a very minimal broadening via bring about fuel excise indexation.  Changes to the way the aged pension are calculated might save the Govt money, though over the next few years probably wont when compared to the current system. No real changes to welfare have been proposed except to make the youth destitute, but he's offering thousands of dollars to businesses to employ someone over 50.

I don't have an issue with the pension being increased at the CPI.  I do have an issue when it's the best of CPI or average weekly earnings.  Best of both worlds, though with the stagnant wages now a CPI increase is probably a better pay rise than a lot of people will get over the next few years.  I do ask how we afford it when the participation rate is in the rapid decline phase.  It's already down 5% since Howard left office.  It's likely to be down that much again by 2020.  Any increase in the over 60s employment will likely just increase youth unemployment even more.

There are no easy answers, but at least the ones I'm proposing have a chance of being accepted by the voters.  They can be shown to be fair, don't impact too many people, and actually do help to stop the revenue bleed.

Would you care to offer some ideas of your own?


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> 4. The family tax benefit was introduced to help promote a positive population growth, most first world countries have a negative population growth.
> It was introduced, same as the child allowance to help promote famillies as the costs to have famillies increased.
> Much easier just to get rid of it and import people ala Labor policy.




Don't you find that a bit hypocritical?  You're blaming Labor for their big Australia policy (even though Howard was a Big Australia policy man too) but you support a policy by Howard to increase natural population growth via increasing the birth rate.

So, are you against a large population for Australia, or you just have a preference for a big Australia filled with local babies?


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Perhaps you should read my post # 4823 again only this time absorb the contents a little more closely and particularly the high lighted section below.
> 
> *This FBO confirms Labor delivered six successive deficits totalling $240 billion with many more to come. Including 2013-14, Labor left the Government with future deficits of $123 billion over the forward estimates to 30 June 2017. .*
> 
> Yes the adults are in charge and the kiddies are on the other side of the chamber, commonly known as the opposition.




You can't blame the outgoing Govt for future deficits.  Are you now arguing that the 2014-15 deficit is also Labors?  What happens if the Abbott Govt has even bigger deficits than was forecast?


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Don't you find that a bit hypocritical?  You're blaming Labor for their big Australia policy (even though Howard was a Big Australia policy man too) but you support a policy by Howard to increase natural population growth via increasing the birth rate.
> 
> So, are you against a large population for Australia, or you just have a preference for a big Australia filled with local babies?




Yes but Howard did it methodically and legally.......Rudd/Gillard/Rudd and about four different Immigration Ministers during 2007/2013 allowed in 50,000 illegal boat people compliments of the Indonesian people smugglers.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> Don't you find that a bit hypocritical?  You're blaming Labor for their big Australia policy (even though Howard was a Big Australia policy man too) but you support a policy by Howard to increase natural population growth via increasing the birth rate.
> 
> So, are you against a large population for Australia, or you just have a preference for a big Australia filled with local babies?




I have a preference for a sustainable population and natural population growth that uses resources efficiently. If you want people to have more children, paying them to do so isn't the best way to do it, because people start doing it for the money. 

Quality is better than quantity. Let people who really want children and can afford to pay for them have them, but don't encourage the rest to do what they can't afford themselves. As I said , there is no guarantee that family tax benefits actually gets spent on children. Fund child care centres and better education systems if you want to ensure that children benefit.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Don't you find that a bit hypocritical?  You're blaming Labor for their big Australia policy (even though Howard was a Big Australia policy man too) but you support a policy by Howard to increase natural population growth via increasing the birth rate.
> 
> So, are you against a large population for Australia, or you just have a preference for a big Australia filled with local babies?




I probably have a leaning towards local babies, it tends to promote our own culture. The idea of allowing unabated immigration isn't, IMO, conducive to national pride.

The other problem is Australia's ease of access to welfare and pension system, we are finding it difficult to support it already.
The addition of large numbers of people, who haven't contributed to the system, place further pressure on those working to pay for them.
I know it sounds a bit selfish, however not many countries in the world, offer the ease of access we do.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> I have a preference for a sustainable population and natural population growth that uses resources efficiently. If you want people to have more children, paying them to do so isn't the best way to do it, because people start doing it for the money.
> 
> Quality is better than quantity. Let people who really want children and can afford to pay for them have them, but don't encourage the rest to do what they can't afford themselves. As I said , there is no guarantee that family tax benefits actually gets spent on children. Fund child care centres and better education systems if you want to ensure that children benefit.




Isn't that the basis for Abbott's PPL idea? to enable the professional couples to have time off to have babies, yet still meet their financial commitments.

Not that I agree with it, but I'm sure I heard somewhere, it was to encourage our 'high achievers' to have babies.

As you say, there isn't much sense in encouraging people to have children, who can't afford to bring up children.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> Isn't that the basis for Abbott's PPL idea? to enable the professional couples to have time off to have babies, yet still meet their financial commitments.




Professional couples who want to have babies don't need any financial encouragement from others, they already have the incomes to manage.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> I have no problem with rewards for being responsible.  I do have a problem when a small minority of people are able to take obscene advantage of the super system and use it as a tax minimisation scheme.  When Howard removed RBLs and brought it tax free super the ATO were advising only 2.4% of people accessing their funds were hitting either limit.  So why remove it when the impact was pretty much no impact?  Even today, when you factor in CPI increases, RBLs would still impact relatively few.  In the last year RBLs were relevant 2006–07 the lump sum limit was $678,149, while half as a pension limit was was $1,356,291.  That was for each individual.  So a couple could have had over $2.5M in super.  Are you telling me that was not enough to have for a comfortable retirement?  The figures today would be $822,748 / $1,645,496.  Over $3M in super for a couple.  Surely that's enough money to have huge amounts of Govt support to accumulate?  $3M generating 5% from bonds is $150K a year tax free.  Yes an extreme example, but it's those extremes that are bleeding the budget.?



We've been through this before, and as you know I aree with you. 
The only point of difference we had was the amount of the limit, what you are suggesting above, I feel is spot on. 



sydboy007 said:


> Could you point to some specific examples where I "...encourage, endeavour, sacrifice and striving, when you reward and excuse unproductive behaviour, is hard to reconcile."?




The welfare system has to be paid for by tax reciepts, the more that is given away in welfare, the more the tax burden on the productive sector. 
The government has to somehow make the welfare system a safety net not a lifestyle. If that means relocating people to where the work is, or restricting access to welfare payments, or building affordable housing so be it.
Something is seriously wrong, when we have unemployed sitting on the streets of Sydney begging, while we had to bring in cleaners from overseas.
Just handing out money, with no accountabilty, hasn't worked. I certainly don't know how to fix it, but more of the same isn't the answer.  



sydboy007 said:


> What cuts to spending has Abbott proposed?  He's further narrowed the tax base, with a very minimal broadening via bring about fuel excise indexation.  Changes to the way the aged pension are calculated might save the Govt money, though over the next few years probably wont when compared to the current system. No real changes to welfare have been proposed except to make the youth destitute, but he's offering thousands of dollars to businesses to employ someone over 50.?



The carbon tax was crazy, it put us at an unfair dissadvantage to our competitors, e.g NZ
The MRRT was a band aid solution to a bigger issue, to put an add hock tax on a high risk venture, would have made it impossible to raise capital. Something needs doing, but shooting from the hip isn't it.



sydboy007 said:


> I don't have an issue with the pension being increased at the CPI.  I do have an issue when it's the best of CPI or average weekly earnings.  Best of both worlds, though with the stagnant wages now a CPI increase is probably a better pay rise than a lot of people will get over the next few years.  I do ask how we afford it when the participation rate is in the rapid decline phase.  It's already down 5% since Howard left office.  It's likely to be down that much again by 2020.  Any increase in the over 60s employment will likely just increase youth unemployment even more.?




A lot of people did have a problem with the pension being linked to cpi, the papers were all over it and Shorten.
I said at the time, will the same people be screaming if the pension goes down with average wages, you bet they will.
Getting people to accept any cuts to anything is proving impossible, well that will mean the productive sector becomes less productive, as it will be taxed more. 



sydboy007 said:


> There are no easy answers, but at least the ones I'm proposing have a chance of being accepted by the voters.  They can be shown to be fair, don't impact too many people, and actually do help to stop the revenue bleed.
> 
> Would you care to offer some ideas of your own?




Your suggestions heve been very good, however they will only work for a period of time, untill welfare swallows up the extra taxes. Then you will have to think up more ways of paying for the guys sitting on Sydneys streets and housing the pensioners.
Do I have any ideas, well non that would be palatable, or acceptable. 
It is a bit like the aboriginal issue, you can't buy them self respect and motivation, but we just throw more money at them.


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> I probably have a leaning towards local babies, it tends to promote our own culture. The idea of allowing unabated immigration isn't, IMO, conducive to national pride.
> 
> The other problem is Australia's ease of access to welfare and pension system, we are finding it difficult to support it already.
> The addition of large numbers of people, who haven't contributed to the system, place further pressure on those working to pay for them.
> I know it sounds a bit selfish, however not many countries in the world, offer the ease of access we do.




My nationalistic side says we should promote local culture, but on the otherhand I'm not too sure if that isn't already evaporating as our homegrown kids adopt the global perspective.

I'm told, but I can't get to the core of it, that the handouts and support we think we are giving migrants isn't what the shock jocks would have us believe. I do know of two friends in their sixties, who migrated here in their twenties, but didn't take the oath and as such couldn't get flood relief and centrelink compensation because of it.

I was raised in poor town Perth, although I was fed and clothed and the people around me were first and second gen migrants from Italy, Yugoslavia and the UK and it didn't change my habitual tendancy for all things Aussie (although I admit the "mate" term was foreign to me until grade 7 when a new boy with an odd nasal twang joined the class). I liked my childhood, except those long hot days when were limited to watching boring ABC shows while laying in the breezeway of the house. I went on to do rather well for myself and get a very good education in the process as did many of my "poor migrant" friends who also made good, becoming politicians, industry leaders and household names.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> Professional couples who want to have babies don't need any financial encouragement from others, they already have the incomes to manage.




Maybe they are just as stiched up with debt as everyone else?


----------



## sptrawler

Tisme said:


> I was raised in poor town Perth, although I was fed and clothed and the people around me were first and second gen migrants from Italy, Yugoslavia and the UK and it didn't change my habitual tendancy for all things Aussie (although I admit the "mate" term was foreign to me until grade 7 when a new boy with an odd nasal twang joined the class). I liked my childhood, except those long hot days when were limited to watching boring ABC shows while laying in the breezeway of the house. I went on to do rather well for myself and get a very good education in the process as did many of my "poor migrant" friends who also made good, becoming politicians, industry leaders and household names.




Sounds much like my story.

Except my friends aren't politicians, industry leaders or household names, just salt of the earth types.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> I probably have a leaning towards local babies, it tends to promote our own culture. The idea of allowing unabated immigration isn't, IMO, conducive to national pride.
> 
> The other problem is Australia's ease of access to welfare and pension system, we are finding it difficult to support it already.
> The addition of large numbers of people, who haven't contributed to the system, place further pressure on those working to pay for them.
> I know it sounds a bit selfish, however not many countries in the world, offer the ease of access we do.




So to clarify, you do support a high population Australia as long as it's not brought about by immigration?  Unabated local population growth is OK?

You do understand that the majority of people coming to Australia as immigrants don't have access to welfare.  They get here because they're supposedly work ready and coming in to fill areas of skill shortages within the economy.

To get an idea of the truth regarding access to welfare for immigrants - https://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/47temporary_residence.htm

Refugees receive the same social security benefits as everyone else.  They account for the smallest caterogry of immigration as well.

Some other myths that are perpetuated:

Myth: Refugees living in Australia receives a larger weekly allowance from Centrelink than age pensioners. 
Fact: A single person with no dependent children applying for the Newstart Allowance (whether or not he or she is a refugee) receives over $250.00 LESS per fortnight than a single age pensioner.

Myth: Refugees receive higher rates of payment under Centrelink programs than other Australians. 
Fact: Centrelink payments are calculated at exactly the same rate for both refugees and non-refugees.

The Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme (ASAS) provides assistance to asylum seekers living in the community who are experiencing financial hardship. ASAS offers income support to cover basic living expenses, paid at 89 per cent of the Centrelink Special Benefit (which is usually paid at the same rate as the Newstart Allowance). This equates to around $446.00 per fortnight, or around $300.00 less than the single age pension.

The truth is Australia has some of the hardest to access social welfare in the world, and it's more tightly targeted to need than pretty much anywhere else as well.

Now you might believe smoking Joe's big lie "…the average working Australian, be they a cleaner, a plumber or a teacher, is working over one month full time each year just to pay for the welfare of another Australian."  The truth is most Australians get more from the system than they put in!  Unless you’re earning at least $1,174 per week, you’re taking more from the tax system than you’re contributing. Or, to use Joe’s terms, at least 60% of Australians are ‘leaners’!

Now before you say why should the top 40% support the bottom 60%, it's pretty much because they can afford to - as the below chart shows.  Being one of those in the 40 I'm happy to help those less fortunate, though I'd like to see a better targetting of assistance, and make the whole system a lot more efficient.

Now as SirRumpole has said, the tax churn of paying tax and receiving benefits is plain bad.  The dead hand of Govt at each step makes that an expensive option.  So policies that change the tax system to provide those on lower incomes with a similar outcome as they do now, helping to avoid the churn, would do a lot to make the system more affordable and easier to understand.

The massive amounts of largesse around super has to stop.  Poor people shouldn't have to see higher income taxes just so a very small percentage can accumulate massive amounts of money in super.  $1M at 5% provides someone with a tax free income of $50K a year.  That's above the 47K median income, which for a single person is reduced via tax and high rental costs.   Super is not the only way to save for retirement.  I doubt those who can hit the $1M in super target would suddenly stop saving for their retirement.

Possibly the easiest way to make super fairer is via taxing contributions at the marginal rate.  The 15% tax on earnings is still a pretty big incentive to save within super.  The low taxing of super earnings is now starting to be the biggest component of tax forgone. A change like this would also mean those who lost out from the removal of the LISC will actually get a benefit for their super contributions.

The primary residence being outside pension assets has to stop.  Possibly the easiest way forward is to bring the value of land within the assets test, along with a decent jump in the assets limit for those who don't own property.  Land values are calculated for each state already, they are updated every 5 years, and there's well established processes in terms of challenging the valuation.  It also avoids trying to determine the value of the structures on the land.

Quarantine NG to new builds, funnel the savings into building affordable housing.  The increase in construction activity will increase economic activity and tax receipts.

There's so much that can be done to make the way we raise tax revenue simpler and fairer, but so far it's not on the political agenda.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> Maybe they are just as stiched up with debt as everyone else?




In which case they probably have more assets than they need and would pass their greed onto their children.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> So to clarify, you do support a high population Australia as long as it's not brought about by immigration?  Unabated local population growth is OK?
> 
> You do understand that the majority of people coming to Australia as immigrants don't have access to welfare.  They get here because they're supposedly work ready and coming in to fill areas of skill shortages within the economy.
> 
> To get an idea of the truth regarding access to welfare for immigrants - https://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/47temporary_residence.htm
> 
> Refugees receive the same social security benefits as everyone else.  They account for the smallest caterogry of immigration as well.
> 
> Some other myths that are perpetuated:
> 
> Myth: Refugees living in Australia receives a larger weekly allowance from Centrelink than age pensioners.
> Fact: A single person with no dependent children applying for the Newstart Allowance (whether or not he or she is a refugee) receives over $250.00 LESS per fortnight than a single age pensioner.
> 
> Myth: Refugees receive higher rates of payment under Centrelink programs than other Australians.
> Fact: Centrelink payments are calculated at exactly the same rate for both refugees and non-refugees.
> 
> The Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme (ASAS) provides assistance to asylum seekers living in the community who are experiencing financial hardship. ASAS offers income support to cover basic living expenses, paid at 89 per cent of the Centrelink Special Benefit (which is usually paid at the same rate as the Newstart Allowance). This equates to around $446.00 per fortnight, or around $300.00 less than the single age pension.
> 
> The truth is Australia has some of the hardest to access social welfare in the world, and it's more tightly targeted to need than pretty much anywhere else as well.
> 
> Now you might believe smoking Joe's big lie "…the average working Australian, be they a cleaner, a plumber or a teacher, is working over one month full time each year just to pay for the welfare of another Australian."  The truth is most Australians get more from the system than they put in!  Unless you’re earning at least $1,174 per week, you’re taking more from the tax system than you’re contributing. Or, to use Joe’s terms, at least 60% of Australians are ‘leaners’!
> 
> Now before you say why should the top 40% support the bottom 60%, it's pretty much because they can afford to - as the below chart shows.  Being one of those in the 40 I'm happy to help those less fortunate, though I'd like to see a better targetting of assistance, and make the whole system a lot more efficient.
> 
> Now as SirRumpole has said, the tax churn of paying tax and receiving benefits is plain bad.  The dead hand of Govt at each step makes that an expensive option.  So policies that change the tax system to provide those on lower incomes with a similar outcome as they do now, helping to avoid the churn, would do a lot to make the system more affordable and easier to understand.
> 
> The massive amounts of largesse around super has to stop.  Poor people shouldn't have to see higher income taxes just so a very small percentage can accumulate massive amounts of money in super.  $1M at 5% provides someone with a tax free income of $50K a year.  That's above the 47K median income, which for a single person is reduced via tax and high rental costs.   Super is not the only way to save for retirement.  I doubt those who can hit the $1M in super target would suddenly stop saving for their retirement.
> 
> Possibly the easiest way to make super fairer is via taxing contributions at the marginal rate.  The 15% tax on earnings is still a pretty big incentive to save within super.  The low taxing of super earnings is now starting to be the biggest component of tax forgone. A change like this would also mean those who lost out from the removal of the LISC will actually get a benefit for their super contributions.
> 
> The primary residence being outside pension assets has to stop.  Possibly the easiest way forward is to bring the value of land within the assets test, along with a decent jump in the assets limit for those who don't own property.  Land values are calculated for each state already, they are updated every 5 years, and there's well established processes in terms of challenging the valuation.  It also avoids trying to determine the value of the structures on the land.
> 
> Quarantine NG to new builds, funnel the savings into building affordable housing.  The increase in construction activity will increase economic activity and tax receipts.
> 
> There's so much that can be done to make the way we raise tax revenue simpler and fairer, but so far it's not on the political agenda.




As I've said on numerous occassions, I feel our population should increase as it can be facilitated and afforded.
Increasing the population, when we are having trouble supporting the existing population, is dumb.IMO


I just feel that whichever government is in, should to a certain degree be allowed to implement the agenda they believe will work, then be judged on the outcome.

IMO Both Labor and Liberal have good and bad policy, and depending on the economic cycle, both are required to have a turn in office. It is what makes our country work.

As for saying I dissagree with the top 40% paying more, I actually don't care, I don't work any more.
If my memory serves me right, you mentioned personal tax rates should fall.


----------



## Tisme

I was wondering to myself, which I do on a regular basis, how long it took to hatch a crafty plan to denigrate Bill Shorten instead of actually focusing on the dire state of the Australian economy (that's what the govt keep telling us at least).

So some toady has one of those moments where the name "Barnacle Bill"  pops into his pea brain head and inwardly starting laughing, breaking out to gafoors like any school child is apt to do.

The solution is immediately at hand, all that is needed now is a situation to allow the funniest thing ever thought of to be announced... eureka lets call executive ineffectiveness and poor negotiation skills "barnacles" and in a few days spontaneously drop Bill's name at the end of it ... Stewie Griffin would be so impressed with the wit, up there with Juliar and other monumental additions to our lexicon.

I mean really guys, are you adults in charge or children!! I'm prepared to buy Parliament a book or two of erudite scholars practiced in the art of sophisticated, nonetheless crushing, wit:- Disraeli, Churchill, Whitlam, Keating and even Menzies.  

That's my daily serve on our rudderless ship.


----------



## IFocus

Rabble 


Coalition's GP co-payment strategy foundering on the rocks of confusion 



> The Abbott government appeared to be successfully executing this manoeuvre. It briefed the press gallery it was shelving the $7 GP co-payment (which it effectively already had, having long given up on attempts to persuade the implacably opposed Senate crossbench to pass it) and that it was “going back to the drawing board”.





Then this



> But then the leader of the government in the Senate, Eric Abetz, insisted the government was, in fact, standing by the policy, the treasurer Joe Hockey said “our policy stands” and the health minister, Peter Dutton, suggested the government could try to impose it via regulation.





So who knows what happening....tell this bloke



> The Australian Medical Association president, Brian Owler, told Guardian Australia on Thursday, “We just need to know who is running health policy in this country and what it is … right now it looks like a total mess.”





http://www.theguardian.com/australi...strategy-foundering-on-the-rocks-of-confusion


----------



## Tisme

IFocus said:


> Rabble
> 
> 
> Coalition's GP co-payment strategy foundering on the rocks of confusion
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/australi...strategy-foundering-on-the-rocks-of-confusion




Do you think the same thing that is happening to Campbell Newman is happening to Tony too = they have become placards, rather than spokesmen of cabinet policy?


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> Do you think the same thing that is happening to Campbell Newman is happening to Tony too = they have become placards, rather than spokesmen of cabinet policy?




Tony Abbott wants the business sector to do the fighting his policies because he and Hockey haven't got the skills to do it themselves.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-29/pm-urges-business-leaders-to-join-team-australia/5849582

As for Newman, the public seems to be a wake up to him, with the next election too close to call

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-27/queensland-election-too-close-to-call/5921042


----------



## banco

SirRumpole said:


> Tony Abbott wants the business sector to do the fighting his policies because he and Hockey haven't got the skills to do it themselves.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-29/pm-urges-business-leaders-to-join-team-australia/5849582
> 
> As for Newman, the public seems to be a wake up to him, with the next election too close to call
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-27/queensland-election-too-close-to-call/5921042




"Team Australia" sounds so patronising. I can only assume it polls well with the bogans.


----------



## Smurf1976

SirRumpole said:


> Tony Abbott wants the business sector to do the fighting his policies because he and Hockey haven't got the skills to do it themselves.




It's a risky move asking people to put all their eggs in your basket when that basket is very obviously under stress and may well break. 

Looking at the overall situation, a pragmatic business person or group with their own interest in mind would be trying to influence Labor policy or remaining neutral on the basis that a Labor government following the next election is at least a plausible outcome.


----------



## Tisme

Apparently the 7-8% swing against the LNP is not a fall, but merely an efficiency dividend. Apparently they are maintaining their lead with fewer people intent on voting for them. If only we could bottle the formula......


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Professional couples who want to have babies don't need any financial encouragement from others, they already have the incomes to manage.




How do you know they don't need help?

They probably pay the maximum in tax, probably have a mortgage on the house, paying off their uni hex fees.....have another kid or two.

As much as I am against the PPL scheme, if  it does not go through then they should bring back the public servants and female politicians in line with the Labor scheme......I thought Labor always promotes fairness.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> As I've said on numerous occassions, I feel our population should increase as it can be facilitated and afforded.
> Increasing the population, when we are having trouble supporting the existing population, is dumb.IMO
> 
> 
> I just feel that whichever government is in, should to a certain degree be allowed to implement the agenda they believe will work, then be judged on the outcome.
> 
> IMO Both Labor and Liberal have good and bad policy, and depending on the economic cycle, both are required to have a turn in office. It is what makes our country work.
> 
> As for saying I dissagree with the top 40% paying more, I actually don't care, I don't work any more.
> If my memory serves me right, you mentioned personal tax rates should fall.




So handing out family tax benefits and baby bonuses (keepign income taxes higher) is the best way to facilitate and afford the ballooning Australian population?  We can barely function as it is.  Why do we need more people till we can actually build the roads and public transport systems to deal withthe population we have?  So much of the $45B in east coast electricity upgrades were due to forecast population growth and increase in electricity consumption.  better a stagnant population for a decade to let us catch up with the infrastructure we need.

What's the senate for then?  If the Govt should be allowed unfettered power then why have the senate?  i think the haggling at federation had a bit of a clue as to what bad ideas unfettered Govt could come up with.

I believe income taxes should be reduced as indirect taxes are raised.  This could be achieved by broadening the GST and impletmenting land taxes, along with ditching payroll tax and lowerig corporate taxes via limiting some of the corporate tax minismisation that's going on.  Increasing support to the bottom 30% should make this fair.

Without the senate we'd now be faced with:

* GP tax poorly targeted
* University fee deregulation
* RET castrated (when even the Govts own hand picked economic modeller shows it's good for consumers)
* CEF disbanded (even though it makes a profit)

Sometimes the Govt of the day needs a bit of discipline to stop them being too moronic.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> How do you know they don't need help?
> 
> They probably pay the maximum in tax, probably have a mortgage on the house, paying off their uni hex fees.....have another kid or two.
> 
> As much as I am against the PPL scheme, if  it does not go through then they should bring back the public servants and female politicians in line with the Labor scheme......I thought Labor always promotes fairness.




* They probably receive quite a bit of Govt assistance
* No one forced them to take on an obscene sized mortgage
* Abbott wants to increase the HECS debt of all students
* No one forced them to have another kid or two

So why do you believe the rest of us owes those with kids the life style they feel they deserve?


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:
			
		

> Increasing support to the bottom 30% should make this fair.




How are you going to compensate self funded retirees, some of whom earn quite low incomes , but aren't on a pension or part pension ?


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> In which case they probably have more assets than they need and would pass their greed onto their children.




Why do you call it greed?...

Are you jealous of their success after studying hard at uni for 6 years.

Are you envious that they may have a professional job that is earning them twice or three times as much as the average wage.

Many professional people and others in business don't work a 38 hour week...from one who knows what it is like to work 10 to 12 hours per day and sometimes 7 days a week.

The die hard unionist complain about having to work 38 hours and the further complain about someone who works hard and accumulates a bit of wealth and asses.....In hard times those unionist should go back to working 40 hours at the same rate of pay and help out our diminishing economy created by the Green/Labor Party.

Hard work never killed anyone.

Get over it Rumpy.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> * They probably receive quite a bit of Govt assistance
> * No one forced them to take on an obscene sized mortgage
> * Abbott wants to increase the HECS debt of all students
> * No one forced them to have another kid or two
> 
> So why do you believe the rest of us owes those with kids the life style they feel they deserve?




What a weak argument you put up.

How do you know they receive quite a bit of government assistance?

How do you know they have taken on an obscene sized mortgage?.....I know professionals who live in average sized houses.

What has Abbott got to do with the current system?

How many kids a couple want has nothing to do you with you...that is their decision.

You will have to do better than that Rumpy......you are slipping in your old age.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Why do you call it greed?...
> 
> Are you jealous of their success after studying hard at uni for 6 years.
> 
> Are you envious that they may have a professional job that is earning them twice or three times as much as the average wage.
> 
> Many professional people and others in business don't work a 38 hour week...from one who knows what it is like to work 10 to 12 hours per day and sometimes 7 days a week.
> 
> Hard work never killed anyone.
> 
> Get over it Rumpy.




If a couple earning professional salaries have a massive mortgage then they are buying  property(properties) that they can't afford. Why should my taxes or the income of businesses pay for that indulgence ?

 If they want kids they can buy a smaller house=smaller mortgage and trade up later. It's all about responsible financial management, something the higher income earners have always lectured the "working classes" about.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> What a weak argument you put up.
> 
> How do you know they receive quite a bit of government assistance?
> 
> How do you know they have taken on an obscene sized mortgage?.....I know professionals who live in average sized houses.
> 
> What has Abbott got to do with the current system?
> 
> How many kids a couple want has nothing to do you with you...that is their decision.
> 
> You will have to do better than that Rumpy......you are slipping in your old age.




Why quote syd, and then have a go at me ?

Senility setting in perhaps ?


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> If a couple earning professional salaries have a massive mortgage then they are buying  property(properties) that they can't afford. Why should my taxes or the income of businesses pay for that indulgence ?
> 
> If they want kids they can buy a smaller house=smaller mortgage and trade up later. It's all about responsible financial management, something the higher income earners have always lectured the "working classes" about.




Once again how do you know they have a massive mortgage?

You are only assuming.

The word "ASSuME" makes an ass out of you and me.

As I said before I know some professionals in town who live in average houses and up grade as  their families grow. ....

You are barking up the wrong tree.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Why quote syd, and then have a go at me ?
> 
> Senility setting in perhaps ?




I like to kill two birds with the one stone because you both think alike.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Once again how do you know they have a massive mortgage?




Did you notice the word *IF* in my sentence ?

The essential point I'm making is that the children/mortgage balance is a personal lifestyle choice and should not be funded by the rest of us, whether the recipients of PPL welfare are professional, white collar, blue collar or whatever.

Saying that though, action can be taken to reduce the price of homes and therefore the cost of mortgages by limiting properties that foreign investors can buy and cutting down on negative gearing so that more couples can get a decently priced house and have children as well.


----------



## boofhead

People do have the option of renting. What is wrong with Labor's PPL based scheme? Seems it is more Coalition middleclass welfare. Abbott is eager to have some Howard traits. In doing so reduces company tax for most companies to 28.5% and larger companies pay 1.5% levy. With softing government revenue it seems a risky to reduce government income. I didn't check if the corporate tax rate reduction is 100% tied to PPL (which is not yet introduced) or will happen no matter what.

People with higher incomes have better capacity to handle child costs, leave etc than those on low wages. With the age of entitlement over maybe Coalition should stick with the Labor implementation that is more of a safety net.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Did you notice the word *IF* in my sentence ?
> 
> The essential point I'm making is that the children/mortgage balance is a personal lifestyle choice and should not be funded by the rest of us, whether the recipients of PPL welfare are professional, white collar, blue collar or whatever.
> 
> Saying that though, action can be taken to reduce the price of homes and therefore the cost of mortgages by limiting properties that foreign investors can buy and cutting down on negative gearing so that more couples can get a decently priced house and have children as well.




IF..MAYBE..PERHAPS does not negate the word ASSUME!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## noco

boofhead said:


> People do have the option of renting. What is wrong with Labor's PPL based scheme? Seems it is more Coalition middleclass welfare. Abbott is eager to have some Howard traits. In doing so reduces company tax for most companies to 28.5% and larger companies pay 1.5% levy. With softing government revenue it seems a risky to reduce government income. I didn't check if the corporate tax rate reduction is 100% tied to PPL (which is not yet introduced) or will happen no matter what.
> 
> People with higher incomes have better capacity to handle child costs, leave etc than those on low wages. With the age of entitlement over maybe Coalition should stick with the Labor implementation that is more of a safety net.




Yes I agree so long as it is applied to all, including public servants and politicians.

We should all be treated equally...why should there be a system for some and a different one for others...PS think they are the salt of the Earth and there should be treated differently to others.

PS also get 12% superannuation as well, where as other workers only get 9.5%

Do you agree?


----------



## boofhead

I think all workers should get 12% but the Coalition is willing to delay that.

We're not all equal and the Coalition's PPL makes it far less equal. I don't know what you're trying to say as your reasoning seems to confliction. Also isn't the Coalition policy more strongly Fabian than Labor's? You keep beating on about Fabians then somehow defending the Coalition PPL.

I'm not a fan of strong population growth. It seems to cover of the cracks of societial problems by dilution. Maybe it is like stars. Grow to be big, burn bright, die young. Abbott quickly got to work on the major Labor changes he campaigned about but will he get the budget right and move the whole nation to a better place? If someone earning $20,000 gets more clawed from them than someone on $500,000 then something is wrong. Give up on looking to USA for economic guidance as has the largest national debt seen.

Abbott and co antics in opposition are coming home to roost. Populist media grabs don't make good policy.


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> How are you going to compensate self funded retirees, some of whom earn quite low incomes , but aren't on a pension or part pension ?




Well, if you are a fully funded self retiree, then you're likely to be over the assets test:

Single                 Home Owner $771,750	     Non Home Owner $918,250
Couple combined	 Home Owner $1,145,500   Non Home Owner $1,292,000

At 5% yield on either of those amounts you would be earning a significant amount over the full aged pension.  An overseas holiday and some house repairs should see the majority able to scrap in under the upper limit of the assets test and gain access to the cheaper pharmaceuticals / water / council rates / car registration / licence renewal / cut price public transport on offer too.  Assistance to the aged already dwarfs any other form of spending.  Nationally it's over 3 times what we spend on defence.

Considering their income is likely to be tax free they're sitting pretty compared to the majority of under 40s paying rent and tax.

Current tax payers don't owe pensioners a comfortable retirement.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:
			
		

> Current tax payers don't owe pensioners a comfortable retirement.




And those who have worked hard and paid taxes all their lives don't owe an easier lifestyle to those who haven't.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> And those who have worked hard and paid taxes all their lives don't owe an easier lifestyle to those who haven't.




You obviously haven't read between the lines, if the welfare costs are going to keep climbing and taxes on workers and business keep lowering, then someone has to pay more.

Front and centre Sir Rumpole.

As Syd say's personal tax rates are too high and we all know corporate tax has to drop to hold industry here.

That means, as Syd says, land owning people who are self funded are ripe for the picking.

Gen Y's answer, to support their lifestyle. 
Also Bill Shortens, if you read what he is saying.lol


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:
			
		

> You obviously haven't read between the lines, if the welfare costs are going to keep climbing and taxes on workers and business keep lowering, then someone has to pay more.
> 
> Front and centre Sir Rumpole.




As a self funded retiree I don't get any welfare. No concessions on power, rates, transport, Medicare etc, but want I don't need is life to get harder so a few Gen Y'ers get to buy new iPods.

Cut family tax benefits as I have mentioned before, they are the biggest welfare con, put the money into better child care facilities that don't cost an arm and a leg for the parents.

Syd raised a very valid point about reverse mortgages. Excellent idea and should be encouraged.


And why should individual taxes keep reducing ? We are a low taxed country by international standards. If people want services now and in the future, then the money to fund those services has to be raised.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> You obviously haven't read between the lines, if the welfare costs are going to keep climbing and taxes on workers and business keep lowering, then someone has to pay more.
> 
> Front and centre Sir Rumpole.
> 
> As Syd say's personal tax rates are too high and we all know corporate tax has to drop to hold industry here.
> 
> That means, as Syd says, land owning people who are self funded are ripe for the picking.
> 
> Gen Y's answer, to support their lifestyle.
> Also Bill Shortens, if you read what he is saying.lol




So what's your solution to the falling working aged population, pensioner tsunami, and off shore tax havens siphoning corporate taxes out of the country?

The most efficient tax system targets land and consumption and resources.  tax what's not moveable so you can lightly tax that which is ie workers and capital within companies.  The Swiss do it and it's not controversial there.  Each canton has a wealth tax.  I don't seem to recall the country falling into a heap over it.  They seem pretty successful actually.  Certainly a far greater manufacturing prowess than import everything Australia.

It's not class or generational war fare as you seem to make it out to be.  To me it's the only viable option we have.  The googles and apples and glencores have shown they don't have any interest in paying taxes here.  Heck even the Future Fund uses the same tricks, so it's hard for the Govt to tut tut to businesses over it.

So we can keep on pretending she'll be right, or we need to start making significant changes to the way we source revenue.  It needs to be done more efficiently so that the costs of avoidance start to become less attractive.  Our problems are as much about spending as it is about the way we tax.

At least I actually present options.  Most on this forum like to whinge about the major parties doing nothing but then put their hands up in the air as if to say don't look at me.


----------



## Tisme

sydboy007 said:


> At least I actually present options.  Most on this forum like to whinge about the major parties doing nothing but then put their hands up in the air as if to say don't look at me.




I think that has a manifold of reasons, but perhaps the problem is the parties aren't a broad enough church for today's peoples. 

Sure there are diehards who are compelled to vote as they have always done, lest they have to unscramble all the self determinations of their own good judgements, but I have noticed (from decades on the internet boards) that there is a definite softening of bipolar loyalty and more openness about the stupidity and errors made from their tribal preference. I'm not sure how much of that is due to policy drift away from the core values and how much can be attributed to people finding out their arch political enemies don't necessarily have cloven hooves and barley twist horns.


I like that both Lib and Lab have to answer to voters at the polls, instead of the old entrenched regimes pre Whitlam.


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> As a self funded retiree I don't get any welfare. No concessions on power, rates, transport, Medicare etc, but want I don't need is life to get harder so a few Gen Y'ers get to buy new iPods.




Was superannuation the path to becoming self funded?  There's plenty of Govt assistance provided through it, and further assistance via super being tax free.  Others probably used some NG property as well.  That's an $8B cost to the budget each year.

Someone receiving no pension benefits as a home owning couple should be generating an income of around $60425 a year tax free.  That's readily achievable using various inflation linked bonds for 5% yield.  Some fixed interest bonds are still offering 6 to 6.5%.

If you paid tax on that at standard rates it would be $12300.00 or over 1/3 of the couple pension.  Seems a reasonable pay back for living on twice the aged pension.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> So what's your solution to the falling working aged population, pensioner tsunami, and off shore tax havens siphoning corporate taxes out of the country?
> 
> The most efficient tax system targets land and consumption and resources.  tax what's not moveable so you can lightly tax that which is ie workers and capital within companies.  The Swiss do it and it's not controversial there.  Each canton has a wealth tax.  I don't seem to recall the country falling into a heap over it.  They seem pretty successful actually.  Certainly a far greater manufacturing prowess than import everything Australia.
> 
> It's not class or generational war fare as you seem to make it out to be.  To me it's the only viable option we have.  The googles and apples and glencores have shown they don't have any interest in paying taxes here.  Heck even the Future Fund uses the same tricks, so it's hard for the Govt to tut tut to businesses over it.
> 
> So we can keep on pretending she'll be right, or we need to start making significant changes to the way we source revenue.  It needs to be done more efficiently so that the costs of avoidance start to become less attractive.  Our problems are as much about spending as it is about the way we tax.
> 
> At least I actually present options.  Most on this forum like to whinge about the major parties doing nothing but then put their hands up in the air as if to say don't look at me.




I actually agree with you, I just think a lot of people haven't thought it through. It isn't a class or generation war, it is a changing of the fiscal dynamics.

As I've said, you can't keep increasing the take from the productive part of the economy, just to bolster the non productive part of the economy.

However the tax take has to increase, to pay an ever increasing welfare.

I think I've said, I agree with you. I just don't think people, have thought through, what you are saying.

I don't think you have read my previous posts, or I have missrepresented my position.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Without the senate we'd now be faced with:
> 
> * GP tax poorly targeted.




Some form of deterent from over use of doctors and overservicing, is required.

This has been a known problem since the inception of 'free' medical. The co payment has been mooted for years, it's just no Government has ever dared to voice it. But it is sure to happen, or costs will keep escalating.

The idea of free medical will be abused, as you suggested in your earlier post, saying" you'd have to be crazy to tell the hospital you have private health cover, as it will cost you more".

If it's free it will be abused, trying to make up fairy tales that it won't, doesn't cut it.
Why should taxes be increased, to support a faulty system?



sydboy007 said:


> * University fee deregulation.




Again the ballooning cost of lowering entery standards, and allowing more and more people to chose  non core courses, which lead nowhere, has to be paid for.

Why should taxes be increased, to facilitate people staying on to achieve a non prodctive outcome? 

By increasing the personal cost, it may in fact make the students assess if they have the ability, determination and dedication, to see through their choice. Somewhat like the exams did years ago.

It may also make them say to themselves, is this degree going to lead to a job? 
Or is it about personal satisfaction and indulgence?

Why should taxes be increased to support, degrees that lead nowhere?




sydboy007 said:


> * RET castrated (when even the Govts own hand picked economic modeller shows it's good for consumers)
> * CEF disbanded (even though it makes a profit)




I'm not really sure of the reasoning behind, the above two decissions.


----------



## banco

sptrawler said:


> I actually agree with you, I just think a lot of people haven't thought it through. It isn't a class or generation war, it is a changing of the fiscal dynamics.




There are going to be winners and losers if they get serious about cutting the deficit.  Obviously some changes will fall more heavily on some groups than it will on other groups.


----------



## sptrawler

banco said:


> There are going to be winners and losers if they get serious about cutting the deficit.  Obviously some changes will fall more heavily on some groups than it will on other groups.




That's so true, and why it is just as important, to ensure the welfare system is accountable.

As the tax base changes from company and payroll based, to consumption and wealth based, it will be important that the welfare system isn't being rorted.

At the moment, everyone thinks it is someone elses problem, that will change.IMO


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:
			
		

> Some form of deterent from over use of doctors and overservicing, is required.




Some form of "no claim bonus" rebate of Medicare levy would help.

 If people wanted to retain their NCB they would pay for occasional visits to the doctor, just like holders of other insurances would pay small amounts of damages to their car or house if it yields a greater financial benefit.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> Some form of "no claim bonus" rebate of Medicare levy would help.
> 
> If people wanted to retain their NCB they would pay for occasional visits to the doctor, just like holders of other insurances would pay small amounts of damages to their car or house if it yields a greater financial benefit.




Yes all those sort of ideas will have to be looked into. 
One thing for sure, those who have saved and are going to get taxed more and pay more for services, will complain, if they see wastage that's coming out of their pockets.


----------



## Julia

There seems to be a disproportionate amount of fuss over this co-payment.  As far as I can recall what the government suggested, it was to be capped at 10 times, viz $70 p.a.   I don't believe that's unaffordable.

No one wants to take any sort of hit, however minimal.  Instead there appears on the part of much of the electorate - and certainly the opposition - a conviction that we can just continue to borrow to pay increasing interest etc.

I don't know they fixed on $7, presumably there was some modelling done to show that as an optimum amount.

The government stuffed it up by announcing it with mixed messages, on the one hand that we needed to prop up Medicare or it would not be sustainable (makes sense) but on the other, that the money garnered would go to some new medical research fund.

And now they are confused amongst themselves about whether it's still even policy or not!!!


----------



## sptrawler

Julia said:


> There seems to be a disproportionate amount of fuss over this co-payment.  As far as I can recall what the government suggested, it was to be capped at 10 times, viz $70 p.a.   I don't believe that's unaffordable.
> 
> No one wants to take any sort of hit, however minimal.  Instead there appears on the part of much of the electorate - and certainly the opposition - a conviction that we can just continue to borrow to pay increasing interest etc.
> 
> I don't know they fixed on $7, presumably there was some modelling done to show that as an optimum amount.
> 
> The government stuffed it up by announcing it with mixed messages, on the one hand that we needed to prop up Medicare or it would not be sustainable (makes sense) but on the other, that the money garnered would go to some new medical research fund.
> 
> And now they are confused amongst themselves about whether it's still even policy or not!!!




Already everyone without a pension card pay a co contribution, it will have to be brought in sooner or later.

If Labor get in, it will be interesting to see what taxes are introduced, because they sure as hell won't dare touch welfare.:1zhelp:

Abbott really has to take stock over the christmas break, some serious policy planning and implementation is required.


----------



## boofhead

Julia said:


> There seems to be a disproportionate amount of fuss over this co-payment.  As far as I can recall what the government suggested, it was to be capped at 10 times, viz $70 p.a.   I don't believe that's unaffordable.
> 
> The government stuffed it up by announcing it with mixed messages, on the one hand that we needed to prop up Medicare or it would not be sustainable (makes sense) but on the other, that the money garnered would go to some new medical research fund.




The cap was announced for people on various types of welfare. If someon is on a lower income and decides they don't want to take a complementary welfare payment for whatever reason (in some circumstances the hassle doesn't seem worth it) then it can get very costly very quickly.

A couple of years ago as a casual worker working very few hours per week I discovered I had an illness and would have quickly hot the 10 visit limit. I also needed a lot of time off from the first GP visit until the last of the needed treatment. In maybe less than 1 month I had more than 10 visits to medical services that are covered by the co-payment. Pathology is included in the co-payment.

You acknowledge that the Coalition messed up on the sales pitch as it doesn't go to Medicare budget. It is a price signal to scare some from using the services as there is a belief it is over used. I haven't searched for any analysis about the level of over use. $5 is a friendlier price.

Coalition have also messed up the message if it is still happening or not.


----------



## SirRumpole

Overuse of the medical system ?

The problem is that patients aren't doctors and we don't know if a condition has the potential to become serious, so it's the old story of an ounce of prevention better than a ton of cure. Medical experts agree that discouraging people from seeing doctors leads to higher costs down the track.

Probably one area that is overused is people going to get a medical certificate for colds or flu, for which there is very little that can be done in terms of medical treatment. If patients had to pay a fee for a medical certificate, and that fee went to Medicare then that would offset the cost and make the system more sustainable.


----------



## IFocus

Whats killing Abbott is lack of any fairness this is of their own doing and absolute sheer arrogance on gaining power never seen such a naked born to rule attitude, George Brandis behaviour in the senate comes to mind.

Read an opinion the other day on a rule about the Japanese government / people / economy.

Rule No 1. The Japanese people are always prepared to take pain for the national sake as long as its shared equally.

Rule No 2. Japanese politicians never cease to exploit rule No 1.

Abbott screamed endlessly about the current budget emergency (1st lie) then broke every election promise to solve the budget emergency (2nd lie the saving go on increased spending) then applies unfairly the cuts to the people who can lest afford them.

To top it off blames Labor after 14 months in office.


----------



## banco

IFocus said:


> Whats killing Abbott is lack of any fairness this is of their own doing and absolute sheer arrogance on gaining power never seen such a naked born to rule attitude, George Brandis behaviour in the senate comes to mind.
> 
> Read an opinion the other day on a rule about the Japanese government / people / economy.
> 
> Rule No 1. The Japanese people are always prepared to take pain for the national sake as long as its shared equally.
> 
> Rule No 2. Japanese politicians never cease to exploit rule No 1.
> 
> Abbott screamed endlessly about the current budget emergency (1st lie) then broke every election promise to solve the budget emergency (2nd lie the saving go on increased spending) then applies unfairly the cuts to the people who can lest afford them.
> 
> To top it off blames Labor after 14 months in office.




He should have gone after superannuation concessions and/or negative gearing because like it or not if you are liberal Government the electorate assumes you are beholden to high income earners and he need to do something to counter that.


----------



## Smurf1976

sptrawler said:


> Abbott really has to take stock over the christmas break, some serious policy planning and implementation is required.




Keep going on the same way and at some point the wheels will fall off altogether. We've had much better governments in the past, both Coalition and Labor, whose approach this government would be wise to consider following. Hawke, Keating and Howard all brought about significant changes but they managed to do so without descending into chaos.

Meanwhile in the real world he ASX was thumped down pretty hard once again today. Hmm....


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> Already everyone without a pension card pay a co contribution, it will have to be brought in sooner or later.
> 
> If Labor get in, it will be interesting to see what taxes are introduced, because they sure as hell won't dare touch welfare.:1zhelp:
> 
> Abbott really has to take stock over the christmas break, some serious policy planning and implementation is required.




Labor will bring back the Carbon dioxide tax which will again hurt the poor and the vulnerable.

Labor will bring back the mining tax that cost more to administer than what it brings in.

Labor will continue to prop up the union comrades and subsidize unprofitable industry like the car manufacturing and the Adelaide ship building ......ships they are building now which is $300,000,000 over budget and that far behind schedule.

Labor will continue to borrow $100,000,000 per day to subsidize the unions and be happy to pay $3billion every week in interest for the next generation to pay back.

Labor will lead us into a "BANANA REPUBLIC" LIKE Paul Keating suggested.

Labor will increase taxes and even have their eye on the GST.

Unemployment will rise under Labor.

Yes you are right, Abbott will have to turn the ship around fast if he wants to survive as PM.


----------



## IFocus

banco said:


> He should have gone after superannuation concessions and/or negative gearing because like it or not if you are liberal Government the electorate assumes you are beholden to high income earners and he need to do something to counter that.




I actually think Abbott didn't have to do to much even a token effort of fairness and he could have broken any amount of promisers if it addressed the debt issue.

 Abbotts issue he has done neither by running an idealogical policy platform that doesn't address the debt issue but funds higher spending all the time saying black is white.

To top it off its the policy's that don't return very much thats causing all the political pain.

If this runs through to the next election no matter who wins surely there will be more independents and or greens.


----------



## Julia

Smurf1976 said:


> Meanwhile in the real world he ASX was thumped down pretty hard once again today. Hmm....




Probably largely on the basis of the rapidly falling oil price.  Note the drop in oil stocks.


----------



## banco

IFocus said:


> I actually think Abbott didn't have to do to much even a token effort of fairness and he could have broken any amount of promisers if it addressed the debt issue.
> 
> Abbotts issue he has done neither by running an idealogical policy platform that doesn't address the debt issue but funds higher spending all the time saying black is white.
> 
> To top it off its the policy's that don't return very much thats causing all the political pain.
> 
> If this runs through to the next election no matter who wins surely there will be more independents and or greens.




He tried a token effort with the wealth tax and didn't work.  He needed to do something big enough that there would be vocal opposition from moneyed interests.


----------



## SirRumpole

UK efforts to curb immigration which could well be considered here



> No dole for migrant workers: British Prime Minister outlines radical plan to curb EU migration
> 
> 
> 
> British prime minister David Cameron has set out radical proposals aimed at reducing migration from the European Union.
> 
> Under his plans, migrants will have to wait four years for certain benefits and will have to leave the country after six months if they have not found work.
> 
> Under current arrangements, EU citizens are free to come to the United Kingdom and compete for jobs without being subject to any immigration controls.
> 
> But Mr Cameron said benefits that have made Britain a magnetic destination for migrant workers from the EU must be curtailed.
> 
> "People want government to have control over the number of people coming here, and the circumstances in which they come, both from around the world and from within the European Union," he said.
> 
> "They want control over who has the right to receive benefits and what is expected of them in return."
> 
> In a speech designed to breathe new life into his campaign for re-election next May, Mr Cameron set out a detailed blueprint for limiting EU migrants' access to benefits like tax credits and housing.
> 
> Mr Cameron said his proposals would require changes to EU treaties, which enshrine freedom of movement as a fundamental principle.
> 
> People want government to have control over the number of people coming here, and the circumstances in which they come, both from around the world and from within the European Union.
> David Cameron
> 
> If re-elected, David Cameron promised to renegotiate Britain's ties with the EU before holding a referendum in 2017 on whether to stay in or leave the 28-nation union.
> 
> While making it clear he thought that renegotiation would succeed, he dropped his strongest hint yet that he may campaign for Britain to quit the bloc if he fails.
> 
> "I will negotiate a cut to EU migration and make welfare reform an absolute requirement in renegotiation," Mr Cameron said.
> 
> Mr Cameron urged other EU leaders to support his proposals, but his demands were likely to meet fierce resistance from EU leaders such as German chancellor Angela Merkel.
> 
> "If our concerns fall on deaf ears and we cannot put our relationship with the EU on a better footing, then of course I rule nothing out," Mr Cameron said.
> 
> "But I am confident that, with goodwill and understanding, we can and will succeed."
> 
> Opposition parties in Britain said Mr Cameron's proposal would do little to address the huge numbers of people migrating to Britain.
> 
> The chairman of the Commons Home Affairs Committee, Labour politician Keith Vaz, said the level of EU migration cannot be controlled.
> 
> "Somebody can fly from Warsaw to London and not be impeded by anything that is being said today by the prime minister," Mr Vaz said.
> 
> "And those who come come to work, they don't actually come to claim benefits."
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-29/british-pm-outlines-radical-plan-to-curb-eu-migration/5927534


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> UK efforts to curb immigration which could well be considered here




But the Abbott government has already implemented their policy to stop the boats which as been most successful, something Labor said could not be done.

Yes, some of the UK policies on immigration should also be executed here, but we all know what would happen if the government tried......you would  have the professor Gillian Twig from Human rights and the child senator SHY together with the Labor Party protesting in the streets.


----------



## noco

Tony Abbott has to lift his game and turn things around for the Liberal Party or else face the music from his party.

I would give him until mid 2015 to do it and if he can't, then he should step aside and allow someone else with a bit more charisma and punch......he has to stop being the nice guy.


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...e_betrays_joe_hockey_time_it_was_reorganised/


----------



## Calliope

Yes, Abbott should step aside before he is pushed. He is error prone, but a failure to admit when he is lying is rapidly transforming his image from a "good guy" to a "barnacle". 

*Wheels are falling off as Abbott careers to year’s end*





http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...ers-to-years-end/story-fn53lw5p-1227138796996


----------



## banco

SirRumpole said:


> UK efforts to curb immigration which could well be considered here




You are comparing apples with oranges.  The fact that anyone in the EU can migrate to the UK makes things completely different to Australia's situation.


----------



## Calliope

Abbott's tenuous hold of the leadership was severely loosened last Sunday when Niki Savva, one of our most astute political commentators, used the phrase on The Insiders that he was 'lying about lying". The writing was on the wall..."he had been weighed in the balance and found wanting".

She didn't use the words lightly. She would have known that these words, so gleefully take up by Labor hacks and front-benchers, would mean he can't contest another election as PM. Like Obama he is a dead man walking.


----------



## SirRumpole

banco said:


> You are comparing apples with oranges.  The fact that anyone in the EU can migrate to the UK makes things completely different to Australia's situation.




Not completely different. The issue about migrants accessing benefits shortly after they arrive holds here as well.


----------



## noco

Calliope said:


> Abbott's tenuous hold of the leadership was severely loosened last Sunday when Niki Savva, one of our most astute political commentators, used the phrase on The Insiders that he was 'lying about lying". The writing was on the wall..."he had been weighed in the balance and found wanting".
> 
> She didn't use the words lightly. She would have known that these words, so gleefully take up by Labor hacks and front-benchers, would mean he can't contest another election as PM. Like Obama he is a dead man walking.





Paul Kelly has a similar view....the coalition needs to review the last 15 months in office or continue down the slippery slide....Mid 2015 will be the crunch.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...straight-talking/story-e6frg74x-1227138820838


----------



## boofhead

SirRumpole said:


> Not completely different. The issue about migrants accessing benefits shortly after they arrive holds here as well.




Someone on this forum in the last week provided a quote from Centrelink site or a quote from a senion Centrelink person in relation to what they are actually eligble for. Be careful what you say to make sure it is correct and not something Alan Jones read in email.


----------



## Logique

Julie Bishop is right, and Australia couldn't be in better hands at the UN Climate Conference in Lima.



> *Julie Bishop reopens nuclear debate as route to cut carbon dioxide emissions* - November 29, 2014
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...carbon-dioxide-emissions-20141129-11w17k.html
> 
> ...Mr Bishop said: "Other countries are embracing nuclear power as part of their energy mix in order to meet the kind of reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that is being considered.
> 
> "France is considered as one of the greenest countries on earth  [and] has a significant proportion of its energy from nuclear energy."


----------



## noco

It would appear Senator Lambie has  had an impact on Tony Abbott over the ADF entitlements but the 1.5 % pay rise mat still stand....Whether this is sufficient to to quell her thirst for power over Abbott remains to be seen.  


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...or-jacqui-lambie/story-fnii5s41-1227139395331


----------



## Knobby22

Calliope said:


> Abbott's tenuous hold of the leadership was severely loosened last Sunday when Niki Savva, one of our most astute political commentators, used the phrase on The Insiders that he was 'lying about lying". The writing was on the wall..."he had been weighed in the balance and found wanting".
> 
> She didn't use the words lightly. She would have known that these words, so gleefully take up by Labor hacks and front-benchers, would mean he can't contest another election as PM. Like Obama he is a dead man walking.




Yes.
Abbott has damaged the Liberal brand and is perceived to be *incompetent, unfair and dishonest*.
I said on these pages he would be one term Tony, I am probably wrong because his party surely won't let him stand for the next election. The only thing stopping him being toppled is that the politicians themselves don't want to be seen to be instigating it.


----------



## Calliope

Defence Minister David Johnston attacked the government’s own shipbuilder, ASC, saying he would not trust it to “build a canoe”.

His assessment of the incompetency and huge cost over-runs of the ASC is shared by many of the hypocrites on both side of the house who are now baying for his blood.

Conroy's juvenile spin is that it is an attack on the workers.



> *Opposition defence spokesman Stephen Conroy said the “disgraceful” attack on the ASC showed an “appalling lack of *respect” for workers — some of whom were visiting Parliament House yesterday*.


----------



## Julia

Knobby22 said:


> .
> Abbott has damaged the Liberal brand



So true.  This is what is so disappointing.  The electorate imagined we were being delivered from the chaos of Labor to a government which would be consistent, organised and competent.  Some members are just that, eg Scott Morrison, Julie Bishop.

But Tony Abbott in his pathetic bumbling has tarnished the whole Liberal persona.
As a result, we will quite possibly see a return to Labor at the next election unless they can find a replacement for both Abbott and Hockey.


----------



## sptrawler

Julia said:


> So true.  This is what is so disappointing.  The electorate imagined we were being delivered from the chaos of Labor to a government which would be consistent, organised and competent.  Some members are just that, eg Scott Morrison, Julie Bishop.
> 
> But Tony Abbott in his pathetic bumbling has tarnished the whole Liberal persona.
> As a result, we will quite possibly see a return to Labor at the next election unless they can find a replacement for both Abbott and Hockey.




Yes, I think the Libs will have to ask the media, who they would like to replace them.


----------



## noco

Julia said:


> So true.  This is what is so disappointing.  The electorate imagined we were being delivered from the chaos of Labor to a government which would be consistent, organised and competent.  Some members are just that, eg Scott Morrison, Julie Bishop.
> 
> But Tony Abbott in his pathetic bumbling has tarnished the whole Liberal persona.
> As a result, we will quite possibly see a return to Labor at the next election unless they can find a replacement for both Abbott and Hockey.




They are a lead weight around the Liberal Party's neck and some hard decisions will have to be made before mid 2015.

If they do make some changes, a new leader will need all of the 15 months left before the 2016 election to turn things around or else they will follow in the footsteps of the Victorians.


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> Yes, I think the Libs will have to ask the media, who they would like to replace them.




I don't see why they should ask the media...I am sure the party are better equipped to make those decisions....I do believe there are several in the party who quietly believe changes have to be made and it will only be a matter of time when one or two ministers will put their hand up to make a challenge and the sooner the better...there is bound to be a lot of discussions going on over Xmas


----------



## boofhead

I expect a change of leader will create a lot of rhetoric the Coalition  used during the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd changes. "The people didn't vote for" which ever person as PM. I guess that is the price you pay for being so vocal in opposition in ways that leave yourself no room to manuevre.


----------



## noco

boofhead said:


> I expect a change of leader will create a lot of rhetoric the Coalition  used during the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd changes. "The people didn't vote for" which ever person as PM. I guess that is the price you pay for being so vocal in opposition in ways that leave yourself no room to manuevre.




I am sure you won't see Abbott stabbed in the back like the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd/Shorten episodes.

It will be done in a democratic way...You may even see Abbott decide to stand a side, throw the leadership open and even put his own hat in the ring....that is the way adult people do it....not like ex union thugs in the Labor Party.


----------



## So_Cynical

Calliope said:


> Yes, *Abbott should step aside before he is pushed.* He is error prone, but a failure to admit when he is lying is rapidly transforming his image from a "good guy" to a "barnacle".






Knobby22 said:


> Yes.
> Abbott has damaged the Liberal brand and is perceived to be *incompetent, unfair and dishonest*.
> I said on these pages he would be one term Tony






Julia said:


> *Tony Abbott in his pathetic bumbling has tarnished the whole Liberal persona*.
> As a result, we will quite possibly see a return to Labor at the next election unless they can find a replacement for both Abbott and Hockey.






noco said:


> *They are a lead weight around the Liberal Party's neck* and some hard decisions will have to be made before mid 2015.




LOL seriously you guys have the knifes out after just 6 back flips and one election spanking...what a turn around. :grinsking

-----------------

For everyone who hasn't seen it, 1 vote Tony's shocker of a speech to the G20, try not to cringe.
~
[video=youtube_share;_epjAMuS8Wo]http://youtu.be/_epjAMuS8Wo[/video]


----------



## noco

So_Cynical said:


> LOL seriously you guys have the knifes out after just 6 back flips and one election spanking...what a turn around. :grinsking





We never see you lefties doing anything like that...even though Rudd/Gillard/Rudd made a bigger mess than what Abbott is trying to do to unravel that mess, you never ever bagged Rudd and Gillard.....you were all too scarred in case your comrades tapped you on the shoulder.

Most of us with any common sense should be able  to criticize a party who appears to be on the wrong track


----------



## sptrawler

So_Cynical said:


> LOL seriously you guys have the knifes out after just 6 back flips and one election spanking...what a turn around. :grinsking
> 
> -----------------




Maybe it shows they aren't one eyed, rusted on blind faith followers, unlike some others.

On another note, I bet Abbott is wishing he called the double dissilution, just after the election. Hindsight is a great thing.


----------



## sptrawler

noco said:


> I don't see why they should ask the media...




It was tonque in cheek noco. 
If Fairfax and the ABC are going to run a similar campaign, against any coalition leager, it will be hard to overcome.

The only one I've seen, who can give as good as he gets, is Morrison. It's a bit of a shame, that the most important criterea for a P/M, is the ability to throw insults and swoon the press.

But Rudd and Gillard showed how important it was.


----------



## So_Cynical

sptrawler said:


> Maybe it shows they aren't one eyed, rusted on blind faith followers, unlike some others.




Ok so how about choosing between Morrison and Turnbull.  i feel a massive, red neck shift to the right coming on.


----------



## orr

So_Cynical said:


> LOL seriously ................. try not to cringe.
> ~




It's hard not to cry out loud. Cringe?????????? 'Borat' what an understatment.


----------



## sptrawler

So_Cynical said:


> Ok so how about choosing between Morrison and Turnbull.  i feel a massive, red neck shift to the right coming on.




Good to see you didn't dispute the facts, the biggest redneck around was Rudd, I've knocked around with some pretty rough guys.
But Rudd would put them to shame for unabated vulgar language and dissrespect for other people.

Just keep living your story. 
I'm sure the workers will feel a lot more pain if Labor get in, than they ever did or would, under the coalition.
Take that to the bank.lol


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

My guess is that soon we will be discussing the Morrison Government.

Turnbull won't be made leader by the Liberals and the Nats would not tolerate him.

Julie Bishop is a possibility, but an outside one I believe. 

Unfortunately Tony Abbott did such a good job at getting rid of both Rudd and Gillard, he has made the LNP unelectable under his leadership.

gg


----------



## basilio

A Morrison government... Let me think about about that for moment..

I suggest it would be moving from somewhere to the left of Ghengis Khan to a few metres to his right. We could kiss goodbye to the High Court permanently as a damn nuisance and expect automatic surveillance for anyone deemed to be a suspected "enemy of the state."

Yep just what we wanted.


----------



## So_Cynical

basilio said:


> A Morrison government... Let me think about about that for moment..
> 
> I suggest it would be moving from somewhere to the left of Ghengis Khan to a few metres to his right.




Govt on a need to know basis, kick the cameras out of parliament as a cost saving measure.


----------



## SirRumpole

basilio said:


> A Morrison government... Let me think about about that for moment..
> 
> I suggest it would be moving from somewhere to the left of Ghengis Khan to a few metres to his right. We could kiss goodbye to the High Court permanently as a damn nuisance and expect automatic surveillance for anyone deemed to be a suspected "enemy of the state."
> 
> Yep just what we wanted.




Agree. The Coalition has already moved too far to the Right, and that is why they are so unpopular.

The Coalition are on the road to self destruction, because the only leader they have who is acceptable to the public is Turnbull, but the Coalition won't pick him.

Tough luck to them in that case, they are heading for a one term stint same as Victoria.


----------



## sptrawler

So_Cynical said:


> Govt on a need to know basis, kick the cameras out of parliament as a cost saving measure.




Your still waxing into a Labor morphed, story.lol

Would that be a Rudd, " someone fff that ffing camera out of here untill I'm ffing ready". lol,lol

You're already starting to jump on the Greens shirt tails.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> Agree. The Coalition has already moved too far to the Right, and that is why they are so unpopular.
> 
> The Coalition are on the road to self destruction, because the only leader they have who is acceptable to the public is Turnbull, but the Coalition won't pick him.
> 
> Tough luck to them in that case, they are heading for a one term stint same as Victoria.




Well I certainly hope not for your sake, apparently you say, your a self funded retiree.

First cab off the rank.

Won't affect So Cynical, just spends more time in the Phillipines.

It isn't rocket science, to kick start the economy and pay down debt.
First drop the value of the dollar, second reduce wages, third take money from those who have it.lol even if it has taken you a lifetime to save it.

Bet you won't find them agreeing to reduce the politicians pensions, Labor managed to wedge in a 30% increase, just before being thrown out.lol


----------



## banco

basilio said:


> A Morrison government... Let me think about about that for moment..
> 
> I suggest it would be moving from somewhere to the left of Ghengis Khan to a few metres to his right. We could kiss goodbye to the High Court permanently as a damn nuisance and expect automatic surveillance for anyone deemed to be a suspected "enemy of the state."
> 
> Yep just what we wanted.




If you think Tony Abbott is unpopular wait until they put a true sociopath like Morrison in charge.


----------



## sptrawler

banco said:


> If you think Tony Abbott is unpopular wait until they put a true sociopath like Morrison in charge.




Why, because he doesn't let Indonesia use us like a welcome matt? That makes him a sociopath, weird, what did you call Rudd?

Getting back to Abbott, I've asked before and no one answered, can you give me an example of his appalling personal traits?


----------



## Julia

So_Cynical said:


> LOL seriously you guys have the knifes out after just 6 back flips and one election spanking...what a turn around.



You persist in mischaracterising those of us who did not vote for a return of the appalling mess that was Labor.
Most of us voted for what we saw as the least worst alternative.  That is very, very different from voting for someone we believed had the drive, character and capacity to turn Australia around.

Maybe one day you'll come to understand that not all of the electorate is rusted on to discipleship of one party or the other, but rather retains the ability to look objectively at what the options are.



SirRumpole said:


> Agree. The Coalition has already moved too far to the Right, and that is why they are so unpopular.



Perhaps, but research shows that quite hard right policies are popular with a significant proportion of the electorate.  I might be wrong, but I think it's much more the the unfairness of the Budget, followed by their lack of ability to sell it, the difficulty of the very obstructive Senate, and latterly the bumbling and indecision, the lack of cohesive policy that has so negatively affected the government.  Plus, of course, the simple reality that Mr Abbott is just not liked.

Contrast this government with the Howard era when John Howard was calmly purposeful, able to put forward the reasons for his policies to the electorate, and create trust.


----------



## noco

Julia said:


> You persist in mischaracterising those of us who did not vote for a return of the appalling mess that was Labor.
> Most of us voted for what we saw as the least worst alternative.  That is very, very different from voting for someone we believed had the drive, character and capacity to turn Australia around.
> 
> Maybe one day you'll come to understand that not all of the electorate is rusted on to discipleship of one party or the other, but rather retains the ability to look objectively at what the options are.
> 
> 
> Perhaps, but research shows that quite hard right policies are popular with a significant proportion of the electorate.  I might be wrong, but I think it's much more the the unfairness of the Budget, followed by their lack of ability to sell it, the difficulty of the very obstructive Senate, and latterly the bumbling and indecision, the lack of cohesive policy that has so negatively affected the government.  Plus, of course, the simple reality that Mr Abbott is just not liked.
> 
> Contrast this government with the Howard era when John Howard was calmly purposeful, able to put forward the reasons for his policies to the electorate, and create trust.




+1     Abbott is certainly not in the same mould as Howard....The only mistake Howard made was that he stayed too long.


----------



## sptrawler

noco said:


> +1     Abbott is certainly not in the same mould as Howard....The only mistake Howard made was that he stayed too long.




That's what the media said, a lot of us feel Costello would have fared worse, in the same election.


----------



## drsmith

Om matters budget,



> For the first time, the budget update is expected to show that the cumulative value of Treasury revenue writedowns since 2000 will exceed the value of the unexpected revenue gains made since the resources boom got under way more than a decade ago.
> 
> At the peak of the boom in 2007, the revenue bonanza was adding about $80bn a year to government revenues but the state of the economy will now subtract $24bn from the budget over the next four years.
> 
> While the outlook for revenue has deteriorated, Australia’s involvement in Iraq, new national security spending and the government’s compromises with the Palmer United Party to get the mining tax repeal through the Senate have added $5.4bn to spending over the next two years.
> 
> The report places renewed pressure on the government to keep its commitment to unpopular savings such as the $7 GP co-payment and cuts to family tax benefits and university subsidies, amid reports suggesting some senior cabinet ministers want to dump them.
> 
> The government, which last week suffered its worst few days since taking office, will focus on securing crossbench support for its higher-education reforms *before parliament rises on Thursday for the long summer recess.
> 
> In his report, Mr Richardson says the budget delivered in May is “the only road map to structural fiscal repair Australia has”. “The opposition and minor parties have washed their hands of setting* out detailed alternatives, preferring populist posturing,’’ he says.
> 
> Mr Richardson says a naive electorate and populist Senate have refused to acknowledge the gravity of the government’s mounting fiscal challenge.
> 
> “It looks to us like a nation that can’t handle the truth: a temporary boom has come and gone, and a sustainable path for our national social compact requires some tough decisions,” he says.
> 
> “When even the Greens oppose sensible fuel tax policy it is clear something is wrong with Australia’s political processes,” he adds, referring to the government’s inability to index fuel tax excise to inflation.
> 
> The $27bn deficit pencilled in for this financial year in May will swell to $35bn, while the balanced budget scheduled for 2017-18 will instead be a $12.4bn deficit, Deloitte estimates, after which “Australia faces deficits as far as the eye can see”, owing mainly to the surging cost of the national disability insurance scheme.
> 
> “Australia may not have a crisis around its government debt, but we do have increasing risks around our deficit trajectory,” Mr Richardson says.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...rs-hit-to-budget/story-fn59nsif-1227140245434


----------



## sptrawler

drsmith said:


> Om matters budget,
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...rs-hit-to-budget/story-fn59nsif-1227140245434




It's o.k doc, Labor have found batteries for the 'magic wand'. lol

It will end badly.IMO


----------



## Smurf1976

SirRumpole said:


> The Coalition has already moved too far to the Right, and that is why they are so unpopular.




Agreed. Fixing budgets etc doesn't excuse the apparent nastiness they've developed in recent times. You can manage money without being arrogant.

Is it not possible to have a government that's reasonable with finances without all the other right wing nonsense?


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> Agreed. Fixing budgets etc doesn't excuse the apparent nastiness they've developed in recent times. You can manage money without being arrogant.
> 
> Is it not possible to have a government that's reasonable with finances without all the other right wing nonsense?




Is it nastiness and right wing nonsense, or is it realities, that are being reported in an emotional and hysterical way?

Tightening spending, will never be politically palatable, however maybe the media will let Labor enact it.

Time will tell.


----------



## Tink

_Tightening spending, will never be politically palatable._

Agree with your posts, sptrawler.

I think this has been the biggest problem which has been noticeable throughout.

Throwing money at people seems to win the day.

You just have to look at the chaos with the ABC, when the cuts came through, no way that should happen, was their thinking.

Just keep bloating things up.

Maybe we do need a recession.

I feel for my own state.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:
			
		

> Getting back to Abbott, I've asked before and no one answered, can you give me an example of his appalling personal traits?




"Appalling" is a relative word, and I wouldn't go that far, but I would say that billing the taxpayer for publicising his own book, or attending a private wedding and sending taxpayers the bill indicates a lack of basic honesty that you would expect in a PM that should set an example to his colleagues and others.

The fact that travel rorts are widely abused is irrelevant . Someone should set an example and it should come from the top.

The hypocrisy of  government members in prosecuting Peter Slipper (not that I have any liking for him) for abusing travel payments while themselves just paying money back when they get caught out highlights their arrogance and "born to rule" mentality, which goes down very badly in the public eye.



			
				Julia said:
			
		

> Contrast this government with the Howard era when John Howard was calmly purposeful, able to put forward the reasons for his policies to the electorate, and create trust.




John Howard did that for most of his reign, but when it came to Workchoices that trust was eroded and it cost him his job, and his seat.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> "Appalling" is a relative word, and I wouldn't go that far, but I would say that billing the taxpayer for publicising his own book, or attending a private wedding and sending taxpayers the bill indicates a lack of basic honesty that you would expect in a PM that should set an example to his colleagues and others.
> 
> The fact that travel rorts are widely abused is irrelevant . Someone should set an example and it should come from the top.
> 
> The hypocrisy of  government members in prosecuting Peter Slipper (not that I have any liking for him) for abusing travel payments while themselves just paying money back when they get caught out highlights their arrogance and "born to rule" mentality, which goes down very badly in the public eye.
> 
> 
> 
> John Howard did that for most of his reign, but when it came to Workchoices that trust was eroded and it cost him his job, and his seat.




Yeah Rumpy, we know all that stuff.....that repetitive rhetoric is becoming boring.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Yeah Rumpy, we know all that stuff.....that repetitive rhetoric is becoming boring.




What, no Fabians ?


----------



## Tisme

I have edited you post for you:



SirRumpole said:


> "Appalling" is a relative word, and I wouldn't go that far, but I would say that billing the taxpayer for publicising his own book, or attending a private wedding and sending taxpayers the bill indicates a lack of basic honesty that you would expect in a PM that should set an example to his *(Liberal)* colleagues and others.
> 
> The fact that travel rorts are widely abused is irrelevant . Someone should set an example and it should come from the  *(Liberal)* top.
> 
> The hypocrisy of   *(Liberal)* government members in prosecuting  *(Liberal)* Peter Slipper (not that I have any liking for him) for abusing travel payments while  *(Liberal)* themselves just paying money back when they get caught out highlights their  *(Liberal)* arrogance and  *(Liberal)* "born to rule" mentality, which goes down very badly in the *(Liberal & Labor)* public eye.
> 
> 
> 
> *(Liberal)* John Howard did that for most of his reign, but when it came to  *(Liberal)* Workchoices that trust was eroded and it cost him his job, and his  *(Liberal)* seat.


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> I have edited you post for you:




Quite correct. 

Well said


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> "Appalling" is a relative word, and I wouldn't go that far, but I would say that billing the taxpayer for publicising his own book, or attending a private wedding and sending taxpayers the bill indicates a lack of basic honesty that you would expect in a PM that should set an example to his colleagues and others.
> 
> The fact that travel rorts are widely abused is irrelevant . Someone should set an example and it should come from the top.
> 
> The hypocrisy of  government members in prosecuting Peter Slipper (not that I have any liking for him) for abusing travel payments while themselves just paying money back when they get caught out highlights their arrogance and "born to rule" mentality, which goes down very badly in the public eye.
> 
> 
> 
> John Howard did that for most of his reign, but when it came to Workchoices that trust was eroded and it cost him his job, and his seat.




And he qualifies for the extreme abuse he recieves, based on the above, jeez really. 

It is somewhat sad, that we humans have a 'pack' mentality, it isn't a very attractive trait. 

Now the Government has folded on defence spending cuts, spend, spend, spend is what everyone wants.

I guess I'm old fashioned, and need to get with the times.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:
			
		

> And he qualifies for the extreme abuse he recieves, based on the above, jeez really.




That, plus the rest of his policies that hit people who can least afford it.


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> And he qualifies for the extreme abuse he recieves, based on the above, jeez really.
> 
> It is somewhat sad, that we humans have a 'pack' mentality, it isn't a very attractive trait.
> 
> Now the Government has folded on defence spending cuts, spend, spend, spend is what everyone wants.
> 
> I guess I'm old fashioned, and need to get with the times.




SP. the Green/Labor left wing socialists are in complete denial and just don't want to accept reality....they have absolutely no concern for the welfare of Australia and those who live here......no National interest.....only interested in themselves....Sham on them.


----------



## basilio

It is going to be so interesting to see how the Abbott Government and the Liberal Party overall respond to  *how* the Labour party so decisively won the Victorian State election.

The fact was that Labour embarked on a systematic person to person conversation with the swinging voters in the key marginal electorates. It took thousands of committed volunteers but the result is there to see. The conversations had an effect.

It is Londan to a brick that this model will be rolled out for the next Federal election. But far more significantly for the Libs I just cannot see how they counteract it. As far as I  can see they just couldn't muster the thousands of people required to doorknock and talk with the hundreds of thousands of  voters that were approached in Victoria.

Even worse for the Libs what they will hear from the doorknockers will be 10 times uglier than anything Napthine did. 



> * Victorian Labor says its victory has revolutionised politics*
> 
> Grassroots polling strategy targeting 18 seats achieves a 60-year first by defeating Coalition after just one term in office
> 
> Gay Alcorn
> 
> 
> *Victorian Labor and the union movement believe they have revolutionised political campaigning in Australia. They implemented a detailed, grassroots strategy for Saturday’s state election, recruiting thousands of volunteers to talk to people one-on-one to convince them to vote against the government.
> 
> Labor’s marginal seats director, Kosmos Samaras, said the party had piloted the “field campaign” strategy in key seats at last year’s federal election. It was fully applied for the first time at Saturday’s state poll in 18 marginal seats.*
> 
> Labor won the election, defeating the Coalition government after a single term in office, the first time that has happened in Victoria for almost 60 years. The outgoing government has acknowledged it was out-campaigned by Labor.
> 
> Samaras said there remained “institutional resistance” to the strategy within the ALP, but senior officials from NSW and Queensland had visited Victoria to assess whether it should be rolled out in a comprehensive way around the country.
> 
> Field campaigning is based on techniques developed by the Democrats and progressive movements in the United States. Samaras said politics had changed dramatically, and it was a proven way to make a cynical public engage with political issues that mattered most to them. The Greens use similar grassroots techniques.



http://www.theguardian.com/australi...-says-its-victory-has-revolutionised-politics


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> It isn't rocket science, to kick start the economy and pay down debt.
> First drop the value of the dollar, second reduce wages, third take money from those who have it.lol even if it has taken you a lifetime to save it.
> 
> Bet you won't find them agreeing to reduce the politicians pensions, Labor managed to wedge in a 30% increase, just before being thrown out.lol




Quarantine NG to new builds.  
Force APRA and RBA to bring in macro-prudential along the lines of what NZ introduced 

Now that you've put a cap on mortgage debt ballooning the RBA can lower interest rates

Establish a policy for the future that will limit the AUD from going too far above it's fundamental value - ie don't let Dutch Disease kill off the non mining sectors again.

This should have been done over a decade ago.  It's a massive blind spot to the major parties.

Instead of pumping billions into roads that have a less than a $ economic return for each $ invested, use funds to encourage the states to move towards land taxes to make infrastructure investment self funding via increases in land values through infrastructure being recouped via higher land taxes.  Infrastructure Australia already has a lit of projects that would help with the current CAPEX cliff and increase the productive potential of the economy over the medium to long term.  That the Govt is ignoring IA is up their with Labor's ignoring of the Henry tax review.

Technically Labor didn't wedge any increases in.  It's a supposedly independent process on the pollies pay, and I don't seem to recall the Liberals calling for any form of wage restraint.



noco said:


> SP. the Green/Labor left wing socialists are in complete denial and just don't want to accept reality....they have absolutely no concern for the welfare of Australia and those who live here......no National interest.....only interested in themselves....Sham on them.




I'd argue 95% of the country is in denial.

Macquarie Bank sums it up quite nicely today.  I'd argue the below is another reason for the angst within the electorate.  Most people are already feeling like it's a recession.



> Tailwinds that have boosted demand in Australia over the past few decades are set to ease, or reverse course. The end of Australia’s terms of trade boom is set to drag on income growth, resulting in a weak demand environment at a time when structural headwinds to growth – particularly demographics – are beginning to be felt…
> 
> The current expansion in GDP is expected to continue. Ordinarily this would be expected to be consistent with a strong domestic demand environment.
> 
> *However, current GDP growth is narrowly based. Resource exports are the major contributor to GDP growth, with population growth the other driver. Outside of these two factors, the economy is weak. We expect GDP ex- resources to decline, on a per capita basis, over the year to 2Q 2015.*
> 
> The rise in Australia’s terms of trade has seen nominal GDP growth rise strongly over recent years. Rising commodity prices translated into strong economy-wide income growth, which boosted domestic demand. *The reversal of the terms of trade is having the opposite effect. Nominal GDP growth has slumped, Gross Domestic Income (GDI) is growing at just 1.3%pa, and so is Domestic Final Demand (1.4%pa). GDI fell in the last quarter, and partial data thus far suggest Australia could record an “income recession” in the 3Q14 GDP figures…*
> 
> The impacts of the terms of trade decline will persist for some time… Some moderation in income growth looks to be inevitable, and moderating population growth, demographic challenges, slack in the labour market and benign inflation conditions suggest modest nominal growth outcomes are likely to persist.




Pretty much all the reasons Howard is lauded as an economic marvel are now in reverse.  The true economic marvel will be the politician who can honestly explain the above to the voters, create a centrist budget plan that shares the pain of cuts AND tax increases fairly, and is able to communicate this in such a way that the public accepts it and then the senate has little support to block the measures.  We have world leading tax expenditures to be hacked into.

The current Govt doesn't seem up to the task based on their performance this year, though Labor has not done anything to make me think they're willing to be any more honest than Abbott was when in opposition.


----------



## sydboy007

A little bit more annalysis on just how unfair the university deregulation will be.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/hig...see-48k-degrees/story-e6frgcjx-1227067015109#



> The University of Western Australia has already responded to fee deregulation by announcing that it would charge an annual fee of $16,000 for the five basic undergraduate courses it offers, which is around double the current HELP rate for most undergraduate degrees.




In June, the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM), which is attached to the University of Canberra, released estimates of how the May Budget’s changes to university fees are likely to impact on various courses, and found that the impact would “be felt most strongly for low-pay occupations such as nursing or education, and across the board the impacts are larger for females”. The modelling “assumed that students will face a repayment interest rate of 5% which is around twice that of the CPI (the existing indexation) but lower than the typical 10 year Treasury bond rate (the proposed loan interest rate) of 6% over the past decade” (see below table).

We're already falling behind in the STEM fields.  Considering a lot of the jobs in those industries aren't the highest paying, we'll likely see more students opting to do something finance related to help repay the doubling of their debts.  I suppose it makes sense for a Govt without a science minister.


The below video sums up where we're headed if these changes make it through.

[video=youtube_share;P8pjd1QEA0c]http://youtu.be/P8pjd1QEA0c?list=PLmKbqjSZR8TZa7wyVoVq2XMHxxWREyiF  c[/video]


----------



## SirRumpole

It's the universities job to serve the needs of the nation, not themselves.

They do this by providing the skills that we as a nation need to grow the economy and provide services while the graduates earn more money and therefore pay more tax (hopefully).

So even if the universities increase their prestige factor and become more attractive to foreign students, so what ? 

The foreign students then go back to their own countries and provide services there, and pay no tax here. What benefit is that to us ?

Christopher Pyne and his cronies should get real and stop looking at all government activities in fundamentalist market terms. 

There is such a thing as the national interest, and deregulated universities will not be contributing to that.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Quarantine NG to new builds.
> Force APRA and RBA to bring in macro-prudential along the lines of what NZ introduced
> 
> Now that you've put a cap on mortgage debt ballooning the RBA can lower interest rates
> 
> Establish a policy for the future that will limit the AUD from going too far above it's fundamental value - ie don't let Dutch Disease kill off the non mining sectors again.
> 
> This should have been done over a decade ago.  It's a massive blind spot to the major parties.
> 
> Instead of pumping billions into roads that have a less than a $ economic return for each $ invested, use funds to encourage the states to move towards land taxes to make infrastructure investment self funding via increases in land values through infrastructure being recouped via higher land taxes.  Infrastructure Australia already has a lit of projects that would help with the current CAPEX cliff and increase the productive potential of the economy over the medium to long term.  That the Govt is ignoring IA is up their with Labor's ignoring of the Henry tax review.
> 
> Technically Labor didn't wedge any increases in.  It's a supposedly independent process on the pollies pay, and I don't seem to recall the Liberals calling for any form of wage restraint.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd argue 95% of the country is in denial.
> 
> Macquarie Bank sums it up quite nicely today.  I'd argue the below is another reason for the angst within the electorate.  Most people are already feeling like it's a recession.
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much all the reasons Howard is lauded as an economic marvel are now in reverse.  The true economic marvel will be the politician who can honestly explain the above to the voters, create a centrist budget plan that shares the pain of cuts AND tax increases fairly, and is able to communicate this in such a way that the public accepts it and then the senate has little support to block the measures.  We have world leading tax expenditures to be hacked into.
> 
> The current Govt doesn't seem up to the task based on their performance this year, though Labor has not done anything to make me think they're willing to be any more honest than Abbott was when in opposition.




Good post Syd, your last sentence sums up my feelings, exactly.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> In June, the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM), which is attached to the University of Canberra, released estimates of how the May Budget’s changes to university fees are likely to impact on various courses, and found that the impact would “be felt most strongly for low-pay occupations such as nursing or education,




Could that be because nursing and teaching, really shouldn't be university degrees?

Maybe a return to teaching hospitals and teachers traing colleges is called for. 
Where a large component is actually on the job training, where trainee nurses work in the hospital and do a three year traineeship. 
The same could apply to teacher training, it's not as though they are formulating abstract curiculum, that requires indepth quantum mathmatics.
A large component of both jobs, is interpersonal and observation skills, which are developed in the work place.

The main reasons they became uni degrees had nothing to do with complexity, more to do with the unions justifying pay restructures and it also faciltated the governments getting out of the cost of training.

Much like, when governments washed their hands of taking on heaps of apprentices, saying it was the responsibility of the private sector.


----------



## Tisme

Seems that Buckstop Abbott has started to cave :


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-01/tony-abbott-concedes-government-had-ragged-week/5929996


----------



## sptrawler

Tisme said:


> Seems that Buckstop Abbott has started to cave :
> ]




There's no winning with you, is there.


----------



## noco

There is no doubt the Abbott government did some deep soul searching over the weekend.

The performance of the Prime Minister and his Ministers in Parliament question time today had a lot more punch than last week....

Have they finally got the message?....I hope so for their sake.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/hig...140681255?sv=eb63898ff49ad20b66fe39e24dca3c5e


----------



## IFocus

Nothing like mounting fear on the back bench to sharpen a few knives.

The Victorian election has really rattled a few cages lets see if Abbott can do a back step triple pike back ward somersault with more lies and broken promisers.


I still think the ADF pay rise has legs yet certainly one of the more cowardly moves yet to price signal the public service hiding behind the arm forces.


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> Nothing like mounting fear on the back bench to sharpen a few knives.
> 
> The Victorian election has really rattled a few cages lets see if Abbott can do a back step triple pike back ward somersault with more lies and broken promisers.
> 
> 
> I still think the ADF pay rise has legs yet certainly one of the more cowardly moves yet to price signal the public service hiding behind the arm forces.




You just don't get, do you?

You and you comrades are in complete denial and will not accept the fact that the Green/Labor socialist left wingers left no money in the kitty...as I keep saying, those $900 generous Rudd cheques were just a loan and now must be paid back...they all rubbed their hands together when they arrived in the post, but in actual fact it was one big Rudd con job and now nobody wants to part with it....it is simple....you borrow money you have to pay it back with interest.

There is a lot of greed out there and nobody wants to tighten their belts...They all put their greasy palms out for more money, led by the unions, without any thought as to where the money comes from....They all think the country owes them a living and that there is no bottom to the pit of money....The Labor party's philosophy is, keep filling the workers pockets and they will all be happy....take some away and you are the worst in the world. 

Wake up Australia....your country needs you to pull your weight....don't be so greedy when times are tough.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:
			
		

> Wake up Australia....your country needs you to pull your weight....don't be so greedy when times are tough.




Oh yes, all the low income people are sooo greedy, slaving away for minimal wages, unpaid overtime, holidays not taken etc.

Most of us don't have multiple negative geared investment properties at the taxpayers expense, or stash away large amounts of our bloated incomes in super taxed at 15% when our normal rate is 45%.

Fix these black holes and the rest of us may just start to think that everyone is pulling their weight.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Oh yes, all the low income people are sooo greedy, slaving away for minimal wages, unpaid overtime, holidays not taken etc.
> 
> Most of us don't have multiple negative geared investment properties at the taxpayers expense, or stash away large amounts of our bloated incomes in super taxed at 15% when our normal rate is 45%.
> 
> Fix these black holes and the rest of us may just start to think that everyone is pulling their weight.




It is the old old story...some people work harder than others..those hard workers who don't restrict themselves to 38 hour working week, pay their share of taxes, put some away for a rainy day are frowned upon for what they have achieved....then there are some clowns who are happy to work 38 hours per week and many who don't want to work at all, pizz it up against the wall and smoke their heads off and expect everything from the government for nothing......I am not saying they are not all like that but those are not are just happy to plod along in struggle street.

Yes from one who knows about slaving away, unpaid overtime and no holidays sometimes for 7 years....60 to 70 hours a week and the likes of you begrudge that type of person for what they have and what they have achieved.

Give it a break.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> Most of us don't have multiple negative geared investment properties at the taxpayers expense.




I think Ifocus mentioned he has a few.



SirRumpole said:


> , or stash away large amounts of our bloated incomes in super taxed at 15% when our normal rate is 45%..




Didn't you say the other day that you are a self funded retiree and don't get any handouts. So I guess you're talking about yourself with the above criticism.



SirRumpole said:


> Fix these black holes and the rest of us may just start to think that everyone is pulling their weight.




Well I hope they start with you two first.lol

Good old chardonay socialists, hate all the rich handouts, but are at the front of the que collecting them.

Anyway back to Abbott, the 'tax white paper' is due to be released. Hopefully some of the tax perks are stamped out.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:
			
		

> Anyway back to Abbott, the 'tax white paper' is due to be released. Hopefully some of the tax perks are stamped out.




Sheer gall for attacking me over tax perks and then admitting I was right all along !


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> Sheer gall for attacking me over tax perks and then admitting I was right all along !




No that's the wrong way around, sheer gall of using them to attain your position, then attacking them.


----------



## IFocus

I see Abbotts defenders here turning to name calling never a pretty sight 

Abbott needs to go to a DD........except the real winners would be the minor parties and the Coalition know it.


Everywhere Tony Abbott turns, there's a barrier he placed there himself 


The Abbott administration has become the government that snookered itself.



> The prime minister’s 45-minute media conference on Monday was a determined attempt to manoeuvre himself out of a dire political situation and reset the debate.
> 
> With even the conservative commentariat attacking his government, it was calculated to give the impression he was listening (sure, things have been a bit ragged) and making concessions (yes, ABC cuts are at odds with what I said before the election), while pointing out hand on heart that he had “guts” and “conviction” (one thing no one had ever really doubted).
> 
> But besides a minor concession on Australian Defence Force allowances and accepting the bleeding obvious about his broken promise on the ABC, there were no actual changes to give effect to the “reset”. *That may be because every way the prime minister turns there’s an obstacle he put there himself*.




http://www.theguardian.com/australi...urns-theres-a-barrier-he-placed-there-himself


----------



## Tisme

IFocus said:


> I see Abbotts defenders here turning to name calling never a pretty sight
> 
> Abbott needs to go to a DD........except the real winners would be the minor parties and the Coalition know it.
> 
> 
> Everywhere Tony Abbott turns, there's a barrier he placed there himself
> 
> 
> The Abbott administration has become the government that snookered itself.




I think he did rather well this morning on CH9 with his foil Karl helping him out. 

Now did I not prophesise that Peta Credlin might have some rejigging to do with the marionette strings? And here are you lot thinking no one listens to us.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> No that's the wrong way around, sheer gall of using them to attain your position, then attacking them.




I never got near the ability to afford multiple rental properties or the income to use super for tax avoidance, so there is no gall in my position , unlike yours.


----------



## sptrawler

Fairfax haven't reported much on the ebola issue, lately.


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> I see Abbotts defenders here turning to name calling never a pretty sight ]




No name calling, just clarifying statements and facts as presented by others.



IFocus said:


> Abbott needs to go to a DD........except the real winners would be the minor parties and the Coalition know it.




Why would he go to a DD, when he is in such a precarious position?


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> I never got near the ability to afford multiple rental properties or the income to use super for tax avoidance, so there is no gall in my position , unlike yours.




So enlighten me, what is my position.

Probably best to get back on thread.lol


----------



## sydboy007

Joe showing he has things under control

So last night Labor asked Hockey if the Government would allow a competitive tender for the looming submarines acquisition?

Hockey answer_ "No. We don’t have time”._

Uhm, we are talking a decade away for first delivery.  We are talking about a $20B program.

Could the Govt be starting to realise the employment crisis looming due to the car manufactures shutting up shop coinciding with the resource boom CAPEX cliff?

Then we have Joe telling Fran Kelly that the FTAs signed this year couldn't have happened if the Govt had continued to support local car manufacturing.  That's an interesting cat to let out of the bag.  Should make the workers looking at retrenchment quite happy to know what their sacrifices are being rewarded with.

He must have been channelling Costello with his one for mum and one for dad and one for the country by saying "Don’t let Santa down. Get out and spend for Christmas."  Oh yeah, spend like it's the early 2000s and get the country back to a negative savings rate.  That made getting a budget surplus so much easier, though the hockey stick like rise in private debt wasn't so good.


----------



## sydboy007

Andrew Leigh (Shadow Assistant Treasurer) is in the process of moving a private members bill to bring forward the time frame from late 2015 for when the ATO will start publishing the tax return data of companies with over $100M in revenue.

Hopefully Abbott will be supportive.  Considering some of the information dug up in the SMH regarding google / apple / glencore and the ways they shift profits out of the country, it would be good to have a publicly accessible web site to see exactly how much tax large companies are paying.

It will also be rather interesting to see just how many companies are tardy in lodging their tax returns.

It will at least let the public become better informed about just how big or small this issue really is.

Pre election Abbott said he would run a Govt "which is transparent and open."  Lets hope he follows through on this.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Joe showing he has things under control
> 
> So last night Labor asked Hockey if the Government would allow a competitive tender for the looming submarines acquisition?
> 
> Hockey answer_ "No. We don’t have time”._
> 
> Uhm, we are talking a decade away for first delivery.  We are talking about a $20B program.
> 
> Could the Govt be starting to realise the employment crisis looming due to the car manufactures shutting up shop coinciding with the resource boom CAPEX cliff?
> 
> Then we have Joe telling Fran Kelly that the FTAs signed this year couldn't have happened if the Govt had continued to support local car manufacturing.  That's an interesting cat to let out of the bag.  Should make the workers looking at retrenchment quite happy to know what their sacrifices are being rewarded with.
> 
> He must have been channelling Costello with his one for mum and one for dad and one for the country by saying "Don’t let Santa down. Get out and spend for Christmas."  Oh yeah, spend like it's the early 2000s and get the country back to a negative savings rate.  That made getting a budget surplus so much easier, though the hockey stick like rise in private debt wasn't so good.




I can't for the life of me understand why we are getting submarines anyway, seems like an absolute waste of money, considering the size of our coastline.
Joe must be on borrowed time.IMO


----------



## banco

sptrawler said:


> I can't for the life of me understand why we are getting submarines anyway, seems like an absolute waste of money, considering the size of our coastline.
> Joe must be on borrowed time.IMO




That's why we have all the other gear so we can locate enemy ships and then the submarines can move in for the kill.


----------



## sptrawler

banco said:


> That's why we have all the other gear so we can locate enemy ships and then the submarines can move in for the kill.




Yes, I can see it now.
We have a group of ships heading toward Broome, someone ring Sydney, to get the subs warmed up.


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> Yes, I can see it now.
> We have a group of ships heading toward Broome, someone ring Sydney, to get the subs warmed up.




I'm guessing the submarine boats won't be powered by the Falcon engine ... damn those factory closures.


----------



## sptrawler

Tisme said:


> I'm guessing the submarine boats won't be powered by the Falcon engine ... damn those factory closures.




They would want to be a bit quieter, than the Collins class subs.


----------



## Knobby22

sptrawler said:


> They would want to be a bit quieter, than the Collins class subs.




(Inside a Chinese submarine)

Sailor:
Sir (salutes)
We have detected a sound like a two stroke motor slowly travelling up the coast from Sydney but it appears to be located underwater.

Captain: It's a Collins Class submarine, I'm scared! (crew laugh at Captains' joke)


----------



## Tisme

sydboy007 said:


> Pre election Abbott said he would run a Govt "which is transparent and open."  Lets hope he follows through on this.





I think we should remember that the Abbott Party wasn't necessarily voted in, but the Rudderless ALP Ship voted out...if only to get a break from Newscorp wasting our subscriptions on fishwifery headlines and financial doomsday prophesies and to put the ALP out of its misery.

Only the foolish would have ever put much stock in an pugnacious politician to ever be a genuine conciliation leader who could galvanise the nation, rather than polarise it. Tony does not have the visionary credentials to tug a nation along like he can his cabinet .... thus he will never earn the nickname of Tugger Tony ....on the otherhand....


----------



## sptrawler

Knobby22 said:


> (Inside a Chinese submarine)
> 
> Sailor:
> Sir (salutes)
> We have detected a sound like a two stroke motor slowly travelling up the coast from Sydney but it appears to be located underwater.
> 
> Captain: It's a Collins Class submarine, I'm scared! (crew laugh at Captains' joke)




Yes I worked with an ex submariner, he used to joke that they would say, "someone switch off that engine, I can't hear myself think in here".


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Tony Abbott election promises - He said they were commitments "you can trust me to keep".
> 
> These are some of the election promises Tony will hopefully see as "core"
> 
> * Stop the boats
> Measurement: No boats arriving after january 2015 - this gives Abbott well over a year to implement an effective policy.
> 
> * $1 billion reduction in Business compliance costs
> measurement: Cumulative reduction of $1B by the next election of business compliance costs.
> 
> * PPL Scheme
> Measurement: Scheme fully operational by July 2015, with evidence to show it has increased the participation rate and productivity (Abbott mentions this criteria as justification for his policy) by the next election
> 
> * Public Service headcount reduction of 12000 with NO FORCED REDUNDANCIES
> Measurement: A 12000 reduction in headcount via natural attrition only.
> 
> * New roads "Work on the WestConnex in Sydney, the East West Link in Melbourne, the Gateway upgrade in Brisbane, the North-South Road in Adelaide, and the Swan Bypass in Perth will be substantially underway.  The Pacific Highway duplication will finally be in sight and work will have begun on the Midland Highway in Tasmania and the Range Crossing at Toowoomba."
> Measurement: A bit tricky but I'd say fair to think construction on all the above projects to have been underway for at least 12 months since he's used "substantially underway".
> 
> * Choosing of site for a second Sydney Airport
> Measurement: New site announced, preferably with funding commitments and schedule for when construction will commence.
> 
> * 2 million new jobs over a decade / 1 million over 5 years
> Measurement: I take this commitment to mean new as in over and above the usual level of job creation in the economy.  Over the last decade on average 18,249 new jobs per month were created.  Over the last 10 years in Australia 2,189,986 jobs were created.  So the way I see it the Coalition would need to see over 4 Million new jobs over a decade, or 2 million over 5 years.  Since these things take time to start rolling out lets say employment should be some 1M higher than the current 11.66 Million ie 12.66M people employed by the next election.
> 
> I think the above is reasonably objective criteria on which to measure the Abbott Govt performance.  Others might want to add to the above list.




So, just over one year in, how is he going Syd?

Try to be objective.


----------



## IFocus

Budget surplus a distant dream as Coalition presides over spending surge
Stephen Koukoulas




> *In opposition, the Coalition parties had a spokesman for debt reduction. Curiously, it is a position they dropped the moment they won the election and the reasons for doing that now seem clear.*
> 
> Government debt is rising at a breakneck speed and when the mid year economic and fiscal outlook (Myefo) is released later this month, it will confirm wider budget deficits and rising government debt.
> 
> Before the 2013 election Andrew Robb was the opposition spokesman for debt reduction and time and time again, he bemoaned the level of government debt under Labor.
> 
> At various times he compared Australia’s debt level to that of Greece and Ireland and in 2012 he made the promise that “the top priority for a Coalition government would be slashing debt … the government should be paying down debt”.
> 
> Having now been in government for almost 15 months, the Coalition is floundering hopelessly on this commitment.
> 
> *The level of gross commonwealth government debt has risen a thumping $75bn to a record $348bn. The level of net government debt has increased by $48bn to a record $226.4bn, according to the latest data up to September 2014. The figure will be higher still when Myefo is released and the forecasts will be for even higher debt.*
> 
> In terms of ‘paying down debt’, this government has failed.







> *Unnecessary payments of $8.8bn have been made to the Reserve Bank of Australia. The paid parental leave scheme, roads and infrastructure and defence and border protection are all areas that have seen substantial spending increases.
> *
> And the government’s decision to give up scarce revenue with the repeal of the carbon price and mining tax has made the budget position all the more problematic.






> The government has also had a hand in trash-talking the economy. By creating a mood of fear about a budget “crisis” or “emergency”, the government has left business investment sliding and consumer sentiment mired in pessimism.
> 
> When consumers are pessimistic, they tend not to spend, they building savings and the rate of growth is undoubtedly weaker than it would otherwise be. Weaker economic growth hurts government tax receipts.
> 
> *This is the first government I can recall that continually talks down the economy in such a savage and persistent way.*







> *Indeed, the way the government is spending and has given up compromising with the Senate on other policy changes, there seems little chance of a budget surplus for many years to come and the level of government debt looks like going up and up and up.
> *




http://www.theguardian.com/australi...eam-as-coalition-presides-over-spending-surge


----------



## IFocus

Nuclear power keeps the corporates in charge. No wonder it's conservatives' preferred solution to climate change



> “I have no theological objection” to nuclear power, Tony Abbott said on 1 December, responding to Julie Bishop’s relaunch of the right’s preferred “solution” to global warming this week.
> 
> Abbott’s choice of words is fascinating. On the face of it he’s suggesting that opposing nuclear power is a faith-based, rather than rational, view. But it is the right’s consistent promotion of a technology that has been shown repeatedly to be too slow, too costly and too risky (see, for instance, here and here) that is underpinned by several right wing articles of faith. It’s worth unpacking this credo, because it reveals what’s really going on when nuclear power is raised.




http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...rvatives-preferred-solution-to-climate-change


----------



## IFocus

Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey fight accusations of budget shambles

Prime minister denies budget measures in chaos, as treasurer calls on Australians to spend and not ‘let Santa down’



> The Abbott government is on a pre-Christmas economic confidence offensive even as it prepares to unveil ballooning deficits in its budget update and fails to get $22bn in stalled savings through the Senate.
> 
> Both Tony Abbott and the treasurer, Joe Hockey, spent Tuesday rejecting suggestions the budget and the Coalition’s parliamentary strategy were a shambles. They insisted the economy was performing well, even though the government has struggled to pass the spending cuts it has previously insisted were necessary to overcome a budget crisis and a “debt and deficit disaster”.




http://www.theguardian.com/australi...ony-abbott-and-joe-hockey-push-festive-spirit


----------



## IFocus

Almost 90% of Australians support renewable energy target, says poll

WWF poll finds overwhelming support for RET, particularly in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania, as senators consider deal


http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ans-support-renewable-energy-target-says-poll


----------



## IFocus

University deregulation: Senate rejects Education Minister Christopher Pyne's push for higher education reform



> The Senate has rejected the Federal Government's push to deregulate universities, which would have allowed them to set their own fees.
> 
> Despite a last-ditch plea from the Government and the promise of several last-minute amendments to woo the crossbenches, the Senate voted down the bill 33 to 31.
> 
> The fate of the bill was sealed when the Government failed to gain the support of the Palmer United Party (PUP) and independent senators Jacqui Lambie and Nick Xenophon.
> 
> In the minutes leading up to the vote, PUP senator Glenn Lazarus made his feelings clear.
> Audio: Senate rejects Government's uni fees deregulation package (PM)
> 
> "No amount of texting, chocolates and red roses from Christopher Pyne is going to change my mind, or the mind of my fellow colleague, Senator Dio Wang," he said.





http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-...ments-push-to-deregulate-universities/5935116


----------



## IFocus

'Stop harassing me': Glenn Lazarus declares higher education reforms dead, tells Christopher Pyne to back off



> Palmer United Party senator Glenn Lazarus has told Education Minister Christopher Pyne to "stop harassing" him over the Government's contentious overhaul to the university sector, saying the changes are "bad to the core".
> 
> His statement means the changes are destined to fail in the Senate, where the Government has been trying to secure the six votes it needs from the crossbench.
> 
> The Government wants to cut funding for courses by 20 per cent but allow universities to set their own fees.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-02/glenn-lazarus-christopher-pyne-back-off-uni-reforms/5933840


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> Almost 90% of Australians support renewable energy target, says poll
> 
> WWF poll finds overwhelming support for RET, particularly in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania, as senators consider deal
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ans-support-renewable-energy-target-says-poll




Ah yes quotes from the good old commie Guardian again........Don't believe what you read in that commie paper, they are the greatest distortion of the truth and will always suck in naive people like you.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Ah yes quotes from the good old commie Guardian again........Don't believe what you read in that commie paper, they are the greatest distortion of the truth and will always suck in naive people like you.




I'll make you a deal noco. You don't believe what you read/see/hear on the Guardian or ABC and I won't believe what I read/see/hear on any Murdoch outlet.

OK ?


----------



## sptrawler

Don't get too stressed up noco, Labor has now committed to no spending cuts, therefore it will mean increased taxes.
But no doubt, Abbott won't be able to pass them, as the senate and Labor will oppose it.
Ballooning debt and deficit will lead to a down grade of our credit rating.

Recession on the way.lol

Been through a few of them.

Paying the bills, when you don't have a job. 
It's called the school of hard knocks, and it's about to re open.IMO


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> Budget surplus a distant dream as Coalition presides over spending surge
> Stephen Koukoulas
> 
> ]




YES 

Australia down the toilet, yes, Labor successful. YES

You are funny.lol


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia (Is Islam Inherently evil ? said:
			
		

> The ABC usually chooses to not even report what is happening in our nearest neighbour, New Zealand.
> A rare item on this evening's "PM" gives an interesting analysis about why NZ has been able to so successfully introduce the very reforms our government is trying to get up here.
> http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2014/s4140716.htm
> 
> It seems that, similarly to the way John Howard took the GST to an election, John Key did the same with his welfare and other economic reforms, got the electorate behind him and the country has gone from strength to strength as a result.




It's a pity that report did not mention what the welfare and economic reforms in NZ actually were.

I think a good reform would be to exempt small business from paying penalty rates and overtime to under 25's, thus enabling them to create more jobs and get young people off the dole. Great benefit to the government budget too, less dole payments and more tax receipts.

I wonder why such a simple idea hasn't been floated as it seems a win-win for everyone.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I'll make you a deal noco. You don't believe what you read/see/hear on the Guardian or ABC and I won't believe what I read/see/hear on any Murdoch outlet.
> 
> OK ?




That is your prerogative....But I know which one I would prefer to rely upon for the truth.


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> YES
> 
> Australia down the toilet, yes, Labor successful. YES
> 
> You are funny.lol




The Green/Labor left wing socialists were economic vandals in Government and economic vandals in opposition.

They are in complete denial in respect to the current circumstances and are doing their best to make the Abbott Government look the villains.......Labor have no concern for the national interest only their own interest in political point scoring.

The Labor Member for Ballarat has been caught out by the auditor general for rorting the system for money destined for regional Australia and diverted  to marginal Labor seats in the metropolitan area....She has been well and truly caught with her hand in the cookie jar before the last election.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> It's a pity that report did not mention what the welfare and economic reforms in NZ actually were.
> 
> I think a good reform would be to exempt small business from paying penalty rates and overtime to under 25's, thus enabling them to create more jobs and get young people off the dole. Great benefit to the government budget too, less dole payments and more tax receipts.
> 
> I wonder why such a simple idea hasn't been floated as it seems a win-win for everyone.




That is just a nasty suggestion, jeez if Abbott had suggested that, you would have been screaming.

Whats come over you? there would be no need to introduce those sorts of measures, unless we really decended into a huge fiscal situation like Spain, Greece etc.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> That is just a nasty suggestion, jeez if Abbott had suggested that, you would have been screaming.




No I wouldn't



> Whats come over you? there would be no need to introduce those sorts of measures, unless we really decended into a huge fiscal situation like Spain, Greece etc.




If you have to resort to sarcasm instead of debating a suggestion on it's merits I wonder if you really have any idea of how things can be improved or you just want to make debating points against someone you perceive to belong to "the other side" ?


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> If you have to resort to sarcasm instead of debating a suggestion on it's merits I wonder if you really have any idea of how things can be improved or you just want to make debating points against someone you perceive to belong to "the other side" ?




When you put forward a sensible suggestion I'll debate it, as I have done with Syd on several occassions.
Untill you do, I will treat it accordingly.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> When you put forward a sensible suggestion I'll debate it, as I have done with Syd on several occassions.
> Untill you do, I will treat it accordingly.




What's not sensible about relieving small business of the burden of penalty rates for under 25's ?


----------



## SirRumpole

The churches have really got their claws into the Abbott government

Non-religious chaplains may not be funded under new chaplaincy program in 2015



> Over 500 of Australia's 2,300 school chaplains may not be funded under the Federal Government's new chaplaincy program that begins next year, because they are not religious.
> 
> Under the Abbott Government's new policy guidelines a chaplain must be recognised by "religious qualifications or endorsements by a recognised or accepted religious institution".
> 
> Those currently working as secular, student welfare officers may soon be out of a job and replaced by people of faith.
> 
> Martin Grigg, CEO of Onpsych, an Australian company which trains people to work as psychologists and social workers in schools, said he hoped to find a way around the new exclusions by approaching religious institutions to endorse secular staff.
> 
> "They'll need to be well qualified, they'll need to have very good experience and have the support of the school," Mr Grigg said.
> 
> "We will need to see references and CV's but given all that, we hope that we can find a religious institution that will back us and back those workers and give the schools the choices I think they need."
> 
> The previous Labor Government gave schools the choice of religious or secular staff to work as school chaplains, and Mr Grigg said some religious schools chose secular staff to work as chaplains.
> 
> "Many of the schools which are established around their religion are using the chaplaincy to work with psychologists and social workers because they believed that the religious side of their education program was very well catered for and they didn't need any additional support," he said.
> 
> "But they had identified a need for psychologists, social workers or welfare officers."
> 
> Mr Grigg said he would be approaching a range of religious institutions over the next two months to try and win their support.
> Secular staff say the new chaplaincy program is not merit based
> 
> Colleen Sweeney is the student welfare officer at Asquith Boy's High School in Sydney.
> 
> She is not part of any religious organisation but is highly qualified and has worked with street kids, young offenders, sexual abuse victims and spent more than ten years working with the Department of Community Services (DOCS).
> 
> Ms Sweeney is employed under the school chaplaincy program but will not be returning to the school next year.
> 
> "I think it's highly unfair," Ms Sweeney said.
> 
> "The kids are ultimately the ones who are going to suffer because you build those relationships.
> 
> I would certainly be very disappointed that it's got to the point where, rather than be selected for a job on merit, you are selected on the basis of religion.
> Colleen Sweeney, student welfare officer at Asquith Boy's High School
> 
> "They trust you, they tell you things they've never told anyone, things they are ashamed of, things they worry about and then you are gone, so they are the ones who are going to suffer."
> 
> Dr Kim Pinnock is a member of the school Parents and Citizens Council which hired Colleen Sweeney, and said the school did not want to lose her.
> 
> "We had some very good people apply for the job, so it was actually difficult to choose someone," Dr Pinnock said.
> 
> "Colleen was very well qualified and so she was chosen deliberately on her merits to support the boys at the school.
> 
> "She's certainly done that very well so we really support her and want to keep her."
> 
> Ms Sweeney also questioned whether excluding non-religious staff would undermine merit-based appointments.
> 
> "I would certainly be very disappointed that it's got to the point where, rather than be selected for a job on merit, you are selected on the basis of religion," she said.
> Chaplains must be multi-faith but not secular
> 
> Under the new school chaplains program, chaplains can be Christian, Muslim or from another faith but cannot be non-religious.
> 
> Chaplains are not allowed to proselytise. The school chaplaincy program will now be administered by states and territories after two successful High Court challenges questioned the legality of the Commonwealth funding the program.
> 
> It is yet to be seen whether secular staff currently working as school chaplains can be endorsed by religious organisations and fulfil the new criteria for the role.
> 
> When asked if a secular worker could be endorsed by a religious organisation to continue working as a school chaplain, a spokesman for Senator Scott Ryan, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education referred the ABC back to the new definition of the school chaplain.
> 
> According to the definition, a chaplain is an individual who:
> 
> Is recognised by the school community and the appropriate governing authority for the school as having the skills and experience to deliver school chaplaincy to the school community,
> Is recognised through formal ordination, commissioning, recognised religious qualifications or endorsement by a recognised or accepted religious institution,
> Meets the NSCP's minimum qualification requirements.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-...may-not-be-funded-under-new-programme/5935450


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> What's not sensible about relieving small business of the burden of penalty rates for under 25's ?




How the hell do you reconcile that, with under 25's? why not under 30's, or better still if you employ people over 60.
It would be probably more sensible to have an agreed flat rate, as per most industries. 

The penalty rate system, was designed around a religious week where the sabath was deemed a day of rest.

I became a projects supervisor in the 1980's, the manager had a standing order, the workers weren't allowed to work on a Sunday.

Well it didn't sit well with me, that we were asking guys to do a 5/1 swing and making them sit in a donga on Sundays, in some godforesaken dump.

Well I put my job on the line, to get them 4/1 and work Sundays, they were over the moon.

Life isn't about saying under 25's should take a haircut, it is about what is affordable, what is achievable.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> How the hell do you reconcile that, with under 25's? why not under 30's, or better still if you employ people over 60.
> It would be probably more sensible to have an agreed flat rate, as per most industries.
> 
> The penalty rate system, was designed around a religious week where the sabath was deemed a day of rest.
> 
> I became a projects supervisor in the 1980's, the manager had a standing order, the workers weren't allowed to work on a Sunday.
> 
> Well it didn't sit well with me, that we were asking guys to do a 5/1 swing and making them sit in a donga on Sundays, in some godforesaken dump.
> 
> Well I put my job on the line, to get them 4/1 and work Sundays, they were over the moon.
> 
> Life isn't about saying under 25's should take a haircut, it is about what is affordable, what is achievable.




A pretty nonsensical reply imo.

People under 25 are looking for casual or part time jobs to help pay their way through uni/tafe, small businesses offer those types of jobs so why not bring the 2 together ?

Penalty rates were designed to compensate for lost family time, most under 25's don't have kids so they aren't losing much. As I said, win/win.


----------



## So_Cynical

One term Tony is a goner...think about it, no Aussie political leader that has been caught lying has lasted.

Hawk, Keating, Howard, Fraser all had a honest appeal and an honest record for the most part, Julia and Tony perceived as back flipping liars.


----------



## moXJO

So_Cynical said:


> One term Tony is a goner...think about it, no Aussie political leader that has been caught lying has lasted.
> 
> Hawk, Keating, Howard, Fraser all had a honest appeal and an honest record for the most part, Julia and Tony perceived as back flipping liars.




Lying, less so in Abbotts case. I can't say I ever warmed to him that much and then consistent bad performance and (for me) sticking Hockey as treasurer was just not a good combo. He lurched way too far to the right instantly- instead of gradually leading the voters in that direction over time. Thats not to say they haven't performed in some key areas though. But Abbott is stuffed from here if he doesn't turn his image around.


----------



## Tisme

So_Cynical said:


> One term Tony is a goner...think about it, no Aussie political leader that has been caught lying has lasted.
> 
> Hawk, Keating, Howard, Fraser all had a honest appeal and an honest record for the most part, Julia and Tony perceived as back flipping liars.





Turnover Tony


----------



## Tisme

I see Christopher Pane mispronounced Ms Wang's name last night

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F14gLqR-iH8&feature=youtu.be

Chris is starting to look decidedly old... being a minister does not seem to be agreeable with his health (Malcolm similarly)


----------



## chiff

Just a thought-may or may not be justified.
If the submarines are bought from Japan,would that be payment for a free trade agreement with Japan?
By not being willing to be transparent about the submarine contract or tender process, I wonder whether the deal has already been done?


----------



## SirRumpole

chiff said:


> Just a thought-may or may not be justified.
> If the submarines are bought from Japan,would that be payment for a free trade agreement with Japan?
> By not being willing to be transparent about the submarine contract or tender process, I wonder whether the deal has already been done?




Maybe, plus the fact that the LNP have a hatred for Australian workers, especially those who are union members.


----------



## Logique

I saw both the Gillard interview, with her sing-song 'There will be no carbon tax...', and the Abbott interview, with the dramatic 'No cuts to SBS, no cuts to the ABC...'

In each case I thought...this will come back to bite them, and so it has.

But this is what pollies do when they're running hard for election.


----------



## Tisme

chiff said:


> Just a thought-may or may not be justified.
> If the submarines are bought from Japan,would that be payment for a free trade agreement with Japan?
> By not being willing to be transparent about the submarine contract or tender process, I wonder whether the deal has already been done?




I think the Japan deal is a furphy designed to sucker punch Labor and pork barrel the SA electorate.


----------



## IFocus

sptrawler said:


> YES
> 
> Australia down the toilet, yes, Labor successful. YES
> 
> You are funny.lol




It was about the Coalitions increase in spending which you continue to turn a blind eye.


----------



## IFocus

Tisme said:


> I think the Japan deal is a furphy designed to sucker punch Labor and pork barrel the SA electorate.




It could end up that way but the " couldn't build a canoe " statement points to Japanese subs.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe, plus the fact that the LNP have a hatred for Australian workers, especially those who are union members.




Oh gawd Rumpy  you really are clutching at straws now......That is nothing more and nothing less than Fabian propaganda.

The LNP don't hate Australian workers and you know it......perhaps those militant unions might come into that category and for good reasons why......Just follow the Royal Commission into the corruption in the unions and you will see the reasons why..


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> It could end up that way but the " couldn't build a canoe " statement points to Japanese subs.




Why should we subsidize the unions in building ships in Adelaide?

The last ship they launched was $300,000,000 over budget and 21 months late compliments of the unions.

I say let them tender for Submarines on the world market with penalties applied for late delivery....There will always be a rise and fall clause in the contract provided it can be substantiated.

There is no way they should be given an open cheque book.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> Why should we subsidize the unions in building ships in Adelaide?
> 
> The last ship they launched was $300,000,000 over budget and 21 months late compliments of the unions.
> 
> I say let them tender for Submarines on the world market with penalties applied for late delivery....There will always be a rise and fall clause in the contract provided it can be substantiated.
> 
> There is no way they should be given an open cheque book.




I wish the govt(s) would adopt a better tendering model. There are just too many smarty pants in govt who want to control the process with no concept of the various can go wrong laws of construction and manufacture.

The international tender model was used by the state govts for the failed ubiquitous health payroll and amalgamated services computer systems commissioned across many states (some just haven't fessed up to the billions wasted).

God help us taxpayers and our future gens if the PPP avenue is walked down.


----------



## drsmith

Tisme said:


> I see Christopher Pane mispronounced Ms Wang's name last night
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F14gLqR-iH8&feature=youtu.be



The ABC needs to check both its spelling and pronunciation.

It's spelt Wang but pronounced Wong.


----------



## trainspotter

drsmith said:


> The ABC needs to check both its spelling and pronunciation.
> 
> It's spelt Wang but pronounced Wong.






> “Hello, Leigh Sales here from Canberra, and I’m in the office of Senator Wang – or is it Wong? “We’ve come straight to the source to try and clear it up,” Sales announced to the camera, an amused Senator Wang sitting beside her.
> “Is it Wang or Wong?” she asked.
> “It’s Wong,” he said.
> “Wong?” Sales asked again.
> “Yes,” Senator Wang confirmed.
> 
> Confused, the 7.30 host replied: “So how come I’ve only heard of you referred to as Senator Wang - in the media people call you Dio Wang.”
> Senator Wang took it in his stride, saying: “I guess it’s only the way it is spelled in English”.
> “But as time goes on I suspect we’ll have many “real” Wongs in Australia and probably around the world, I guess the Western world will probably be slowly adjusting to the fact that even though they’ve spelled it as Wang, it’s pronounced as Wong.”
> 
> *A beaten Sales is then shown saying: “So Christopher Pyne was right and I was wrong.”*
> 
> “Yes, sorry about that,” Senator Wang replied with a smile.




http://www.news.com.au/national/edu...er-senate-defeat/story-fncynjr2-1227142885872


----------



## Tisme

Love it 

from her twitter account :





> Wang or Wong - settling it once & for all with Dio. His own staff say Wang - but @cpyne is correct! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uXidsUJrSLM&feature=youtu.be …




Chris will be wandering around the corridors like the cat that got the cream


----------



## Julia

So funny.  However, she doesn't get much wrong and at least had the gumption to go and ask him.

Nice, too, that poor Christopher has one small plus in his day.


----------



## Calliope

Tisme said:


> I see Christopher Pane mispronounced Ms Wang's name last night




Pyne is his name...although his opponents on the opposite bench consider him a "pane" in the neck. That is his job.


----------



## SirRumpole

Calliope said:


> Pyne is his name...although his opponents on the opposite bench consider him a "pane" in the neck. That is his job.




There is nothing worse than a sheet of glass in the neck, or the @rse.


----------



## explod

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe, plus the fact that the LNP have a hatred for Australian workers, especially those who are union members.




As a youth the old shearer's yoused to tell me the tales of raddled sheep and the birth of the AWU. 

Before the Union was born the farmers would raddle (a chalk mark across the back) to indicate that sheep had not been shorn well enough and so was deducted from the number for which he was paid. 

Very fast sheares by habit shear each one the same to a clean standard due to long flat strokes.   Many farmers increasingly raddled large proportions of all the sheers tallies to of coursr save money.   One example up to half those shorn to the point there was a strike and the AWU was born.   Like it or not there needs to be checks and ballances for a fair go. 

It was from such farmers that we have the Country Party. 

And lets not forget dear Joe ("don"t you worry about that")  Bejockie Peterson (someone correct my spelling.   After he went and during the the Fitzgerald enquiry a friend of mine was appointed the QLD Chief Police Commissiiner.   So Ibknow a bit about the Country Party.   Also worked on staff for SirWilliam Gunn,   but he was a good bloke among them from my point then


----------



## SirRumpole

explod said:


> As a youth the old shearer's yoused to tell me the tales of raddled sheep and the birth of the AWU.
> 
> Before the Union was born the farmers would raddle (a chalk mark across the back) to indicate that sheep had not been shorn well enough and so was deducted from the number for which he was paid.
> 
> Very fast sheares by habit shear each one the same to a clean standard due to long flat strokes.   Many farmers increasingly raddled large proportions of all the sheers tallies to of coursr save money.   One example up to half those shorn to the point there was a strike and the AWU was born.   Like it or not there needs to be checks and ballances for a fair go.
> 
> It was from such farmers that we have the Country Party.
> 
> And lets not forget dear Joe ("don"t you worry about that")  Bejockie Peterson (someone correct my spelling.   After he went and during the the Fitzgerald enquiry a friend of mine was appointed the QLD Chief Police Commissiiner.   So Ibknow a bit about the Country Party.   Also worked on staff for SirWilliam Gunn,   but he was a good bloke among them from my point then




Bjelke Petersen

I remember dear old Russ Hinze, who was police Minister in Qld for a while. I didn't think governments could get any more rotten than Askin in NSW, but Hinze and Petersen showed the way for corruption.

 Campbell Newman is taking as leaf out of their book by retrospectively legalising illegal mining by one of their donors.

Haven't heard much about the Senate enquiry into the Qld government. Has it started, finished ?


----------



## sydboy007

Poor Joe has just set himself up for a car crash.  He must have been singing a long to his original ipod tunes

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...d-growth-figures/story-fn59niix-1227143430279



> Disposable income has dropped for two quarters in a row. Asked whether parts of the economy now appeared to be in recession, Mr Hockey said: “No.” “Fundamentally we are endeavouring to stabilise the rise in unemployment,” he said.
> 
> “Importantly, we are seeing strong export growth”…
> 
> “*I have no doubt 2015 will be better and beyond will be better than that,*” he said…
> 
> He also repeated his call for shoppers to spend big over Christmas.
> 
> “Not just for Santa Claus but for Australia,” he said.




Really not sure what's smoking Joe is chomping in those cigars, but me thinks there's something a bit reality distorting in them if he truly believes that the economy will be performing better this time next year.

Seems strange though that the rhetroic has really toned down since the Liberals got into office.  

Hockey just a few years back

http://www.joehockey.com/media/media-releases/details.aspx?r=124



> The Government’s Mid Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO) is another con job that confirms Labor’s promises on the economy cannot be believed.
> 
> Labor is all talk and no action when it comes to delivering a Budget surplus. This year was meant to be the year of decision and delivery. Instead it’s been a year of economic confusion, wasteful spending and failure to deliver.




Change Labor to Liberal and it seems apt with what's gone on this year.

http://www.marketeconomics.com.au/1447-joe-hockey-just-made-his-black-hole-bigger



> Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey has made an astonishing commitment for a future Coalition Government with his “absolute guarantee” that the Coalition tax take will be less than under Labor.
> 
> Interviewed on Sky TV, Mr Hockey said:
> 
> “we’ll deliver lower taxes than under Labor, I can give you that absolute guarantee.”
> I suspect Mr Hockey does not know what he has just guaranteed to deliver.
> 
> By way of background:  For the most recent year that we have final data for, that is, 2010-11, the tax to GDP ratio was 20.0%.




Certainly they've cut the taxes down, but I don't see where the revenue is going to come from, nor appropriately targeted expenditure cuts either.


----------



## sptrawler

Yep, everyone is taking the pizz out of the government, trying to reduce spending.

Next they will do the same, when the government tries to increase taxes. 

Then Labor will get in and be able to do nothing, due to their refusal to pass the required changes.lol

Then everyone in Australia, gets a real drop in living standards, that won't be recoverable.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-...cretary-martin-parkinson-20141203-11yz63.html

Best to get your recession plan in place,IMO


----------



## Julia

sptrawler said:


> Yep, everyone is taking the pizz out of the government, trying to reduce spending.



Whilst also ignoring the advice of both Martin Parkinson, Chris Richardson and other well qualified people about the worrying trajectory we are on.
It's like little kids who put their hands over their eyes and say "I can't see you so you don't exist".


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Yep, everyone is taking the pizz out of the government, trying to reduce spending.
> 
> Next they will do the same, when the government tries to increase taxes.
> 
> Then Labor will get in and be able to do nothing, due to their refusal to pass the required changes.lol
> 
> Then everyone in Australia, gets a real drop in living standards, that won't be recoverable.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-...cretary-martin-parkinson-20141203-11yz63.html
> 
> Best to get your recession plan in place,IMO




Seriously.  What has the Government done to cut spending?  Certainly none of their current proposals:

* were highlighted before the election
* help fix the broken tax system that leaks revenue by the billions.

Tony is still forcing his chaplaincy program on to schools, and his PPL is the anchor that keeps dragging him down.

Till they can come up with some adult policies that don't target the poor they deserve the current brickbats they're getting.



Julia said:


> Whilst also ignoring the advice of both Martin Parkinson, Chris Richardson and other well qualified people about the worrying trajectory we are on.
> It's like little kids who put their hands over their eyes and say "I can't see you so you don't exist".




Considering the Govt has already come out to say there wont be any policy changes when the MYEFO is released, isn't that an apt analogy that the bad new doesn't exist.  $5-10B is lower revenue is likely to be announced, but the Govt is saying there's no need to do anything about it.

This Govt has pretty much ignored all the advise any centrist economists have tried to provide them.  Less tea party ideology in the policy and more centrist sharing the pain and making the tax system a lot more efficient is what's required.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Seriously.  What has the Government done to cut spending?  Certainly none of their current proposals:
> 
> * were highlighted before the election
> * help fix the broken tax system that leaks revenue by the billions.
> 
> Tony is still forcing his chaplaincy program on to schools, and his PPL is the anchor that keeps dragging him down.
> 
> Till they can come up with some adult policies that don't target the poor they deserve the current brickbats they're getting.
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the Govt has already come out to say there wont be any policy changes when the MYEFO is released, isn't that an apt analogy that the bad new doesn't exist.  $5-10B is lower revenue is likely to be announced, but the Govt is saying there's no need to do anything about it.
> 
> This Govt has pretty much ignored all the advise any centrist economists have tried to provide them.  Less tea party ideology in the policy and more centrist sharing the pain and making the tax system a lot more efficient is what's required.




I tend to think we are past that for W.A, next year will be very interesting, if commodity prices stay where they are.
Eastern States, especially Sydney, Melbourne are probably o.k, they really have a self generating service economy.
W.A is still very geared toward the resources sector, it goes down, we go down.

Syd, you still seem to have a problem with the fact Governments spend money and raise taxes to pay for the expenditure.
Your whole focus seems to be on improving the tax base, without addressing any wastage in the welfare system.
Your whole arguement, seems to be based on the fact the welfare system, is effecient and just. Therefore all that is required, is more money to expand it.


----------



## Knobby22

Don't worry guys. The Government have hired an ex treasury public servant who advised the Howard Government to look at how the next budget should look. He has been working overseas so they had to lure him back.
I think they are realising they need professional help and their lawyer training and experience of discussions at morning TV shows is not good enough to run the Australian economy.


----------



## Tisme

Seeing as the economy is tanking I thought we could reminisce about the good old days:




Thursday, 15 November 2012 16:31 

Last month, David Bradbury, Assistant Treasurer had this to say: 

“Shadow Treasurer and good news hater Joe Hockey was belting out tunes from his favourite broken record again today with his relentless talking down of Australia's economy. 

“The hard facts that Mr Hockey wants to deny are: 

“Yesterday's IMF's October 2012 World Economic Outlook showed Australia is now the world's 12th largest economy and has leapfrogged three places ahead under the Labor Government, after slipping back three places under the previous government. 

“The Australian economy has been growing for 21 consecutive years, not shrinking as Tony Abbott has said. 

“Tax to GDP is lower under this Labor Government than it was when the Liberal Government left office. 

“Interest rates are lower than at any time under the former Liberal Government. 

“Unemployment remains low at just over 5 per cent and at a time when the world has shed millions of jobs, Australia has created around 800,000 jobs. 

“The day after the IMF upgraded the ranking of the Australian economy, Mr Hockey insisted on peddling his doom and gloom in a disgraceful effort to undermine confidence and make life harder for Australian families and businesses…Mr Hockey just wants to distract attention from his $70 billion budget crater and his secret plans to slash tens of thousands of jobs and cut frontline services. Mr Hockey should stop talking the economy down and come clean with how he is going to fund his gaping budget hole.”

When Wayne Swan was named Treasurer of the Year by Euromoney magazine, Hockey talked Swan's accolade down as reported in Swan soars before hit with the hockey stick. In doing so, Hockey managed to insult the economies of several developing countries, whose chief finance ministers have previously received the Euromoney award. Said Hockey: ''Over the last few years we've had two Slovakian ministers, a Serbian, a Nigerian, a Bulgarian . . . 2001 a Pakistani finance minister, that's quite an extraordinary one, that one…That's not any basis upon which I can give my endorsement to the Treasurer.€


----------



## IFocus

sptrawler said:


> Syd, you still seem to have a problem with the fact Governments spend money and raise taxes to pay for the expenditure.
> Your whole focus seems to be on improving the tax base, without addressing any wastage in the welfare system.
> Your whole arguement, seems to be based on the fact the welfare system, is effecient and just. Therefore all that is required, is more money to expand it.




Syd has never said anything like that.

Syd has given more time, research and intellectual thought to this stuff than the rest of us put together.

To me he states the bleeding obvious pointing out the inherit faults with this government and its complete lack of policy that meets the  any thing that resembles fairness.

Australians will wear pain but not for the sole benefits of the elites who Abbott is a total sycophant for.

Honestly this mob couldn't run a chook raffle never mind a budget.

14 months into their term and their excuse is its all Labors fault and the Coalition supporters chant is we are better than Labor.

The mid year budget review will be a complete shambles as the number will be meaningless.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> I tend to think we are past that for W.A, next year will be very interesting, if commodity prices stay where they are.
> Eastern States, especially Sydney, Melbourne are probably o.k, they really have a self generating service economy.
> W.A is still very geared toward the resources sector, it goes down, we go down.
> 
> Syd, you still seem to have a problem with the fact Governments spend money and raise taxes to pay for the expenditure.
> Your whole focus seems to be on improving the tax base, without addressing any wastage in the welfare system.
> Your whole arguement, seems to be based on the fact the welfare system, is effecient and just. Therefore all that is required, is more money to expand it.




Nope.

I'd like to see middle class welfare hacked into, and one way to do this is by making the tax system more efficient.  Lower income taxes and it makes cutting welfare easier because you're not actually reducing lowering the incomes of those at the bottom of the income ladder.

You do remember this is the Govt that has gotten rid f a number of taxes that broadened the tax base.  They've narrowed it to rely more heavily on income and corporate taxes than Labor did.

Just for interest can you say

* What expenditure cuts you support in the budget
* What revenue raising measure you support in the budget.

The Australian has reported today



> A troubling economic slowdown is forcing a reassessment of the PPL scheme, including the offer of 26 weeks of paid leave at a new mother’s full pay up to an annual salary cap of $100,000.
> 
> The new childcare policy will alter $7 billion in annual spending in response to a Productivity Commission inquiry that recommends simpler payments to families but tighter controls to scale back benefits to the wealthy. The policy will also incorporate an adjusted PPL scheme aimed at improving conditions for women and lifting their participation in the workforce.
> 
> Mr Abbott is determined to introduce a more generous scheme but he is facing renewed pressure to amend the proposal because of its gross cost of $4.1bn in its first year and increasing costs after that…




So against the advise of the productivity commission, the Govt is still trying to force their platinum plated PPL onto the voters and may now do so by cutting funding to childcare that has actually helped increase workforce participation.

Yep, we have a Government full of economic wunderkids all right /sarc


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Nope.
> 
> I'd like to see middle class welfare hacked into, and one way to do this is by making the tax system more efficient.  Lower income taxes and it makes cutting welfare easier because you're not actually reducing lowering the incomes of those at the bottom of the income ladder.
> 
> You do remember this is the Govt that has gotten rid f a number of taxes that broadened the tax base.  They've narrowed it to rely more heavily on income and corporate taxes than Labor did.
> 
> Just for interest can you say
> 
> * What expenditure cuts you support in the budget
> * What revenue raising measure you support in the budget.
> 
> The Australian has reported today
> 
> 
> 
> So against the advise of the productivity commission, the Govt is still trying to force their platinum plated PPL onto the voters and may now do so by cutting funding to childcare that has actually helped increase workforce participation.
> 
> Yep, we have a Government full of economic wunderkids all right /sarc




The ppl has always been a dogs breakfast, can't understand why Abbott is so stuck on it. 
Even the people who would benefit from it appear to not want it, if there is an advantage to its introduction, it has not been sufficiently explained.

Some form of medicare co payment is required to reduce over servicing and over use, anyone who knows elderly people nows of the draws full of prescriptions. Don't want to get into a slanging match, with people.
Maybe some form of payment per visit, that is refunded annually to those that qualify as disadvantaged.

Universities degrees that have a relevance should be subsidised, degrees for personal fullfillment should recieve less funding.
Where possible public hospitals and schools, should be given the teaching role again. Tafe and or Uni's supply the theoretical component as a part time basis, Unlike what happens now where nurses spend three years at uni gaining make believe experience. This would also help with the staffing of hospitals and schools.

As we've talked about on other threads, super tax rules need a major shakeup.

With an ageing population requiring more welfare and a falling tax base to cover it. 
The answers aren't easy, but as you say broadening the tax base is required. 
But there is no point in raising more tax, to pay for unwarranted and unsustainable subsidies.
Free hand outs, end up growing, to match the supply. The more you supply the more want it.


----------



## IFocus

From the Liberal Daily News


How the public service conned Joe Hockey


> SUDDENLY, one of the root causes of the Abbott government’s problems and Australia’s falling growth rate is becoming apparent.
> 
> While the Senate quagmire is a clear obstacle, it is also in part a symptom of a much deeper problem ”” too many government ministers have become puppets for parts of the public service that have lost touch with the nation.
> 
> As a result, ministers who are not doing enough of their own research and policy formation are in terrible trouble.







> Returning to the budget, had the government stuck to its original agenda, the problems would not have been nearly so serious. For example, by December 2014, the savings to be achieved by eliminating duplication in health and education should have been in prospect for the budget bottom line.
> 
> Education Minister Christopher Pyne and Health Minister Peter Dutton plus Hockey once again became puppets for a public service that had a different agenda. The duplication will stay for a long time, thereby putting pressure on other areas of the budget.
> 
> Meanwhile Pyne mixed up budget savings with necessary reforms in the university system and the result has been a shocking mess




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...onned-joe-hockey/story-fnp85ntp-1227144306954


----------



## moXJO

sydboy007 said:


> Nope.
> 
> I'd like to see middle class welfare hacked into, and one way to do this is by making the tax system more efficient.  Lower income taxes and it makes cutting welfare easier because you're not actually reducing lowering the incomes of those at the bottom of the income ladder.
> 
> You do remember this is the Govt that has gotten rid f a number of taxes that broadened the tax base.  They've narrowed it to rely more heavily on income and corporate taxes than Labor did.
> 
> Just for interest can you say
> 
> * What expenditure cuts you support in the budget
> * What revenue raising measure you support in the budget.
> 
> The Australian has reported today
> 
> 
> 
> So against the advise of the productivity commission, the Govt is still trying to force their platinum plated PPL onto the voters and may now do so by cutting funding to childcare that has actually helped increase workforce participation.
> 
> Yep, we have a Government full of economic wunderkids all right /sarc



Isn't the tax reform white paper due in the next couple of days?
Abbott has already flagged concern that major tax reform is needed. 
Hockey has already bought the issue of big company tax avoidance to discussion multiple times.



> Syd has given more time, research and intellectual thought to this stuff than the rest of us put together.




No he has regurgitated script and is often so far off base with comments its questionable. He ignores any research that is liberal friendly, only pushing the government is bad message without even checking any facts.
 He is the political equivalent of a downramper and I often wonder if he isn't one of the labor script kiddies they employ to attack the government (yes its a real job). If he isn't he should apply for a job


----------



## SirRumpole

moXJO said:


> He is the political equivalent of a downramper and I often wonder if he isn't one of the labor script kiddies they employ to attack the government (yes its a real job). If he isn't he should apply for a job




As opposed to all the Liberal scriptwriters in here ?


----------



## moXJO

SirRumpole said:


> As opposed to all the Liberal scriptwriters in here ?



Are you saying Noco is that high of quality
You should already know liberals are too cheap to pay for scriptwriters. 

Rumpole at least you can be objective, I've even seen Noco diss the liberals on many occasion.


----------



## Tisme

See Bananas Abbott is in trouble with his deputy for sending  Robb the Minder along to Lima, to keep her from trying to steal the PM's sceptre by stealth.

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...t-could-spark-a-bushfire-20141204-11zzq8.html


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> See Bananas Abbott is in trouble with his deputy for sending  Robb the Minder along to Lima, to keep her from trying to steal the PM's sceptre by stealth.
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...t-could-spark-a-bushfire-20141204-11zzq8.html




Ah well, we may soon see if Julie Bishop has Julia Gillard's cojones.


----------



## IFocus

Tisme said:


> See Bananas Abbott is in trouble with his deputy for sending  Robb the Minder along to Lima, to keep her from trying to steal the PM's sceptre by stealth.
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...t-could-spark-a-bushfire-20141204-11zzq8.html





Bishop has been noticed raising her profile..............interesting times


----------



## overhang

sptrawler said:


> Universities degrees that have a relevance should be subsidised, degrees for personal fullfillment should recieve less funding.




This too is a belief of mine but I'm unsure how to implement it, where to draw the line.  Degrees like surfing are obvious ones that don't deserve any subsidies.  I would think art degrees have the highest participation to lowest job availability if that makes sense and I would like to see a lot of them culled or reduced (subsidies that is) but then life would actually be quite boring without some of the entertainment that art forms provide.  Finance and Law degrees can be quite self centered degrees and often those that partake in such a degree have the capacity to do a medicine or science degree that offers greater benefit to society but for smaller financial gain.  
I guess to sum up we need a way to gauge which degrees offer a greater benefit to society,  kind of the old question about the space shuttle that holds 20 or so people, which people with what profession do you choose to start a new society.


----------



## sydboy007

moXJO said:


> Isn't the tax reform white paper due in the next couple of days?
> Abbott has already flagged concern that major tax reform is needed.
> Hockey has already bought the issue of big company tax avoidance to discussion multiple times.
> 
> 
> 
> No he has regurgitated script and is often so far off base with comments its questionable. He ignores any research that is liberal friendly, only pushing the government is bad message without even checking any facts.
> He is the political equivalent of a downramper and I often wonder if he isn't one of the labor script kiddies they employ to attack the government (yes its a real job). If he isn't he should apply for a job




I'm glad you feel like you know me well enough to call my integrity into question.  How about you just stick to debating facts than making personal attacks?

I wish we had a truly Liberal Govt.  Instead we've got one pushing religious chaplains into schools, while non secular counsellors lose their jobs.  Now it sounds like the Govt is going to fund religious teaching and training institutions.  How does that compute when we have a budget crisis, when money is short for supporting education as it is?  Should we just toe the Government line and let this kind of idiocy stand?

Now here's what a true Liberal Govt from our NZ neighbours looking to take some worthwhile action has to say:



> [Housing minister, Nick Smith] talked in particularly direct terms about changing the expectations of land bankers this week.
> 
> “If they see land prices continue to appreciate at 15-25% per year, then they will have the incentive to sit on their land and not to develop it, and that’s why a critical part of the Accord is making plain that the Metropolitan Urban Limit is dead,” Smith said.
> 
> “The Government and the Council are determined to release sufficient land supply and we’re not going to allow land price inflation of the sort we’ve seen over the last decade,” he said.
> 
> “I want the land owning development community to realise that the Government is serious with Council about freeing up land supply, and they cannot bank on ongoing high land price appreciation that has encouraged land banking over the last decade.”


----------



## moXJO

sydboy007 said:


> How about you just stick to debating facts than making personal attacks?
> 
> :




Yeah ok, saying you worked for labor was a bit low.


----------



## Calliope

moXJO said:


> Yeah ok, saying you worked for labor was a bit low.




Besides, I don't think facts *are* debatable...are they?


----------



## sydboy007

Calliope said:


> Besides, I don't think facts *are* debatable...are they?




Well, it would depend if people accept the facts as true, or id they are debating if the information is actually correct.  Just look at the whole climate change debate.  We've still not really made it past the point where there's breoad political acceptance of the facts.

Then there's people's inbuilt biases to ignore inconvenient facts.  What weighting do you put on each fact?

Without a reasonable consensus it's hard to progress.


----------



## Calliope

sydboy007 said:


> Well, it would depend if people accept the facts as true, or id they are debating if the information is actually correct.  Just look at the whole climate change debate.  We've still not really made it past the point where there's breoad political acceptance of the facts.
> 
> Then there's people's inbuilt biases to ignore inconvenient facts.  What weighting do you put on each fact?
> 
> Without a reasonable consensus it's hard to progress.




Sorry syd. A fact is always true and will stand on it's own merits and it is irrelevant whether people accept them or not. If what you are posting about the Abbott government is actually factual then it is not debatable, and why you should ask someone to debate these "facts" with you beats me, unless your "facts" are just suppositions.   Facts can't  be embellished, weighted or debated

As for the climate change debate that's a different kettle of fish. There we are debating theories...not facts.

Of course people ignore "inconvenient" facts. Like we ignore the inconvenient fact that there is no sunrise. 



> Although the Sun appears to "rise" from the horizon, it is actually the Earth's motion that causes the Sun to appear.



Wikipedia


----------



## SirRumpole

Calliope said:


> Of course people ignore "inconvenient" facts. Like we ignore the inconvenient fact that there is no sunrise.
> 
> Wikipedia




A minor question of semantics does not mean that there is no global warming.


----------



## Julia

Please, please, can we not turn this thread into yet another argument about global warming.


----------



## explod

Global warming is not a theory,  it is here and accelerating.   New huge storm about to hit the phillipines as we speak.  The cause we could debate. 

In Aus,  unseasonal rains,  drought,  bushfires in spring. 

This should be loud and clear on top of the Abbott Government agenda and is most relevant to this thread. 

But then Abbott has God and he of course will look after us.


----------



## moXJO

explod said:


> Global warming is not a theory,  it is here and accelerating.   New huge storm about to hit the phillipines as we speak.  The cause we could debate.
> 
> In Aus,  unseasonal rains,  drought,  bushfires in spring.
> 
> This should be loud and clear on top of the Abbott Government agenda and is most relevant to this thread.
> 
> But then Abbott has God and he of course will look after us.




Global warming should not be at the forefront of government policy. Thats what stuffed the whole thing up in the first place. You have two sides shouting out fudged figures until nothing gets done. Shove it at the back and don't make a song and dance about it when you pass it through. It does not need to be politicized anymore then it already has been.


----------



## sptrawler

moXJO said:


> Yeah ok, saying you worked for labor was a bit low.




Actually moxjo if you read ifocus tisme and sirrumpole responses. He is the only one that has an original thought. If you don't believe me look at I focus and tisme posts. Then look at the smh headlines on the same dates. Syd at least has original and creative ideas.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> Then look at the smh headlines on the same dates. Syd at least has original and creative ideas.




Yes he does. Unlike your good self who just disparages and criticises.

Someone is cracking down on multinational tax avoiders, let's hope Hockey follows


Britain slaps 'Google tax' on multinationals




> Britain plans to introduce a tax to target multinationals such as Google and Amazon accused of using complex accounting schemes to cut their payments on earnings in the country.
> 
> Governments around the world are trying to overhaul international tax treaties to stop big corporates siphoning off profits into low-tax havens, but British finance minister George Osborne broke cover on Wednesday to announce his own changes next year.
> 
> However, tax experts cautioned that the move, in response to growing outrage over how little tax some big corporates pay, would be difficult to enforce unilaterally.
> Advertisement
> 
> "We will make sure that big multinational businesses pay their fair share," Mr Osborne said in a half-yearly budget statement. The tax will be set at a rate of 25 per cent.
> 
> "Some of the largest companies in the world, including those in the tech sector, use elaborate structures to avoid paying taxes," he told Parliament.
> 
> Companies including Google, coffee shop chain Starbucks and internet retailer Amazon have paid minimal corporate tax in Britain by shifting revenues to low-tax jurisdictions, for example by using a system of internal payments.
> 
> Deloitte's head of tax policy Bill Dodwell said he saw the tax as the first step towards wider international corporate tax changes that are being thrashed out by governments.
> 
> "It will have to be done in a manner that is compatible with the way the international corporate rules are changing, and the UK is just going a bit early," he said.
> 
> Mr Osborne said he would introduce the tax on profits generated by multinationals "from economic activity here in the UK which they then artificially shift out of the country" in April 2015.
> 
> Details about how the tax will be levied will be published on December 10.
> 
> Mr Osborne said Britain was leading the world in taking such a step, and he predicted the new Diverted Profits Tax would raise more than £1 billion  ($1.87 billion) over the next five years.
> 
> Toby Ryland, a partner at HW Fisher & Company chartered accountants, said the so-called "Google tax" sounded great in principle but was unlikely to give the average multinational much cause for concern.
> 
> "In reality, many of the UK's double tax treaties with other countries dictate where profits can be taxed," he said.
> 
> Google declined to comment, while Amazon was not immediately available for comment.
> 
> The target to raise more than £1 billion over five years appears modest compared with the profits made by some multinationals.
> 
> Google, for example, had UK revenue of $US5.6 billion ($6.7 billion) and a profit margin of about 25 per cent in 2013, according to its annual report. That would result in profit of about $US1.4 billion, and a tax bill at 25 per cent of about $US350 million.
> 
> It paid £20.4 million of corporation tax on its profits that year, according to accounts filed at Companies House
> 
> Deputy finance minister Danny Alexander told the BBC that Britain could introduce the tax without changes to international agreements on tax treaties.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/worl...inationals-20141204-11zxsr.html#ixzz3L3EMIBho


----------



## Logique

Seems that a reshuffle is on.

Can Chiefs of Staff be reshuffled. Too influential, too divisive.


----------



## Calliope

It is not surprising that a bunch of cretins in the Senate should be opposing Christopher Pyne's proposals for education reform. Heaven forbid that the teachers of our children should be smarter than Senators.

Compulsory literacy and numeracy  tests for aspiring teachers?  What sort of nonsense is that? It could lead to aspiring teachers getting jobs for which they are better suited. The wouldn't qualify as check-out chicks...maybe school cleaners.

What the hell are these people doing at a university anyway. Have we gone stark raving mad?:shake:

Our universities used to be "seats of learning". Now they are seats of mediocrity.



> Dr Norton tested the maths ability of all 125 students who enrolled in a Griffith University graduate diploma of education — a one-year course for those who have a bachelor degree in another field — last year and this year, as well as 40 students in the third year of a bachelor of education course in 2013. Barely half the would-be teachers knew how to convert 5.48km into metres — and 17 per cent failed to convert 6kg into grams. Only 16 per cent could convert temperatures from degrees Celsius to Fahrenheit, using a formula written on the test paper. Just one in four knew how to convert a fraction to a percentage.
> 
> *Barely one in five students could find the highest common factor of the numbers 28 and 70, and just 13 per cent knew the lowest common multiple of the numbers 40 and 140. More than half the students could not answer the question: “If the total cost of three tickets is $5.64, how much will 10 tickets cost?’’
> *
> Just one in three students knew how to calculate the areas of rectangles and triangles.
> 
> The alarming results of the only publicly available tests of student-teacher numeracy in Australia will fuel calls to reform the teaching of mathematics at schools and universities.
> 
> *Federal Education Minister Christopher Pyne has already flagged the introduction of compulsory literacy and numeracy tests for aspiring teachers. The most recent OECD Program for International Student Assessment test reveals that four out of 10 Australian teenagers lack basic maths skills.*




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...for-sum-disaster/story-fn59nlz9-1227146580360


----------



## SirRumpole

Calliope said:


> It is not surprising that a bunch of cretins in the Senate should be opposing Christopher Pyne's proposals for education reform. Heaven forbid that the teachers of our children should be smarter than Senators.
> 
> Compulsory literacy and numeracy  tests for aspiring teachers?  What sort of nonsense is that? It could lead to aspiring teachers getting jobs for which they are better suited. The wouldn't qualify as check-out chicks...maybe school cleaners.
> 
> What the hell are these people doing at a university anyway. Have we gone stark raving mad?:shake:
> 
> Our universities used to be "seats of learning". Now they are seats of mediocrity.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...for-sum-disaster/story-fn59nlz9-1227146580360




Very sad indeed.

So what is your answer to 

 the highest common factor of the numbers 28 and 70, 

the lowest common multiple of the numbers 40 and 140.

If the total cost of three tickets is $5.64, how much will 10 tickets cost?’’


----------



## drsmith

SirRumpole said:


> the highest common factor of the numbers 28 and 70,
> 
> the lowest common multiple of the numbers 40 and 140.



They'd be OK for lower primary but not for social media,

http://www.mathsteacher.com.au/year7/ch03_prime/05_comm/fac.htm
http://www.mathsteacher.com.au/year7/ch03_prime/02_comm/comm.htm

Their own education though is obviously lacking.


----------



## banco

Logique said:


> Seems that a reshuffle is on.
> 
> Can Chiefs of Staff be reshuffled. Too influential, too divisive.




Lady Macbeth (peta credlin) was the only one to move over from turnbull's office to abbott's office.


----------



## sydboy007

Calliope said:


> It is not surprising that a bunch of cretins in the Senate should be opposing Christopher Pyne's proposals for education reform. Heaven forbid that the teachers of our children should be smarter than Senators.




So you support the proposed funding of religious studies in privately run religious colleges?

David Leyonhjelm has cited this as a significant reason for his support.

I'd ave thought those against so much funding to arts degrees would not be too happy with funding for priests now being added to the public teat.

Seems the age of entitlement is moving further towards the Coalition's natural voting base.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> So you support the proposed funding of religious studies in privately run religious colleges?
> 
> David Leyonhjelm has cited this as a significant reason for his support.
> 
> I'd ave thought those against so much funding to arts degrees would not be too happy with funding for priests now being added to the public teat.
> 
> Seems the age of entitlement is moving further towards the Coalition's natural voting base.




The religious Right are getting their claws back into government, our wallets and our lives. 

There really should be a law against using taxpayers money to fund religious groups, and that includes chaplains.

Scientology is classified as a religion, and we know what nut jobs they are. 

So funding basically comes down to a value judgement by politicians as to what religions are worth funding and what are not, and who are they to make that choice ?


----------



## banco

SirRumpole said:


> The religious Right are getting their claws back into government, our wallets and our lives.
> 
> There really should be a law against using taxpayers money to fund religious groups, and that includes chaplains.
> 
> Scientology is classified as a religion, and we know what nut jobs they are.
> 
> So funding basically comes down to a value judgement by politicians as to what religions are worth funding and what are not, and who are they to make that choice ?




Actually they are remarkably weak (the religious right).  They have one of their own as PM and the only bone he can throw them is the school chaplains program.


----------



## SirRumpole

banco said:


> Actually they are remarkably weak (the religious right).  They have one of their own as PM and the only bone he can throw them is the school chaplains program.




It's a $245 million bone


----------



## Calliope

sydboy007 said:


> So you support the proposed funding of religious studies in privately run religious colleges?
> David Leyonhjelm has cited this as a significant reason for his support.




He doesn't sound very religious to me. I think he is just another nutter.



> A new player in same-sex marriage politics, Liberal Democratic Party Senator for NSW, David Leyonhjelm,  has introduced a bill into the Senate to allow same-sex, transgender and intersex marriages.




http://www.watoday.com.au/comment/d...-conscience-vote-but-why-20141203-11ycao.html


----------



## Julia

Calliope said:


> He doesn't sound very religious to me. I think he is just another nutter.



Agree that he has shown no sympathy for religion.  But disagree that he is a 'nutter'.  I've heard him express some very thoughtful and cogent views, far more intelligent (along with Bob Day, surprisingly enough from "Family First") than those articulated by the Brick and the Lambie.

Mr Leyjonhjelm  is the archetypal libertarian which is at least a step up from the unthinking PUP senators, present and past.


----------



## Calliope

Julia said:


> I've heard him express some very thoughtful and cogent views, far more intelligent ... than those articulated by the Brick and the Lambie.




I doubt if there is anyone who doesn't. They are borderline morons.


----------



## Wysiwyg

Encouragement for working women to breed moving forward again with the Government dictating that a 1.5% levy on large business will pay for part of the pregnancy and early childhood years costs. Work for the dole should stir up an ants nest of bludgers quite settled in their routine.


----------



## drsmith

Wysiwyg said:


> Encouragement for working women to breed moving forward again with the Government dictating that a 1.5% levy on large business will pay for part of the pregnancy and early childhood years costs.



A bad idea made worse now also with the suggestion of a means test distorting EMTR's even more. 

TA should simply ditch it altogether. He should have jettesoned it long ago.


----------



## Calliope

Galaxy poll: Voters just about ready to ditch Tony Abbott
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/ga...hnbsptony-abbott/story-fni0fiyv-1227147184102

The truth is that nobody likes Abbott. When his popularity as a leader fell below that of a dead-beat like Bill Shorten the time has come for Abbott to sling his hook. 

Some think he wears a lot of the blame for the Andrews/CFMEU win in Victoria.  His name is mud in Queensland and his departure would help Newman's re-election in Queensland. Naturally Labor would like to keep him there as PM. He is their main asset.

Oliver Cromwell's words are very apt;



> You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately ... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!


----------



## banco

Calliope said:


> Galaxy poll: Voters just about ready to ditch Tony Abbott
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/ga...hnbsptony-abbott/story-fni0fiyv-1227147184102
> 
> The truth is that nobody likes Abbott. When his popularity as a leader fell below that of a dead-beat like Bill Shorten the time has come for Abbott to sling his hook.
> 
> Some think he wears a lot of the blame for the Andrews/CFMEU win in Victoria.  His name is mud in Queensland and his departure would help Newman's re-election in Queensland. Naturally Labor would like to keep him there as PM. He is their main asset.
> 
> Oliver Cromwell's words are very apt;




I don't think barren, unmarried julia bishop will be such a hit if she has to survive the rough and tumble of domestic politics. So not sure who they are going to turn to.......


----------



## Calliope

banco said:


> I don't think barren, unmarried julia bishop will be such a hit if she has to survive the rough and tumble of domestic politics. So not sure who they are going to turn to.......




If you think a little bit of misogyny will help to keep Abbott there then go for it. But I think you are confusing her with *Julia* Gillard. The contender is *Julie* Bishop.

She is 58 years old. She gets my vote.


----------



## banco

Calliope said:


> If you think a little bit of misogyny will help to keep Abbott there then go for it. But I think you are confusing her with *Julia* Gillard. The contender is *Julie* Bishop.
> 
> She is 58 years old. She gets my vote.




Gillard's poll numbers were pretty good prior to her taking over the leadership. I'm sure the women of australia will be able to relate her armani suits etc.


----------



## sptrawler

David Murrays recommendations are in, sounds like he wants negative gearing, capital gains and franking credits hammered.
That should get all the Labor supporters on board.


----------



## moXJO

sptrawler said:


> David Murrays recommendations are in, sounds like he wants negative gearing, capital gains and franking credits hammered.
> That should get all the Labor supporters on board.



Libs would be hammered if they took all those on board. Nobody cares about labor voters its the swinging voters.


----------



## drsmith

sptrawler said:


> David Murrays recommendations are in, sounds like he wants negative gearing, capital gains and franking credits hammered.
> That should get all the Labor supporters on board.



They do need to be reviewed in the context of preserving the underlying tax bases as do superannuation concessions but it's a too difficult a challenge for any government.

Necessity though I suspect will prevail in the end.


----------



## drsmith

On matters PPL,



> Mr Abbott would not reveal the details about the new plan but said his intention was to turn it into a "holistic families package".
> 
> "We are going to better target it and we are going re-direct the savings into child care because it needs to be a holistic families package and people do want better child care, more available more affordable childcare as well as paid parental leave," he said.
> 
> "That's what this government will be working on, that's what my ministers and I will be working on over summer."




All they have to do now is ditch the corporate levy and manage any change within the funding of existing programs.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-...heme-tony-abbott-acknowledges-concern/5950302


----------



## basilio

Maybe Abbott needs to invoke the memory of John Howards  "Lazaraus with a triple bypass".

Trouble is Tony Abbott is no John Howard.  The soufflÃ© will not rise again.


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> On matters PPL,
> 
> 
> 
> All they have to do now is ditch the corporate levy and manage any change within the funding of existing programs.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-...heme-tony-abbott-acknowledges-concern/5950302




That's all is it?  All you have to do to balance the budget is have revenue exceed spending. 

Another broken promise.


----------



## Ijustnewit

I just can't believe that people are calling for Abbotts head. Yes , he is suffering in the polls but remember that Labor swung back and forward with leaders because of the polls. The Libs would do well to stick to the plan , go the distance and keep Abbott. Does anyone out there truly believe that any new chosen leader would soon be in the same situation ? If Labor get back in , 6 months later the general public at large would also poll them poorly.
I think what we saw under the Labor Government term was more a reflection of todays society. The general public in this day and age have the attention span of goldfish. It sort of reminds me of that mobile phone mentality that's in our society. You get a new phone , the old one was perceived as useless and crap. Six months later they see a new model and want to dump the new one . Society as a whole has become bored , they need constant stimulation and excitement. Politics are no different.


----------



## Tisme

Ijustnewit said:


> I just can't believe that people are calling for Abbotts head. Yes , he is suffering in the polls but remember that Labor swung back and forward with leaders because of the polls. The Libs would do well to stick to the plan , go the distance and keep Abbott. Does anyone out there truly believe that any new chosen leader would soon be in the same situation ? If Labor get back in , 6 months later the general public at large would also poll them poorly.
> I think what we saw under the Labor Government term was more a reflection of todays society. The general public in this day and age have the attention span of goldfish. It sort of reminds me of that mobile phone mentality that's in our society. You get a new phone , the old one was perceived as useless and crap. Six months later they see a new model and want to dump the new one . Society as a whole has become bored , they need constant stimulation and excitement. Politics are no different.




I can't speak for others, but I always thought people who:

robot voted like their parents;
voted differently to me;
were binary in their politics;
comfortable with tribal politics;
listened to shock jocks and trash journos;
believed the newspapers and privateers;

were incapable of making qualitative decisions. I often wonder how voters will stick like glue to their voter choice even when it turns out to be a lemon vote ..analogous to buying a Monday Falcon and insisting it's is better than a Tuesday Kingswood, regardless of the thing being a POS.


----------



## Ijustnewit

Tisme said:


> I can't speak for others, but I always thought people who:
> 
> robot voted like their parents;
> voted differently to me;
> were binary in their politics;
> comfortable with tribal politics;
> listened to shock jocks and trash journos;
> believed the newspapers and privateers;
> 
> were incapable of making qualitative decisions. I often wonder how voters will stick like glue to their voter choice even when it turns out to be a lemon vote ..analogous to buying a Monday Falcon and insisting it's is better than a Tuesday Kingswood, regardless of the thing being a POS.




Just a question , do you think that if we changed Government or Leaders that 6 months later the Polls would be against whomever was chosen ?


----------



## Tisme

Ijustnewit said:


> Just a question , do you think that if we changed Government or Leaders that 6 months later the Polls would be against whomever was chosen ?




Yep, for several reasons: Newscorp would ramp up its war on the ALP, Malcolm Turnbull would be leader of the opposition, the unions are no longer a great decoy for blame.


We need a warrior king or Boadicea that we can all love and all hate; someone who is prepared to be knocked around and come back time and time again. Someone who sets the growth agenda and sticks to it with time for people and business to adjust, not someone who takes policy from professional public servants =  modern 2015 model Hawke, Keating or Howard would be my preference and I would forgive them making errors so long as they had a crack.

Chances of Labor repeating the drover's dog ascension are fairly ripe for the next election, we just need the dog.


----------



## dutchie

Message to the Abbott Government:

Drop the PPL - don't tinker with it, just drop it.

Drop the GP co-payment - don't tinker with it, just drop it.

I don't know who is advising this government but they have wasted a great opportunity to put Labor to sleep for a while (where they belong).

The Government have shot themselves in the foot over and over again.

Just use common sense.

Joe Hockey - its end of the age of entitlement - but we will introduce a very generous PPL  (shot it the foot!)

Tony Abbott - there is a budget crisis - but we will introduce a very generous PPL  (shot it the foot!)
                  - there is a budget crisis - but we will introduce a GP co-payment, the proceeds of which won't 
                    go to reducing the crisis debt  (shot it the foot!)

Tony your government is performing so badly that people are looking at Labor despite six years of absolute rubbish and ruin.

Shame on you. You might be a Rhodes scholar but you don't have any common sense!


----------



## Tisme

Forgetting names now:

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment...id-kochs-name-on-sunrise-20141208-122ax8.html


----------



## moXJO

Tisme said:


> Forgetting names now:
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment...id-kochs-name-on-sunrise-20141208-122ax8.html




The stress must be getting to him. Trust Fairfax to find yet another Abbott gaffe.


----------



## sydboy007

dutchie said:


> Message to the Abbott Government:
> 
> Drop the PPL - don't tinker with it, just drop it.
> 
> Drop the GP co-payment - don't tinker with it, just drop it.
> 
> I don't know who is advising this government but they have wasted a great opportunity to put Labor to sleep for a while (where they belong).
> 
> The Government have shot themselves in the foot over and over again.
> 
> Just use common sense.
> 
> Joe Hockey - its end of the age of entitlement - but we will introduce a very generous PPL  (shot it the foot!)
> 
> Tony Abbott - there is a budget crisis - but we will introduce a very generous PPL  (shot it the foot!)
> - there is a budget crisis - but we will introduce a GP co-payment, the proceeds of which won't
> go to reducing the crisis debt  (shot it the foot!)
> 
> Tony your government is performing so badly that people are looking at Labor despite six years of absolute rubbish and ruin.
> 
> Shame on you. You might be a Rhodes scholar but you don't have any common sense!




The fact they can't do this says they're not ready to Govern.  Whether it's just being stuck in opposition mode, or beign caught short without the plan they said they had, I don't care.  I'm sick of hearing it's Labors fault, it's the senat, it's the media.  They're all excuses from a no excuses no surprises Govt.  

It's a shame they've wasted pretty much all their political capital and good will on pissing off the public for no benefit.  No beneficial strucutral reform has been achieved.

If the public was pissed at them for quarantining NG and cutting back on some middle class welfare, there'd be a chance their polling would improve as they gained grudging respect for making the hard choices and cutting into the budget deficit.  Now they've got to try and implement some good policy from the Murray inquiry with a public already ignoring much of what the Govt is saying and what they do hear is through the prism of broken promises.

It's really a bad situation for Australia because we desperately need some true political leadership that has the cajones to make some tough policy choices, yet can get the public to accept what needs to be done.

Nothing from the Abbott Govt say they can do it, and nothing from Labor say they have any plan to resolve the budget deterioration either.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> and nothing from Labor say they have any plan to resolve the budget deterioration either.




Not yet, but no Opposition fires it's guns before the battle has started.

Yes, it's a pity that Oppositions just skulk around until elections before they show their policies, but they are desperately hoping that the situation gets worse so they can act as white knights when the election comes.

 Oppositions don't try and help governments solve problems, as Abbott showed when he was in Opposition, they use the time to develope alternatives and pull them out at the last moment.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> Not yet, but no Opposition fires it's guns before the battle has started.
> 
> Yes, it's a pity that Oppositions just skulk around until elections before they show their policies, but they are desperately hoping that the situation gets worse so they can act as white knights when the election comes.
> 
> Oppositions don't try and help governments solve problems, as Abbott showed when he was in Opposition, they use the time to develope alternatives and pull them out at the last moment.




So curently Labor policy is, there will be no change to the university funding, there will be no fuel indexing, there will be no gp co payment and there will be no linking pensions to cpi.

There will be a return of the MRRT and the carbon tax, which would be a disaster at the moment, so it will be interesting to see what Bill pulls out of the bag.

Actually Bill coming back to fix up the mess, is a bit like a tenant leaving a trashed house and saying they were going to come back to fix it.
I believe him, as much as I would them.

If he had any interest in fixing the situation, he would already be negotiating outcomes with Abbott.

What is painfully obvious, the only interest is to regain office, which is self interest.IMO


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> There will be a return of the MRRT and the carbon tax, which would be a disaster at the moment, so it will be interesting to see what Bill pulls out of the bag.




It will. 

Obviously they had 6 years to crack down on negative gearing and superannuation for the rich, so I wouldn't be looking for any changes there.

As long as they can keep their snouts in the trough (along with the Coalition) I doubt if they would bring in policies that would affect them personally.

If the mining royalty tax credits have not been removed, that would be one area where they could save a lot of dough with little effort.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> It's really a bad situation for Australia because we desperately need some true political leadership that has the cajones to make some tough policy choices, yet can get the public to accept what needs to be done.
> 
> Nothing from the Abbott Govt say they can do it, and nothing from Labor say they have any plan to resolve the budget deterioration either.




Absolutely correct Syd.

If Abbott can't overcome the bad press, make a choice that is balanced and equitable to all concerned, he needs to step aside.

Then put someone in who can, this is serious, this is our grandkids future.
We can't make much affect to the climate, but we should be able to sort our fiscal system, to safeguard our lifestyle


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> It will.
> 
> Obviously they had 6 years to crack down on negative gearing and superannuation for the rich, so I wouldn't be looking for any changes there..



Well you just have to think a bit, on what income sector are involved in negative gearing and renting properties, it isn't the super rich. 
Then think on which sector of the super system, is most vocal about SMSF and the fees charged by super funds, that would be industry funds. 



SirRumpole said:


> As long as they can keep their snouts in the trough (along with the Coalition) I doubt if they would bring in policies that would affect them personally..




That is the whole problem, politics has become a "I've won lotto" career, if i can get the pension it's a high five.
The problem is our lifestyle and future depends on rational decission making, while we find our niche in the 'first world economy'.
Currently we seem to have self obsessed politicians on both sides, more worried about media persona than economic outcomes, then again we only see or hear what the media wants to present.
That then brings us back to the ABC and how important it is they give both sides of the arguement, not just the presenters personal preference.



SirRumpole said:


> If the mining royalty tax credits have not been removed, that would be one area where they could save a lot of dough with little effort.




Super profits tax was dumb, you want companies to make super profits, you just want them to reinvest those super profits. So you can tax them on that also.
The intercontinental tax bleed has always been a problem, and can only be fixed on the world stage.


----------



## dutchie

sydboy007 said:


> It's a shame they've wasted pretty much all their political capital and good will on pissing off the public for no benefit.  No beneficial strucutral reform has been achieved.
> 
> 
> It's really a bad situation for Australia because we desperately need some true political leadership that has the cajones to make some tough policy choices, yet can get the public to accept what needs to be done.
> 
> Nothing from the Abbott Govt say they can do it, and nothing from Labor say they have any plan to resolve the budget deterioration either.




Spot on sydboy007.

The Abbott government has made a hash of it, to date.


----------



## Knobby22

Will Hockey act on the Murray enquiry? Murray, after all a well known Lib and his recommendations are for the good of the country. 

He is surely feeling the pressure to act. I and most others want him to stand up for Australians not multinationals and the banks.

From the ABC 

Treasurer Joe Hockey hints at following Britain and cracking down on tax avoiding multi-nationals.

Duration: 4:32 
First posted 04/12/2014 19:45:02 
Download audio 

The Treasurer Joe Hockey has hinted he may act to force multinational companies to pay their fair share of tax in Australia when they make profits here. Peter Madden is an expert on corporate and international tax with Deloitte, and he spoke to Tracey Holmes.

Will he finally do something to win votes?


----------



## Tisme

I was watching, I think, Hockey the other day crowing about adding 120000 jobs in one quarter to the workforce the other day. Funny how that has evaporated within a few months and now we have a decade or more high of  6.4% nationally and better still the heir apparent economic powerhouse of Australia, Qld, has reached 7% under the guiding hand of a Premier who we only ever see when he is required to talk to the effusive Murdoch press about misdemeanours of his scrotum plonking, branch stacking, nepotistic colleagues.

Wasn't too long ago that bad employment participation rates were front page news, depending what political party was in power of course. 

Objectively I am getting a strong impression governance might not be some of our politicians strongest talents.


----------



## moXJO

Tisme said:


> I was watching, I think, Hockey the other day crowing about adding 120000 jobs in one quarter to the workforce the other day. Funny how that has evaporated within a few months and now we have a decade or more high of  6.4% nationally and better still the heir apparent economic powerhouse of Australia, Qld, has reached 7% under the guiding hand of a Premier who we only ever see when he is required to talk to the effusive Murdoch press about misdemeanours of his scrotum plonking, branch stacking, nepotistic colleagues.
> 
> Wasn't too long ago that bad employment participation rates were front page news, depending what political party was in power of course.
> 
> Objectively I am getting a strong impression governance might not be some of our politicians strongest talents.



We are past the point of spending billions as labor did to create a few temporary jobs to look good. We need to cut wasteful spending (yes libs seem to be failing at)and tax reform before any large targeted stimulus. Joe Hockey has been making the right noises but they need to take action. Moves against multinationals is onto a winner imo , but a lot harder to implement in real life.


----------



## Tisme

moXJO said:


> . Moves against multinationals is onto a winner imo , but a lot harder to implement in real life.




Isn't that just parroting what the UK are already tracking to? There is a lot of things to govern and I'm not sure a single attack on technology giants will deliver a swing. I would bet Google and Apple will raise the cost of their downloads to offset any tax imputations and the public aren't going to be too happy about that. 

Apple has more money than the US Treasury to put up a defence, but that could also be like saying I had more money than Alan Bond when he was declared bankrupt.


----------



## Knobby22

Tisme said:


> Isn't that just parroting what the UK are already tracking to? There is a lot of things to govern and I'm not sure a single attack on technology giants will deliver a swing. I would bet Google and Apple will raise the cost of their downloads to offset any tax imputations and the public aren't going to be too happy about that.
> 
> Apple has more money than the US Treasury to put up a defence, but that could also be like saying I had more money than Alan Bond when he was declared bankrupt.




Apple have a brand they want to keep. If they want to ruin the brand by being a poor corporate citizen then so be it. I doubt they will want to do that.

The harder eggs to crack will be companies like Glencore which own many mines in Australia under that name and Xstrata. They proudly state they have paid us no tax despite owning amazing mines such as Mt Isa Mines. They give large political donations to both Labor and the Coalition to ensure that state of affairs continues. I would love to see Hockey tackle them.

Good on Fairfax for exposing them. Just like CBA, they probably have a ban now on advertising with them.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/glencore-tax-bill-on-15b-income-zip-zilch-zero-20140626-3awg0.html


----------



## moXJO

Tisme said:


> Isn't that just parroting what the UK are already tracking to? There is a lot of things to govern and I'm not sure a single attack on technology giants will deliver a swing. I would bet Google and Apple will raise the cost of their downloads to offset any tax imputations and the public aren't going to be too happy about that.
> 
> Apple has more money than the US Treasury to put up a defence, but that could also be like saying I had more money than Alan Bond when he was declared bankrupt.




Hockey mentioned it months ago.


----------



## Tisme

Knobby22 said:


> The harder eggs to crack will be companies like Glencore which own many mines in Australia under that name and Xstrata. They proudly state they have paid us no tax despite owning amazing mines such as Mt Isa Mines. They give large political donations to both Labor and the Coalition to ensure that state of affairs continues. I would love to see Hockey tackle them.




I think the miners would be feeling rather emboldened after successfully getting rid of Rudd and Gillard. I don't think the LNP have the will to go after the big end of town where their benefactors live....could be wrong, but we all know about leopards.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> So curently Labor policy is, there will be no change to the university funding, there will be no fuel indexing, there will be no gp co payment and there will be no linking pensions to cpi.
> 
> There will be a return of the MRRT and the carbon tax, which would be a disaster at the moment, so it will be interesting to see what Bill pulls out of the bag.
> 
> Actually Bill coming back to fix up the mess, is a bit like a tenant leaving a trashed house and saying they were going to come back to fix it.
> I believe him, as much as I would them.
> 
> If he had any interest in fixing the situation, he would already be negotiating outcomes with Abbott.
> 
> What is painfully obvious, the only interest is to regain office, which is self interest.IMO




The sad fact is that Abbott showed this is a successful tool while in opposition.  Where was Abbotts nation interest when he fought against Labors attempts to reign in the tax expenditures on car FBT and super pensions over $100K?  Why weren't you calling for Abbott to be more bipartisan when Labor was in Govt?

To be honest i think an opposition is better to be bolder so that when they do get into Govt they have a reasonable case to be made that the public knew what they stood for before the election.  Abbott spent 3 years telling everyone he was going to cut the deficit, cut taxes, and increase spending.

Unfortunately the media never challenged him enough on those claims, and too many of the public just believed him.  He never chose to really work with Labor on solving the budget, even though he should have known it was in his best interests to help stem the bleeding revenues from tax expenditures, support some well targeted tax increases and well targeted spending cuts.

Now he's Phoney Tony barely able to admit he's broken promises, providing too much air time on his weaselling as to what he did and didn't promise.

Maybe it's time for the MSM to ask the leaders of the parties what promises they will fall on their own sword over should be be elected and not achieve.  At least that might give voters a better idea of just what truly is a core promises these days.

Now we have a Govt that says it was going ot be transparent, yet wont release information about travel expenses that Labor regularly provided.  That's only going to lead to people wondering what secrets they're trying to hide.  Is there some more Don Randall type trips to be shown??  

The Government is now spending tax payer funds to try and argue the case for the university funding changes, yet they wont acknowledge that the cost of uni degrees is going to at least double.  Why are they wasting money on an advertising campaign?  If the Govt has been so bad at communication their strategy, why are tax payers now forced to stump up more money to try and paper over the ineptitude?  Saying Labor did it doesn't wash.  Abbott promised to cut Govt advertising spending when he was in opposition.

Is it too much to ask that the Govt live up to what it said for so many years in opposition?


----------



## Tisme

The $70bn over 4 years big black hole Labor predicted the LNP would dig appears to becoming true as predicted and published back in Augustish 2011.

It's own pre election estimates found the LNP opposition hadn't factored in the loss of $24bn refund to the polluters, $7bn reduction in consumer taxes (carbon tax loading), $3bn for implementing direct action, $11bn in lost mining tax, $37bn promises and pledges; etc

so 24 + 7 +3 +11 +37 = ~70  right?


----------



## Tisme

I just found the music score Skynews can use when doing the montage of Tony Abbott's achievements after he gets booted out by his "mates" and cobbers:


----------



## banco

Tisme said:


> I just found the music score Skynews can use when doing the montage of Tony Abbott's achievements after he gets booted out by his "mates" and cobbers:




You're so vain by carly simon would be a good choice.


----------



## basilio

I wonder if this last month has basically spelt the effective end of Tony Abbotts leadership? 

The poll figures are now a chasm and suggest that many voters have decided TA is just not a good PM.
The leaks from Cabinet regarding Julie Bishop going to Lima to represent Australia at the Climate Change talks  and then Tony tagging Andrew Robb as a chaperone are damming.  Why ?

1) Tony just looks so politically dumb trying to bury CC as an issue *when the very act of doing so becomes a serious problem for the government*

2) Julie Bishop recognised this political reality and brought the issue to Cabinet which also recognized the political validity of at least being seen to do something.

3) Tony has now tried to control Juli by tagging Andrew  Robb onto her for the trip - and getting absolutely no thanks from either party.

4)  *Finally  this whole mess has been leaked to expose Tony Abbotts exceptionally poor judgment*. When that sort of leaking is done I suggest numbers are being counted

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/fed...limate-change-conference-20141208-122ug0.html
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/fed...rime-ministerial-bottoms-20141208-122p91.html


----------



## SirRumpole

basilio said:


> I wonder if this last month has basically spelt the effective end of Tony Abbotts leadership?
> 
> The poll figures are now a chasm and suggest that many voters have decided TA is just not a good PM.
> The leaks from Cabinet regarding Julie Bishop going to Lima to represent Australia at the Climate Change talks  and then Tony tagging Andrew Robb as a chaperone are damming.  Why ?




I don't see why either Bishop or Robb should be going to Lima.

The responsible Minister is Greg Hunt. Doesn't Abbott trust him either ?


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> The sad fact is that Abbott showed this is a successful tool while in opposition.  Where was Abbotts nation interest when he fought against Labors attempts to reign in the tax expenditures on car FBT and super pensions over $100K?  Why weren't you calling for Abbott to be more bipartisan when Labor was in Govt?
> 
> To be honest i think an opposition is better to be bolder so that when they do get into Govt they have a reasonable case to be made that the public knew what they stood for before the election.  Abbott spent 3 years telling everyone he was going to cut the deficit, cut taxes, and increase spending.
> 
> Unfortunately the media never challenged him enough on those claims, and too many of the public just believed him.  He never chose to really work with Labor on solving the budget, even though he should have known it was in his best interests to help stem the bleeding revenues from tax expenditures, support some well targeted tax increases and well targeted spending cuts.
> 
> Now he's Phoney Tony barely able to admit he's broken promises, providing too much air time on his weaselling as to what he did and didn't promise.
> 
> Maybe it's time for the MSM to ask the leaders of the parties what promises they will fall on their own sword over should be be elected and not achieve.  At least that might give voters a better idea of just what truly is a core promises these days.
> 
> Now we have a Govt that says it was going ot be transparent, yet wont release information about travel expenses that Labor regularly provided.  That's only going to lead to people wondering what secrets they're trying to hide.  Is there some more Don Randall type trips to be shown??
> 
> The Government is now spending tax payer funds to try and argue the case for the university funding changes, yet they wont acknowledge that the cost of uni degrees is going to at least double.  Why are they wasting money on an advertising campaign?  If the Govt has been so bad at communication their strategy, why are tax payers now forced to stump up more money to try and paper over the ineptitude?  Saying Labor did it doesn't wash.  Abbott promised to cut Govt advertising spending when he was in opposition.
> 
> Is it too much to ask that the Govt live up to what it said for so many years in opposition?




I must admit, I expected more from Abbott.

He should have called a DD as early as possible, instead of doing what he said he wouldn't, work with minority groups.

By dealing with Palmer, he has left himself in an indefensible position, that will end with him being replaced.IMO


----------



## banco

basilio said:


> I wonder if this last month has basically spelt the effective end of Tony Abbotts leadership?
> 
> The poll figures are now a chasm and suggest that many voters have decided TA is just not a good PM.
> The leaks from Cabinet regarding Julie Bishop going to Lima to represent Australia at the Climate Change talks  and then Tony tagging Andrew Robb as a chaperone are damming.  Why ?
> 
> 1) Tony just looks so politically dumb trying to bury CC as an issue *when the very act of doing so becomes a serious problem for the government*
> 
> 2) Julie Bishop recognised this political reality and brought the issue to Cabinet which also recognized the political validity of at least being seen to do something.
> 
> 3) Tony has now tried to control Juli by tagging Andrew  Robb onto her for the trip - and getting absolutely no thanks from either party.
> 
> 4)  *Finally  this whole mess has been leaked to expose Tony Abbotts exceptionally poor judgment*. When that sort of leaking is done I suggest numbers are being counted
> 
> http://www.canberratimes.com.au/fed...limate-change-conference-20141208-122ug0.html
> http://www.canberratimes.com.au/fed...rime-ministerial-bottoms-20141208-122p91.html




Julie Bishop's office seems to be leaking like a sieve lately.  Looks like she's trying to position herself to the left of Abbott.


----------



## sydboy007

banco said:


> Julie Bishop's office seems to be leaking like a sieve lately.  Looks like she's trying to position herself to the left of Abbott.




Still difficult to see her from the centre though.

Bold policy reform or stagnate is the only choice left for the Coalition.


----------



## IFocus

As far as I can tell the right wing still hold power in the party room so Abbott wont be going any where soon. 

This could change of course if Abbott sways to the centre but even then the Coalition are extremely unlikely to remove a serving PM.

Few governments have broken the compact between themselves and the punters such as this one I think its likely to be a 1 term government  particularly if Labor come up with a serious plan to address the deficit


----------



## Tisme

IFocus said:


> As far as I can tell the right wing still hold power in the party room so Abbott wont be going any where soon.
> 
> This could change of course if Abbott sways to the centre but even then the Coalition are extremely unlikely to remove a serving PM.
> 
> Few governments have broken the compact between themselves and the punters such as this one I think its likely to be a 1 term government  particularly if Labor come up with a serious plan to address the deficit




With the propensity of the Abbott tribe to blame everything on someone else and a grand aversion to taking responsibility for poor decisions, I don't think there is many blockers to dethroning Tony. 

They could merely say he was a warrior in the mould of Churchill and now that order has been restored in parliament after the chaotic years of the satanic Labor govt. a moderate governance is required. 

Tony could get a job with the Institute of Public Affairs or chair of the new $7 (strike that) $5/person Medical Research Institute being set up for politicians to retire to as other traditional safehouse public institutions are sold off. I believe there is 20 places being created in a soon to be created dept of a state owned corp to safety net the expected losers in the next QLD election.... that might be a good place for an assistant to lay low for a while.


----------



## trainspotter

Tisme said:


> With the propensity of the Abbott tribe to blame everything on someone else and a grand aversion to taking responsibility for poor decisions, I don't think there is many blockers to dethroning Tony.






> THE era of Kevin, interrupted by the Julia interlude, has been a roller-coaster ride. Having promised Howard-lite and fiscal conservatism, the excuse of the global financial crisis unleashed a period of rapid growth in government spending, successive budget deficits and mounting public debt under Kevin Rudd's guidance.
> 
> Now, with Rudd's return, Labor has launched a charm offensive that seeks to whitewash the past: it is as if aliens from Mars, fortunately departed, had been in charge. But the damage of that era cannot be wiped out so easily.
> 
> And that damage is steep indeed: in the 935 days between becoming prime minister on December 3, 2007, and Julia Gillard's coup of June 24, 2010,* Rudd left Australians with at least $153 billion in unfunded fiscal burdens while wasting $100bn of the community's resources.*
> 
> The time has come to count those costs, and to assess their implications for the man who would be king.
> 
> By far the most visible component of the costs was the shift from a budget cash surplus, averaging 0.9 per cent of gross domestic product during the Howard years to a cash deficit that exceeded 4 per cent of GDP in 2010. *Associated with a succession of economic stimulus measures, that deterioration proved difficult to reverse, with the commonwealth's balance sheet shifting from $44.8bn in net assets when Rudd took office to $161.6bn in net debt this year*.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ste-and-spending/story-fn59niix-1226690463570

SPEND SPEND SPEND !!! Nope it is not Labors fault now is it? Poor Tony must be on the shrooms


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> I don't see why either Bishop or Robb should be going to Lima.
> 
> The responsible Minister is Greg Hunt. Doesn't Abbott trust him either ?





It predicated on the lobbying against Great Barrier Reef heritage listing/protection. The proposed gas fields and minerals exploitation would be jeopardised.


----------



## Tisme

trainspotter said:


> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ste-and-spending/story-fn59niix-1226690463570
> 
> SPEND SPEND SPEND !!! Nope it is not Labors fault now is it? Poor Tony must be on the shrooms





I thought this was The Abbott Govt thread?


----------



## SirRumpole

If Medicare is becoming unsustainable, then why not slightly increase the Medicare levy, instead on mucking around with "co payments". ?

Also there is not much mention of long term preventative medicine like reducing the childhood (and adult) obesity rates which are the causes of most of our illnesses.

That's what happens when you have a government focussed entirely on finances, without much interest in the underlying causes of the growth of our reliance on the health system.


----------



## trainspotter

SirRumpole said:


> That's what happens when you have a government focussed entirely on finances, without much interest in the underlying causes of the growth of our reliance on the health system.




Fix one first and the second will follow


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> If Medicare is becoming unsustainable, then why not slightly increase the Medicare levy, instead on mucking around with "co payments". ?
> 
> Also there is not much mention of long term preventative medicine like reducing the childhood (and adult) obesity rates which are the causes of most of our illnesses.
> 
> That's what happens when you have a government focussed entirely on finances, without much interest in the underlying causes of the growth of our reliance on the health system.




Yeah I think the aversion to hurt feelings is counter to our national health issues. Obesity is so common now it's becoming a justifiable habit to those afflicted (amongst peers). I know medicos who say they are reluctant to carry out surgery on fat people and we see articles about pregnant women being refused delivery services in some parts of the world.  

As you know Rumpole, Sir Knight, I travel extensively and I am starting to see little difference between the big eating American physique and the Australian. Even my own siblings who were trim and healthy succumbed to carbs, refined sugar and indolence (big word for the junior minds) resulting in barrel like body shapes by the time they were 40 ish.


----------



## bellenuit

SirRumpole said:


> If Medicare is becoming unsustainable, then why not slightly increase the Medicare levy, instead on mucking around with "co payments". ?




The intention was to stop the system being abused, and hence reduce costs, by people who make a doctors visit for every minor complaint because it is free to do so. The co-payment was a disincentive for that. Increasing the Medicare levy doesn't provide such a deterrent.


----------



## Tisme

Didn't we commit to a few extra billion on extra JSF a few months back?

Looks like somebody will have some answering to do:


"The F-35 program continues to work through a litany of problems, but this one is almost laughable. According to the USAF, the troubled fighter cannot use gas from standard green colored USAF fuel trucks if it has been sitting in the sun. Considering that these jets will most likely find themselves operating in the desert or in somewhere in the scorching Pacific, this is a big problem."

And it's not built in South Australia!



http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-35-cant-run-on-warm-gas-from-a-fuel-truck-that-sa-1668


----------



## sydboy007

bellenuit said:


> The intention was to stop the system being abused, and hence reduce costs, by people who make a doctors visit for every minor complaint because it is free to do so. The co-payment was a disincentive for that. Increasing the Medicare levy doesn't provide such a deterrent.




Is there any modelling to show this will actually occur?

has any modelling been done on the cost involved should someone not see the doctor and then go from preventative or early treatment to ending up in hospital or requiring longer and more expensive treatment?

If price signals are the key point of the policy, then why is Abbott so against congestion charging for road use?  The state of the cities 2012 report found:



> only one third of AM peak motorised trips in Melbourne are for work. Moreover, 17% are for recreation and shopping purposes. The pattern for Sydney is similar.






> It only takes a reduction of around 5% in the number of vehicles to increase average vehicle speeds by 10-30%. It won’t be at the speed limit necessarily, but it will be fast enough to satisfy the expectations of most drivers…




Considering Abbott is supporting the $1M / meter tunnel in Melbourne you'd think using some form of peak time congestion charge would be the smarter way forward.  Might help reduce the need for expensive infrastructure upgrades.


----------



## So_Cynical

Tisme said:


> I thought this was The Abbott Govt thread?




And yet the ASF right just keep wanting to turn it all around, blame someone else, anyone else.


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> Didn't we commit to a few extra billion on extra JSF a few months back?
> 
> Looks like somebody will have some answering to do:
> 
> 
> "The F-35 program continues to work through a litany of problems, but this one is almost laughable. According to the USAF, the troubled fighter cannot use gas from standard green colored USAF fuel trucks if it has been sitting in the sun. Considering that these jets will most likely find themselves operating in the desert or in somewhere in the scorching Pacific, this is a big problem."
> 
> And it's not built in South Australia!
> 
> 
> 
> http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-35-cant-run-on-warm-gas-from-a-fuel-truck-that-sa-1668




You wouldn't trust them to build a paper aeroplane would you ?


----------



## trainspotter

Well it wasn't Abbott or the Libs that did this?




Firstly, there’s clearly quite a difference between how much the Howard Government relied on short-term debt (Treasury Notes), compared with the subsequent Labor Government. The period when the largest block of Howard-era short term debt auctions occurred was through the year 2002 – coinciding with the 2002-03 global recession, which Australia largely avoided.

Secondly, for four (4) full years between October 2003 and the Rudd election win in November 2007,* the Howard Government raised no short-term debt. Not one cent.*

Neither did Kevin07. For 16 months. Until the GFC.

You remember. “Swift and decisive”. Rushed and bungled. $900 cheques to dead people. Electrifying foil insulation. Blazing pink batts. Rorted “green” schemes. Overpriced school halls. Literally billions more, to investigate and repair these Rudd-made disasters.

http://barnabyisright.com/resources...ing-spree-look-a-model-of-financial-prudence/


----------



## sydboy007

trainspotter said:


> View attachment 60666
> 
> 
> Well it wasn't Abbott or the Libs that did this?
> 
> View attachment 60667
> 
> 
> Firstly, there’s clearly quite a difference between how much the Howard Government relied on short-term debt (Treasury Notes), compared with the subsequent Labor Government. The period when the largest block of Howard-era short term debt auctions occurred was through the year 2002 – coinciding with the 2002-03 global recession, which Australia largely avoided.
> 
> Secondly, for four (4) full years between October 2003 and the Rudd election win in November 2007,* the Howard Government raised no short-term debt. Not one cent.*
> 
> Neither did Kevin07. For 16 months. Until the GFC.
> 
> You remember. “Swift and decisive”. Rushed and bungled. $900 cheques to dead people. Electrifying foil insulation. Blazing pink batts. Rorted “green” schemes. Overpriced school halls. Literally billions more, to investigate and repair these Rudd-made disasters.




So basically you're comparing the Howard period where the private sector spend a couple of years with negative savings rates and pretty much was never really above 3-4%, where the GST pie was growing at something like 8% a year, where corporate tax revenue was surging because the mining companies hadn't started their massive CAPEX spend.

I'd also highlight the fact that mortgage rates wee over 9% in the final term of the Howard Govt.  They kept providing handouts to the public while the RBA was raising interest rates.  Very smart to run loose fiscal policy while inflation is way outside the RBA target, and while the RBA is tightening monetary policy.  How was that economically sensible to increase the private debt burden of households?

Now compare Howards charmed time in office with Labor after the GFC where corporate tax plunged, govt revenue fell from Howard's 26% levels to 20-21% at one point, where the mining CAPEX spent was seeing depreciation kill off tax revenue, where the savings rate went back to around it's pre Howard norm of 10%.

So when Hockey releases the MYEFO in a week or so and shows the deficit is ballooning I hope you'll be blaming him and the rest of the Abbott Govt for the increase in debt.  I also hope you wonder why the Govt is saying they don't need to take any action to reduce the rate of increase in the deficit.  It's certainly not on a good trajectory and we've yet to cope with the closing of the car manufacturer and resource construction job loses.  

Your logic says the economic environment is not particularly relevant to how the Govt is performing.  Your logic says it was somehow possible to get through the GFC with no budget deficit - a feat no country in the world achieved, though Christopher Pyne seems to believe it was possible for the Liberals, yet with revenues higher than the post GFC period the current Govt is seeing debt increase.  Why is that so?  It's certainly not due to the start of the resource CAPEX cliff kicking in, nor the fall in the participation rate, or the near halving of the terms of trade rise when compared to pre boom levels.  It must be all down to a Government unable to live within it's means and match spending with revenue.  Pure and simple really.

If population growth keeps slowing and stops artificially boosting GDP, the Abbott Govt may preside over the first recession in a generation.  I wonder what that will do their reputation as economic managers.


----------



## banco

trainspotter said:


> View attachment 60666
> 
> 
> Well it wasn't Abbott or the Libs that did this?
> 
> View attachment 60667
> 
> 
> Firstly, there’s clearly quite a difference between how much the Howard Government relied on short-term debt (Treasury Notes), compared with the subsequent Labor Government. The period when the largest block of Howard-era short term debt auctions occurred was through the year 2002 – coinciding with the 2002-03 global recession, which Australia largely avoided.
> 
> Secondly, for four (4) full years between October 2003 and the Rudd election win in November 2007,* the Howard Government raised no short-term debt. Not one cent.*
> 
> Neither did Kevin07. For 16 months. Until the GFC.
> 
> You remember. “Swift and decisive”. Rushed and bungled. $900 cheques to dead people. Electrifying foil insulation. Blazing pink batts. Rorted “green” schemes. Overpriced school halls. Literally billions more, to investigate and repair these Rudd-made disasters.
> 
> http://barnabyisright.com/resources...ing-spree-look-a-model-of-financial-prudence/




I think you should google yield curve.


----------



## SirRumpole

bellenuit said:
			
		

> The intention was to stop the system being abused, and hence reduce costs, by people who make a doctors visit for every minor complaint because it is free to do so. The co-payment was a disincentive for that. Increasing the Medicare levy doesn't provide such a deterrent.






			
				sydboy007 said:
			
		

> Is there any modelling to show this will actually occur?
> 
> has any modelling been done on the cost involved should someone not see the doctor and then go from preventative or early treatment to ending up in hospital or requiring longer and more expensive treatment?




Personally, the idea of sitting around in a doctor's office for an hour getting the flu from people who just want a certificate for work is enough disincentive for me not to go to a doctor for a "minor complaint" (and in whose opinion is a complaint minor ?).

It may be more effective to do some random audits on doctors whose claims on Medicare appear excessive in relation to others in the same area. 

Random audits like the tax department does could be effective in reducing fraud and over servicing. The propensity for doctors to order batteries of tests at the drop of a hat is imo more causitive of high Medicare costs than a minority of people wasting their time at the  doctor's office because it's "free".


----------



## Logique

Liking Julie Bishop.

Who is Credlin anyway, to be dictating to elected MPs like so many children. 



> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
> A government disunited will fall - and every single one on board will lose
> 
> ..Bishop is kicking back hard against Credlin, an event that has spilled into the public arena and could have *unpredictable consequences. It seems Bishop is ready to bring to a head the tensions over Abbott’s office...
> 
> ..Ms Bishop is believed to have made the decision, however, that she will no longer be taking orders from Ms Credlin, an attitude that is receiving support from other members of cabinet, who also feel Ms Credlin is too controlling..


----------



## Calliope

Logique said:


> Liking Julie Bishop.
> 
> Who is Credlin anyway, to be dictating to elected MPs like so many children.




Abbott is so busy playing Mr Nice Guy, someone has to do the hard yards. I admire Credlin. I am starting to dislike Bishop.


----------



## Logique

I wonder whose idea it was to reduce by $5 the Medicare payment to doctors, who will just pass it on to patients. 

That's just plain tricky, as the AMA has acknowledged, and who's to say it will get through the Senate anyway?


----------



## trainspotter

sydboy007 said:


> If population growth keeps slowing and stops artificially boosting GDP, the Abbott Govt may preside over the first recession in a generation.  I wonder what that will do their reputation as economic managers.




So Howard was a charmed ministership riding the coat tails of the Lucky Country and there was no fiscal responsibility displayed during his time as the PM of Australia? Yerrrrrrrrr rightio then ... I am off to the bottom of the garden with the fairies playing the violin.

As per usual the incumbent government will blame the previous government for the mess we are in.



> Your logic says the economic environment is not particularly relevant to how the Govt is performing. Your logic says it was somehow possible to get through the GFC with no budget deficit - a feat no country in the world achieved, though Christopher Pyne seems to believe it was possible for the Liberals, yet with revenues higher than the post GFC period the current Govt is seeing debt increase. Why is that so? It's certainly not due to the start of the resource CAPEX cliff kicking in, nor the fall in the participation rate, or the near halving of the terms of trade rise when compared to pre boom levels. It must be all down to a Government unable to live within it's means and match spending with revenue. Pure and simple really.




So how much did Labor actually sell off and borrow to get us through a GFC ?? The catalyst for this was the 2008 financial crisis that had thrown the United States and western Europe into recession and come close to fusing their banking systems. The crisis had not, however, affected Canada or most of Asia. *It was countries running big government debt and deficits that were in crisis control.* (read NOT Australia)



> Malcolm Turnbull, then opposition leader, followed soon after. "In four years, net debt will be $70 billion … and the government has asked for the right, just a moment ago, to borrow up to $200 billion, or *$9500 for every man, woman and child in Australia,*" he said.
> 
> All night, Coalition members, 57 in the House and Senate, rose to speak. Former treasurer Peter Costello, silent on the back bench for a year, was moved to genuine outrage.
> 
> "When you inherit an economy which has a budget in surplus and no net debt, which has unemployment at 30-year lows, where the credit rating has been restored to a AAA rating on foreign currency bonds, where you have a Future Fund of $61 billion and a Higher Education Endowment Fund, when you inherit an economy in that condition you have to find a fault somewhere," he said. "If you cannot find a fault somewhere, what problem have you got to solve? So the Labor Party, naturally enough, looked for a problem. The trouble is, it was the wrong one."




http://www.smh.com.au/comment/what-crisis-governments-only-crisis-is-labors-debt-20140504-zr4c3.html

Now we have the Liberals jacking up the debt ceiling claiming they are borrowing money to pay back the money that Rudd borrowed? Sound familiar??



> Now that the bills are coming due, neither Rudd nor Gillard are around. It is the morning after. The clean-up. The payment due date. And the demographic challenge has loomed into focus. *So let’s not confuse who did the spending and who is having to pay.*


----------



## banco

trainspotter said:


> So Howard was a charmed ministership riding the coat tails of the Lucky Country and there was no fiscal responsibility displayed during his time as the PM of Australia? Yerrrrrrrrr rightio then ... I am off to the bottom of the garden with the fairies playing the violin.
> 
> As per usual the incumbent government will blame the previous government for the mess we are in.
> 
> 
> 
> So how much did Labor actually sell off and borrow to get us through a GFC ?? The catalyst for this was the 2008 financial crisis that had thrown the United States and western Europe into recession and come close to fusing their banking systems. The crisis had not, however, affected Canada or most of Asia. *It was countries running big government debt and deficits that were in crisis control.* (read NOT Australia)
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/comment/what-crisis-governments-only-crisis-is-labors-debt-20140504-zr4c3.html
> 
> Now we have the Liberals jacking up the debt ceiling claiming they are borrowing money to pay back the money that Rudd borrowed? Sound familiar??




You obviously don't know much about the GFC.  Government debt and deficits had very little to do with it.


----------



## trainspotter

banco said:


> You obviously don't know much about the GFC.  Government debt and deficits had very little to do with it.




You obviously don't know much about the GFC or how the global monetary system works banco. Notice how the countries with a strong banking system and low national debt escaped the primary ignition? Canada as an example. But you are all over this stuff already.



> The RBA's latest Financial Stability Review hammers home this theme:
> 
> "The overall effect of offshore lending on Australian banks' total [non performing assets] has been relatively small because overseas exposures only account for around one quarter of their assets. In contrast to many overseas banks, the major Australian banks did not aggressively push beyond traditional geographical or product markets over recent years to seek out higher-yielding, but higher-risk, assets."




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-04-27/33818

Here is an interesting website that has a decidedly different bent on the whole GFC thing.



> FACT: Australia’s escaped relatively unscathed from the so-called “Global Financial Crisis” due to the legacy of the Howard Government leaving strong budget surpluses and eliminating the debt – *Australia had no net debt federally, and, according to the IMF, some of the lowest gross debt in the world.* Furthermore, the Howard government’s reforms to industrial relations ensured a flexible labour market and increase productivity. This – combined with some prudent monetary policy (the lowering of relatively-high interest rates by the Reserve Bank giving Australians a higher disposable income, thereby boosting consumption)  and the strength of Australian banks – is what spared us.




https://www.taxpayers.org.au/factcheck-did-kevin-save-us-from-the-gfc/

Here is a bit more of the real picture.



> *TREASURY has been forced to withdraw a budget graph that overstated the effects on growth of fiscal stimulus spending across the G20 after a senior academic raised questions about its accuracy.*
> 
> The original Treasury graph on stimulus spending, published in Budget Paper 1, used only 11 of 19 G20 countries and backed claims that the greater the level of stimulus spending, the greater the boost to growth above International Monetary Fund predictions.
> 
> But RMIT professor Sinclair Davidson said when all 19 countries in the G20 (the European Union is the other member) were included, the estimated slope depicting the stimulus effect became *"statistically insignificant".*
> 
> The revision comes as the government faces pressure over its projections on the resource super-profits tax and the opposition demands it release the figures behind its $38 million advertising campaign and a set of pie charts used by Wayne Swan to claim miners have been paying less than their fair share of tax.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...xaggerated-graph/story-e6frg6nf-1225875251275


----------



## SirRumpole

trainspotter said:
			
		

> So Howard was a charmed ministership riding the coat tails of the Lucky Country and there was no fiscal responsibility displayed during his time as the PM of Australia? Yerrrrrrrrr rightio then ... I am off to the bottom of the garden with the fairies playing the violin.




Basically, that is a true statement.

Howard/Costello got the budget into shape by selling assets

http://www.marketeconomics.com.au/2095-more-facts-behind-the-howard-governments-debt-elimination

Then they squandered the mining boom by introducing nanny state welfare like family tax benefits and the baby bonus



> Australia's most needlessly wasteful spending took place under the John Howard-led Coalition government rather than under the Whitlam, Rudd or Gillard Labor governments, an international study has found.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...f-the-loose-purse-strings-20130110-2cj32.html




So try to use some objectivity when discussing fiscal responsibility, the results may surprise you.

Have a nice violin lesson.


----------



## trainspotter

SirRumpole said:


> Basically, that is a true statement.
> 
> Howard/Costello got the budget into shape by selling assets
> 
> http://www.marketeconomics.com.au/2095-more-facts-behind-the-howard-governments-debt-elimination
> 
> Then they squandered the mining boom by introducing nanny state welfare like family tax benefits and the baby bonus
> 
> So try to use some objectivity when discussing fiscal responsibility, the results may surprise you.
> 
> Have a nice violin lesson.




Big difference between ZERO debt and this www.australiandebtclock.com.au



> The Rudd government's stimulus spending during the financial crisis doesn't rate as profligate because the measure makes allowance for spending needed to stabilise the economy.




Seriously? Doesn't rate cause the economy required to be stabilised? Who wrote this? The IPCC?

Stradavarius sounds nice as it echoes over the duck pond.

Objectivity .... PULEEEEZE !!


----------



## IFocus

trainspotter said:


> You obviously don't know much about the GFC or how the global monetary system works banco. Notice how the countries with a strong banking system and low national debt escaped the primary ignition? Canada as an example. But you are all over this stuff already.





Nope not really that simple but nice try.

It was the lack of Australian banks exposure to CDO's / US extreme type housing lending and the like was one big reason we got through with out a mere whimper.....ish SFA to do with low debt.

Remember mining shed 19% of its work force.....just say that again in case you missed it mining shed 19% of its work force. Retail (biggest sector of employment) did not shed labour because.......... pick a number

1. There was no problem
2. Because the Coalition said there was no problem
3. Rudd was a genus
4. Swan was a genus
5. There was no GFC in Australia 
6. Ken Henry had seen all this before (go early, go retail, go hard)

If retail shed 19% of its workers what would have a strong banking system done then?

Hint SFA


----------



## IFocus

SirRumpole said:


> Howard/Costello got the budget into shape by selling assets




You are been grossly unfair they were economic genius's sell assets and increase spending.


----------



## trainspotter

IFocus said:


> Nope not really that simple but nice try.
> 
> It was the lack of Australian banks exposure to CDO's / US extreme type housing lending and the like was one big reason we got through with out a mere whimper.....ish SFA to do with low debt.
> 
> Remember mining shed 19% of its work force.....just say that again in case you missed it mining shed 19% of its work force. Retail (biggest sector of employment) did not shed labour because.......... pick a number
> 
> 1. There was no problem
> 2. Because the Coalition said there was no problem
> 3. Rudd was a genus
> 4. Swan was a genus
> 5. There was no GFC in Australia
> 6. Ken Henry had seen all this before (go early, go retail, go hard)
> 
> If retail shed 19% of its workers what would have a strong banking system done then?
> 
> Hint SFA




So when I wrote ... _"Notice how the countries with a strong banking system"_ ... meant nothing to you?

Ermmmm you might want to lay of the sunflower seeds:-  http://theconversation.com/the-state-of-australia-the-economy-26230



> Australia has the lowest debt (measured by Gross Financial Liabilities) in the OECD. In 2013, Australia’s Debt to GDP ratio was 34.4 %, Germany was 80.9 %, the UK at 111.6 %, USA at 106.5 % and the OECD average was 112.0 %. Debt crisis? What debt crisis?




or this?



> Sure, the level of federal government debt remains relatively low, but its growth has been world-beating and the outlook is grave thanks to Labor’s populist but unsustainable increases in school and disability spending, which the Coalition has inherited. *The IMF, which has no political axe to grind, also noted Australia would have the third-largest increase in net debt as a share of GDP among the group of rich countries.*
> 
> The Abbott government des*erves credit for wanting to stem the escalation in public debt and never-ending budget deficits that, left unchecked, will ultimately *require actions that will undermine the steady increase in living standards Australians have enjoyed.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ter-than-europes/story-fn59niix-1226920839651

or this?



> Australia is not without its risks on the debt front and to be safe needs to continue to head back towards a budget surplus (to cap public debt) and for households to continue to run relatively high savings in order to boost their net wealth and cap household debt.




http://www.switzer.com.au/the-experts/shane-oliver/debt---how-does-australia-compare/

So debt had nothing to do with the GFC then? We had low debt giving us the ability to borrow more to stimulate the economy. Yeppers that happened. Unfortunately we have now become addicted to debt.


----------



## Tisme

Calliope said:


> Abbott is so busy playing Mr Nice Guy, someone has to do the hard yards. I admire Credlin. I am starting to dislike Bishop.
> 
> View attachment 60673




I tend agree with you. Credlin must have been allowed to procure as much power as she has.


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> I tend agree with you. Credlin must have been allowed to procure as much power as she has.




The difference between Opposition and Government. Shadow Ministers and backbenchers can put up with a short period of an arrogant and powerful Head of Staff as long as she helps get the Party into government, but when it comes to putting up with her for 3 years, they start to get shirty. 

An indication that Abbott can't make the transition from Opposition to government. Continually blaming Labor for his own mistakes is another.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> The difference between Opposition and Government. Shadow Ministers and backbenchers can put up with a short period of an arrogant and powerful Head of Staff as long as she helps get the Party into government, but when it comes to putting up with her for 3 years, they start to get shirty.
> 
> An indication that Abbott can't make the transition from Opposition to government. Continually blaming Labor for his own mistakes is another.




Credlin has all the hallmarks of a power behind the force. Her hubby ( Federal Director of the Liberal Party) also sat in on the morning star chamber that also comprise Truss, Jules Bishop, Hockey. Pyne, Abetz, Joyce and Brandis that was Abbott's opposition circle of trust.

She is Catholic from the her socks up to her bonce. She controlled her classmates, her teachers, her friends, ... everything. How empowering Tony must feel to be served tea and biscuits by her ... truly he is the apex male with the apex female subservient to him alone.


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> Nope not really that simple but nice try.
> 
> It was the lack of Australian banks exposure to CDO's / US extreme type housing lending and the like was one big reason we got through with out a mere whimper.....ish SFA to do with low debt.
> 
> Remember mining shed 19% of its work force.....just say that again in case you missed it mining shed 19% of its work force. Retail (biggest sector of employment) did not shed labour because.......... pick a number
> 
> 1. There was no problem
> 2. Because the Coalition said there was no problem
> 3. Rudd was a genus
> 4. Swan was a genus
> 5. There was no GFC in Australia
> 6. Ken Henry had seen all this before (go early, go retail, go hard)
> 
> If retail shed 19% of its workers what would have a strong banking system done then?
> 
> Hint SFA




Well that shows a complete lack of understanding, of the mining business as opposed to the retail business, mindless waffle.


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> You are been grossly unfair they were economic genius's sell assets and increase spending.




No, sell assets, retire debt, then spend less than tax reciepts, to build a budget surplus.
Don't let the truth, get in the way of your story.

Labor, don't spend, they give it away, then try to work out how pay for it.

When you spend you actually get something for your money, labor haven't quite worked that bit out yet.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> No, sell assets, retire debt, then spend less than tax reciepts, to build a budget surplus.
> Don't let the truth, get in the way of your story.
> 
> Labor, don't spend, they give it away, then try to work out how pay for it.
> 
> When you spend you actually get something for your money, labor haven't quite worked that bit out yet.




Abbott only seems to know how to cut taxes.  MYEFO budget blowout coming soon and the Govt says no need to worry.  I suppose this years deficit is still Labor's fault?

Abbott still hasn't worked out how you make up the revenue shortfall without targeting the poor.


----------



## IFocus

sptrawler said:


> Well that shows a complete lack of understanding, of the mining business as opposed to the retail business, mindless waffle.




Think you have missed the point by a country mile time to take those Coalition rose tinted, blinkered, Zaphod Beeblebrox (Coalition branded), short sighted glasses off


----------



## IFocus

Tim Dunlop states the obvious this is just gold


Tony Abbott is not the problem



> Tony Abbott is not the problem.
> 
> Watching the media, particularly the rightwing media, turn on Tony Abbott over the last few weeks has been a sight to behold, and it didn't get any funnier than this particular piece in The Australian.









> Under the headline, *"How The Oz belled the cat on Tony Abbott five months ago",* they re-ran an article from July, saying:
> 
> FIVE months ago, The Australian warned Tony Abbott that he was still behaving as if he was leader of the opposition, locked into the daily tactic rather than a long term strategy with a team characterised by zealous centralised control.
> 
> As the Prime Minister ends his first year with discouraging polls and dissent among his MPs, our original article is well worth re-reading.
> 
> How bad have things become when the* PM's biggest spruikers are suddenly busting to tell us, hey, we actually don't like him either!
> *
> *And seriously, five months ago?* They are boasting that they figured out five months ago that Emperor Abbott is stark naked? (What's their next great insight, that the Beatles are likely to be big?)
> 
> I mean, didn't it occur to The Oz at the time of, say, *Mr Abbott's interview with Kerry O'Brien in May 2005 - where the then-Opposition leader admitted that he said things for the sake of expediency* - that just maybe there were problems with Captain Tony?
> 
> Apparently not.







> Just this week, Fairfax political correspondent Latika Bourke tweeted wistfully:
> 
> Perhaps if PM Abbott hadn't kept ending his media conferences as [Opposition leader] before journos questions finished we might have had time to ask him....
> 
> *Honestly? You think a few more questions at his showbiz press conferences would've made a difference?
> *
> Here's an alternative thought, Latika: maybe if the media had applied the *same level of scrutiny and aggressiveness to Tony Abbott that they applied to Julia Gillard *they might've uncovered the agenda that only became apparent once his Budget was delivered.
> 
> Call me crazy.







> That is a painfully superficial reading of the situation. Yes, the PM is unpopular (duh), *and is increasingly looking out of his depth, if not incompetent.*
> 
> But Tony Abbott is not the problem. He's a symptom. Actually, he is more than that: he is a reckoning. *He is what you get when politicians lose touch with the electorate* and get lost in the echo chamber of the concerns of the broader political class.





http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-11/dunlop-abbott-not-the-problem/5959676


----------



## Tisme

IFocus said:


> Think you have missed the point by a country mile time to take those Coalition rose tinted, blinkered, Zaphod Beeblebrox (Coalition branded), short sighted glasses off




That would be a betrayal of resolve me thinks. You'll just have to wear the "mindless waffle" type insults.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Abbott only seems to know how to cut taxes.  MYEFO budget blowout coming soon and the Govt says no need to worry.  I suppose this years deficit is still Labor's fault?
> 
> Abbott still hasn't worked out how you make up the revenue shortfall without targeting the poor.




To fix our situation the welfare system has to be sorted, it all sounds wonderfull just keep giving, but it isn't sustainable. As you know another sector has to pay for it, then when that sector is crippled, what you just tax another sector? Both the tax and welfare systems need to be made more aligned with our economy and what it can sustain.

http://www.afr.com/p/national/reserve_bank_boss_warns_leadership_vzs90YwwWOqkEWXW5FV2gP

Glenn Stevens has issued a blistering challenge to all federal politicians that they need to “get real” about fixing medium-term budget difficulties by having a serious discussion that avoids simplistic “slogans and name-calling.”

He indicated that failure to fix the budget within the next five years could result in Australia potentially losing its AAA credit rating – and see the nation forced into European-style austerity measures against its wishes.

Some $28 billion in measures from the 2014-15 budget have yet to be passed by the Senate and there is no clear date when the budget will return to surplus.

Strong leadership, “not just from the government, but from other political parties and individuals who claim to be serious” would be needed to fix the budget over the medium term, he said.

“You have to have a serious conversation about this stuff and not get into slogans and name-calling. The serious issue is that five-year horizon.

“We’re not going to have a surplus any time soon, are we? But the real question is do we have a sustainable fiscal position over the medium term?”

But Mr Stevens did not believe there needed to be sharp cuts in spending in next week’s mid-year budget update in response to lower tax revenue from falling iron ore, oil and coal prices.

“You wouldn’t do that unless you really did have such poor credibility in capital markets that you couldn’t sustain a bit of extra borrowing,” he said. “We have strong credibility in capital markets, so we don’t need to do that.”

In some of his most blunt public remarks, Mr Stevens lamented how the past two years had confirmed how difficult fixing the budget had become – a dispiriting trend he blamed on an “over-simplification” of the fiscal debate.

POLITICIANS NEED TO CHANGE
His comments seem to be critical of both the previous Labor government and its failed attempts to restore a surplus and the Coalition for encouraging in the lead up to last year’s federal election the simplistic notion that all debt and deficits are bad.

He also referred to the ongoing obstructionism in the Senate, including by figures such as Palmer United leader Clive Palmer and former PUP senator Jacqui Lambie, who has declared she will not vote for any government legislation unless it gives bigger pay rises to the Australian Defence Force.

*Mr Stevens said much of the debate in Canberra appeared to have missed the reality that over the past five years Australians had “voted for good things to be given to us by the government, or done for us, [without voting] for the revenue that pays for it”.
*
“Much of the public debate about the fiscal position, still, is carried on as though that reality isn’t actually real. But it is real.”
It was vital the budget was fixed “so that we don’t ever get into the position of losing credibility in capital markets and then be forced to be much more pro-cyclical with our policies,” he said.

The remark points to what has happened in Europe since the 2008 crisis, where bond markets worried about widening government deficits drove up sovereign borrowing costs, forcing countries such as Greece, Spain and Ireland to slash public spending.

This in turn led to widespread recession in Europe.

A key problem was a tendency to revert back to a simplistic idea that surpluses are always good and deficits are always bad.

*“Well, actually it matters how you got the surplus; it matters what you did with it,” Mr Stevens said, asking whether a country that was debt free but with no public assets was the right model to follow. “Think about what the debt is for. Is it for infrastructure? Or is it for paying pensions? It matters which of those it is.”*

He suggested Australian leaders have failed over the past decade to “build a platform of public understanding” of budget problems”.

“Maybe we didn’t do that quite as much as we could have, and so the legacy of that is that now that we need this nuance, it’s very hard to do it,” he said.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> To fix our situation the welfare system has to be sorted, it all sounds wonderfull just keep giving, but it isn't sustainable. As you know another sector has to pay for it, then when that sector is crippled, what you just tax another sector? Both the tax and welfare systems need to be made more aligned with our economy and what it can sustain.
> 
> http://www.afr.com/p/national/reserve_bank_boss_warns_leadership_vzs90YwwWOqkEWXW5FV2gP
> 
> Glenn Stevens has issued a blistering challenge to all federal politicians that they need to “get real” about fixing medium-term budget difficulties by having a serious discussion that avoids simplistic “slogans and name-calling.”




I don't think anyone is saying the welfare system doesn't need fixed, but you can't tell the under 30s to wait 6 months for the dole, you can't whack the generally poorer with a GP tax when their health says they need more help, while at the same time leaving holes in the budget leaking billions on negative gearing, billions more on super, a pension system more likely to bankrupt the country than welfare to the young or families, and championing a PPL programme that costs billions and wont achieve the state goal of increasing female workforce participation.

But you don't face up to the fact that Abbott's cutting of taxes has in no way helped the welfare system, it has not made it easier to balance the budget, it has in fact narrowed the tax base.  The broadening of revenue is the fuel excise increase, but it pales against the tax revenues the Govt has willingly given up.

With the carbon tax repealed why didn't Abbott cut the increase in welfare payments that Labor made to compensate for it?  I'd argue that is an easier welfare reform strategy to make the case for.  The carbon tax costs are gone, so the compensation is no longer required.  The GP tax isn't welfare reform, and I've not seen any modelling as to just how much money it will actually save, nor how much they've taken into consideration the increased costs will be when people postpone treatment and end up sicker.

Maybe a simple change would have been to do a deal with the Pharmacy Guild to allow them to write medical certificates of a few days.  I find it ludicrous I have to see a doctor for an MC if I have 2 or more days off work due to illness - company policy or they can mark me as leave without pay.  It's a cold, so not much a GP visit will accomplish besides cost $65 with medicare paying about half of it.  Provide a financial incentive for Pharmacists to do this, and combine it will further cuts to the massive amounts of PBS support that Pharmacists get and you could save hundreds of millions in the health system.  This Govt doesn't seem to be able to think outside the box though.

As for Glen Stevens comments, tell him he's dreaming.  He's up there with Pascoe and Adam Carr believing in the confidence fairy, or Joe "swipe that credit card a few more times to keep Santa happy" Hockey.  If Stevens is this deluded he needs to step down and let someone more competent try to guide us through the most difficult transformation of the economy in over a generation.

Some things Stevens needs to understand:


25 Quarters after the GFC commenced in mid-2008, real GDP per capita has increased by only 4.4%. This compares very poorly against the 8.5% growth after the mid-1970s recession, the 11.2% growth after the 1980s recession, and 9.6% growth after the early-1990s recession.
Better measures of living standards are much worse for the typical Australian. Since December 2011, national disposable income (NDI) per capita has fallen by 3.3%, versus 2.0% growth in per capita real GDP.
Per capita household disposable income has also fallen by 1.1% since June 2012
Per capita gross national expenditure, which measures “the total expenditure within a given period by Australian residents on final goods and services (i.e. excluding goods and services used up during the period in the process of production)”, and Domestic final demand, which measures the sum of “government final consumption expenditure, household final consumption expenditure, private gross fixed capital formation and the gross fixed capital formation of public corporations and general government”, have also been falling since late 2012

What the above data on incomes and domestic expenditure/demand shows is that it is the big expansion in commodity export volumes that is supporting headline real GDP, along with strong immigration. Removing these distortions reveals that the domestic economy is essentially experiencing a recession in per capita terms – exactly what the so called income ‘recessionistas’ have been arguing for the last couple of years.

Stevens’ comments on employment are also dubious. Sure, Australian employment is growing, but it is nowhere near enough to soak-up the strong population growth (mostly via immigration). This is why unemployment is now at the highest level since August 2002 in trend terms, despite falling participation.  It is also why labour underutilisation is 14.8% nationally in trend terms – the highest level since November 1997.  

Youth unemployment is now 14.1% and has had negative since the the GFC.  It's not even an issue on the current political agenda.  Over 17% of the youth working part time would like more hours.  Moreover, when the number of unemployed and underemployed youth are added together, underutilisation amongst Australia’s 15 to 24 year-olds is a whopping 31.6% – the highest level on record, even beating the early-1990s recession.

All the above is happening when the biggest resource CAPEX boom has barely started to fall off the cliff, the car manufacturer job losses have yet to occur.

I don't believe this Government has the ticker for the true political and economic leadership required to make appropriate cuts to welfare, without leaving the poor in a US style food stamps poverty, while also taking on the very powerful vested interests they cheered on in opposition to cut down on the tax expenditures around negative gearing and super, car FBT, and tax trusts.

You only have to look at Hockey's reaction to the Murray report into the Financial System to see this Govt has no reform zeal in it.  He's certainly not owning the report when he comes out and says it was a report to the Government, not by the Government.  Talk about a damp squib.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> The carbon tax costs are gone, so the compensation is no longer required.



Try and tell Labor that.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ed-to-carbon-tax/story-e6frg6xf-1226982737232


----------



## Julia

sydboy007 said:


> I don't think anyone is saying the welfare system doesn't need fixed, but you can't tell the under 30s to wait 6 months for the dole,



You are perpetuating the myth.  *No one will be without the dole as long as they are - if not employed - engaged in some form of training* 


> you can't whack the generally poorer with a GP tax when their health says they need more help,



Of course you omit mention of the reality that in the original policy it was capped at just $70 per year.   No such thing as someone who cannot afford that.   To suggest people will fail to go to the doctor for the sake of $7 (now $5) is just silly.  A pensioner gets about $22,000 p.a.   $70 out of that maximum?



> With the carbon tax repealed why didn't Abbott cut the increase in welfare payments that Labor made to compensate for it?  I'd argue that is an easier welfare reform strategy to make the case for.



Yes, agree on this. 



> Maybe a simple change would have been to do a deal with the Pharmacy Guild to allow them to write medical certificates of a few days.  I find it ludicrous I have to see a doctor for an MC if I have 2 or more days off work due to illness - company policy or they can mark me as leave without pay.  It's a cold, so not much a GP visit will accomplish besides cost $65 with medicare paying about half of it.  Provide a financial incentive for Pharmacists to do this, and combine it will further cuts to the massive amounts of PBS support that Pharmacists get and you could save hundreds of millions in the health system.  This Govt doesn't seem to be able to think outside the box though.



Pharmacists are not trained to diagnose disease.   What might appear as a simple cold could be something quite different, particularly when other disorders only the doctor is aware of are taken into account.




> As for Glen Stevens comments, tell him he's dreaming.



What he says sounds realistic enough to me.   But, hell, if you think you can do better than the governor of the Reserve Bank, write to him with your advice.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> With the carbon tax repealed why didn't Abbott cut the increase in welfare payments that Labor made to compensate for it?  I'd argue that is an easier welfare reform strategy to make the case for.
> .




I'd agree with you, and that was meant to happen.

Didn't Palmer and Labor make it a condition of passing the repeal, that the compensation couldn't be removed?


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> I
> I don't believe this Government has the ticker for the true political and economic leadership required to make appropriate cuts to welfare, without leaving the poor in a US style food stamps poverty, while also taking on the very powerful vested interests they cheered on in opposition to cut down on the tax expenditures around negative gearing and super, car FBT, and tax trusts.
> .




It will be interesting to hear Labors answers, they certainly didn't enact much the last two terms.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:
			
		

> Of course you omit mention of the reality that in the original policy it was capped at just $70 per year. No such thing as someone who cannot afford that. To suggest people will fail to go to the doctor for the sake of $7 (now $5) is just silly. A pensioner gets about $22,000 p.a. $70 out of that maximum?




The problem with the co payment as originally designed was that it asked pensioners to pay more for no benefit to themselves. The money would be stashed away for 6 years, then distributed for research, and when any results from that research were forthcoming most of the pensioners who contributed to it would have passed on. That's just not a fair ask.

Increasing health costs is more likely to be the result of more tests and treatments becoming available and the propensity of doctors to order tests to cover their own backsides and obviously their desire to do as much for their patients as they can.

 I wonder how many conditions would go away naturally given time without doctors feeling they have to prescribe medicines to justify their positions and maintain their god like status with their patients. 

Patients don't know whether they have a minor condition or not, so they shouldn't be pressured not to see a doctor if they are unsure. Doctors do know whether a condition is likely to be major, and the pressure should be put on them not to prescribe expensive tests or medicines unless necessary.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> The problem with the co payment as originally designed was that it asked pensioners to pay more for no benefit to themselves. .




That sums up the current problems perfectly.


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> The problem with the co payment as originally designed was that it asked pensioners to pay more for no benefit to themselves.



So?   Are you actually saying that we should only be prepared to pay any tax/co-payment/charge if we directly benefit ourselves ?

Plenty of people pay the Medicare levy who might never see a doctor.  

It's all part of participating in a society - we all contribute.

Can you say where you derive the conviction that doctors order too many tests etc?
That hasn't been my experience, either personally, or when running a medical centre.

I do agree, though, that more and more investigatory procedures are becoming available.  That's a good thing as long as wisely used.


----------



## Logique

The minute the going get's tough...it's misogyny says the PM.  And who fed him that line. A very poor reflection on both of them. Where's the accountability.



> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...nty-more-he-can-call-out-20141212-125mp7.html
> Now Tony Abbott has called out sexism against Peta Credlin, there's plenty more he can call out
> December 12, 2014 - Stephanie Peatling


----------



## Calliope

Logique said:


> The minute the going get's tough...it's misogyny says the PM.  And who fed him that line. A very poor reflection on both of them. Where's the accountability.






> The power and influence of the Prime Minister's chief of staff has been a hot potato topic this week, with some government MPs complaining Credlin is out of control.




Who are these gutless MPs? They know she cannot publicly reply. They should tell her to her face. If I were she I would walk out on this whinging bunch. I'm sure there would be no shortage of job offers.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> So?   Are you actually saying that we should only be prepared to pay any tax/co-payment/charge if we directly benefit ourselves ?
> 
> .




If that is the attitude, then just increase the Medicare levy.

I'm sure you wouldn't mind doing your bit even if it doesn't directly benefit you.


----------



## moXJO

Calliope said:


> Who are these gutless MPs? They know she cannot publicly reply. They should tell her to her face. If I were she I would walk out on this whinging bunch. I'm sure there would be no shortage of job offers.




Seems to be a fairfax push of bull$hit reporting. Looks to be a big push the last couple of days too with articles popping up every hour.Best way to take down a government is through instilling disunity and looks like this is their best bet. Fairfax is just pizzed at Hockey sticking it up them.


----------



## moXJO

SirRumpole said:


> If that is the attitude, then just increase the Medicare levy.
> 
> I'm sure you wouldn't mind doing your bit even if it doesn't directly benefit you.




People abuse free medical. Increasing the medicare levy wont have the same results.


----------



## SirRumpole

moXJO said:


> People abuse free medical. Increasing the medicare levy wont have the same results.




Where is the evidence of abuse ?

Do people really want to waste their time at the doctor's for no reason ?

I think it's more likely to be new and costly treatments that put up the cost of health care rather than abuse by individuals, and maybe some fraud and over servicing by doctors.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> I'd agree with you, and that was meant to happen.
> 
> Didn't Palmer and Labor make it a condition of passing the repeal, that the compensation couldn't be removed?




Isn't the policy as is what was accepted by the Govt, so to have done the tax cut without appropriate sources of revenue has to be owned by the Govt.


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> Pharmacists are not trained to diagnose disease.   What might appear as a simple cold could be something quite different, particularly when other disorders only the doctor is aware of are taken into account.




At least make it an option.  I would argue a significant % of those going to a doctor for an MC of a few days have a cold or some mild illness that going to a GP will prvodie no benefit for.

The other option is to bring in a system where an MC is not required so much by employers.  It's a costly requirement.  When I pickd up a cold on my last trip to Bali - literally kiked in at the airport on the way home - I had to go to the emergency department to get an MC because I couldn't get an appointment at my local doctor, then I had to go later in the week to get some more leave.  Not sure what all that cost the medical system, but multiply that by tens of thousands of visits a year and the cost must be considerable.



Julia said:


> What he says sounds realistic enough to me.   But, hell, if you think you can do better than the governor of the Reserve Bank, write to him with your advice.




We've had around 30 years of economic mismanagement in this country where export incoem from resources is geared up into housing consumption.

Steven's goes on about how any future interest rates would need to be part of a positive economic narrative.  What's he smoking.  That may be what he's wishing for, but the economic reality facing the country is anything but positive.  None of the current economic readings look good, and we've yet to see the full impact of the ToT income shock, nor the massive job loses from the closing of the car manufactures and resource construction jobs.  The LNG terminals in QLD are set to see over 30K in job loses by the end of next year.  Aggregate hours worked fell over 4M in the latest ABS release.  Real incomes still falling, with a lot further to go, and they have to as one of the main ways to regaining any form of international competitiveness.

So the source of the income to gear up is pretty much on the way down due to over supply, and the property market is pretty much at saturation point because house hold debt is over 160% and pretty much can't go any higher.  So lower interest rates don't provide much bang for buck any more because you can't force people to borrow.

Stevens needs to stop talking about repairing confidence, which treats our current malaise as a cyclical issue, and he needs to start talking about true micro and macro economic reform, along with significant tax reform to cut into our world beating tax expenditures.  He;s basically setting himself up as the dupe who has to resolve the stagnating economy by lowering interest rates, but as has been shown around the world, that's not a path to a bright economic future.

His comments about not lowering interest rates has seen the market discount the probability significantly for the first half of next year - markets immediately moved to lower the probabilities of a rate cut in February to an insignificant 16% and a cut by March to 50%, which makes it that much more difficult to get the AUD down to where he believes it should be.  Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Isn't the policy as is what was accepted by the Govt, so to have done the tax cut without appropriate sources of revenue has to be owned by the Govt.




As I've said Abbott, lost the plot the minute he started negotiating with minority parties, the exact problem that unravelled Labor. 
That was the very thing he said he would avoid, it will be his undoing, exactly as it was for Labor.

The problem is, too many politicians are putting there jobs, before their duty, and Australia is suffering.
Unpopular decissions are required whether people like it or not, it's just the politicians are scared to make them, for fear of losing their job.

Well I think people know the severity of the situation, that is why retail has been struggling for the past 5 years.

If Abbott doesn't stand up and grow a pair, he will be dumped.
Maybe he isn't the headbanger, mad monk, attack dog that the press made him out to be, because that's what he was voted in for.IMO

Labor rolled over and peed on themselves for the Greens, now Abbott is doing the same with Palmer. It isn't what the electorate wanted.IMO
It just further erodes the confidence of the masses, they want to see a strong government with a viable plan to halt our slide.
Concocting half @rsed outcomes with loonies, doesn't inspire confidence.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Maybe a simple change would have been to do a deal with the Pharmacy Guild to allow them to write medical certificates of a few days.  I find it ludicrous I have to see a doctor for an MC if I have 2 or more days off work due to illness - company policy or they can mark me as leave without pay.  It's a cold, so not much a GP visit will accomplish besides cost $65 with medicare paying about half of it.  Provide a financial incentive for Pharmacists to do this, and combine it will further cuts to the massive amounts of PBS support that Pharmacists get and you could save hundreds of millions in the health system.  This Govt doesn't seem to be able to think outside the box though.
> .




Don't you think the reason you have to get a doctors note, for more than two days absence, is to stop workers abusing the system and having a week off?
The very reason you have to fork out $65 and go to a doctor is a deterent, if you could just go to a chemist, Australias productivity would plummet.
The only other deterent that works, is to pay employees for a proportion of unused sickies when they leave. The unions are not in favour of this approach, they say it discourages workers from taking sick leave when sick.

Actually it works a bit like the doctor co payment was meant to.

When the person on free medical, decides they have a bit of a sore throat, they then have to choose, if it's bad enough to warrant missing out on a latte and scone. If it is then they go to the doctor, if it isn't that bad they spend it on something else.

At the moment, they just drop in and see the doctor anyway and might as well stock up un some cheap prescriptions as well, on the way.


----------



## SirRumpole

> The only other deterent that works, is to pay employees for a proportion of unused sickies when they leave.




I would be a lot richer if that happened

The thing that really made me sick when I left my last job in the NSW Public Service was that some bloke in the Senior Executive Service got his unused sick leave fully paid out while the rest of us just lose it.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> I would be a lot richer if that happened
> 
> The thing that really made me sick when I left my last job in the NSW Public Service was that some bloke in the Senior Executive Service got his unused sick leave fully paid out while the rest of us just lose it.




Actually a lot of employers do it, the unions don't like it.

A mate who works for a council told me they have it in their EBA, the problem is, with the consolidating of councils, he's worried he will lose his banked up sickies.

I worked in power generation for most of my career, and was involved in negotiating many EBA's, we always tried to get it implemented.
Management were o.k with it, but we couldn't talk our unions into supporting it.

Senior executives probably incorporate it in an individual contract.


----------



## sptrawler

Well Syd, you should be starting to warm to 'smoking Joe', he is starting to say a lot of your quotes.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-12/joe-hockey-more-cuts-myefo-budget-update/5964148

"They're modest savings overall because our expenditure is very modest," Mr Hockey said.

"New spending - we're offsetting with new savings.

He also dismissed raising the Goods and Services Tax (GST) to cover the budget woes.

"I don't see broadening the GST or increasing the rate of the GST as a silver bullet for the economy at all," Mr Hockey said.

"I don't have any desire to increase the cost of living for everyday Australians without being able to properly compensate for it and the budget has limited capacity to do that."


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> I would be a lot richer if that happened
> 
> The thing that really made me sick when I left my last job in the NSW Public Service was that some bloke in the Senior Executive Service got his unused sick leave fully paid out while the rest of us just lose it.




What made me sick, was I attended tertiary education to obtain qualifications, this enabled me to apply for a position with higher accountability and responsibility.
The benefit was a 40% increase in salary, however it was a shift work. 
When individual contracts came in, the the position I left negotiated individual contracts, and recieved the same wage as I was recieving for shift work.


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> If that is the attitude, then just increase the Medicare levy.
> 
> I'm sure you wouldn't mind doing your bit even if it doesn't directly benefit you.



I have already said so.  I would just like others to be similarly disposed.  I'm just absolutely sick of the endless whining about paying for this or that.  Australians have been over-indulged by successive governments buying votes.  It simply can't go on in the same way.

And I don't think increasing the levy is the full answer:  people on benefits can perfectly well afford the small sum of $5 or $7 to see a GP.  If it were $70 capped for the year that is a mere 19 cents per day, and it would weed out some of the social visits.



moXJO said:


> Seems to be a fairfax push of bull$hit reporting. Looks to be a big push the last couple of days too with articles popping up every hour.Best way to take down a government is through instilling disunity and looks like this is their best bet. Fairfax is just pizzed at Hockey sticking it up them.



+1.



SirRumpole said:


> Where is the evidence of abuse ?
> 
> Do people really want to waste their time at the doctor's for no reason ?



Yes.  Can you, asking for the second time, provide evidence to the contrary.  Elderly people in particular enjoy the reassurance of a regular visit to their doctor.  My own father used to rock up about once a week, nothing at all wrong with his health, just said he liked having a chat.  And I've seen the same hundreds of times in running a medical centre.



> I think it's more likely to be new and costly treatments that put up the cost of health care rather than abuse by individuals, and maybe some fraud and over servicing by doctors.



 I think fraud is minimal, audits are regular and thorough.  But there is a fine line between fraud and over-servicing.  Easy enough to note on patient record that patient is anxious, needs regular reassurance yada yada.

If a doctor wants to ramp up his income for the week, all he needs to do is a round of the local nursing homes, saying hello, how are you, to each individual.  Or work a weekend with out of hours rates from Medicare.
There will always be patients ready to come.




sydboy007 said:


> At least make it an option.



No.  Absolutely not.  Chemists are not doctors.  They do not have the training to diagnose any illness.

If you have a problem with the requirements of your workplace, take it up with your superiors.  The answer is not to provide some "tick the box" system where unqualified people certify an illness without the appropriate training.

sptrawler has also pointed out how easily such a system could be rorted.  Next thing we'd have someone withdrawing from opiates with the typical symptoms of runny nose, sneezing, general misery etc, being diagnosed by a chemist as having a cold, when in fact the underlying problem needs to be addressed.  Similarly an allergy can often be mistaken for the common cold, but the management is entirely different.

Re Mr Stevens:  I've already suggested you offer him your expert opinion.  Afaik you're employed in the IT industry.  So I'm not sure what qualifies you to know better than the Governor of the Reserve Bank how to manage the monetary system.


----------



## sptrawler

Julia said:


> I
> 
> Yes.  Can you, asking for the second time, provide evidence to the contrary.  Elderly people in particular enjoy the reassurance of a regular visit to their doctor.  My own father used to rock up about once a week, nothing at all wrong with his health, just said he liked having a chat.  And I've seen the same hundreds of times in running a medical centre.
> 
> .




Yes Julia, my mum has been told by the doctors, if she doesn't turn up when she books a visit, she will be charged.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:
			
		

> Yes. Can you, asking for the second time, provide evidence to the contrary. Elderly people in particular enjoy the reassurance of a regular visit to their doctor. My own father used to rock up about once a week, nothing at all wrong with his health, just said he liked having a chat. And I've seen the same hundreds of times in running a medical centre.




The elderly people I know visit the doctor quite often, but that is because the doctor keeps telling them to come back for reassessments etc. If patients just want a "chat", maybe their families should get more involved and find them some activities to occupy them. 




			
				Julia said:
			
		

> I think fraud is minimal, audits are regular and thorough. But there is a fine line between fraud and over-servicing. Easy enough to note on patient record that patient is anxious, needs regular reassurance yada yada.




Here is just one case. How many others are going on ?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-05/doctor2c-accountant-charged-over-2416m-medicare-fraud/5948106



			
				Julia said:
			
		

> If a doctor wants to ramp up his income for the week, all he needs to do is a round of the local nursing homes, saying hello, how are you, to each individual. Or work a weekend with out of hours rates from Medicare.
> There will always be patients ready to come.




Exactly. Plenty of ways to defraud the system. Nursing home patients are captive audiences who may not ask for a doctor but find that one descends on them for a couple of minutes and charges for the priviledge. 

If the patients didn't request a doctor, why should they pay, and  what audits are there to prevent this ?


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> Exactly. Plenty of ways to defraud the system. Nursing home patients are captive audiences who may not ask for a doctor but find that one descends on them for a couple of minutes and charges for the priviledge.
> 
> If the patients didn't request a doctor, why should they pay, and  what audits are there to prevent this ?




Exactly.
You wouldn't need an audit if there was a $5 co payment, the nursing home would only have the doctor, when required. The patients wouldn't be too interested in a chat either.

The doctor would then have more time available to see sick people.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> Exactly.
> You wouldn't need an audit if there was a $5 co payment, the nursing home would only have the doctor, when required. The patients wouldn't be too interested in a chat either.
> 
> The doctor would then have more time available to see sick people.




Maybe we should have a co-payment for politician's travel too ?

Point is a co-payment automatically assumes that patients know the difference between trivial and serious conditions. 

While it may deter a few patients who want a chat it also deters a lot more who actually need a consultation, which if ignored creates more expenses later on. 

It's a case of the government shooting itself in the foot by only responding to one issue without any evidence that it is a major factor when a more intelligent assessment involves consideration of a wider range of factors contributing to health costs.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe we should have a co-payment for politician's travel too ?
> 
> Point is a co-payment automatically assumes that patients know the difference between trivial and serious conditions.
> 
> While it may deter a few patients who want a chat it also deters a lot more who actually need a consultation, which if ignored creates more expenses later on.
> 
> It's a case of the government shooting itself in the foot by only responding to one issue without any evidence that it is a major factor when a more intelligent assessment involves consideration of a wider range of factors contributing to health costs.




I think that the cost is minimal and being blown out of proportion, just for political mileage. Hawke and Keating had the same problem when medicare was first introduced, they wanted a co payment also.
What people have to realise is, we have a great welfare system, but it is unaffordable in its current form, no different from the problems with the super system.

It is much better IMO, to make small adjustments, than to leave things go. Then have to make major cuts, or take large amounts of money off others, to support the unaffordable.

The deficit isn't improving, so the debt and associated interest cost keep growing. We have to broaden the tax base and reduce spending IMO.
To just increase taxes, adds costs, to whatever you are taxing. That makes that service or goods dearer therefore less competitive.

As Syd says there are several things that can be taxed or the existing tax rules changed. The problem is the welfare costs are increasing with the aging population, and the tax base is shrinking.

Unless the health and welfare cost growth is slowed, they will outstrip the tax base even if you broaden it.IMO


----------



## Julia

sptrawler said:


> I think that the cost is minimal and being blown out of proportion, just for political mileage. Hawke and Keating had the same problem when medicare was first introduced, they wanted a co payment also.
> What people have to realise is, we have a great welfare system, but it is unaffordable in its current form, no different from the problems with the super system.



And that is the whole point, one which the government has failed to properly convey when instead talking about creating a research fund.
I've never heard any pensioner complain about the very small charge they pay for prescriptions.  A co-payment to see a doctor should be even more acceptable.
All the fuss is being created by Labor and the Greens purely for political mileage.


----------



## trainspotter

The toe cutters have moved in:-



> *A TOTAL of 175 government agencies will be scrapped in a bid to make budget savings and streamline the public service.*
> Finance Minister Mathias Cormann will announce the cuts on Monday as part of the budget update alongside rules to stop the creation of new agencies that clog the bureaucracy and slow down decisions.
> It says working groups will be shut down and expensive agencies dismantled in a bid to streamline the public service, saving more than $500 million over four years and taking staff numbers back to the levels of seven years ago




http://www.news.com.au/national/government-to-scrap-175-agencies-report/story-fncynjr2-1227154755940

Public service unions to be screaming blue murder next.


----------



## SirRumpole

As someone who never gets bulk billed I don't care if people have to pay a co payment as long as it doesn't unfairly impact the chronically ill or aged and the payment goes into public hospitals instead of something for which we may never see benefits.

Also there has to be a remedy for the long term ills of obesity and alcoholism which cause a lot of strain on our health system. The Coalition has never been interested in tacking these issues, surprisingly of course since no doubt Coca Cola and the breweries are donors to them.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Don't you think the reason you have to get a doctors note, for more than two days absence, is to stop workers abusing the system and having a week off?
> The very reason you have to fork out $65 and go to a doctor is a deterent, if you could just go to a chemist, Australias productivity would plummet.
> The only other deterent that works, is to pay employees for a proportion of unused sickies when they leave. The unions are not in favour of this approach, they say it discourages workers from taking sick leave when sick.
> 
> Actually it works a bit like the doctor co payment was meant to.
> 
> When the person on free medical, decides they have a bit of a sore throat, they then have to choose, if it's bad enough to warrant missing out on a latte and scone. If it is then they go to the doctor, if it isn't that bad they spend it on something else.
> 
> At the moment, they just drop in and see the doctor anyway and might as well stock up un some cheap prescriptions as well, on the way.




Bill $20 for getting an MC at the pharmacy.  Monitor the stats to ensure the odd dodgy pharmacist with a reputation for writing an MC when a person is clearly not sick are picked up.

There's still a $ incentive not to get the MC, but it also saves me money as it would be cheaper than the gap between medicare and what a GP visit costs, medicare saves over $30, and GP resources are available for those genuinely ill.

One the one hand you're arguing the copayment is not that much and designed to cut down on oversue of the health system, but at the same time you're not willing to think outside the box to try and minimise the costs without doing to much harm to those who genuinely need to see a doctor.

If you're worried about abuse of the system let employees use it twice a year then further MCs need to be done by a GP.  Something has to give because the aged pension and health costs are what is going to bankrupt the country if we don't work out ways to cope with the escalating costs.

Possibly the Abbott Govt nees to have a read of this article

https://hbr.org/2014/12/how-to-stop-the-overconsumption-of-health-care



> Doctors and patients in the United States must work together to minimize waste in health care. The millions of health care decisions made each day ”” to see a provider, complete a medical test, fill a prescription, or undergo a procedure ”” come with benefits, risks, and costs. Many of the choices are well informed by clinical evidence and expertise. But all too often they are driven by habit, hunches, or misaligned economic incentives, leading to substantial overuse of unnecessary, even harmful, services. The Institute of Medicine estimates that unnecessary services represent about 10% of all U.S. health care spending ”” nearly $300 billion a year.





> Other examples of overuse, however, are subtler. For example, an estimated 25% of Medicare beneficiaries undergo an imaging test for uncomplicated low-back pain. That may seem harmless on its face, but almost all patients with this symptom recover without an invasive procedure ”” and, in response to the imaging results, some patients undergo additional procedures they don’t actually need. Similarly, more than half of antibiotics prescribed for common colds and coughs may be unnecessary.






> Putting quantity in the context of quality. Choosing Wisely helps patients and doctors see that more care is not always better care. Doctors have long known about some of the opportunities for reducing the quantity of care without compromising quality, such as not getting an imaging test for uncomplicated low back pain or not ordering an annual cardiac stress test in patients without symptoms. In these instances, Choosing Wisely can help educate patients about why an unnecessary test could wind up being bad for them so that doctors and patients can have more constructive conversations about the tests.




Educating the public takes longer and is not easy, but it does provide the best overall return when you have a long term view.  Killing off the myth that antibiotics will help with a cold would be one worth really fighting for.

If we don't put resources into this now then the below article offers the stark reality of our global future

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/global-economics-drug-resistance-by-jim-o-neill-2014-12



> By 2020, if we allow resistance to rise by 40%, global GDP will be 0.5% smaller than it otherwise would have been. By 2030, it will be 1.4% smaller. By 2050, the economic shortfall will reach 3%. The accumulated loss of global output over the next 35 years will total $100 trillion – more than one and a half times annual world GDP today.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Well Syd, you should be starting to warm to 'smoking Joe', he is starting to say a lot of your quotes.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-12/joe-hockey-more-cuts-myefo-budget-update/5964148
> 
> "They're modest savings overall because our expenditure is very modest," Mr Hockey said.
> 
> "New spending - we're offsetting with new savings.
> 
> He also dismissed raising the Goods and Services Tax (GST) to cover the budget woes.
> 
> "I don't see broadening the GST or increasing the rate of the GST as a silver bullet for the economy at all," Mr Hockey said.
> 
> "I don't have any desire to increase the cost of living for everyday Australians without being able to properly compensate for it and the budget has limited capacity to do that."




They're expenditure is modest??  Then why the oncoming $40B deficit?

What new savings?

Raising the GST is one of the more efficient ways to tackle the lack of revenue and the distortions in our tax system.  It would certainly help with the fiscal imbalance between the feds and states, and would also allow the feds to step back from providing money for state responsibilities.  The other option is to allow the states to have their own sales taxes like int he USA, though I'd prefer a uniform policy as it makes the costs of the system a lot cheaper.

The fact he's still trying to pretend we can fix the budget without losers pretty much means we're stuffed.  No Joe, the confidence fairy ain't real, and no Santa doesn't exist either.  How about some economically rational choices for a change??

So if the savings they're going to announce through the week "..are not going to have a negative impact on the Australian economy" then why weren't they done at the last budget, or even earlier at the Dec 13 MYEFO?  Why wait so long introduce them?


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> No.  Absolutely not.  Chemists are not doctors.  They do not have the training to diagnose any illness.
> 
> If you have a problem with the requirements of your workplace, take it up with your superiors.  The answer is not to provide some "tick the box" system where unqualified people certify an illness without the appropriate training.




It's not really my employer per se, though they do seem to enforce their rights far more strictly than other employers I've worked for

http://www.fairwork.gov.au/leave/si...-carers-leave/notice-and-medical-certificates



> Employers can ask an employee to give evidence to confirm why they have been away from work at any time. This includes even if an employee has only been off sick for 1 day.
> 
> *An employee who doesn't give their employer evidence when asked may not be entitled to be paid for their sick or carer’s leave*.




So the system is designed to force overuse of GP visits to get an MC.  There has to be a cheaper way to keep employers happy that staff are not wagging work than forcing them to go to a GP or if the cost is prohibitive for them, sit in an emergency department for hours.  I had to do that once when I got a very debilitating stomach bug.  Once again unable to get in to see any local doctor (3 clinics) and had to spend nigh on 4 hours at RPA emergency to get an MC for a couple of days to recover.  I was told by the doctor that usually it will clear in 24-48 hours but if not to see my GP for some antibiotics.  She was right.  I was feeling a lot better the next day, though still not great.

You must know very different elderly people to myself.  I don't know one of them that goes to the doctor unless they absolutely have to.


----------



## Smurf1976

sydboy007 said:


> He;s basically setting himself up as the dupe who has to resolve the stagnating economy by lowering interest rates, but as has been shown around the world, that's not a path to a bright economic future.




Declining manufacturing, outsourcing, a shift to a "service" economy, austerity particularly by government, and interest rates declining toward zero.

Hasn't worked too well in most countries that have gone down this track and I can't see why Australia would be any different really.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:
			
		

> Raising the GST is one of the more efficient ways to tackle the lack of revenue and the distortions in our tax system. It would certainly help with the fiscal imbalance between the feds and states, and would also allow the feds to step back from providing money for state responsibilities. The other option is to allow the states to have their own sales taxes like int he USA, though I'd prefer a uniform policy as it makes the costs of the system a lot cheaper.




Fiscal imbalance could also be rectified by the Feds taking over some state responsibilities.

The prime target would be the public hospital system which represents about 40% of state expenditure. Considering the Feds already manage every other aspect of the health system, then having an integrated public hospital system would make sense. 

There is no need to further complicate the tax system by giving the states more taxing powers, or by raising/extending the GST. Rudd tried to do this, but they got rid of him first.

 It's time for a forward looking Federal government to have another go. Abbott/Hockey won't do it, perhaps the next Labor government will.


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> Also there has to be a remedy for the long term ills of obesity and alcoholism which cause a lot of strain on our health system. The Coalition has never been interested in tacking these issues, surprisingly of course since no doubt Coca Cola and the breweries are donors to them.



And what exactly did Labor do to address the enormous problem of obesity?

Obesity alone is a massive cost to the health system with all the diseases it leads to.  Almost everything that can go wrong with us is caused by or exacerbated by obesity.

Raising the issue of Coca Cola is a bit of a red herring.   Are you going to remove from the market place all products containing sugar?  All fried foods?  Shut down all the fast food outlets which appear to provide the foundation diet for some families?

Of course not.   Nothing wrong with any of those things in very small quantities, ditto alcohol.

It's human behaviour that has to change.  Perhaps some intensive advertising campaign along the lines of the successful "Slip, Slop Slap" idea and the anti-smoking campaign.   They both largely worked.

As it is, obesity is becoming the new normal which is shocking.   Ambulances are being modified to accommodate the reality of obese patients, ditto hospital beds and gurneys, operating tables.  Aircraft seats forcing either reduced profits for airlines or more cramped positions for all.


sydboy007 said:


> Bill $20 for getting an MC at the pharmacy.  Monitor the stats to ensure the odd dodgy pharmacist with a reputation for writing an MC when a person is clearly not sick are picked up.



You are apparently refusing to acknowledge that a chemist is simply not qualified or trained in any way to make medical diagnoses.


----------



## sptrawler

trainspotter said:


> The toe cutters have moved in:-
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/national/government-to-scrap-175-agencies-report/story-fncynjr2-1227154755940
> 
> Public service unions to be screaming blue murder next.




Well they can't cut spending, because the recipients can't afford it, so know they cut jobs. I hope the ones who lose their jobs, can afford it.


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> And what exactly did Labor do to address the enormous problem of obesity?
> 
> Obesity alone is a massive cost to the health system with all the diseases it leads to.  Almost everything that can go wrong with us is caused by or exacerbated by obesity.
> 
> Raising the issue of Coca Cola is a bit of a red herring.   Are you going to remove from the market place all products containing sugar?  All fried foods?  Shut down all the fast food outlets which appear to provide the foundation diet for some families?




It was the current Govt that canned the food rating website that would allow people to more easily see how (un)healthy their diet is.  The Abbott Govt went against a system that had been designed over many months with input from medical specialists as well as the states.  

The web site was something the Gillard Govt fought pretty hard for.  Considering the number of Liberal Govts they had to negotiate with it was a pretty good achievement to get that kind of consensus between Govt and the public health groups.



Julia said:


> You are apparently refusing to acknowledge that a chemist is simply not qualified or trained in any way to make medical diagnoses.




And your saying an individual will know when they should and shouldn't go to their GP for assistance.  At least a pharmacist has some knowledge, will have seen a good deal of illnesses. If you think an individual has enough knowledge to know if they do or don't need to see their GP, then they should also be able to know if the cold they have needs a GP visit or seeing their pharmacist for an MC is more appropriate.

My mum gets her blood pressure done by her local pharmacist, and this works better for her because when she's at the doctors she's stressed herself out and gets a high reading.  When she's at her local pharmacy having a chat to the staff while they do the reading she's only mildly high.

We have a system that financially penalises sick workers and tax payers.  There's 11.6M employees in Australia.  If we factor in just 1 MC each a year at $60 that's getting close to $700M.  It wouldn't surprise me if the cost is much higher due to people unable to see a GP through none available or not able to afford the cost and going to a hospital emergency admissions.


----------



## SirRumpole

> The Abbott Govt went against a system that had been designed over many months with input from medical specialists as well as the states.




I'd like to hear some justification from the Coalition supporters as to why this website was canned, and also why when in Opposition the Coalition opposed the alcopops tax, when they now seem so keen on "price signals" to deter antisocial behaviour like visiting the doctor.



> Are you going to remove from the market place all products containing sugar? All fried foods? Shut down all the fast food outlets which appear to provide the foundation diet for some families?




The Abbott government is so keen on "price signals", so put a tax on sugar , salt and fat products and let the market make their choice.


----------



## Logique

sydboy007 said:


> ...At least a pharmacist has some knowledge, will have seen a good deal of illnesses. If you think an individual has enough knowledge to know if they do or don't need to see their GP, then they should also be able to know if the cold they have needs a GP visit or seeing their pharmacist for an MC is more appropriate.
> 
> My mum gets her blood pressure done by her local pharmacist, and this works better for her because when she's at the doctors she's stressed herself out and gets a high reading.  When she's at her local pharmacy having a chat to the staff while they do the reading she's only mildly high.
> 
> We have a system that financially penalises sick workers and tax payers.  There's 11.6M employees in Australia.  If we factor in just 1 MC each a year at $60 that's getting close to $700M.  It wouldn't surprise me if the cost is much higher due to people unable to see a GP through none available or not able to afford the cost and going to a hospital emergency admissions.



Yes good points. Pharmacists are increasingly coming into play in the health mix. It's a welcome development for mine, I find my local very helpful and forthcoming with health info.

The doctors on the other hand are edging you towards the door with a script. 

A general point on the Abbott government. If they get back next time, look for an expansion of the GST to currently excluded items, eg food.  It fits their governing style.


----------



## bellenuit

I can't believe Abbott played the misogynist card in defence of Credlin, even against his own party. Here was I thinking that even if he is losing in the polls, he will not stoop to the level of Gillard to defend himself or his policies, but there he goes mimicking the worst of Gillard and belying those who believed he was above all that. I can only conclude his is politically inept and though changing leader is never a good thing, he should go. He is now a huge liability.


----------



## Julia

sydboy007 said:


> It was the current Govt that canned the food rating website that would allow people to more easily see how (un)healthy their diet is.  The Abbott Govt went against a system that had been designed over many months with input from medical specialists as well as the states.
> 
> The web site was something the Gillard Govt fought pretty hard for.  Considering the number of Liberal Govts they had to negotiate with it was a pretty good achievement to get that kind of consensus between Govt and the public health groups.



It's not my responsibility to provide a defence for Coalition policy.  Even before any notion of a colour coded label on some foods, there has been for a long time full nutritional information on most products.  The reality is that people decline to take any notice of it, for the most part.   I don't see why that would change if there were some pretty colours as well.



> And your saying an individual will know when they should and shouldn't go to their GP for assistance.



Yes.  Most people will appreciate the difference between a simple virus eg a cold, and something more serious, eg parotitis.

Of course a pharmacist can measure BP.  We can all do that.  It's one of the most simple procedures ever.  Modern diagnostic equipment doesn't even require the operator to have to recognise when systolic peak and diastolic base occurs.  Rather, it just gives it in a read out screen.
Why do you think it's possible to buy such equipment at around $50 so the patient can do it themselves at home?
Surely doesn't need any professional qualifications.  Where those professional qualifications do come in is with understanding - taking into account all the underlying factors of that patient's overall health - when it needs treating or not.  A doctor is the only person qualified to make that decision.


> At least a pharmacist has some knowledge, will have seen a good deal of illnesses.



Pharmacists see people who bring in a script to be filled, their doctor having made the diagnosis and determined the right treatment.  They just dispense what's on the piece of paper.  Doesn't confer on them any real understanding of either the illness or the patient's underlying problems.



> My mum gets her blood pressure done by her local pharmacist, and this works better for her because when she's at the doctors she's stressed herself out and gets a high reading.  When she's at her local pharmacy having a chat to the staff while they do the reading she's only mildly high.



See above.  So your mum feels good because someone chats to her and reassures her.  She could achieve the same end with a small piece of equipment at home.  



bellenuit said:


> I can't believe Abbott played the misogynist card in defence of Credlin, even against his own party. Here was I thinking that even if he is losing in the polls, he will not stoop to the level of Gillard to defend himself or his policies, but there he goes mimicking the worst of Gillard and belying those who believed he was above all that. I can only conclude his is politically inept and though changing leader is never a good thing, he should go. He is now a huge liability.



Yes, a serious misstep on his part to play the sexist card.  You'd think he'd be mightily aware of the need never to do that, given the misogyny issue with Gillard.


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> why when in Opposition the Coalition opposed the alcopops tax,



Again, I'm not necessarily a Coalition supporter, and neither is it my responsibility to justify any decision by the government, but on alcopops what actually happened when they were subjected to what you describe as a price signal, certainly sales dropped.  But instead sales of whole bottles of spirits increased, as the consumers simply decided to mix their own, almost certainly in the process consuming more alcohol.

Sometimes it's necessary to think through the likely consequences of any action, rather than just reacting with the cliched knee-jerk response.


----------



## SirRumpole

bellenuit said:


> I can't believe Abbott played the misogynist card in defence of Credlin, even against his own party. Here was I thinking that even if he is losing in the polls, he will not stoop to the level of Gillard to defend himself or his policies, but there he goes mimicking the worst of Gillard and belying those who believed he was above all that. I can only conclude his is politically inept and though changing leader is never a good thing, he should go. He is now a huge liability.




I suppose at least Gillard attacked the Opposition and their forces rather than her own party. 

I'd really hate to think of Abbott as a tactician in times of war, he can't even govern his own party let alone the nation.

I doubt if he will last through the next year as PM, his political and organisational skills are abysmal.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:
			
		

> It's not my responsibility to provide a defence for Coalition policy. Even before any notion of a colour coded label on some foods, there has been for a long time full nutritional information on most products. The reality is that people decline to take any notice of it, for the most part. I don't see why that would change if there were some pretty colours as well.




Well for a start, most people aren't nutritionalists. They have no idea if 18mG Na per G is good for them or not. 

Added to that these details are in such fine print that most people have trouble reading them anyway and therefore they don't bother. 

Add that to the fact that most people are already fairly busy doing their shopping esp. if they are carting a few kids around with them that they don't have time to read every label and calculate what the effects on their diets will be.

So, yes , people are more likely to take notice of a graphical summary of the overall nutritional value of a food, just as they are more likely to take notice of a red light as opposed to a sign detailing all the reasons why they should stop at a given point. 

Time is a factor in our daily lives, and the easier it is for people to understand information, the more likely they will take notice of it.


----------



## Logique

_Admired Miranda! Indeed the top of admiration.._

Has nailed it again.



> http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...l_cleaner_to_mop_up_labors_mess/#commentsmore
> Call a real cleaner to mop up Labor’s mess
> 
> Miranda Devine - December 10, 2014
> 
> AMID their year-end woes, it might help the government to pin up a photo of Harvey Keitel in the party room, to *remind them why they are in office.
> 
> Keitel was The Cleaner in Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction, whose job it was to clean up the mess after a gangland murder....


----------



## DB008

I think that the Abbott Government will be a 1 term Government.


----------



## Smurf1976

Julia said:


> Even before any notion of a colour coded label on some foods, there has been for a long time full nutritional information on most products.  The reality is that people decline to take any notice of it, for the most part.




I think nutrition is too complex a subject for most, partly because of the mis-information that has been spread over the years.

Thinking of what I've heard throughout most of my life, we should all be eating lots of things made from grains and that includes pasta and bread. It was only 2 or 3 years ago that, by pure chance, I learned that pasta isn't actually considered to be a "health food".

Then there's the differences in labeling. Eg one brand of product X lists total fat and saturated fat only, whilst another breaks it down into total, saturated, polyunsaturated, monounsaturated and trans fat. Given that trans fat seems to be by far the worst, logically that's the one that should always be disclosed.

Also the changing advice. First all fats were bad. Then saturated fat was bad but polyunsaturated was good. Then it was monounsaturated that was the good one. Then someone decided that trans fats were the really bad ones and that avoiding saturated fat was, in some cases at least, leading to more trans fat being eaten.

There's really no escaping this one. Simply deciding to eat what people ate 100+ years ago might not be good advice either, given that life expectancy was considerably shorter back then.

Personally, I suspect that nutritionists are a bit like economists. They have an idea what they're doing yes, but aren't really certain about the future thus giving advice that has only a certain probability of being right with no guarantees.

The inherent problem with any food labeling scheme is thus what to base it on? It could be a "red" or a "green" for the exact same product depending on which nutritionist you listen to, or whether it's now or in 5 years time. 

About the only real constant is that vegetables are good and white sugar is to be avoided. Everything else there seems no real consensus about when viewed over 10+ years.


----------



## drsmith

DB008 said:


> I think that the Abbott Government will be a 1 term Government.



It will be if the flames currently emanating from within the house of Liberal aren't quickly extinguished which I note at a public level at least, Julie Bishop is trying to do.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...tt-to-be-careful/story-fn3dxiwe-1227155389545


----------



## SirRumpole

> About the only real constant is that vegetables are good and white sugar is to be avoided. Everything else there seems no real consensus about when viewed over 10+ years.




Probably true, but it sounds like an excuse for not providing any information, ever...

I'm sure there are a lot of illnesses where options on best treatment vary, but there has to be some consensus at a point in time, even if it's not unanimous and even if it's proven to be inaccurate later when more evidence is available.


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> So, yes , people are more likely to take notice of a graphical summary of the overall nutritional value of a food, just as they are more likely to take notice of a red light as opposed to a sign detailing all the reasons why they should stop at a given point.



OK,  it would be interesting to see if there is any effect on obesity if a red/green/black colour label is placed on all (presumably packaged) food.  Or do we need to similarly label fresh vegetables and fruit also because people are so ignorant they don't understand that fresh beats processed just for a start?

Perhaps we do expect the government to tell us what to eat.  It seems we expect governments to come up with watertight legislation that protects people from themselves in ever losing money.   And expensive campaigns to stop people smoking even though it's obvious to the most uninformed individual that smoking isn't actually going to enhance your health, so why not extend the nanny state into making it clear by coloured pictures what constitutes healthy choices?

I'm not sure at all that it's lack of education that's the problem, rather that people just decline to take responsibility for their own lives in many instances.

I was waiting for a friend at a cafe a few days ago and got chatting to a morbidly obese woman there on her own.  She was tucking into a creamy cappuccino plus a  huge piece of cheesecake accompanied by almost a cup of whipped cream and a scoop of ice cream.  She said "oh, I know I shouldn't be having this, but it's so delicious".

So now we even have doctors calling for gastric banding type procedures to be more freely available to prevent the exacerbation of obesity related diseases, especially diabetes, so that those patients will be actually physically prevented from overeating.   I just don't understand how we have come to such a point.

The notion of individual responsibility seems to have largely become a discarded concept.

Smurf:  if I remember correctly the urging from nutritionists to consume virtually unlimited quantities of bread, pasta, etc started about twenty years ago.  God knows what it was based on, as pretty obviously devotees would add heaps of butter or margarine, plus jams etc, rich sauces on pasta, so that not only did you have minimal nutrition in what's not much more than just flour and water in those recommended starchy foods, you're going to add lots of fat and sugar as well.   
That pretty much coincided with people getting fatter.

You're right in suggesting the message became too complicated when all the different types of fats were recommended, then cancelled, then re-recommended etc.  Olive Oil is worth mentioning.  It seems widely accepted by all the so called experts that it's a source of 'good fat'.  So then we have every celebrity chef using massive quantities of it, completely ignoring the fact that it's laden with calories.  I've just looked up a nutrition website and 100 mls of olive oil contains 835 calories!   Relativity = about 12 oranges or about 40 tomatoes.

A simple message would be to base daily intake on generous amounts of fresh vegetables, somewhat less of fruit, about 100 - 150g of protein, small amount of fat, and much less starchy carbs than many people consume now.

And I do hear this quite often in food recommendations but if people are determined to eat rubbish while avoiding exercise, there's a limit to how much governments can really do.

I'm interested to hear from others who do expect governments to hold people's hands to the point of telling them what they should eat, ie how exactly are you going to ensure they listen and act?


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> It will be if the flames currently emanating from within the house of Liberal aren't quickly extinguished which I note at a public level at least, Julie Bishop is trying to do.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...tt-to-be-careful/story-fn3dxiwe-1227155389545




I get the impression Bishop's office is leaking like a sieve.  Where did the stuff about the Lima trip come from?


----------



## SirRumpole

> I'm interested to hear from others who do expect governments to hold people's hands to the point of telling them what they should eat, ie how exactly are you going to ensure they listen and act?




I think you are confusing nanny state-ism with supplying information which is what you suggested when advocating education campaigns like Slip-Slop-Slap. What else is clear food labelling, but an education campaign along the same lines ?

No education campaign will affect all people. I once saw an obese woman in a supermarket with an entire trolly full of Coca Cola. It's then we have to decide how many stupid people like her there are and start slapping taxes on unhealthy foods. 

Such taxes may at least help pay to treat such people when they have strokes, diabetes or heart attacks. Unless you want our medical bills to keep piling up which is what will happen if people keep eating and drinking rubbish.


----------



## banco

Sloppy Joe must be reading his Keynes:

Treasurer Joe Hockey says the federal budget will be used as a "shock absorber" to protect the economy from the largest fall in the terms of trade since 1959, while insisting he never set a firm date for the economy to return to surplus.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...0year-terms-of-trade-hit-20141214-126qsi.html

I wait for the usual conservative crowd to demand an immediate return for surplus.  Somehow I think they will shut up now that a liberal government is in power.


----------



## IFocus

Smurf1976 said:


> I think nutrition is too complex a subject for most, partly because of the mis-information that has been spread over the years.





My daughter is doing nutrition in uni at the moment and its complexity is far beyond any rational thinking gives me a headache if I help her prepare for exams and I don't understand any of it.

Personally I think there is far to much sugar in refined foods full stop.


----------



## IFocus

Been interesting watching the implosion, basically the front bench are at each others throats with no direction other than blame Labor. 

The back bench are just shell shocked at he stupidity happing on the front bench.

Watching the last day in the house the Coalition looked totally broken.

One thing I see here and in the media and from the Coalition is about Labors wasteful spending.

OK Labor were wasteful............so its easy just stop those wasteful spending policy's.........why hasn't this happened?


----------



## IFocus

banco said:


> Sloppy Joe must be reading his Keynes:
> 
> Treasurer Joe Hockey says the federal budget will be used as a "shock absorber" to protect the economy from the largest fall in the terms of trade since 1959, while insisting he never set a firm date for the economy to return to surplus.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...0year-terms-of-trade-hit-20141214-126qsi.html
> 
> I wait for the usual conservative crowd to demand an immediate return for surplus.  Somehow I think they will shut up now that a liberal government is in power.




And this class stupidity didn't they keep the carbon tax extra payments?



> Mr Hockey said the underlying budget position was better than it would have been had Labor remained in power, strengthened by the *removal of the carbon and mining taxes*.
> 
> He claimed that under the previous government’s budget settings, unemployment would have jumped above 7 per cent with 110,000 fewer Australians in work.


----------



## SirRumpole

IFocus said:


> And this class stupidity didn't they keep the carbon tax extra payments?




Watch the excuses come thick and fast from now on.


----------



## moXJO

IFocus said:


> Personally I think there is far to much sugar in refined foods full stop.




This is the problem. Everything is packed full of sugar.


----------



## moXJO

banco said:


> I wait for the usual conservative crowd to demand an immediate return for surplus.  Somehow I think they will shut up now that a liberal government is in power.




So we ignore that labor is blocking in the Senate. Labor made a mess and you think it will be sorted in a year. It would take 3 years under a competent government just to start heading in the right direction. Competent is something this current mob isn't in danger of being labeled. But still, I dont see labor as being ready to govern any time soon.


----------



## sydboy007

moXJO said:


> So we ignore that labor is blocking in the Senate. Labor made a mess and you think it will be sorted in a year. It would take 3 years under a competent government just to start heading in the right direction. Competent is something this current mob isn't in danger of being labeled. But still, I dont see labor as being ready to govern any time soon.




If polling is right then the majority of voters are against the changes to uni funding and to the GP tax.

Considering these changes go against what the Coalition promised pre election, Labor and the minor parties have a lot of public support for what they're doing.

That said, i do hope in 2015 that they start to provide some solutions.  Would be nice to think they could show themselves worthy of some votes at the next election


----------



## noco

moXJO said:


> So we ignore that labor is blocking in the Senate. Labor made a mess and you think it will be sorted in a year. It would take 3 years under a competent government just to start heading in the right direction. Competent is something this current mob isn't in danger of being labeled. But still, I dont see labor as being ready to govern any time soon.




It is the old old story....fill people's pockets with money and you will always be good fellows ( the Green/Labor socialist left wing philosophy).....attempt to take it out of their pockets and you become the villain....Rudd's $900 checks all and sundry including dead people and people overseas sure made everybody happy and now we have to pay it back indirectly through sacrifices and the naive are complaining and shouting from the roof tops, this "ROTTEN LIBERAL GOVERNMENT"........we have to get rid of them and then we get on the merry-go-round again.


----------



## Tisme

IFocus said:


> My daughter is doing nutrition in uni... .




Beware the "doing", "did", thing when it comes to talking university school courses ..... just warning that WA speak is different to the East.


----------



## Tisme

If someone managed to get Ex Prime Minister Ainsley Gotto together with her protÃ©gÃ© Prime Minister Peta Credlin, do you think they could work through this mess that the elected swill have got us into? We could put an umpire in place who can handle the lot with finesse and fortitude ... Paul Keating maybe?


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> If someone managed to get Ex Prime Minister Ainsley Gotto together with her protÃ©gÃ© Prime Minister Peta Credlin, do you think they could work through this mess that the elected swill have got us into? We could put an umpire in place who can handle the lot with finesse and fortitude ... Paul Keating maybe?




Was said this morning that if the public know a Chief of Staff's name then they are not doing their job properly.

The fact that Credlin has generated such a public antipathy among LNP members indicates that she is exceeding her authority, or that Abbott is exceeding his.

A PM and his C.O.S. are not dictators in the Westminster system, they are there to oil the wheels of governments and to make Minister's and the Cabinets job easier by good organisation and interpersonal relations between Ministers and their departments and Ministers and their Cabinet ciolleagues. Which is plainly not happening.

Failing at all levels is Abbott.


----------



## Tisme

sydboy007 said:


> If polling is right then the majority of voters are against the changes to uni funding and to the GP tax.




Yes I think there is a generation of baby boomers who might talk up political differentiation, but affordable education and health is something that is wrapped up in the fight to rid themselves of the cautious handcuffs of their silent generation parents. 

Knowing there are safety nets allows go getters to have a crack, which baby boomers subsequently did of course, but then allowed successive helicoptering govts to nanny them in parlance correctness resembling the Victorian/Edwardian great generation where we all get personally insulted by minor nuances.


----------



## Calliope

Ms Bishop is on safe ground criticising Mr Abbott.



> Yesterday, Ms Bishop, while defending Ms Credlin as an “essential” part of the government, refused to support Mr Abbott’s use of gender to explain away complaints about his chief of staff: “That’s not the way I would put it.
> 
> “I have been on the record many times saying I don’t view the world through a prism of gender. I never have, I never will.”
> 
> *Ms Bishop’s comments came as a Galaxy poll showed that 57 per cent of voters rate her performance as “good” and 24 per cent as “poor”. Mr Abbott’s performance is rated as good by 27 per cent and poor by 63 per cent*



.Today's _The Australian_


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> Was said this morning that if the public know a Chief of Staff's name then they are not doing their job properly.
> 
> The fact that Credlin has generated such a public antipathy among LNP members indicates that she is exceeding her authority, or that Abbott is exceeding his.
> 
> .




Yeah well it could our fault from a few weeks back ... coincidence perhaps?


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> Yeah well it could our fault from a few weeks back ... coincidence perhaps?




???

Our fault ?

I only know about Credlin from what I read in the media, which means she already had the publicity she didn't want.

I'm not egotistical enough to think the "public" cares about what we say


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> ???
> 
> Our fault ?
> 
> I only know about Credlin from what I read in the media, which means she already had the publicity she didn't want.
> 
> I'm not egotistical enough




Yeah but I am ...and you just don't know who I know


----------



## boofhead

Credlin got in the news a bit being busted with blood alcohol level above legal limit and the end result of the case.


----------



## Tisme

I see new places have been found for the faithful:

John Lloyd Public Service Commissioner

Salvatore Vasta Federal Court Judge

Alexander Street Federal Court Judge

Paul Neville board position National Film and Television Archive.

Ian Campbell councillor for Australian National Maritime Museum

Peter Collins councillor for Australian National Maritime Museum.

Janet Albrechtsen councillor of the National Museum of Australia.


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> I see new places have been found for the faithful:
> 
> John Lloyd Public Service Commissioner
> 
> Salvatore Vasta Federal Court Judge
> 
> Alexander Street Federal Court Judge
> 
> Paul Neville board position National Film and Television Archive.
> 
> Ian Campbell councillor for Australian National Maritime Museum
> 
> Peter Collins councillor for Australian National Maritime Museum.
> 
> Janet Albrechtsen councillor of the National Museum of Australia.




I was under the impression the government was abolishing as many quangos as they could.

I wonder if they'll sack Tim Wilson from his $1.5 million sinecure at the Human Rights Commission ?


----------



## Tisme

wheels coming off ?


http://m.dailytelegraph.com.au/news...155174132?nk=b6f77fb1701e70192d0290b54bdbf047


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> wheels coming off ?
> 
> 
> http://m.dailytelegraph.com.au/news...155174132?nk=b6f77fb1701e70192d0290b54bdbf047




I don't think even the Rudd government fell apart this fast did it ?


----------



## Logique

Tisme said:


> wheels coming off ?
> 
> http://m.dailytelegraph.com.au/news...155174132?nk=b6f77fb1701e70192d0290b54bdbf047



MP Warren Entsch is a QLD'er and a fair man. Over to you Calliope 

He calls it like it is. Confected misogyny was offensive before, and remains so now.

54:46 those are the voting intentions.


----------



## SirRumpole

A cool headed analysis of our economic prospects from one of the best PM's we never had.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-15/hewson-myefo-time-to-face-up-to-some-realities/5966680


----------



## Tisme

Seems lying is a disease in ranks: 

"I never set a target. That was implied by the Labor Party. We're not going to make the same mistakes that the Labor Party made. Trust me we don't do that," 

which is not true considering Hockey did set a target back in the days pre election:


 "Based on the numbers presented last Tuesday night we will achieve a surplus in our first year in office and we will achieve a surplus for every year of the first term"

Why can't he just say everything has gone pear shaped and all bets are off?


----------



## sydboy007

Tisme said:


> Seems lying is a disease in ranks:
> 
> "I never set a target. That was implied by the Labor Party. We're not going to make the same mistakes that the Labor Party made. Trust me we don't do that,"
> 
> which is not true considering Hockey did set a target back in the days pre election:
> 
> 
> "Based on the numbers presented last Tuesday night we will achieve a surplus in our first year in office and we will achieve a surplus for every year of the first term"
> 
> Why can't he just say everything has gone pear shaped and all bets are off?




That one ranks up there with Christopher Pyne claiming they could have run a surplus through the GFC.

It's the lie that a budget best effort guestimate is somehow 100% guaranteed to occur.

Prob be better if they followed the RBA with their 70% and 90% estimate ranges, but then that doesn't sound nearly as nice as a very specific number to quote to the punters.


----------



## sydboy007

surely it's time to start hacking into some of our world beating tax expenditures.

Make the tax system fair, more efficient, less distorting and stop the revenue bleed.  Seems like win win win to me.

As for the cost of super, even if the true cost is half the amount forecast by Treasury above, their cost to the Budget would still be a military budget esq $25 billion by 2017-18!

The Capital gains discount forecast to hit over $8B in just a few years, and the GST exemptions also over $20B.


----------



## IFocus

SirRumpole said:


> A cool headed analysis of our economic prospects from one of the best PM's we never had.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-15/hewson-myefo-time-to-face-up-to-some-realities/5966680




It is good and respect Hewson

This is the real killer, absolute damming article 

Stephen Koukoulas rips the heart out the Coalition lies.

MYEFO warning fails to curb spending spree

*The Abbott Government is undertaking a massive spending spree.*


This jus extraordinary 



> Having been in control of the budget for 15 months, the MYEFO reveals that the Abbott Government has boosted *government spending to stunningly high 25.9 per cent of GDP in 2014-15.*
> 
> *Quite extraordinarily, this is just 0.1 per cent of GDP below the 2009-10 level of government spending that incorporated the massive fiscal stimulus measures from the Rudd government,* which were implemented to counter the global financial crisis.





This is why I keep asking why the Coalition  doesn't stop Labors wasteful spending thats keeps being claim here.



> What is also extraordinary is that the forward estimates for the budget out to 2017-18 confirm government spending remaining above 25 per cent of GDP in each and every year.* To put this spending spree in context, in Labor's last three full budgets, government spending was under 25 per cent of GDP in each year.*







> On the tax and revenue side, Mr Hockey's MYEFO is projecting a surge of money into the Treasury coffers. From a recent low of 19.9 per cent of GDP in 2010-11, the level of tax will have risen to 22.0 per cent in 2014-15 and is forecast to rise to 23.1 per cent in 2017-18. This is back to the long-run historical average and suggests that the failure to move the budget back to surplus is a spending issue, not so much of a revenue shortage.
> 
> *The failure to return the budget to surplus is squarely the result of the Abbott Government spending on its pet projects.*







> To be sure, the Abbott Government has imposed a range of spending cuts, especially in pensions, education and health over the forward estimates. *But rather than using the savings to feed into the bottom line of the budget, the money has been "recycled" into other areas of spending*.







> *The first 15 months of the Abbott Government has upsized government spending*, which is a problem that has been compounded by the consequences of a weaker world economy, a sharp fall in commodity prices and rising unemployment. The budget deficit has jumped as a result and the 2016-17 forecast for a budget surplus contained in the Pre-Election and Fiscal Outlook released during the 2013 election campaign, is no longer attainable. It will not be until 2019-20 that the budget will return to surplus





http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-16/koukoulas-myefo-warning-fails-to-curb-spending-spree/5969364


----------



## trainspotter

*hiccup* :drink:


----------



## sptrawler

trainspotter said:


> *hiccup* :drink:




That's classic TS.


----------



## trainspotter

sptrawler said:


> That's classic TS.




IFocus does bring up some terse points. John Hewson was the best prime minister we never had because of Mike Willesee and a birthday cake. True. 

Unlike NBN and Nation building projects the Libs have to borrow money to pay the interest bill from Rudd/Gillard/Rudd era. ?

Iron ore down 30% over 4 years knocks about 9 billion a year out of revenue.

Crude down to 4 year lows = another 5 billions gone.

Joe Hockey and the South African conman are in the firing line.


----------



## basilio

Just read a story which offered a simple, practical and relatively painless way of* fixing the deficit in one go.*

This would be a $12 billion a year improvement to the budget...

How ? Tax compulsory superannuation payments as income (which in fact it is after all. ) There is a further twist as well but I suggest it offers much food for thought.



> *Advice for Hockey: Sting super and fix the budget in one hit*
> 
> .....What he needs instead is one really big tax hike (spending cuts won't raise enough), but one won't rip money out of wallets and purses. It needs to be easy to justify (attractive to Labor), invisible on a day-to-day basis, and simple. And it needs to raise, say, $12 billion. Per year.
> 
> Labor's own tax review has already pointed the way, but at the time Labor was too scared to take any notice.
> 
> What Hockey needs to do is to tax compulsory superannuation contributions as income, which is what they are. At the moment after the employer pays them they are taxed from the fund at 15 per cent, which is a very good deal if you are on a marginal tax of 37 per cent, quite a good deal if your rate is 19 per cent, and an appalling deal if you earn so little your tax rate is zero.
> 
> Instead of being paid by the fund the tax would be paid by the employee at the same time as all their other tax, in the same way as other tax and at the same rate as other tax. Nothing could be simpler.
> 
> The Treasury says the present tax arrangement will cost the budget $17.8 billion this financial year, $19.15 billion next financial year and $20.7 billion the following year. The figures exclude the incredibly generous concessions for the income earned within super funds, which needn't be touched. But they do include the tax concessions on extra contributions made over and above what's compulsory. To the extent that they are made merely to avoid tax they will vanish, cutting the benefit for the government to about $12 billion a year – which happens to be about what's needed.




The article goes on to show how the government could then boost super income by 25-40% by simply creating real competition amongst fund managers that would reduce their current excess commissions. (In effect taxpayers would get back what they lost in the tax change.)

I think this is a very clever and practical idea.

Thoughts ?

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...ix-the-budget-in-one-hit-20141215-1272tu.html


----------



## trainspotter

basilio said:


> Just read a story which offered a simple, practical and relatively painless way of* fixing the deficit in one go.*
> 
> This would be a $12 billion a year improvement to the budget...
> 
> How ? Tax compulsory superannuation payments as income (which in fact it is after all. ) There is a further twist as well but I suggest it offers much food for thought.
> 
> The article goes on to show how the government could then boost super income by 25-40% by simply creating real competition amongst fund managers that would reduce their current excess commissions. (In effect taxpayers would get back what they lost in the tax change.)
> 
> I think this is a very clever and practical idea.
> 
> Thoughts ?
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...ix-the-budget-in-one-hit-20141215-1272tu.html




It is already taxed at 15%. Can society afford it? Agree on the fund managers being competitive but not sure if taxing the last bastion is the answer?


----------



## sydboy007

trainspotter said:


> It is already taxed at 15%. Can society afford it? Agree on the fund managers being competitive but not sure if taxing the last bastion is the answer?




But then not taxing it means income and corporate taxes are higher than they otherwise would be.

The states keep their nasty stamp duties as well.

We could remove the $20B in GST exemptions, use some of that money to compensate the poor to limit it's effects.

Cut back on Govt handouts to the states - meanign they can afford to cut corporate and income taxes

This will encourage the states to bring in land taxes to pay for the services they're responsible for.

Helps to resolve the blame game of the states crying poor that the feds ain't helping them enough.  Overcomes the fisical imbalances between the feds and states taxing powers.

Just takes a Govt that is willing to be honest with the punters that there is no cost free way to get us out of the deepening budget black hole we're sinking into.  Share the pain in a fair way and the public is likely to support you.  If the next budget is as unfair as the current one then we can only expect the voters to jack up even more, the senate will be emboldened to block as much as it can, and we can prob say good by to the AAA credit rating, the 2 notches of credit rating increased the banks get from this, and higher interest rates all round.

Hockey's already admitted he can't bring himself to do this, so the question is does the Coalition have anyone competent enough to pull it off?  Blaming Labor is wearing thin now.  Trying to blame Labor for their forecast a couple of years ago is pretty pathetic, especially when the current Govt's efforts have been just as off the mark.


----------



## sydboy007

wonder how the Government is going to spin this.

How is the Govt spending the same as what Labor was during the GFC, and most on this forum label as waste and mismanagement?

Seems the Government is spending like the Howard years, only they don't have the revenue to cover up the mismanagement.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-16/koukoulas-myefo-warning-fails-to-curb-spending-spree/5969364



> Having been in control of the budget for 15 months, the MYEFO reveals that the Abbott Government has boosted *government spending to stunningly high 25.9 per cent of GDP in 2014-15*.
> 
> *Quite extraordinarily, this is just 0.1 per cent of GDP below the 2009-10 level of government spending that incorporated the massive fiscal stimulus measures from the Rudd government*, which were implemented to counter the global financial crisis.
> 
> *What is also extraordinary is that the forward estimates for the budget out to 2017-18 confirm government spending remaining above 25 per cent of GDP in each and every year. To put this spending spree in context, in Labor's last three full budgets, government spending was under 25 per cent of GDP in each year.*
> 
> The massive boost to spending from the Abbott Government revolves around some high profile signature policies, in particular spending on the paid parental leave scheme, defence, roads, direct action on climate change, border protection and Australia's military involvement in the Middle East. A weak economy has added to spending growth.
> 
> On the tax and revenue side, Mr Hockey's MYEFO is projecting a surge of money into the Treasury coffers. From a recent low of 19.9 per cent of GDP in 2010-11, the level of tax will have risen to 22.0 per cent in 2014-15 and is forecast to rise to 23.1 per cent in 2017-18. This is back to the long-run historical average and suggests that the failure to move the budget back to surplus is a spending issue, not so much of a revenue shortage.
> 
> The failure to return the budget to surplus is squarely the result of the Abbott Government spending on its pet projects.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> wonder how the Government is going to spin this.
> 
> How is the Govt spending the same as what Labor was during the GFC, and most on this forum label as waste and mismanagement?
> 
> Seems the Government is spending like the Howard years, only they don't have the revenue to cover up the mismanagement.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-16/koukoulas-myefo-warning-fails-to-curb-spending-spree/5969364




If you actually read other people's posts you may find this has already been raised at #5264.


----------



## Tisme

basilio said:


> Just read a story which offered a simple, practical and relatively painless way of* fixing the deficit in one go.*
> 
> This would be a $12 billion a year improvement to the budget...
> 
> How ? Tax compulsory superannuation payments as income (which in fact it is after all. ) There is a further twist as well but I suggest it offers much food for thought.




I have a better soln = bring super for public servants back into line with the private sector. The benefits, topups, flex times, stupid positions should be cleaved and the risk taking private sector put back at the top of earning capacity ladder. The public service used to be about jobs for life traded off against modest, but secured wages.


----------



## Tisme

Just keeping the promises fresh:

http://www.electionleaflets.org.au/full.php?q=1835#l3803


----------



## sptrawler

Well tisme, going on you're post, they aren't doing too bad.

From Syd's post:

The massive boost to spending from the Abbott Government revolves around some high profile signature policies, in particular spending on the paid parental leave scheme, defence*, roads,* direct action on climate change, *border protection* and Australia's military involvement in the Middle East. A weak economy has added to spending growth.

So out of your list, they pretty well tick the boxes.


----------



## SirRumpole

The true face of the LNP double standards and hypocrisy is revealed.

Just another vote grabbing grandstanding promise backed down on.


Hockey backflips on tax laws to target multinational profit shifters




> Labor: MYEFO contains broken promise
> 
> Joe Hockey is 'all mouth and no trousers' when it comes to chasing down multinational tax avoidance, alleges Shadow Assistant Treasurer Andrew Leigh.
> 
> 
> Treasurer Joe Hockey has broken a pledge to impose tough new tax avoidance rules on multinational companies that shift billions of dollars in profits between Australia and their international subsidiaries.
> 
> The practice of global corporations loading up subsidiaries with debt and then claiming relief from the Australian tax man on the interest paid gives an "unfair competitive advantage" over local rivals, Treasury said in 2013.
> 
> "When some taxpayers avoid or minimise their tax in a sustained way, the tax burden eventually falls more heavily on other taxpayers," a Treasury issues paper found at the time.
> 
> The Gillard government announced the abolition of deductions under section 25-90 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 as part of a package to combat tax minimisation by global corporations, at a projected benefit to the taxpayer of $600 million.
> 
> 
> In November last year, Mr Hockey and the then Assistant Treasurer, Arthur Sinodinos, announced they would not legislate Labor's package, saying it would impose "unreasonable compliance costs on Australian companies" with subsidiaries offshore.
> 
> The current loophole favours the largest companies operating in Australia. Mining industry sources suggested they include Swiss-based Glencore and Anglo American.
> 
> Instead, Mr Hockey – who has trumpeted a global tax crackdown on multinationals through the G20 process – and Mr Sinodinos pledged in November to "introduce a targeted anti‑avoidance provision after detailed consultation with stakeholders".
> 
> But in Monday's Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, a single line on page 117 revealed: "The government will not proceed with a targeted anti-avoidance provision to address certain conduit arrangements involving foreign multinational enterprises, first announced in the 2013-14 MYEFO."
> 
> While companies like IKEA and Apple have been in the news for "offshoring" billions of dollars made in Australia, tax experts told Fairfax Media it was Australia-based global players that will benefit the most from the government's backdown.
> 
> Companies with significant operations overseas get a "double bonus" under the existing law, introduced by the Howard government in 2001, because dividends from their international subsidiaries are tax exempt yet the interest on borrowings used to grow overseas operations is tax deductible.
> 
> One of the loudest opponents of the plan to abolish deductions was major Liberal Party donor Paul Ramsay, now deceased, who complained it would make it more expensive for his company Ramsay Health Care to use debt to invest in Europe.
> 
> On Tuesday, shadow assistant treasurer Andrew Leigh accused Mr Hockey of "sneaking in another giveaway for multinational companies" despite presiding over a near doubling of the deficit in 2014/15.
> 
> "Yet again the Treasurer has shown that he is happy to let big companies off the hook while hacking into foreign aid, schools, hospitals and pensions," Mr Leigh said.
> 
> Mr Hockey's office referred questions to Finance Minister Mathias Cormann, who took on Mr Sinodinos' portfolio after he stood aside pending upcoming findings by the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption.
> 
> In a statement, Mr Cormann insisted "No promise was broken" by the announcement in MYEFO on Monday
> 
> "Following consultation with stakeholders and the Australian Taxation Office, it became very clear that a targeted anti-avoidance provision would be ineffective," he said.
> 
> "It is important to remember that the proposed changes to section 25‑90 were never advocated in isolation, but were part of a broader package to address profit shifting by excessive allocation of debt to the Australian operations of multinationals.
> 
> "The government has implemented key elements of this package, including tightening the thin capitalisation safe harbour limits and ensuring the foreign non-portfolio dividend exemption for Australian companies only applies to returns on equity.
> 
> "As a result of these changes, all debt used to fund Australian operations, including debt used to fund offshore investments which give rise to 25-90 deductions, is now subject to the binding constraint of the thin capitalisation rules, which provide protection against abuse of section 25‑90 deductions."
> 
> John Passant, an outspoken tax expert from the Australian National University, recently wrote about the government's decision not to abolish section 25-90 deductions.
> 
> "It is unfortunate in the extreme that the Treasurer and Treasury have listened to a group of rent seekers being unjustly rewarded by not repealing section 25-90. But since this is a government of the 1% that is not surprising and we can conclude in fact that Hockey's bluster about addressing tax avoidance by his rich mates is just that – complete and utter bluster," he wrote.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...national-profit-shifters-20141216-128ebg.html


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> Well tisme, going on you're post, they aren't doing too bad.




Yes I was thinking the same thing. Not sure the recipe is the right one in hindsight


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> The true face of the LNP double standards and hypocrisy is revealed.
> 
> Just another vote grabbing grandstanding promise backed down on.
> 
> 
> "As a result of these changes, all debt used to fund Australian operations, including debt used to fund offshore investments which give rise to 25-90 deductions, is now subject to the binding constraint of the thin capitalisation rules, which provide protection against abuse of section 25‑90 deductions"Mr Cormann





A Plutocrat with a mouthful of meta words, but no substance.

I'm guessing Newscorp enjoys some taxation minimisation.


----------



## SirRumpole

http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h-.../12/11/1418265330535/firstdog-stuffup-800.jpg


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> A Plutocrat with a mouthful of meta words, but no substance.
> 
> I'm guessing Newscorp enjoys some taxation minimisation.




No doubt the GST will have to rise to compensate for this gift to their mates.


----------



## Logique

SirRumpole said:


> The true face of the LNP double standards and hypocrisy is revealed.
> Just another vote grabbing grandstanding promise backed down on.
> Hockey backflips on tax laws to target multinational profit shifters



Apalling inequity.



> ..dividends from their international subsidiaries are tax exempt yet the interest on borrowings used to grow overseas operations is tax deductible..
> 
> .."Following consultation with stakeholders and the Australian Taxation Office, it became very clear that a targeted anti-avoidance provision would be ineffective," he said.




So taxpayers will continue to subsidize companies to invest offshore. Why?

'Consultation with stakeholders'..really? Which ones were those. 

GST - a White Paper is coming in the new year.


----------



## sydboy007

Logique said:


> Apalling inequity.
> 
> 
> 
> So taxpayers will continue to subsidize companies to invest offshore. Why?
> 
> 'Consultation with stakeholders'..really? Which ones were those.
> 
> GST - a White Paper is coming in the new year.




It would be the kind of transparency the Govt promised while in opposition if they provided information on:

* Which stake holders
* What information was provided
* What modelling / testing of the information the Govt performed.

Throw in the fact the ATO is now looking at letting the big 4 accounting firms to propose the tax efficient offshoring of profits, but also give a tick of approval with limited supervision from the ATO - under this External Compliance Assurance Program (ECAP), the tax affairs of multinationals will now be policed by their own auditors, the very firms who tee up their tax haven arrangements.  This is likely because of Labor and the Coalition gutting 1 in 5 staff from the ATO over the last few years.


----------



## sydboy007

some interesting alternatives to the Government's poorly targeted changes to university funding

http://theconversation.com/what-if-pynes-uni-plan-fails-again-some-sensible-alternatives-35364



> Cap funded university places
> 
> Replacing the cap on funded places would restore certainty to the higher education budget. The government could continue to support an expansion of the university sector through a steady low rate of annual growth. Capping places would also free up resources for other policy priorities, such as addressing skills shortages or increasing educational participation in regional areas.





> Maintain course funding at 2014 levels
> 
> Education Minister Christopher Pyne’s fee deregulation proposal will lead to students paying more for their degrees. In 2005, when the Howard government allowed universities to vary student fees by up to 25%, every university charged the top rate within two years. A similar measure in England and Wales in 2012 led to student fee increases of 300%.






> Equalise government subsidy rates
> 
> Undergraduate university places are funded by a government subsidy plus a student contribution. In total, government subsidies for student places cost around $5 billion per year, but the value of the subsidy to each student varies by type of course. As shown in the 2014 Funding Table, the government subsidy covers only 16% of the cost of a course in law, accounting, commerce, economics or administration compared to 71% of the cost of a course in agriculture.
> 
> The National Commission of Audit recommended that the government subsidy should be 45% and the student contribution 55% of total course costs. Depending on what rate is chosen, pegging government subsidies to a uniform percentage rate in all courses could deliver substantial budget savings.


----------



## Tisme

sydboy007 said:


> some interesting alternatives to the Government's poorly targeted changes to university funding
> 
> http://theconversation.com/what-if-pynes-uni-plan-fails-again-some-sensible-alternatives-35364




No4: Audit the Facilities Management divisions for over engineering, cronyism, preferred contracting, empire building, defamation and boys clubs. That will save heaps of monies .... our monies.


----------



## sydboy007

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/39889...-quantify-metadata-use-in-investigations.aspx



> Australia's police forces say they are unable to actually quantify how helpful metadata is to criminal investigations and convictions, despite today repeating their argument for a two-year period of mandatory data retention by telco providers.




with 6 months to prepare you'd think they'd have been able to provide a bit more information



> But despite asserting that the failure of the bill would throw law enforcement ‘into the dark ages’, the majority of Australia’s police agencies said they couldn't quantify how helpful metadata had been in operations and convictions.




Pretty woeful preparation.  Surely if it's that important they would have been able to show some pretty siginficant stats to back up their claims.



> “But when telecommunications users and taxpayers are liable for the cost of ‘everything’, some discipline should be applied to the scope and volume of agency requests, to increase the likelihood that the national cost incurred is reasonably proportionate to the additional national security garnered.”




The Govt did try to do a bodgey cost calculation by hiring PwC twice and got the response "PwC consulted selected telecommunications industry participants regarding their current data retention practices, as well as their estimated costs of compliance with the proposed obligations. Notwithstanding consultation on the draft data set, consulted providers observed that they did not consider they could provide accurate costings without draft legislation articulating and evidencing the data retention obligations."

Well that was money well spent eh.  I wonder what it costs to get such a non answer?



> It also recommended the Government reverse its decision to include the proposed dataset in supporting regulations rather than the main legislation, in order to “guard against unforeseen future scope-creep through the broadening of the types of data required to be created and/or retained”.




So the senate is being asked to vote on legislation where the cost of implementation is unknown, the benefits for police and security agencies so far unknown, and where the minister of the day can change the scope of the legislation with a simple regulations change.

Seems no napkin was required in getting the Coalition to this point.


----------



## sydboy007

Gives an idea of how the budget got to be the mess it is, and the herculean task of getting it balanced

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2014/12/gerard-minack-on-why-in-2015-australia-runs-out-of-luck/

note that in over a decade it was only Labor budgets that improved the structure of the budget.







> Through the 2000s new policy measures costing 1%-plus of GDP were introduced each year, but were more than offset by economic revisions. The result was a run of headline budget surpluses, despite significant discretionary loosening of fiscal policy. Note that these numbers capture only the impact on the current year budget. Many of the new policy measures had a long-tail: the costs – either in terms of revenue foregone or committed spending – increase over time. The mis-match between a front-end loaded revenue boom and back-end loaded spending measures and tax cuts is now apparent.
> 
> The magic pudding is gone. Economic revisions are now worsening the forecast budget balance by around 1 ½% of GDP per year, matching the size of the beneficial revisions in the prior cycle. The cumulative downgrades are less than the aggregate upgrades that went before, suggesting more downgrades to come.
> 
> Real GDP did not measure the boom. GDP averaged around 3 ½% through the last cycle, lower than in the 1990s cycle. Just as real GDP did not capture the boom, real GDP will not capture the bust.
> 
> The measures that did capture the boom were national income (which adjusts GDP for the impact on real income of terms of trade changes) or real domestic demand. Exhibit 4 shows that real domestic demand persistently grew 1-2% faster than real GDP through the last cycle. The important forward looking point is that as the boom recedes, domestic demand will run persistently below GDP for an extended period.


----------



## sydboy007

for those who'd like to take a step around the proposed metadata laws, the below offer might appeal

PIA are offering 20% off their usual yearly rate - works out around $40 AUD

They've just added an Aussie server, as well as Japan, along with the usual USA Canada UK etc.  HULU seems to have started blocking their US based server IPs, but netflix still works.

With the addition of an Aussie server it means you can pretty much have all your internet traffic encrypted with no speed impact.  Not sure if they'll have to shut the server down if the metadata laws get through the senate.

I've been with PIA for a couple of years now and find them reliable with good tech support.  Definitely something you should have if you use free wifi when out and about.  They have desktop and mobile clients to make it pretty easy.

https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/holidays/affiliate


----------



## noco

Dole bludgers beware....Morrison stopped the boats and now he will stop the dole bludgers.

Get off your back sides and do some work for a change and if you can't work get educated....No excuses.

No doubt the Green/Labor left wing socialist party will have plenty to say...I am waiting for the blast....BRRRRUUMB. 

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...top-the-bludgers/story-fnii5s41-1227163795658


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Dole bludgers beware....Morrison stopped the boats and now he will stop the dole bludgers.
> 
> Get off your back sides and do some work for a change and if you can't work get educated....No excuses.
> 
> No doubt the Green/Labor left wing socialist party will have plenty to say...I am waiting for the blast....BRRRRUUMB.




Yes, with 6-7 unemployed people for every job vacancy it's only laziness that sees them unemployed.

So ship them off to wonky courses, or force them into debt servitude via HECS now that the Govt is allowing so many more courses to benefit from Govt loans.  Heck, they could probably becoming church ministers under the new funding initiatives by the Govt.  Maybe they'll be forced to work in the green army??

Why demonise the unemployed when the majority of them want to work?  The economy is slowing, the ToT is still relatively high and has further to fall, the income recession is slowly filtering through the economy with more to come, and the Federal and State Govts are withdrawing demand from the economy at a time when the private sector is withdrawing too.

15 years of economic mismanagement is now coming home to roost.  We come through the largest resource boom in history with a structural deficit for the budget, $700B infrastructure deficit, hollowed out manufacturing sector, over investment in I/O and LNG to suppress prices for a decade or more, some of the highest mortgage debt in the world, land prices leading to a near complete lack of competitiveness, and the Govt is telling woman they should be thankful for the $550 cheque in the mail due to the removal of the carbon tax, oh and we've been promised 2015 will be a much better year for all Australians, though how rising unemployment, further falls in real incomes and the loss of purchasing power through the AUD falling can be spun into a positive is beyond me.


----------



## pixel

noco said:


> Dole bludgers beware....Morrison stopped the boats and now he will stop the dole bludgers.
> 
> Get off your back sides and do some work for a change and if you can't work get educated....No excuses.
> 
> No doubt the Green/Labor left wing socialist party will have plenty to say...I am waiting for the blast....BRRRRUUMB.
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...top-the-bludgers/story-fnii5s41-1227163795658




That's all very well in theory, noco;

but where are the jobs? Since 1996, possibly even earlier, the entire Australian manufacturing industry has been killed by successive governments of all persuasion. Liberal supporters may blame it on the unions and fair wage demands, but facts remain that the distribution of disposable income has become increasingly lop-sided.

If Howard hadn't squandered Billions on upper middle-class welfare/ bribes, if he hadn't sold off the farm - Telstra, Qantas, Commbank, ... - to secure the Future of ex-pollies' perks, even Labor would've found it hard to create a deficit that you accuse them of.


----------



## sptrawler

pixel said:


> That's all very well in theory, noco;
> 
> but where are the jobs? Since 1996, possibly even earlier, the entire Australian manufacturing industry has been killed by successive governments of all persuasion. Liberal supporters may blame it on the unions and fair wage demands, but facts remain that the distribution of disposable income has become increasingly lop-sided.
> 
> If Howard hadn't squandered Billions on upper middle-class welfare/ bribes, if he hadn't sold off the farm - Telstra, Qantas, Commbank, ... - to secure the Future of ex-pollies' perks, even Labor would've found it hard to create a deficit that you accuse them of.




Agree in principal, pixel, one small correction.
I think you will find Labor sold off the Commonwealth Bank, just to keep it balanced.
We can't blame Howard and Abbott for everything, can we?
Also, don't Labor ex pollies get perks? I thought the 30% payrise a couple of years ago, secured a pretty good pension for all those that 'jumped ship'.


----------



## noco

pixel said:


> That's all very well in theory, noco;
> 
> but where are the jobs? Since 1996, possibly even earlier, the entire Australian manufacturing industry has been killed by successive governments of all persuasion. Liberal supporters may blame it on the unions and fair wage demands, but facts remain that the distribution of disposable income has become increasingly lop-sided.
> 
> If Howard hadn't squandered Billions on upper middle-class welfare/ bribes, if he hadn't sold off the farm - Telstra, Qantas, Commbank, ... - to secure the Future of ex-pollies' perks, even Labor would've found it hard to create a deficit that you accuse them of.




The Australian manufacturing industry was killed off by the communist dominated unions in the 50's,60's and 70's and we have been seeing this decline in the past two decades., so don't blame the Liberal Government...Fair wage demands, you mean excessive wage demands, increase in annual leave from 2 weeks to 4 weeks, 17.5% leave loading, long service leave, penalty rates, 38 hour weeks and you don't believe it all adds on to the cost of manufacturing....No wonder companies have gone off shore to stay competitive.

The Common Wealth Bank was sold off by Labor...Not sure who sold off Qantas....Beattie and Bligh sold the Golden Casket in Queensland for a measly $599,000,000......the Golden Casket paid for  all of Queensland's health system.

The billions you refer to that was squandered by Howard.......do you have a link with some details to back up your statement?

Now you say where are the jobs?.....Do some research and you will note there is 200,000 plus jobs being taken up by 457 visas......jobs the unions say should be filled by Australians....Some skilled jobs that no city dweller wants and is not prepared to go to some remote places.....Dole bludgers  who could be trained into those  skilled jobs instead of bringing in overseas people.

There is also plenty of work available for those energetic enough to mow lawns and gardening to earn an honest dollar or two.

There are agencies always looking for distributors like Home Care who distribute catalogs to homes and collect orders and paid on a commission..We get the Home Care Catalog delivered every 8 weeks and their products are of good value and on a 12 months unconditional warranty.....I believe Home Care also work on a points bonus system for those who are prepared to put in the effort....It is great exercise and I believe one can work his/her own hours...there is no outlay to get started...you use your own car and phone....Home Care have a moderate delivery charge to cover those expenses.

The increase in real wages were the lowest under the Hawke/Keating Government...remember Hawke got the unions to agree to a pay freeze to avoid the recession we had to have..Can you imagine the corrupt unions agreeing to a pay freeze under a Liberal Government.....the Abbott Government reduced the pay increase to the ADF and public servants to a limit of 1.5% and certain people are screaming from the roof tops....never heard them complaining about the wage freeze under the Hawke/Keating Government.

So there is plenty of ways to make an honest living instead of relying upon the Government to find it for them.


----------



## banco

I continue to be surprised by how bad Abbott's poliitical instincts often are.  He always seems to know the wrong thing to say:

_Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has been forced to defend the Prime Minister's views on women after Tony Abbott nominated repealing the carbon tax as his biggest contribution for women in 2014.

Mr Abbott was asked on breakfast television on Monday morning to nominate his biggest achievement as Minister for Women.

He replied: "Well, you know, it is very important to do the right thing by families and households. As many of us know, women are particularly focused on the household budget and the repeal of the carbon tax means a $550 a year benefit for the average family".



In opposition, Mr Abbott spruiked his anti-carbon tax campaign by claiming the "housewives of Australia" would benefit from a repeal because it would lower electricity costs associated with ironing._


----------



## noco

banco said:


> I continue to be surprised by how bad Abbott's poliitical instincts often are.  He always seems to know the wrong thing to say:
> 
> _Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has been forced to defend the Prime Minister's views on women after Tony Abbott nominated repealing the carbon tax as his biggest contribution for women in 2014.
> 
> Mr Abbott was asked on breakfast television on Monday morning to nominate his biggest achievement as Minister for Women.
> 
> He replied: "Well, you know, it is very important to do the right thing by families and households. As many of us know, women are particularly focused on the household budget and the repeal of the carbon tax means a $550 a year benefit for the average family".
> 
> 
> 
> In opposition, Mr Abbott spruiked his anti-carbon tax campaign by claiming the "housewives of Australia" would benefit from a repeal because it would lower electricity costs associated with ironing._




Your left wing socialist just love to NIT PICK on such trivial things....Nothing better to do  I guess but try to discredit the Prime Minister.

Never heard you NIT PICK on Shorten when he said," I don't know what Gillard said but what ever she said, I agree with her".


----------



## overhang

noco said:


> The Australian manufacturing industry was killed off by the communist dominated unions in the 50's,60's and 70's and we have been seeing this decline in the past two decades., so don't blame the Liberal Government...Fair wage demands, you mean excessive wage demands, increase in annual leave from 2 weeks to 4 weeks, 17.5% leave loading, long service leave, penalty rates, 38 hour weeks and you don't believe it all adds on to the cost of manufacturing....No wonder companies have gone off shore to stay competitive.




So noco do you believe that all those conditions are excessive? Do you believe that we should all be working 50 weeks a year with no prospect of long service leave?  Do you believe that those that work weekends shouldn't be compensated with penalty rates for being away from family and friends for this time?  
I don't think we need all these perks (leave loading, RDO's) but I'm sure grateful the unions fought for the others, I don't live to work.


----------



## banco

noco said:


> Your left wing socialist just love to NIT PICK on such trivial things....Nothing better to do  I guess but try to discredit the Prime Minister.
> 
> Never heard you NIT PICK on Shorten when he said," I don't know what Gillard said but what ever she said, I agree with her".




Not trivial when it will be the only Tony Abbott soundbite on the news tonight.  

As for Shorten I think he's an amoral POS.


----------



## Tisme

Funny how blind faith murders fact.


----------



## ghotib

noco said:


> Your left wing socialist just love to NIT PICK on such trivial things....Nothing better to do  I guess but try to discredit the Prime Minister.
> 
> Never heard you NIT PICK on Shorten when he said," I don't know what Gillard said but what ever she said, I agree with her".



Trivial?  

If you think Abbott's repeated demonstrations of contempt for over 50% of the population are trivial, I'd hate to see what you think is serious. Abbott has shown himself to be lazy, ignorant and smug. He's utterly unfit for the job of PM. I'm ashamed that he was elected and disgusted that he hasn't been thrown out. 

Thank you, I feel better now. 

But I won't feel well until Abbott is out of parliament and blackballed from any position of influence in the affairs of the nation.


----------



## Knobby22

I notice no one has commented on the new ministry.

The number of women on it has increased by 100%! The Libs sorely needed the reshuffle and though I agree with some of the junior talent going up, I think more of the senior ministers should have gone. Hockey for one.


----------



## SirRumpole

If Morrison can clear up some of the rorts in the disability support pension, we should all be grateful for the saving of taxpayers money.

I have a feeling that this in an area where there is gross abuse, compliant medicos and systematic ethnic based scammer rings with insiders in the Department of Social Services who hand out largesse to their own groups, possibly with the aid of a few backhanders.

How many of these people who caused terrorism scares, including the latest idiot were on DSP ? 

It's a situation let run for too long. People who really need this pension are being squeezed out by the backsliders, and it needs a thorough overhaul.


----------



## Julia

Knobby22 said:


> I notice no one has commented on the new ministry.
> 
> The number of women on it has increased by 100%! The Libs sorely needed the reshuffle and though I agree with some of the junior talent going up, I think more of the senior ministers should have gone. Hockey for one.



Agree about Hockey, but to have moved him from Treasurer at this stage would be to concede total failure of the Budget and his role generally.  I'd imagine the political damage from so doing would render such a move out of the question.
You could probably make the very same remarks about Mr Abbott himself.

I cannot understand Kevin Andrews continuing to have any significant role.  Just cannot see anything useful in this person whatsoever.

Sussan Ley should do well with Health.

It will be interesting to see what Scott Morrison does in this new enlarged "Social Services" p/f.  If he applies the same zeal as he did in border protection there will be plenty of feathers flying.


----------



## Knobby22

Julia said:


> Agree about Hockey, but to have moved him from Treasurer at this stage would be to concede total failure of the Budget and his role generally.  I'd imagine the political damage from so doing would render such a move out of the question.
> You could probably make the very same remarks about Mr Abbott himself.
> 
> I cannot understand Kevin Andrews continuing to have any significant role.  Just cannot see anything useful in this person whatsoever.
> 
> Sussan Ley should do well with Health.
> 
> It will be interesting to see what Scott Morrison does in this new enlarged "Social Services" p/f.  If he applies the same zeal as he did in border protection there will be plenty of feathers flying.




Agree 100%. We all knew Hockey was safe...for now.

I have heard Josh Frydenburg speak and he is an intelligent guy.
Simon Birmingham got moved sideways but he is a real future leader imo with a better understanding of the public than many.

Kevin Andrews has been around for ever and never been much chop. Don't know why he does so well.

I don't know much about Sussan Ley so its good to hear your opinion.


----------



## Macquack

Knobby22 said:


> Agree 100%. We all knew Hockey was safe...for now.




Abbott needs Hockey, because Hockey makes Abbott look good.

I say Abbott on the Sunrise program on Channel 7 this morning, his performance would not have him elected to the role of a school captain.

He fails dismally to articulate anything.

I don't have a problem with that, unless he does not deliver in a tangible fashion.


----------



## sptrawler

Macquack said:


> Abbott needs Hockey, because Hockey makes Abbott look good.
> 
> I say Abbott on the Sunrise program on Channel 7 this morning, his performance would not have him elected to the role of a school captain.
> 
> He fails dismally to articulate anything.
> 
> I don't have a problem with that, unless he does not deliver in a tangible fashion.




If you re read your post, you seem to be suffering, from the same affliction. Therefore your judgement is questionable.


----------



## Julia

ghotib said:


> Abbott has shown himself to be lazy, ignorant and smug. He's utterly unfit for the job of PM. I'm ashamed that he was elected and disgusted that he hasn't been thrown out.
> 
> Thank you, I feel better now.
> 
> But I won't feel well until Abbott is out of parliament and blackballed from any position of influence in the affairs of the nation.



I could repeat your exact post, just substituting the names of Rudd/Gillard/Rudd.  Thank god they are gone.

At least the current government is not similarly disposed to come up with all sorts of pie in the sky feel good schemes with no idea of how to pay for them.

I know it will never happen, but I would like to see a new rule introduced whereby any government or opposition proposing a scheme for the future is obliged to accompany that warm, fuzzy idea with full costings and a detailed explanation of where the funds will be coming from.


----------



## sptrawler

Julia said:


> I know it will never happen, but I would like to see a new rule introduced whereby any government or opposition proposing a scheme for the future is obliged to accompany that warm, fuzzy idea with full costings and a detailed explanation of where the funds will be coming from.




Unfortunately, most of the last Government that can be held responsible, jumped ship.

All we have left is the knife merchants and the sisters. IMO

But who cares, they're still good, Whooa, hi five


----------



## Caveman

noco said:


> The billions you refer to that was squandered by Howard.......do you have a link with some details to back up your statement?



https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2014/12/20/how-john-howards-tax-cuts-undid-his-protege-tony-abbott/14189940001389#.VJd6y_8Ms4


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> If you re read your post, you seem to be suffering, from the same affliction. Therefore your judgement is questionable.




+1....I will drink to that.


----------



## noco

Julia said:


> I could repeat your exact post, just substituting the names of Rudd/Gillard/Rudd.  Thank god they are gone.
> 
> At least the current government is not similarly disposed to come up with all sorts of pie in the sky feel good schemes with no idea of how to pay for them.
> 
> I know it will never happen, but I would like to see a new rule introduced whereby any government or opposition proposing a scheme for the future is obliged to accompany that warm, fuzzy idea with full costings and a detailed explanation of where the funds will be coming from.




Labor spent the mining tax funds they never received.


----------



## ghotib

Julia said:


> I could repeat your exact post, just substituting the names of Rudd/Gillard/Rudd.  Thank god they are gone.
> 
> At least the current government is not similarly disposed to come up with all sorts of pie in the sky feel good schemes with no idea of how to pay for them.



They had their own faults and you're certainly not alone in being glad to see them gone, but you can't reasonably accuse either of them of mental laziness. I think that Abbott's laziness, even more than his rampant sexism, is what makes him utterly unfit for the job of PM. His rampant sexism is just one symptom of his underlying refusal to acknowledge a new idea, but it happens to be the one that's the last straw for me.

Interesting to see that Fairfax business reporter Adele Ferguson has a column tonight about Abbott's claimed achievement for women. I've never seen a personal opinion piece like it from her; it's tempting to think this was a last straw moment for her too. 



> I know it will never happen, but I would like to see a new rule introduced whereby any government or opposition proposing a scheme for the future is obliged to accompany that warm, fuzzy idea with full costings and a detailed explanation of where the funds will be coming from.



As you say, it'll never happen, but maybe it's not quite tackling the right issue anyway. What about acknowledging that all budgets get changed, and forcing the pollies to say which schemes, actual and proposed, they would drop first if there was less money available than they expected. That would give voters a better chance of holding them accountable, and make it harder for them to befuddle everyone with bs numbers.  Maybe?


----------



## SirRumpole

> At least the current government is not similarly disposed to come up with all sorts of pie in the sky feel good schemes with no idea of how to pay for them.





Like Abbott's PPL ?

West Connex ? The Victorian vote showed that the road was not the great deal for Melbourne that Abbott was saying it was.


----------



## Logique

sydboy007 said:


> for those who'd like to take a step around the proposed metadata laws, the below offer might appeal
> 
> PIA are offering 20% off their usual yearly rate - works out around $40 AUD
> 
> They've just added an Aussie server, as well as Japan, along with the usual USA Canada UK etc.  HULU seems to have started blocking their US based server IPs, but netflix still works.
> 
> With the addition of an Aussie server it means you can pretty much have all your internet traffic encrypted with no speed impact.  Not sure if they'll have to shut the server down if the metadata laws get through the senate.
> 
> I've been with PIA for a couple of years now and find them reliable with good tech support.  Definitely something you should have if you use free wifi when out and about.  They have desktop and mobile clients to make it pretty easy.
> 
> https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/holidays/affiliate



Interesting, I'll have a look at that. Speed impact is the thing you always seem to run into with VPN.


----------



## Logique

SirRumpole said:


> If Morrison can clear up some of the rorts in the disability support pension, we should all be grateful for the saving of taxpayers money.
> 
> I have a feeling that this in an area where there is gross abuse, compliant medicos and systematic ethnic based scammer rings with insiders in the Department of Social Services who hand out largesse to their own groups, possibly with the aid of a few backhanders.
> 
> How many of these people who caused terrorism scares, including the latest idiot were on DSP ?
> 
> It's a situation let run for too long. People who really need this pension are being squeezed out by the backsliders, and it needs a thorough overhaul.



Very well said. A thorough review of the DSP is long overdue, and Morrison is the man for the job. 

Jacquie Lambie has transitioned from the DSP to a Senate seat, so it can be done!

On the Ministerial reshuffle, the one we should be concerned about is Peter Dutton (Mr Co-payment $7) to Immigration.


----------



## Tink

The east west link is still being debated here in Vic, Rumpole.

Agree about Morrison too.


----------



## banco

Tink said:


> The east west link is still being debated here in Vic, Rumpole.
> 
> Agree about Morrison too.




Debated by who? The documents released prove that it was a complete turkey.


----------



## noco

Morrison is on a tight budget and may ruffle a few feathers on the way.

I hear on the bush telegraph he is thinking of sending the dole bludgers to Manus Island to pick coconuts.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...164753404?sv=a595f971b5f687ff85073a3b23a7842c


----------



## Julia

ghotib said:


> His rampant sexism is just one symptom of his underlying refusal to acknowledge a new idea, but it happens to be the one that's the last straw for me.



Ah yes, that rampant sexism that sees him with a female chief of staff.
His wife and daughters don't appear to be cowed by his so called sexism.   
Yes, he has made some idiotic remarks about ironing etc., but I'd attribute that more to his generally old fashioned mind-set rather than any genuine disrespect toward women.

And Ms Ferguson's political affiliations are well known so anything she writes would be predictable.



> As you say, it'll never happen, but maybe it's not quite tackling the right issue anyway. What about acknowledging that all budgets get changed, and forcing the pollies to say which schemes, actual and proposed, they would drop first if there was less money available than they expected. That would give voters a better chance of holding them accountable, and make it harder for them to befuddle everyone with bs numbers.  Maybe?



Like many ideas it sounds OK in principle but can you really actually imagine it happening?  The journalists would make mincemeat out of them on it.

Just don't make commitments (especially completely unnecessary ones when you have the election in the bag anyway) that you cannot keep.  Just change the language to something "our priority will be to....." etc.



SirRumpole said:


> Like Abbott's PPL ?



For about the thousandth time, Rumpole:
1.  no one here has supported this so it's pretty pointless your continuing to raise it
2.  even in its awfulness, it's paid for by a tax on big business, not the taxpayer.

Can't comment on Victorian issues - know nothing about them.


----------



## basilio

Well Morrison the sociopathic toe cutter is now in charge of Social Security.  His contribution to the asylum seeker boat refugees was reclassifying them as "illegals" and then making it absolutely clear that being an asylum seeker in Australia was going to be so horrible they may as well top themselves at home.

On that sort of performance I wouldn't want to be on Social Security benefits under Morrisons TLC.  They may as well start getting their affairs in order because the New Year will certainly bring a new broom and a rubbish bin for a home.

____________________________________________________________

I wonder if the Australian community will come to the defence of their fellow citizens or will they swallow whatever lying tatt is used in defense of making it impossible to live on Social Security benefits.


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> For about the thousandth time, Rumpole:
> 1.  no one here has supported this so it's pretty pointless your continuing to raise it
> 2.  even in its awfulness, it's paid for by a tax on big business, not the taxpayer.
> 
> Can't comment on Victorian issues - know nothing about them.




The same Govt that is Ok txing the large companies for an overly generous PPL is now siding with those same companies to try and cut back on the shift penalties for those working weekends, public holidays and unsavoury late hours and over night.

So if it's businesses paying for the PPL, then why not just jack up corporate taxes and make them pay for more?  Th e original form of the PPL was going to require over $2.2B from general revenue to top up the 1.5% corporate levy ie it was still goign to cost tax payer directly more than Labor's PPL.  At the end of the day the 1.5% levy will be paid for by either the company employees via reduce pay rises or job losses, and the company's customers depending on how much of the cost can be passed on, so in the end we all pay for it, just not as directly as via taxes.

To put the PPL fiasco into perspective:

Think of it: an effective childcare system - one where there are spaces to meet demand, costs don’t rival a parents’ rent or mortgage payments and employs an educated industry earning a livable wage. Think of all those wages going into the economy from both parents and the industry.

You’d probably be thinking of the Early Years Quality Fund that the Abbot government axed last year.

Cost of the Early Years Quality Fund? $300 million.

Cost of the paid parental leave scheme? $5.5 billion.

It was quite a modest price in comparison to the Liberals’ planned splurge. Instead of the paid parental leave scheme’s proposed $5.5 billion cost, it’s easily possible to reinstate the Early Years Quality Fund and there’s even enough left to pay $1.2 billion for a planned pay increase for aged care workers (also scrapped by the Abbott government), plus $1.8 billion to save 3000 jobs under the endangered Medicare Locals scheme.


----------



## sydboy007

basilio said:


> Well Morrison the sociopathic toe cutter is now in charge of Social Security.  His contribution to the asylum seeker boat refugees was reclassifying them as "illegals" and then making it absolutely clear that being an asylum seeker in Australia was going to be so horrible they may as well top themselves at home.
> 
> On that sort of performance I wouldn't want to be on Social Security benefits under Morrisons TLC.  They may as well start getting their affairs in order because the New Year will certainly bring a new broom and a rubbish bin for a home.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 
> I wonder if the Australian community will come to the defence of their fellow citizens or will they swallow whatever lying tatt is used in defense of making it impossible to live on Social Security benefits.




My hope is that the push back from the relatively unfair budget means any effort to demonise the poor and unemployed wont get public support.  With rising unemployment and more people feeling insecure with their employment, a lot more voters will be thinking about what any proposed changes could mean for them.





Of the $90.0 billion in cash payments, $36.3 billion was for older people and $25.5 billion was for families and children. 

Seems the focus on that tiny green bar at the top for unemployment benefits is a wee bit wasted.  For the same level of effort and voter angst you could tackle some of the tax expenditure rorts around super / negative gearing / capital gains tax / abuse of trusts.  The Govt has just backed down from doing anything about multinationals siphoning profits out of Australia.

The Abbott Government.  Strong against the weak.  Weak against the strong.

Anyone who thinks living on $35 a day is the high life should try it.


----------



## Julia

sydboy007 said:


> The same Govt that is Ok txing the large companies for an overly generous PPL is now siding with those same companies to try and cut back on the shift penalties for those working weekends, public holidays and unsavoury late hours and over night.



etc etc, Syd.
We've been all through this many times before.  I don't know who you're trying to convince.  No one here has ever offered any support for Mr Abbott's PPL.
For that matter I don't support any PPL.  If people want to have babies then they can pay for them themselves.
And double that sentiment when it comes to same sex couples being funded by the taxpayer for countless rounds of IVF.



sydboy007 said:


> My hope is that the push back from the relatively unfair budget means any effort to demonise the poor and unemployed wont get public support.  With rising unemployment and more people feeling insecure with their employment, a lot more voters will be thinking about what any proposed changes could mean for them.



Why don't we wait and see how Morrison handles his new portfolio.   I'm not at all sure the general public will take the view you suggest above.  Perhaps more along the lines of Rumpole's suggestion about some of the people on the DSP.

I don't think any reasonable person would agree that $35 per day is enough to live on.  But I'll also acknowledge that I don't know where the line should be drawn between an incentive to find a job and an amount which is comfortable to live on long term.

I can't remember when that low dole level happened:  was it under this government or did Labor also have it at $35 p. day plus rent assistance?


----------



## Julia

ghotib said:


> They had their own faults and you're certainly not alone in being glad to see them gone, but you can't reasonably accuse either of them of mental laziness. I think that Abbott's laziness, even more than his rampant sexism, is what makes him utterly unfit for the job of PM.



ghotib, I've been pondering your use of the 'lazy':  it seems a rather unusual adjective for someone so self disciplined in terms of physical fitness etc.  Mr Abbott doesn't strike me as lazy so much as timorous.  He was confident in opposition because he knew he could just object and attack (as Labor is doing now) and his three word slogans pretty much did the job.

But he's perhaps finding it very different in government where much more is required of him.  He seems to think he has to be liked by everyone.  I wince when I listen to him being interviewed by cretins such as Alan Jones who lash him with criticism and insults while he becomes ever more pathetically defensive instead of standing up for himself.

I know a lot of people don't like Scott Morrison, but he's clear and unambiguous, never cowed by anyone, so has some authority.  Then John Howard achieved the same authority in a much more quiet way.  No one ever caused him to lose his temper or his calm self assurance.

Julie Bishop also displays a calm, assertive confidence which is probably why she's doing pretty well in the polls.

If you could expand on your use of 'lazy' I'd be interested.

As far as either Rudd or Gillard being not lazy is concerned, it might have been better if they were a little more so inclined, rather than have grand schemes such as the NDIS which now seems to be unravelling with many people having had their expectations unreasonably raised.


----------



## Macquack

sptrawler said:


> If you re read your post, you seem to be suffering, from the same affliction. Therefore your judgement is questionable.






noco said:


> +1....I will drink to that.




Sorry, I "saw" Abbott on  Sunrise, I did not "say" him on Sunrise.

I do not profess to be articulate, but I "aint" the Prime Minister of Australia.

If that is the best you can come up with, you guys are pathetic.

Sptrawler, can you "reread" you own post and correct the "re read", please.


----------



## sptrawler

Macquack said:


> Sorry, I "saw" Abbott on  Sunrise, I did not "say" him on Sunrise.
> 
> I do not profess to be articulate, but I "aint" the Prime Minister of Australia.
> 
> If that is the best you can come up with, you guys are pathetic.
> 
> Sptrawler, can you "reread" you own post and correct the "re read", please.




I guess I just thought it funny that you critique his performance, without checking your own.

Probably boils down to blind hate, which is fair enough, if you have logical reasoning to support it.

I'm still yet to see him display a nasty, agressive or anti feminist persona, you rant on about.
Maybe I would have more sympathy to your cause, if you could supply a link or some factual account to support your rants.


----------



## Macquack

sptrawler said:


> Maybe I would have more sympathy to your cause, if you could supply a link or some factual account to support your rants.




I said Abbott was inarticulate, hardly a rant???

Blind freddy knows that, you only have to watch the television if you want a factual account.


----------



## noco

Julia said:


> For about the thousandth time, Rumpole:
> 1.  no one here has supported this so it's pretty pointless your continuing to raise it
> 2.  even in its awfulness, it's paid for by a tax on big business, not the taxpayer.
> 
> Can't comment on Victorian issues - know nothing about them.




But that same PPL is OK for politicians and public servants........three Labor female politicians are about to exploit it to the fullest..

Penny Wong
Kate Ellis
Amanda Ridgeway

All pregnant and all paid for by the tax payers.


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> Probably boils down to blind hate, which is fair enough, if you have logical reasoning to support it.
> 
> .




All Fabians hate capitalism and free enterprise no matter who is the leader of the liberals....(Sorry Julia for mentioning the "F" word.)


----------



## sptrawler

Macquack said:


> I said Abbott was inarticulate, hardly a rant???
> 
> Blind freddy knows that, you only have to watch the television if you want a factual account.




My apologies, I think I confused your post with another posters.


----------



## Julia

noco said:


> But that same PPL is OK for politicians and public servants........three Labor female politicians are about to exploit it to the fullest..
> 
> Penny Wong
> Kate Ellis
> Amanda Ridgeway
> 
> All pregnant and all paid for by the tax payers.



Not OK with me, noco.  I already made clear that I don't support any taxpayer funds going to anyone to have babies.
Just crazy that the above well paid people, if what you say is right, are being subsidised by people on probably about a quarter of their incomes.


----------



## Tisme

_"Prime Minister Tony Abbott has declared the repeal of the carbon tax as his biggest contribution for women in 2014. "_
SMH referring to Abbott chat with Wilkinson on morning show 

I suspect the minister for women hasn't done anything of note for women this year.


----------



## pixel

Tisme said:


> _"Prime Minister Tony Abbott has declared the repeal of the carbon tax as his biggest contribution for women in 2014. "_
> SMH referring to Abbott chat with Wilkinson on morning show
> 
> I suspect the minister for women hasn't done anything of note for women this year.




Are you serious?
How on Earth can anthropogenic temperature increase possibly be advantageous for women?

Oh, maybe if we try thinking along Tony's atavistic stereotypes that govern gender roles:

Women don't seem to warm to his ideas. 
Women have cold feet and headaches; wasn't that one of the Bogan stereotypes in noco's recent poem too?

So, turning up the heat cures women's cold feet and maybe makes them warm to him? 

*That guy is a disgrace!*


----------



## sptrawler

Tisme said:


> _"Prime Minister Tony Abbott has declared the repeal of the carbon tax as his biggest contribution for women in 2014. "_
> SMH referring to Abbott chat with Wilkinson on morning show
> 
> I suspect the minister for women hasn't done anything of note for women this year.




Can you tell me, who has done much for women, at the political level? In the last 20 years.

It just seems like another stick, to beat Abbott with, not that they need more.

What did the Labor sisters do for women? other than help put the knife in Gillard?

I find the constant abuse of Abbott, as sexist bewildering, he doesn't retaliate yet cops more abuse.

I think everyone would be up in arms, if Abbott was female, but he isn't so he just has to suck it up. lol

People really need to get a grip on reality, why is abuse of Abbott o.k because he's a male.

Yet vague innuendo of sexist  remarks toward Gillard, brings about a world news spray against Abbott.

We really are bringing on our own demise, by glorifying bull$hit, to justify bad behaviour and our drop in moral standards.IMO

Men are becoming effeminate or is that metrosexual, while women don't seem too keen on taking the prominent role as the bread winner.
Hope we can find a happy balance, maybe Penny Wong has it right. 

My christmas rant


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> Can you tell me, who has done much for women, at the political level? In the last 20 years.
> 
> It just seems like another stick, to beat Abbott with, not that they need more.
> 
> What did the Labor sisters do for women? other than help put the knife in Gillard?
> 
> I find the constant abuse of Abbott, as sexist bewildering, he doesn't retaliate yet cops more abuse.
> 
> I think everyone would be up in arms, if Abbott was female, but he isn't so he just has to suck it up. lol
> 
> People really need to get a grip on reality, why is abuse of Abbott o.k because he's a male.
> 
> Yet vague innuendo of sexist  remarks toward Gillard, brings about a world news spray against Abbott.
> 
> We really are bringing on our own demise, by glorifying bull$hit, to justify bad behaviour and our drop in moral standards.IMO
> 
> Men are becoming effeminate or is that metrosexual, while women don't seem too keen on taking the prominent role as the bread winner.
> Hope we can find a happy balance, maybe Penny Wong has it right.
> 
> My christmas rant




I wonder whether Penny Wong has ordered a boy or a girl or if she has any control over what she gives birth to.

Come what may, she will be entitled to the extravagant PPL applied to politicians and public servants that the civic Maryannes who only get the paltry Labor scheme.in comparison. 

And the Labor Party preach fairness?????????????????


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Well Morrison the sociopathic toe cutter is now in charge of Social Security.  His contribution to the asylum seeker boat refugees was reclassifying them as "illegals" and then making it absolutely clear that being an asylum seeker in Australia was going to be so horrible they may as well top themselves at home.
> 
> On that sort of performance I wouldn't want to be on Social Security benefits under Morrisons TLC.  They may as well start getting their affairs in order because the New Year will certainly bring a new broom and a rubbish bin for a home.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 
> I wonder if the Australian community will come to the defence of their fellow citizens or will they swallow whatever lying tatt is used in defense of making it impossible to live on Social Security benefits.




basilio, there are lots of people on disability pensions who are faking their injury and exploiting the social welfare system.

I once had a neighbor, a man about 40, who was on a disability pension for a neck problem....He would religiously walk down the street, "stiff necked",  with his neck brace securely fitted, but come after school he had no problem playing foot ball with his kids in the back yard.

These are the sort of rorts that should be stopped  and I hope Morrison tracks them down.

Read my post #5292...if people don't like the amount they are paid to be on the welfare dole, then they should get off their backsides and do something about it....There are plenty of opportunities out their if you care to look.

Those dole bludgers should stop whinging and start working.


----------



## banco

sptrawler said:


> Can you tell me, who has done much for women, at the political level? In the last 20 years.
> 
> It just seems like another stick, to beat Abbott with, not that they need more.
> 
> What did the Labor sisters do for women? other than help put the knife in Gillard?
> 
> I find the constant abuse of Abbott, as sexist bewildering, he doesn't retaliate yet cops more abuse.
> 
> I think everyone would be up in arms, if Abbott was female, but he isn't so he just has to suck it up. lol
> 
> People really need to get a grip on reality, why is abuse of Abbott o.k because he's a male.
> 
> Yet vague innuendo of sexist  remarks toward Gillard, brings about a world news spray against Abbott.
> 
> We really are bringing on our own demise, by glorifying bull$hit, to justify bad behaviour and our drop in moral standards.IMO
> 
> Men are becoming effeminate or is that metrosexual, while women don't seem too keen on taking the prominent role as the bread winner.
> Hope we can find a happy balance, maybe Penny Wong has it right.
> 
> My christmas rant




Labor put in a PPL scheme old man.


----------



## sptrawler

banco said:


> Labor put in a PPL scheme old man.




I don't think I mentioned anything about a PPL system. You might be confusing me with noco, easily done.


----------



## noco

banco said:


> Labor put in a PPL scheme old man.




Yes they did and that same scheme should apply to female politicians and public servants and not the extravaganza they now enjoy and paid for by the tax payer.

The Labor Party say they believe in fairness......where is the fairness hear?


----------



## banco

sptrawler said:


> I don't think I mentioned anything about a PPL system. You might be confusing me with noco, easily done.




You asked what labor had done for women. They put in a PPL scheme in 2010.


----------



## banco

noco said:


> Yes they did and that same scheme should apply to female politicians and public servants and not the extravaganza they now enjoy and paid for by the tax payer.
> 
> The Labor Party say they believe in fairness......where is the fairness hear?




Lots of private employers go above and beyond what the current PPL scheme provides for.  The PPL scheme is a baseline.


----------



## Julia

sptrawler said:


> I find the constant abuse of Abbott, as sexist bewildering, he doesn't retaliate yet cops more abuse.
> 
> I think everyone would be up in arms, if Abbott was female, but he isn't so he just has to suck it up. lol
> 
> People really need to get a grip on reality, why is abuse of Abbott o.k because he's a male.




I agree.  There are good reasons to criticise Mr Abbott, but it's seeming more and more as though the people who dislike him, plus of course those whose own unflinching devotion to Labor determines they will automatically be critical of the government, are joining in a pack mentality type of campaign to bring him down rather than consider he's only a third through the term and that the government has actually got through much of their agenda, very much including stopping of irregular immigration which was so enraging much of the population.

I'll suggest again that Mr Abbott needs to be less passive about accepting all this flak and take a leaf out of Scott Morrison's book - that bloke knows how to stand up for himself and his beliefs.
It's time Mr Abbott stopped trying to be all things to all people because he simply cannot be.

And banco, is it really necessary to address anyone as 'old man'?


----------



## sptrawler

banco said:


> Lots of private employers go above and beyond what the current PPL scheme provides for.  The PPL scheme is a baseline.



I think you will find parental leave differs, very much from job to job. 
My daughter had a baby 4 years ago, her EBA allowed for 2 weeks paid parental leave, the rest of her time off was at her own expense. I was quite shocked.
If it weren't for the Government assistance, she probably wouldn't have been able to have a baby.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Yes they did and that same scheme should apply to female politicians and public servants and not the extravaganza they now enjoy and paid for by the tax payer.
> 
> The Labor Party say they believe in fairness......where is the fairness hear?




But the current Govt wants to make PPL even more unfair.  Personally I can think of plenty of other areas $2B could make a difference in, let alone the grand $5.5B a year that Abbott wants to throw around.

As I satated before - it’s easily possible to reinstate the Early Years Quality Fund and there’s even enough left to pay $1.2 billion for a planned pay increase for aged care workers (also scrapped by the Abbott government), plus $1.8 billion to save 3000 jobs under the endangered Medicare Locals scheme.

So while you like to bag the politicians generous PPL, it's the current Govt wanting to push through an extra $3.5B in costs on the economy.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> I once had a neighbor, a man about 40, who was on a disability pension for a neck problem....He would religiously walk down the street, "stiff necked",  with his neck brace securely fitted, but come after school he had no problem playing foot ball with his kids in the back yard.




Did you just sit at home whining about this, or did you report him?


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> I'll suggest again that Mr Abbott needs to be less passive about accepting all this flak and take a leaf out of Scott Morrison's book - that bloke knows how to stand up for himself and his beliefs.
> It's time Mr Abbott stopped trying to be all things to all people because he simply cannot be.




What are his beliefs?  He's in a Liberal party yet comes across as very illiberal.

He's said climate change is crap, but then says his direct action policy will achieve the goals necessary for Australia.

The carbon tax was a massive drain on the economy, yet his PPL levy (not a tax as that would break his promise) is not.

We're told students need to pay a higher proportion of their university courses, yet this doesn't require fees to be deregulated and likely doubled, while the Govt provides new funding for people to become church ministers.  

We're told money is tight, but there's $250M for school chaplains.

It's the inconsistencies of Abbott that I think people are finally waking up to.


----------



## Macquack

sydboy007 said:


> Did you just sit at home whining about this, *or did you report him*?




That would be un-Australian, mate.


----------



## Julia

sydboy007 said:


> It's the inconsistencies of Abbott that I think people are finally waking up to.



Yes, that's a very fair criticism, syd.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> But the current Govt wants to make PPL even more unfair.  Personally I can think of plenty of other areas $2B could make a difference in, let alone the grand $5.5B a year that Abbott wants to throw around.
> 
> As I satated before - it’s easily possible to reinstate the Early Years Quality Fund and there’s even enough left to pay $1.2 billion for a planned pay increase for aged care workers (also scrapped by the Abbott government), plus $1.8 billion to save 3000 jobs under the endangered Medicare Locals scheme.
> 
> So while you like to bag the politicians generous PPL, it's the current Govt wanting to push through an extra $3.5B in costs on the economy.




Firstly, I have never been in favour of PPL irrespective from where the money was coming from...certainly not from the tax payers like you and your comrades  purport.

It is boring having to read the same old Labor left wing socialist rhetoric....It is becoming like cracked record that Labor don't know how to turn off.

Why don't you talk about the $11.5 billion wasted by Rudd/Gillard on illegal boat people when they opened the borders and it is still about $1 billion a year to maintain them and the 1200+ who drowned at sea.

Why don't you talk about the $ billions wasted on home insulation....the loss of 4 young lives and some 200 houses burnt down.....and BTW who will be the ones to compensate the families of those lost lives and the people who lost their homes.

Why don't you talk about the wasted money by Rudd/Gillard on over priced school halls.

Why don't you talk about the $1 billion per month we are paying on Labor's debt....It certainly makes your piddly claim look sick. 

The Green/Labor left wing socialist are still in denial of the debt and deficit left from 2007/2013.

I can think of plenty of things that could be carried out with the Labor Party waste and just with  the $1 billion a month in interest.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Did you just sit at home whining about this, or did you report him?




I would like to have reported him but his wife and my wife were very close friends...we were the only ones who could see him playing foot ball with his kids......so I just had to turn a blind eye to it.

What would you have done under the same circumstances?...No doubt you would have jumped on the phone and dobbed him in irrespective of the consequences you may have faced with some good friends and neighbours.....It is very easy to be a bastard.

Discretion is sometimes the best decision..


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> What are his beliefs?  He's in a Liberal party yet comes across as very illiberal.
> 
> He's said climate change is crap, but then says his direct action policy will achieve the goals necessary for Australia.
> 
> The carbon tax was a massive drain on the economy, yet his PPL levy (not a tax as that would break his promise) is not.
> 
> We're told students need to pay a higher proportion of their university courses, yet this doesn't require fees to be deregulated and likely doubled, while the Govt provides new funding for people to become church ministers.
> 
> We're told money is tight, but there's $250M for school chaplains.
> 
> It's the inconsistencies of Abbott that I think people are finally waking up to.




And of course there were no inconsistencies with Rudd/Gillard/Rudd???????????...you have such a short memory.

The carbon tax was certainly a drain on the economy alright...you know the carbon tax that would never be introduced under the government I lead ahla Julia Gillrad.......almost sent lots of companies down the gurgler....Not sure how many companies stop investing here or who took there money overseas or how many jobs were lost as a result.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> And of course there were no inconsistencies with Rudd/Gillard/Rudd???????????...you have such a short memory.
> 
> The carbon tax was certainly a drain on the economy alright...you know the carbon tax that would never be introduced under the government I lead ahla Julia Gillrad.......almost sent lots of companies down the gurgler....Not sure how many companies stop investing here or who took there money overseas or how many jobs were lost as a result.




Blah blahring of the labour past is not cutting it anymore noco. 

Need to deal with the glaring and unfair proposals of those now in power as put up by sydboy. 

The topic of this thread is " THE ABBOTT GOVERNMENT."


----------



## Smurf1976

sydboy007 said:


> It's the inconsistencies of Abbott that I think people are finally waking up to.




I've been involved in plenty of real "face to face" debates in my time, everything from industrial relations to the environment, and without exception it's inconsistency and/or not presenting a clear and viable alternative approach that really gets people fired up. That is true regardless of the issue or viewpoint being expressed.

If we're desperately short on money then proposing new spending measures on anything not clearly essential is an obvious inconsistency.

If climate change is crap then spending money to address it is an obvious inconsistency and that is especially so if you're also saying that we're short on money. If there's a lack of money then why would you propose new spending on something you're saying is unimportant anyway? That's clearly not a properly thought out, logical position to have.

If climate change is real and we're going to stop using coal then failing to propose an actual alternative (regardless of what that is) is another sure fire way to get people offside. It's one thing to say you're going to stop doing something, but that immediately raises the question of what you're going to do instead? If no answer is given, then there's only two rational explanations. Either (1) you haven't got a clue or (2) you expect that people won't like the answer. Either way, the lack of an answer rings alarm bells with anyone who thinks and that is true regardless of their view on the actual issue (climate change being just an example here to illustrate the point. Same principle applies to everything).


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Blah blahring of the labour past is not cutting it anymore noco.
> 
> Need to deal with the glaring and unfair proposals of those now in power as put up by sydboy.
> 
> The topic of this thread is " THE ABBOTT GOVERNMENT."




Don't you believe it.....Labor's past will be cutting it for years to come....I am very well aware of what this thread is all about but you cannot divorce the fact that Labor left a hell of a mess for the Abbott Government to clean up, so Labor is still very much associated with what this Government is trying to do with no help from the Labor Party except obstruct methods of savings.

And you are so naive that do not understand or don't want to understand why cuts have to be made...I just cannot believe how you expect this current government to pay back the debt and deficit left by Labor in not 12 months or even 3 years but very much longer.....you Green/Labor left wing socialists are unbelievable..


----------



## Macquack

noco said:


> Don't you believe it.....Labor's past will be cutting it for years to come....I am very well aware of what this thread is all about but you cannot divorce the fact that Labor left a hell of a mess for the Abbott Government to clean up, so Labor is still very much associated with what this Government is trying to do with no help from the Labor Party except obstruct methods of savings.
> 
> And you are so naive that do not understand or don't want to understand why cuts have to be made...I just cannot believe how you expect this current government to pay back the debt and deficit left by Labor in not 12 months or even 3 years but very much longer.....you Green/Labor left wing socialists are unbelievable..




Abbott does not even bang on about "everything is the Labor Party's fault" as much as you do Noco.

It is sour grapes and people don't want to hear it.

So lets start "moving forward".


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Don't you believe it.....Labor's past will be cutting it for years to come....I am very well aware of what this thread is all about but you cannot divorce the fact that Labor left a hell of a mess for the Abbott Government to clean up, so Labor is still very much associated with what this Government is trying to do with no help from the Labor Party except obstruct methods of savings.
> 
> And you are so naive that do not understand or don't want to understand why cuts have to be made...I just cannot believe how you expect this current government to pay back the debt and deficit left by Labor in not 12 months or even 3 years but very much longer.....you Green/Labor left wing socialists are unbelievable..




Naive huh,  I worked in a public service post for five years within a research team on future planning and development which included the demographics of both population and infrastructure needs. 

What you need to do is specifically list the actual actions being taken or proposed by the Abbott Government that will improve the lot for the community going forward. 

All I can see is cuts to spending on education,  medicine and welfare at the lower levels with no gains other than letting the much higher paid off tax increases. 

And you have also failed to respond to the facts presented on debt which I put up a couple of times,  the last about a week ago,  Aust per head debt $15,000, the US $70,000,  Our debt is nothing and a first principal of expanding for the future is to borrow so that those in the future who are to benefit help to pay for it. 

This harping of debt is no more than political blah blah to try and blurr the issues. 

So its time for you to be constructive noco.


----------



## Smurf1976

noco said:


> And you are so naive that do not understand or don't want to understand why cuts have to be made...




That's the same line the Tas state government is using.

But you can save money without needing to be outright nasty in doing so. I mean seriously, new spending on things we don't need and can't afford meanwhile cutting all sorts of other things? And in the case of the state government, not even being willing to have a proper meeting with unions? Not even a meeting?

The Liberals are showing their true colours unfortunately. Hit the weak and play games in the name of saving money, and yet somehow managing to find plenty of money for their own pet projects. Most can see straight through that game.


----------



## noco

Macquack said:


> Abbott does not even bang on about "everything is the Labor Party's fault" as much as you do Noco.
> 
> It is sour grapes and people don't want to hear it.
> 
> So lets start "moving forward".




The only ones who don't want to hear about it is the Green/Labor left wing socialist.....they just can't stand being reminded about the mess they left....It sticks in their gizzard every time it is mentioned.

We were supposed to move forrrrrrrrrrrwwaaarrrrrrrdd under Gillard but we went backwards.


----------



## noco

Smurf1976 said:


> That's the same line the Tas state government is using.
> 
> But you can save money without needing to be outright nasty in doing so. I mean seriously, new spending on things we don't need and can't afford meanwhile cutting all sorts of other things? And in the case of the state government, not even being willing to have a proper meeting with unions? Not even a meeting?
> 
> The Liberals are showing their true colours unfortunately. Hit the weak and play games in the name of saving money, and yet somehow managing to find plenty of money for their own pet projects. Most can see straight through that game.




Yes well that is the old propaganda Labor always uses...Play on the minds of the weak......Money for what pet projects?...As far as I know the Abbott Government is trying to keep the country going with projects to keep unemployment down

Why should the Liberal Government meet with such corrupt unions?.......The unions are not governing the country or are they?....They probably are in Victoria and South Australia.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> The only ones who don't want to hear about it is the Green/Labor left wing socialist.....they just can't stand being reminded about the mess they left....It sticks in their gizzard every time it is mentioned.
> 
> We were supposed to move forrrrrrrrrrrwwaaarrrrrrrdd under Gillard but we went backwards.




You are not answering the questions raised noco. 

And an old one to you now:-    Under the Abbott Government,  where are the jobs coming from?


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Naive huh,  I worked in a public service post for five years within a research team on future planning and development which included the demographics of both population and infrastructure needs.
> 
> What you need to do is specifically list the actual actions being taken or proposed by the Abbott Government that will improve the lot for the community going forward.
> 
> All I can see is cuts to spending on education,  medicine and welfare at the lower levels with no gains other than letting the much higher paid off tax increases.
> 
> And you have also failed to respond to the facts presented on debt which I put up a couple of times,  the last about a week ago,  Aust per head debt $15,000, the US $70,000,  Our debt is nothing and a first principal of expanding for the future is to borrow so that those in the future who are to benefit help to pay for it.
> 
> This harping of debt is no more than political blah blah to try and blurr the issues.
> 
> So its time for you to be constructive noco.




So you "WORKED" for the public service...Did you have enough to keep you going for 4 hours per day.

Why should we compare ourselves with the USA?...they have 10 times the population, they are the largest economy in the world and can handle that kind of debt not forgetting Obama is a socialist left so it does not surprise me their debt is so high.

When you come to think of it, what could the Abbott government do with that $1 billion a month in interest on money Labor borrowed......How many new dams could be built or how many kilometers of new Hy-ways could be built....What could Queensland, NSW and Victoria have done with the money Labor wasted on moth balled desalinization  plants.....total approx $6 billion....Desal plants built because that stupid Tim Flannery said it would never rain again sufficient to fill the dams and the Green/Labor coalition believed him instead of being more astute by doing their homework

So all we have to do is keep borrowing and spending like drunken Labor sailors.

You really do need some education on economics.


----------



## Smurf1976

noco said:


> Why should the Liberal Government meet with such corrupt unions?.......The unions are not governing the country or are they?....




Noting that I was referring to the state government in this instance, it seems a bit unreasonable to me for any overnment to claim that unions won't agree to a proposal when government (1) never put forward actual legislation for such a proposal and (2) refused to meet with unions in a sensible manner (ie a proper meeting, not 5 minutes in a hallway somewhere) to discuss it.

As a taxpayer, I consider it reasonable to expect that a government would undertake negotiations in a sensible manner rather than almost exclusively via the media as has occurred. It's not a personal gripe, that's not an issue which directly affects me, but it shows incredibly poor form in my view for a government to effectively refuse to negotiate, then claim that the other side wouldn't agree. How, exactly, does one come to an agreement if you can't even get a meeting in which to discuss it?

Have these people forgotten what their job actually is? They are elected to govern the state / country in the best interests of the people. Like many, I'm more than fed up with the silly games and would gladly see an end to it. Get back to governing and drop the ideological rubbish that clearly hasn't worked.

As for Abbott and his pet projects, PPL is an obvious one and so is Direct Action (better described as Direct Handouts to selected big businesses).

The good news, if there's any, is that arrogance usually does lead to a downfall sooner or later. The bad news is that Labor won't mange the finances too well once the inevitable happens and Labor are swept back into power in most states and federally. At a guess, that's going to be sooner rather than later.


----------



## banco

noco said:


> You really do need some education on economics.




Oh the irony.  I suppose you think we should have run balanced budgets during the GFC?


----------



## noco

banco said:


> Oh the irony.  I suppose you think we should have run balanced budgets during the GFC?




I am sure a Liberal Government would have done twice as much with half the money Labor wasted.....Labor just squandered the money on hare brain schemes with very little thought into how to manage them.....Labor goofed on everything project they started.

I know one thing for sure, if  there had been a Liberal Government during the so called GFC , they would have managed the economy a hell of lot better than Labor......$900 cheques to everyone including dead people and people living overseas.....the majority of those $900 cheques went on the poker machines.


----------



## noco

overhang said:


> So noco do you believe that all those conditions are excessive? Do you believe that we should all be working 50 weeks a year with no prospect of long service leave?  Do you believe that those that work weekends shouldn't be compensated with penalty rates for being away from family and friends for this time?
> I don't think we need all these perks (leave loading, RDO's) but I'm sure grateful the unions fought for the others, I don't live to work.




My wife and I have a friend who works at the Jupiters Hotel/Casino in Townsville

They have 500 employees, mostly full time, casino staff, bar attendants, waiters, maintenance staff, Admin., cleaners and house maids who work on rosters from 6am to 4am the next morning 7 days per week...Many have to work their 38 hours per week including Saturdays and Sundays at odd hours.....They are all on a flat rate with no penalty rates for the odd hours they have to work.

The theme of my post was how all these conditions which have been won by the unions has had an added cost to manufacturing, hence the reason why many companies have gone off shore with investments because they just cannot compete with the high costs in Australia.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> I would like to have reported him but his wife and my wife were very close friends...we were the only ones who could see him playing foot ball with his kids......so I just had to turn a blind eye to it.
> 
> What would you have done under the same circumstances?...No doubt you would have jumped on the phone and dobbed him in irrespective of the consequences you may have faced with some good friends and neighbours.....It is very easy to be a bastard.
> 
> Discretion is sometimes the best decision..




So...basically the situation you describe would be valid for all the people you want struck off the disability pension.

I don't see reporting someone breaking the law, and doing what is basically theft from the tax payer, as being a bastard.

If you're not going to take action yourself to resolve a problem, don't complain about it.  What you've done is not much different to the person holding a fag in one hand and a VB long neck in the other and complaining about how hard it is to make the budget stretch.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> So...basically the situation you describe would be valid for all the people you want struck off the disability pension.
> 
> .




How did you interpret my post to mean that it would be valid for all the people you want to be struck off the disability pension....that is a silly statement to make.

There would obviously be some legitimate cases who genuinely need assistance and I do not begrudge those people.

I was referring to one case and there are probably more out there who are rorting the system  and should be brought to justice and I sincerely hope Morrison gets to the bottom of those cheaters.

It would appear from your post that you condone the cheaters.

So please stop trying to exaggerate on the contents of my post.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> I am sure a Liberal Government would have done twice as much with half the money Labor wasted.....Labor just squandered the money on hare brain schemes with very little thought into how to manage them.....Labor goofed on everything project they started.
> 
> I know one thing for sure, if  there had been a Liberal Government during the so called GFC , they would have managed the economy a hell of lot better than Labor......$900 cheques to everyone including dead people and people living overseas.....the majority of those $900 cheques went on the poker machines.




Then why has this years budget deficit ballooned?  The Govt still has more revenue this year than Labor did in their best year of revenue.

What did it matter what the $900 cheques were spent on?  The idea was to get the money out into the community and for it to be spent.  It certainly worked better than say giving the money to banks that then hoarded it like in the USA and Europe.

Can I suggest you had a read of the below to better inform yourself of what exactly was going on in the post GFC economy.

http://www.treasury.gov.au/Publicat...-Issue-2/Report/Part-1-Reasons-for-resilience



> A key element of the Government's Medium Term Fiscal Strategy is that the budget balance should be able to vary in the short term with economic conditions ”” that is, that the automatic stabilisers of the budget should be allowed to operate. The main channel of the automatic stabilisers during the global downturn was in a sharp downward revision to tax revenue.
> 
> The 2008-09 Budget forecast taxation receipts of $292.6 billion in 2008-09 and $310.1 billion in 2009-10. However the actual level of taxation receipts in 2008-09 was $272.6 billion ($20 billion, or 1.6 per cent of GDP lower than forecast) and the most recent estimate of taxation receipts for 2009-10 is $261.0 billion ($49 billion or 3.8 per cent of GDP lower than expected at the time of the 2008-09 Budget). Among other things, falling commodity prices due to lower global demand eroded revenue, contributing to the decline in tax receipts. Were the Government to have offset these variations it would have been contributing to, rather than leaning against, the macroeconomic instability arising out of the GFC.




Money that goes into pokies:

* Keeps the hotel employees in a job
* Some of the profits go to the local community via grants from clubs
* Taxes go to the states which then is used for funding services
* Profits get taxed and go back to the federal budget.

I certainly don't understand how people can sit playing pokies for hours on end, but at the end of the day we've decided to allow them at the highest per capit rate in the world.  If people want to voluntarily pay more taxes, let them.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> My wife and I have a friend who works at the Jupiters Hotel/Casino in Townsville
> 
> They have 500 employees, mostly full time, casino staff, bar attendants, waiters, maintenance staff, Admin., cleaners and house maids who work on rosters from 6am to 4am the next morning 7 days per week...Many have to work their 38 hours per week including Saturdays and Sundays at odd hours.....They are all on a flat rate with no penalty rates for the odd hours they have to work.
> 
> The theme of my post was how all these conditions which have been won by the unions has had an added cost to manufacturing, hence the reason why many companies have gone off shore with investments because they just cannot compete with the high costs in Australia.




I'm not sure I understand the second paragraph .... are you advocating third world conditions for first world economies ... levelling the playing field by sacrificing our achievements? 

It's a bit like soccer, we suck at it, but for some obscure reason every year the Socceroos go out for some holy grail glory and have their arses handed to them. Instead those blokes could maybe play off their strengths and get a job at a casino and let the real talent pool build Australia into a prestige country rather than a replica of cost driven Kmart.


----------



## overlap

I mostly agree with this analysis. There's a systemic problem which leaves us with almost zero leadership options across both major parties and beyond. Abbott brings his particular flavour to the sad mix.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-24/dunlop-the-more-things-shuffle-more-they-stay-the-same/5985210



> ...rather than growing into the job, Prime Minister Abbott has done a pretty good impression of the incredible shrinking man.
> 
> Even the media cheer squad that hailed his every three-word slogan in opposition as some sort of cross between Winston Churchill and David Ogilvy has been pouring out their broken little hearts in piece after piece, telling us how disappointed they are in him.
> 
> And maybe we shouldn't be surprised. It's not just that his track record in politics was hardly of a standard that would inspire a Netflix miniseries (or even an Aaron Sorkin one), it's that weak leaders are almost built into the fabric of our two-party system.
> 
> Labor swapped leaders three times between 2007 and 2013, despite being in government for two of those changes. The Libs went through Brendan Nelson and Malcolm Turnbull before settling on Tony Abbott by a single vote, and he was chosen in the end more or less out of desperation.
> 
> He was installed, not because he offered the people of Australia anything in particular in the way of personal qualities or a policy blueprint for the future, but because his election helped settle an internal party argument about climate change.
> 
> As I noted last week, as disappointing as Tony Abbott has been, he isn't in and of himself the problem: he is a symptom.
> 
> The underlying issue is that both major parties have drained the office of prime minister of authority by converging on an economic program that subsumes economic sovereignty into the vagaries of a globalised economy. Control over key aspects of social and economic policy has shifted from the Treasury benches in Canberra to the stateless instrumentalities of so-called free-trade agreements and organisations like the G20.
> 
> The office of prime minister is thus less about leading the country than about managing the electorate's disappointments within that system, and Mr Abbott inherited an electorate hip to the tricks of a political class who have been selling us moonshine - privatisation, deregulation and the rest of it - for the best part of four decades now.
> 
> But even allowing for these structural problems, and the electorate's well-founded scepticism, Mr Abbott has brought his own special brand of stupid to the role.
> 
> Having sworn black and blue that he would restore trust and integrity to the office of prime minister, on gaining office he set about breaking promises like crockery at a Greek wedding.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> You are not answering the questions raised noco.
> 
> And an old one to you now:-    Under the Abbott Government,  where are the jobs coming from?




You obviously did not read my post #5292....As per my post anyone can find work if they are a little entrepreneurial.

Governments don't create jobs....only in the Public Service.

Money is provided by Governments for infrastructure projects for private enterprise to construct..


----------



## explod

noco said:


> You obviously did not read my post #5292....As per my post anyone can find work if they are a little entrepreneurial.
> 
> Governments don't create jobs....only in the Public Service.
> 
> Money is provided by Governments for infrastructure projects for private enterprise to construct..




Not everyone is entrepreneurial.   That's why it was much better when the government owned and ran the trams,  we had conductors,  State Electricity Commission,  locals fixed the lines,  people who are now mostly on the dole.   Not many have a high IQ,  we must  provide for them.  And the Telstra Sale at the time raised an amount that it earned in four years,  just imagine the huge revenues we could be gaining if wehad not gone the way of Thatcherism/privatisation.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> The Australian manufacturing industry was killed off by the communist dominated unions in the 50's,60's and 70's and we have been seeing this decline in the past two decades., so don't blame the Liberal Government...Fair wage demands, you mean excessive wage demands, increase in annual leave from 2 weeks to 4 weeks, 17.5% leave loading, long service leave, penalty rates, 38 hour weeks and you don't believe it all adds on to the cost of manufacturing....No wonder companies have gone off shore to stay competitive.
> 
> The Common Wealth Bank was sold off by Labor...Not sure who sold off Qantas....Beattie and Bligh sold the Golden Casket in Queensland for a measly $599,000,000......the Golden Casket paid for  all of Queensland's health system.
> 
> The billions you refer to that was squandered by Howard.......do you have a link with some details to back up your statement?
> 
> Now you say where are the jobs?.....Do some research and you will note there is 200,000 plus jobs being taken up by 457 visas......jobs the unions say should be filled by Australians....Some skilled jobs that no city dweller wants and is not prepared to go to some remote places.....Dole bludgers  who could be trained into those  skilled jobs instead of bringing in overseas people.
> 
> There is also plenty of work available for those energetic enough to mow lawns and gardening to earn an honest dollar or two.
> 
> There are agencies always looking for distributors like Home Care who distribute catalogs to homes and collect orders and paid on a commission..We get the Home Care Catalog delivered every 8 weeks and their products are of good value and on a 12 months unconditional warranty.....I believe Home Care also work on a points bonus system for those who are prepared to put in the effort....It is great exercise and I believe one can work his/her own hours...there is no outlay to get started...you use your own car and phone....Home Care have a moderate delivery charge to cover those expenses.
> 
> The increase in real wages were the lowest under the Hawke/Keating Government...remember Hawke got the unions to agree to a pay freeze to avoid the recession we had to have..Can you imagine the corrupt unions agreeing to a pay freeze under a Liberal Government.....the Abbott Government reduced the pay increase to the ADF and public servants to a limit of 1.5% and certain people are screaming from the roof tops....never heard them complaining about the wage freeze under the Hawke/Keating Government.
> 
> So there is plenty of ways to make an honest living instead of relying upon the Government to find it for them.




I did look it over noco,  but like most of your posts they are filled with right wing anecdotal bias. 

Yes things did work well in the Hawke/Keating years because there was cooperation across the board.  But never with  the Libs as they want the workers to be their servants.   Just like the rise of the AWU,  because the farmer's (Now Country Party) raddled most of the shearer's sheep. 

In the 1950's the Government got this country rolling by opening up new lands and granting titles to returned servicemen to develop.   But today we allow huge tracts of land and rich farms to overseas buyers.   The next very big item on the world agenda is going to be food.   So what great opportunities could a progressive government make of these. Involving the people provides incentives,  sending them to the backblocks to pick someone elses fruit does not. 

Cummoorn noco,  you are way off the mark,  or should I try to help you because of your IQ. In fact I give you many good leads but you just love to armchair criticise the lefties,  commo's,  greeniesand socialists,  whatever those terms may mean today


----------



## banco

explod said:


> Not everyone is entrepreneurial.   That's why it was much better when the government owned and ran the trams,  we had conductors,  State Electricity Commission,  locals fixed the lines,  people who are now mostly on the dole.   Not many have a high IQ,  we must  provide for them.  And the Telstra Sale at the time raised an amount that it earned in four years,  just imagine the huge revenues we could be gaining if wehad not gone the way of Thatcherism/privatisation.




Not sure of the virtues of make work jobs funded by Government.


----------



## explod

banco said:


> Not sure of the virtues of make work jobs funded by Government.




I think on essentials such as power and water there can be no argument. 

Met a bloke six weeks ago when I was in hospital.   He is dieing of cancer,  so a few days back paid him a visit.   Was parked 50 minutes and cost $10.  And this outer suburban.   From a public welfare point this stinks in my view.   But off topic,  that was the recently outed Liberal State Govt's work.


----------



## Smurf1976

explod said:


> Not everyone is entrepreneurial.   That's why it was much better when the government owned and ran the trams,  we had conductors,  State Electricity Commission,  locals fixed the lines,  people who are now mostly on the dole.   Not many have a high IQ,  we must  provide for them.  And the Telstra Sale at the time raised an amount that it earned in four years,  just imagine the huge revenues we could be gaining if wehad not gone the way of Thatcherism/privatisation.




Disagree strongly with the point about IQ. An engineer is an engineer and a doctor is a doctor. Whether they work for the SEC or AGL, or a public hospital versus private, is irrelevant. They need the same degree, are doing the same work, and in many cases it's the same person who simply moved from one employer to another and kept doing the same work.

As for privatisation generally, it's something I've looked into pretty seriously on various occasions and I've always reached the same conclusion. It cant work under some circumstances and it can fail miserably with others.

In order for it to work well, a few factors need to be applicable. 

1. It needs to be a naturally and genuinely competitive market.
2. There needs to not be a natural or imposed barrier to entry.
3. The activity needs to be self funded by sale of whatever it produces.
4. Risk needs to be transferable to the new owners, and not remain with government.

Some examples.

1. Electricity generation in Victoria is inherently somewhat competitive. There's nothing to stop multiple companies competing to turn brown coal or natural gas into electricity. 

1. In contrast, the same doesn't work in Tasmania where you've got one big system that by its' very nature requires integration to operate effectively. It's a natural monopoly to a large extent and, in the absence of major demand growth to warrant construction of something new on a large scale, always will be. That said, the high reliance on sales to heavy industry has always forced cost minimisation anyway, lest the big users get a better price somewhere else. 

1. Tour buses are naturally competitive. There's little to stop anyone starting a tour bus company and running tours to wherever they like. 

1. In contrast, trams in Melbourne most certainly are not competitive. If I need to get from A to B then it's impractical to have a dozen different trams running at the same time on the same route and then choose whoever has the lowest fare. There's no real competition there at all.

2. Airports have a very large natural barrier to entry due to scale and logistics. It's just not practical to have half a dozen airports in somewhere the size of Australia's cities all competing against each other. Maybe for landing a Cessna or use by helicopters, but we're never likely to have 5+ airports around Adelaide each capable of use by large passenger aircraft.

2. There's no real barrier to entry running a fish and chip shop. Buy or rent a shop, get some deep fryers, signage and a heap of fish and chips. Not much more to it really, hence it's no surprise that there's an abundance of fish and chip shops around the country.

3. Every aspect of making, selling, servicing and operating cars can be self funded apart from the roads they run on. There's no need for taxpayers to prop up car design or oil refining, for example, since they're funded by the sale of cars and petrol.

3. Repairing public roads is not self funding. Even if you "privatise" the actual work, it's still taxpayer funds that are being used and it's still a government activity as such.

4. Risk in delivery of parcels is easily transferred to the sender or receiver. There's no inherent reason why government carries the risk, unless the parcel is of a sensitive military etc nature (in which case I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be sending it via the local courier anyway).

4. Risk with public transport, water, electricity etc in practice always sits with government. If Melbourne's tram operator goes broke tomorrow, government will be effectively forced to step in and either bail out the company or even take back the actual operation of trams. And if the operator simply runs the trams into the ground through lack of maintenance, well then government will end up paying to fix or replace them in due course.

Looking at a few examples:

Railways in Tasmania - privatisation failed miserably since risk naturally sits with government. The private operator milked every last cent of profit they could get out of the system, ran the track and trains down to the point that they could no longer run a train from one end of the state to the other even at snail's pace without it derailing, then they sold back to government which has spent an outright fortune replacing track, locos and rolling stock. 

Electricity generation in Victoria - arguably good or bad. It was a disaster socially for the Latrobe Valley certainly, but overall the power stations are still running, they're running more cheaply than the SEC would likely have run them (though not necessarily running better - there's been quite a few incidents at Yallourn and Mowell mines since privatisation), and the lights are still on. It has worked well in some ways, not so well in others. It does produce cheap wholesale electricity however, that point is undeniable.

Electricity distribution - corporatisation, as distinct from necessarily privatising, shifted the focus from cost minimisation to profit maximisation. There's a difference there, and your electricity bills tell the story as to the consequences. Practically the whole economy has become less competitive as a result.

Road maintenance - I don't need to drive far to see that privatising that has failed miserably. There's just no incentive to do well when the taxpayer still foots the bill anyway. The old PWD / DMR used to build roads that were at least smooth and reasonably level, not so with the contractors whose roads roughen up or peel off almost as soon as they've left the site. I very much doubt that my taxes are being used well here, and at some future time government will spend an outright fortune fixing the neglect.

Telstra - competition in retail seems to have worked reasonably, the old days of Telecom horror stories are largely gone. But the network itself is still largely a natural monopoly, duplication of which is inherently inefficient. Sure, we've got 3 mobile networks, none of which provide universal coverage, but that's not an efficient way to do it. We could instead have a single network that covered practically everyone. Some aspects of it worked, some failed.

So far as technical things are concerned, the problem largely relates to stewardship. Have an in house works crew and if they spot a problem then they may as well fix it before the job turns into a bigger one through neglect. Self interest favours taking that approach bearing in mind that most such workers tend to assume they'll be doing it until retirement such that avoiding future problems is a wise move. In contrast, a contractor only cares about doing what they're paid to do right now. If that ends up costing a fortune down the track then so be it, it's not profitable to take a long term view if you've only got a 3 year contract and are being screwed on price. The end result is that assets are run down and at some future time government has to fund a re-build. Already happened with the railways in Tas and roads look to be going the same way judging by how quickly they deteriorate after work is done.

There are exceptions, some things have worked quite well, but overall I think we've gone too far with privatisation and outsourcing of things formerly done by government. We've passed the point of achieving genuine efficiencies and are now really just shifting costs either on to end users (the same people who pay taxes) or a few years into the future. It's not about economics these days, its pure ideology.


----------



## explod

Thanks for a very good post Smurf1976

Sorry about the IQ bit.   But having risen over 30 years to upper management in a large organisation I found that, regardless of opportunity,  enthusiasm or incentives,  some rise and some do not.   We need to cater for all levels.   However in education and work today we are failing in our approach by thinking of the bottom line only in my view. 

latest polls out indicate Abbott falling further down the gurgler.


----------



## banco

explod said:


> I think on essentials such as power and water there can be no argument.
> 
> Met a bloke six weeks ago when I was in hospital.   He is dieing of cancer,  so a few days back paid him a visit.   Was parked 50 minutes and cost $10.  And this outer suburban.   From a public welfare point this stinks in my view.   But off topic,  that was the recently outed Liberal State Govt's work.




You just end up bloated inefficient utilities that the Government either explicitly subsidises or the public subsidises through high electricity prices. 

You are better off delivering assistance through the welfare system.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Then why has this years budget deficit ballooned?  The Govt still has more revenue this year than Labor did in their best year of revenue.
> 
> What did it matter what the $900 cheques were spent on?  The idea was to get the money out into the community and for it to be spent.  It certainly worked better than say giving the money to banks that then hoarded it like in the USA and Europe.
> 
> Can I suggest you had a read of the below to better inform yourself of what exactly was going on in the post GFC economy.
> 
> http://www.treasury.gov.au/Publicat...-Issue-2/Report/Part-1-Reasons-for-resilience
> 
> 
> 
> Money that goes into pokies:
> 
> * Keeps the hotel employees in a job
> * Some of the profits go to the local community via grants from clubs
> * Taxes go to the states which then is used for funding services
> * Profits get taxed and go back to the federal budget.
> 
> I certainly don't understand how people can sit playing pokies for hours on end, but at the end of the day we've decided to allow them at the highest per capit rate in the world.  If people want to voluntarily pay more taxes, let them.




May I suggest you read Alan Koler's take on the economy...if any of the Labor left wing socialist have just half a brain they will understand the economic situation the way it is....Revenue has fallen.

2015 maybe the the year of the recession we had to have and Labor is not helping....In fact while the Abbott government is trying to put out the house fire, Labor is pouring on petrol to keep to keep the house burning down...............Labor has absolutely no national interest......only self interest....They are  more than happy to see economic chaos ...they are more than happy to see Australia mirror Russia....Labor is more than happy to see our living standards fall.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...l-news/lessons-australia-russias-pain?login=1

*Australia has the first of those but thankfully not the second. However we do seem to be going through a period of more than usually messy politics.*

*When the commodity cycle turns, the living standards of a commodity exporter must also fall. This can either be achieved through lower real wages, government spending cuts, tax increases or a currency devaluation. They all have the same effect.*

*The first is almost impossible and numbers two and three are very difficult at any time, but especially when the country’s politics are mess. That’s why everyone goes for the devaluation -- it’s a cut in living standards that doesn’t get blamed on anyone.*


----------



## Smurf1976

banco said:


> You just end up bloated inefficient utilities that the Government either explicitly subsidises or the public subsidises through high electricity prices.
> 
> You are better off delivering assistance through the welfare system.




Agreed that it's silly to employ people in utilities etc for the sake of it. Employ the people who are needed, no more.

But I must point out that if you look at the utilities over the past 20 years then something stands out very clearly. Deregulation and competition has lead to higher prices, not lower, no matter what the economists with their theories might have expected to occur. The "reforms" simply haven't achieved anything other than to introduce what amounts to a private tax on practically the entire economy.

Utilities at the distribution and retail end fail in terms of what's needed to make privatisation work so it's no surprise that attempts to fit a square peg into a round hole have lead to higher prices. As per my previous post, it can under some circumstances work well upstream however.

I won't name the company (it's not energy related), but it's false to assume that private enterprise is necessarily more efficient than government. Often it is, sometimes it's not. Government had 120 people doing a certain area of work and outsourced it some time ago. The contractor doing that work now employs 145 staff to do the same work, and there's still quite a few who remained with government to administer the contract etc. So all up, output per worker has dropped around 20% with the change from public to private. 

On the other hand, there are certainly examples of the opposite. Power generation in Vic is one that I mentioned earlier. 

The great trouble with privatisation is that it has become an article of faith. An ideology that few question. The end result is something that had its' merits in some cases but which has now gone beyond that point.


----------



## Smurf1976

noco said:


> That’s why everyone goes for the devaluation -- it’s a cut in living standards that doesn’t get blamed on anyone.




I'm expecting the devaluation to be greater than most seem to be thinking at present. Looking at the overall circumstances, a bit over 80 US cents still sounds more like a top than a bottom despite the recent falls.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> May I suggest you read Alan Koler's take on the economy...if any of the Labor left wing socialist have just half a brain they will understand the economic situation the way it is....Revenue has fallen.
> 
> 2015 maybe the the year of the recession we had to have and Labor is not helping....In fact while the Abbott government is trying to put out the house fire, Labor is pouring on petrol to keep to keep the house burning down...............Labor has absolutely no national interest......only self interest....They are  more than happy to see economic chaos ...they are more than happy to see Australia mirror Russia....Labor is more than happy to see our living standards fall.
> 
> http://www.businessspectator.com.au...l-news/lessons-australia-russias-pain?login=1
> 
> *Australia has the first of those but thankfully not the second. However we do seem to be going through a period of more than usually messy politics.*
> 
> *When the commodity cycle turns, the living standards of a commodity exporter must also fall. This can either be achieved through lower real wages, government spending cuts, tax increases or a currency devaluation. They all have the same effect.*
> 
> *The first is almost impossible and numbers two and three are very difficult at any time, but especially when the country’s politics are mess. That’s why everyone goes for the devaluation -- it’s a cut in living standards that doesn’t get blamed on anyone.*




But revenue was up to 6% lower for Labor than what Howard had.  Corporate revenue since the GFC has tanked, especially from the resource sector.

But you still avoid the fact that the current Govt has more revenue than Labor, yet is likely to see a ballooning deficit.  You argue that every Labor deficit was due to waste and mismanagement, that the GFC and hit to revenues was immaterial.  Suddenly with a LN+P Government the context of why the deficit is blowing out has now become relevant.

Cuts to spending definitely need to be made, but we also have to plug the revenue leakage.  We accepted tax cut bribes that were paid for by a transitory increase of corporate taxes to their highest level in Australian history.  Now that these taxes are heading back to their long term average, and quite likely will go below that, the Govt has to decide if it increase current taxes, or starts to hack into our world beating tax expenditures.  So far they've done pretty much nothing on this score.  They removed over $7B in carbon and resource tax revenue and seemed to have no plan on how to make the shortfall up.  That's not Labors fault.  It wasn't Labor's fault that Abbott decided not to take back the tax cuts Labor provided as compensation for the carbon tax. It's a tax increase that would be hard to argue against.

Hockey has already distance himself from the Murray Financial System enquiry.  Will he be any better when the tax white paper is finally released.  Maybe he'll emulate Treasurer Howard when he received the Keith Campbell report on the Australian financial system back in 1981.  It took Labor to implement many of the recommendations like floating the dollar, deregulating the banking system and allowing foreign banks to compete.  Hockey has also placed the siphoning of profits out of Australia into the too hard basket as well.

Mike Smith sent a real zinger to Hockey while he was in opposition "Joe Hockey should be taking economics lessons from Peter Costello and Malcolm Turnbull instead of Hugo bloody Chavez."


----------



## sydboy007

Smurf1976 said:


> I'm expecting the devaluation to be greater than most seem to be thinking at present. Looking at the overall circumstances, a bit over 80 US cents still sounds more like a top than a bottom despite the recent falls.




I'm expecting the peso to be down with a 6 in front of it, possibly even a 5 depending how deep the income recession takes us.


----------



## Smurf1976

sydboy007 said:


> the context of why the deficit is blowing out has now become relevant.




There's a big difference between a one-off problem versus an ongoing structural one.

Eat too much on Christmas Day = not really a problem. Doing it every day is a very different situation however which in due course leads to obesity and associated problems.

Same principle with finance. I see no problem with running the occasional deficit due to one-off problems. Eg 40 years ago Darwin was flattened by a cyclone and there was also the partial collapse of the Tasman Bridge in Hobart. Two significant disasters within days of each other. Commonsense says borrow money if needed to deal with the situation. Same with more recent things like the Queensland floods a few years ago etc. It's OK to borrow if you've got a fundamentally sound position and can repay the debt from ongoing income. It's very, very different however if you're borrowing in order to fund routine expenditure as now seems to be the case.

The trouble with politicians of all persuasions is that they seem to expect the good times to last forever. We have a boom in whatever industry and that generates both taxation revenue and broader benefits such as reduced unemployment etc. Governments always fail to save for a rainy day and we're then faced with a financial crisis once the boom inevitably ends.

It's economics 101 really. I won't claim to know what the next boom will be or when it will occur. But I do know that it will in due course end. They always do. Only politicians seem unable to grasp this basic reality.


----------



## banco

Smurf1976 said:


> There's a big difference between a one-off problem versus an ongoing structural one.
> 
> Eat too much on Christmas Day = not really a problem. Doing it every day is a very different situation however which in due course leads to obesity and associated problems.
> 
> Same principle with finance. I see no problem with running the occasional deficit due to one-off problems. Eg 40 years ago Darwin was flattened by a cyclone and there was also the partial collapse of the Tasman Bridge in Hobart. Two significant disasters within days of each other. Commonsense says borrow money if needed to deal with the situation. Same with more recent things like the Queensland floods a few years ago etc. It's OK to borrow if you've got a fundamentally sound position and can repay the debt from ongoing income. It's very, very different however if you're borrowing in order to fund routine expenditure as now seems to be the case.
> 
> The trouble with politicians of all persuasions is that they seem to expect the good times to last forever. We have a boom in whatever industry and that generates both taxation revenue and broader benefits such as reduced unemployment etc. Governments always fail to save for a rainy day and we're then faced with a financial crisis once the boom inevitably ends.
> 
> It's economics 101 really. I won't claim to know what the next boom will be or when it will occur. But I do know that it will in due course end. They always do. Only politicians seem unable to grasp this basic reality.




Of course they grasp this basic reality it's just that all of their incentives are to spend.  Singapore and Norway are probably the most fiscally responsible countries in the world and Singapore can get away with it due to it being a one-party state while Norway it seems to be cultural.


----------



## chiff

Before they hit the jackpost with North Sea oil Norway mainly relied on fishing and shipping for their income.Now they have an 800 billion sovereign wealth fund with a population of a little over five million.They were not going to let the vast majority of oil profits go to the private sector.
In Australia both parties tend to pork barrel for the next election.I heard John Hewson say that the Howard/Costello middle class welfare handouts cost between thirty to forty billion.That was when John Howard said that what better could you do than give the money to the people.
And I think that the Rudd/Gillard governments wanted to introduce extra expenditure ,maybe to make it hard for the incoming government.
With three year election cycles and no consensus about the future between antagonistic poliltical parties not much will change  in Australia.
As was said....the culture is not right.


----------



## banco

chiff said:


> Before they hit the jackpost with North Sea oil Norway mainly relied on fishing and shipping for their income.Now they have an 800 billion sovereign wealth fund with a population of a little over five million.They were not going to let the vast majority of oil profits go to the private sector.
> In Australia both parties tend to pork barrel for the next election.I heard John Hewson say that the Howard/Costello middle class welfare handouts cost between thirty to forty billion.That was when John Howard said that what better could you do than give the money to the people.
> And I think that the Rudd/Gillard governments wanted to introduce extra expenditure ,maybe to make it hard for the incoming government.
> With three year election cycles and no consensus about the future between antagonistic poliltical parties not much will change  in Australia.
> As was said....the culture is not right.




Howard was lucky to be in when the money was flowing in and he certainly had no hesitation in spending it on getting reelected but I think Labor would have been worse.  God knows how many hare brained "nation building" schemes they would have come up with.


----------



## Smurf1976

banco said:


> God knows how many hare brained "nation building" schemes they would have come up with.




There's good spending and there's bad.

The Snowy scheme was commenced before most currently living Australians were born. For that matter, it was commenced before their parents were born in many cases and construction was completed a generation ago (1975).

It still has value today. It still generates peak power into NSW and Vic. It still provides irrigation water for agriculture. It still does exactly what it was supposed to do, and there's no reason why it shouldn't still be working long after you and I fall off our perch.

In contrast, can anyone point me to a real ongoing benefit of the $900 "Rudd money" handouts? Anything at all of ongoing value? I'd take a guess that well over 90% of what it bought has either been consumed, thrown out or forgotten about by now. 

I'm not proposing that we necessarily build another Snowy-like scheme involving dams and tunnels (though that is possible in an engineering sense certainly) but if we're going to spend taxpayers' funds to generate economic activity then I'd very much rather it went into something of effectively permanent value instead of disappearing amidst general consumer spending on mostly imported goods.

I'm sure we could come up with a pretty long list of potentially worthwhile projects and no doubt we'd disagree with some of them. But anything of ongoing use, which benefits the nation's productivity and has a 50+ year lifespan looks a lot better an idea to me than spending it on new TV's and so on.


----------



## sydboy007

Smurf1976 said:


> I'm sure we could come up with a pretty long list of potentially worthwhile projects and no doubt we'd disagree with some of them. But anything of ongoing use, which benefits the nation's productivity and has a 50+ year lifespan looks a lot better an idea to me than spending it on new TV's and so on.




As long as the infrastructure is self liquidating. The current crop of infrastructure like the Melbourne billion $ per km tunnel that only generated 45c of economic return for each $ spent is not going to help increase the wealth of the country.

Infrastructure Australia already has a list of projects it deems appropriate for investment, it's just the current Govt is doing it's best to ignore them or fudge things by padding the economic benefits, which you might get away with when your flush with cash but is crazy to do when you're running budget deficits.


----------



## banco

Smurf1976 said:


> There's good spending and there's bad.
> 
> The Snowy scheme was commenced before most currently living Australians were born. For that matter, it was commenced before their parents were born in many cases and construction was completed a generation ago (1975).
> 
> It still has value today. It still generates peak power into NSW and Vic. It still provides irrigation water for agriculture. It still does exactly what it was supposed to do, and there's no reason why it shouldn't still be working long after you and I fall off our perch.
> 
> In contrast, can anyone point me to a real ongoing benefit of the $900 "Rudd money" handouts? Anything at all of ongoing value? I'd take a guess that well over 90% of what it bought has either been consumed, thrown out or forgotten about by now.
> 
> I'm not proposing that we necessarily build another Snowy-like scheme involving dams and tunnels (though that is possible in an engineering sense certainly) but if we're going to spend taxpayers' funds to generate economic activity then I'd very much rather it went into something of effectively permanent value instead of disappearing amidst general consumer spending on mostly imported goods.
> 
> I'm sure we could come up with a pretty long list of potentially worthwhile projects and no doubt we'd disagree with some of them. But anything of ongoing use, which benefits the nation's productivity and has a 50+ year lifespan looks a lot better an idea to me than spending it on new TV's and so on.




The $900 handouts were the quickest way to give the economy a consumer injection.  They served their purpose. 

when Labor Governments talk about "nation building"  it's usually prestige projects rather than hum drum infrastructure (which is usually more useful). I think some US states have laws that a certain % of infrastructure money must be spent on maintenance of existing infrastructure in order to limit ego driven projects.


----------



## noco

banco said:


> The $900 handouts were the quickest way to give the economy a consumer injection.  They served their purpose.




Rudd put those $900 handouts on the Australian credit card and now we have to pay it back indirectly through a lower standard of living......Rudd borrowed money to do it and now it is costing the country $1 billion a month in interest.....It now has to paid back......The left side of politics just don't want to know about it and are in complete denial.

As Alan Koler states, it will have to be paid back by expenditure cuts to welfare or higher taxes.

Rudd was a good fellow at the time.......Abbott is now the bad fellow.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...-social-services/story-fnihsr9v-1227168753182

*Haven’t we got it good in Australia?

Well, no, apparently. Opinion polls tell us that we are actually dissatisfied with the status quo and unhappy with the belt-tightening that Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey would have us do.

Belt-tightening? Us?*
We are one of the fattest nations on Earth, both literally and metaphorically, and we are beside ourselves with indignation when our politicians tell us we need to slow down a bit on the non-stop spending.

*How dare they tell us to cut down!

So disgusted are we by Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey lecturing us in this way that we intend to vote at the next election for the other mob – the party that promises to keep on giving us more and more with not even the slightest acknowledgment that the good times are over.

Indeed, Bill Shorten, when quizzed recently on the ABC, could not even admit that the Australian economy is in trouble.

This from the man who, A), was part of the team that wasted the boom years in the first place; and B) is in the pocket of the unions; who selfishly plunder our economic prosperity, cripple our industrial performance and act like a dead hand on individual enterprise.*


----------



## Logique

Where was George Brandis' co-contribution for the $1100 dinner in London, including a $400 wine bill?  (SMH this morning).

Happy to wag the finger in our faces.


----------



## Logique

Coming from Piers Akerman mind.  He's just saying what so many are thinking.



> *Piers Akerman: PM Tony Abbott’s obstinance is protecting chief of staff Peta Credlin*
> THE SUNDAY TELEGRAPH - 28 December 2014
> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...167157731?nk=b48c34b742cfb95f7a3fad9430acac2b
> 
> ...It is clear that Abbott has developed an almost unhealthy reliance on Credlin’s advice...
> 
> ...there is a problem having a married couple such as Credlin, in the prime minister’s office, and her husband Brian Loughnane, as federal director of the Liberal Party...
> 
> ...Mainstream Coalition supporters feel they have been deserted...


----------



## Tisme

> Logique






> Piers Akerman: PM Tony Abbott’s obstinance is protecting chief of staff Peta Credlin
> THE SUNDAY TELEGRAPH - 28 December 2014
> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...3fad9430acac2b
> 
> ...It is clear that Abbott has developed an almost unhealthy reliance on Credlin’s advice...
> 
> ...there is a problem having a married couple such as Credlin, in the prime minister’s office, and her husband Brian Loughnane, as federal director of the Liberal Party...
> 
> ...Mainstream Coalition supporters feel they have been deserted...




The thing is that Coalition supporters are generally very quick to point out anyone but their own camp as incompetent, usually with the help of a third eye only they possess. So it becomes rather confusing when the likes of the all seeing Piers Akerman takes so long to realise what has been going on in the Credlin Govt and the Credlin/Loughnane caucus.    

I'm blaming sun spots for the rather poor performance of the welded on LNP toffs in misreading the tea leaves; that or the blinkers are literally on the blink. The sad part for me is that I (and 55% of the voting minions) have to involuntarily suffer the poor choices others made and the incomprehensible obsequious devotion of some to the lemon they bought.


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> The sad part for me is that I (and 55% of the voting minions) have to involuntarily suffer the poor choices others made and the incomprehensible obsequious devotion of some to the lemon they bought.




There certainly seem to be a lot of rusted ons here.

Although I lean towards the policies of the Labor party in preference to the Coalition, there have been plenty of times that I have given neither of the main parties my first preference, especially when I could vote for a good indie or when the Australian Democrats were operating.

I have a feeling that there is some good talent that is not being utilised in both major parties. The Coalition front bench is old and tired, Labor's are a bit untested especially after all the Ministerial departures they had before the last election.

Not a good time for politics, but it seems we have been saying that for quite some time.


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> There certainly seem to be a lot of rusted ons here.



Um, I can think of just one.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> Um, I can think of just one.




Yes, you would as you seem to have a condition of selective reading.


----------



## Smurf1976

noco said:


> Well, no, apparently. Opinion polls tell us that we are actually dissatisfied with the status quo and unhappy with the belt-tightening that Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey would have us do.




There's nothing wrong with belt tightening if it's done sensibly.

The problem is that the Coalition has used the financial situation to justify sheer arrogance and the introduction of ideologically driven policies which just isn't necessary. By all means save money, but there's no need to be nasty about it or let your personal view of the world get in the way. That's where Abbott is going wrong, and the reason he won't be PM too much longer I expect.


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, you would as you seem to have a condition of selective reading.



Well, I look forward to your enlightening me as to the other rusted on Coalition supporters, noco fairly clearly being the obvious one.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> Well, I look forward to your enlightening me as to the other rusted on Coalition supporters, noco fairly clearly being the obvious one.




Have you ever voted Labor ?

I think even noco said he once voted for Bob Hawke.


----------



## Julia

Yes, indeed I have voted Labor both federally and state.  And I would again if they showed evidence of good policy and sound financial management.

So that's me off your list of rusted on voters.  Who else are you asserting falls into that category?


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> Yes, indeed I have voted Labor both federally and state.  And I would again if they showed evidence of good policy and sound financial management.
> 
> So that's me off your list of rusted on voters.  Who else are you asserting falls into that category?




sptrawler, Calliope would be  fair bets. As the membership has sadly declined there aren't as many vocal people in the political threads these days but when the politics were hot the opinions were mainly for the Coalition.


----------



## Smurf1976

I've never considered myself as "rusted on" to any political party.

But if an election, either state or federal, were held tomorrow then there is very little chance that I'd be voting Liberal. 

It comes down to arrogance, a problem that precludes sensible policy development and implementation. Since both the federal and state governments are suffering the same problem, I conclude it to be a function of the Liberal party itself rather than any particular politician. 

As such, I'll look at the other candidates closely but wouldn't consider voting for any Liberals without a major change. I say that as someone who, in principle, substantially supports the party's view of the world. But they've lost the plot in practice and turned into a bunch of ideologically driven fight starters unable to sensibly govern in the best interests of the country or state.

Realistically, that probably leaves me as a Labor voter unless there's some decent independent or minor party candidates. Labor will make a mess of course, but in a different way that's what the Liberals are doing right now anyway.


----------



## SirRumpole

Smurf1976 said:


> I've never considered myself as "rusted on" to any political party.
> 
> But if an election, either state or federal, were held tomorrow then there is very little chance that I'd be voting Liberal.
> 
> It comes down to arrogance, a problem that precludes sensible policy development and implementation. Since both the federal and state governments are suffering the same problem, I conclude it to be a function of the Liberal party itself rather than any particular politician.
> 
> As such, I'll look at the other candidates closely but wouldn't consider voting for any Liberals without a major change. I say that as someone who, in principle, substantially supports the party's view of the world. But they've lost the plot in practice and turned into a bunch of ideologically driven fight starters unable to sensibly govern in the best interests of the country or state.
> 
> Realistically, that probably leaves me as a Labor voter unless there's some decent independent or minor party candidates. Labor will make a mess of course, but in a different way that's what the Liberals are doing right now anyway.




A pretty balanced comment.

Whether Labor "makes a mess" really depends on who is in charge.

If it's Bill Shorten, I perceive him as too weak to stand up to the unions, as he comes from that background. 

Someone like Chris Bowen, although he is not in the limelight at the moment, may do a better job. 

Labor at the moment lacks the financial discipline of a Lindsay Tanner in the Treasury role. Perhaps Bowen and Wong can take over that mantle, they don't seem to be the wild spending types.

Let's just remember that Labor got stuck with the GFC and had to spend their way out of it, conversely they did commit to large spending increases like Gonski and NDIS. Whatever we think of the worth of these projects they cost oodles of cash that has to be found.


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> There certainly seem to be a lot of rusted ons here.






SirRumpole said:


> Yes, you would as you seem to have a condition of selective reading.






SirRumpole said:


> sptrawler, Calliope would be  fair bets. As the membership has sadly declined there aren't as many vocal people in the political threads these days but when the politics were hot the opinions were mainly for the Coalition.



You might be mistaking disgust with the six years of Labor with automatic liking for the Coalition.  I can recall many highly critical posts from both sptrawler and Calliope regarding the present government.

It seems to be a characteristic of those people who are either rusted on to a political party or conversely rusted off its opposition to assume that anyone making criticism of, for example, Labor is ergo an uncritical fan of the other side.  This is simply wrong.

So, no, I do not have any 'condition of selective reading', Rumpole.  And I'd dare to suggest neither do either Calliope or sptrawler, so perhaps consider not making such generalised, inaccurate assertions.

What I do think we'd pretty much all agree on is that the political landscape is presently extremely barren on both sides.  Worse, there seems little prospect of this getting better.  Goes not just to the major parties but to the motley assortment in the Senate where there seems little hope of sensible attitude from most of the new senators.  I held out some hope for David Leyjonhelm for a while, but his recent advice that Australians should be armed has destroyed that.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> You might be mistaking disgust with the six years of Labor with automatic liking for the Coalition.  I can recall many highly critical posts from both sptrawler and Calliope regarding the present government.




If you could point these out, I would be interested.




> What I do think we'd pretty much all agree on is that the political landscape is presently extremely barren on both sides.  Worse, there seems little prospect of this getting better.  Goes not just to the major parties but to the motley assortment in the Senate where there seems little hope of sensible attitude from most of the new senators.  I held out some hope for David Leyjonhelm for a while, but his recent advice that Australians should be armed has destroyed that.




David Leyjonelm is a wolf in sheep's clothing, seemingly reasonable on the outside, but dangerously Right wing underneath. 

Nick Xenophon on the other hand seems consistently balanced and reasonable. If he starts his own party and it's possible for me to vote for him, I will.


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> If you could point these out, I would be interested.



That would mean my trawling through several threads which I'm not going to do Rumpole.
I'm sure, political devotee that you are, you have yourself read such posts.

Just as you have a natural inclination toward Labor, others - myself included - will also have a natural disposition to whatever aligns with our life view.
In my case it's small 'l' liberal, the wish for governments not to do what people can do for themselves, the encouragement of personal responsibility and the relinquishment of the sense of entitlement which has come to so pervade the national psyche.

Despite being "The Liberal Party", the force Mr Abbott is leading is much more purely Conservative than Liberal and that is a source of much disappointment to me and many others.


----------



## SirRumpole

> In my case it's small 'l' liberal, the wish for governments not to do what people can do for themselves, the encouragement of personal responsibility and the relinquishment of the sense of entitlement which has come to so pervade the national psyche.




I certainly agree with that sentiment in principle, but let's remember that it was Liberal governments that bought in baby bonuses and family tax benefits in a mining boom that they never expected would end, instead of investing in productive infrastructure while they could. Added to that the expensive and unecessary PPL and you have a Party  bereft of the principles you aspire to. 

I admire you for acknowledging that fact.


----------



## Calliope

Small "l" liberals actually consider themselves to be "Progressives". My objection to the Liberal Party is that it is riddled with small ells. A little Conservative backbone is badly needed. A Conservative in Australia is;



> Terminology
> Until recently "conservatism" was a disparaging epithet used by radicals and Laborites and claimed by few. People on the right called themselves "liberals." That only changed in the late 20th century; Hirst shows that as a significant political movement, conservatism is "a very recent arrival in Australia. John Howard, who became prime minister in 1996, was the first holder of the office to describe himself as a conservative."
> 
> In the 21st century the term covers similar political issues as found in other Western democracies. In the early 20th century the self-styled "liberals" had connections with radicals and reform movements. However as Howard has argued, the Liberal Party became the trustee of both the classical liberal and conservative traditions. That is it combines "liberal" (market-based, pro-business, anti-union) economic policies with conservative social policies.



(Wiki)

Exactly the opposite to a Progressive.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=progressive


----------



## Smurf1976

Personally, I'd love to vote for someone who is:

Pro-market, pro-business in principle.

Supports personal freedom and choice whilst protecting those who wish to not be involved in anything harmful to themselves.

Understands that markets have their limits and that there is still a role for government.

Sees unions as a matter of personal choice. 

Is socially progressive. 

Actually follows its' own ideology, including where that leads to individuals making choices the government would prefer they didn't.

If the Liberal party really supported personal choice and freedom then they wouldn't see a problem with, for example, gay marriage or someone joining a union. It's a personal choice, right?


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> Personally, I'd love to vote for someone who is:
> 
> Pro-market, pro-business in principle.
> 
> Supports personal freedom and choice whilst protecting those who wish to not be involved in anything harmful to themselves.
> 
> Understands that markets have their limits and that there is still a role for government.
> 
> Sees unions as a matter of personal choice.
> 
> Is socially progressive.
> 
> Actually follows its' own ideology, including where that leads to individuals making choices the government would prefer they didn't.
> 
> If the Liberal party really supported personal choice and freedom then they wouldn't see a problem with, for example, gay marriage or someone joining a union. It's a personal choice, right? Oh wait.... We support personal choice as long as you make choices we agree with. Yep, that's closer to it.




Your earlier post said you feel Labor are more aligned with your views. Yet above you say you prefer pro market, pro business?

As far as I know smurph, joining a union is a personal choice.
What was been banned, was compulsory unionism, which didn't allow personal choice.
I've seen people 'black balled' and sent to Coventry, then lose their job. Where was their personal choice, back in the days of compulsory unionism?
Having said that, I do believe in the union collective ideal, and was always a member. 
What I dislike, is that the unions have been hijacked by intellectual socialists, that use it as a platform to a political career. The last thing they represent is their workers.IMO

Gay marriage is moral issue that Australia should have a referendum on, IMO, and then be put to bed. 
I don't feel it is any Governments right, to legislate a change in our moral compass, without asking if the majority want it.  

I think people generally have to get their heads around the fact, that we are currently going through a period, of falling tax reciepts and increased demand on the welfare system.
Labor made a poor fist of addressing the issues, and Liberal aren't doing any better.

Irrespective of who is in office, both spending and taxation will have to be modified, and people won't be happy.

I doubt the end result will differ very much, which ever party is in office.

If Welfare spending increases, then the tax to support it will increase. If the increased taxation is on business, they will pass the increase on to the consumer, or continue to lose profit, which eventually leads to closure.

If the personal tax rates increase, wages will follow, workers still have to pay their bills.

So the end result is costs/ inflation go up, the only sector that can't change their fiscal position, is the welfare recipients.
So we increase the welfare spend, and so the cycle continues.
The difference to the equation now as opposed to pre 2007 is, the welfare is now being funded by the Government borrowing money, to pay it.

It will be addressed despite peoples discontent, even Labor will follow a similar path, IMO.


----------



## Julia

Calliope said:


> Small "l" liberals actually consider themselves to be "Progressives".



Well, 'Progressive' is usually associated with the Labor Party.  It's the first time I've ever heard of such an association with small l liberal philosophy.

We can get much too hung up on terminology rather than principles.   To be progressive in the conventional sense of the word is presumably to be open minded toward reform and societal improvement which seems more than reasonable to me.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are hamstrung by their refusal to relinquish old ways, are stuck in the past.

I heard a talk recently by a local Conservative councillor which I found quite astonishing.
In describing his life, he referred to his wife as 'dutiful and obedient', and his children likewise. 
He admired the White Australia policy and thought that immigration has been bad for Australia.
He was intractably opposed to abortion under any circumstances.
Thought everyone should have the right to bear arms and informed listeners of his many guns.

And more along the same lines, all stuff I'd have thought  sensible people would have long ago discarded.

This sort of ultra conservatism is usually only seen amongst old people so hopefully it will disappear from natural attrition.  Certainly hope so.


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> I certainly agree with that sentiment in principle, but let's remember that it was Liberal governments that bought in baby bonuses and family tax benefits in a mining boom that they never expected would end, instead of investing in productive infrastructure while they could. Added to that the expensive and unecessary PPL and you have a Party  bereft of the principles you aspire to.



Couldn't have put it more accurately myself.   

Nonetheless, under John Howard the country was more in harmony with itself than has been the case since.
And - under the stewardship of Peter Costello - they left a healthy surplus.

sptrawler above makes some good points about fiscal management.

As citizens we should be able to hold our government in respect, feel confident they know what's best for Australia, and that they genuinely have the welfare of the people at heart.

Instead, we get soap operas about 'seeing the real XXX', intra-party back stabbing, myopic devotion to an outdated class structure, and money wasted on religion and the over-commemoration of war.

Little wonder the electorate feels a collective sense of despair.


----------



## ghotib

Julia said:


> ghotib, I've been pondering your use of the 'lazy':  it seems a rather unusual adjective for someone so self disciplined in terms of physical fitness etc.  Mr Abbott doesn't strike me as lazy so much as timorous.  He was confident in opposition because he knew he could just object and attack (as Labor is doing now) and his three word slogans pretty much did the job.
> 
> But he's perhaps finding it very different in government where much more is required of him.  He seems to think he has to be liked by everyone.  I wince when I listen to him being interviewed by cretins such as Alan Jones who lash him with criticism and insults while he becomes ever more pathetically defensive instead of standing up for himself...
> 
> ...If you could expand on your use of 'lazy' I'd be interested.



Thanks for the ponder Julia. I was surprised myself when the words "lazy" and "Tony Abbott" occurred to me in the same sentence, but I haven't found a better description so I thought I'd put it out and see if anything came back. So thank you.

Why do I think he's lazy spite of his physical discipline? The policy inconsistencies that sydboy and smurf pointed out are part of it. The miserable performance in interviews, where he never seems to be prepared even for obvious questions like "what is metadata", is part of it. The famous remark to Kerry O'Brien that we should only believe him when he's speaking from a script is part of it. The eyerolls, and even the infamous wink, that seem to be his reaction to any attempt to press him on a statement are part of it.

But the clincher for me was his book, which I've only recently read and which I found… Well, lazy. It reminds me of essays I wrote in my student days, where I'd done a lot of reading but not much digesting. The result is notes strung together well enough to meet a word count, but not well enough to make a coherent, let alone an original, argument. As far as I know no one commissioned Abbott to write Battlelines and he was under no time pressure. I can’t see any reason for the book’s failings except that they reflect either Abbott’s refusal to think, or his refusal to put his thoughts into words that can be challenged. 

I’ve seen that as intellectual laziness. I think it might be part of the behaviour you see as timorous:  he doesn’t handle insult or criticism, or even honest debate, because he hasn’t done the work and he knows it. 

Fascinating character. I just wish he was fictional.


----------



## banco

ghotib said:


> Thanks for the ponder Julia. I was surprised myself when the words "lazy" and "Tony Abbott" occurred to me in the same sentence, but I haven't found a better description so I thought I'd put it out and see if anything came back. So thank you.
> 
> Why do I think he's lazy spite of his physical discipline? The policy inconsistencies that sydboy and smurf pointed out are part of it. The miserable performance in interviews, where he never seems to be prepared even for obvious questions like "what is metadata", is part of it. The famous remark to Kerry O'Brien that we should only believe him when he's speaking from a script is part of it. The eyerolls, and even the infamous wink, that seem to be his reaction to any attempt to press him on a statement are part of it.
> 
> But the clincher for me was his book, which I've only recently read and which I found… Well, lazy. It reminds me of essays I wrote in my student days, where I'd done a lot of reading but not much digesting. The result is notes strung together well enough to meet a word count, but not well enough to make a coherent, let alone an original, argument. As far as I know no one commissioned Abbott to write Battlelines and he was under no time pressure. I can’t see any reason for the book’s failings except that they reflect either Abbott’s refusal to think, or his refusal to put his thoughts into words that can be challenged.
> 
> I’ve seen that as intellectual laziness. I think it might be part of the behaviour you see as timorous:  he doesn’t handle insult or criticism, or even honest debate, because he hasn’t done the work and he knows it.
> 
> Fascinating character. I just wish he was fictional.




For what it's worth he was regarded as a lazy minister in the Howard Government (in terms of not putting in the hours that others did and trying to wing it).


----------



## SirRumpole

> Your earlier post said you feel Labor are more aligned with your views. Yet above you say you prefer pro market, pro business?




If "pro business" really means "anti consumer", then that ideology is not something most voters would endorse.

The  weakening of the financial consumer laws in favour of financial advisors would be one example of "Conservative" thinking rather than "liberal" thinking that is badly regarded by the electorate.


----------



## sptrawler

ghotib said:


> Thanks for the ponder Julia. I was surprised myself when the words "lazy" and "Tony Abbott" occurred to me in the same sentence, but I haven't found a better description so I thought I'd put it out and see if anything came back. So thank you.
> 
> Why do I think he's lazy spite of his physical discipline? The policy inconsistencies that sydboy and smurf pointed out are part of it. The miserable performance in interviews, where he never seems to be prepared even for obvious questions like "what is metadata", is part of it. The famous remark to Kerry O'Brien that we should only believe him when he's speaking from a script is part of it. The eyerolls, and even the infamous wink, that seem to be his reaction to any attempt to press him on a statement are part of it.
> 
> But the clincher for me was his book, which I've only recently read and which I found… Well, lazy. It reminds me of essays I wrote in my student days, where I'd done a lot of reading but not much digesting. The result is notes strung together well enough to meet a word count, but not well enough to make a coherent, let alone an original, argument. As far as I know no one commissioned Abbott to write Battlelines and he was under no time pressure. I can’t see any reason for the book’s failings except that they reflect either Abbott’s refusal to think, or his refusal to put his thoughts into words that can be challenged.
> 
> I’ve seen that as intellectual laziness. I think it might be part of the behaviour you see as timorous:  he doesn’t handle insult or criticism, or even honest debate, because he hasn’t done the work and he knows it.
> 
> Fascinating character. I just wish he was fictional.




Very interesting take on Abbott, ghotib, one I had never considered. 

If your theory is correct, I would think his hold on the leadership would be very shaky.


----------



## SirRumpole

> I’ve seen that as intellectual laziness. I think it might be part of the behaviour you see as timorous: he doesn’t handle insult or criticism, or even honest debate, because he hasn’t done the work and he knows it.




Would the word "shallow" sum him up ?


----------



## Calliope

Conservatives like Thatcher and Reagan believed in personal responsibility and smaller government.  So do I. It that makes me a Conservative...so be it. Reagan said;

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" 

Gary Johns, a former Labor minister has an interesting article in The Australian today. He believes that taxpayers should not have to support people who choose to have children, if they are on welfare. He thinks more like a Conservative than a small "l" or a Progressive.



> IF a person’s sole source of income is the taxpayer, the person, as a condition of benefit, must have contraception. No contraception, no benefit.
> 
> This is not an affront to single mothers or absent fathers, or struggling parents. Such a measure will undoubtedly affect strugglers, it undoubtedly will affect Aboriginal and Islander people in great proportions, but the idea that someone can have the taxpayer, as of right, fund the choice to have a child is repugnant.
> 
> Large families of earlier generations were the result of the combination of absent contraception and the need to have many children, in order that some survive to care for parents in old age.
> 
> These conditions do not now apply. Infant mortality is minuscule in all sectors of society, and the taxpayer picks up the tab for aged care.
> 
> Therefore, there should be no taxpayer inducement to have children. Potential parents of poor means, poor skills or bad character will choose to have children. So be it. But no one should enter parenthood while on a benefit.
> 
> It is better to avoid having children until such time as parents can afford them. No amount of ‘‘intervention’’ after the fact can make up for the strife that many parents bring down on their children.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...aception-no-dole/story-fn8v83qk-1227169545069


----------



## banco

Calliope said:


> Conservatives like Thatcher and Reagan believed in personal responsibility and smaller government.  So do I. It that makes me a Conservative...so be it. Reagan said;
> 
> "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
> 
> Gary Johns, a former Labor minister has an interesting article in The Australian today. He believes that taxpayers should not have to support people who choose to have children, if they are on welfare. He thinks more like a Conservative than a small "l" or a Progressive.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...aception-no-dole/story-fn8v83qk-1227169545069




Hardly call that conservative. What are they going to do? Insert an IUD in the centerlink office before they hand over the cheque?


----------



## SirRumpole

> It is better to avoid having children until such time as parents can afford them. No amount of ‘‘intervention’’ after the fact can make up for the strife that many parents bring down on their children.




I'm no way a Conservative, but I agree with Mr Johns statement. Of course the champions of the poor and oppressed will cry that it's everyone's right to have children, but not on my money thanks.

Will the Coalition bring back "Income management" ? Is this a good idea ? Some people with spend welfare on drink, drugs, pokies and cigarettes but I wonder what proportion of welfare recipients this group composes.

There needs to be better collection of data on welfare recipients in general, especially those on disability support. This is a very wide area that seems to cover every complaint from amputations to anxiety. Some easy to prove, others not. 

There could be widespread rorting of disability payments.


----------



## Smurf1976

sptrawler said:


> Your earlier post said you feel Labor are more aligned with your views. Yet above you say you prefer pro market, pro business?




In principle I'm pro markets and business, but the downsides of the Liberals outweigh that for me at the moment such that, of the parties, Labor seems the best of a bad bunch.

By "pro business" I mean that I acknowledge that business as such is legitimate, it's the underpinning of the economy and ultimately of our society. We should certainly have sensible regulation in areas such as pay and conditions, environment, safety, consumer protection etc. But it shouldn't be to the point of punishing business for the sake of it (essentially an ideological view) or making it impossible to carry on a reasonable business activity.



> As far as I know smurph, joining a union is a personal choice.




It is and should be so. But I think it's fair to say that there's a degree of bias on both major sides of politics here. One side likes them, one hates them. Neither could be considered impartial.


> Gay marriage is moral issue that Australia should have a referendum on, IMO, and then be put to bed.




Seems fair to me. Although a "personal freedom" government would see no reason to regulate that in the first place assuming we're talking about two consenting adults.



> I think people generally have to get their heads around the fact, that we are currently going through a period, of falling tax reciepts and increased demand on the welfare system.
> Labor made a poor fist of addressing the issues, and Liberal aren't doing any better.




+1

It was a very foreseeable problem too, just basic maths really. Anyone who looked at the statistics would have known about an aging population and the rest is pretty straightforward from that point. Liberal (Howard) could have moderated the boom and stashed more away for the future. Labor could have avoided blowing what the previous government did set aside. Abbott could have sold the message a lot better had he taken a calmer, less arrogant approach to it all. 

The sad thing is, the longer we leave it, the harder it will be to fix eventually. At some point, we're going to have a true horror budget that everybody from the rich through to the unemployed and everyone in between will hate.


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> In principle I'm pro markets and business, but the downsides of the Liberals outweigh that for me at the moment such that, of the parties, Labor seems the best of a bad bunch.
> 
> By "pro business" I mean that I acknowledge that business as such is legitimate, it's the underpinning of the economy and ultimately of our society. We should certainly have sensible regulation in areas such as pay and conditions, environment, safety, consumer protection etc. But it shouldn't be to the point of punishing business for the sake of it (essentially an ideological view) or making it impossible to carry on a reasonable business activity.



Maybe you're judging them on Tassie politics, same as I'm basing my beliefs on W.A experience.

Federally I feel, it has become a joke, the last Senate election proved to me, that a seat in Parliament has become a job of last resort. I personally know one that put up his hand, and I wouldn't trust him as far as I could kick him, but as long as he gets a jumper he's laughing.
IMO Labors term in office, highlighted to the scammers how easy it all is. 
As a result, the last thing politicians seem to be concerned with, is Australia. The critical issue appears to be ticking the boxes for lifetime perks.IMO
The result will be financial impediments will be put in place, to make it harder to enter politics, thereby going down the U.S model.IMO

How people can bag Pauline Hansen and laud Jackie Lambie, defiese belief.IMO




Smurf1976 said:


> It is and should be so. But I think it's fair to say that there's a degree of bias on both major sides of politics here. One side likes them, one hates them. Neither could be considered impartial..




No neither could be impartial towards unions, but one side is beholden to them.  



Smurf1976 said:


> Seems fair to me. Although a "personal freedom" government would see no reason to regulate that in the first place assuming we're talking about two consenting adults..




What Government would you be talking about?  The acceptance of 'gay marriage' isn't a constitutional issue, it's a religious and moral issue, it has nothing to do with legislation, just moral acceptance.
I personally am not religious at all, and don't really care either way. 
But having said that, a lot of our moral, social and legal structures, are based on long held religious guidelines.
These were probably enacted a zillion years ago, to bring about order in a chaotic primal world, decadence was the downfall of many civilisations.
Who knows if they are required now? everything gets superseded.




Smurf1976 said:


> It was a very foreseeable problem too, just basic maths really. Anyone who looked at the statistics would have known about an aging population and the rest is pretty straightforward from that point. Liberal (Howard) could have moderated the boom and stashed more away for the future. Labor could have avoided blowing what the previous government did set aside. Abbott could have sold the message a lot better had he taken a calmer, less arrogant approach to it all.
> 
> The sad thing is, the longer we leave it, the harder it will be to fix eventually. At some point, we're going to have a true horror budget that everybody from the rich through to the unemployed and everyone in between will hate.




Agree completely Rudd/Labor over reacted to the GFC, probably from the euphoria of attaining office with a World leading fiscal situation.
Abbott has fallen into the same trap, thinking kicking the $hit out of welfare recipients, is what everyone wanted.
Now we have everyone wedged by loonies, it is going to end up a whole lot worse, for those who can't change their fiscal situation.
Sad really.


----------



## Macquack

SirRumpole said:


> There needs to be better collection of data on welfare recipients in general, especially those on disability support. This is a very wide area that seems to cover every complaint from amputations to anxiety. Some easy to prove, others not.
> 
> *There could be widespread rorting of disability payments*.




There is widespread rorting of the disability pension from what I see. The main problem is that once people are on the disability pension they never work again. This is a generalisation, but is drug and alcohol addiction (which qualifies) really a "disability"?


----------



## SirRumpole

Macquack said:


> There is widespread rorting of the disability pension from what I see. The main problem is that once people are on the disability pension they never work again. This is a generalisation, but is drug and alcohol addiction (which qualifies) really a "disability"?




Drug and alcohol addiction qualifies for the DSP ? 

I'm staggered. What about gambling addiction ?

This is outrageous. I hope Morrison does something about that.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/fa...-to-stay-at-home/story-e6freuy9-1226055955717


----------



## sptrawler

Macquack said:


> There is widespread rorting of the disability pension from what I see. The main problem is that once people are on the disability pension they never work again. This is a generalisation, but is drug and alcohol addiction (which qualifies) really a "disability"?




I was on a cruise a couple of years ago, I met a guy in the gym that looked like Arnie, he was bench pressing heaps.
When we got talking, found out he was on a disability pension 'bad back'.

I'm not saying it should be stopped, but it definetely is being rorted.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> Drug and alcohol addiction qualifies for the DSP ?
> 
> I'm staggered. What about gambling addiction ?
> 
> This is outrageous. I hope Morrison does something about that.





McQuack is right.


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> Would the word "shallow" sum him up ?



I don't think we're in a position to make this judgment.  People who know Tony Abbott well, including Labor-inclined journalists from the press gallery, comment that on a personal basis Mr Abbott is friendly, warm and intellectually engaged.  



SirRumpole said:


> I'm no way a Conservative, but I agree with Mr Johns statement. Of course the champions of the poor and oppressed will cry that it's everyone's right to have children, but not on my money thanks.
> 
> Will the Coalition bring back "Income management" ? Is this a good idea ? Some people with spend welfare on drink, drugs, pokies and cigarettes but I wonder what proportion of welfare recipients this group composes.
> 
> There needs to be better collection of data on welfare recipients in general, especially those on disability support. This is a very wide area that seems to cover every complaint from amputations to anxiety. Some easy to prove, others not.
> 
> There could be widespread rorting of disability payments.



As has been discussed on a separate thread, many people, particularly those over 40 have been placed on the DSP to make the unemployment figures look better.
The criteria for eligibility seems to change according to the political whim of the day.  People with mild sadness are conveniently tagged as severely depressed, minor back pain is categorised as disabling yada yada.



Smurf1976 said:


> In principle I'm pro markets and business, but the downsides of the Liberals outweigh that for me at the moment such that, of the parties, Labor seems the best of a bad bunch.



Really?  Not withstanding that we are now paying massive amounts in interest alone to cope with the debt they incurred, plus their blue sky ideas re additional education and disability funding that they didn't explain how they would fund?   That business was in despair over the policies or lack of them?

The Abbott government leaves much to be desired, but at least they recognise the projected disastrous forward financial trajectory.  They just need to find a more equitable way to address this.



> Seems fair to me. Although a "personal freedom" government would see no reason to regulate that in the first place assuming we're talking about two consenting adults.



Someone earlier suggested this whole gay marriage thing should be the subject of a referendum.  I agree with that, rather than have the loudest voices prompt the decision.



> The sad thing is, the longer we leave it, the harder it will be to fix eventually. At some point, we're going to have a true horror budget that everybody from the rich through to the unemployed and everyone in between will hate.



Agree absolutely.  So, given you favour a return to Labor, how do you think they'd go on fixing this problem?



SirRumpole said:


> Drug and alcohol addiction qualifies for the DSP ?
> 
> I'm staggered. What about gambling addiction ?
> 
> This is outrageous. I hope Morrison does something about that.
> 
> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/fa...-to-stay-at-home/story-e6freuy9-1226055955717



Yep, all kinds of addiction, plus social anxiety, and at least a dozen other psychological maladies.
No consideration of the role of personal responsibility, self discipline.  All that stuff is old fashioned in this great new age of entitlement.
Let the people on the basic wage, trying to pay off a mortgage, make a future for their family, just cough up for those who can't be bothered making an effort.

NB  The above does not include a judgment on people with a genuine mental or physical illness whom we should be supporting a lot more than we do now.


----------



## Calliope

sptrawler said:


> I was on a cruise a couple of years ago, I met a guy in the gym that looked like Arnie, he was bench pressing heaps.
> When we got talking, found out he was on a disability pension 'bad back'.
> 
> I'm not saying it should be stopped, but it definetely is being rorted.




"Mediteranean Back" used to be the favoured disability for a pension. But I think it has now been overtaken by PTSD...Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. All you need is the right doctor and you are set up for life. If you are a returned serviceman, the RSL, which is now run by Vietnam veterans, will set you up with the right doctor.

These things are so entrenched they are now part of our culture. Scott Morrison has an impossible task...the fifth labour of Hercules...cleaning all the **** out of the Augean Stables.


----------



## sptrawler

Calliope said:


> "Mediteranean Back" used to be the favoured disability for a pension. But I think it has now been overtaken by PTSD...Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. All you need is the right doctor and you are set up for life. If you are a returned serviceman, the RSL, which is now run by Vietnam veterans, will set you up with the right doctor.
> 
> These things are so entrenched they are now part of our culture. Scott Morrison has an impossible task...the fifth labour of Hercules...cleaning all the **** out of the Augean Stables.



You're spot on, the ex navy guys that I worked with network and are mostly pulling tpi's. Yet none saw action, from what I've heard. It is unbelievable.


----------



## Smurf1976

Julia said:


> So, given you favour a return to Labor, how do you think they'd go on fixing this problem?



I don't think that either Labor or the Coalition with present party members will actually fix the nation's finances until effectively forced to do. Labor didn't manage to do it and the Coalition is clearly now failing as well.

That being so, my logic is to vote based on other considerations given that there's no apparent option to vote for economic responsibility.


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> I don't think that either Labor or the Coalition with present party members will actually fix the nation's finances until effectively forced to do. Labor didn't manage to do it and the Coalition is clearly now failing as well.
> 
> That being so, my logic is to vote based on other considerations given that there's no apparent option to vote for economic responsibility.




Just guessing, but would that be because Labor, will keep Tassie generation in Government control?

Then I could understand your stance.


----------



## Smurf1976

sptrawler said:


> Just guessing, but would that be because Labor, will keep Tassie generation in Government control?
> 
> Then I could understand your stance.




No, it's not from a state perspective but a national one. As I see it, Labor won't likely fix the mess and nor will the Coalition. Only yesterday I hear that the Coalition is now paving the way politically for an ongoing series of deficits. Using the budget as a "cushion" for the economy - that's politician speak for running a deficit for the foreseeable future.

So if we're going broke either way, and I can't see either Labor or the Coalition actually fixing things financially until forced, then there's no point voting based on that issue. That being so, Labor reflects my views somewhat better in terms of social policies etc.

Overall, my thinking is that the finances at the federal level will have more to do with timing and circumstance than who's in power over the next few years. Just like what happened in the 1980's with the states. Most got into a degree of trouble, quite drastically in Vic, Tas and SA, and both Labor and Liberal governments were involved in that debacle. It was the overall circumstances and thinking of the era, not who was in power at the time, that determined the outcome given that political opponents took essentially the same route with the same consequences.

Unless there's significant change within the parties, then I can't see either the Coalition or Labor fixing the nation's finances until either forced by external factors, or alternatively if it happens by virtue of some new boom industry emerging. If the AUD drops to 40 cents US or some other shock happens, well then that's probably going to bring about some action no matter who's in power at the time. I can't see them doing it without at least a modest shove in the right direction from the markets, RBA or credit rating agencies. In the meantime, not much changes and the debt gets bigger.

As for state issues and specifically that of privatising power generation, well at the state level I'm pretty sure that both parties would like to sell the lot and grab a few $billion that they'd then proceed to blow over the next few years. Heck, Hydro Tas has handed the state government a few $ hundred million over the past two years and yes, the politicians (first Labor/Green then Liberal) have blown it with nothing of note to show for it. None of them are any good financially. But in reality, I can't see either of them actually going down that track unless forced given the political consequences last time it was tried. If anything, we're more likely to see some sort of call for an electricity-led economic recovery of sorts 

I do expect the Liberals to sell off retailing to the public however, but that's already a separate entity anyway (has been since 1998) and Labor did actually try unsuccessfully to sell it in 2013 so no real difference there.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Gay marriage is moral issue that Australia should have a referendum on, IMO, and then be put to bed.
> I don't feel it is any Governments right, to legislate a change in our moral compass, without asking if the majority want it.




Could you clarify how gay marriage could fundamentally change the moral compass of the country.

By saying this you are saying that gay marriage is immoral, or at best amoral.

Isn't it more appropriate to consider gay marriage as a rights issue.  Is it fair to deny one section of society a "right" when there is no valid reason to do so?  Validity would be something you can show to be true, that can be examined by others and seen to be correct / true.

Claiming gay marriage is a moral issue also seems to imply that homosexuality is somehow not moral.  I'd be interested in how you define morality.


----------



## Tink

Off topic, syd, but polygamy, homosexuality, transvestism, and incest have always been in society just not legal until now.


----------



## noco

Smurf1976 said:


> I don't think that either Labor or the Coalition with present party members will actually fix the nation's finances until effectively forced to do. Labor didn't manage to do it and the Coalition is clearly now failing as well.
> 
> That being so, my logic is to vote based on other considerations given that there's no apparent option to vote for economic responsibility.




I am hoping common sense will prevail with voters and that they do consider which party is economically responsible, given the happenings in the past 16 months.

If the coalition can stabilize the current situation without going backwards, then at least they have gained something but it must be a bi-partisan effort and I cannot see that happening given the antics of the Labor Party.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Could you clarify how gay marriage could fundamentally change the moral compass of the country.
> 
> By saying this you are saying that gay marriage is immoral, or at best amoral.
> 
> Isn't it more appropriate to consider gay marriage as a rights issue.  Is it fair to deny one section of society a "right" when there is no valid reason to do so?  Validity would be something you can show to be true, that can be examined by others and seen to be correct / true.
> 
> Claiming gay marriage is a moral issue also seems to imply that homosexuality is somehow not moral.  I'd be interested in how you define morality.




I guess it boils down to how you view it. To me, it is all about trying to give credibility, to an unnatural activity. Just my opinion.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> I guess it boils down to how you view it. To me, it is all about trying to give credibility, to an unnatural activity. Just my opinion.




Un-natural it may be, but as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others (including children), it's really none of anyone else's business.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> Un-natural it may be, but as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others (including children), it's really none of anyone else's business.




Absolutely, also getting way off thread.


----------



## Julia

Smurf1976 said:


> So if we're going broke either way, and I can't see either Labor or the Coalition actually fixing things financially until forced, then there's no point voting based on that issue. That being so, Labor reflects my views somewhat better in terms of social policies etc.



So you don't even give the Coalition any credit for trying to get the Budget back on track, notwithstanding the political mess they've made of it?  Acknowledging that their attempts have been stymied by Labor and the Senate?
It is at least in contrast to Labor's ever-expanding spending and multiple announcements of surpluses that were a complete certainty, according to Mr Swan, yet never came anywhere close to actually happening.

The Coalition at least recognises the problem whilst Labor and Palmer scoff at the need to rein in spending.
They assure us that Australia is in a better position than much of the rest of the world.  Well, that won't be the case for long if spending continues to exceed income at the present rate.


----------



## Tisme

Julia said:


> So you don't even give the Coalition any credit for trying to get the Budget back on track, notwithstanding the political mess they've made of it?  Acknowledging that their attempts have been stymied by Labor and the Senate?
> It is at least in contrast to Labor's ever-expanding spending and multiple announcements of surpluses that were a complete certainty, according to Mr Swan, yet never came anywhere close to actually happening.
> 
> The Coalition at least recognises the problem whilst Labor and Palmer scoff at the need to rein in spending.
> They assure us that Australia is in a better position than much of the rest of the world.  Well, that won't be the case for long if spending continues to exceed income at the present rate.




I think it's a matter of credibility; Abbott particularly used dishonest thuggish behaviour during his reign in opposition and that causes a conflict with many in his ability to be truthful and factual. One promise he carried to the election was delivery of responsible govt, which is a constitutional requirement anyway, but continually we still see the LNP shifting blame to the Lab/Green camps, which to me smacks of back biting and ineptitude.... hardly leadership stuff.

As far as factual figures and the truth of the financial books, there is big inconsistences between federal depts so doubt is reasonable imo.

Facebook this morning LOL:


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> Absolutely, also getting way off thread.




The context of gay marriage in this thread is that the Coalition are supposedly a party of libertarians and personal freedom promoters, yet they suppress such values when practised by a certain section of the community who because of the Coalition's Conservative social values they disapprove of the minority's lifestyles.

So, could the Coalition really be said to be libertarians while they stifle the ability of a certain group to practise a lifestyle without infringing on the rights of others. Therefore are they really conformists who seek to throttle opposing views and opinions because of some inbred fear of people thinking outside the restrictive Conservative box ?


----------



## Smurf1976

Julia said:


> So you don't even give the Coalition any credit for trying to get the Budget back on track, notwithstanding the political mess they've made of it?  Acknowledging that their attempts have been stymied by Labor and the Senate?




I see it as a problem with Abbott and a few others. I'd expect the Coalition would be far more successful at dealing with the financial situation under different leadership. That has nothing to do with economics and accounting, and everything to do with negotiation and politics. 

It shouldn't be that hard to convince the general community that there's a need to fix the budget and get widespread support for that. The key, of course, is to have an open mind to how that might be achieved knowing that the end result may well be contrary to personal or party ideology. But if the budget is the priority, then that's the rational approach to take. Cut spending and/or raise taxes using whatever measures the Senate and broader community will accept. Steer the debate to your preferred outcomes as best you can, but there's no chance you'll win on everything. Accept that and get on with it.

It's like saying I want to get from Sydney to Perth. The obvious first choice is a direct flight. But if that isn't possible for whatever reason, well then I'll look at alternative options. Flying to Melbourne, train to Adelaide and then driving a rental car to Perth isn't the quickest way but it will certainly get me there. Abbott needs to start thinking like that, instead of threatening the airline staff for not letting him on a plane that isn't flying to Perth anyway.

In principle, I do think that the Coalition could do a better job of fixing the budget than Labor. But so long as they continue down a path of arrogance they're not actually going to be able to implement major changes. The party needs to flush out those at the top, both elected and unelected, and regain some humility.


----------



## Calliope

I guess same sex marriage is one of the social issues Smurf was referring to when he said  that Labor's stance on social issues was more important than the economy.  



> So if we're going broke either way, and I can't see either Labor or the Coalition actually fixing things financially until forced, then there's no point voting based on that issue. That being so, Labor reflects my views somewhat better in terms of social policies etc.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> The context of gay marriage in this thread is that the Coalition are supposedly a party of libertarians and personal freedom promoters, yet they suppress such values when practised by a certain section of the community who because of the Coalition's Conservative social values they disapprove of the minority's lifestyles.
> 
> So, could the Coalition really be said to be libertarians while they stifle the ability of a certain group to practise a lifestyle without infringing on the rights of others. Therefore are they really conformists who seek to throttle opposing views and opinions because of some inbred fear of people thinking outside the restrictive Conservative box ?




Wow, how you derived that from my post, is beyond me.

Maybe start another thread.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> Wow, how you derived that from my post, is beyond me.
> 
> Maybe start another thread.




This thread is about the Abbott government and (among other things)  whether they practise what they preach in terms of libertarianism and personal freedom.

Their opposition to gay marriage is evidence that they don't.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> This thread is about the Abbott government and (among other things)  whether they practise what they preach in terms of libertarianism and personal freedom.
> 
> Their opposition to gay marriage is evidence that they don't.




My take on the subject was, the Government should keep its nose out of the issue as it is a moral issue not a legal issue. IMO

But it is probably worth another thread, if anyone finds it worth discussing.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> My take on the subject was, the Government should keep its nose out of the issue as it is a moral issue not a legal issue. IMO




Agreed



> But it is probably worth another thread, if anyone finds it worth discussing.




There is, called "Gay Marriage".


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> The context of gay marriage in this thread is that the Coalition are supposedly a party of libertarians and personal freedom promoters, yet they suppress such values when practised by a certain section of the community who because of the Coalition's Conservative social values they disapprove of the minority's lifestyles.



Haven't we just had a discussion about the Coalition, due to Mr Abbott's leadership (plus probably people like the evangelistic Christian Kevin Andrews) not actually being philosophically libertarian at all, but conservative?
And that this is the source of at least some of the disappointment?



> So, could the Coalition really be said to be libertarians while they stifle the ability of a certain group to practise a lifestyle without infringing on the rights of others.



I don't think they are stifling the capacity of homosexuals (which is what I assume you mean in your reference to a 'certain group') to practise their lifestyle at all.   What is at issue is the institution of marriage which is a whole separate issue.  You are conflating the two.

I think most people don't care what individuals do in the privacy of their own environment, only have concern if it hurts little kids, animals or any other creature which is defenceless.

However, I agree with sptrawler:  further discussion should go to the Gay Marriage thread.



Smurf1976 said:


> I see it as a problem with Abbott and a few others. I'd expect the Coalition would be far more successful at dealing with the financial situation under different leadership. That has nothing to do with economics and accounting, and everything to do with negotiation and politics.
> 
> It shouldn't be that hard to convince the general community that there's a need to fix the budget and get widespread support for that. The key, of course, is to have an open mind to how that might be achieved knowing that the end result may well be contrary to personal or party ideology. But if the budget is the priority, then that's the rational approach to take. Cut spending and/or raise taxes using whatever measures the Senate and broader community will accept. Steer the debate to your preferred outcomes as best you can, but there's no chance you'll win on everything. Accept that and get on with it.



OK, thanks for rational response.  
What I was trying to emphasise is that the fault with the Coalition here is political.  Labor are also playing political games, as is Palmer, but in addition neither of them show any commitment to the need to address the financial mess.



SirRumpole said:


> This thread is about the Abbott government and (among other things)  whether they practise what they preach in terms of libertarianism and personal freedom.
> 
> Their opposition to gay marriage is evidence that they don't.



As hopefully a final note on gay marriage etc., you yourself have stated no objection to homosexuality, but are you equally as sanguine about gay marriage?  You've probably said in the past but I can't recall.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> I don't think they are stifling the capacity of homosexuals (which is what I assume you mean in your reference to a 'certain group') to practise their lifestyle at all.   What is at issue is the institution of marriage which is a whole separate issue.  You are conflating the two.




The institution of marriage should be a matter between consenting adults, not the government or the church



> I think most people don't care what individuals do in the privacy of their own environment, only have concern if it hurts little kids, animals or any other creature which is defenceless.




Of course.



> As hopefully a final note on gay marriage etc., you yourself have stated no objection to homosexuality, but are you equally as sanguine about gay marriage?  You've probably said in the past but I can't recall.




Gay marriage would not affect me in any way that I could ascertain, neither would its absence.

 My objection is the intrusion of busybodies (politicians and churchmen) into peoples private lives. 

The Coalition's failure to see this problem in the issue of gay marriage makes me suspicious about their motives in other areas, such as data retention, spying, bugging and general surveillance of the innocent affairs of the general populace in the name of security or any other issue that they have a hobby horse for.

If they have no genuine commitment to libertarianism as they attempt to portray, then I can't see how we can trust them to keep the correct balance between private pursuits and public security.


----------



## IFocus

Julia said:


> So you don't even give the Coalition any credit for trying to get the Budget back on track, .




The Coalition have increased spending.................why do people keep repeating the above ad nauseam?


----------



## Smurf1976

Calliope said:


> I guess same sex marriage is one of the social issues Smurf was referring to when he said  that Labor's stance on social issues was more important than the economy.




I could make probably a hundred examples, same sex marriage was just one that's been in the news in recent times. 

Personally, I find the 6 month wait for unemployment benefits to be a far greater issue - it's just un-Australian in my view to not help others in need. Fair enough to stamp out any abuses of the system etc, but we shouldn't be leaving people in potentially desperate situations for 6 months just to save money. There must be some better way than that. There just must. It's not as though it even saves that much money, it's just about harming a few and being seen as "tough". A bit like the shirt fronting nonsense. 

I have never claimed unemployment benefits and hopefully never will. But the hard line approach taken is just not acceptable in my view. This is Australia, we should be helping those who genuinely need help.

From a personal perspective, I'm definitely not a conservative in terms of social matters. Never have been and likely never will be. So in that context, the only reason to consider voting Liberal is on the grounds of economics.

I maintain my view that the economic outcome won't differ greatly regardless of who's in power. Labor will do it one way, Liberal will do it another, but in both cases the markets will ultimately force their hand I expect. They may be on different pages, but both are reading the same book.


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> If they have no genuine commitment to *libertarianism* as they attempt to portray, then I can't see how we can trust them to keep the correct balance between private pursuits and public security.



They are the "Liberal Party", not the "Libertarian Party".  You seem to be using the terms as synonyms.

From Wiki: 







> There is contention about whether right, left, and socialist libertarianism "represent distinct ideologies as opposed to variations on a theme."[30] All libertarians begin with a conception of personal autonomy from which they argue in favor of civil liberties and a reduction or elimination of the state.
> 
> Right-libertarianism[31] developed in the United States in the mid-20th Century and is the most popular conception of libertarianism in that region.[32] It is commonly referred to as a continuation or radicalization of classical liberalism.[33][34] Right-libertarians value self-ownership and the non-aggression principle, which leads to strong support of private property and free-market capitalism, while rejecting most or all state functions. Anarcho-capitalists[35][36] believe the state inherently violates the non-aggression principle, while minarchists defend night-watchman states on the grounds that certain government functions are required to protect individual rights. They defend wage labor and concentrations of wealth so long as they are voluntary.
> 
> Left-libertarianism encompasses those libertarian beliefs that claim the Earth's natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively. Contemporary left-libertarians such as Hillel Steiner, Peter Vallentyne, Philippe Van Parijs, Michael Otsuka, and David Ellerman believe the appropriation of land must leave "enough and as good" for others or be taxed by society to compensate for the exclusionary effects of private property. *Libertarian socialists (social and individualist anarchists, libertarian Marxists, council communists, Luxemburgists, and DeLeonists) promote usufruct and socialist economic theories, including communism, collectivism, syndicalism, and mutualism.* They criticize the state for being the defender of private property and believe capitalism entails wage slavery.




The above is a long way from the simple definition of smaller government, encouragement to the population to take responsibility for their own lives rather than being dependent on the State, and relinquishing the sense of entitlement which inspires the conviction that 'the gummint' will always look after you.

"Liberalism" in the US sense seems more aligned with Labor/Progressive philosophy, and is directly at odds with the conservative Republican Party.

So I have some concerns about terminology because it could be the basis for quite some misunderstanding of the points of view of any of us commenting.

Rumpole, perhaps you'd like to provide a definition of what Liberalism is to you, and how it is distinct from Libertarianism, if indeed you see a difference?  Perhaps you don't.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> Rumpole, perhaps you'd like to provide a definition of what Liberalism is to you, and how it is distinct from Libertarianism, if indeed you see a difference?  Perhaps you don't.




Perhaps I wrongly used "Libertarianism" instead of "Liberalism". I apologise for that.

One of the key features of "Liberalism" (in terms of the approach of our Liberal Party), as I see it is minimal interference in the lives of the citizens unless it is necessary for social cohesion or maintenance of law and order, or to provide a level of protection for consumers that they can't provide for themselves. 

I have given some examples of where I believe the Liberal Party is falling down in that regard.

"Libertarianism" in my view is the idea of "caveat emptor" in extremis, ie there should be no legal protection for consumers and the market is the sole determinant of what is acceptable or not in society. I don't hold with this view , as the market is a flawed concept as has been proven many times.

If the Liberal party could hold to the concept of Liberalism as I have stated it, and were prepared to walk the sometimes fine line between personal responsibility and public interest instead of maintaining its constipated Conservative approach to social and economic policy, then I think it would attract a wider following than it has got now. 

Maybe under someone like Turnbull it could do that, but not under the current leadership.


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> Perhaps I wrongly used "Libertarianism" instead of "Liberalism". I apologise for that.



No need for any apology, Rumpole.  I just noticed you were using the word 'libertarianism' and it prompted me to consider any differences between that and liberalism.

I largely agree with the rest of your remarks but will not be holding my breath in anticipation of any such change from the government, though hope I'm wrong.

"Libertarian" might be how we would describe Senator David Leyjonhelm perhaps?


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> "Libertarian" might be how we would describe Senator David Leyjonhelm perhaps?




I described him as "dangerously right wing", and Libertarianism is certainly a feature of the gun toting rednecks in the US that Leyjonhelm apparently wants us to emulate. 

I think we both agree that that sort of Libertarianism is something we don't need in this country, it equates to the "law of the jungle" where the little animals get eaten by the bigger ones.


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> So you don't even give the Coalition any credit for trying to get the Budget back on track, notwithstanding the political mess they've made of it?  Acknowledging that their attempts have been stymied by Labor and the Senate?
> It is at least in contrast to Labor's ever-expanding spending and multiple announcements of surpluses that were a complete certainty, according to Mr Swan, yet never came anywhere close to actually happening.
> 
> The Coalition at least recognises the problem whilst Labor and Palmer scoff at the need to rein in spending.
> They assure us that Australia is in a better position than much of the rest of the world.  Well, that won't be the case for long if spending continues to exceed income at the present rate.




How do you account for the fact the coalition's "ever-expanding spending and multiple announcements of surpluses that were a complete certainty" yet have now been pushed out to what 2018/19 or later?

The below graphs shows Govt spending.  Note that Labor was able to achieve real reductions in spending twice over their last term.  The last time this was achieved was the Hake Keating Govt.  No Coalition Govt has ever achieved this.  You will notice the inexorable rise in Govt spending projected for the Coalition.  Surely if they were serious about getting the budget balanced that they could at least keep nominal spending stagnant and let CPI do some of the hard work for them.  So why do you believe Labor had a spending problem when the current Govt is increasing spending at a faster rate than they did?

It's a fallacy to say the issue is only a spending problem, when revenue is as much a cause for the budget woes we have.  Since 2000 both side have cut revenue repeatedly and done little to make the tax system more efficient.  It doesn't bode well that the Govt has withheld the tax white paper.  It was supposed to be released in December.

Do you believe Abbott was sensible in supporting the Melbourne $1B / KM tunnel when it will only generate a 45c in the $ economic return?  That means half the construction cost is lost to the community, which could be around $10B if the projected construction costs are realised.  Wouldn't it be better to support infrastructure projects that actually generate more than $1 of economic return for each $ invested?  Certainly that's the kind of investment I'd put my own money into, otherwise it feels like the Govt is investing our money into the pokies where the guaranteed return is less than what we put in.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> I guess it boils down to how you view it. To me, it is all about trying to give credibility, to an unnatural activity. Just my opinion.




Does this means you support Abbott's proposed changes to divorce laws?

He has proposed to bring in a dual system where couples could be married under a new law akin to the now-defunct Matrimonial Causes Act, a fault-based system of divorce.

Abbott also said "Marriage ought to be an option for people who would like it,"

Wouldn't these new laws help to strengthen Australia's moral compass by making divorce harder to achieve, thereby strengthening what people understand marriage to be?

Personally I don't think you can use laws to enforce morality, otherwise there'd be laws against say adultery, or we'd be like the US with debates over the legality of abortion.  Then there's that pesky issue of slavery that was legal, but I doubt anyone would argue it has ever been moral.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:
			
		

> Govt spending. Note that Labor was able to achieve real reductions in spending twice over their last term




Any ideas in which areas these reductions were achieved ?


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> Any ideas in which areas these reductions were achieved ?




No.  That would require too much time trawling through budget documents


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> No.  That would require too much time trawling through budget documents




So they could have done it simply by deferring defence procurements for another 5 years say ?


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> The Coalition have increased spending.................why do people keep repeating the above ad nauseam?



What about the spending trajectory this government inherited from the former Rudd/Gillard governments ?

What about the saving measures Labor continue to block in the Senate including $5bn of their own ??

Happy new political year IF.


----------



## noco

drsmith said:


> What about the spending trajectory this government inherited from the former Rudd/Gillard governments ?
> 
> What about the saving measures Labor continue to block in the Senate including $5bn of their own ??
> 
> Happy new political year IF.





+1.....The lefties know what you are talking about Doc but they will not admit it....They know the situation so well.

Shorten has no policies and has not got a clue....He does what his masters in the unions want, even though he does not hear or  understand them but he still agrees with what ever they say....he is a real union puppet.


----------



## noco

noco said:


> +1.....The lefties know what you are talking about Doc but they will not admit it....They know the situation so well.
> 
> Shorten has no policies and has not got a clue....He does what his masters in the unions want, even though he does not hear or  understand them but he still agrees with what ever they say....he is a real union puppet.





Even past Prime Ministers from both sides of the camp agree, a bi-partisan approach is needed to urgently fix the budget.

Even cigar smoking Bob Hawke agrees so why doesn't that Bill Shorten do something useful in his life in the National interest?.......With Shorten it is self interest.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-...171540784?sv=7550444d46286cf42bd0a64a900c45f3
*
Former Treasury secretary Martin Parkinson has warned that Australia is living beyond its means, with too much spending on health, welfare and education. He called for “politically tough decisions” like those in the 1980s to *address the “structural problem at the heart of the budget”.

Mr Howard said Labor was being obstructionist, but he also set a key test for the Abbott government, struggling to gain public or parliamentary support for key budget measures. “We clearly have a budget problem that will get worse *unless we make progress … It has long been my view you can win public support for difficult reforms if you satisfy two criteria: it is in the public interest and it is fair.”

Mr Keating said the Coalition did not support all of Labor’s economic reforms, such as the *Accord or superannuation, but he recognised some bipartisanship. The *opposition should support the government’s program, provided it was credible and in the national interest, he said. “I think it is a good idea if the government knows what it is doing,” Mr Keating said.

“But without the government articulating a strategy — a saleable, doable, adoptable strategy — then you won’t have the co-*operation. This idea about letting people just read about structural changes in the budget is the pathway to ruin*.”


----------



## chode84

> Even cigar smoking Bob Hawke agrees so why doesn't that Bill Shorten do something useful in his life in the National interest?.......With Shorten it is self interest.




How you can say such things with a straight face after Abbott's performance in opposition is quite staggering.


----------



## Tink

Syd, where is this article regarding divorce/marriage you are referring to, about Abbott.
I haven't seen anything mentioned.

If it has anything to do with family values, I agree with it.


----------



## noco

chode84 said:


> How you can say such things with a straight face after Abbott's performance in opposition is quite staggering.




Abbott in opposition tried hard to curtail Labor's extravagant spending and money wasting on hare brain schemes.

Shorten is doing his best in opposition to stop Abbott paying back the $1 billion a month interest bill Labor racked up plus all the other money Labor borrowed.

Do you get the picture.....it was under quite different circumstances or don't you understand?.


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> What about the spending trajectory this government inherited from the former Rudd/Gillard governments ?
> 
> What about the saving measures Labor continue to block in the Senate including $5bn of their own ??
> 
> Happy new political year IF.




If Labors spending was so outrageous then I believe Abbott would have had the political capital to nominate those areas and stop the spending...................why hasn't Abbott done this? 

The blocking of the so called savings has had wide public support and as the polls keep falling like a brick for the Coalition, there is absolutely no hope of them passing that I can see.

As clearly pointed out repeatedly the saving do not address the deficit but the increased spending measures of the Coalition. 

Its fascinating that Howard and Costello set the trap of a structural budget black hole for Labor but its this Coalition government thats struck with it through Abbotts own blabber mouth.


As said before Abbott has increased spending why do people keep saying he is addressing the deficit when clearly he is not.

Thanks for feather must have lost it during the festive fire works 

And wishing you a very Happy new political year DR all the best


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> Its fascinating that Howard and Costello set the trap of a structural budget black hole for Labor but its this Coalition government thats struck with it through Abbotts own blabber mouth.



I see. The time of Rudd/Gillard in office is best forgotten.

That's what Labor would prefer too.


----------



## sydboy007

Tink said:


> Syd, where is this article regarding divorce/marriage you are referring to, about Abbott.
> I haven't seen anything mentioned.
> 
> If it has anything to do with family values, I agree with it.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-07-14/abbotts-divorce-proposal-ludicrous/1352668

I'm half expecting Abbott to bring it out to try and get molify some of the right who've found him wanting

How can you agree with something before you even know what is being argued for 

But let me ask you this, what do you think has a more detrimental impact on Marriage:

* Adultery / Infidelity

* Gay marriage

I'd argue adultery as it's certainly broken up more marriages than gay marriage has, yet one is illegal and one is legal.

Now on the topic of family values would you agree with with these family values

* He who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. (Exodus 21;15)

* Stoning to death of a child who will not obey their father (deuteronomy 21:18-21)

* or how about buying a slave and giving them a month to morn the loss of their family then take them as your wife (no mention on if the woman has a right to refuse so one could argue about God sanctioned rape) - Deuteronomy 21:10-14)

I'm rather happy with the secular family values we've developed over the years, and the changes made to divorce laws in 1975, and the fact we never had adultery laws like the USA.

You can't use laws to make society moral.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> I see. The time of Rudd/Gillard in office is best forgotten.
> 
> That's what Labor would prefer too.




Possibly in the same way those who voted for Abbott would like to forget 2014?

I'll go out on a limb and say Abbott's performance in 2015 will be no better.


----------



## moXJO

sydboy007 said:


> Possibly in the same way those who voted for Abbott would like to forget 2014?
> 
> I'll go out on a limb and say Abbott's performance in 2015 will be no better.




Most lib supporters here thought hockey and abbott were crap before they won government. They were just better then anything labor could bubblegum together as an alternative. I disagree with you about Abbotts performance, I think it might be worse. I hope not.


----------



## moXJO

Smurf1976 said:


> I could make probably a hundred examples, same sex marriage was just one that's been in the news in recent times.
> 
> Personally, I find the 6 month wait for unemployment benefits to be a far greater issue - it's just un-Australian in my view to not help others in need. Fair enough to stamp out any abuses of the system etc, but we shouldn't be leaving people in potentially desperate situations for 6 months just to save money. There must be some better way than that. There just must. It's not as though it even saves that much money, it's just about harming a few and being seen as "tough". A bit like the shirt fronting nonsense.
> 
> I have never claimed unemployment benefits and hopefully never will. But the hard line approach taken is just not acceptable in my view. This is Australia, we should be helping those who genuinely need help.
> 
> From a personal perspective, I'm definitely not a conservative in terms of social matters. Never have been and likely never will be. So in that context, the only reason to consider voting Liberal is on the grounds of economics.
> 
> I maintain my view that the economic outcome won't differ greatly regardless of who's in power. Labor will do it one way, Liberal will do it another, but in both cases the markets will ultimately force their hand I expect. They may be on different pages, but both are reading the same book.





I'm over the grandstanding do nothing social policies such as Gay Marriage being an issue(Just put it to a vote in parliament and pass it). In fact the Rudd Gillard years were full of dumb policy being dropped on an even dumber public weekly just to hold their attention. Then we have Abbott trying to get in on the mix with the PPL. Libs are lost trying to play that stupid game. 


Im the opposite in the sense that I believe setting up trade, education, reforming taxation and developing industry delivers a better economic result. Not the current feel good social media hugging crap that they are currently churning out. Grow the F^&K up Australia seriously.

Smurf from what I have been reading Tas is slowly turning around in some areas through exports?
Any areas you see growing down there?


----------



## Tink

Thanks, Syd, I thought it was recent.

We have already been through the gay marriage debate.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3680&page=38&p=854673#post854673


----------



## Julia

sydboy007 said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-07-14/abbotts-divorce-proposal-ludicrous/1352668



For god's sake, syd, that item is from 2009!!!

Reading the article I gather he must have made some mention of this 'fault' type divorce *as an option* in his book.   Obviously it didn't ever gain any serious attention or we'd have heard about it without needing to read the book.

But, heavens, don't let that stop you dredging back through everything Mr Abbott has ever said in his life in the hope of finding more with which to discredit him.


----------



## Julia

sydboy007 said:


> I'll go out on a limb and say Abbott's performance in 2015 will be no better.



Of course you will.


----------



## Julia

moXJO said:


> Im the opposite in the sense that I believe setting up trade, education, reforming taxation and developing industry delivers a better economic result. Not the current feel good social media hugging crap that they are currently churning out. Grow the F^&K up Australia seriously.



+1.  Just incredible that so much focus goes on gay marriage, gender neutral toys for children and other Left driven social hoohah.

However, as long as we have a completely obstructionist opposition and Senate the chances of taxation reform, industry development etc., are minimal.


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> +1.  Just incredible that so much focus goes on gay marriage, gender neutral toys for children and other Left driven social hoohah.
> 
> However, as long as we have a completely obstructionist opposition and Senate the chances of taxation reform, industry development etc., are minimal.




Can you point to taxation reform the current Govt has proposed that is currently being blocked by the senate?

The only one I can think of is fuel indexation, and if it was for an increase over the current term of the Govt, I would be condemning the senate for blocking it, but automatic indexation seems wrong to me since it makes for lazy Govt as you are providing ever increasing levels of tax.  Shouldn't a Govt at each budget make the case for the level of taxation and spending it is proposing?

What industry reform has been proposed by the Govt?  I know the Govt still has great secrecy shrouding the TPP negotiations, and the managed trade deals we've been presented with seemed to have gave our trading partners far more than we received  - I don't view market access taking up to 20 years for some agricultural exports as being of much benefit to the the economy.  What Govt proposals on industry reform are being blocked by the senate?

I feel the senate is being blamed for blocking things that have yet to be proposed by the Govt.

Why was the tax review white paper withheld from the public last month?  The Govt gave no reason.  Surely it would have been a good time to provide it to the public so that it could be digested over the summer break, especially with the political cycle in a far more sedate state.  Wouldn't that provide the best opportunity for worthy ideas to gain traction?

Hockey has already disowned the Financial System Inquiry, and I'd argue that the changes recommended in it can gain voter support more easily than what will come via the tax white paper, though there's plenty of vested interests that will fight tooth and nail to protect the benefits they currently get.

So how about we apply more pressure on the Govt to bring out good policy that can be clearly shown to address the issues with the structural deficit of the budget, then we can apply pressure on the senate to not block this policy.  Until then I'm relatively happy with the road blocks that the senate has applied because the Govt has not made the case for the policies, and in some cases has done exactly the opposite to what they said in opposition, so they cannot argue they have some form of a mandate, and even if they did, the senate was designed to stop a mandate from the larger eastern states overriding the wishes from the smaller states.

The senate can definitely be messy, and in some cases carve up good policy into not so good, but it also stops the Govt of the day from getting too extreme in what it tries to do.

I don't hear those currently complaining about the senate today saying it was bad that the senate blocked the original resource tax from labor, nor the original carbon trading scheme.


----------



## Julia

> Can you point to taxation reform the current Govt has proposed that is currently being blocked by the senate?



Sigh.
I didn't refer to anything being currently blocked.  I was, as you know, simply endorsing moXJO's remarks which to me reflected overall long term policy aims that would be more useful for Australia than all the current airy fairy social stuff.


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> Of course you will.




Considering Abbott's performance has consistently deteriorate over the year, with just maybe his statesmanship like period pre shirt fronting Putin's comments, can you point to anything from Abbott's performance through 2014 that makes you believe I'll be incorrect?

His flip flopping around the metadata retention was only surpassed by Brandis'.  I mean, if you can't explain what you are proposing to do, maybe you should take a step back to think it through before trying to force it onto the public??

His tip toeing around semantics of is it / isn't it a tax when he campaigned so heavily on ethics.

I'm interested in what makes you believe I'm wrong in believing that Abbott is unlikely to perform any better in 2015 than he did in 2014?

I'm not saying this because I don't like the PM, I'm saying this because of his extensive poor performance over the last year, and that there has been nothing I can see that makes it appear likely he will turn things around.  Obviously you do and I'd like to know what you think I've missed.


----------



## SirRumpole

I doubt if things like this will improve Abbott's standing in the community



> As tensions between the Australian and Indian cricket teams reach boiling point, Prime Minister Tony Abbott has revealed sledging was his only strength as a cricketer.
> 
> Speaking at an afternoon tea for the teams at Kirribilli House in Sydney on Thursday, Abbott spoke of his time as a cricketer during his student days at Oxford University.
> 
> "I couldn't bat, I couldn't bowl, I couldn't field, but I could sledge, and I think I held my place in the team on this basis and I promise there'll be none of that today," said the former captain of Oxford's Middle Common Room team of the Queen's College.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-01/tony-abbott-reveals-he-was-a-good-sledger/5996384




I think that fairly sums up his political abilities as well


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> Sigh.
> I didn't refer to anything being currently blocked.  I was, as you know, simply endorsing moXJO's remarks which to me reflected overall long term policy aims that would be more useful for Australia than all the current airy fairy social stuff.




I must have been confused since you said



> However, as long as we have a completely obstructionist opposition and Senate the chances of taxation reform, industry development etc., are minimal.




I would think the senate can only be obstructionist if the policy has been proposed and presented.  I don't believe this has really happened.

I agree there's plenty of policy areas and aims that would be good for Australia, I just don't believe the current Govt has proposed any.


----------



## Julia

The last time I'm going to respond to this disingenous stuff:


> I would think the senate can only be obstructionist if the policy has been proposed and presented.  I don't believe this has really happened.



There is absolutely no indication that either the Opposition or the Senate cross bench will act any differently in the immediate future than they have thus far.

Their behaviour is political, especially Labor blocking legislation they actually put up themselves, so as long as their determination is to be obstructive rather than constructive, the government can go whistle in the wind with any measures they want to apply in order to alter the forward fiscal trajectory.


----------



## Smurf1976

moXJO said:


> Smurf from what I have been reading Tas is slowly turning around in some areas through exports? Any areas you see growing down there?



A bit off topic since it's a state matter not federal, but I think the current situation in Tas does actually answer a lot of questions of broader relevance.

Lowest per capita debt of any state. Also the only state which still has most of it's major infrastructure in public ownership. Roads, power, water, ports, railways, public transport buses, the Spirit ferries - all publicly owned (railways were bought back from private owners a few years ago). And I repeat my point about lowest debt whereas if you look at the state with the highest debt, Victoria, well they were the poster boy for privatisation and pretty much sold the lot. Didn't work too well by the looks of it.

As for what's growing and what's not, there's a big message there I think.

Tourism is doing well, greatly benefiting from a private development (MONA) in which government had absolutely zero involvement. MONA has in itself been somewhat transformational, especially so when the various public events are thrown in. Credit too to Hobart City Council for the unrelated Taste festival - the place is absolutely buzzing at this time of year.

Forestry is stuffed and will remain so. Every tree cut loses money and creates essentially no employment beyond the actual cutting and transport since it's just chipped for export rather than being processed locally. Labor gave up on forestry some time ago and came up with what amounts to a deal for an orderly exit apart from those aspects of the industry which are actually profitable (timber that ends up in saw mills or the paper mill is still a very viable business - it's a minority of the wood but 100% of the profit). Then the Liberals got elected, ripped up the deal, and have just thrown another $30 million of taxpayer's funds at this loss-making "business". That alone goes quite some way to explaining my lack of faith in the party - they clearly are no longer in favour of free markets determining the outcome. Labor is a better choice if you think that governments shouldn't prop up loss making businesses.

The state's largest single exporter is still the zinc works. Has been that way for most if it's 98 year history and still is. It's roughly one sixth of the state's overseas exports coming out of that factory (third largest producer in the world by the way). TEMCO (ferro alloys), Bell Bay Aluminium (aluminium) and Norske Skog (paper) are also still individually huge exporters (though Norske Skog is really only "exporting" to other Australian states but the others are overseas focused).

Agriculture is growing, largely on the back of government-built irrigation schemes (themselves an adaptation of existing public hydro-electric or water supply assets in many cases). The basic concept seems to be about high value production rather than high volume, and aiming at the export market. I'm not sure how well it's working as such, but they've put a lot of pipes in place and have sold a lot of water to farmers so presumably someone's using it to grow something of value. Contrary to what seems to be the common belief interstate, eastern parts of Tas are actually quite dry, Hobart only gets half the rainfall that Sydney does each year, and there are parts of the state that are even drier. On the other hand, we've got 3000+mm falling on parts of the west coast every 12 months. Hence the irrigation schemes to shift the water.

Overall, I think there's a message here of broader relevance. A private development with no government support transformed tourism whilst the perpetually propped up forestry industry is still burning cash and shedding jobs like it's done for years. Keeping assets in public hands hasn't lead to a debt problem, indeed the reverse is true. There's still a role for heavy manufacturing industries even in a place like Tas and no, they don't interfere with tourism since the average tourist doesn't even know they exist. And the agriculture stuff represents a very obvious opportunity, albeit one requiring a degree of public financial backing, to target export markets. There's a broader message there about getting on with what works, forgetting about silly ideologies and cutting ongoing losses.

Then there's the things that just hum along in the background. Incat still builds ships. The boom years have passed but they still build them. The mining industry is still ticking along to some extent. Some troubles yes, but they're still mining at Rosebery and Savage River, still making iron pellets at Port Latta. Etc. New bauxite mine about to open apparently.

In much the same way as it is being argued that federal politics has wasted too much time with issues like gay marriage (and I'd add the republic debate in the same context), so too has Tasmania wasted far too much time with pie in the sky ideas involving the cutting down of trees. Meanwhile MONA was built, Incat built countless ships, the Hydro (government owned) made $ hundreds of millions trading energy markets, the smelters and mines are still running, agriculture is expanding and so on. If only we didn't have the dead duck Forestry chewing up a fortune of money and probably 50% of all political discussion over the past 30 years then we'd be much better off.


----------



## banco

Julia said:


> The last time I'm going to respond to this disingenous stuff:
> 
> There is absolutely no indication that either the Opposition or the Senate cross bench will act any differently in the immediate future than they have thus far.
> 
> Their behaviour is political, especially Labor blocking legislation they actually put up themselves, so as long as their determination is to be obstructive rather than constructive, the government can go whistle in the wind with any measures they want to apply in order to alter the forward fiscal trajectory.




I've no doubt there's a big element of politics in it but why would they vote for measures that the Labor party in any of its iterations over the past 20 years or so would oppose (ie higher education reforms, changes to the pension etc.)?


----------



## SirRumpole

banco said:
			
		

> I've no doubt there's a big element of politics in it but why would they vote for measures that the Labor party in any of its iterations over the past 20 years or so would oppose (ie higher education reforms, changes to the pension etc.)?




+1.

Obviously, Labor opposing measures they supported when in government is hypocritical.

For the rest, consider whether the current government has an electoral mandate for a lot of the measures it's introducing. They never said they would introduce a Medicare co-payment before the election, or change pension indexing, or increase the cost of tertiary education etc etc.

Given this, there is no reason why the Opposition, Greens or Palmer should support any of these measures if they feel they are not in the interests of the country. As Tony Abbott himself once said, it's up to the Government to get it's legislation through Parliament, if they can't then it's no one else's fault but theirs if they can't convince the Senate that they are on the right course.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> +1.
> 
> Obviously, Labor opposing measures they supported when in government is hypocritical.
> 
> For the rest, consider whether the current government has an electoral mandate for a lot of the measures it's introducing. They never said they would introduce a Medicare co-payment before the election, or change pension indexing, or increase the cost of tertiary education etc etc.
> 
> Given this, there is no reason why the Opposition, Greens or Palmer should support any of these measures if they feel they are not in the interests of the country. As Tony Abbott himself once said, it's up to the Government to get it's legislation through Parliament, if they can't then it's no one else's fault but theirs if they can't convince the Senate that they are on the right course.




As Julia stated, it is all political and I say, it is not in the interest of the welfare of the nation.

The Government found themselves in a far worse financial situation than they expected....Swan and Wong gave a lot false financial statements which misled the current Government.

Julia Gillard said before the election " THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER THE GOVERNMENT I LEAD"...She had no electoral mandate either but the biased Senate allowed it to go through.

The Labor Party are just bloody minded.

It is the pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:
			
		

> Julia Gillard said before the election " THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER THE GOVERNMENT I LEAD"...She had no electoral mandate either but the biased Senate allowed it to go through.




And where is she now ?

Maybe when we get a government that doesn't lie to the people or change their minds after an election then we may have a chance of getting some real change through a Senate because then there would at least be a mandate for what the government wants to do.

Face it noco, your side is going the same way as the Gillard government, into oblivion because they cynically tried to fool the electorate with sham promises just to get power.

No matter which party does this, they have to learn that the electorate won't accept it.


----------



## sydboy007

Could the big Australia drive be over?

https://www.immi.gov.au/about/speeches-pres/_pdf/sovereignty-age-interdependency-04122014.pdf



> “When we transition from our current state to the new department next year, and commence on the path of the next phase of our journey, we should take a moment to reflect on what has been achieved since 1945. I contend that we will be able to declare the original mission of 1945 – to build the population base – to have been accomplished.”


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> Could the big Australia drive be over?
> 
> https://www.immi.gov.au/about/speeches-pres/_pdf/sovereignty-age-interdependency-04122014.pdf




Let's hope so.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> Possibly in the same way those who voted for Abbott would like to forget 2014?
> 
> I'll go out on a limb and say Abbott's performance in 2015 will be no better.



2014 hasn't been that bad in my view.

Labor's carbon tax is gone and their useless mining tax is gone. Labor's boats are also stopped and the government is at least trying to fix the deficit trajectory left by Labor despite the obstructionist nature of Labor itself in the senate including blocking their own savings.

Many of the feathers on the floor around here are a by-product of this government stopping the boats.


----------



## Smurf1976

SirRumpole said:


> into oblivion because they cynically tried to fool the electorate with sham promises just to get power.
> 
> No matter which party does this, they have to learn that the electorate won't accept it.



+1

The current government has lost credibility due to a series of major lies. The only way forward from that point is either a change of government (to any alternative, Labor or someone else) or a decent sweeping out at the top within the Coalition (at the very least a new leader).

So long as the current government remains in power "as is", then they are tainted by a lack of credibility.

My comment would be exactly the same if we had a Labor, Green, PUP or any other government. Tell enough lies and credibility is destroyed, the only way to regain it involving a change of leadership at the very least.


----------



## drsmith

Smurf1976 said:


> The current government has lost credibility due to a series of major lies.



Nothing this government has done comes even remotely close to Julia Gillard's carbon tax.

An unfortunate reality of our political environment is that all governments break promises after coming to power. Some are so big that they terminal to a government in themselves such as the carbon tax above. The question then becomes the extent and the ability of a government to present such changes as part of a broader strategy. This is where the current government has failed badly and where it will obviously need to substantially lift its game if it is to successfully present a broader reform agenda in the lead up to the next election.


----------



## noco

If only if Bill Shorten could take notice of economist Craig James and previous Prime Ministers , Howard, Hawke and Keating, a lot of solutions could be found to fix an ailing economy.

But Shorten is blind, deaf and dumb to reality...Shorten is so narrow minded, he can see though a key hole with both eyes...no interest in the welfare of the nation...only self interest in point scoring.


http://www.couriermail.com.au/busin...e-budget-in-2015/story-fnihpj8r-1227172955212

*This week three former Prime Ministers, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating and John Howard, added their voices to the debate, all stressing the need make the hard calls.
*
*Commsec Chief Economist Craig James believes there needs to be “proper discussions and give and take” between all the political players this year to achieve reform.

“The big problem here in Australia is getting an agreement,” he said, adding it’s not just about compromise between political parties, but also the states.

“What we’re seeing at the moment is constant bickering.

“Politics is the real enemy at present.”*

*With this year’s forecast deficit tipped to exceed $40 billion, former Prime Minister Bob Hawke thinks the answer lies in making Australia home to the disposal of nuclear waste.*

Could you imagine the Green/Labor coalition  agreeing with Bob Hawke......ROTFL.


----------



## Julia

banco said:


> I've no doubt there's a big element of politics in it but why would they vote for measures that the Labor party in any of its iterations over the past 20 years or so would oppose (ie higher education reforms, changes to the pension etc.)?






SirRumpole said:


> +1.
> 
> Obviously, Labor opposing measures they supported when in government is hypocritical.
> 
> For the rest, consider whether the current government has an electoral mandate for a lot of the measures it's introducing. They never said they would introduce a Medicare co-payment before the election, or change pension indexing, or increase the cost of tertiary education etc etc.



If the objection is due to clearly outlined, long held philosophical conviction, then yes, fair enough, but with proposals like the fuel indexation and the medicare co-payment, it seems like sheer bloody mindedness to me.

The fuel indexation proposal was for just a few cents and the co-payment was capped at just $70 per year.
Yet Shorten et al hysterically claimed that the government was attacking poor people, that no one would go to see the doctor, that the result would be a massive blow-out in public hospital attendance, yada, yada.

That's the sort of nonsense that I find just stupid.  Most sensible people would also, but as Shorten knows, there are enough gullible people in the electorate who will not consider the reality of the proposal and instead imagine that - even before the legislation gets into the parliament - they're about to be slugged endless payments of $7 .

Certainly the government failed - as it did with the rest of the budget - to properly present the ideas, and to say on the one hand that the payment was needed to make Medicare sustainable, yet at the same time that the payment would go to a research fund, just made people confused and cross.

Then instead of listening to objections, both Abbott and Hockey appeared hurt that people didn't wholeheartedly support their proposals.  That was when they instead should have begun genuine consultation and negotiation.
Christopher Pyne was the only one who actually did this.

However, they are facing a very difficult opposition and cross bench environment.  Labor seem to feel their own interests can best be served by the government failing and of course that's true.  So by refusing to negotiate, and to even pass their own budgetary measures, they're going to ensure the government will fail.

Then we have irresponsible behaviour by grandstanding in the Senate, eg Senator Lambie making a blanket statement that she so loathes Mr Abbott, and unless he raises Defence pay, she will automatically vote against all government legislation.  So even if Mr Abbott were to suggest he would give $100K to every Tasmanian, she would vote against that.  So utterly immature and ignorant.

PUP looks like collapsing this year which will be no loss imo.

I do agree with the suggestion that it's pretty much political suicide to claim before an election that 'we will be a government that keeps our promises', and then to introduce - without due preamble or explanation - new taxes and charges.  Especially when you've spent three years castigating the previous bunch about breaking the "There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead" promise.

All up, it just has to go to an electorate more and more filled with cynicism and disappointment.



drsmith said:


> Many of the feathers on the floor around here are a by-product of this government stopping the boats.



That's an interesting observation, drsmith.  Can you expand on it a bit?
Are you saying that the government's clear success in border policy has so stung the Opposition that it has spurred them to be more obstructive with other policies?


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> Nothing this government has done comes even remotely close to Julia Gillard's carbon tax.
> 
> An unfortunate reality of our political environment is that all governments break promises after coming to power. Some are so big that they terminal to a government in themselves such as the carbon tax above. The question then becomes the extent and the ability of a government to present such changes as part of a broader strategy. This is where the current government has failed badly and where it will obviously need to substantially lift its game if it is to successfully present a broader reform agenda in the lead up to the next election.




Your forgiveness and understanding for the liberal's broken promises is highly amusing.


----------



## SirRumpole

> The fuel indexation proposal was for just a few cents




That's another bit of trickery because the fuel  indexation feeds on itself. It contributes to inflation then adjusts itself upwards by the inflation that it itself has caused.

I've only heard the government say what it will cost consumers in the first year. The reality is that consumers will pay more and more every year because of this tax.


----------



## pixel

noco said:


> But Shorten is blind, deaf and dumb to reality...Shorten is so narrow minded, he can see though a key hole with both eyes...no interest in the welfare of the nation...only self interest in point scoring.



Replace "Shorten" by "Abbott", and your sentence will lose nothing of its veracity.

And there lies the problem: Up until 2007, Governments managed to come to workable compromises with the opposition. But then, the Lib/Nat Opposition embarked on a new strategy, refusing even the tiniest *constructive* criticism and alternative, thereby forcing the newly-elected Government to accept some hare-brained policy adjustments from the rainbow fringe in order to implement some of the promised changes. Whether one agrees with their agenda or not: *Labor was legitimately elected on the basis of those promised reforms.* If the Coalition refused to accept the voters' mandate in 2007 and 2010, they can hardly cry foul if today's Opposition questions the mandate for radical new policies that weren't even discussed before September 2013.


----------



## Smurf1976

Julia said:


> The fuel indexation proposal was for just a few cents and the co-payment was capped at just $70 per year.




Medicare co-payment seems like a good idea to stop waste and a sensible idea regardless of the budget situation. But then I'd argue that the practice of visiting doctors for the sole purpose of obtaining a medical certificate also needs a major overhaul as it's a significant unnecessary drain on the system - quite likely a bigger drain than any visits that would be stopped with the $7 payment.

As for the fuel excise, ultimately it wasn't just a few cents but a series of ongoing increases with no end date. I'd rather they just imposed a one-off increase then review that in due course. Automatic increases tend to avoid scrutiny.

I also question why just fuel? Why don't we also have, say, an internet excise and a furniture excise? Why just on fuel? Or (serious question since I don't know the answer) were they going to legislate that every last cent of fuel excise actually went into roads or at least transport-related things (rail, public transport etc)? 

I don't see the rationale unless it's either tied to funding of roads etc or is intended as being a means of reducing urban air pollution, encouraging a shift to electric cars etc which hasn't been the stated intent. If the aim is simply raising revenue, then income taxes or GST are more logical things to increase I'd have thought given the huge variations in petrol consumption between individuals these days. There's people at both ends of the income spectrum with either very low or very high fuel use, so fuel excise seems an inequitable means of raising revenue for general government spending.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> 2014 hasn't been that bad in my view.
> 
> Labor's carbon tax is gone and their useless mining tax is gone. Labor's boats are also stopped and the government is at least trying to fix the deficit trajectory left by Labor despite the obstructionist nature of Labor itself in the senate including blocking their own savings.
> 
> Many of the feathers on the floor around here are a by-product of this government stopping the boats.




So the refugees are no longer leaving their home countries?  The turn back the boats policy has somehow managed to stop the persecution of minorities causing them to flee as refugees?

Isn't part of the budget blowout due to the loss of revenue from the taxes given up by Abbott and the lack of thought in how they were going to either cut spending enough or increase other taxation to make up for the revenue shortfall?

I don't feel Abbott has achieved anything that has made me feel better economically or more secure that the economy is headed in the right direction.  My gas bill has gone up since the carbon tax was removed, yet I'm still using the same amount of gas, my electricity bill barely reduced.

So what specific examples can you provide that the Govt is actually "_trying to fix the deficit trajectory._"

I don't believe the GP and Uni taxes do this, the rise in fuel indexation is a very minor improvement.

I don't believe spending $250M on school chaplains helps improve the budget, nor a $5.5B PPL scheme.

I don't believe cutting spending on science and innovation to the lowest levels since the data was first published will in the long term help with the structural balance of the budget - it dimishes the future potential of the economy.

I don't believe abolishing the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority which was established to encourage organ donation will be in the long term interests of the budget nor the community.

I don't believe cutting funding by a further $111.4 million over four years out of the operating budget of the CSIRO will be to the long term benefit of the budget.

I don't believe the $368 million in cuts to preventative health measures will be to the long term benefit to the budget - prevention is cheaper than allowing health to deteriorate

Cutting the ‘Tools for the Trade’ program which helped apprentices buy their tools, and replacing it with a loan scheme apprentices will have to repay will make it less likely poorer students will go to TAFE and study a trade, thereby limiting the economy's future potential - not good for the budget in the long term.

i can see lots of short sighted cuts, but they don't actually help with the long term structural balance of the budget.


----------



## noco

Smurf1976 said:


> Medicare co-payment seems like a good idea to stop waste and a sensible idea regardless of the budget situation. But then I'd argue that the practice of visiting doctors for the sole purpose of obtaining a medical certificate also needs a major overhaul as it's a significant unnecessary drain on the system - quite likely a bigger drain than any visits that would be stopped with the $7 payment.
> 
> As for the fuel excise, ultimately it wasn't just a few cents but a series of ongoing increases with no end date. I'd rather they just imposed a one-off increase then review that in due course. Automatic increases tend to avoid scrutiny.
> 
> I also question why just fuel? Why don't we also have, say, an internet excise and a furniture excise? Why just on fuel? Or (serious question since I don't know the answer) were they going to legislate that every last cent of fuel excise actually went into roads or at least transport-related things (rail, public transport etc)?
> 
> I don't see the rationale unless it's either tied to funding of roads etc or is intended as being a means of reducing urban air pollution, encouraging a shift to electric cars etc which hasn't been the stated intent. If the aim is simply raising revenue, then income taxes or GST are more logical things to increase I'd have thought given the huge variations in petrol consumption between individuals these days. There's people at both ends of the income spectrum with either very low or very high fuel use, so fuel excise seems an inequitable means of raising revenue for general government spending.




Hawkie says we are sitting on a gold mine and don't know it........Bury other nations nuclear waste in the out back and charge to Earth to do it...It will be as good as gold....What a brilliant idea.....The economy is saved and we could be back in the black in half the time.

No need for fuel excise.
No need for medical co payments.
No need to raise the GST.
We might even have some left over for the NDIS, Gonsky and free university education.

Bring back Hawkie...he is da only one with da brains.


----------



## Smurf1976

sydboy007 said:


> My gas bill has gone up since the carbon tax was removed, yet I'm still using the same amount of gas




To be fair, the only major party that has a history of raising concerns about gas resource utilisation is the Greens. No real difference between Labor or the Coalition on that one, both have effectively outsourced their energy policy to the private sector (that is, for practical purposes they don't have a policy of any significance beyond Labor's carbon tax, but that's a tax not a national energy policy).


----------



## noco

pixel said:


> *Labor was legitimately elected on the basis of those promised reforms.*  .




In 2010 Labor was a one behind the 8 ball on two party preferred.......It was a minority government reliant on a hand full of conned independents....She conned them with extravaganza for their electorates and look where they are now....they ran behind the door in 2013 ashamed to show their faces.

Gillard broke her promise on the carbon tax which created inflation and costing householders $550 per year extra in living costs....She gave a miserly bit of compensation to the needy  and the carbon tax did zero to reduce "GLOBAL WARMING"...er sorry, I mean "CLIMATE CHANGE".


----------



## pixel

noco said:


> In 2010 Labor was a one behind the 8 ball on two party preferred.......It was a minority government reliant on a hand full of conned independents....She conned them with extravaganza for their electorates and look where they are now....they ran behind the door in 2013 ashamed to show their faces.
> 
> Gillard broke her promise on the carbon tax which created inflation and costing householders $550 per year extra in living costs....She gave a miserly bit of compensation to the needy  and the carbon tax did zero to reduce "GLOBAL WARMING"...er sorry, I mean "CLIMATE CHANGE".




noco, I'm not defending the carbon tax; RETs and incentives to phase-out dirty power plants would have been arguably more effective. But, as a wise old Statesman once said, *"Politics is the art of the possible."* PM Gillard was at least prepared to make stated goals possible, even if it meant partial compromise. Nothing but Ego prevented the then Opposition to make a better compromise possible.

That aside, I object to ignorance, denial, and double standards: 
If "no carbon tax" rates as a broken promise, then "no changes to pensions", "no changes to medicare", etc. is exactly the same. And that is why I reckon the "can peep through a keyhole with both eyes" cliche applies to Abbott and his apologists at least as much as it does to Shorten.


----------



## Julia

Smurf1976 said:


> Medicare co-payment seems like a good idea to stop waste and a sensible idea regardless of the budget situation. But then I'd argue that the practice of visiting doctors for the sole purpose of obtaining a medical certificate also needs a major overhaul as it's a significant unnecessary drain on the system - quite likely a bigger drain than any visits that would be stopped with the $7 payment.



So what would you suggest to validate an employee claim to be off work sick for a week if you don't require a medical certificate?


----------



## qldfrog

Julia said:


> So what would you suggest to validate an employee claim to be off work sick for a week if you don't require a medical certificate?




you just have n days off for convenience per year;
the sick days are currently a premium to the people who do not mind taking them at any slightest reason against others employeesn who only use them when really needed

just have n days paid  holiday per year + m days of convenience , transferable from year to year
free tio the employee to use them for a flu, a sick kid or go in holiday longuer
the only problem i see is the unplanned  side of sick days.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> So what would you suggest to validate an employee claim to be off work sick for a week if you don't require a medical certificate?




Or still require a certificate, but require the employer and employee to pay half the cost of obtaining it. They may then come to some agreement about not requiring one if the employee is not known to be a regular sick leave taker.


----------



## moXJO

qldfrog said:


> you just have n days off for convenience per year;
> the sick days are currently a premium to the people who do not mind taking them at any slightest reason against others employeesn who only use them when really needed
> 
> just have n days paid  holiday per year + m days of convenience , transferable from year to year
> free tio the employee to use them for a flu, a sick kid or go in holiday longuer
> the only problem i see is the unplanned  side of sick days.




Its just to easily open to abuse. Its amazing how far some employees are willing to go. Workers comp in the 90s was shockingly rorted. I knew entire families of 5 all rorting benefits. 
Employers are already stretched without providing extra holidays for the workforce. If anything it will push the drive towards the 'casual workforce' even more. You want the day off pay the $7


----------



## sydboy007

moXJO said:


> You want the day off pay the $7




More like $65 less the medicare rebate

I've had incidences of being sick where the effort to get an MC has probably meant I needed an extra day to recover.  I think some flexibility around this issue would help save a lot of $$ without opening it up to rorting.

Possibly a statutory right to 2 days off each year without an MC would help those who don't abuse the system, while those who do want to try and use up their 10 days "entitlement" will still be required to provide some form of evidence.

I wouldn't mind if there was a provision made so that an employee who uses above the average could be asked to attend a company doctor on their next sick leave request.  I don't see the employer has a right to know what illness you have, but they do have a right to confirm you are ill.

The current system is extremely expensive, especially if you are forced to go to an emergency department, as I have, so as to get an MC to get paid for the sick leave.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> So the refugees are no longer leaving their home countries?  The turn back the boats policy has somehow managed to stop the persecution of minorities causing them to flee as refugees?



Oh dear!

You've started smoking IF's old feathers.


----------



## Smurf1976

moXJO said:


> You want the day off pay the $7




It's not about paying the $7.

It's about the reality that, should I fall genuinely ill during winter, there's no chance of getting a doctor's appointment within 2 - 3 days because the system is completely clogged up by people visiting doctors for no reason other than obtaining a medical certificate for a common cold.

I don't know how much that is costing the economy overall, but the answer would surely be hundreds of $ millions a year all up. Firstly due to the unnecessary doctor visits, secondly due to people turning up for work for 2+ days until they can get into a doctor and passing on their illness to half the people they work with who then also take days off. It's a terribly inefficient system to be visiting doctors simply to comply with an employment condition.

I don't have a silver bullet solution, but it's definitely a problem. That said, these days business seems to absolutely love the concept of user pays, so surely it's reasonable that business pays the cost of what is essentially an employee management provision rather than leaving taxpayers to foot the bill. 

So I'm thinking that someone sees a GP for any reason including minor colds etc = no charge (taxpayer pays) for the consultation. If they need a certificate for a treatable condition = no charge. If they need a certificate for a non-treatable minor condition, eg common cold = employer pays full cost.

Then leave it to employers to decide whether they want to pay for medical certificates for minor things like common colds or not. Most would likely choose not to pay unless they have a problem with a particular employee abusing sick leave, thus reducing unnecessary doctor visits and enabling genuinely sick people to get an appointment.


----------



## Julia

sydboy007 said:


> Possibly a statutory right to 2 days off each year without an MC would help those who don't abuse the system, while those who do want to try and use up their 10 days "entitlement" will still be required to provide some form of evidence.



Isn't this the sort of thing that you'd negotiate at interview stage before taking a job?   You'd be negotiating a salary level, allowances etc, so why wouldn't you similarly come to an agreement on sick leave such as x number of days without a MC?

Wouldn't a doctor whom you see regularly and who knows you're genuine be prepared to do a MC and just leave it at the desk for collection if you phone and say you have a virus such as a cold?
Perhaps you go to a large medical centre where you see different doctors all the time in which case that wouldn't be practicable.

Maybe think about working in the public service.  A friend of mine, teacher for 40 years, retired about six months ago.  For most of her adult life she has had a medical condition which is completely managed by medication, requiring only three monthly biochemistry to ensure dose is correct.  It has not stopped her working full time and travelling extensively.  

Her job conditions entitled her to x days of sick leave each year which can accumulate if not used.
This apparently amounts to over a year of full time pay.  So her doctor has simply provided a letter to say that she suffers from Y condition and therefore fulfils the requirements for fully paid sick leave as accumulated, ensuring that she is receiving full pay for the first year of her retirement.

Another friend is a supervising psychologist with the Health Dept.  Similar sick leave provisions though she is still working.  Also what seem to me to be huge number of 'personal development' days which are fully paid, even though she spends this time on a personal venture, nothing to do with her job.

Then there seems to be unlimited time available without pay.

We're pretty generous with the taxpayer dollar.


----------



## overhang

It's not an ideal system and the requirement to obtain a MC is a huge drain on the system but I feel if this wasn't required the loss of productivity would be enormous.

Personally I had my first sick days this year in about 7 years, I caught gastro and required 2 days off work.  I'm lucky enough that my employer has full trust in me and didn't request a MC but I can't imagine anything worse than having to attend a doctor at that time only to obtain a MC when I required the toilet every 30 or so minutes and there is nothing a doctor can really give to assist gastro anyway.

The onus is on employers to be sensible about the policy imo.  The amount of employees that rort the system for illegitimate sick days are in the minority in my experience.  I think many people who may have a bad cold would take the day off sick if possible but would probably attend work if they required a MC as going to the doctor is a time consuming drain as well as a financial one, in this case they're just more likely to work sick which decreases productivity and risk infecting others which further decreases productivity.


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> Isn't this the sort of thing that you'd negotiate at interview stage before taking a job?   You'd be negotiating a salary level, allowances etc, so why wouldn't you similarly come to an agreement on sick leave such as x number of days without a MC?
> 
> Wouldn't a doctor whom you see regularly and who knows you're genuine be prepared to do a MC and just leave it at the desk for collection if you phone and say you have a virus such as a cold?
> Perhaps you go to a large medical centre where you see different doctors all the time in which case that wouldn't be practicable.
> 
> Maybe think about working in the public service.  A friend of mine, teacher for 40 years, retired about six months ago.  For most of her adult life she has had a medical condition which is completely managed by medication, requiring only three monthly biochemistry to ensure dose is correct.  It has not stopped her working full time and travelling extensively.
> 
> Her job conditions entitled her to x days of sick leave each year which can accumulate if not used.
> This apparently amounts to over a year of full time pay.  So her doctor has simply provided a letter to say that she suffers from Y condition and therefore fulfils the requirements for fully paid sick leave as accumulated, ensuring that she is receiving full pay for the first year of her retirement.
> 
> Another friend is a supervising psychologist with the Health Dept.  Similar sick leave provisions though she is still working.  Also what seem to me to be huge number of 'personal development' days which are fully paid, even though she spends this time on a personal venture, nothing to do with her job.
> 
> Then there seems to be unlimited time available without pay.
> 
> We're pretty generous with the taxpayer dollar.




Not sure if there's much ability to work around the award conditions.  My current employer seems to be the first I've worked for that enforces their "right" to not pay if you don't provide an MC.

Why would I try to get a job in the public service when there's 15,000 jobs being culled, and where when you tell someone what you do for a living they'd give me attitudes like yours?  I don't know many people who have Govt sector jobs, but the few I do know seem to work reasonably hard and find things just as frustrating as I do in the private sector.  20 years working in the  private sector has shown me it's definitely no paragon of efficiency.

Sick leave in every job I've had has been accumulated.  I like the fact that after a few years I have a decent bank of sick leave, especially if something should go wrong.  I've worked with people who've needed to have 3 to 4 months off work due to accidents.  It's good to know my sick leave will cover most of the waiting time till my income protection kicks in.


----------



## chode84

Julia said:


> So what would you suggest to validate an employee claim to be off work sick for a week if you don't require a medical certificate?




Do what this Canadian Doctor does.


----------



## SirRumpole

chode84 said:


> Do what this Canadian Doctor does.
> 
> View attachment 60996




Great idea.


----------



## moXJO

Smurf1976 said:


> It's not about paying the $7.
> 
> It's about the reality that, should I fall genuinely ill during winter, there's no chance of getting a doctor's appointment within 2 - 3 days because the system is completely clogged up by people visiting doctors for no reason other than obtaining a medical certificate for a common cold.
> 
> I don't know how much that is costing the economy overall, but the answer would surely be hundreds of $ millions a year all up. Firstly due to the unnecessary doctor visits, secondly due to people turning up for work for 2+ days until they can get into a doctor and passing on their illness to half the people they work with who then also take days off. It's a terribly inefficient system to be visiting doctors simply to comply with an employment condition.
> 
> I don't have a silver bullet solution, but it's definitely a problem. That said, these days business seems to absolutely love the concept of user pays, so surely it's reasonable that business pays the cost of what is essentially an employee management provision rather than leaving taxpayers to foot the bill.
> 
> So I'm thinking that someone sees a GP for any reason including minor colds etc = no charge (taxpayer pays) for the consultation. If they need a certificate for a treatable condition = no charge. If they need a certificate for a non-treatable minor condition, eg common cold = employer pays full cost.
> 
> Then leave it to employers to decide whether they want to pay for medical certificates for minor things like common colds or not. Most would likely choose not to pay unless they have a problem with a particular employee abusing sick leave, thus reducing unnecessary doctor visits and enabling genuinely sick people to get an appointment.



How many people do you and Syd employ out of interest?
Most bosses dont bother with medical certificates.But those that implement it do so for a reason. It was brought in for a reason.
Nsw prison guards got done for rorting about $40 mill, off the top of my head a while back. So watering it down is not the answer. A lot of employees did think sick days can be used as holidays before they changed it up. And sorry but business isnt your damn mother. Youre sick you pay.


----------



## SirRumpole

> A lot of employees did think sick days can be used as holidays before they changed it up. And sorry but business isnt your damn mother. Youre sick you pay.




Businesses aren't mothers, but they are breeding grounds for germs spread around by their employees. People dont want to get sick by mostly they get sick in the premises of their employers sitting next to sick people who are at work because employers are stingy about giving sick leave.

So as I suggested before, if employers paid a proportion of the cost of getting a certificate (this is called a *price signal*), then maybe they will get the idea that employee sickness is partly their fault too.


----------



## sydboy007

Yes Tony, your opposition to pokies reform is well and truly founded

Another Aussie world beating feat.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Yes Tony, your opposition to pokies reform is well and truly founded
> 
> Another Aussie world beating feat.




I've been away, good to see you're still blaming Tony for everything, at least I didn't miss anything.


----------



## Julia

sydboy007 said:


> Why would I try to get a job in the public service when there's 15,000 jobs being culled, and where when you tell someone what you do for a living they'd give me attitudes like yours?



I don't have any particular attitude about it.  If people can snaffle conditions like those I described then that's their good luck.  Both friends I mentioned are simply taking advantage of what is made available to everyone employed by that particular public service.


> 20 years working in the  private sector has shown me it's definitely no paragon of efficiency.



At least it's usually required to turn a profit instead of being funded by taxpayer dollars.



> Sick leave in every job I've had has been accumulated.  I like the fact that after a few years I have a decent bank of sick leave, especially if something should go wrong.  I've worked with people who've needed to have 3 to 4 months off work due to accidents.  It's good to know my sick leave will cover most of the waiting time till my income protection kicks in.



So what actually is your problem?  You have accumulated sick leave, yet you're still complaining.
Good Lord!   I'm with moXJO:  business employs you, doesn't adopt you.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> I've been away, good to see you're still blaming Tony for everything, at least I didn't miss anything.




Do you believe we have a gambling problem due to the ready availability of pokie machines?

While in opposition Abbott showed a definite lack of bipartisan support with Labor on pokies reform.

Maybe have a look at the graph again and you'll see Australians lose more on pokies than the standard American loses in all forms of gambling.  Australians lose more on gaming machines than any other country.

But hey, I'm expecting you to answer no to my question above so I suppose that's why you see it as a senseless attack on Tony when it really shows his lack of understanding on the issue, and probably his desire to support the businesses rather than look after voters.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Do you believe we have a gambling problem due to the ready availability of pokie machines?
> 
> While in opposition Abbott showed a definite lack of bipartisan support with Labor on pokies reform.
> 
> Maybe have a look at the graph again and you'll see Australians lose more on pokies than the standard American loses in all forms of gambling.  Australians lose more on gaming machines than any other country.
> 
> But hey, I'm expecting you to answer no to my question above so I suppose that's why you see it as a senseless attack on Tony when it really shows his lack of understanding on the issue, and probably his desire to support the businesses rather than look after voters.




ABBOTT...ABBOTT...ABBOTT......Why blame Abbott?

Gillard promised the world  to that Tasmanian Senator, I think his name is Wicks, to fix the gambling problem and she back flipped on the deal......she let him down badly which is no surprise.

No one is forced to gamble......they all know the consequences with poker machines......so if they want to pour their money into the pokies so be it....Good luck if they win.....bad luck if they lose.....you will never beat a poker machine.


----------



## Smurf1976

moXJO said:


> How many people do you and Syd employ out of interest?




I fail to see the relevance of that to the discussion. Out of interest, are you a doctor?



> Most bosses dont bother with medical certificates.But those that implement it do so for a reason. It was brought in for a reason.




Can't say I've ever had, or heard of someone having, a job where it wasn't required by default. It's standard practice certainly in a lot of industries. 



> And sorry but business isnt your damn mother. Youre sick you pay.




Me pay, not too unreasonable. But I don't actually need to see a doctor for a common cold, there's no medical need for that whatsoever, hence no need to actually pay a cent. Just staying home for a few days, in order to avoid spreading it to others, is all that's required. No medical certificate, since no doctor involved.

It's business that wants unnecessary visits to GP's, not patients. It thus seems perfectly reasonable that, in line with the much vaunted "user pays principle", business pays the cost of this excess medical servicing not required the by patients. This then produces a price signal, encouraging business to curb this expensive practice except in situations where value is actually being created.

The crux of this and many other issues is that the Australian economy has become increasingly inefficient and it's costing everyone, business included, an outright fortune. Either we change, or at some point the rest of the world will effectively force change one way or another. Most of that comes down to special deals for this, that and every other interest group with the practice of issuing medical certificates for common colds etc being just one of numerous examples. But as with all of them, there is incredible resistance to change from those who seek to gain from maintaining the inefficiencies. 

There is hardly any industry, apart from iron ore due to a natural advantage, where Australia is efficient by global standards these days. We need reform, a lot of reform, and a government willing to pursue it. By definition that government cannot possibly consider itself to be "conservative" if it is to be the agent of change. Therein lies the problem, our main political options are either conservative, or are heavily aligned to a particular interest group. End result is that sensible reform is virtually impossible, one party by its' very nature is not keen on change and the other is too close to those who may seek to resist it. Hence, not much changes.


----------



## moXJO

SirRumpole said:


> Businesses aren't mothers, but they are breeding grounds for germs spread around by their employees. People dont want to get sick by mostly they get sick in the premises of their employers sitting next to sick people who are at work because employers are stingy about giving sick leave.
> 
> So as I suggested before, if employers paid a proportion of the cost of getting a certificate (this is called a *price signal*), then maybe they will get the idea that employee sickness is partly their fault too.




which is then claimed as a business expense and admin costs then get added boosting the final expense. So bad idea imo. Yep charge employers and they will charge it back on top of admin.

And further what about the liability of bosses who do not get a medical certificate. Employee gets sick "dont worry about a med cert Jim only a cold" he then comes back in and either makes everyone else seriously sick or his illnesses is a lot worse and is not caught early. Some prick would try and sue if you are not covered with paperwork after someone works out the loop hole


----------



## moXJO

Smurf1976 said:


> I fail to see the relevance of that to the discussion. Out of interest, are you a doctor?
> 
> 
> 
> Can't say I've ever had, or heard of someone having, a job where it wasn't required by default. It's standard practice certainly in a lot of industries.
> 
> 
> 
> Me pay, not too unreasonable. But I don't actually need to see a doctor for a common cold, there's no medical need for that whatsoever, hence no need to actually pay a cent. Just staying home for a few days, in order to avoid spreading it to others, is all that's required. No medical certificate, since no doctor involved.
> 
> It's business that wants unnecessary visits to GP's, not patients. It thus seems perfectly reasonable that, in line with the much vaunted "user pays principle", business pays the cost of this excess medical servicing not required the by patients. This then produces a price signal, encouraging business to curb this expensive practice except in situations where value is actually being created.
> 
> The crux of this and many other issues is that the Australian economy has become increasingly inefficient and it's costing everyone, business included, an outright fortune. Either we change, or at some point the rest of the world will effectively force change one way or another. Most of that comes down to special deals for this, that and every other interest group with the practice of issuing medical certificates for common colds etc being just one of numerous examples. But as with all of them, there is incredible resistance to change from those who seek to gain from maintaining the inefficiencies.
> 
> There is hardly any industry, apart from iron ore due to a natural advantage, where Australia is efficient by global standards these days. We need reform, a lot of reform, and a government willing to pursue it. By definition that government cannot possibly consider itself to be "conservative" if it is to be the agent of change. Therein lies the problem, our main political options are either conservative, or are heavily aligned to a particular interest group. End result is that sensible reform is virtually impossible, one party by its' very nature is not keen on change and the other is too close to those who may seek to resist it. Hence, not much changes.




You can tell the employees, different mindset. Go run a business and watch your opinions quickly change.
The construction industry most dont bother with a med cert, but then most will work while sick and only take off hangover days. 

Its to expensive to employ people full time which is leading to a casual workforce (which in the long run is about as inefficient and costly).But costs and wages are already high enough without stiffing employers with another cost on top.
Im sorry but sickies were a massive problem in the 90s where they were rorted. You guys are going over ideas that already failed.


----------



## moXJO

sydboy007 said:


> More like $65 less the medicare rebate
> 
> I've had incidences of being sick where the effort to get an MC has probably meant I needed an extra day to recover.  I think some flexibility around this issue would help save a lot of $$ without opening it up to rorting.
> 
> Possibly a statutory right to 2 days off each year without an MC would help those who don't abuse the system, while those who do want to try and use up their 10 days "entitlement" will still be required to provide some form of evidence.
> 
> I wouldn't mind if there was a provision made so that an employee who uses above the average could be asked to attend a company doctor on their next sick leave request.  I don't see the employer has a right to know what illness you have, but they do have a right to confirm you are ill.
> 
> The current system is extremely expensive, especially if you are forced to go to an emergency department, as I have, so as to get an MC to get paid for the sick leave.




sensible idea


----------



## boofhead

noco said:


> ABBOTT...ABBOTT...ABBOTT......Why blame Abbott?
> 
> Gillard promised the world  to that Tasmanian Senator, I think his name is Wicks, to fix the gambling problem and she back flipped on the deal......she let him down badly which is no surprise.
> 
> No one is forced to gamble......they all know the consequences with poker machines......so if they want to pour their money into the pokies so be it....Good luck if they win.....bad luck if they lose.....you will never beat a poker machine.




Andrew Wilkie is the member of parliament you're thinking of. He is not a senator. He has an interesting history.

As for gambling - a number of problem gamblers are on various types of government welfare - desperate to get a lucky break. It is interesting to see how people think about how people on welfare payments should spend money, how government should then control areas that seem unproductive (unfavourable habits, entertainment etc)


----------



## SirRumpole

> which is then claimed as a business expense and admin costs then get added boosting the final expense. So bad idea imo. Yep charge employers and they will charge it back on top of admin.




So what ? It's the employer that requires the medical cert, so why shouldn't they pay instead of the taxpayer via Medicare ?

 Your business rules are no concern of mine or any other taxpayer. The other side is that requiring a certificate discourages abuse of the sick leave system. That is to the advantage of business, another reason why business should pick up the tab for MC's and why it should not be a deductible business expense.


----------



## SirRumpole

> Andrew Wilkie is the member of parliament you're thinking of. He is not a senator. He has an interesting history.




I'm absolutely amazed that someone who raves on about every perceived evil of a certain political party couldn't be bothered making himself aware of the facts of who he is actually talking about, and has such a short memory about details.

For heavens sake <you know who you are>, do some research before blurting out propaganda, you have little credibility as it is.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Do you believe we have a gambling problem due to the ready availability of pokie machines?
> 
> While in opposition Abbott showed a definite lack of bipartisan support with Labor on pokies reform.
> 
> Maybe have a look at the graph again and you'll see Australians lose more on pokies than the standard American loses in all forms of gambling.  Australians lose more on gaming machines than any other country.
> 
> But hey, I'm expecting you to answer no to my question above so I suppose that's why you see it as a senseless attack on Tony when it really shows his lack of understanding on the issue, and probably his desire to support the businesses rather than look after voters.




In W.A we don't have pokies, other than in the casino. I hate the things.

However I doubt the pokie, or gambling problem, has only come about in the last 16 months.

I did hear a lot about pokie reform while Labor was in, but was anything of substance ever tabled? I'm sure Labor didn't need bipartisan support to pass anti pokie reforms.

Having said that, wasn't it reported a month or so ago, that one of the political parties, were involved in a pokie operation somewhere over East?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...act-pokies-clubs/story-fn59niix-1226065964688

It can't always be Tony's fault, or can it Syd? Your dislike, seems to be clouding your otherwise, good posts.


----------



## Julia

Smurf1976 said:


> I fail to see the relevance of that to the discussion. Out of interest, are you a doctor?



I imagine the relevance was that an employer and an employee will view the same situation from their own points of view.  In an ideal workplace these views will be complementary, but not when you have employees whose attitude is how much can they get for how little input.  



> Can't say I've ever had, or heard of someone having, a job where it wasn't required by default. It's standard practice certainly in a lot of industries.



Presumably that's a characteristic of the type of work you have done.  I was in the workforce for nearly thirty years, was never asked to provide a MC once.  
And during the part of that time which was spent as an employer, we would never have asked any employee to provide one.

Reason?  Trust.  A tacit understanding that employer would look after the competent employee who worked in good faith toward helping the employer achieve his goals.  In so doing, a preparedness for give and take on both sides, eg travelling on Sunday to get the best out of a working week out of town, an afternoon off when all was quiet.

In that sort of atmosphere the best outcomes occur for everyone concerned.

If MC is part of a firm's culture, then Rumpole's suggestion seems fair - that each party pays half.

And further to my earlier description of the retired teacher enjoying over a year on full pay in retirement, I omitted to mention that that's in addition to a similar amount of long service leave.
Why not just be upfront and state that "the conditions for this job include X number of days of paid leave, you decide what to call it yourself"?
No wonder productivity is so dismal in this country.

PS Smurf, on the 'trust' issue above, I am not suggesting you are not trusted or that you do not trust your employer.  Presumably you work for some large electricity organisation where individual relationships are less likely to occur.


----------



## noco

I believe employees at the Jupiters Hotel/Casino in Townsville have to produce a MC if they have just one day off sick and that were the conditions when the place was owned by Tabcorp and Echo Entertainment....I do not know what takes place there now since the Leisure Group took it over last year...I guess the new owners would not have relaxed those conditions...

They employe some 500 workers.


----------



## Tisme

Smurf1976 said:


> It's not about paying the $7.




Arguing for the sake of arguing aside, I agree that getting a medical certificate is a nonsense procedure and worse case for any one taking a sickie is that he/she has to shop around to find a willing GP. As an employer who never takes legitimate sick leave let alone a sickie I really don't see much worth in the ritual.

The other thing that I am puzzled at is the govt's moves to put the revenue raising in the hands of one of, if not the most militant union in the country. The AMA membership is a closed shop organisation that regularly flexes it's muscles in disobedience of the govt, any govt  and invariably the govt capitulates.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I'm absolutely amazed that someone who raves on about every perceived evil of a certain political party couldn't be bothered making himself aware of the facts of who he is actually talking about, and has such a short memory about details.
> 
> For heavens sake <you know who you are>, do some research before blurting out propaganda, you have little credibility as it is.




No guts...no glory Rumpy....So I made a mistake and you were delighted to jump on the bandwagon of character assassination again....Anyone who does not a mistake does not make anything.

Whether his name is Wicks. Wilkie or Willie Winkie  it made no difference to the long nosed redhead PM who was recently dumped......She duped Andrew Wilkie into believing she would do something about problem gambling just to get his support in the lower house and then put it in the too hard basket.....That woman lied through her teeth.....Wlike took her at her word but of course we all know Gillards word was not worth the paper it was written on.....only the one she signed with Bob Brown for the carbon tax we were not supposed to have. ....Wilkie was not a very happy little Vegemite .


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> No guts...no glory Rumpy....So I made a mistake and you were delighted to jump on the bandwagon of character assassination again....Anyone who does not a mistake does not make anything.
> 
> Whether his name is Wicks. Wilkie or Willie Winkie  it made no difference to the long nosed redhead PM who was recently dumped......She duped Andrew Wilkie into believing she would do something about problem gambling just to get his support in the lower house and then put it in the too hard basket.....That woman lied through her teeth.....Wlike took her at her word but of course we all know Gillards word was not worth the paper it was written on.....only the one she signed with Bob Brown for the carbon tax we were not supposed to have. ....Wilkie was not a very happy little Vegemite .




That's an interesting view, but I subscribe more to what he actually waxed lyrical about and that was more to do with seat fixing and Gillard driven by polling and perception.

fore example:

_"A curious twist in the story is how Gillard effectively offered me Denison for keeps in mid-2011. We were holding one of our frequent meetings in Canberra and out of the blue she said I needed to think about my future and, in particular, whether I wanted to be the ALP Denison candidate at the next federal election or wanted Labor to not even run a candidate there at all. The  alternative, clearly, was business as usual ”” and by implication a tough Labor campaign directed at me come election time. Of course Gillard’s approach to me was in the context of her trying to find a way to head off my bringing the government down. I rejected the suggestions.

But why didn’t Labor-leaning Denison turn on me after I tore up my agreement to support Gillard when, in January 2012, she reneged on her agreement with me to deliver deep poker machine reform? Perhaps that reflected the declining popularity of the prime minister, but in the mix has to be a craving in the community for principled political leadership. To that end Gillard failed to honour her word and it reflected very badly on her. For my part I’d promised repeatedly to withdraw my support if Gillard failed to honour her agreement, and that’s exactly what I did. Frequently afterwards constituents, often traditional Labor supporters, have voiced their approval of my response to the prime minister’s behaviour."_


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> In W.A we don't have pokies, other than in the casino. I hate the things.
> 
> However I doubt the pokie, or gambling problem, has only come about in the last 16 months.
> 
> I did hear a lot about pokie reform while Labor was in, but was anything of substance ever tabled? I'm sure Labor didn't need bipartisan support to pass anti pokie reforms.
> 
> Having said that, wasn't it reported a month or so ago, that one of the political parties, were involved in a pokie operation somewhere over East?
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...act-pokies-clubs/story-fn59niix-1226065964688
> 
> It can't always be Tony's fault, or can it Syd? Your dislike, seems to be clouding your otherwise, good posts.




You've been arguing that the senate needs to get out of the way of th Government, that we need a mor ebipartisan view to bring about the reform Australia needs.

So let me know if the below sounds bipartisan from the Abbott opposition & Govt to pokies reform:

http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/the-house-wins-gaming-reforms-ditched/764/

Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews on Wednesday morning will put to a vote in the House of Representatives a bill repealing almost all of the harm-minimisation measures passed by the Gillard Labor government in November 2012.



> Among the measures that would be stripped away by the legislation are a requirement that by 2018 all new poker machines be capable of supporting a pre-commitment system, and another that ATM machines in gambling venues have a $250 daily withdrawal limit. So-called ‘pre-commitment’ technology allows gamblers to set how much money they plan to lose in a given session, locking out the player once the limit is reached.
> 
> The bill would also dismantle plans for a national gambling regulator, and remove the two levies on the gambling industry intended to fund it; scrap a requirement that warning messages flashed on poker machine screens be “dynamic”, to catch gamblers’ attention; and abolish the proposed trial of a mandatory pre-commitment scheme, which was to begin in the Australian Capital Territory this year.
> 
> *ATM withdrawal limits in place in Victoria have seen the amount of money that problem gamblers lose on each sitting at the pokies fall by up to $90.*




Note the Abbott Govt has turned it's back on a policy THA WAS SHOWN to be effective in Victoria.  Surely when you can see something works for the common good you don't stop it rolling out nationally 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-26/abbott-predicts-pokies-repeal/3600604



> Mr Abbott told a rally of more than 1,000 people at the Campbelltown RSL in south-western Sydney last night that problem gambling was an individual issue which can be dealt with by counselling.
> 
> He described the pre-commitment legislation as bad law that could not be supported by any sensible party.
> 
> "When this legislation comes before the Parliament I predict that we will oppose it," he said.
> 
> "And if this legislation is passed by the Parliament and if we then subsequently form a government, I predict we will rescind it. That's what I predict."




So where's that bipartisan suport you've been calling for since the Abbott Govt was formed?

This is what Abbott had to say on triple j back in oct 2011 - "_But I don't think the Labor caucus like it. I think if she tries to ram it through, if she's still the prime minister, this could be (the issue) which kills her._"

So do you think Abbott was opposed to pokies reform because he didn't think it would be successful (though at least limited reform in Vic HAD BEEN SUUCCESSFUL), or that there were better ways to achieve it, or was it because he thought it would harm the Gillard Govt and opposing it would benefit himself and the coalition opposition?


----------



## moXJO

SirRumpole said:


> So what ? It's the employer that requires the medical cert, so why shouldn't they pay instead of the taxpayer via Medicare ?
> 
> Your business rules are no concern of mine or any other taxpayer. The other side is that requiring a certificate discourages abuse of the sick leave system. That is to the advantage of business, another reason why business should pick up the tab for MC's and why it should not be a deductible business expense.




yeah and its the employee that wants a paid day off so stump up the cert for pay. Otherwise take as many days unpaid with no cert as you want.


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> That's an interesting view, but I subscribe more to what he actually waxed lyrical about and that was more to do with seat fixing and Gillard driven by polling and perception.
> 
> fore example:
> 
> _"A curious twist in the story is how Gillard effectively offered me Denison for keeps in mid-2011. We were holding one of our frequent meetings in Canberra and out of the blue she said I needed to think about my future and, in particular, whether I wanted to be the ALP Denison candidate at the next federal election or wanted Labor to not even run a candidate there at all. The  alternative, clearly, was business as usual ”” and by implication a tough Labor campaign directed at me come election time. Of course Gillard’s approach to me was in the context of her trying to find a way to head off my bringing the government down. I rejected the suggestions.
> 
> But why didn’t Labor-leaning Denison turn on me after I tore up my agreement to support Gillard when, in January 2012, she reneged on her agreement with me to deliver deep poker machine reform? Perhaps that reflected the declining popularity of the prime minister, but in the mix has to be a craving in the community for principled political leadership. To that end Gillard failed to honour her word and it reflected very badly on her. For my part I’d promised repeatedly to withdraw my support if Gillard failed to honour her agreement, and that’s exactly what I did. Frequently afterwards constituents, often traditional Labor supporters, have voiced their approval of my response to the prime minister’s behaviour."_




Thank you Tisme for your support...that is exactly what happened with Gillard and Wilkie.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> You've been arguing that the senate needs to get out of the way of th Government, that we need a mor ebipartisan view to bring about the reform Australia needs.
> 
> So let me know if the below sounds bipartisan from the Abbott opposition & Govt to pokies reform:
> 
> http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/the-house-wins-gaming-reforms-ditched/764/
> 
> Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews on Wednesday morning will put to a vote in the House of Representatives a bill repealing almost all of the harm-minimisation measures passed by the Gillard Labor government in November 2012.
> 
> 
> 
> Note the Abbott Govt has turned it's back on a policy THA WAS SHOWN to be effective in Victoria.  Surely when you can see something works for the common good you don't stop it rolling out nationally
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-26/abbott-predicts-pokies-repeal/3600604
> 
> 
> 
> So where's that bipartisan suport you've been calling for since the Abbott Govt was formed?
> 
> This is what Abbott had to say on triple j back in oct 2011 - "_But I don't think the Labor caucus like it. I think if she tries to ram it through, if she's still the prime minister, this could be (the issue) which kills her._"
> 
> So do you think Abbott was opposed to pokies reform because he didn't think it would be successful (though at least limited reform in Vic HAD BEEN SUUCCESSFUL), or that there were better ways to achieve it, or was it because he thought it would harm the Gillard Govt and opposing it would benefit himself and the coalition opposition?




Why did the Gillard Government forward date everything? One is no better than the other.

During Labors last term of office the only successful party was the Greens, Bob Brown had Labor push through their whole agenda. 
Now Abbott is suffering the same fate, the only difference is Palmer etc, haven't a clue about any policy.
In effect bipartisan relations are non existent, and Australia is suffering for it.

As far as pokies go, I would rather see the W.A model, or a complete ban on them.

From a Governments perspective, they probably see it as a way of recouping welfare, that may be why neither do anything about it.

You confuse my call for bipartisan support, as a tick of approval for the Abbott Government.

What I have always said is, the elected Government should be allowed(within reason), to enact fiscal policy.

That policy can then be voted on at the next election, it is only three year terms, then if the majority vote them out it is changed. e.g the carbon tax.

What we currently have, is loonies vandalising the system, for their own pet agendas.

Abbott and co are not performing any better than Gillard, Rudd and co did.

Abbott is prostituting himself to Palmer, the same way as Gillard did to Bob Brown. 
The sad thing is, we the plebs pay for ineffective, incoherent policy. 

As you point out, we need to find new taxes, to support an ever burgeoning welfare dependence.

I think, you won't be able to raise enough tax to pay for welfare, in the foreseable future, then what recipients spend it on will be the issue.IMO


----------



## Smurf1976

Julia said:


> PS Smurf, on the 'trust' issue above, I am not suggesting you are not trusted or that you do not trust your employer.  Presumably you work for some large electricity organisation where individual relationships are less likely to occur.




In my present job we do get a number of "certificate optional" sick days each year and personally I've never used anywhere near the lot. Sick leave is for if you actually are sick in my view, it's not an entitlement that should be taken for the sake of it. I suspect that my own view might be biasing my thinking here somewhat, ignoring the extent to which some people probably would rort the system if they could get away with it.

Main reason I mentioned it as an example of inefficiency in the economy, is the difficulty getting in to see a GP when there's a spike in colds etc which happens every winter here. It just seems to be an incredible waste of resources to have people seeing GP's for no reason other than obtaining a piece of paper with no actual medical treatment provided.  

Thinking of an other situation with with a similar principle, vehicle accidents. I'm not sure about other states, but in Tas the police have set up an online system for reporting "for the sake of reporting it" vehicle accidents not requiring police to attend. The basic concept is that you phone if you actually do need police to attend the accident scene, but if it's just a minor incident (no injuries, vehicles can be safely driven away) and you're only reporting it in order to keep the insurer happy then you can use the online system instead. It keeps insurers happy without using up police resources with minor incidents.

The medical certificate one might be difficult to address in practice I think, but as a general principle I do think that as a society we do need to be looking at things differently and be willing to accept the removal of unnecessary waste. 

The tax system is another one. If an individual with straightforward finances (eg they have a job, a few work-related deductions and a bit of bank interest) feels the need to use a professional to prepare their Tax Return then something is seriously wrong with either the tax system or the individual. I think it was Howard / Costello (from memory) who suggested the idea of just giving everyone an automatic refund of $x and abolishing the minor deductions so as to reduce the administrative burden. In principle that idea seems sensible - same concept as the other things I've mentioned, trying to reduce things which are unnecessary and offer little or no benefit.

Where government comes into all this is leadership. Government really needs to be leading the debate about how to make Australia more efficient and why it needs to be done. At present, we're uncompetitive at just about everything and that's not going to do us any good in the long term.


----------



## Smurf1976

Tisme said:


> The other thing that I am puzzled at is the govt's moves to put the revenue raising in the hands of one of, if not the most militant union in the country. The AMA membership is a closed shop organisation that regularly flexes it's muscles in disobedience of the govt, any govt  and invariably the govt capitulates.




I strongly suspect that the Coalition associates the word "union" with certain occupations only, primarily blue collar workers and also the likes of teachers. I seriously doubt that they see the AMA in anything resembling the same way they see the CFMEU for example. One represents a white collar, professional occupation and the other represents primarily blue collar workers. Stereotypically, the Coalition is more aligned to the former and Labor more aligned to the latter and I do think this filters through to broader thinking of the government.


----------



## Smurf1976

It's a state issue but this is the sort of thing that really puts me off the Liberals either state or federal.

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/opinion/editorial-a-matter-of-liberty/story-fnj4f64i-1227175282612

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/free-speech-sue-threat/story-fnj4f7k1-1227175410202

I disagree with some of what the Greens and others have to say, but they absolutely do have a right to express their views so far as I'm concerned.

First they wanted to remove the Industrial Commission, then the anti-protest laws, now it's being sued simply for expressing your opinion. It's not hard to see who the Liberals are working for, and it isn't the average citizen that's for sure. 

I wonder if comment on this forum to the effect that a company might go broke, be poorly run, produces inferior products or otherwise has problems could become illegal under these laws? That leaves us with only ever saying that share prices go up and all is well. Hmm....


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> In my present job we do get a number of "certificate optional" sick days each year and personally I've never used anywhere near the lot. Sick leave is for if you actually are sick in my view, it's not an entitlement that should be taken for the sake of it. I suspect that my own view might be biasing my thinking here somewhat, ignoring the extent to which some people probably would rort the system if they could get away with it.
> 
> Main reason I mentioned it as an example of inefficiency in the economy, is the difficulty getting in to see a GP when there's a spike in colds etc which happens every winter here. It just seems to be an incredible waste of resources to have people seeing GP's for no reason other than obtaining a piece of paper with no actual medical treatment provided.
> 
> Thinking of an other situation with with a similar principle, vehicle accidents. I'm not sure about other states, but in Tas the police have set up an online system for reporting "for the sake of reporting it" vehicle accidents not requiring police to attend. The basic concept is that you phone if you actually do need police to attend the accident scene, but if it's just a minor incident (no injuries, vehicles can be safely driven away) and you're only reporting it in order to keep the insurer happy then you can use the online system instead. It keeps insurers happy without using up police resources with minor incidents.
> 
> The medical certificate one might be difficult to address in practice I think, but as a general principle I do think that as a society we do need to be looking at things differently and be willing to accept the removal of unnecessary waste.
> 
> The tax system is another one. If an individual with straightforward finances (eg they have a job, a few work-related deductions and a bit of bank interest) feels the need to use a professional to prepare their Tax Return then something is seriously wrong with either the tax system or the individual. I think it was Howard / Costello (from memory) who suggested the idea of just giving everyone an automatic refund of $x and abolishing the minor deductions so as to reduce the administrative burden. In principle that idea seems sensible - same concept as the other things I've mentioned, trying to reduce things which are unnecessary and offer little or no benefit.
> 
> Where government comes into all this is leadership. Government really needs to be leading the debate about how to make Australia more efficient and why it needs to be done. At present, we're uncompetitive at just about everything and that's not going to do us any good in the long term.




That ideology really was what Australia was about, only claim it if you need it, now the norm is claim it you may get it.

We really are going down the toilet.IMO

Not wanting to sound like a saint, I'm not.
But, I have had investment properties, I've let them out to "unsavoury" tenants, had a lot of damage and just repaired it.
Always had private health insurance, because I've always had a job and felt I should pay for it.
Always had home and contents insurance and never claimed on it.
Retired from work because of disability, but never applied for disability pension, because I think I've saved enough to support myself. Yet I would have qualified for it.
I guess what I'm saying is, Australia seems to be becoming just like the U.S and U.K, where it is about what I can get for nothing.
The last thing people want to do, is do without.

Those who are working want income tax reduced, those who are retired don't want tax increased and those on welfare want more money.

Work that out.

I guess a lot of the problem today is, people expect to get a lot more out than they put in, they have to realise that isn't the norm.
That is a pyramid scheme.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:
			
		

> Those who are working want income tax reduced, those who are retired don't want tax increased and those on welfare want more money.




And rich people want their tax dodges continued, businesses want to pay less tax and have more control over their employees and the government yada yada yada ...


----------



## Julia

sptrawler said:


> I guess a lot of the problem today is, people expect to get a lot more out than they put in, they have to realise that isn't the norm.



+1 to your entire post, sptrawler, though on the last above, politicians need to bear some responsibility for the creation of this entitlement philosophy. 

 Each election there are promises from both sides which give rise to just such expectations.  Example from the last election:  getting rid of the carbon tax but allowing the compensation to be kept:  something for nothing.

We need a leader with a strong enough personality to be honest with the Australian people.  I don't think we're bludgers or malcontents by nature, rather need proper explanation of the need to change the prevailing attitude.


----------



## Calliope

Julia said:


> We need a leader with a strong enough personality to be honest with the Australian people.  I don't think we're bludgers or malcontents by nature, rather need proper explanation of the need to change the prevailing attitude.




It worked for John Key in the NZ September election. Kiwis are happy with more of same...which includes 15% GST on everything and an $NZ15 co-payment to see a doctor.

Perhaps they need some of the perennial knockers and whingers we have on these pages to sort them out



> ABC election analyst Antony Green said it was a terrific result for the National Party.
> 
> "It's been a ringing endorsement of the national government and John Key and further decline for the Labour Party who have recorded their lowest vote since 1925," he said.
> 
> "Essentially this election the government is being re-elected on the basis of its economic performance. The economy is seen as doing well


----------



## Julia

That's exactly right.  John Key has the personality to take the people with him.  It was very evident at the time of the Christchurch earthquake where he struck the right balance between practical common sense and concerned compassion.

Mike Baird achieved the same in his 7.30 interview when the Sydney siege was over.

Seems to be a characteristic a politician either has or has not.

John Howard persuaded us that we needed the GST and if he were still around could probably again persuade us to raise it to 15%.   Mr Abbott would have the proverbial snowball's chance in hell of doing likewise.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> John Howard persuaded us that we needed the GST and if he were still around could probably again persuade us to raise it to 15%.   Mr Abbott would have the proverbial snowball's chance in hell of doing likewise.




Howard almost lost the 1998 election which was campaigned on the GST. 

What's more, he only won the 1996 election by saying there will "never, ever be a GST". Another Coalition lie.

Had he not had a massive majority at the time, he would have lost. The GST has always been a vote loser since John Hewson lost the 1993 election campaigning on it. I doubt if any politician now has the guts to go to an election proposing to increase or widen the GST.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...-partisan-debate/story-fn53lw5p-1227108855477


----------



## Logique

John Hewson has a tin ear on policy. Paul Keating knew this.

Make no mistake, the Coalition wants both to expand the GST to everything, and to increase the rate. So much easier than making corporate Australia pay it's fair share of tax.

In retrospect Meg Lees, leader of the Australian Democrats 1997-2001, looks like a visionary. No GST on food she said. And that's how it should remain.

Let's not forget that the later leader of the ADs Sen Stott-Despoja crossed the floor to vote against the initial implementation of the GST.  She killed off the ADs in my opinion.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Howard almost lost the 1998 election which was campaigned on the GST.
> 
> What's more, he only won the 1996 election by saying there will "never, ever be a GST". Another Coalition lie.
> 
> Had he not had a massive majority at the time, he would have lost. The GST has always been a vote loser since John Hewson lost the 1993 election campaigning on it. I doubt if any politician now has the guts to go to an election proposing to increase or widen the GST.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...-partisan-debate/story-fn53lw5p-1227108855477




Why do you Fabians try to twist things around to make it look worse than it is?

Firstly, Howard did not say "NEVER EVER", it was stated in such a way there would be no GST during that particular term in office....It is folly to say 'never ever' because he may never have won the next election......I should remind you, he was honest enough to go to the next election with the GST on the agenda and won that election, unlike Mis Gillard and I don't have to repeat what she did.

Secondly, Paul Keating wanted to go to an election with the GST as one of their polices and Hawke stopped him, fearing, of course, a back lash from voters.....No guts ...no glory.......KIM Beasley went to the next election after the GST was introduced and pledged to repeal the GST.....What happened to the Labor policy after that is now history.

Thirdly, it was revealed the Labor Party, during the period 2007/2013 had Treasury set up several models to increase the GST of which Labor tried to conceal.....Obviously someone in Treasury leaked the information......Labor has refused to table these models....I wonder why?


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Why do you Fabians try to twist things around to make it look worse than it is?
> 
> Firstly, Howard did not say "NEVER EVER", it was stated in such a way there would be no GST during that particular term in office...




I don't know if you are being deliberately disingenuous or are having a genuine memory lapse, but here is the evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixn9fFatdcs


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I don't know if you are being deliberately disingenuous or are having a genuine memory lapse, but here is the evidence.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixn9fFatdcs




So What?

I still say it referred to that particular term in office.

So what do you have to say about him being honest enough to take to the GST to following election and won that election with the GST as his policy...Howard could obviously see merit in doing away with the hidden sales tax and replacing it with the GST....So if your comrades did not like the GST, why didn't they repeal it like Beasley said he would?

Also what do you have to say about Keating and Hawke and lately with Swan's secret intentions on his direction to Treasury...Sneaky bit of stuff from the "World's greatest treasurer"..... He has been caught out.


----------



## SirRumpole

> So What?
> 
> I still say it referred to that particular term in office.




There is just no point trying to converse with someone so one sided, so your posts will gain no response from me in the future.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> There is just no point trying to converse with someone so one sided, so your posts will gain no response from me in the future.




And you are not one sided?

I think you are a poor loser...you can't even respond to my question to you about Hawke, Keating and Swan on how they viewed the GST..

Hawke once said there would be no child in poverty by 1990....But of course would certainly would not want to comment on anything adverse to the Labor Party.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Hawke once said there would be no child in poverty by 1990....But of course would certainly would not want to comment on anything adverse to the Labor Party.




I never denied Hawke said that. I hold no brief for him apart from the fact I think he was a good PM for some of the time.

You denied Howard said there would "never, ever be a GST", and when I showed you the evidence you refused to believe it. That's one eyed.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I never denied Hawke said that. I hold no brief for him apart from the fact I think he was a good PM for some of the time.
> 
> You denied Howard said there would "never, ever be a GST", and when I showed you the evidence you refused to believe it. That's one eyed.




Things can often change in politics when the circumstances arise and that is why Howard decided to run with the GST where every one knew what tax they were paying.....The hidden sales tax was never detailed on an invoice and Governments could increase the sales tax without anyone knowing as was the case  when Keating increased the S/T  on motor vehicles from 20% to 25%...When the sales tax was dropped, cars were much cheaper with only 10% being added...A can of coke had 22.5% S/T and stationery had an adder of 33.3% S/T.

There was a comment on that U-Tube as herewith.

*Mark M
2 years ago
in reply to sherlock747

Saying that it's a lie implies that John Howard was deceiving people when he said that his party had no intention to implement GST. There's nothing to indicate that he in fact did have any intention of implementing GST at that time; it was only later on after he was elected, due to different political circumstances, that GST became appealing.*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx0IeQQ7WjI


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> Howard almost lost the 1998 election which was campaigned on the GST.
> 
> What's more, he only won the 1996 election by saying there will "never, ever be a GST". Another Coalition lie.
> 
> Had he not had a massive majority at the time, he would have lost. The GST has always been a vote loser since John Hewson lost the 1993 election campaigning on it. I doubt if any politician now has the guts to go to an election proposing to increase or widen the GST.





> Howard "almost lost" the 1998 election:



  He won it, and that's all that matters.

Everything changes in politics.  He was foolish to say "never ever," but he had the intestinal fortitude to take it to an election which he won.
That's a damn sight more than Labor did with their carbon tax.

And how is that NZ can get the population on side with their GST which doesn't exempt fresh food etc?
It's much more about leadership and strength of character than it is about the actual few % on the total at the check out.
I'd be happy to pay more if it meant getting Australia back on track financially.


----------



## Tisme

Just a reminder that come January 19th the Abbott govt's new healthcare rules start to kick in and 10 minute consultation rebates will reduce from $37.05 to $16.95 for everyone, including pensioners.

So make sure you milk the time and to hell with other sick in the waiting room.


----------



## Smurf1976

Julia said:


> It's much more about leadership and strength of character than it is about the actual few % on the total at the check out.




Australia is seriously lacking in decent leadership at the moment. Certainly that is the case in politics and I think that business leadership quality is declining somewhat too.

I do think that part of it comes down to the broader changes in the economy. A generation ago we were still very much focused on making and doing physical things. Scientists, engineers and so on determined the future and the rest got on and built it.

These days however, it's all about finance and working out how to shuffle the cards and obtain what we want without even knowing how to physically do it. It's hard to imagine such an environment producing quality leadership at any level when there's such a huge focus on the short term and no thought for the future at the very heart of the economy.

Whether we like to admit it or not, slowly but surely we're heading into the ultra low interest rate / outsource and offshore everything / austerity scenario that hasn't really worked anywhere else. I can't see it working too well here either.


----------



## SirRumpole

> And how is that NZ can get the population on side with their GST which doesn't exempt fresh food etc?
> It's much more about leadership and strength of character than it is about the actual few % on the total at the check out.




The way to take the population with you on issues such as the GST is to convince them that everyone is paying their fair share.

That's hard to do with a regressive tax like GST, higher income earners will pay a lower percentage of their pay in gst.

So good luck to any politician who proposes an increase on the basis that everyone will contribute equally. It has to be part of a package of tax reform where the tax dodgers are shown to be doing their bit as well as PAYE'ers who find it very hard to dodge tax.



> I'd be happy to pay more if it meant getting Australia back on track financially.




Why not just increase income tax rates across the board in that case ?


----------



## Tisme

Smurf1976 said:


> Australia is seriously lacking in decent leadership at the moment. Certainly that is the case in politics and I think that business leadership quality is declining somewhat too.





It's hard to put a finger on what is happening out there, but something has happened to the dynamic in business. There is no doubt Australia has become fixated on the money measure for all things (even tragedies are measured in dollars rather than the social impact these days) and the shineout entrepreneurs seemed to have vanished.

Perhaps we are moving in a conservative cycle. Perhaps we have become used to strong leaders we love or loath and all of a sudden we have had a dud who seems impervious to ridicule or common sense so we have become apathetic and sullen.

Maybe when the next economic report card comes out showing inflation and an economy in reverse someone with some nous will pull out the defibrillator and get some pulse back into the national heartbeat.


----------



## sydboy007

I'm not sure hwo the Govt can be considering this when unemployment is at a decade high

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...l&utm_content=1079679&utm_campaign=am&modapt=



> The Abbott government is considering changes to migration rules that would allow local firms to employ skilled foreigners for as long as a year without applying for the 457 skilled worker visa, The Australian Financial Review reports.
> 
> The new temporary visa proposal from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection would also reportedly allow foreign workers to bypass language and skills requirements and remove requirements for companies to prove the position cannot be filled by a local.
> 
> Should the government proceed with such a plan it will likely be warmly welcomed by employers, but derided by unions.
> 
> “There are already significant problems with graduate employment in professions such as dentistry, computer science, medicine and engineering,” skilled migration researcher Bob Birrell told the AFR.
> 
> “Liberalisation such that being mooted is going to crash head-on with that situation. The government is going to have some angry professional associations on its hands.”


----------



## Tisme

sydboy007 said:


> I'm not sure hwo the Govt can be considering this when unemployment is at a decade high
> 
> http://www.businessspectator.com.au...l&utm_content=1079679&utm_campaign=am&modapt=




I can see the govt taking that up too, with cheap Indian public servants they can make big cuts to the outgoings.

I've watched the construction sector increasingly use itinerant Korean plasterers and tilers and watched that sector decline in local content to the point where it's odd to see a European face on those tools on large scale project..... it's also comical watching the Heath Robinson methods employed, although dangerous on occasions.


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:
			
		

> It's hard to put a finger on what is happening out there, but something has happened to the dynamic in business. There is no doubt Australia has become fixated on the money measure for all things (even tragedies are measured in dollars rather than the social impact these days) and the shineout entrepreneurs seemed to have vanished.




Perhaps a reflection of increasing foreign ownership of larger corporations who have no skin in the game of our society, and just want our money.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> Perhaps a reflection of increasing foreign ownership of larger corporations who have no skin in the game of our society, and just want our money.




Yeah well we have seen sellouts to companies like Schneider. The Chinese are in the thick of sublets and acquisitions across the globe and the USA is the only economy in good shape today.

The good news is that while Europe is providing a negative yield on its bonds some idiot in charge of finance here is giving +ve yields and paying big interest bills on loans to boot instead of renegotiating the exposure down to zip...... I think my head is about to fall off form all the head shaking I do whenever I see what our clowns, supposedly running the show,  are up to.


----------



## Smurf1976

Tisme said:


> It's hard to put a finger on what is happening out there, but something has happened to the dynamic in business.




In the past, I'd always assumed that should I ever find myself in a senior management role (not something I've ever aimed for by the way), that it would be in the same industry I've spent many years working in or at least something reasonably related to it.

But as someone pointed out to me a while ago, a large proportion of businesses these days are run by generic managers. They know how to administer a business, but haven't got a clue about the actual activity of the business as such. So you end up with things like biologists running building companies and so on. They can manage it as such, but they're in no place to actually lead it.

It's like saying that I'm pretty sure I could keep a large plane flying. Get a real pilot to take off and get it up to cruising altitude, put it on auto pilot, then I'll take over. Look, see, it's easy! So long as we're just flying straight ahead, I can just sit there and the plane keeps flying. But we'll be in real trouble should I need to climb, descend, or in due course land the plane since I sure don't know how to do that. Better hope the real pilot comes back in the cockpit pretty soon.

I see a similar concept with business. There are many exceptions of course, but in a lot of cases it's a short term manager who knows little about the actual business and they'll be gone after their contract expires anyway. So they'll just apply a few generic ideas, cut x% of the workforce, put prices up x% and hope that it all holds together until their time is up. They're just flying straight ahead and making cabin announcements. They don't know what to do if anything goes wrong.

Real knowledge has been greatly devalued in modern society as I see it. There was a time when, if you were going to run something like a railway, you needed to actually know about railways. These days you're just as likely to find that the CEO is a qualified chef whose last job was managing a department store. They'll keep the trains running, but they don't know enough about railways to do anything strategic with long term benefits. And with only a few years in the job anyway, they'd be foolish to spend now if the returns won't eventuate until after they've moved on. End result = lack of innovation, even bigger lack of creativity and it doesn't achieve what it could achieve.


----------



## Tisme

I guess less Indians will be getting through the turnstiles for a while:





> Thousands of Immigration Department public servants face the sack if they fail to comply with tough new security tests imposed by their new bosses.
> 
> Immigration's 8500 officials have been told they must complete an "organisational suitability assessment" if they want to work at Border Force Australia, the new merged agency combining Immigration and Customs.
> 
> The move by the Customs bosses, who are taking up many of the key posts at the top of the merged entity, comes despite all Immigration public servants already holding the "baseline" security clearances that are standard across the Australian Public Service.
> 
> 
> But the new requirements go further, probing into past activities in the private lives of Immigration's bureaucrats and those of their families, friends and other acquaintances
> Canberra Times


----------



## Tisme

Wheels falling off for Govt:






> The ANZ has broken ranks with the other big banks, backing Labor's Future of Financial Advice legislation and implicitly rejecting the Coalition's attempts to water it down.
> 
> In June the Coalition introduced regulations that would have allowed banks to continue to reward their advisory staff for the volume of business they generated. The regulations also removed the requirement for clients to "opt in" to continuing advice every two years and removed the requirement for advisers to provide an annual fee disclosure statement to clients who they had signed up before July 2013.
> 
> The Senate disallowed the regulations in November, reinstating the disclosure and opt in requirements and reinstating the broad ban on conflicted remuneration.
> 
> In a newly-published submission to the Senate inquiry examining the scrutiny of financial advice the ANZ says it believes Labor's legislation will improve the quality of advice and protect consumers from poor advice.
> 
> Advertisement
> 
> "ANZ is a strong supporter of the Future of Financial Advice and related MySuper reforms and is working to not only comply but take a leadership position to rebuild consumer confidence in advice," it says.
> 
> The submission backs the best-interests duty which requires advisers to put the interests of their clients ahead of their own, backs the fee disclosure and opt-in provisions, and backs the ban on conflicted remuneration describing it as "critical in removing conflicted or inappropriate adviser behaviours".
> 
> The Commonwealth Bank's submission stops short of endorsing Labor's reforms saying it expects legislative and regulatory settings "to continue to evolve".
> 
> The submission includes an apology for the unacceptable behaviour of its some of its advisors, but notes that regulations alone cannot make any business highly ethical.
> 
> Westpac also stops short of endorsing Labor's reforms and says regulations need to be balanced against the additional costs they impose and the resources needed to comply with them.
> 
> It proposes what it calls an "independent self-regulatory organisation" to govern the behaviour of advisers.
> 
> The ANZ calls into question the exemption from the Future of Financial Advice rules for life insurance products.
> 
> It says they too should transition to fee-for-service sales in what would have to be a staged process.
> 
> Care would be needed to ensure the change did not exacerbate under-insurance and continued to give advisers a fair and reasonable reward for their work in providing quality advice.
> 
> The ANZ submissions also backs a national competency exam for financial advisers and a national insurance scheme for advisory firms too small to self insure.
> 
> "Those firms that choose not to participate in an industry insurance scheme should demonstrate an adequate capacity to provide redress to those who have suffered loss," it says.
> 
> It rejects concerns that compulsory insurance would encourage firms to be reckless saying those whose from whom customers take payouts would expect their premiums to rise.
> 
> The consumer group Choice also backs what it calls an industry-funded compensation of last resort.
> 
> It recommends that no further major changes be made to the Future of Finance Advice Act until a full review of its effectiveness is conducted in 2018.
> 
> It wants the Australian Securities and Investments Commission given the power to ban individuals from managing financial advisory businesses and it wants it given adequate funding to monitor financial advisers and conduct regular shadow shopping exercises.
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/anz-backs-labor-on-fofa-20150111-12lxcj.html#ixzz3Oak90hkQ


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:
			
		

> "independent self-regulatory organisation"




oxymoron of the day


----------



## IFocus

From the Liberal Daily News today


Spending rise hits ‘cuts’ talk
$14bn spending rise hits ‘cuts’ talk
 A $14 billion surge in government spending has reignited the fight over the need for budget savings. 

Coalition Government spending rising = some one else's fault

Extraordinary


----------



## Julia

Tisme said:


> Wheels falling off for Govt:



Of course.  No doubt they will be wiped out at the next election.

Here you have ANZ and perhaps other banks desperately trying to redeem themselves in the eyes of the public after more than one scandal exposing their own incompetence and/or corruption.
It's no longer just CBA whose financial planners ran amok.  Story in the Weekend Australian about ANZ and mortgage brokers for anyone who wants to seek it out makes it plain they need to engage in damage control in a hurry.

But hey, don't let that stop anyone putting a completely political slant on it.


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> From the Liberal Daily News today
> 
> 
> Spending rise hits ‘cuts’ talk
> $14bn spending rise hits ‘cuts’ talk
> A $14 billion surge in government spending has reignited the fight over the need for budget savings.
> 
> Coalition Government spending rising = some one else's fault
> 
> Extraordinary



You subscribe to the "Liberal Daily" ??


----------



## Tisme

Julia said:


> But hey, don't let that stop anyone putting a completely political slant on it.




Double post.


----------



## Tisme

Julia said:


> But hey, don't let that stop anyone putting a completely political slant on it.




The Gillard legislation had many admirers from both sides of the political divide and obviously still does. The question being asked is why the legislation is being modified when it had so much consensus in its genesis.

That a conservative corporation which is more probably a nursery for LNP players comes out in opposition of an LNP proposal is rather a significant event.


----------



## Logique

Deal breaker. When an Australian government attacks bulk billing, it is time they were gone. 

Especially when they are so gutless with the big end of town. 



> http://www.southcoastregister.com.au/story/2809188/prognosis-for-health-is-grim/?cs=205
> Prognosis for health is grim Jan. 11, 2015, 3:33 p.m.
> 
> ...Here is a typical example, *on January 19, the Medicare rebate for a GP consultation lasting six to 10 minutes will fall from $37.05 to $16.95*, and then *down to $11.95 from July 1* (reduced rebates frozen until 2018).
> 
> The consultancy rebate falls 54 to 67 per cent over the next six months, even so, the government expect GPs to remain economically viable on the supposition of patients making up the shortfall – *the death of bulk billing*.
> 
> Under the changes and limited government support *the future looks bleak for GPs and their patients*.
> 
> I urge everyone to write a letter of protest to their local MP showing concern.
> 
> Letter writer, NSW, Jan 2015.


----------



## Julia

Wouldn't be happening if there hadn't been such a confected outcry about a measly $7 co-payment, capped at just $70 p.a.


----------



## sydboy007

Logique said:


> Deal breaker. When an Australian government attacks bulk billing, it is time they were gone.
> 
> Especially when they are so gutless with the big end of town.




Seems they've been doing a lot of this kind of dodgy policy on the run

Throw in major license changes to stop stop TPG rolling out their FTTB network to compete against the NBN, and we've now got Brandis trying to somehow link metadata retention to stopping terrorist attacks, yet the wally still can't actually explain his policy, nor put a cost to it.

But the apologists still keep trundling out the same crap and ad hominem attacks. 

No one forces a Govt to bring out poor policy.


----------



## boofhead

Julia said:


> Wouldn't be happening if there hadn't been such a confected outcry about a measly $7 co-payment, capped at just $70 p.a.




How does it make a difference? The co-payment was mostly for a medical research fund.

Also the cap is for people with concession.


----------



## Smurf1976

Tisme said:


> That a conservative corporation which is more probably a nursery for LNP players comes out in opposition of an LNP proposal is rather a significant event.




I can't recall any past examples where someone significant (big business, unions etc) backed "the other side" without that being associated with a change of government shortly afterward. I can certainly recall a couple of state issues like that in the past, not sure of the history of such things at the federal level.

I'm not suggesting that such a move directly leads to influencing the vote sufficiently to change the government. More likely, it's indicative of an already somewhat extreme position if you actually end up with something "unnatural" like that happening.


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> You subscribe to the "Liberal Daily" ??




No but if I post any other rag here I get blah blah blah.

I have noticed a slight change in tone from the Oz lately not a good sign for the Coalition.


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> No but if I post any other rag here I get blah blah blah.
> 
> I have noticed a slight change in tone from the Oz lately not a good sign for the Coalition.



How then did you read it ?


----------



## Julia

boofhead said:


> How does it make a difference? The co-payment was mostly for a medical research fund.



Yes, you're quite right about the government sending confused messages on this.  Apparently some of the $7 was to go to Medicare/GP and some to the yet-to-be-realised research fund.



> Also the cap is for people with concession.



Correct.  And I don't believe any of them would be unable to afford an all-up cost of $70 per annum at worst.

If that had been allowed to go through, then I don't imagine we would be seeing the now overdone reaction by the government re cutting of GP rebates which is utterly counter-productive from any possible point of view.


----------



## Tisme

Julia said:


> Yes, you're quite right about the government sending confused messages on this.  Apparently some of the $7 was to go to Medicare/GP and some to the yet-to-be-realised research fund.
> 
> 
> Correct.  And I don't believe any of them would be unable to afford an all-up cost of $70 per annum at worst.
> 
> If that had been allowed to go through, then I don't imagine we would be seeing the now overdone reaction by the government re cutting of GP rebates which is utterly counter-productive from any possible point of view.




You're probably right, but apparently there is still nearly 50% of the population who think the "budget emergency" is just political spin and a further large segment who are undecided if it's spin or not ... and who could blame them after all the lies and obscuration from both sides of the political divide.

I think I posted an early warning pre xmas about this (can't remember really) and only now the media are picking up on it. The other day one early morning show host suggested ringing out the visit to 10 minutes to avoid the reduced rebate ... that's how seriously even our talking heads are taking the need for budget cuts.


----------



## Calliope

Mealy-mouthed Abbott.



> And while Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott was not at the Paris march, he was quick to say, following the terrorist attacks, that we must never compromise our values in defending them. It’s a fine statement.
> 
> But how does it sit with his decision to drop reforms of 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, a section that prohibits speech that is offensive, insulting, language that humiliates or intimidates? Section 18C is a direct hit on free speech in Australia. Section 18C feeds the marketplace of outrage where people are treated as victims and encouraged to scream loud to shut down debate they find offensive. Hence Andrew Bolt’s legitimate opinions were struck down when a judge, relying on section 18C, said he objected to the *“tone”* of Bolt’s column.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...s-of-free-speech/story-e6frg7bo-1227183812325


----------



## drsmith

On matters Medicare rebate, the following was entirely predictable,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-14/medicare-rebate-cut-labor-to-oppose-move-shorten-says/6016232

The question now is the broader game plan from here.


----------



## Julia

I understand the principle of discouraging conveyor belt medicine, but surely that's something which will be market determined anyway?  People who want a medical certificate for a cold, e.g., are going to be quite OK with that, and someone who wants a longer discussion will find another doctor.

And plenty of everyday conditions can be sorted out in less than 10 minutes, obvious diagnosis, punch out a script, on your way.

An earlier post suggested this was 'the end of bulk billing'.  That's probably an overstatement but this does seem like a budget measure rather than any genuine ideological desire to see better medicine.


----------



## overhang

Julia said:


> I understand the principle of discouraging conveyor belt medicine, but surely that's something which will be market determined anyway?  People who want a medical certificate for a cold, e.g., are going to be quite OK with that, and someone who wants a longer discussion will find another doctor.
> 
> And plenty of everyday conditions can be sorted out in less than 10 minutes, obvious diagnosis, punch out a script, on your way.
> 
> An earlier post suggested this was 'the end of bulk billing'.  That's probably an overstatement but this does seem like a budget measure rather than any genuine ideological desire to see better medicine.




Please correct me if I'm wrong but won't this be a $20 price increase to people who are merely seeing the doctor to have a repeat filled?


----------



## Julia

overhang said:


> Please correct me if I'm wrong but won't this be a $20 price increase to people who are merely seeing the doctor to have a repeat filled?



If you mean to obtain a prescription, then I suppose yes if your doctor dictates you need to actually see him/her for a repeat.  Mine doesn't.  I just phone the receptionist, give name and request, and the prescription is there free of charge next day.  It takes the doctor about five seconds to whack in your name on the computer, locate the script you want, print it out.  

I also heard people on the radio last night saying they needed their BP checked every month, so it would be a cost impost on them.  Unless you have very volatile BP which needs adjustment of medication often, buy an inexpensive device from the chemist and check your own BP every day if you're worried about it.

Lots of assumptions happening all over this issue - the government's fault, as usual - for not making a clear announcement so that everyone understands exactly the situation of who will pay what, how much choice doctors will have etc., resulting in the inevitable confusion and guessing that we're all doing now.

It's just woeful.  Surely they have people in the Minister of Health's office who can prepare a simple communication as a media release, just setting out the detail!


----------



## overhang

Julia said:


> If you mean to obtain a prescription, then I suppose yes if your doctor dictates you need to actually see him/her for a repeat.  Mine doesn't.  I just phone the receptionist, give name and request, and the prescription is there free of charge next day.  It takes the doctor about five seconds to whack in your name on the computer, locate the script you want, print it out.




Thanks Julia, that's what I meant.  I've never required a follow up prescription from a doctor so was a little unsure of the process but what you have said makes sense. 


> Lots of assumptions happening all over this issue - the government's fault, as usual - for not making a clear announcement so that everyone understands exactly the situation of who will pay what, how much choice doctors will have etc., resulting in the inevitable confusion and guessing that we're all doing now.
> 
> It's just woeful.  Surely they have people in the Minister of Health's office who can prepare a simple communication as a media release, just setting out the detail!




Spot on, instead they're letting the ABC and Fairfax do the sales work for them which doesn't exactly sell it.


----------



## SirRumpole

Medicare rebate cut likely to be blocked in Senate as Labor, independents vow to oppose change



> The Federal Government's cut to the Medicare rebate for short consultations looks likely to be blocked in the Senate.
> 
> From Monday, the rebate for appointments lasting less than 10 minutes will be cut from $37.05 to $16.95.
> 
> The Australian Medical Association (AMA) said in many cases doctors would have to pass the cost onto patients instead.
> 
> The Opposition and key independent senators have confirmed they will try to disallow the $20 rebate cut when Parliament resumes next month.
> 
> Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said the cut would be damaging for patients and the health system.
> 
> "Our position is unequivocal, it's in black and white," he said.
> 
> "We will oppose Tony Abbott absolutely changing the rebate system for our GPs, making it a lot harder and through this sneaky backdoor method.
> 
> "We will say to Tony Abbott 'you are not going to damage the Medicare system if we've got anything to do with it'."
> 
> With Labor joining the Greens to support a disallowance motion, only another four votes are needed from the crossbench.




More at
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-14/medicare-rebate-cut-labor-key-independents-oppose-move/6016232


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> Medicare rebate cut likely to be blocked in Senate as Labor, independents vow to oppose change
> 
> 
> 
> More at
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-14/medicare-rebate-cut-labor-key-independents-oppose-move/6016232




Yep more of the same, block any spending cuts.

As the budget continues to blow out, great to see that Labor won't be reducing welfare spending, if they get in.

Can't wait to see how they go trying to fund it, without hammering taxpayers.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> Yep more of the same, block any spending cuts.
> 
> As the budget continues to blow out, great to see that Labor won't be reducing welfare spending, if they get in.
> 
> Can't wait to see how they go trying to fund it, without hammering taxpayers.




I hope as much as anyone that Labor put forward a good alternative to the rat's nest of rubbish we have seen so far from the LNP.

They have two years to work on it, and apparently they are in "Abbott negative mode" until then, unless of course Tony decides to call a D.D.

Do you think he will ?


----------



## drsmith

SirRumpole said:


> Do you think he will ?



Obviously not.

As for Labor, the alternative is Bill Shorten or perhaps Tanya Plibersek. Perhaps it'll be a familiar kind of nonsense we get from Labor as the federal election approaches,



> Qld Labor has promised $100 million to protect the Great Barrier Reef, but can't specifically say what the money will be used for.
> 
> Opposition Leader Annastacia Palaszczuk made the announcement on Green Island, off the Cairns coast, on Wednesday after taking a reef tour in a glass bottom boat alongside her environment spokeswoman Jackie Trad.
> 
> Ms Palaszczuk said a 'high-level taskforce' would provide recommendations to government to determine how best to spend the $100 million over five years.




http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-...r-promises-to-spend--100-million-on-reef.html


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Yep more of the same, block any spending cuts.
> 
> As the budget continues to blow out, great to see that Labor won't be reducing welfare spending, if they get in.
> 
> Can't wait to see how they go trying to fund it, without hammering taxpayers.




That was the Abbott promise.  We're still waiting to see how he coudl increase spending, reduce the deficit and cut taxes.

Not sure if any believed it when he said it, but that was what he offered voters, so he should at least be held accountable for it.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> Obviously not.
> 
> As for Labor, the alternative is Bill Shorten or perhaps Tanya Plibersek. Perhaps it'll be a familiar kind of nonsense we get from Labor as the federal election approaches,
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-...r-promises-to-spend--100-million-on-reef.html




I suppose at least it's only $100M which may or may not be wasted.

Compare that with Abbott's billions for the Melbourne tunnel that's going to see half the money "lost" as the infrastructure is projected to just provide a 45c in the $ economic return.  How does one spin that into an economic positive?

The LNP sure know how to provide subsidies though.  Comrade Newman needs a good tongue lashing from Noco to set him straight.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> I suppose at least it's only $100M which may or may not be wasted.



It's very clear there's not much of a plan on how to spend it.



sydboy007 said:


> Compare that with Abbott's billions for the Melbourne tunnel that's going to see half the money "lost" as the infrastructure is projected to just provide a 45c in the $ economic return.  How does one spin that into an economic positive?



There's nothing like comparisons.

Big school BBQ sheds and pink bats just to name a couple and then of course there's the real biggies Labor style, the train wrecks of their border security and their NBN.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> It's very clear there's not much of a plan on how to spend it.
> 
> 
> There's nothing like comparisons.
> 
> Big school BBQ sheds and pink bats just to name a couple and then of course there's the real biggies Labor style, the train wrecks of their border security and their NBN.




A Labor NBN with customers connected and a backbone network completed.

A Liberal NBN with a handful of test customers connected, a sweet heart deal to Telstra to get first dibs on HFC customers as lead in cables are connected at tax payers expense, providing them with a wealth of info on how to offer lock in contracts the minute NBN takes over a particular area, with tax payers wearing the costs of fixing the degraded copper network that Telstra abandoned over the last decade.  As KP would say, you only get one Abbott in your life, and Telstra has certainly double downed with him.

I'll offer you PPL, and school chaplains for your pink bats and school BBQ sheds (though I'm not sure why you feel shelter from the Australian sun for school kids is such a bad thing).

I'll even throw in a Govt fighting for movie studios and doing their best to enforce geo blocking on Aussie consumers, with an ill conceived meta data plan they can neither cost nor actually explain to anyone, along with a very busy pre Christmas policy release schedule to try and thumb their noses at voters.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> A Labor NBN with customers connected and a backbone network completed.




http://simonhackett.com/2014/09/06/rebooting-the-nbn/


----------



## SirRumpole

Yet another example of incompetence and forced backing down because of it

Why don't they work these things out properly instead of making stupid blunders ?

Government scraps proposed Medicare rebate changes: Health Minister Sussan Ley reiterates commitment to GP co-payment



> The Federal Government has dumped plans to cut the rebate for short GP visits by $20, amid a fierce political backlash and stiff opposition from doctors.
> 
> The rebate for GP consultations less than 10 minutes was due to be cut from next Monday.
> 
> However, the move was set to be struck down by the Senate.
> 
> Today new Health Minister Sussan Ley announced the changes would not go ahead and had been "taken off the table".
> 
> "I have become aware of significant concerns and unintended consequences of changes to Medicare rebates scheduled to begin on Monday," she told reporters in Melbourne.
> 
> "I am deeply concerned by the misinformation that is causing confusion for patients and confusion for doctors.
> 
> "As a result, I'm announcing today that the changes to level A and B Medicare consultation items will not commence on Monday as planned.
> 
> "The Government is taking them off the table."
> 
> The minister said she would now undertake "wide-ranging" consultation with doctors and the community across the country to come with "sensible options" for Medicare reform.
> 
> But she said the Government remained committed to a GP co-payment as a price signal in the health system.
> 
> "It remains critical that we implement changes to ensure quality care for Australians and a secure future for Medicare," Ms Ley said.
> The Federal Government has announced it will shelve plans to cut the Medicare rebate. Have your say.
> 
> The changes would have meant doctors no longer received a $37.05 rebate for Level A consultations, but instead received only $16.95 – a cut of $20.10.
> 
> This amount would have been further reduced (to $11.95) from July 1 when cuts to rebates for longer consultations would have also kicked in.
> 
> The Government planned to leave it to individual doctors as to whether they passed on the shortfall to patients.
> AMA president welcomes backdown
> 
> Australian Medical Association (AMA) president Brian Owler welcomed the decision to dump the changes.
> 
> "I'm pleased for grassroots GPs and particularly for their patients because they were the ones that were going to bear the brunt of these changes and I think clearly common sense has prevailed," he told the ABC.
> 
> "I'm very pleased it's not going ahead with these level A and B rebate changes on Monday.
> 
> "What we will be doing is going through with the Minister a process of consultation, the process which should have happened previously to come up with ways that we can actually enhance general practice and make our healthcare system more sustainable in the future."
> 
> Professor Owler said he was pleased the prospect of a Senate showdown over the changes had been avoided.
> 
> "I think at the end of the day the fact it was going to go through this parliamentary process of disallowance of the new regulations would have been an awful thing to go through for the GPs and patients," he said.
> 
> "I think common sense has prevailed and the Minister and PM have ended the uncertainty about these changes and now are going to embark on the process of consultation that the AMA has requested all along they do."
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-...-shelves-propsosed-rebate-cut-changes/6018990


----------



## Logique

Bravo to new Health Minister Sussan Ley. 

She was handed a poisoned chalice by her ham-fisted predecessor.  Now she has to clean up this mess. 

GPs are at the healthcare coalface, and should have been listened to before this. 



> 15 January 2015 - *Health Minister Sussan Ley backs away from plan to cut Medicare rebate*
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...n-to-cut-medicare-rebate-20150115-12qp0n.html
> 
> ...In her first act as the new Health Minister, Sussan Ley broke her holidays to announce on  Thursday that *the cuts* - quietly introduced by her predecessor Peter Dutton late last year - are *now "off the table*".
> 
> Ms Ley said she was still committed to introducing price signals into Medicare including the revised $5 GP co-payment due to start July 1 but *pledged to "pause, listen and consult"*.
> 
> "This is very much my stamp, I believe, on the portfolio – that of *consulting, engaging and listening*," she told reporters in Melbourne...


----------



## drsmith

Logique said:


> Bravo to new Health Minister Sussan Ley.
> 
> She was handed a poisoned chalice by her ham-fisted predecessor.



I just hope he's up to what should now be the much less onerous task of caretaking immigration.


----------



## Logique

drsmith said:


> I just hope he's up to what should now be the much less onerous task of caretaking immigration.



Ditto, and I hope he's not too proud to pick up the phone and speak to Scott Morrison. There's some hard-won ground there, that shouldn't be ceded.


----------



## SirRumpole

Logique said:


> Ditto, and I hope he's not too proud to pick up the phone and speak to Scott Morrison. There's some hard-won ground there, that shouldn't be ceded.




Mr Dutton seems so incompetent it's a wonder he's in the Cabinet at all.


----------



## Tisme

sydboy007 said:


> That was the Abbott promise.  We're still waiting to see how he coudl increase spending, reduce the deficit and cut taxes.
> 
> Not sure if any believed it when he said it, but that was what he offered voters, so he should at least be held accountable for it.




It was well known at the polls that Treasury had forecast a $70 - $90bn blackhole in the LNP promises. Credit to the ALP for holding them to that promise ... see, parties can work to the same goal.


----------



## Tisme

drsmith said:


> I just hope he's up to what should now be the much less onerous task of caretaking immigration.




I hear he's looking at imposing an attendance fee of $7/day on the refugees.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> Government scraps proposed Medicare rebate changes: Health Minister Sussan Ley reiterates commitment to GP co-payment




Like I have said before, they are up against the most militant union in Australia when they take on the AMA. 

Of course if they really wanted to save money in health they could abolish the nonsense referral system.


----------



## drsmith

Tisme said:


> I hear he's looking at imposing an attendance fee of $7/day on the refugees.



The serious question of how to make Medicare sustainable though hasn't gone away.

If a 1.5% levy raises $10b against expenditure of $20bn then obviously it would need to be doubled immediately to cover the costs and then some into the future bearing in mind as it presently stands, costs are projected to rise faster than what a fixed percentage levy would raise.

A doubling would result in a total Medicare levy of 3.5% bearing in mind the recent 0.5% increase for the NDIS. It's in this context that changes such as a co-payment need to be considered.


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> Like I have said before, they are up against the most militant union in Australia when they take on the AMA.
> 
> Of course if they really wanted to save money in health they could abolish the nonsense referral system.




Funnily enough, I can see some logic in their defunct Medicare rebate changes. If short consultations include medical certificates (for which the employer should contribute as well) and repeat renewals then maybe the patients should either pay more or the GP, as some do, not require a consultation for writing repeats or in simple cases of flu or gastro where the patient has recovered after a few days off and now just needs to satisfy their employer.

The government's problem, as usual is just charging in without consultation or any explanatory justification and trying to bluff their way through instead. There may be some logic in what they are doing, but without explanation and taking the public with them, they are on a hiding to nothing in the polls.


----------



## basilio

Well it didn't take long to realise what a sxxx sandwich the administrative changes to Medicare was. Trying to reduce payments for short consultations by $20 was just lunacy. 

How do we pay properly pay for health care and control costs? Certainly a fair question but the current ideas are just dumb.  By the way the Medciare levy wasn't in itself supposed to cover all the costs.  It was part of the budget.

If the Government was intent on trying to rein in costs perhaps they could consider things like

1) Establishing a government run blood/ illness testing service. The current service providers are exceedingly profitable. There is also a risk of tie ins with doctors which encourages extra usage

2) Reconsideration of a national drug research company.  When we sold CSL we lost the capacity to develop and produce important drugs* and control the costs *.  The private drug companies do exceptionally well at pricing drugs for full commercial advantage.

3) Have a close of look at most cost effective practices for common operations ie hip replacements and so on. There actually are techniques and methodologies which are just as successful as the  common procedures but which cost far less and far  less invasive. Why aren't they used more frequently ? Perhaps the players using the current methods have too much invested in them ?


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> Funnily enough, I can see some logic in their defunct Medicare rebate changes. If short consultations include medical certificates (for which the employer should contribute as well) and repeat renewals then maybe the patients should either pay more or the GP, as some do, not require a consultation for writing repeats or in simple cases of flu or gastro where the patient has recovered after a few days off and now just needs to satisfy their employer.



I congratulate you for having the objectivity to understand what the government were trying to do (as well as, presumably, help their own Budget).
It's much easier to just join the groupthink which - politically motivated - just objects for the sake of it.


----------



## drsmith

basilio said:


> By the way the Medciare levy wasn't in itself supposed to cover all the costs.  It was part of the budget.



A critical element now is also the rate at which those costs are escalating but the above too is perhaps part of the problem and the same problem that will plague the NDIS upon full rollout.



> The Australian Government will provide funding of $11.7 billion to the National Disability Insurance Scheme in 2019-20, the first year after the full national rollout. This is 53 per cent of the $22.2 billion total cost of running the National Disability Insurance Scheme, with the States and Territories providing the remaining funding.




A 0.5% Medicare levy increase isn't going to raise anywhere near $11.7bn in 2019-20.

http://www.ndis.gov.au/about-usgovernance/federal-funding


----------



## basilio

The political lunacy of trying to slip in the $20 payment for short doctor visits  (and many of these are important but brief) is cringe worthy.

It's down over Christmas by regulation. It was going to be difficult to implement as many doctors were away. Patients would be very, very upset.  The Senate would go bananas and throw it out in February. 

So you would have a month of political riot for what purpose? I just cannot believe Abbott was so dumb


----------



## luutzu

basilio said:


> Well it didn't take long to realise what a sxxx sandwich the administrative changes to Medicare was. Trying to reduce payments for short consultations by $20 was just lunacy.
> 
> How do we pay properly pay for health care and control costs? Certainly a fair question but the current ideas are just dumb.  By the way the Medciare levy wasn't in itself supposed to cover all the costs.  It was part of the budget.
> 
> If the Government was intent on trying to rein in costs perhaps they could consider things like
> 
> 1) Establishing a government run blood/ illness testing service. The current service providers are exceedingly profitable. There is also a risk of tie ins with doctors which encourages extra usage
> 
> 2) Reconsideration of a national drug research company.  When we sold CSL we lost the capacity to develop and produce important drugs* and control the costs *.  The private drug companies do exceptionally well at pricing drugs for full commercial advantage.
> 
> 3) Have a close of look at most cost effective practices for common operations ie hip replacements and so on. There actually are techniques and methodologies which are just as successful as the  common procedures but which cost far less and far  less invasive. Why aren't they used more frequently ? Perhaps the players using the current methods have too much invested in them ?




Yea, seems that when it comes to these sort of issues... all the gov't does is:

*Problem:  *
It costs too much; Unsustainable.

*Solutions:* 
1. Discourage and reduce usage;
2. Co-payment, user-pay.


And that's pretty much it.

A possible third approach?   Maybe use your purchasing power and bloody governmental authority and what not to reduce the prices charged.

If tough negotiation and regulation is not the capitalist's way, maybe create more competition and set up new shops to compete. 

But I guess that'd be unthinkable. Seems our leaders have tough as steel balls when it comes to the dole bludgers and widows and orphans, but those shrivel like dry grapes when facing Mr. Monopoly.


----------



## SirRumpole

> If tough negotiation and regulation is not the capitalist's way, maybe create more competition and set up new shops to compete.




Oh yes,competition. That's why the LNP wants to get rid of Medicare locals, because they compete with private doctors.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-22/medicare-locals-like-to-face-the-axe-in-budget/5402414


----------



## sptrawler

basilio said:


> The political lunacy of trying to slip in the $20 payment for short doctor visits  (and many of these are important but brief) is cringe worthy.
> 
> It's down over Christmas by regulation. It was going to be difficult to implement as many doctors were away. Patients would be very, very upset.  The Senate would go bananas and throw it out in February.
> 
> So you would have a month of political riot for what purpose? I just cannot believe Abbott was so dumb




I suppose it is just another nail in Labors coffin.

They have publicly rescinded all attempts to rationalise spending. It will be difficult for them, to explain how they are going to fund the deficit, without massive tax increases.

Let's not forget, they have criticised the coalition for cutting the public sector, demanded no cuts to welfare.
I guess that leaves them with the grown up question, how are you going to fund everything.
Maybe a tax on the miners.lol
Maybe an electricity tax, to kill small business.lol

Can't wait to see the media finally wake up to this one, they will have a field day.


----------



## boofhead

Please note some of Abbott's promises and policies relating to what won't be cut, what they will increase spending.

Was it reported where the proposed medicare savings were to be spent on?


----------



## sptrawler

boofhead said:


> Please note some of Abbott's promises and policies relating to what won't be cut, what they will increase spending.
> 
> Was it reported where the proposed medicare savings were to be spent on?




I guess at the moment, the savings just mean less we have to borrow to fund it.

A bit like my missus blowing out the credit card by $1,000 per month.

I say, "you need to pull it in by $200 per month", then she says, "what can I spend the savings on".

I try to explain,"it could be paid off the $500,000 loan, that we aren't making the interest payments on".:1zhelp:


----------



## Julia

sptrawler said:


> Can't wait to see the media finally wake up to this one, they will have a field day.




Don't hold your breath.  The majority of the press gallery, at least, have their eyes firmly closed to any questioning of Labor on how they'd plan to fund all the projected spending.


----------



## sptrawler

Julia said:


> Don't hold your breath.  The majority of the press gallery, at least, have their eyes firmly closed to any questioning of Labor on how they'd plan to fund all the projected spending.




They may be, but I'm sure the coalition, will be asking the question of the media.

Taking cheap shots at the Government, for trying to reign in spending, will come back to haunt Labor IMO.


----------



## luutzu

sptrawler said:


> They may be, but I'm sure the coalition, will be asking the question of the media.
> 
> Taking cheap shots at the Government, for trying to reign in spending, will come back to haunt Labor IMO.




If you have a bigger family, you're going to spend more.

So if everything is a cost, and your only solution is to cut it... some and then most will have to go without.

Raising taxes or borrowing is the same thing as cutting it - simply pay for what we can't afford. 

Another solution, one we all seem more than capable of doing in our household budget but gov't seems unable somehow... is to control costs.

If brand name food costs too much, go for the homebrands; if veggies costs too much, start a garden patch and all could have their vitamins; if necessity that must be top quality - use your bargaining power; or save and cut unnecessary spending - say, do we need to swim in Hawaii when Brighton le Sands could do?

And if you're the gov't of the country, you aren't exactly a weak and poor price-taking family are you?

Funny how we just let corporations charge us as they like and we'll just have to make do and cut and live within out means - and we here is not you nor I, we here are the big man with the big stick.

Kinda raise the question of costs and efficiency of public enterprises and corporations when it's more efficient, it is claimed, to sell public assets and let the market bring it to shape.... so they can then become good at charging us more and more money.


----------



## sptrawler

luutzu said:


> If you have a bigger family, you're going to spend more.
> 
> So if everything is a cost, and your only solution is to cut it... some and then most will have to go without.
> 
> Raising taxes or borrowing is the same thing as cutting it - simply pay for what we can't afford.
> 
> Another solution, one we all seem more than capable of doing in our household budget but gov't seems unable somehow... is to control costs.
> 
> If brand name food costs too much, go for the homebrands; if veggies costs too much, start a garden patch and all could have their vitamins; if necessity that must be top quality - use your bargaining power; or save and cut unnecessary spending - say, do we need to swim in Hawaii when Brighton le Sands could do?
> 
> And if you're the gov't of the country, you aren't exactly a weak and poor price-taking family are you?
> 
> Funny how we just let corporations charge us as they like and we'll just have to make do and cut and live within out means - and we here is not you nor I, we here are the big man with the big stick.
> 
> Kinda raise the question of costs and efficiency of public enterprises and corporations when it's more efficient, it is claimed, to sell public assets and let the market bring it to shape.... so they can then become good at charging us more and more money.




Or leave it in Government hands and charge more and more taxes, to pay for it?

Funny that no one is asking the Government to spend taxpayers money, to open a supermarket, in competition against Coles and Woolies?


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> Don't hold your breath.  The majority of the press gallery, at least, have their eyes firmly closed to any questioning of Labor on how they'd plan to fund all the projected spending.




As they were to how the Coalition would fund their promises or cut spending when the Coalition were in Opposition.

The media's lack of rigour and slackness of enquiry in keeping the Opposition to account is one of the reasons we are in this mess now. 

If the media had made proper enquiries of Abbott and Hockey before the election we would have discovered they had no idea what they were going to do.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> As they were to how the Coalition would fund their promises or cut spending when the Coalition were in Opposition.
> 
> The media's lack of rigour and slackness of enquiry in keeping the Opposition to account is one of the reasons we are in this mess now.
> 
> If the media had made proper enquiries of Abbott and Hockey before the election we would have discovered they had no idea what they were going to do.




I noticed facebook and twitter chatter is starting to question how Gillard managed to get legislation through a minority senate and Abbott can't negotiate likewise. I'm guessing that lack of skillset is why the independents swung behind Gillard to form govt.


----------



## Calliope

Gollard had a Labor/Green Senate majority. It was only in the Reps that she had to court the so-called Independents.


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> I noticed facebook and twitter chatter is starting to question how Gillard managed to get legislation through a minority senate and Abbott can't negotiate likewise. I'm guessing that lack of skillset is why the independents swung behind Gillard to form govt.




I don't think it's a guess. It's pretty well known from what Oakeshott and Windsor said that Abbott's lack of willingness and ability to negotiate was one of the main reasons they supported Gillard.


----------



## basilio

sptrawler said:


> Or leave it in Government hands and charge more and more taxes, to pay for it?
> 
> Funny that no one is asking the Government to spend taxpayers money, to open a supermarket, in competition against Coles and Woolies?




Maybe because that would be a pretty dumb thing to do? There are ways to regulate supermarket trading and simply allowing competition like Aldi works wonders.

On the other hand...Once upon a time  we had a government  established bank the Commonwealth. While it traded as a stand alone  entity it offered effective competition to the private banks.  It obviously had to pay its way  and it returned dividends to the Federal government.  A nice little earner actually. 

But it's main role was ensuring that private banks  didn't get too greedy with interest rate spreads, fees etc. 

Of course that is all history now. The Commonwealth bank was privatized  and the banking privateers have jointly managed to make the banking industry enormously profitable and *in particular ensuring that management are appropriately  rewarded. 
*
But in the end the customers pay for these enormous profits. Its a direct transfer from our pockets into theirs. 

Would you like to hear about CSL, Telstra etc ?


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> Don't hold your breath.  The majority of the press gallery, at least, have their eyes firmly closed to any questioning of Labor on how they'd plan to fund all the projected spending.






sptrawler said:


> They may be, but I'm sure the coalition, will be asking the question of the media.
> 
> Taking cheap shots at the Government, for trying to reign in spending, will come back to haunt Labor IMO.




I'd argue that Labor faced the exact same situation where Abbott was promising the world pre election and no one was listening to Labor ask where the money was coming from.  Abbott was against reigning in the tax expenditure to those drawing more than $100K in tax fre super pensions, he was against asking those using novated leases to actually log their private and business usage to justify their claims.  Where was you outrage when Abbott was saying no no no and offering no viable alternatives?

It's a crappy situation to be in, but at least the media seems to give whoever is in opposition a free kick.

Hopefully as the next election draws nearer all parties will face a lot tougher scrutiny as to how they will achieve what they say they will.


----------



## Logique

SirRumpole said:


> Funnily enough, I can see some logic in their defunct Medicare rebate changes. If short consultations include medical certificates (for which the employer should contribute as well) and repeat renewals then maybe the patients should either pay more or the GP, as some do, *not require a consultation for writing repeats or in simple cases of flu or gastr*o where the patient has recovered after a few days off and now just needs to satisfy their employer.
> The government's problem, as usual is just charging in without consultation or any explanatory justification and trying to bluff their way through instead. There may be some logic in what they are doing, but* without explanation and taking the public with them, they are on a hiding to nothing* in the polls.



Quite so. 

The time is right for a systemic review of the health delivery system. Without question there are cost corners that could be cut.  But let's be fair and factor in the savings from preventative medicine, as the AMA has rightly said.

And how about some legal relief for doctors. Witches in Salem got a fairer trial than a modern day doctor who makes an innocent mistake. Doctors indemnity insurance must be huge cost to them.  Why do people think they get shunted off to endless (expensive to the system) pathology tests and specialist referals.

I don't mind Basilio's idea of a Govt run blood testing laboratory either. Donating at the centralized blood bank seems to go smoothly enough.


----------



## sydboy007

Calliope said:


> Gollard had a Labor/Green Senate majority. It was only in the Reps that she had to court the so-called Independents.




So your argument is that the house of representatives is a far easier place to negotiate in than the senate?

So you're saying it's less easy to get 39 senators out of 76 on side compared to 76 out of 150 on side in the house of reps?

Seems in the house of reps there's a lot more cats needing to be herded to get things through.


----------



## sydboy007

Logique said:


> Quite so.
> 
> The time is right for a systemic review of the health delivery system. Without question there are cost corners that could be cut.  But let's be fair and factor in the savings from preventative medicine, as the AMA has rightly said.
> 
> And how about some legal relief for doctors. Witches in Salem got a fairer trial than a modern day doctor who makes an innocent mistake. Doctors indemnity insurance must be huge cost to them.  Why do people think they get shunted off to endless pathology tests and specialist referals.
> 
> I don't mind Basilio's idea of a Govt run blood testing laboratory either. Donating at the centralized blood bank seems to go smoothly enough.




Yes, I sometimes think it would be much better if the Govt stepped in and provided insurance to the medical and possibly legal professions.

Shouldn't be too hard to assess the risks involved considering a lot of the information is already in the public domain.

It shoudl also be relatively easy to have something like a 3 strikes and your back out into the private sector for your insurance, and knowing this it might make the few bad doctors improve or face being uninsurable.

The prob is the Coalition believes Govt shouldn't actually do anything.  It might step in to help correct an obvious market failure, though their opposition to the NBN makes me think not, but they have the attitude that they'll still use the private sector to fix what in effect has been caused by the market.

Some will argue Govt can't afford to pay enough to lure talent of the right calibre, but I don't believe money is often the main motivator for a lot of people.  Interesting work and challenges can be very rewarding to the right kind of people, and as Mike Quigley showed a sense of civic duty can also be a powerful motivator.  Govts at all levels need a lot more knowledge on how to do, at least to make negotiations with the private sector less on sided, but more importantly having that knowledge inside would have helped stopped some of the gold plating of the east coast poles and wires which has doubled power bills, and hopefully would have stopped the building of some of the wasteful infrastructure built the last decade.

I just don't see the current Govt being amenable to actually building up the public service again to be something like it was back up to the 80s when privatisation and outsourcing started to be the economic mantra.


----------



## SirRumpole

> Yes, I sometimes think it would be much better if the Govt stepped in and provided insurance to the medical and possibly legal professions.




Don't they already ?

I remember there was a big stink some years ago about the cost of medical indemnity insurance which was going to lead to doctors not working in public hospitals unless the government took the liability for them. Same for GP's I believe.


----------



## Logique

SirRumpole said:


> Don't they already ?
> 
> I remember there was a big stink some years ago about the cost of medical indemnity insurance which was going to lead to doctors not working in public hospitals unless the government took the liability for them. Same for GP's I believe.



Medical indemnity cover:  







> Medical indemnity insurance plays a vital role within the Australian health system by working to protect both doctors and patients in the event of an adverse incident arising from medical care.
> 
> While Australia’s health system is generally very safe, things occasionally go wrong and patients may sometimes be harmed in the process of receiving medical care.
> 
> http://www.doctorconnect.gov.au/internet/otd/publishing.nsf/Content/medicalIndemnityCover


----------



## SirRumpole

Logique said:


> Medical indemnity cover:




Thanks.

There was a general crisis in public liability insurance circa 2002 which involved not only doctors, but basically anyone providing a service to the public, including councils and businesses of all kinds.

this gives some chronology of what was going on at the time

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam.../Publications_Archive/archive/publicliability


----------



## Tisme

basilio said:


> .
> 
> On the other hand...Once upon a time  we had a government  established bank the Commonwealth. While it traded as a stand alone  entity it offered effective competition to the private banks.  It obviously had to pay its way  and it returned dividends to the Federal government.  A nice little earner actually.
> 
> But it's main role was ensuring that private banks  didn't get too greedy with interest rate spreads, fees etc.




That's not what I was taught in social studies. Like most Australian enterprises there was insufficient anything to buffer the banks and utilities against global forces. Nationalisation was the answer to the collapses.

The Commonwealth bank was a patriarchal remnant of conservatism that denied, women especially, any sought of liberal treatment to advance the society at a growth pace. It was a pricing fixing machine that lead the oligopoly of the banking system.


----------



## Julia

sydboy007 said:


> Where was you outrage when Abbott was saying no no no and offering no viable alternatives?



I expressed no outrage, syd.  Just suggested to sptrawler that he should not hold his breath waiting for the press gallery to question the opposition about how they will fund promises.  Why you should translate that into outrage I've no idea.
I've said over and over that I have no allegiance to or faith in any particular political party.  I know that's hard for you to understand, given your own obvious attachment to all things Labor.
I voted for Paul Keating, Wayne Goss, Peter Beattie and Anna Bligh, this last to my shame given how I was taken in by her convincing public persona which belied such incompetence.

Then I voted for John Howard and did not regret that overall, aside from disagreeing with his decision to align us with the USA and UK on the ME invasions and ultimately on his failure to recognise when it was time to hand over to Costello.  Had Costello taken over at that point, I doubt very much that we'd be in the position federally at least that we are now.

If you want outrage, the best recent example you can find is the fact that at the last Qld State election, the outrage of the electorate was so great that Labor retained just 7 seats in an 89 seat parliament.



> Hopefully as the next election draws nearer all parties will face a lot tougher scrutiny as to how they will achieve what they say they will.



Agreed, but I don't realistically have any such expectation.



sydboy007 said:


> Govts at all levels need a lot more knowledge on how to do, at least to make negotiations with the private sector less on sided, but more importantly having that knowledge inside would have helped stopped some of the gold plating of the east coast poles and wires which has doubled power bills, and hopefully would have stopped the building of some of the wasteful infrastructure built the last decade.



We've been through this before.  I understand that you are repeating the mantra created by Julia Gillard on the 'gold plating' idea but I've explained that in many regional areas at least in Qld, the infrastructure was anything but gold plated:  it was simply upgraded to what should have been provided many years earlier.

Since the upgrade, we have had just one power outage in about four years, and that was fixed in less than 2 hours, despite affecting a regional area of more than 100 sq km.  
This is in contrast to outages pretty much every time there was a bit of a storm, such outages lasting many hours, preventing businesses from functioning, traffic lights from guiding traffic, in addition to the obvious inconvenience, insurance claims etc for householders.

What has very much affected retail electricity prices are the subsidies paid to solar power households, both as a cost of itself, and because of the additional burden on non-solar households as fewer households are actually paying electricity bills and the fixed costs being spread over fewer people.



SirRumpole said:


> Don't they already ?
> 
> I remember there was a big stink some years ago about the cost of medical indemnity insurance which was going to lead to doctors not working in public hospitals unless the government took the liability for them. Same for GP's I believe.



Wasn't this confined to public hospital doctors?   I think doctors in private practice have always needed to arrange their own insurance.  I don't think that should be a government responsibility any more than government should have any say in how private practitioners run their practices.


----------



## basilio

Tisme said:


> That's not what I was taught in social studies. Like most Australian enterprises there was insufficient anything to buffer the banks and utilities against global forces. Nationalisation was the answer to the collapses.
> 
> The Commonwealth bank was a patriarchal remnant of conservatism that denied, women especially, any sought of liberal treatment to advance the society at a growth pace. It was a pricing fixing machine that lead the oligopoly of the banking system.




I have to disagree with your social studies teacher (or what you might have understood) . 
The Hawke/Keating abour government proceeded with privatising the Commonwealth Bank. It was part of the 80's push to deregulate the banking system. It was not under any particular finacial threat (Mind you the 1990 recession did have major consequences for other banks at the time.)

The conservatism of the Commonwealth bank ?  I suggest all the banks were conservative in their treatment of women. The  fact was that the industr as a whole was conservative.  

My main point was that privatising teh Commonwaelth Bank enabled the entire industry to chase profits with no regard for other considerations.nd we have paid for it.


----------



## Tisme

basilio said:


> I have to disagree with your social studies teacher (or what you might have understood) .
> The Hawke/Keating abour government proceeded with privatising the Commonwealth Bank. It was part of the 80's push to deregulate the banking system. It was not under any particular finacial threat (Mind you the 1990 recession did have major consequences for other banks at the time.)
> 
> The conservatism of the Commonwealth bank ?  I suggest all the banks were conservative in their treatment of women. The  fact was that the industr as a whole was conservative.
> 
> My main point was that privatising teh Commonwaelth Bank enabled the entire industry to chase profits with no regard for other considerations.nd we have paid for it.




There must be something wrong with my pointer, because the Commonwealth Bank used to be around when I was a boy, way before 1990.

https://www.commbank.com.au/about-us/our-company/history.html


----------



## Smurf1976

sydboy007 said:


> The prob is the Coalition believes Govt shouldn't actually do anything.  It might step in to help correct an obvious market failure, though their opposition to the NBN makes me think not, but they have the attitude that they'll still use the private sector to fix what in effect has been caused by the market.
> 
> Some will argue Govt can't afford to pay enough to lure talent of the right calibre, but I don't believe money is often the main motivator for a lot of people.  Interesting work and challenges can be very rewarding to the right kind of people, and as Mike Quigley showed a sense of civic duty can also be a powerful motivator.  Govts at all levels need a lot more knowledge on how to do, at least to make negotiations with the private sector less on sided, but more importantly having that knowledge inside would have helped stopped some of the gold plating of the east coast poles and wires which has doubled power bills, and hopefully would have stopped the building of some of the wasteful infrastructure built the last decade.




+1000

I won't be too specific, info is from someone on the inside, but I'll say that it involves infrastructure not related to the energy industry. 

3 public servants paid a redundancy late in 2014. Now they have had to hire 5, yes 5, consultants full time to do the same work and needless to say that's costing an outright fortune and will be forever unless someone decides to reverse the decision which rarely happens in practice.

Not much more can be said really. Lose the real knowledge of the actual infrastructure being managed that the former staff had, then you need more people with generic knowledge to get the job done as everything takes longer to investigate without that expert knowledge.

It's a bit hard to take the "we have no money" argument seriously when things like this happen all too often.


----------



## IFocus

Every time I read here the handwringing over the governments failure to get spending cuts while ignoring the massive spending increases Abbott has done never ceases to amaze me.


Abbott in trouble after Medicare fumble



> The Government's backdown over the Medicare rebate is evidence of decision-making that is as chaotic as it is confusing, and does not augur well for a Prime Minister who continues to fumble, writes Norman Abjorensen.






> The extraordinary volte-face of the Government over the short consultation fee suggests that either the PM changed his mind on a key policy at the last minute, or this has been one of the most humiliating rebuffs to a prime minister in recent years, with the new Health Minister, Sussan Ley, being sent out to announce the retreat just a day after it was talked up by Mr Abbott.





> It appears that nothing has been learnt from the stalled budget - framed to appeal to the big backers of the Coalition, but with little chance of passing the Senate.





http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-16/abjorensen-abbott-in-trouble-after-medicare-fumble/6021208


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> We've been through this before.  I understand that you are repeating the mantra created by Julia Gillard on the 'gold plating' idea but I've explained that in many regional areas at least in Qld, the infrastructure was anything but gold plated:  it was simply upgraded to what should have been provided many years earlier.
> 
> Since the upgrade, we have had just one power outage in about four years, and that was fixed in less than 2 hours, despite affecting a regional area of more than 100 sq km.
> This is in contrast to outages pretty much every time there was a bit of a storm, such outages lasting many hours, preventing businesses from functioning, traffic lights from guiding traffic, in addition to the obvious inconvenience, insurance claims etc for householders.
> 
> What has very much affected retail electricity prices are the subsidies paid to solar power households, both as a cost of itself, and because of the additional burden on non-solar households as fewer households are actually paying electricity bills and the fixed costs being spread over fewer people.




As far as I can tell, renewable energy costs have been relatively insignificant in the recent cost increases.

Not sure how you can say the fixed costs are being spread over fewer people.  Unless a person disconnects from the grid they will pay their access charges like everyone.  The fact the distributors were able to claim interest expenses close to 10% for the past 5 years was another major cause of the cost increase, and they're still being allowed to gouge with the next 5 year period calculated with a 7.X% interest rate, far higher than what their actual costs are.

You also need to understand how the merit order effect works, where renewable energy has acted to suppress wholesale electricity prices.  Even the Govts hand picked review showed that renewable energy will likely suppress wholesale prices by more than the actual costs of support for the renewable sector.  Considering the QLD Govt is planning to spend over $14B in fossil fuel subsidies in te next budget, the amount of support to the renewables sector is quite paltry in comparison.


----------



## Julia

Who is footing the bill for the subsidies being paid to solar panel users, syd?

As battery storage capacity technology improves, what I've read indicates more people will go off the grid altogether.  How will that not affect costs for those remaining consumers?


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> Who is footing the bill for the subsidies being paid to solar panel users, syd?
> 
> As battery storage capacity technology improves, what I've read indicates more people will go off the grid altogether.  How will that not affect costs for those remaining consumers?




In a competitive market you would expect mainstream Elco's to reduce their charges to compete with solar. Considering the subsidies given to fossil fuels, is it not fair that alternatives get subsidies as well ? The other option is to give no subsidies to anyone. 

I haven't heard the party of free markets backing down on giving subsidies to fossil fuels like they backed down over assistance to car industries.


----------



## Julia

That doesn't answer the question about where the money is coming from to pay subsidies to solar panel households.

From AFR, November 2014



> Hidden solar subsidies costing households $200m
> 
> Households are paying hidden subsidies of more than $200 million a year to homes that have installed solar panels, according to new research by one of the country’s top energy analysts.
> 
> The rapid uptake of solar photovoltaic systems has been blamed for a sharp rise in electricity prices, but this is the first time a specific figure has been put on the total amount of subsidies.
> 
> The subsidies are in effect paid for by non-solar households to help cover generous payments, or feed-in tariffs, to solar households for putting electricity into the grid.




http://www.afr.com/p/national/hidden_solar_subsidies_costing_households_pgs3afJN6ipvnWNYP6gzPP

Less than fair that those affluent enough to afford the capital outlay of solar panels should be subsidised by those without the means to do so.  That is my point.

There is plenty of railing against Super tax concessions.  The principle here seems to me to be exactly the same.


----------



## SirRumpole

> Less than fair that those affluent enough to afford the capital outlay of solar panels should be subsidised by those without the means to do so. That is my point.




I suppose the rationale is that people who are feeding power into the grid take a load off the system so others have more available capacity. The general taxpayer does not have to fork out for the capital expense of extra generating capacity.

The real question is imo, why have prices gone up for the mainstream users ? To maintain a guaranteed profit  return for privatised power distributors ?

 Therein lies the whole weakness of major utility privatisation. Private companies won't buy large infrastructure unless they get a guaranteed return, which means the consumer doesn't get the benefit of competition from alternative suppliers.


----------



## Calliope

One of the benefits of roof-top solar power systems feeding into the grid, is that on days like this, when the temperature here is currently 34, we don't incur any more breakdowns of the system due to the massive overloading by air-conditioning.


----------



## bellenuit

SirRumpole said:


> I suppose the rationale is that people who are feeding power into the grid take a load off the system so others have more available capacity. The general taxpayer does not have to fork out for the capital expense of extra generating capacity.
> 
> The real question is imo, why have prices gone up for the mainstream users ? To maintain a guaranteed profit  return for privatised power distributors ?




Power distributors have fixed costs that do not mitigate when people move off the grid or feed back into the grid. The distribution network for example still has to be maintained and with less users, the fixed costs per user increases. Although solar panels help out when the system would have otherwise gone into overload, during normal load times there is also the fact that for many distributors, depending on how the electricity is generated, you cannot simply cut back supply. It is not like a volume control button on a stereo, but more like step changes and only when you get below the next step down level can a supply source be turned off. I'm sure others can explain that a lot better than I have.

I would expect the main saving for power generators is delaying or avoiding having to provide new generation facilities to meet increasing demand (should that be the case). If the additional supply from household solar can allow increasing demand to be satisfied by the existing infrastructure, then not having to build a new power station would be a huge saving.


----------



## Smurf1976

Julia said:


> That doesn't answer the question about where the money is coming from to pay subsidies to solar panel households.



The whole issue of electricity pricing is a complex one, and the vast majority of consumers are either paying or receiving a subsidy.

We tried fixing it in Tas 20 years ago long before solar became significant. The whole thing was shot to pieces by everyone from the general public through to mainstream politicians and I can't see it ever being tried again unless there really is no alternative. Those receiving subsidies are a powerful force indeed.

But if we were to get it right, then it's not overly difficult to work it out with the main issue being fixed supply charges versus variable energy charges on a consumer's bill. Trouble is, a "fair" daily fixed charge is just under $2 per day and that idea upsets a lot of people. Sure, consumption charges would be a lot lower, around 15 cents / kWh, but that doesn't appease the anger in practice since by definition 50% of consumers have below average consumption.

In reality, electricity has moved from being a one-way (power stations to consumers) supply of a "service" that, if it wasn't for the point that you can't see it, would otherwise be considered a "good". Now it's a two way system, the vast majority of generators in the grid now are small solar systems (though they generate a minority of the actual electricity) and there is a much greater spread of consumption than there used to be. 

At one extreme there's the house that's completely off-grid. At the other end is the house with electric everything and no solar. In between you've got those who have electric heating / cooling versus those who don't, those who cook with gas versus electricity, electric hot water versus gas or solar, LED lights versus halogens, and so on. 

A further complexity arises once social issues are factored in. Firstly, electricity consumption as such is no longer considered a "good" thing by many on account of environmental factors. Then there's the more traditional social issues since the least energy-efficient homes are often occupied by those who are already economically disadvantaged. A higher daily charge and lower unit rates would actually help such people, but the welfare groups sure don't see it that way. Then of course there are the absolute lowest on-grid consumers, most commonly shacks or other second residences - and if you own two properties then it seems fair to assume you're not broke. But as we found out 20 years ago, shack owners are a surprisingly powerful lobby group who don't like giving up their power subsidies. 

And so on. The whole thing is complex, given that the days when most homes had a very similar level of consumption are long gone and unlikely to return.

Finally, it's now a market as such and markets don't price anything at the cost of production. We're living in a world where you paid $x to sit on a plane flying from Melbourne to Brisbane and the person sitting next to you paid half or double what you paid. It's the same plane. You get the same everything but you paid a very different price for it. That's what the shift from regulated prices to a free market does.

At some future time it will be fixed, I'm very sure of that. We'll end up with something very similar to what we tried in Tas 20 years ago. A great big daily fee and lower unit energy rates. But it won't happen until there's a big enough crisis to force it.

All that said, solar subsidies are a minor influence on power bills overall. They have an effect, but it's relatively minor compared to many other influences. If cheap power was the objective then we'd still have integrated utilities. They had their inefficiencies yes, but they were very clearly cheaper than what replaced them.


----------



## Smurf1976

bellenuit said:


> It is not like a volume control button on a stereo, but more like step changes and only when you get below the next step down level can a supply source be turned off. I'm sure others can explain that a lot better than I have.



Getting a bit off the Abbott Government topic but:

In short, there's a big cost to start up a coal-fired unit, and a modest cost to start up some gas-fired units. They also have minimum output levels, generally 20 to 50% of capacity depending on fuel and plant design, to remain online thus avoiding a shutdown. 

There's no real money to be made in the power generation business these days however. Current prices as follows:

Qld = 3.651 cents / kWh
NSW = 3.362 cents
Vic = 1.940 cents
SA = 1.910 cents
Tas = 1.624 cents

Average prices since 1st July 2014 have been:

Qld = 5.306
SA = 3.828
Tas = 3.764
NSW = 3.619
Vic = 3.165

Now go and have a look at your electricity bill. I can assure you the money isn't going into the power stations, indeed they're slowly going broke with about 3450 MW of plant closed or mothballed over the past few years in the eastern states (including SA) and a further 400 MW that's still open for business as as such but is sitting idle in practice. Some of that plant may run again someday, some of it never will (being physically dismantled and sold for parts or scrap metal).

To put that into perspective, that's about the same size as the entire Snowy scheme, or enough to run the whole of SA during a major heatwave when demand peaks.


----------



## Julia

bellenuit said:


> Power distributors have fixed costs that do not mitigate when people move off the grid or feed back into the grid. The distribution network for example still has to be maintained and with less users, the fixed costs per user increases. Although solar panels help out when the system would have otherwise gone into overload, during normal load times there is also the fact that for many distributors, depending on how the electricity is generated, you cannot simply cut back supply. It is not like a volume control button on a stereo, but more like step changes and only when you get below the next step down level can a supply source be turned off.






Smurf1976 said:


> The whole issue of electricity pricing is a complex one, and the vast majority of consumers are either paying or receiving a subsidy.




Thank you  bellenuit and Smurf.  Exactly the point I was trying to make.
Many people are receiving power bills which show a credit balance.
That is in direct contrast to those whose bills are massively increased.

We now have tens of thousands of people, at least in Qld, who have had their power supply cut off because they are unable to pay the bill.
No one can tell me that's fair, especially in the extremely hot conditions at present here where most of us with no financial restrictions are freely running our air conditioning.
How awful for those who don't even have the benefit of a fan to move the warm air around, or the capacity to boil water, operate a washing machine with small children in the house etc.


----------



## SirRumpole

> How awful for those who don't even have the benefit of a fan to move the warm air around, or the capacity to boil water, operate a washing machine with small children in the house etc.




Yes it is awful. But that is what we get when we have governments who don't want to be bothered running utilities and think the private sector can do it better/cheaper.

The whole power price fiasco (and Telstra as well) proves that is not always the case.

Maybe Smurf and bellenuit would like to give their opinions on the best way to transition from one form of power generation (fossil fuels) to another (renewable).

There must be a best practise for this somewhere in the world. It's going on in a lot of countries.


----------



## Smurf1976

Julia said:


> Thank you  bellenuit and Smurf.  Exactly the point I was trying to make.
> Many people are receiving power bills which show a credit balance.
> That is in direct contrast to those whose bills are massively increased.
> 
> We now have tens of thousands of people, at least in Qld, who have had their power supply cut off because they are unable to pay the bill.




It's the same problem in any industry with an added one that the grid by its' very nature isn't easily adjusted in terms of scale.

Take, for example, airlines as a whole. If passenger numbers drop 50% but they wish to retain the same frequency of flights to the same destinations then fares must double, less whatever is saved by needing fewer baggage handlers etc. But baggage handlers and check-in staff are relatively cheap, if you're still flying the same planes to the same places then you don't save much money simply by dealing with half as many passengers. OK, you do save on fuel (as do power stations) but you have a lot of fixed costs which don't change much. End result = fares go up.

Same with electricity. If we've still got the same transmission and distribution infrastructure (the grid), if we still have it available to everyone from the cities to rural properties, then the cost per unit of power sold is largely the inverse of quantity. If volume drops then costs go up and vice versa.

That logic was well understood at least 80 years ago. It was always a pretty simple game plan. Grow the bulk load via attracting heavy industry, smooth out the retail load via off-peak etc, and that enables you to build big (efficient) power stations, run them hard (minimising cost per unit) whilst minimising the cost of the grid itself (by keeping the peak load down relative to average load.

Trouble is, in 2015 all that thinking has gone out the window.


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> Yes it is awful. But that is what we get when we have governments who don't want to be bothered running utilities and think the private sector can do it better/cheaper.



Rumpole, in all regional Queensland the utilities are government owned and run so you can't blame privatisation.

My impression is that predicted demand saw increased infrastructure (which of course has to be paid into the future), much of which was sorely needed as I've previously described, then Labor introduced massive subsidies to householders installing solar, a greater than anticipated take up rate occurred, and the rest is history.

I don't care who does something about it, but we should not be feeling OK about a society where ordinary people, trying to pay for the basics of life, are unable to have electricity connected to their home.  It is simply wrong.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> Rumpole, in all regional Queensland the utilities are government owned and run so you can't blame privatisation.
> 
> My impression is that predicted demand saw increased infrastructure (which of course has to be paid into the future), much of which was sorely needed as I've previously described, then Labor introduced massive subsidies to householders installing solar, a greater than anticipated take up rate occurred, and the rest is history.
> 
> I don't care who does something about it, but we should not be feeling OK about a society where ordinary people, trying to pay for the basics of life, are unable to have electricity connected to their home.  It is simply wrong.




I understand what you are saying Julia, but I live in NSW where the power distributors have been privatised and the situation is the same.

I did post a while ago an article explaining the reasons behind the price rises and it basically came down to investment in poles and wires (which I applaud of course) and guaranteed returns to power companies.

I certainly accept smurf's point that the whole area is very complex, however I think it would be a lot less so if it wasn't for privatisation and the added complexities of profit and corporate risk.

If rooftop solar reduces the burden on the generators then one would think that must be a good thing in national terms (if not private profit terms), but the national interests and those of the consumers seems to have been thrown out the window.


----------



## Smurf1976

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe Smurf and bellenuit would like to give their opinions on the best way to transition from one form of power generation (fossil fuels) to another (renewable).




By its' very nature it is an engineering problem. Tell an engineer what you want, and their job is to work out the best way of meeting those requirements. Tell them you want to transition to x% renewables over y years and do so at the mimimum cost which meets a certain reliability criteria. Then leave it to the engineers to work out the "how" bit, that's what they're good at.

History tells us the answer here.

The former SECV (State Electricity Commission of Victoria) was set up for the specific purpose of transitioning the state to alternative energy. At that time, Victoria depended almost entirely on coal from NSW. The trouble was two-fold. Firstly, NSW coal supplies were unreliable. Secondly, it was never going to be cheaper to ship or rail NSW coal to Melbourne than to use the same coal in Sydney. Victoria was thus plagued by energy shortages and would always be at a cost disadvantage to NSW, something that would inevitably deter industry from establishing in Vic.

And so the SECV came up with a plan, a big plan actually, that involved local resources. They assessed what the state had, and concluded that brown coal and hydro-electricity were the cheapest and most practical options available. Note in this context that brown coal technology was unproven outside Germany at the time so a great deal of risk was involved.

By 1924 the first power was being produced from brown coal, they had a brown coal briquette works up and running too, and by 1928 the first hydro station came online in Victoria. A decade after deciding to look at the idea, and just 7 years after getting serious, Victoria now had a substantial power system with the Yallourn brown coal plant for base load, hydro for intermediate load and the now state-owned plants in Melbourne converted to run on briquettes for peak load. 

The SEC then went about continuing to build more brown coal power stations, more briquette production and more hydro schemes with an ongoing construction program. By 1961, 40 years after it started and despite a major flood submerging its' mine, a major bushfire also causing much damage, the Great Depression and World War 2, the objective had been achieved. Victoria no longer depended on black coal not just for power generation, but for any public or private use apart from 10% of it's town gas supply (and by the end of the 1960's that too was gone). Electricity now came from brown coal and hydro. Brown coal technology itself had been drastically improved from the early efforts too. The SECV's briquettes had replaced black coal in industry. The NSW miners could go on strike as often as they liked and it wouldn't put the lights out in Victoria. 

OK, so brown coal isn't an "alternative" energy source these days but the same principles still apply. Decide upon the objectives, put some engineers in charge, and leave them to get on with it.

Victoria would never have moved away from imported black coal if the "market" approach had been allowed to prevail since the status quo was profitable and a private electricity company has no interest in broader economic development of the state. They did try that approach, the free market, and it did indeed fail to develop alternatives. That's what the SECV was set up to address. SA tried it too, eventually giving up in the 1940's and setting up ETSA.

I'm not saying that we can't have private investment in public utilities. There is no real reason why that cannot be done. But if we want cheap power, and we want to transition to renewables, then fundamentally that is by its' very nature an excercise in planning not well served by having competing entities each operating without an overall plan. 

Witness for evidence that one particular company (ASX listed) has just committed Victoria to another 30 years of reliance on a substantial gas-fired power station. And that same company is involved with building LNG plants in Qld which will more than double the cost of operating gas-fired generation. That is very clearly not an exercise aimed at minimising costs to consumers. 

Set the rules and leave it to engineers and associated people, not financial types, to make it happen.


----------



## SirRumpole

Thank's Smurf.

Excellent post.


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> Who is footing the bill for the subsidies being paid to solar panel users, syd?
> 
> As battery storage capacity technology improves, what I've read indicates more people will go off the grid altogether.  How will that not affect costs for those remaining consumers?




Who is footing the bill for the massive subsidies tot he electricity sector?  They are able to calculate their costs using inflated interest costs, they get a guaranteed return on ALL investment whether needed or not.

So you claiming a potential future technology and consumer change is already impacting prices?

Very few people with solar have gone off grid, and in general terms even with the massive increases in fixed charges and where one could generate enough electricity to net out their variable usage charges, the grid connection is likely to remain cheaper than going off grid with storage, and from a few reports I've read, it is likely to remain this way for a considerable period of time.  What is far more likely to occur is that the current increase in efficiency will continue, and the distribution networks are going to be forced to change the way they operate or perish.  How we are charged for electricity is going to have to change so that those running their air con and being the cause for the 10% or so of infrastructure used for less than a week of the year actually pay their fair share, rather than the current system where those without aircon provide massive subsidies for those who have it.  Reports I've rad indicate that for each aircon unit connected to the grid requires $5000 to $7000 in network CAPEX.  How do you think we should get around that major subsidy?

How about you put some $$ figures to what you believe is the unfair cost burden forced onto electricity users for solar / wind and other green sources of power.  What is that per user?  Hint, the scapegoat gives a decent idea of what it was like till mid last year.

You are ignoring the fact that the increase in wind and solar has caused wholesale electricity prices to be suppressed.  So while subsidies are provided for a small % of total generation, they act to suppress the price paid on a far larger amount of electricity purchased.  Even the Govt's own biased review had to admit that the RET will in net terms lower wholesale electricity costs to the extent that all electricity consumers  will save more money by the merit order suppression of electricity prices than the schemes cost.  So exactly how is that a cost issue for electricity consumers?


----------



## Julia

syd, I'm not entering into an argument with you.  See remarks by bellenuit and smurf.



> Same with electricity. If we've still got the same transmission and distribution infrastructure (the grid), if we still have it available to everyone from the cities to rural properties, then the cost per unit of power sold is largely the inverse of quantity. If volume drops then costs go up and vice versa.




Plus, at least here in Qld, government has acknowledged additional burden on non-solar panel households of costs of paying subsidies to those affluent enough to afford the capital outlay.

You repeatedly complain about the social inequity of tax free advantages for retirees, presumably because it's a situation you do not presently enjoy yourself, and want what you see as the tax burden on yourself removed.  That's fair enough.  I don't disagree at all.

The principle of people who are well off enough to erect solar panels and as a result pay no electricity charges v those whose bills have almost doubled in the last four years, some reason for which is funding subsidies to others, seems to be something you prefer to avoid.


----------



## overhang

I'm not leaning either way here on the issue but I do remember being surprised reading a similar article to this one at the time indicating that it's actually low income households that have the highest uptake of roof top solar. 







> In a study measuring the uptake of solar panels and hot water systems by postcode and income, the REC Agents Association (RAA) has found that, of the top 10 solar suburbs in each Australian state and territory, almost all households had a lower income than the state average.



http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/rooftop-solar-uptake-still-highest-in-low-income-australia-63263


----------



## ghotib

Mods and Smurf, 

On this and other threads Smurf has practically written a book about electricity supply, which is at least as important a national issue as internet access. Any chance of pulling the power posts into their own thread? I don't know how far back in time the posts go but if identifying them is a big job I'd be glad to help out.


----------



## Calliope

ghotib said:


> Mods and Smurf,
> 
> On this and other threads Smurf has practically written a book about electricity supply, which is at least as important a national issue as internet access. Any chance of pulling the power posts into their own thread? I don't know how far back in time the posts go but if identifying them is a big job I'd be glad to help out.




Yes. This thread has been hi-jacked by someone last week harping on about renewable energy. I haven't read all of Smurf's long disertations but I don't think the Abbott government has featured in them, except incidentally.


----------



## SirRumpole

Calliope said:


> Yes. This thread has been hi-jacked by someone last week harping on about renewable energy. I haven't read all of Smurf's long disertations but I don't think the Abbott government has featured in them, except incidentally.




It's Abbott government policy to reduce the RET, so its policies have an impact on that sector.


----------



## IFocus

Mean while back at the ranch the cattle are getting restless....

Signs of mutiny on the Good Ship Abbott



> We've known for some time that the Good Ship Abbott was in trouble, and with MPs now seemingly jostling for position could it be a case of man overboard? Paula Matthewson writes.
> 
> That sound you hear is the whisper of Liberal Party MPs carefully shuffling around a Prime Minister who's taken on water and is listing dangerously.
> 
> They're hoping to avoid being dragged down with him into the dark waters of electoral opprobrium and are eyeing those who hope to replace the PM as potential lifeboats.
> 
> We've known for some time that the Good Ship Abbott was in trouble,* partly because it was constructed using shonky policies and shattered expectations, but also because it was steered with the reckless abandon that comes from political hubris mixed with a misguided sense of entitlement.*





http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-19/matthewson-signs-of-mutiny-on-the-good-ship-abbott/6024180


----------



## Smurf1976

Whilst I have responded to specific questions raised and issues mentioned, I would certainly agree that the electricity subject is somewhat off the topic of this thread as such.

From my post in 17th January:



> Getting a bit off the Abbott Government topic




That said, it is but one example of a broader policy issue confronting Australia in that our energy "policy" is essentially a policy of not having a policy. We have no real policy so far as anything concerning natural gas or oil is concerned and only a very limited policy involving coal or the generation of electricity from any source.

Practically all public discussion on the subject over the past decade has centered around first CO2 emissions and subsequently the price paid by consumers whilst the issue of actual supply has been largely ignored.

The biggest single problem facing the industry today isn't CO2 or even the imminent surge in gas prices. It's the complete lack of consistent policy which makes investing in anything hugely problematic. Power stations and other energy infrastructure has a very long lifespan, 30 years as a minimum in most cases, but we don't seem able to manage a policy position that lasts longer than a year or two. 

Much the same could be said of other industries too, Australia desperately needs consistent leadership be that from the Coalition, Labor, Greens, PUP or anyone else.


----------



## Julia

overhang said:


> I'm not leaning either way here on the issue but I do remember being surprised reading a similar article to this one at the time indicating that it's actually low income households that have the highest uptake of roof top solar.




Before taking that completely at face value, there's no indication that there were any controls for housing type.
In most regional areas, there are very few apartments, in contrast to the cities, and almost certainly a high proportion of people own their homes rather than rent, specifically amongst retirees who have been the group most expressing concern about rising electricity prices.

I'm in regional Qld, pop 55,000, almost no apartment buildings other than a couple of dozen holiday resorts.
Most are three or at most four bedroom basic houses.  Certainly there has been a very high uptake of solar panels here.

I don't find it at all difficult to believe many lower income groups will have decided to instal solar.  This was indicated on RN a week or so ago by the representative of "Solar Citizens", Ms Claire O'Rourke, who was enthusiastically interviewed by the presenter.  Ms O'Rourke is also apparently a union activist.

She indicated that many lower income people had, in their anxiety about rising power bills, decided to put the capital cost on their credit cards.


----------



## sptrawler

Julia said:


> Before taking that completely at face value, there's no indication that there were any controls for housing type.
> In most regional areas, there are very few apartments, in contrast to the cities, and almost certainly a high proportion of people own their homes rather than rent, specifically amongst retirees who have been the group most expressing concern about rising electricity prices.
> 
> I'm in regional Qld, pop 55,000, almost no apartment buildings other than a couple of dozen holiday resorts.
> Most are three or at most four bedroom basic houses.  Certainly there has been a very high uptake of solar panels here.
> 
> I don't find it at all difficult to believe many lower income groups will have decided to instal solar.  This was indicated on RN a week or so ago by the representative of "Solar Citizens", Ms Claire O'Rourke, who was enthusiastically interviewed by the presenter.  Ms O'Rourke is also apparently a union activist.
> 
> She indicated that many lower income people had, in their anxiety about rising power bills, decided to put the capital cost on their credit cards.




The problem is as smurph has mentioned, they may mitigate their usage cost, but that puts more pressure on the service cost to pick up the shortfall.

The solar/ alternative issue probably needs a dedicated thread, maybe smurph can come up with an opening gambit.
It could include ideas on how much a solar system can mitigate your costs, given where you live and the fact it only works while the sun is shining. Many think it stores energy, it doesn't, many think you get paid a lot for the generation, that has been shut down.
However if you install a sensible size, to mitigate your usage, and tailor your usage to coincide with the maximum output.
I'm sure there is a merit in considering solar, as I said smurph is more abreast of the issue.


----------



## Calliope

sptrawler said:


> The problem is as smurph has mentioned, they may mitigate their usage cost, but that puts more pressure on the service cost to pick up the shortfall.
> The solar/ alternative issue probably needs a dedicated thread, maybe smurph can come up with an opening gambit.
> It could include ideas on how much a solar system can mitigate your costs, given where you live and the fact it only works while the sun is shining. Many think it stores energy, it doesn't, many think you get paid a lot for the generation, that has been shut down.
> However if you install a sensible size, to mitigate your usage, and tailor your usage to coincide with the maximum output.
> I'm sure there is a merit in considering solar, as I said smurph is more abreast of the issue.




Why discussion of solar power remains on this thread is a mystery to me.   If you just go to Advanced Search and enter "solar" you will dozens of alternatives

But while we are on the subject here, I can assure you that any pensioner or low income family who lives in a dwelling with a roof overhead and doesn't have solar panels installed has rocks in their heads. I live in an "over 60s" retirement village, most of the occupants are retirees or pensioners and I can assure that the vast majority have solar power installed. Most of them also have air-conditioning installed. 

Anyone who has air-conditioning ,(and where i live it is a necessity, not a luxury) and doesn't have solar power, is economically brain-dead.

You think the Great Smurf  is an expert on this issue, but he is a Tasmanian...and very insular.


----------



## Bintang

Calliope said:


> You think the Great Smurf  is an expert on this issue, but he is a Tasmanian...and very insular.




Calliope, Smurf might not be the only Tasmanian on this forum. You might just have offended all Tasmanians. Does that come under section 18c?


----------



## SirRumpole

> The solar/ alternative issue probably needs a dedicated thread, maybe smurph can come up with an opening gambit.




This is the link to "Does anyone have solar panels" thread


https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21653


----------



## pixel

*Teacher Arrested At Sydney International Airport.*

A high school teacher was arrested today at Sydney's Kingsford-Smith International airport as he attempted to board a flight while carrying a ruler, a protractor, a compass, a slide-rulem and a calculator in his hand luggage.

At the press conference, the Attorney General said he believes the man is a member of the notorious extremist Al-Gebra movement. He did not identify the man, who has been charged by the AFP with carrying weapons of maths instruction.

'Al-Gebra is a problem for us', the Attorney General said. 'They derive solutions by means and extremes, and sometimes go off on tangents in search of absolute values.' They use secret code names like "X" and "Y" and refer to themselves as "unknowns;" but we have determined that they belong to a common denominator of the axis of medieval with coordinates in every country. As the Greek philosopher Isosceles used to say, "There are three sides to every triangle."

When asked to comment on the arrest, Prime Minister Tony Abbot said, "If God had wanted us to have better weapons of maths instruction, He would have given us more fingers and toes."

*Fellow Liberal colleagues told reporters they could not recall a more intelligent or profound statement by the Prime Minister.*


----------



## Smurf1976

Calliope said:


> You think the Great Smurf  is an expert on this issue, but he is a Tasmanian...and very insular.




I will politely point out that I have made a number of posts on the subject covering all states of Australia in the past, including Queensland.

Obviously it is far easier for me to quote Tasmanian data, since I know it without needing to look up any figures, but there's no difference in any basic electrical principle based on location. Baseload production coming out of Tarraleah (Tas) is the exact same thing as what comes out of Millmerran or Callide (Qld). Apart from some differences in terms of the primary energy source and the voltage of transmission, it's the same beyond that. 

For the record, grid supply in Qld right now is 74% from coal, 24% gas, 2% biomass, trivial amount from hydro. Of that, 95.5% is being used within Qld and the remaining 4.5% is going into NSW.

Whether or not it has any relevance to the Abbott Government depends on what aspect of it anyone wants to consider. CO2 emissions are an Australian Government matter certainly, so too is the Renewable Energy Target. Policy concerning small scale solar is something that involves all levels of government in practice.

There is, of course, also an electricity futures market....


----------



## Calliope

Bintang said:


> Calliope, Smurf might not be the only Tasmanian on this forum. You might just have offended all Tasmanians. Does that come under section 18c?




It probably does. I can only plead ignorance. I meant insular in regard to roof solar systems. I have no idea of their efficiency in Tasmania, but I imagine it  greatly differs from the output of a similar unit in the Sunshine State. However as you can see above, Smurf was more concerned by my suggestion that he was off topic because the topic is "The Abbott Government". However he has provided a link between Abbott and RE and RETs.


----------



## Smurf1976

Calliope said:


> I meant insular in regard to roof solar systems. I have no idea of their efficiency in Tasmania, but I imagine it  greatly differs from the output of a similar unit in the Sunshine State.




All good. 

A solar PV system installed in Brisbane produces about 12% more energy over 12 months than an identical system installed in Hobart. That will vary depending on roof pitch etc, but is based on facing true North on a 30 degree pitch roof and assuming no shade.

For the record, I have solar at home and have had since 2009. Also have a heat pump for hot water. 

I do agree that this is stretching it somewhat in terms of the thread topic however. I've posted here only to answer previous comments. For those with further questions about solar panels, I suggest posting in the solar thread and I'll comment there if I have anything to add.


----------



## IFocus

I am starting to think Abbott might be in trouble when he rolls this out as a defence... from the "Liberal Daily News"


Abbott dismisses leadership rumours as ‘absolute nonsense’



> TONY Abbott has called on disgruntled MPs to “rally behind” him ahead of the next election, citing the toppled Baillieu-Napthine and Rudd-Gillard governments as evidence of what happens to parties that change leaders.





http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...bsolute-nonsense/story-fn59niix-1227192990548


----------



## banco

IFocus said:


> I am starting to think Abbott might be in trouble when he rolls this out as a defence... from the "Liberal Daily News"
> 
> 
> Abbott dismisses leadership rumours as ‘absolute nonsense’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...bsolute-nonsense/story-fn59niix-1227192990548




I just don't see how they could depose a sitting prime minister after the way they carried on with regards to gillard/rudd.


----------



## SirRumpole

IFocus said:


> I am starting to think Abbott might be in trouble when he rolls this out as a defence... from the "Liberal Daily News"
> 
> 
> Abbott dismisses leadership rumours as ‘absolute nonsense’




What was the old Yes Minister quote ?

"Never believe anything untill it's been officially denied"


----------



## IFocus

banco said:


> I just don't see how they could depose a sitting prime minister after the way they carried on with regards to gillard/rudd.




I think the same but then there is the lying and broken promises.

Possibility Abbott's saving is he has been able to neuter any internal leadership possibilities plus simply the massive lack of talent from the right wing of the Liberal party.


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> Possibility Abbott's saving is he has been able to neuter any internal leadership possibilities plus simply the massive lack of talent from the right wing of the Liberal party.



Where do you now stand on Scott Morrison ?

He was very successful in reversing the disaster that was border security under Labor.


----------



## SirRumpole

drsmith said:


> Where do you now stand on Scott Morrison ?
> 
> He was very successful in reversing the disaster that was border security under Labor.




While I think Morrison got some kudos with his hard line on refugees, if he takes the same hard line with the electorate over things like the Medicare levy or education/pension "reform" then he will get his head kicked in by the voters just like Abbott is getting his head kicked now.

I think the next leader needs to be more "user friendly" than Abbott, otherwise the leadership change will have no effect.


----------



## banco

SirRumpole said:


> While I think Morrison got some kudos with his hard line on refugees, if he takes the same hard line with the electorate over things like the Medicare levy or education/pension "reform" then he will get his head kicked in by the voters just like Abbott is getting his head kicked now.
> 
> I think the next leader needs to be more "user friendly" than Abbott, otherwise the leadership change will have no effect.




The electorate likes a hardline being taken with regards to keeping out brown people not so much when it comes to their pensions etc. 

Morrison is a wartime consligeri not a don.


----------



## drsmith

Race I suppose is all that's left for those who can't bring themselves to acknowledge what he's achieved in cleaning up Labor's mess.


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> Race I suppose is all that's left for those who can't bring themselves to acknowledge what he's achieved in cleaning up Labor's mess.




Of course race plays no part in asylum seeker politics. How silly of me.  Thank you dear apparatchik for setting me straight.


----------



## drsmith

banco said:


> Of course race plays no part in asylum seeker politics.



It shouldn't in my view but I'm not the one who ventured down that route.


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> While I think Morrison got some kudos with his hard line on refugees, if he takes the same hard line with the electorate over things like the Medicare levy or education/pension "reform" then he will get his head kicked in by the voters just like Abbott is getting his head kicked now.



You might be underestimating the resentment by all the taxpaying public about the numbers on the DSP in particular, and to a lesser extent on the dole.

If I were trying to support a young family, get into my first home under today's difficult housing market, and knew my taxes were in part going to support people on the DSP because they are, e.g., addicted to alcohol and/or drugs, I don't think I'd be cheering in support, as I struggled to accumulate sufficient funds for deposit on a home for my family.

Ditto people who just don't want to work, who by means of shared living etc, find an existence on the dole entirely acceptable.

I spent more than 12 years assessing applications for welfare support for a community agency.  Really opened my eyes.  One instance in particular :  a group of five teenagers all on the dole, sharing a flat.
They came in after Easter, five days after receiving their taxpayer funded benefits, pleading for assistance for both food and electricity.  An enquiry re where the benefits had gone (a substantial amount over five of them as individuals who were also each receiving rent assistance) elicited the revelation that they'd spent up large on fancy Easter Eggs and other gifts, and spent each night of the holiday weekend at the RSL, failing to win at the pokies.

Then the woman who had six children, various fathers.  She had never, ever worked.  Income from benefit was much in excess of the average wage, plus rent assistance.  The eldest child was about to turn 16, at which stage she would lose that child's payment.  Her solution:  get pregnant again, any bloke would do, in order to return the household budget to what it was.

Of course there are plenty of people in genuine need and often for these we simply don't do enough.
I don't know how you could, across the whole population, manage to assess each individual, but I disagree with any notion that the whole welfare situation, very much including middle class welfare, does not need a very thorough going over.  If Scott Morrison elects to do this, I don't think he'll meet with much resistance except from those who have no expectation that they should ever be obliged to pull their weight.


----------



## drsmith

A key for Scott Morrison will be how well he can present the case in relation to social security. It will be a tougher task than for immigration where everyone knew Labor left a mess.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:
			
		

> You might be underestimating the resentment by all the taxpaying public about the numbers on the DSP in particular, and to a lesser extent on the dole.




I've said before and say again that the DSP is one area that should be seriously looked at. 

Whoever does it needs to marshall their facts first (collecting more data if necessary) and put it straight to the electorate what proportion of those on the DSP are rorting the system and how much it is costing us.

 Trouble is that the DSP covers a wide range of ailments (some no doubt are imaginary), and apparently just requires a tame doctor to sign a certificate and the person is on the DSP indefinitely.

 Of course, many people genuinely need the DSP, that's why the responsible Minister has to walk a fine line between not frightening those genuinely in need, and putting the fear of [insert appropriate Deity] into people who are malingering.

I have not seen that the current government has the diplomatic and management skills to do this successfully, but I wish them luck.

As far as the dole goes, the government needs to demonstrate that sufficient jobs are available to suck up a large proportion of the unemployment queues, if they want to avoid the "class war" allegations that plagued previous Coalition governments.


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> Where do you now stand on Scott Morrison ?
> 
> He was very successful in reversing the disaster that was border security under Labor.




By any measure of stopping the boats Morrison was an outstanding success.

The methods mostly would not be accepted on Australian mainland applied to Australians or under Australian law or accepted by Australian parliaments  etc but were accepted by most Australians looking the other way as Banco alludes to due to I suspect prejudices / racialism  and the like. 

I wouldn't see that as acceptable leadership material by the middle ground voter and more likely treated with suspicion. 

Having said that it remains to be seen if Morrison can change gears (hall mark of true political leaders) but I just don't see it in any thing Morrison has done his arrogance that served him so well around "on water operations" just wouldn't cut it in the mainstream.

Is there anyone else from the right the party might turn to, has to be a NSW or VIC federal member.


----------



## orr

to para phrase;

_'The Abbott Government is Crap'_

There's a lot more consensus on that issue than the dubiousness of Global warming .

Much as it is against my inclination to reduce things slogans.


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> By any measure of stopping the boats Morrison was an outstanding success.



After all the criticism you levelled over a long period in the asylum seeker thread, to admit this government's success in border control was obviously a difficult lump for you to swallow. 

There's no prejudice or racism in expecting a nation's government to be in control of its borders. No reasonable person would be happy with an outcome where a government's policy leads to boat loads of people being smashed against the rocks of Christmas Island or the like or allowing others to take economic advantage of a government's misguided ideology whether that be country shoppers seeking economic advantage or the people smugglers themselves.


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> After all the criticism you levelled over a long period in the asylum seeker thread, to admit this government's success in border control was obviously a difficult lump for you to swallow.




Not at all, my negativity was on the Coalitions strategy and that was about breaking laws, secrecy,  of how they were treating foreigners then the small step that could happen to us and of course the sheer hypocrisy.

Letting a government use means to an ends outside of war time is fraught, I think you will find Australians will not want to dwell on this to long and will move on and thats in some respects are what the polls are showing.

 Abbott will not get any kudos from the middle ground but his hard core supporters will trumpet it long and hard and good on them they have very little else to cheer about.


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> After all the criticism you levelled over a long period in the asylum seeker thread, to admit this government's success in border control was obviously a difficult lump for you to swallow.
> 
> There's no prejudice or racism in expecting a nation's government to be in control of its borders. No reasonable person would be happy with an outcome where a government's policy leads to boat loads of people being smashed against the rocks of Christmas Island or the like or allowing others to take economic advantage of a government's misguided ideology whether that be country shoppers seeking economic advantage or the people smugglers themselves.




Yes but you are referring to ends rather than means.


----------



## drsmith

For those who want to rate this government's border security policies as a failure on the means, how then do they rate Labor's ?

Labor after all discovered that this wasn't all about feel good choices and as a consequence, opened more detention centres, reintroduced offshore processing after first removing it and then still couldn't stop the boats it started.


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> For those who want to rate this government's border security policies as a failure on the means, how then do they rate Labor's ?
> 
> Labor after all discovered that this wasn't all about feel good choices and as a consequence, opened more detention centres, reintroduced offshore processing after first removing it and then still couldn't stop the boats it started.




Labor's were a failure but the means that the Goverment used to achieve sucess should "shock the conscience".


----------



## Tisme

drsmith said:


> For those who want to rate this government's border security policies as a failure on the means, how then do they rate Labor's ?
> 
> .





Well from someone who is not impressed with previous Labor govt nor the present LNP govt on this issue I look at the "best of the worse" solutions as moot. 

We have every right to say who comes here, but of course "we" don't really say anything and rely on our elected reps to say on our behalf. So "we" came up with the original Rudd island castaway and we implemented it via Abbott,

What I don't like about the whole thing is the concentration camp aspect and the nursery of discontent that leads to malcontent. Are we growing our own fifth column from the resident sympathisers who share culture and religion (has our contempt for muslim asylum seekers already lit the fuse for the young men who would harm us outside the faith?).


----------



## moXJO

Tisme said:


> What I don't like about the whole thing is the concentration camp aspect and the nursery of discontent that leads to malcontent. Are we growing our own fifth column from the resident sympathisers who share culture and religion (has our contempt for muslim asylum seekers already lit the fuse for the young men who would harm us outside the faith?).




Would it matter to them anyway. Look at those countries that freely let them in and they are in a much much worse state then we are. Libs stopped the boats successfully imo and put the measures in place to ensure it worked. Lefties trying to make it look like a failure are grasping at straws.


----------



## Bintang

moXJO said:


> Would it matter to them anyway. Look at those countries that freely let them in and they are in a much much worse state then we are.






Tisme said:


> Are we growing our own fifth column from the resident sympathisers who share culture and religion (has our contempt for muslim asylum seekers already lit the fuse for the young men who would harm us outside the faith?).




The fuse of contempt by muslims for non-muslims was lit by Muhammad himself 1400 years ago and has been burning ever since.  Most people in the West (i.e us dummy kafirs) are blissfully unaware of this in the same way that they are unaware that the Muslims living in our midst practice ‘taqiyyah”, which means Holy Deception. Here is a quote from Ali Sina (an Iranian, ex-muslim who is constantly living with the threat of death because of his criticism of Islam)

_Practicing Muslims come to the West and pretend to be moderates. They say everything you want to hear but secretly plan for your destruction. They smile; are friendly and amiable; they even pretend to be patriotic. However, their only objective is to make Islam dominant. They talk the talk, but will not walk the walk.
Lying as a strategy to advance Islam is called taqiyyah, or “holy deception.” Under taqiyyah, a Muslim is allowed to lie and say anything to pull the wool over the eyes of the non-Muslims and deceive them._

The Abbott Government has to be congratulated for stopping the boats but they are not doing enough to deal with the prior mess created in our society by the influx of so many muslims.


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> What I don't like about the whole thing is the concentration camp aspect and the nursery of discontent that leads to malcontent. Are we growing our own fifth column from the resident sympathisers who share culture and religion (has our contempt for muslim asylum seekers already lit the fuse for the young men who would harm us outside the faith?).




I'm not sure how much sympathy refugees get from "legitimate" arrivals of the same faith. It may depend on whether they are the same sect , Sunni or Shi'ite and what sort of treatment the refugees get when they arrive in terms of benefits etc. Legit migrants have to jump through hoops of our immigration system that refugees don't.

My guess is that refugees are fairly isolated from their mainstream cultural communities.


----------



## banco

Bintang said:


> The fuse of contempt by muslims for non-muslims was lit by Muhammad himself 1400 years ago and has been burning ever since.  Most people in the West (i.e us dummy kafirs) are blissfully unaware of this in the same way that they are unaware that the Muslims living in our midst practice ‘taqiyyah”, which means Holy Deception. Here is a quote from Ali Sina (an Iranian, ex-muslim who is constantly living with the threat of death because of his criticism of Islam)
> 
> _Practicing Muslims come to the West and pretend to be moderates. They say everything you want to hear but secretly plan for your destruction. They smile; are friendly and amiable; they even pretend to be patriotic. However, their only objective is to make Islam dominant. They talk the talk, but will not walk the walk.
> Lying as a strategy to advance Islam is called taqiyyah, or “holy deception.” Under taqiyyah, a Muslim is allowed to lie and say anything to pull the wool over the eyes of the non-Muslims and deceive them._
> 
> The Abbott Government has to be congratulated for stopping the boats but they are not doing enough to deal with the prior mess created in our society by the influx of so many muslims.




Remind me again how race doesn't play into asylum seeker politics?


----------



## Bintang

banco said:


> Remind me again how race doesn't play into asylum seeker politics?




If you are trying to imply that my post is racist please elaborate.


----------



## Bintang

banco said:


> Remind me again how race doesn't play into asylum seeker politics?






Bintang said:


> If you are trying to imply that my post is racist please elaborate.




banco, in the absence of any elaboration I can’t answer your question so in the meantime I will just show you an example of how Muslims lie to us in the West. This video is about blasphemy laws in Pakistan.  The lies of the Pakistani Mullah  to the Western television interviewer could not be more blatant.


----------



## Logique

Many times I called the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government a slow motion train wreck.

But the warning signs for the Abbott government are clear, and it starts in the PMs office.  

The political instincts are good, but the delivery is abominable.


----------



## IFocus

Tony Abbott's trust deficit disaster is paralysing his government 



> Are we really back there again? Ministers putting on their best serious face and declaring their leader is not electoral poison. *Colleagues “backgrounding” the obvious fact that he is.* A government paralysed by policies it cannot legislate and a backlog of big ideas but no political capital to push them through.







> It has happily ignored recommendations it doesn’t like from other evidence-based Productivity Commission inquiries (like the need to conduct proper cost benefit analyses before promising huge amounts of money to infrastructure projects).





B







> ut his government already ambushed Australian voters with previously-unmentioned health, education and welfare changes in last year’s budget which were decisively judged to be unfair.
> 
> And he and his ministers have spent the past year ignoring, defunding and sidelining groups that advocate for the poor, the sick, the disabled and disadvantaged.





http://www.theguardian.com/australi...deficit-disaster-is-paralysing-his-government


----------



## moXJO

Logique said:


> Many times I called the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government a slow motion train wreck.
> 
> But the warning signs for the Abbott government are clear, and it starts in the PMs office.
> 
> The political instincts are good, but the delivery is abominable.




And on top of that he was never really warmed too by the lib voters and absolutely hated by lefttards. Any mistake or sign of weakness is crucified. Which makes me wonder what the hell his advisers are doing.

Backflips, breaking promises and going in way to hard on the budget was enough to ruin him way to early. There is a lot of community anger being flamed by the labor machine to attempt to maintain the rage.
Libs seem to be hoping to get down and dirty nearer the election. There will be a lot with one eye on the Qld election results.


----------



## Smurf1976

Logique said:


> But the warning signs for the Abbott government are clear, and it starts in the PMs office.
> 
> The political instincts are good, but the delivery is abominable.




Tony Abbott reminds me of someone I had a lot of dealings with some years ago. Seemingly intelligent and capable, but so over the top arrogant and "born to rule, accountable to nobody" as to preclude any sensible negotiation over anything. He completely wrecked the business he was running, and Abbott's doing much the same on a far larger scale. 

Arrogance and bullying works in the short term but fails miserably in the longer term due to the huge amount of resistance it fuels. It falls apart once resistance builds to the point that the leader (in whatever capacity) can no longer effectively get anything done. That's precisely where Abbott seems to be slowly but surely heading with the LNP as a whole having much the same outlook it seems (Qld and Tas state governments come immediately to mind).


----------



## banco

Enjoyed this quote (from Peter Van Onselen) in response to Sir Prince Phillip:

Lib MP: "he combines the judgement of Gillard with the madness of Rudd".


----------



## drsmith

Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard know something of knighthoods.

They both have the honour of having been knighted by Bill Shorten.


----------



## McLovin

Jesus H Christ, what f**king century does Abbott live in? A bloke who has barely set foot in Australia is given an AK (which is itself a throw back to Pig Iron Bob). I thought we moved on about thirty years ago from kowtowing to the British establishment. It'll be snowing in Cairns before I call Herr Mountbatten "sir".

Pathetic.


----------



## drsmith

McLovin said:


> Jesus H Christ, what f**king century does Abbott live in?



It's a controversial decision when a government really needs to distance itself from unnecessary controversy.

Have you noticed how tired he looks ?

I think behind the scenes there's something going on.


----------



## pixel

drsmith said:


> It's a controversial decision when a government really needs to distance itself from unnecessary controversy.
> 
> Have you noticed how tired he looks ?
> 
> I think behind the scenes there's something going on.




I think it's a deplorable case of bad judgment.
If the PM wants Australia to remain a loyal subject to the British Crown, how dare he be as presumptuous as to pin a tinpot gong on Her Majesty's Consort?
If he thinks Australia is mature and independent enough to issue knighthoods in its own right, "Sir Prince Phillip" must really feel peeved that an upstart from the R's end of the world dares lump him in with commoners.
BTW, has anyone noticed that Tony has picked two new Sires, but no Dame this year?
Maybe it's to appease the hardline Islamists, who consider women chattle and property...


----------



## Logique

Prince Phillip came in ahead of all these.

White Hat's 100 Important Living Australians:  http://www.whitehat.com.au/australia/people/Living.asp

John Howard, Bob Hawke, Malcolm Fraser, Rod Laver, Fiona Stanley, Dick Smith, Gabi Hollows, Les Murray, Clive James, Ita Buttrose, Barry Humphries etc etc

Sure some would have refused, but some wouldn't.


----------



## pixel

Logique said:


> Prince Phillip came in ahead of all these.
> 
> White Hat's 100 Important Living Australians:  http://www.whitehat.com.au/australia/people/Living.asp
> 
> John Howard, Bob Hawke, Malcolm Fraser, Rod Laver, Fiona Stanley, Dick Smith, Gabi Hollows, Les Murray, Clive James, Ita Buttrose, Barry Humphries etc etc
> 
> Sure some would have refused, but some wouldn't.




Tim Flannery comes to mind as well; but we'll probably have to wait for a PM whose given name is Malcolm. Who knows, we could have him in less than a year - or it's "Bill" in a bit under two...


----------



## drsmith

pixel said:


> Tim Flannery comes to mind as well; but we'll probably have to wait for a PM whose given name is Malcolm.



I doubt Malcolm's that silly but if he was, it'd be a good reason (amongst others) for him not to be PM.


----------



## dutchie

Righto Tony pass the baton on to Scott.

You were a good opposition leader, the right person at the right time, but unfortunately success at opposition does not always translate to being an astute PM.

I had high hopes for you Tony but you have failed too many times - you just don't have it. 

Making a royal an Australian knight - what are you thinking?

PPL - what are you thinking?

A co-payment (that does not even help pay of the debt) - what are you thinking?

We need strong political leadership so that other ship of fools don't get another chance to f*ck up Australia again.

Please stand down.


----------



## Bintang

dutchie said:


> Righto Tony pass the baton on to Scott.
> 
> You were a good opposition leader, the right person at the right time, but unfortunately success at opposition does not always translate to being an astute PM.
> 
> I had high hopes for you Tony but you have failed too many times - you just don't have it.
> 
> Making a royal an Australian knight - what are you thinking?
> 
> PPL - what are you thinking?
> 
> A co-payment (that does not even help pay of the debt) - what are you thinking?
> 
> We need strong political leadership so that other ship of fools don't get another chance to f*ck up Australia again.
> 
> Please stand down.





TA seems willfully lacking in judgement for what reason only Allah could know.

Even Larry Pickering would have been a better choice than the old Prince.


----------



## sptrawler

I can't help but think Tony is playing 'rope the dope', can't wait to see how it plays out.

Maybe I'm giving him more credit than he is due, but I think he is taking a lot of heat, that the LNP would be taking otherwise.


----------



## IFocus

Phil the Greek is a knight of Oz

Try as I might I don't get it, the politics, right wing, I will show you lot, tosser.

I did warn all here Abbott is a tosser but really he is a  traitor to Australia and its people happy to subjugate its population to an autocracy in the blind hope he maybe  knighted.

Who voted for him please put your hand up and cry with shame.


----------



## Julia

When he last year announced the return of the Knights and Dames nonsense, he said it would be an opportunity to recognise worthy Australians.

Why then is he bestowing this Knighthood on the already titled Prince Philip?

Quite apart from the inappropriate choice of recipient, you'd have hoped he would at least have been aware of the political repercussions (after the mockery re the restarting of the whole silly idea), plus aware of his reduced standing and loss of confidence from his colleagues, to not - without any consultation of them - suddenly come up with this brain snap.

I can't think of a single reason to hold on to Mr Abbott as Prime Minister.


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> Phil the Greek is a knight of Oz
> 
> Try as I might I don't get it, the politics, right wing, I will show you lot, tosser.
> 
> I did warn all here Abbott is a tosser but really he is a  traitor to Australia and its people happy to subjugate its population to an autocracy in the blind hope he maybe  knighted.
> 
> Who voted for him please put your hand up and cry with shame.




Well the first thing that has happened, is Billy has popped his head up in the shooting gallery, calling for a Republic.


First President" Showbag Bill".

I don't think so. 
Free washers and dryers all round and a set of steak knives. Can we afford it?


----------



## IFocus

Julia said:


> When he last year announced the return of the Knights and Dames nonsense, he said it would be an opportunity to recognise worthy Australians.
> 
> Why then is he bestowing this Knighthood on the already titled Prince Philip?
> 
> Quite apart from the inappropriate choice of recipient, you'd have hoped he would at least have been aware of the political repercussions (after the mockery re the restarting of the whole silly idea), plus aware of his reduced standing and loss of confidence from his colleagues, to not - without any consultation of them - suddenly come up with this brain snap.
> 
> I can't think of a single reason to hold on to Mr Abbott as Prime Minister.




+ 1 its an unusual move and would love to know the motivation behind it as would the rest of the nation I just cannot think of a political reason for it cynical or other wise its quite extraordinary.


----------



## pixel

McLovin said:


> It'll be snowing in Cairns before I call Herr Mountbatten "sir".
> 
> Pathetic.




Better call him "Herr Battenberg" LOL See below extract of an article in the "Britannica" on the subject:



> The first Battenbergs were a family of German counts that died out about 1314 and whose seat was [...] near Battenberg, in Hesse. The title was revived in 1851, when Alexander (1823–88), a younger son of Louis II, grand duke of Hesse, contracted a *morganatic *marriage with the Polish countess Julia Theresa von Hauke (1825–95), who was then created countess of Battenberg.



 and 







> the members of the family who lived in England renounced, in 1917, the German title of prince of Battenberg and adopted the English form of Mountbatten



 full text at http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/56110/Battenberg-family


----------



## Tisme

The world lost the plot when we saw Australian Aboriginals adopt flags and trinkets to display their culture as distinct from the European culture. Of course when we whiteys go abroad we aren't averse to being experts on boomerangs and didgies too, because are so obsessed with icons as trophies of success.

One side of my sword says what a stupid thing giving out titles and bronze discs to people who made their mark through personal endeavour and pleasure, the other side says what does it matter to me what a govt thinks is important when it comes to decorating individuals like a fancy cake.... 

But then again guess who bought the complete set of relica Victoria crosses when they came out a few years back ... because I think they do deserve some recognition as representative of the brave ones in the army who put their lives at imminent risk.


----------



## Tisme

So Rupert is pissed off about the whole awards fiasco and Tony, so today's News Corp feeders are already talking about Tony's head:

http://www.news.com.au/national/ton...he-liberal-party/story-fncynjr2-1227198704319


and:

PRINCE PHILIP: SIR GAFFE-A-LOT


To Aboriginal leader William Brin: “Do you still throw spears at each other?”

To a native woman in Kenya: “You are a woman, aren’t you?

To a British student in China: “If you stay here much longer you’ll go home with slitty eyes.”

To black politician Lord Taylor of Warwick: “And what exotic part of the world do you come from?”

To a tourist in Budapest: “You can’t have been here long, you haven’t got a pot belly.”

At a party in 2004: “Bugger the table plan, give me my dinner!”

To a 13-year-old boy: “You could do with losing a little bit of weight.”

To a nursing home resident in a wheelchair: “Do people trip over you?”

To a penniless student: “Why don’t you go and live in a hostel to save cash?”

On women in general: “I don’t think a prostitute is more moral than a wife, but they are doing the same thing.”

ellen.whinnett@news.com.au
Originally published as Abbott ‘pushing his luck with this one’


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> So Rupert is pissed off about the whole awards fiasco and Tony, so today's News Corp feeders are already talking about Tony's head:
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/national/ton...he-liberal-party/story-fncynjr2-1227198704319
> 
> 
> and:
> 
> PRINCE PHILIP: SIR GAFFE-A-LOT
> 
> 
> To Aboriginal leader William Brin: “Do you still throw spears at each other?”
> 
> To a native woman in Kenya: “You are a woman, aren’t you?
> 
> To a British student in China: “If you stay here much longer you’ll go home with slitty eyes.”
> 
> To black politician Lord Taylor of Warwick: “And what exotic part of the world do you come from?”
> 
> To a tourist in Budapest: “You can’t have been here long, you haven’t got a pot belly.”
> 
> At a party in 2004: “Bugger the table plan, give me my dinner!”
> 
> To a 13-year-old boy: “You could do with losing a little bit of weight.”
> 
> To a nursing home resident in a wheelchair: “Do people trip over you?”
> 
> To a penniless student: “Why don’t you go and live in a hostel to save cash?”
> 
> On women in general: “I don’t think a prostitute is more moral than a wife, but they are doing the same thing.”
> 
> ellen.whinnett@news.com.au
> Originally published as Abbott ‘pushing his luck with this one’




On a message board where a lot of us are complaining about political correctness, some of the Duke's comments come like a breath of fresh air. I think he has a very dry tongue in cheek sense of humour that some take as offensiveness.

Still not worth a knighthood though.


----------



## moXJO

SirRumpole said:


> Still not worth a knighthood though.




Who is more deserving of an Aussie knighthood then the king of taking the pi$$.


----------



## Bintang

SirRumpole said:


> On a message board where a lot of us are complaining about political correctness, some of the Duke's comments come like a breath of fresh air. I think he has a very dry tongue in cheek sense of humour that some take as offensiveness.
> 
> Still not worth a knighthood though.




Yes, dry sense of humour and razor sharp perceptiveness:

*Islamic Sharia Law has invaded Great Britain* all under  the nose of the British Royal Family. Why aren’t they doing something about it?  Perhaps we should ask *Sir-Prince-do-you-still-throw-spears-at-each-other-Philip*:

Interviewer: _Sir Philip, What do you think about Islamic Sharia Law being practiced in Great Britain?_
Sir Prince Philip:  _What do you mean? That’s just for muslims._
Interviewer: _Yes Sir Philip but that’s the point there are so many muslims in our country and they are practicing Sharia Law._
Sir Prince Philip:  _Ha ….. I don’t think so. Those people all ride camels. Haven’t seen many camels around London lately. Have you? _


----------



## sydboy007

Pretty spot on explanation for why Abbott does what he doeses

http://andrewelder.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/earning-your-pineapple.html



> Abbott's natural base consists of reactionaries, people who define themselves by what they're against. They have no ability to distinguish between a passing fad and a substantial shift. They will hunt for evidence to support clean coal or wind turbine syndrome, but ignore that supporting climate change or vaccinations.






> It happened before then, too. He didn't understand why Gillard could negotiate her way into government in 2010 and get legislation through a hung parliament. He couldn't, and still can't understand why Senators outside the major parties will neither bend to his will nor be won over by his smarm.






> People like Abbott have been reactionaries since their university days: simply spitting the descriptor at them makes no difference. Instead, understand how:
> 
> weak reactionary behaviour is as a motivator; and
> little can be done when such people occupy office; and
> they fight tooth and nail to stay in a position where they dispose regardless of what might be proposed. To be in a position where they neither propose nor dispose underlines their irrelevance.


----------



## banco

His main problem is that all of the policy stuff that really interests him are social issues where he's love to push a social conservative line but he can't because it would be very unpopular and/or require legislation he can't pass. So he's left with trying to push social conservatism with gimmicky things like knighthoods that don't require legislation etc. Meanwhile economics and the finer details of the budget don't really interest him much.


----------



## sydboy007

ACOSS has made a pretty sensible submission to the Govt on how to get the budget moving towards balance in a much fairer way that what has been so faar presented to us

http://www.acoss.org.au/media/release/budget_must_chart_a_fairer_path_back_to_surplus_acoss

Included among the tax expenditures targeted for cuts are:

Discretionary trusts and private companies, which allows relatively well-off individuals to avoid tax by diverting and ‘sheltering’ their income or income producing assets. ACOSS claims that “tightening the use of private trusts to avoid personal income tax would save as much as $1 billion in 2016-17 and a further $1 billion would be saved by curbing the use of private companies used for the same purpose”.
ACOSS also wants to see negative gearing, superannuation tax concessions, and Capital Gains Tax concessions unwound, which collectively are costing the Budget many billions in foregone revenue.
ACOSS also claims that $8.8 billion could be saved by abolishing the private health insurance rebate (which “has not reduced pressure on public hospitals”), curbing the Medicare safety net, and stopping subsidies for medicines listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme but are no longer under patent.

ACOSS also wants to see welfare cut back on wealthy retirees, and recommends proceeding with the Government’s 2014-15 Budget proposal to abolish the $887 a year Seniors Supplement for wealthy retirees (blocked by Labor in the Senate) and lower the maximum financial assets (not including the principal residence) that retiree couples can hold, beyond which they no longer qualify to receive a part Aged Pension from $1.1 million to $795,000 and a full Age Pension from $287,000 to $150,000.

Offsetting some of the $13.1 billion of Budget savings measures, ACOSS recommends the Government boost a range of welfare measures for lower income households at a total cost of $5.9 billion (delivering net total Budget savings of around $7.2 billion). Included amongst this increased welfare spending are: a much needed $51 a week boost for unemployment benefits, with benefits also indexed to wages rather than CPI (as is the case with the Aged Pension); increases in family tax benefits for sole parents, with family allowances also indexed to wages; and more generous dental and rent assistance.


----------



## basilio

I think Abbott is a dead man walking.  

The decision to give a Knighthood to Prince Phillip has destroyed any vestige of confidence in his political judgment. The fact that Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones and Rupert Murdoch have publicly attacked the decision makes his position completely untenable.

Tony is now seen as ridiculous.  There was a brilliant video clip produced yesterday which sent him up gutless. (Mind you it was all his own words)

This will go viral and I can see a thousand emails to the backbench with this clip.  

And almost all will come from Liberal Party members

If the Liberal Party doesn't cut him loose and give him a decent burial the stench of his rotting political carcass will destroy this government. The only way he can be saved (IMO) is if the Labour Party somehow decide to go easy on him with the view that  keeping him as PM will just damage the Liberal Party as long as possible



> Bumbling Tony Abbott cast alongside Hugh Grant in 'Four Weddings and A Funeral' remake
> 
> Date
> January 29, 2015 - 1:39AM
> 
> 131 reading now
> 
> Jenna Clarke
> 
> 
> Awkward: Tony Abbott replaces Hugh Grant in <i>Four Weddings and A Funeral with Tony Abbott</i>.
> 
> Tony Abbott's decision to knight Prince Philip has earned the Prime Minister his very own accolade: the honour of starring alongside the bumbling Hugh Grant in an iconic romantic comedy.
> 
> The artist who gave the House of Representatives the Seinfeld treatment last year and recut Ghostbusters with a cameo by Jacqui "Sharia Law obviously involves terrorism" Lambie, has produced a new video, Four Weddings and A Funeral with Tony Abbott.
> 
> Video editor Huw Parkinson released the short film on Wednesday after seamlessly inserting the Prime Minister's Australia Day press conference into a scene from the more-British-than-the-British film, replacing the blundering and awkward best man speech from the opening scene of the film.




http://www.canberratimes.com.au/lif...ngs-and-a-funeral-remake-20150128-130ey0.html


http://vimeo.com/117970255


----------



## Logique

_Pressure mounts on Tony Abbott to dump Peta Credlin _- SMH -January 29, 2015
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ott-to-dump-peta-credlin-20150128-1303ix.html

_"..Mr Murdoch, the News Corporation boss, also applied direct public pressure on Wednesday, using Twitter to demand Ms Credlin's head."

"Tough to write, but if he [Mr Abbott] won't replace top aide Peta Credlin she must do her patriotic duty and resign. More," he wrote.

"Forget fairness," he added in a subsequent tweet. "This change only way to recover team work and achieve so much possible for Australia. Leading involves cruel choices.".._


----------



## Tisme

> http://vimeo.com/117970255




That was funny

Even funnier is that my flies on the wall tell me Kevin Andrews reckons he's in with a chance.


----------



## basilio

Interesting to see a couple of political analysis of Tony Abbott's problems in being an effective PM.



> *Tony Abbott's political deficiencies go on spectacular display*
> 
> Date
> January 27, 2015
> 
> Jack Waterford
> 
> 
> Tony Abbott's most serious political handicap has proven not to be his essential philosophy, which most Australians do not share but which maintain's his party's support, but his judgment. He's not good at picking good people. He has reasonable political instincts, from where he stands, but he is all too often so impetuous, impatient and disinclined to talk ideas through with cooler heads before launching them that he fails too see the obvious pitfalls.
> 
> He is clever but not shrewd or wise. Unless he changes, his leadership is entering a terminal phase. Unless his party requires that he change, he will lead them to disaster next year.
> 
> His deficiencies have been well in evidence over the past month, but hardly anytime, anywhere, so spectacularly as with his decision to have Prince Philip knighted. His old strengths have not been so evident, and he now seems unable, in any event, to put them on display simply by changing the subject or creating a distraction.



http://www.canberratimes.com.au/com...o-on-spectacular-display-20150127-12yu96.html




> *Tony Abbott has much bigger problems than a rogue knight
> *
> Date
> January 28, 2015 - 9:00PM
> 
> 1495 reading now
> 
> Paul Sheehan
> 
> 
> "I'm determined to learn from all of this," the Prime Minister said of his self-immolating lapse in anointing the Duke of Edinburgh with an Australian knighthood, which compounded the adverse impact of the anachronistic, self-indulgent, zero-upside honours system he introduced in his first year.
> 
> Abbott is unlikely to learn from this, other than to become even more cautious and robotic. You cannot learn what you refuse to know. He is a bulldog who will not let go of a course of action which, without an end to his bunker insularity, and a change in his relationship with the electorate, will see him removed either before the next election or at the next election.
> 
> His party is already moving. The phones are running hot. They will not turn to the deputy leader, Julie Bishop. It will be Malcolm Turnbull.




http://www.canberratimes.com.au/com...lems-than-a-rogue-knight-20150128-1306yv.html


----------



## sydboy007

August 2012

TA said "For months BHP have been warning that the carbon tax and the mining tax are making Australia a less competitive place to invest. And Marius Kloppers himself said back in June that the carbon tax and so on are all conspiring to turn Australia from a low cost to a high cost environment."

What Kloppers actually said

"The decision is almost wholly associated with in the first instance capital costs." He goes on to say "As you know, the tax environment for this particular project has not changed at all since we started working on it six or seven years ago. The MRRT only covers coal and iron ore, not copper, not gold and not uranium, so the tax situation for this project has not changed."

So the carbon and mining taxes have been revoked in 2014.

Today BHP announces 300 job losses

I wonder what Tony and the coalition will blame that on????  Maybe the lack of a GP tax or stalling of the deregulation of uni fees??

Seems many of the mistruths the then opposition leader was providing the public are slowly coming into the light for what they really were.


----------



## IFocus

This thread sort of reminds me of the old western towns that received news the Indians  are coming..........gone very quite.

Mean while back at the ranch some of the hired help have gone rogue.

One thing about the right wing media when they smell a dollar can be made kicking their own they can get really feral.

Bolt has taken to his "friend"  with a machete "The Liberal Daily" jurno's who are also close "friends" with Abbott are forming a line to take turns with the base ball bat.

Then Murdoch weighs in declaring........well you all know Abbotts gone.

If thats not enough you know Abbotts stuff because he is sincerely tells all and sundry he is a good captain thats why his front bench of dopes preform so well.....are they  friends as well?  

And if thats not enough Shorten is telling everyone to lay off Peta some thing not right there..............Shortens a friend as well.  

Mean while Gina's bag lady waits in the wings........


----------



## sydboy007

between the PPL albatross and talk of cutting the minimum wage and reducing weekend and unsociable hours penalties, one has to wonder why the Govt is trying to force through their poorly thought out data retention policy.  How many more mistruths are they going to try to get away with???

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/29/telstra_we_dont_store_everything_the_government_wants_now/



> In today's hearing into the government's metadata retention scheme, dominant telco Telstra said it does not retain any IP address assignments on its mobile network, and that it doesn't see any value in retaining missed call data.
> 
> Straightforward and unsurprising statements, except that Brandis – with the public support of the Australian Federal Police and ASIO – has repeatedly and unequivocally said the data retention scheme imposes no new demands on telecommunications carriers.
> 
> On the political side, both Brandis and prime minister Tony Abbott are adamant that they merely want carriers to retain what they already keep for business purposes.
> 
> Brandis separately told the Senate that “will not give the national security agencies any more powers than they currently have, nor will it require the telecommunication providers to do anything more than they currently do.”
> 
> That's been backed up by various agency personnel, both in pleading their case to the public and in evidence to the Joint Parliamentary Committee for Intelligence and Security.
> 
> Telstra putting its statements on the record in a parliamentary inquiry merely reconfirms several warnings that the government has seemingly chosen to ignore.


----------



## drsmith

Someone it seems has been listening to Scott Morrison,

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...tal-leave-scheme/story-fn3dxiwe-1227203069210

Hopefully the scaling back goes all the way to scrapping that ridiculous levy on big business to pay for it.


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> Someone it seems has been listening to Scott Morrison,
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...tal-leave-scheme/story-fn3dxiwe-1227203069210
> 
> Hopefully the scaling back goes all the way to scrapping that ridiculous levy on big business to pay for it.




Another broken election promise then? Keep 'em coming Tony.


----------



## Tisme

banco said:


> Another broken election promise then? Keep 'em coming Tony.




Fair go. Tony has presided over many ambitious achievements in this term:

e.g.

"stop the boats"  well no really, but so long as they don't arrive on our shores;
"scrap the carbon tax" tick
"get the budget back under control" yep it's under Labor's control still
"build the roads of the 21st century" pass

and of course the various commissions and audits of all thing Labor and Unions


----------



## drsmith

Yes, Labor through the Senate still yields considerable influence over the budget but not the boats despite it's best offorts.

Note the difference.



banco said:


> Another broken election promise then? Keep 'em coming Tony.



That's one where's there's near universal agreement that it never should have been made in the first place.


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> That's one where's there's near universal agreement that it never should have been made in the first place.





It sums up Abbott for raising and not letting go and the current Liberals for taking so long to dump.

I would still expect Abbott to survive for a while even the full term.


Interesting now where do the Coalition go from here more of the same crap blaming Labor but spending more?


----------



## IFocus

When you see this you know Abbotts in real trouble

Mal Brough reportedly urged to challenge for leadership

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-01/lnp-rout-leaves-abbott-terminally-wounded/6060126


----------



## SirRumpole

IFocus said:


> When you see this you know Abbotts in real trouble
> 
> Mal Brough reportedly urged to challenge for leadership
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-01/lnp-rout-leaves-abbott-terminally-wounded/6060126




Mal who ?


----------



## drsmith

> Mal Brough reportedly urged to challenge for leadership



It'd be a bad move for the Libs to change the PM that way.

It'd be too close to being like Labor.


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> Yes, Labor through the Senate still yields considerable influence over the budget but not the boats despite it's best offorts.
> 
> Note the difference.
> 
> 
> That's one where's there's near universal agreement that it never should have been made in the first place.




Keep clinging to the boats. It's about all the coalition supporters have left.

So now Tony's promises should have another asterix? "Where there's near universal agreement I shouldn't have made the promise I will drop it"


----------



## drsmith

banco said:


> "Where there's near universal agreement I shouldn't have made the promise I will drop it"



His mistake was to make it in the first place and as a consequence there's a political price in dripping it. That doesn't mean the Libs shouldn't drop it. At this stage we don't know whether it's dropped or just refocused to include childcare.

As for the boats, Labor's boat on that sank long ago leaving the critics of the current government in that policy area floundering in the water ever since.


----------



## Bintang

drsmith said:


> It'd be a bad move for the Libs to change the PM that way.
> 
> It'd be too close to being like Labor.




The best way would be for Abbott to fess up that he's useless and resign for the good of the party. Hell if he could do that it might even make him worthy of a knighthood.
The alternative will be spear throwing.


----------



## banco

Anyone seen Joe Hockey lately? Peta Credlin must have told him to make himself invisible.


----------



## SirRumpole

banco said:


> Anyone seen Joe Hockey lately? Peta Credlin must have told him to make himself invisible.




Saw him on TV this morning in a hard hat and fluoro jacket.

Preparing for battle and trying to attract attention perhaps ?


----------



## Logique

Do you reckon the ABC and Fairfax press will be all over the Press Club address today!

In defense of the PM, his personality is more suited to a company CEO, with a small close circle around him. The uber glad handing of colleagues required in party politics just doesn't come naturally to him. 

In this sense the Three Indeps (Mr 17 Minutes et al) were correct in respect of Julia Gillard, who by contrast thrived on it.  Not saying they made the right call, but they evaluated the respective personalities.

Summary: 
The PM consults and takes advice from too few. If he can change, he can survive. And his Head of PM Dept has to go. And stop sitting in on Cabinet meetings. 

On another subject, all the best to the Seattle Seahawks in the Super Bowl today.


----------



## sydboy007

captures the mood of the cabinet better than any words could


----------



## drsmith

Logique said:


> Do you reckon the ABC and Fairfax press will be all over the Press Club address today!



He's brought himself some time at least with today's performance.


----------



## overhang

Abbott has got to go.  Watching the his Press Club address and he is still acting like an opposition leader, still playing the Labor blame game even though we're approaching the half way mark of his term.  He created this obstructive opposition strategy so he only has himself to blame.  Almost chocked on my lunch when he claimed that he is all about fairness which is something this coalition government certainly doesn't stand for.


----------



## SirRumpole

overhang said:


> Abbott has got to go.  Watching the his Press Club address and he is still acting like an opposition leader, still playing the Labor blame game even though we're approaching the half way mark of his term.  He created this obstructive opposition strategy so he only has himself to blame.  Almost chocked on my lunch when he claimed that he is all about fairness which is something this coalition government certainly doesn't stand for.




He had me going there for a while but I soon realised it was the same old platitudes coming out again. Stop the boats, build the roads (that people don't want judging by the Victorian and WQld votes), fix Labor's budget deficit (that the Coalition doubled). Break promises and call it being honest ha ha ha what a joke.

And give the police and security agencies "all the power they need" without any specification of what that means. It usually means all the power the agencies want which is everything they ask for.  Inconveniencing the majority to catch (perhaps) a very few people.

Be very worried where this sort of paranoia is heading.


----------



## So_Cynical

overhang said:


> Abbott has got to go.  Watching the his Press Club address and he is still acting like an opposition leader, still playing the Labor blame game even though we're approaching the half way mark of his term.  He created this obstructive opposition strategy so he only has himself to blame.




Turnbull is a clean skin in all this, had little to do with all the negativity in opposition (Noalition) and now has had little to do with the back flipping and broken promises in Government..they would be insane not to go for Malcolm of the middle.


----------



## moXJO

So_Cynical said:


> Turnbull is a clean skin in all this, had little to do with all the negativity in opposition (Noalition) and now has had little to do with the back flipping and broken promises in Government..they would be insane not to go for Malcolm of the middle.




I agree.
There is no coming back for about Abbott. NSW elections are coming up so he wants to fall on his sword soon. Hope he doesn't pull a Howard and overstay his welcome. He was a good opposition leader but never made the transition to pm.


----------



## So_Cynical

moXJO said:


> I agree.
> There is no coming back for about Abbott. NSW elections are coming up so he wants to fall on his sword soon. Hope he doesn't pull a Howard and overstay his welcome. He was a good opposition leader but never made the transition to pm.




Agree 100% with those sentiments.


----------



## Tisme

Apparently it's the Victorian Labor Govt's fault because the previous Govt left them with a $1bn+ poison chalice liability for a pork barrel road network.

Damn those Labor people for the madness even though they were voted in by the public, the same public that voted him into the leadership role he says is the people's choice of "hire and fire".

Of course Tony has had a "ruff cupola munts"


----------



## orr

I was Prime Minister of Austrailia for eighteen months and all I got was this lousy designer Tee-Shirt from the House of '_Mademoiselles DNA_'


----------



## Bintang

Tisme said:


> …….  the same public that voted him into the leadership role he says is the people's choice of "hire and fire".




Funny that.
I distinctly remember voting to get rid of Labor but I don't remember voting TA into the leadership role.
There was nothing on the ballot paper about that. I think.
Oh ….maybe I'm just getting old.


----------



## Tisme

Bintang said:


> Funny that.
> I distinctly remember voting to get rid of Labor but I don't remember voting TA into the leadership role.
> There was nothing on the ballot paper about that. I think.
> Oh ….maybe I'm just getting old.




Yeah as hard as I looked on the ballot paper last week I couldn't see the LNP policies, Campbell Newman;s name and to add insult to injury it didn't have a mandate section either ....why do I keep getting the blanks damnit? Same could be said for the other parties.


----------



## sydboy007

Abbott not content with flooding the workforce with 457 visa holders, while long term unemployment is at it's highest recorded level, youth unemployment still going up and trend unemployment going in the wrong direction, now thinks it's a good idea to bring out the short term mobility visa, sans any English language requirement (makes it easier to underpay workers) or a requirement to show there's no suitable Australian willing and able to do the work.

There's already 1.1M temporary visa holders in Australia.  Surely we don't need any more, though I suppose Gina would disagree.

The Department of Employment’s latest Skill Shortages Statistical Summary, released last week, revealed that “the availability of skilled workers is greater than it has been since the current series began in 2007, and fewer occupations are in shortage."  Only 4% of employers did not receive an applicant for a position advertised.  

I doubt making people less secure about their employment is going to help the economy, and hollowing out the middle class even more does more harm than good.  Maybe having a secure job was the kind of entitlement Hockey was looking to remove?

Then we have a disgrace like this - https://newmatilda.com/2015/01/30/n...orces-govt-investigate-4-hour-foreign-workers



> According to the CFMEU, the foreign employees have been working for 10 or 11 hours a day, up to 7 days a week and taking home between $40 and $100 per day, with virtually no workplace entitlements.






> “The Coalition Government’s increased focus on compliance within our skilled migration program is producing excellent results.
> 
> *“As detailed in the 2013-14 Annual Report, the number of sponsors monitored in 2013-14 increased by almost 20 per cent compared to the previous year. Furthermore, the number of sponsors sanctioned in 2013-14 increased by 68 per cent compared to the previous year."*
> 
> “This is a clear indication of this Government’s strong commitment to maintain integrity in Australia’s migration program.”




Sorry to say, but if the Abbott Govt thinks a 67% increase in non compliance from just a 20% increase in surveillance will improve confidence in the way things are currently running with the 457 visa programme, it shows just how out of touch they are with the voters.


----------



## drsmith

This government now appears to be descending into Labor's disease,



> MPs today continued to leak against the Prime Minister despite a staunch defence of his leadership to the National Press Club in Canberra on Monday.
> 
> “Cabinet ministers have been ringing me and telling me things are just untenable,” one MP said.
> 
> “Julie Bishop and Tony Abbott now have a Gillard-Rudd like relationship. It can’t go on like this,” another said.
> 
> But Ms Bishop has remained firm that she would not challenge the Prime Minister, telling Sky News that she was not counting her numbers.
> 
> “I’m not ringing the backbench for support, I’m not counting numbers,” she said.
> 
> “I will not challenge the leader.”




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...orts-tony-abbott/story-fn3dxity-1227206900863


----------



## SirRumpole

Julie Bishop said:
			
		

> I will not challenge the leader




No, she will let other people insert the knife while she stands over the body.


----------



## pixel

SirRumpole said:


> No, she will let other people insert the knife while she stands over the body.




If she's smart, she'll let others do the deed, then call her to the rescue.
If she's smarter, she'll let others do the deed, select another leader, and she remains Foreign Minister.

But Tony must go. No matter how.


----------



## Logique

Open revolt amongst backbenchers this morning, Jensen, Entsch and others:  http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...on-tony-abbott-to-resign-20150203-1358jm.html

If Bishop and Turnbull are able to form a working duumvirate, that will be that.  But imagine being in a duumvirate with Malcolm.  

With the benefit of hindsight, the Libs might eventually wish they hadn't gone there. There is a reliable circuit breaker for the PM, and he and his Head of Dept know what that is. 

Nick Minchin to the front office please.


----------



## SirRumpole

Logique said:


> There is a reliable circuit breaker for the PM, and he and his Head of Dept know what that is.




The Murdoch solution ?


----------



## Tisme

What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men.


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men.




Does TA wear Bonds ?


----------



## sydboy007

More ludicrousness surrounding the Govt's metadata rention policy

http://www.afr.com/p/technology/telcos_warn_against_letting_gmail_KWm7KjfLuZQVr0NhiIqYVI



> But Attorney-General’s department assistant secretary Anna Harmer on Monday said that providers of “over-the-top” services that use the internet such as WhatsApp, Gmail and Skype would not be covered by the new regime.
> 
> “Are you seeking to be able to capture over a period of two years basic metadata on those services?” Greens Senator Scott Ludlam asked Ms Harmer.
> 
> “In the case of a number of the examples you provided. . . those would not fall within the obligation,” she replied.
> 
> She added that this was because the web services were not Australian-based telcos and did not count as carriers as defined by the Telecommunications Act 1997.




So basically if you wish to avoid this ill thought policy to do something nefarious all you need to do is:

* Use whatsapp / line / viber for texting
* Don't use your ISPs email system
* Use a VOIP app like viber or line.

Throw in the use of a free VPN - plenty around provide access with say 500MB of data each month, or $40-50 will provide a years worth of unlimited encrypted data - to really hide all you traffic.

Now the Govt wont release the costings estimate from PwC, which makes me think it's not going to be cheap.  Taxpayers are already on the hook for some of the costs (setup costs likely in the hundreds of millions), with internet bills likely to rise to cover the remaining setup costs and running costs (well north of $100M a year).

So after a few years and half a billion dollars what does the Govt actually expect this policy will achieve when it it's so easily avoided?  Even a half witted terrorist would be adept at circumventing it.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> Does TA wear Bonds ?





Why yes I think he does!!!   You think he has a coat of many colours too?


----------



## Tisme

sydboy007 said:


> More ludicrousness surrounding the Govt's metadata rention policy
> 
> http://www.afr.com/p/technology/telcos_warn_against_letting_gmail_KWm7KjfLuZQVr0NhiIqYVI
> 
> 
> 
> So basically if you wish to avoid this ill thought policy to do something nefarious all you need to do is:
> 
> * Use whatsapp / line / viber for texting
> * Don't use your ISPs email system
> * Use a VOIP app like viber or line.
> 
> 
> 
> .




be interesting to see how they cater for load balancing mirrors and sub domains that will spring up like a rash.


----------



## drsmith

Christopher Pyne as reported in Fairfax,



> Deputy Liberal leader Julie Bishop felt "insulted" and "offended" at having to prove her loyalty to Prime Minister Tony Abbott, a cabinet colleague has revealed.
> 
> Ms Bishop was forced to pledge she would not challenge Mr Abbott for the top job during a cabinet meeting on Tuesday. A damaging leak earlier in the day suggested she refused to provide the Prime Minister with the same promise when asked in person on Sunday night.
> 
> The leak came 24 hours after Fairfax Media revealed Ms Bishop and Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull were weighing up their leadership options for the first time.
> 
> But Education Minister Christopher Pyne said Ms Bishop felt her loyalty should be "unquestioned" because she has always been loyal to Mr Abbott.
> 
> "Well Julie has been the deputy since 2007 and I think she was insulted a little, offended a bit about the idea that she wasn't totally loyal to Tony Abbott," Mr Pyne told Nine's Today show.




http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...o-tony-abbott-questioned-20150203-135gbu.html

Jeff Kennett,



> But senior Victorian figure Mr Kennett said Mr Abbott's pain was largely "self-inflicted" and that he has lost support of the public, including traditional Liberal supporters.
> 
> "Sadly the realisation has dawned on most politicians that where the leadership of the party is now terminal," he told AM.
> 
> "It needs to be resolved as quickly as possible so that the party can move on."




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-04/abbott-tells-mps-to-stop-navel-gazing/6068584


----------



## Julia

> Deputy Liberal leader Julie Bishop felt "insulted" and "offended" at having to prove her loyalty to Prime Minister Tony Abbott, a cabinet colleague has revealed.




That she was so asked just demonstrates once again how Mr Abbott just does not understand how people work.
That demand to Ms Bishop will have ultimately alienated her.

I'd like to see her as leader with Mr Turnbull as Deputy, possibly also Treasurer, though to move Joe Hockey aside is effectively admitting to the nation the party has stuffed up re Budget etc.

I do not want to see Australia with an ETS or a return to the carbon tax, either of which would be a possibility if Mr Turnbull were to be in charge.


----------



## moXJO

Julia said:


> .
> 
> I'd like to see her as leader with Mr Turnbull as Deputy, possibly also Treasurer, though to move Joe Hockey aside is effectively admitting to the nation the party has stuffed up re Budget etc.
> .




I don't think she would be the right choice in the current climate and would be viewed as more of the same.


----------



## SirRumpole

> though to move Joe Hockey aside is effectively admitting to the nation the party has stuffed up re Budget etc.




I think that cat is already out of the bag.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> I think that cat is already out of the bag.




he didn't even manage a dead cat bounce in economic growth.

I see the economy has now surpassed stagnation and is now heading into visible negative growth ....fantastic performance by a bunch of people who thought they knew it all when in opposition and blocked, rather than negotiated the generational opportunity of a lifetime to nation build (now the belligerent Shorten crowd have nothing but contempt for the Abbott tribe).


----------



## Tisme

Julia said:


> That she was so asked just demonstrates once again how Mr Abbott just does not understand how people work.
> That demand to Ms Bishop will have ultimately alienated her.
> 
> I'd like to see her as leader with Mr Turnbull as Deputy, possibly also Treasurer, though to move Joe Hockey aside is effectively admitting to the nation the party has stuffed up re Budget etc.
> 
> I do not want to see Australia with an ETS or a return to the carbon tax, either of which would be a possibility if Mr Turnbull were to be in charge.




Huge depth of talent in the party, not. What an indictment of a govt that only has two contenders, one who hasn't left her classroom M'aam attitude behind and the other who  lost interest in any zeal years ago.

Malcolm would be a reluctant tourist and any in the Labor ranks would eat Julie alive. How about Bronwyn Bishop? She has a thick hide, is a Howard Liberal Party clone ....couldn't do any worse than the current zero.


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> Huge depth of talent in the party, not. What an indictment of a govt that only has two contenders, one who hasn't left her classroom M'aam attitude behind and the other who  lost interest in any zeal years ago.
> 
> Malcolm would be a reluctant tourist and any in the Labor ranks would eat Julie alive. How about Bronwyn Bishop? She has a thick hide, is a Howard Liberal Party clone ....couldn't do any worse than the current zero.




You can just see Bronny banning restive MP's from the party room under 94A.


----------



## drsmith

Julia said:


> That she was so asked just demonstrates once again how Mr Abbott just does not understand how people work.
> That demand to Ms Bishop will have ultimately alienated her.
> 
> I'd like to see her as leader with Mr Turnbull as Deputy, possibly also Treasurer, though to move Joe Hockey aside is effectively admitting to the nation the party has stuffed up re Budget etc.
> 
> I do not want to see Australia with an ETS or a return to the carbon tax, either of which would be a possibility if Mr Turnbull were to be in charge.



I can't see Malcolm being deputy of anything.

Joe has been a poor performer in the treasury portfolio. If TA goes, Joe has to go as well.  

I don't think that ultimately a carbon tax would win the Coalition votes. Left supporters who champion Malcolm Turnbull for PM still won't vote Liberal come election time and he'll ultimately alienate a large proportion of his own supporter base as well as a significant part of the Liberal party.

If there's to be a change, it's JB for PM with MT for treasurer for me. A strong domestic portfolio would suit MT much more than deputy leader and his economic expertise will be a natural balance for what JB lacks in this area. I'd also like to see how well MT performs as treasurer before he's considered for the top job. He needs to do more in terms of being a team player before he can lead again in my view. It's a waste he wasn't treasurer under TA. 

Scott Morrison would be best left in Social Security under the above where he can gain experience in that important domestic portfolio.


----------



## SirRumpole

Another distortion from our hapless treasurer.


Fact check: Joe Hockey's claim that people work half the year to pay income tax incorrect

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-04/hockey-tax/6066142


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> Another distortion from our hapless treasurer.
> 
> 
> Fact check: Joe Hockey's claim that people work half the year to pay income tax incorrect
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-04/hockey-tax/6066142




Cripes if 2.3% earn over 180k, what percentile am I in !!!! I'd starve on 180k net.


----------



## Julia

drsmith said:


> I can't see Malcolm being deputy of anything.



Well, he wouldn't have once seen himself as anything other than leader, but has seemed to function without any obvious bitterness in the Communication p/f.



> I don't think that ultimately a carbon tax would win the Coalition votes. Left supporters who champion Malcolm Turnbull for PM still won't vote Liberal come election time and he'll ultimately alienate a large proportion of his own supporter base as well as a significant part of the Liberal party.



Valid point, but the zeal of some of the supporters of anthropogenic climate change knows no boundaries.



> If there's to be a change, it's JB for PM with MT for treasurer for me. A strong domestic portfolio would suit MT much more than deputy leader and his economic expertise will be a natural balance for what JB lacks in this area. I'd also like to see how well MT performs as treasurer before he's considered for the top job. He needs to do more in terms of being a team player before he can lead again in my view. It's a waste he wasn't treasurer under TA.



+1.  Any suggestions from the Labor camp that Ms Bishop does not have the steel to acquit herself well in a leadership position is, imo, significantly underestimating her.


----------



## explod

Julia said:


> +1.  Any suggestions from the Labor camp that Ms Bishop does not have the steel to acquit herself well in a leadership position is, imo, significantly underestimating her.




Absolutely. 

Cannot remember the topic or forum but some  months ago noted her intelligence,  understanding and delivery on issue's to be well above anything I have seen from Liberals for a very long time.


----------



## Logique

SirRumpole said:


> The Murdoch solution ?



Not just Murdoch. Ministers can't even hire their own staff! They identify the best and most capable candidates, only to be told by the 'Star Chamber', no we don't like them.



> Peta Credlin overrules Health Minister Sussan Ley's pick for chief of staff - SMH, February 4, 2015
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-pick-for-chief-of-staff-20150204-135ttt.html
> 
> ...Several MPs, all of whom asked not to be named, said next week's first party room meeting for 2015 loomed as a crunch point with demands Ms Credlin be removed before then.
> 
> One warned Mr Abbott could face a party room uprising on the issue and that the chief of staff's position was untenable, as was that of her husband, Mr Loughnane...


----------



## basilio

The drums are beating... The natives are restless and becoming particularly antsy..

Has anyway seen any odds of Tony Abbott surviving or how long it will take to bury him politically? I think he is dead and rotting, politically speaking, and the sooner he is given a quick burial the better the chance the Liberal Party has of making  a fresh start.

The political obituaries are already being written.  The best one, naturally, is by "The first Dog on the moon". Couple of exquisite lines ?

_



			What will be carved on Tonys tombstone?

Achieved very little while cheapening our already dreadful political discourse below the level of human comprehension.

An intergenerational thief who did everything he could to make climate change worse, solely for political gain

Crafted the death,, torture and refoulment of asylum seekers into a catchphrase.

Lied and lied and lied until we just couldn't keep up any more.
		
Click to expand...


_
*  Tony Abbott was liberated to pursue other opportunities today.*

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...nd-extremely-satisfying-demise-of-tony-abbott


Check the odds and get on quick.

http://www.sportsbet.com.au/betting/politics/australian-federal-politics?LeftNav


----------



## drsmith

Hmmm,



> Malcolm Turnbull arrives at Parliament House on Wednesday. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen




That looks very early in the morning.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...s-judgment-into-question-20150204-1367qx.html


----------



## ghotib

drsmith said:


> ...I don't think that ultimately a carbon tax would win the Coalition votes. Left supporters who champion Malcolm Turnbull for PM still won't vote Liberal come election time and he'll ultimately alienate a large proportion of his own supporter base as well as a significant part of the Liberal party...



Well here's one vote that could be won by strong and believable Coalition policy for reducing carbon emissions. I know many people who don't see climate action as a Left/Right issue and will vote on the policies rather than the parties, or the personalities. Some of them are normally Liberal voters desperate to get their party back from the weird alien beings who've stolen it. 

And what are the Nationals doing in all this? They have no visible influence on the Liberal shenanigans, but if Abbott falls badly enough the Nationals lose too.

Personally, I'd appoint Tony Windsor as Dictator in Perpetuity, but that would be rough on his wife.


----------



## drsmith

ghotib said:


> Well here's one vote that could be won by strong and believable Coalition policy for reducing carbon emissions. I know many people who don't see climate action as a Left/Right issue and will vote on the policies rather than the parties, or the personalities.



What's left though if the policies aren't any different ?


----------



## ghotib

drsmith said:


> What's left though if the policies aren't any different ?



Policies on other matters. Priorities. Local candidates. Election day fumbles. Probably other things but it's late.


----------



## Bintang

drsmith said:


> What's left though if the policies aren't any different ?






ghotib said:


> Policies on other matters. Priorities. Local candidates. Election day fumbles. Probably other things but it's late.




If the Libs emulate Labor by assassinating their own leader while in office they may as well go the whole hog and just implement Labor’s own policies in respect of everything they cannot currently get through the Senate. At least they will be seen to be doing something rather than nothing. Then at the next election Bill Shorten will not be able to claim that Labor offers an alternative and the Coalition will be able to ask the electorate – Do you want more of the same?


----------



## Tisme

Interesting odds out there:


Malcolm Turnbull 2.00   

Julie Bishop 3.00   

Mal Brough 4.50   

Scott Morrison 10.00   

Joe Hockey 16.00   

Chris Pyne 17.00   

Greg Hunt 19.00   

Peter Dutton 21.00   

Andrew Robb 26.00   

Tony Smith 34.00   

Peter Costello 51.00   

Bronwyn Bishop 101.00   

Sophie Mirabella 251.00


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> Interesting odds out there:
> 
> 
> Malcolm Turnbull 2.00
> 
> Julie Bishop 3.00
> 
> Mal Brough 4.50
> 
> Scott Morrison 10.00
> 
> Joe Hockey 16.00
> 
> Chris Pyne 17.00
> 
> Greg Hunt 19.00
> 
> Peter Dutton 21.00
> 
> Andrew Robb 26.00
> 
> Tony Smith 34.00
> 
> Peter Costello 51.00
> 
> Bronwyn Bishop 101.00
> 
> Sophie Mirabella 251.00





Julia Gillard 1.00

Kevin Rudd 1.20


----------



## Tisme

ghotib said:


> . Some of them are normally Liberal voters desperate to get their party back from the weird alien beings who've stolen it.
> 
> .




I think you will find that there are a lot of "Liberal" voters who haven't got a clue what the Liberal Party was about back in the day. That is not to say it was better or worse, just that it isn't the true "Liberal Party" anymore.... there are many unforgiving Labor people out there who remember the way the working class was treated back in the day.

Conveniently the new Liberals trashed the last remnant of the true Liberals, Malcolm Fraser's brand to make way for the imposter organisation that prevails today, with its impotent Captain and crew.

I found this article rather in tune with my observations and rants over the past years:

http://theconversation.com/menzies-a-failure-by-todays-rules-ran-a-budget-to-build-the-nation-30823


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> I think you will find that there are a lot of "Liberal" voters who haven't got a clue what the Liberal Party was about back in the day. That is not to say it was better or worse, just that it isn't the true "Liberal Party" anymore.... there are many unforgiving Labor people out there who remember the way the working class was treated back in the day.
> 
> Conveniently the new Liberals trashed the last remnant of the true Liberals, Malcolm Fraser's brand to make way for the imposter organisation that prevails today, with its impotent Captain and crew.
> 
> I found this article rather in tune with my observations and rants over the past years:
> 
> http://theconversation.com/menzies-a-failure-by-todays-rules-ran-a-budget-to-build-the-nation-30823




John Howard learned well from his hero, being one of the most profligate PM's in history.

It's a real laugh listening to the Right about how wasteful Labor was. All the data shows that Howard wasted the mining boom and did not invest in productive infrastructure when he could, instead introducing wasteful welfare like family tax benefits and baby bonuses.

Labor should make more of this inconvenient truth (inconvenient for the Liberal party that is).


----------



## sydboy007

the below nicely sums up why Howard looked so good and why Rud Gillard Rudd Abbot ??? are going to look so bad.

Deficits till the AAA rating is taken from us, and probably still more after that







At least it will show that the Liberals have no more idea on how to sort out the mess of the wasted resource boom years than Labor.

I'll take hope when our world beating tax expenditures are up for discussion and the billions wasted pimping property and super and cut back on.


----------



## drsmith

Bintang said:


> If the Libs emulate Labor by assassinating their own leader while in office they may as well go the whole hog and just implement Labor’s own policies in respect of everything they cannot currently get through the Senate. At least they will be seen to be doing something rather than nothing. Then at the next election Bill Shorten will not be able to claim that Labor offers an alternative and the Coalition will be able to ask the electorate – Do you want more of the same?



A Coalition government is elected to be a coalition government and all governments are elected to lead. Complaining about more of the same is something that's done from opposition, not government.

Niki Savva on the current leadership turmoil,



> TONY Abbott’s rule is over… If it’s not formally killed off by backbenchers next week, or soon after, ... then the voters will do the job for them at the election.
> 
> No government today, given the fickleness and impatience of voters, can survive a civil war of the kind we have seen during the past few weeks unless it is brilliant and, despite a few notable exceptions, with some important achievements, the Abbott government falls well short of that.
> 
> Numbers are being counted. Malcolm Turnbull is said to be close. Supporters are refining their pitch, and to succeed Turnbull will have to make sure he lives up to it: there will be no emissions trading scheme unless the rest of the world moves; he will be more consultative; there will be no revenge ... and he will govern from the centre. The last is important because of the antipathy from the Nationals and the Right to Turnbull.
> 
> Julie Bishop is fighting to remain deputy ”” a sensible position on her part ”” and Scott Morrison will almost certainly become treasurer…




http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...legraph/comments/abbott_is_gone_or_maybe_not/

The West,

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/26199682/turnbull-in-climate-change-shift/


----------



## IFocus

Abbott is terminal just a matter of how and when.

No matter who takes over its pretty much a poison chalice with the Coalition destroying its political capital over pithy idealogical pay backs and budget measures that actually are unfair and don't address the rising debt that the Coalition have by increasing spending on their pet projects.

Throw in to that a slowing economy, rising unemployment and falling business sentiment still a good chance of a one term government as the punters thrash around looking for a government that actual governs like adults.

If Turnbul then at least there will be some intellect put into policy but whether Turnbul can manage the politics is another matter.

For the record I don't think Shorten is the answer  but Labor over all would be fairer and likely to spend far less than the current mob.
To qualify that still waiting for Hockey and Abbott to cut Labors wasteful spending......any news on that front anyone?


----------



## boofhead

Hockey has made mention of the proposed income tax cuts are unlikely because of falling revenue.

Wasn't the same mentioned before the election of the Abbott government? If the coalition were more honest about things before and more rational about expenditure cuts without their own increases in expenses they would be taken far more seriouosly.


----------



## sydboy007

IFocus said:


> No matter who takes over its pretty much a poison chalice with the Coalition destroying its political capital over pithy idealogical pay backs and budget measures that actually are unfair and don't address the rising debt that the Coalition have by increasing spending on their pet projects.




I'm hopeful the VIC Labor Govt will release to the public all correspondence between the previous Liberal Govt and the Federal Liberals over the road pork and whether they were encouraged to ram through signing of the contracts before the state election.  $1.1B in possible payouts to stop billions more in waste.  Now that's economic vandalism from the party encouraging Australians to use foreign sourced over the top internet services.

Considering the economic return was forceast to be 45c in the $ one has to wonder what the rush was.

Possibly if Labor win in QLD they could also release all the correspondence over the Adani carmichael coal mine and associate infrastructure pork promised by Comrade Campbell.

If you can somehow justify funding non economic infrastructure then how do you win the argument over burdening students with even more debt when local students already pay above the OECD average?


----------



## Bintang

So it's one week at a time for TA.
He doesn't mention the following week.


----------



## Logique

drsmith said:


> ...Niki Savva on the current leadership turmoil,
> http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...legraph/comments/abbott_is_gone_or_maybe_not/
> The West,
> https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/26199682/turnbull-in-climate-change-shift/



Savva wouldn't be far wrong Doc.

Here's the thing for Malcolm Turnbull, he has an inner city 'latte' sort of electorate. If he doesn't do something, he is at grave risk of being swept away with the party at the next election, which in the wake of the Greece/Vic/QLD elections, looks to be odds on now in Australia.

That Tasmanian Indep (now) Senator was right about one thing on Q&A the other night, a government can't bottle it on fair taxation of the big end of town, then turn around and nail poor folks with an extra $7 to see the doctor. Aussies won't wear that.


----------



## Logique

I'll go further than that, Niki Savva has absolutely nailed it.

Link supplied under, but sorry it's behind a paywall.



> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sub...tory-fnahw9xv-1227208245189&memtype=anonymous
> 
> ...No serious leader publicly calls his MPs sexist because they dared criticise his chief of staff whom they reckoned was trying to bully, intimidate or ostracise them and their staff;
> no serious leader repeatedly ignores their existence while indulging in policy frolics that he then has to reverse;
> no serious leader humiliates them by awarding a knighthood to a prince;
> no serious leader outsources his job or cedes his power to an unelected staff member, then spits in the eye of those who try to tell him it is wrong and will be his undoing;
> no serious leader would tolerate senior staff briefing against colleagues, as happened with Arthur Sinodinos and others...


----------



## drsmith

Logique said:


> Savva wouldn't be far wrong Doc.
> 
> Here's the thing for Malcolm Turnbull, he has an inner city 'latte' sort of electorate. If he doesn't do something, he is at grave risk of being swept away with the party at the next election, which in the wake of the Greece/Vic/QLD elections, looks to be odds on now in Australia.
> 
> That Tasmanian Indep (now) Senator was right about one thing on Q&A the other night, a government can't bottle it on fair taxation of the big end of town, then turn around and nail poor folks with an extra $7 to see the doctor. Aussies won't wear that.



I think the plan was to get the co-payment through between elections and put broader tax reform to the next election. No marks for trust there but that's been our political landscape for a long time.

The co-payment could have been much better handled. Firstly, for pensioners IIRC it was only to apply to the first 10 visits. A solution there would have been to increase the annual pension by $70. That creates a price signal and avoids disadvantage. Reducing the rebate for short visits out of the blue as plan B was itself a political shocker. That apparently was a recommendation of the ERC.   

I note the Nationals leader Warren Truss has weighed in to the Liberal leadership debate. At face value he's supporting TA but underneath it might be more of a case of warning any new Liberal leader about their expectations as part of the Coalition. If Malcolm does become PM, he'll quickly discover any lefty love affair with him is more about the downfall of a Coalition PM than it is about himself.


----------



## explod

We are at a huge crossroads at the political level of Governments in Australia. 

Due to very pressing personal problems of holding families together,  maintaining mortgage payments etc.,  the hurt is transforming people to radical thinking. 

In South Australia last year we saw a senior Liberal switch allegiance and swap his position to sit on the ALP benches. 

If the Rabbit demise is not soon resolved with his carcass to hang on the fence then back benchers fromthe Libs could well cross the floor,  and not onlychange Government to the ALP but go to the Governor General saying stalemate we have to have an election. 

This thought occurred to me whilst watching Bill Shorten address the media this morning.   Have not given much hede to him due to discussions I have had over the years with persons in Unions over which he has  presided.  Tends to be a bit much  to the right in my view,  not that I am a leftie.  (consider myself a moderate which tries to be inclusive of all) 

So in all a total washout spill could be the go.   Oh and,  shorten offers real substance and alternatives in a way I have not  seen for along time. Take note when next you see him speaking. 

Just me little


----------



## pixel

IFocus said:


> Abbott is terminal just a matter of how and when.
> 
> No matter who takes over its pretty much a poison chalice with the Coalition destroying its political capital over pithy idealogical pay backs and budget measures that actually are unfair and don't address the rising debt that the Coalition have by increasing spending on their pet projects.
> 
> Throw in to that a slowing economy, rising unemployment and falling business sentiment still a good chance of a one term government as the punters thrash around looking for a government that actual governs like adults.
> 
> If Turnbul then at least there will be some intellect put into policy but whether Turnbul can manage the politics is another matter.
> 
> For the record I don't think Shorten is the answer  but Labor over all would be fairer and likely to spend far less than the current mob.
> To qualify that still waiting for Hockey and Abbott to cut Labors wasteful spending......any news on that front anyone?




+1 re Turnbull being able to put some intellect into the leadership.

The problem is, there is too little intellect to be found among the rest of them, and too much stubborn and one-eyed ideology. The leader can be as intelligent and broad-minded as you like; his cabinet colleagues persist with flawed concepts, neglect basic science, and smash globally accepted remedies just because Labor suggested them first. 

The term "Noalition" sums it up quite succinctly: Abbott & Co got elected because they said No to anything and everything that Labor suggested; their only goal was to block Labor and get back into government themselves. They had no other plan of their own, which became clear in the lead-up to the 2013 elections. To the last day, all people heard was vague motherhood statements, a number of broad promises - "no cuts to Medicare/ Pensions/ Education funding/ ABC funding ..." - and scare mongering. Apart from the dyed-in-the-wool Lib-Nat voters, it only took a small group of disgruntled (or gullible) swingers to tip the balance 90:55 in the Coalition's favour. 

*But quantity does not guarantee quality. As long as he relies on blockheads, any leader will be destined to fail.*


----------



## SirRumpole

pixel said:


> *But quantity does not guarantee quality. As long as he relies on blockheads, any leader will be destined to fail.*




Same goes for relying on broken promises and half baked policies like the co contribution.


----------



## moXJO

explod said:


> Oh and,  shorten offers real substance and alternatives in a way I have not  seen for along time. Take note when next you see him speaking.
> 
> Just me little




Yeah I don't think so. Shorten is terrible but has managed to keep his head down and not be noticed. He will crumble once in the spotlight with his history
I don't know what labor party you lot are looking at. They couldn't bang two brain cells together if they all stood in a circle and simultaneous headbutted each other.


----------



## pixel

SirRumpole said:


> Same goes for relying on broken promises and half baked policies like the co contribution.




of course.
... and don't forget the mothers-to-be, who were counting on the promised PPL payment.

Maybe our Federal Pollies should take a look at West-German history, specifically from December 1966 to 1969.
Google "Grand Coalition Germany 1966" or start here http://pnz.sagepub.com/content/22/1/52.extract

Between the two parties, they just *might* muster a sufficient number of reasonably intelligent and capable parliamentarians capable of setting in motion some plans that last longer than to the next election. (but I don't hold my breath... :1zhelp: )


----------



## explod

moXJO said:


> Yeah I don't think so. Shorten is terrible but has managed to keep his head down and not be noticed. He will crumble once in the spotlight with his history
> I don't know what labor party you lot are looking at. They couldn't bang two brain cells together if they all stood in a circle and simultaneous headbutted each other.




He would not be where he is if he were terrible.   I certainly pointed out my concerns with him in the post but was focused on how he seems to be developing of late. . I must admit it is not  hard to look better than the  Government front bench at the moment though. 

Instead of our tendency to skim read to collect what we desire,  re-read my post and start looking for usefull content that desceibes how the aims will be achieved . Abbott and most of his front bench have no idea of such concepts.


----------



## drsmith

explod said:


> We are at a huge crossroads at the political level of Governments in Australia.



I remember your little  worth on how Labor was going to win the 2013 election with 55% 2PP.

If only I had a dollar for every time you said it.

And what's this nonsense about Bill Shorten being too far too the right ?

For a start he won't turn back the boats because Tanya won't let him, let alone the Greens.


----------



## SirRumpole

drsmith said:


> For a start he won't turn back the boats because Tanya won't let him, let alone the Greens.




If Federal Labor have the turnaround that Qld Labor did, the Greens wont matter. As for the boats it would be very difficult for Labor to reverse a successful policy that is obviously politically popular so I think they will keep doing the same. I think (and hope) that they are not foolish enough to add any heat back into the asylum seeker debate after Morrison successfully hosed it down.


----------



## drsmith

SirRumpole said:


> If Federal Labor have the turnaround that Qld Labor did, the Greens wont matter. As for the boats it would be very difficult for Labor to reverse a successful policy that is obviously politically popular so I think they will keep doing the same. I think (and hope) that they are not foolish enough to add any heat back into the asylum seeker debate after Morrison successfully hosed it down.



They reversed the Howard Government's successful policies after the 2007 election and unwilling to learn from that failure, Bill Shorten doesn't support turnbacks. 

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...or-support-for-turnbacks-20141028-11cwt6.html

A Labor government would crawl back into bed with the Greens for a senate majority. Lets not forget the Gillard government did just that in the reps as a result of the hung parliament in 2010.


----------



## explod

drsmith said:


> I remember your little  worth on how Labor was going to win the 2013 election with 55% 2PP.
> 
> If only I had a dollar for every time you said it.
> 
> And what's this nonsense about Bill Shorten being too far too the right ?
> 
> For a start he won't turn back the boats because Tanya won't let him, let alone the Greens.




And so we should not.   We are all leople of the world and need to share.   In considerable detail I explained how we could  handle the boat people within  our own shores to our advantage.   But no one wants to take on visionary thoughts or good long term plans to help people to help themselves and in turn they then help all of us. 

And a number of posters had the LNP in the recent election in QLD., to bolt it in and they too were wrong.  And what does that have to do with our subject for discussion anyway.


----------



## drsmith

explod said:


> And so we should not.   We are all leople of the world and need to share.   In considerable detail I explained how we could  handle the boat people within  our own shores to our advantage.   But no one wants to take on visionary thoughts or good long term plans to help people to help themselves and in turn they then help all of us.



I can't remember. You're free to remind us.

It might even be a pass on someone else's prevention index.



explod said:


> And a number of posters had the LNP in the recent election in QLD., to bolt it in and they too were wrong.  And what does that have to do with our subject for discussion anyway.



The betting markets certainly did. Did you put some $$ on Labor ?

You could have made a killing.

I don't recall anyone repeatedly suggesting 55% 2PP to the LNP in the Queensland election despite the fact it was obviously going to be a closer contest than the 2013 federal election.


----------



## banco

Doc, you keep banging on about the boats but the political salience of no boats in 2016 will be negligible.  It would be like trying to run on the fear of ebola.


----------



## drsmith

banco said:


> Doc, you keep banging on about the boats but the political salience of no boats in 2016 will be negligible.  It would be like trying to run on the fear of ebola.



I think Labor and the Greens would prefer it be less successful than that.


----------



## explod

drsmith said:


> I don't recall anyone repeatedly suggesting 55% 2PP to the LNP in the Queensland election despite the fact it was obviously going to be a closer contest than the 2013 federal election.




Yes,  got a few of you stired up well. 

If you sometimes look beyond your own thoughts and emotions it will be recognized  that pebbles are sometimes tossed into the pool.   Good for ballancing one sided gloating. 

Again this has nothing to do with the conversation at hand and is in fact typical of Abbott and particularly Pine of not answering  questions asked but stating something irrelevant to it.   And of course  with no content or substance on which  people can garner any confidence in them or the Government.


----------



## Tisme

drsmith said:


> The betting markets certainly did. Did you put some $$ on Labor ?
> 
> You could have made a killing.
> 
> .




I did, but still waiting for my payout ... small wager for fun.

One of the things I'm rather interested in is the anger from the 30+ish yearolds on my facebook who didn't want Labor and the bogey of red tape, continuous change and helicoptering that Labor is apt to provide. Many of these friends have boutique businesses that need continuous attention, but compliance changes make that difficult.


----------



## drsmith

explod said:


> Yes,  got a few of you stired up well.
> 
> If you sometimes look beyond your own thoughts and emotions it will be recognized  that pebbles are sometimes tossed into the pool.   Good for ballancing one sided gloating.
> 
> *Again this has nothing to do with the conversation at hand and is in fact typical of Abbott and particularly Pine of not answering  questions asked but stating something irrelevant to it.*   And of course  with no content or substance on which  people can garner any confidence in them or the Government.



You're the one who referred to the Queensland election result in defence of your own way off federal election forecasts.

My bolds.



Tisme said:


> One of the things I'm rather interested in is the anger from the 30+ish yearolds on my facebook who didn't want Labor and the bogey of red tape, continuous change and helicoptering that Labor is apt to provide. Many of these friends have boutique businesses that need continuous attention, but compliance changes make that difficult.



I did say something about partying and hangovers in the Queensland election thread,



drsmith said:


> Did Labor expect a result where they could claim office ?
> 
> The electorate didn't. Queenslanders clearly like to party but now we wait to see the extent of the hangover.




https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=29385&page=7&p=859109&viewfull=1#post859109


----------



## pixel

Simpkin moved a spill motion.
to be discussed on Tuesday in the Party Room.

that didn't take long


----------



## explod

drsmith said:


> You're the one who referred to the Queensland election result in defence of your own way off federal election forecasts.
> 
> My bolds.
> 
> 
> I did say something about partying and hangovers in the Queensland election thread,
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=29385&page=7&p=859109&viewfull=1#post859109




I have not tried to defend my way off prediction of the Federal Election at all.   In regard to that I was very wrong. 

However my point is,  we can all be wrong and are at times.   I certainly did not expect or know(being an interstater) what result to expect. 

But because I did make a point on how dumb some of the current leaders are,  and have been I might add,  just like them you took me to task on an irrelevancy that you could detract from the issue under discussion. 

And they are trained for it.   In my past employ I was put through a media awareness course and we were trained on answering a question with what you wanted to get across and not necessarily what was sought by the question. 

But the public are fed up with this evasiveness.


----------



## SirRumpole

explod said:


> But the public are fed up with this evasiveness.




+1. As soon as I hear a politician say "I think the real question is", I turn them off or walk out of the room.


----------



## IFocus

pixel said:


> Simpkin moved a spill motion.
> to be discussed on Tuesday in the Party Room.
> 
> that didn't take long




I see Abbott is hiding behind Bishop


----------



## pixel

SirRumpole said:


> +1. As soon as I hear a politician say "I think the real question is", I turn them off or walk out of the room.




And when a politician says "I have a plan" without providing any details what the plan is and why, I do the same; concerned I'd be tempted to plant a swift kick to his budgies


----------



## basilio

So there is going to be spill next Tuesday and at this stage it seems that the whole Cabinet will support Tony Abbott.... 

Just crackers...


----------



## banco

Julie Bishop's office leaks like a sieve:

In a private conversation before the dinner, Abbott probed Bishop's loyalty. "Come on," she replied, "I shouldn't have to do this. I'm not your problem. You're your own worst enemy."

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...and-julie-bishop-cracked-20150206-13884m.html


----------



## Logique

I think the PM will still be there after Tuesday.

The real question is, has he learned anything?  Will he make changes?

Or will Sir Humphrey still rule the roost.


----------



## basilio

Tony Abbott may well be PM after Tuesday ,  but he will be a rotting political corpse. And as he starts to stink the rest of the Cabinet will find themselves tainted with the stench. 

He has lost the confidence of significant parts of of his party. He has lost the respect of many Liberal voters as well as community groups. His own confidence will be incredibly challenged.

There is the Lazarus with a triple bypass possibility. Perhaps a Road to Damascus conversion. I just cannot see how he will ever become confident, inclusive, creative and above all respected as an effective political leader.


----------



## dutchie

basilio said:


> Tony Abbott may well be PM after Tuesday ,  but he will be a rotting political corpse. And as he starts to stink the rest of the Cabinet will find themselves tainted with the stench.
> 
> He has lost the confidence of significant parts of of his party. He has lost the respect of many Liberal voters as well as community groups. His own confidence will be incredibly challenged.
> 
> There is the Lazarus with a triple bypass possibility. Perhaps a Road to Damascus conversion. I just cannot see how he will ever become confident, inclusive, creative and above all respected as an effective political leader.




+1  That about sums it up.


----------



## Ferret

Logique said:


> I think the PM will still be there after Tuesday.




I fear you're right, but I'll be hoping for a change.  Otherwise we are stuck with an ineffectual government for the next 18 months, most likely followed by Shorten who will be as bad or worse.


----------



## Smurf1976

Logique said:


> I think the PM will still be there after Tuesday.




The ALP will certainly be hoping that the Liberals keep Tony as leader right through to the next election. 

Regardless of whether or not he survives next week and remains PM, it would take a monumental blunder by the ALP for the Coalition to somehow end up being re-elected with Tony running the show. He just doesn't have the required leadership qualities for a PM and that seems obvious to most. 

If it were in business then I'd say he's a good salesman. He's good at selling but no good once the sale is made and delivery is required. He apparently lacks what it takes to be in management or part of the technical, production or accounting teams. Which leaves him with sales, that being the thing he did fairly well as Leader of the Opposition when sales is all that is required.


----------



## drsmith

He'll be gone by the end of Tuesday and the above five posts illustrate why.

We're just going through the motions now.


----------



## drsmith

On matters policy,



> The federal government appears set to introduce a two-tiered tax system, according to comments by Social Services Minister Scott Morrison published by The Australian.
> 
> In the government’s first budget in May 2014, it indicated it would cut the company tax from 30% to 28.5%, but the tax relief would be neutralised by a 1.5% paid parental leave levy on companies with annual taxable income of more than $5 million.
> 
> During his address to the National Press Club on Monday, Tony Abbott announced he was abandoning his paid parental leave scheme, with funds collected by the levy instead assumed to be earmarked for a new childcare policy.
> 
> *However, Morrison told The Australian the government will now abandon the levy altogether. But larger companies will still be charged a company tax rate of 30%, while smaller business will pay a lower rate of 28.5%.*
> 
> “The government doesn’t assume portability of this levy and if (a new childcare levy) were an option then you’d certainly have to make a case for it and you’d certainly have to consult business about it. But I don’t think anyone should be making the assumption that is where the government would end up,” said Morison.




At least dividend imputation is to no longer be raided but a two-tiered corporate tax rate is still a bit silly in that it's a new complication of on top of an already overall complicated tax system.

http://www.smartcompany.com.au/lega...ads-keeforce-to-axe-jobs-midday-roundup.html#

My bolds


----------



## pixel

drsmith said:


> On matters policy,
> 
> 
> 
> At least dividend imputation is to no longer be raided but a two-tiered corporate tax rate is still a bit silly in that it's a new complication of on top of an already overall complicated tax system.
> 
> http://www.smartcompany.com.au/lega...ads-keeforce-to-axe-jobs-midday-roundup.html#
> 
> My bolds




Bringing such an additional complication into play, would indeed be the dumbest thing they could do. Before the last election, Companies and ATO had bedded down the Resources Rent and Carbon Taxes. Only a bunch of ideology-driven morons could have reversed those two and then cry poor over insufficient revenue to balance the budget. *Arithmetic 101, Stupid!*


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> On matters policy,
> 
> 
> 
> At least dividend imputation is to no longer be raided but a two-tiered corporate tax rate is still a bit silly in that it's a new complication of on top of an already overall complicated tax system.
> 
> http://www.smartcompany.com.au/lega...ads-keeforce-to-axe-jobs-midday-roundup.html#
> 
> My bolds




Changes in rates don't add much complication as it's just a change in the arithmetic.  No doubt companies will try to game the system to try to qualify as small companies but in that case it will be them who will be complicating matters.


----------



## drsmith

pixel said:


> Bringing such an additional complication into play, would indeed be the dumbest thing they could do. Before the last election, Companies and ATO had bedded down the Resources Rent and Carbon Taxes. Only a bunch of ideology-driven morons could have reversed those two and then cry poor over insufficient revenue to balance the budget. *Arithmetic 101, Stupid!*



The MRRT was to raise money (which it largely didn't) which was spent anyway thus raising debt. 

The carbon tax was to save the planet from global warming (insert above statement in brackets here), not raise money ??

Both were poor policy and remain so today. Carbon pricing's only potential is if all the world's major economies come on board.


----------



## drsmith

banco said:


> Changes in rates don't add much complication as it's just a change in the arithmetic.  No doubt companies will try to game the system to try to qualify as small companies but in that case it will be them who will be complicating matters.



Splitting is one option as is a little manipulation around the $5m threshold.


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> Splitting is one option as is a little manipulation around the $5m threshold.




True but it's a bit rich for companies to complain about the complexity of the tax system when a lot of the complexity is there to prevent them from gaming it.


----------



## SirRumpole

> Both were poor policy and remain so today. Carbon pricing's only potential is if all the world's major economies come on board.




Not at all. A CT helps reduce local pollution (burning coal produces more that just co2) and encourages development of other forms of energy which reduces energy demand on the main grid and reduces the need for the capital expenditure on large fossil fuel stations.

More people with power stations on their roofs means less that has to be produced en masse. The problem is not for the consumer its for governments who find the value of energy assets reduced and therefore less saleable, but overall we the taxpayer have paid for them already so why should we suffer higher energy costs to make the blunderbusses more attractive to the private sector who will then keep power prices high to maintain profit ?


----------



## Smurf1976

SirRumpole said:


> Not at all. A CT helps reduce local pollution...




I see a much broader issue than anything to do with carbon there, and that's a fundamental question. What, exactly, is Australia's future economically? Where does it lie? 

Manufacturing is stuffed, agriculture has been uncompetitive for years as a bulk commodity producer, the writing is very clearly on the wall for mining and we're uncompetitive at back office work.

What, exactly, are we going to do when mining goes kaput? 

Mining bust? Three reasons why it's inevitable. 

Firstly because we're now heading down the slope of having to extract the lower grade, higher cost resources since the better ones are already in production. You know things aren't good when someone's interested in mining coal in Tasmania and exporting it - small scale, high cost, inferior quality too. Much the same with the new mines in Qld - lower quality and with very high costs to set it up.

Secondly because our overall costs are simply becoming uncompetitive. We're not the only country with minerals, plenty of others can do it cheaper than we can. That reality is already hitting home in the gas industry.

Third because we're heavily reliant on exporting coal and increasingly gas. It seems pretty clear that the world isn't going to want to buy fossil fuels forever. 

So what's the plan when the game is up? CO2 aside, there's a very real economic issue for Australia here.


----------



## orr

SirRumpole said:


> Not at all. A CT helps reduce local pollution (burning coal produces more that just co2) and encourages development of other forms of energy which reduces energy demand on the main grid and reduces the need for the capital expenditure on large fossil fuel stations.
> 
> More people with power stations on their roofs means less that has to be produced en masse. The problem is not for the consumer its for governments who find the value of energy assets reduced and therefore less saleable, but overall we the taxpayer have paid for them already so why should we suffer higher energy costs to make the blunderbusses more attractive to the private sector who will then keep power prices high to maintain profit ?




'For the cloth-ears of the reactionary right'

Add to that the impetus toward more energy efficient Appliances and fuel efficient vehicles and then the capacity for more and more people to become energy independent as thresholds of industrial scale are broached on all those associated fields of endeavour... even a moron could see the immediate advantages  for employment and the economy let alone the massive longer term advances.

Solar panels at trade price are under $0.80cents/watt.... wind the cheapest form of  electricity generation...great prospects for hydrogen storage out UNSW...

Any word from the incumbent industry minister (another with his head on the block) on any of what is the 'NOW' let alone the future...

what are the odds of a science minister in the very near future... without out one I don't like ours.


----------



## banco

Smurf1976 said:


> I see a much broader issue than anything to do with carbon there, and that's a fundamental question. What, exactly, is Australia's future economically? Where does it lie?
> 
> Manufacturing is stuffed, agriculture has been uncompetitive for years as a bulk commodity producer, the writing is very clearly on the wall for mining and we're uncompetitive at back office work.
> 
> What, exactly, are we going to do when mining goes kaput?
> 
> Mining bust? Three reasons why it's inevitable.
> 
> Firstly because we're now heading down the slope of having to extract the lower grade, higher cost resources since the better ones are already in production. You know things aren't good when someone's interested in mining coal in Tasmania and exporting it - small scale, high cost, inferior quality too. Much the same with the new mines in Qld - lower quality and with very high costs to set it up.
> 
> Secondly because our overall costs are simply becoming uncompetitive. We're not the only country with minerals, plenty of others can do it cheaper than we can. That reality is already hitting home in the gas industry.
> 
> Third because we're heavily reliant on exporting coal and increasingly gas. It seems pretty clear that the world isn't going to want to buy fossil fuels forever.
> 
> So what's the plan when the game is up? CO2 aside, there's a very real economic issue for Australia here.




Sell houses to each other and help corrupt chinese officials launder their money by selling them houses.


----------



## pixel

banco said:


> Sell houses to each other and help corrupt chinese officials launder their money by selling them houses.




Yeah ... and put it all on low-interest Plastic debt.


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> He'll be gone by the end of Tuesday and the above five posts illustrate why.
> 
> We're just going through the motions now.




I am not convinced but  it will be in the party room we really find out Abbott's true standing.


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> I am not convinced but  it will be in the party room we really find out Abbott's true standing.



In jockeying for position prior to tomorrow's spill motion, Malcolm's had a strategic loss this morning,

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=19431&page=7&p=860007&viewfull=1#post860007

The worst outcome of all is a mortally wounded PM still in the chair and an aspirant on the back bench. Apart from the loss of a competent minister, that didn't work well for Julia Gillard nor Paul Keating when one considers that in the end, the latter was fortunate in that John Hewson tripped over his own feet in the dying days of the 93 campaign.

IF TA hangs on,  he will have again demonstrated his determination in the trenches as a political survivor but in front of him will then be the difficult bit.


----------



## Smurf1976

drsmith said:


> John Hewson tripped over his own feet in the dying days of the 93 campaign.




Ah yes, that birthday cake. Did anyone ever work out the price difference?


----------



## drsmith

Smurf1976 said:


> Did anyone ever work out the price difference?



That was a much simpler task for John Hewson after the 93 election than it was before.


----------



## drsmith

Arthur Sinodinos declares support for spill motion after Abbott moves meeting forward to Monday,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-08/sinodinos-declares-support-for-spill-motion/6078002

Insiders today was little more than an obituary on the Tony Abbott prime-ministership. We're also getting closer to game on between TA and MT,



> Malcolm Turnbull has described Tony Abbott's decision to bring the spill motion for the Liberal leadership forward as a "captain's call", while sending the clearest signal yet he would stand for the Liberal leadership if it is declared vacant.




http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ing-spill-motion-forward-20150207-138u9b.html


----------



## drsmith

Malcolm's taken by surprise,



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwSbCohg4fA

More broadly, it's surprise that's been TA problem. It may prove to be a bigger mistake on his part not to have changed the meeting date to Monday on Friday.


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> In jockeying for position prior to tomorrow's spill motion, Malcolm's had a strategic loss this morning,
> 
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=19431&page=7&p=860007&viewfull=1#post860007
> 
> The worst outcome of all is a mortally wounded PM still in the chair and an aspirant on the back bench. Apart from the loss of a competent minister, that didn't work well for Julia Gillard nor Paul Keating when one considers that in the end, the latter was fortunate in that John Hewson tripped over his own feet in the dying days of the 93 campaign.
> 
> IF TA hangs on,  he will have again demonstrated his determination in the trenches as a political survivor but in front of him will then be the difficult bit.




I thought Turnbul was setting Abbott up knowing he would bring forward the meeting to Monday

Makes Abbott look desperate, Monday was always the logical time to have the meeting. 

Either way Abbott is terminal if not tomorrow it will happen, this is been driven by a desperate back bench not some claimant from the front bench which is the normal process.


----------



## banco

It's pretty telling that Tony's arguments for staying on all revolve around "you can't oust a PM in his first term".  He's certainly not running on his very meager achievements as PM.


----------



## IFocus

Abbott has a real chance here given that he is surrounded by desperadoes clinging to their jobs Andrews, Hockey etc


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> I thought Turnbul was setting Abbott up knowing he would bring forward the meeting to Monday
> 
> Makes Abbott look desperate, Monday was always the logical time to have the meeting.



Another reason why MT should have said nothing and just let TA make that move.


----------



## Tisme

Kevin Andrews shows a lot of spunk suggesting an Abbott/Gillard ticket is the best for Australia

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...gillard-leadership-gaffe-20150206-1388ei.html


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> Kevin Andrews shows a lot of spunk suggesting an Abbott/Gillard ticket is the best for Australia
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...gillard-leadership-gaffe-20150206-1388ei.html




Ha ha ha. Another embarrassing wally who should be off playing in a sandpit.

Where do they get these people ?


----------



## Logique

Bringing the caucus meeting forward to Monday, whose brilliant idea was that? Talk about straws and camel's backs.

The latest polling isn't great for the PM.



> ReachTEL finds Malcolm Turnbull clearly favoured over Julie Bishop clearly favoured [over] Tony Abbott - 6 Feb 2015 : http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2015/02/06/reachtel-55-45-to-labor/
> 
> ..Two-party preferred moves one point in Labor’s favour to 55-45.
> 
> The kickers are the findings that  the Coalition would be leading 54-46 under Malcolm Turnbull and 51-49 under Julie Bishop ..
> 
> ..A head-to-head question rates Malcolm Turnbull ahead of Julie Bishop 56.5-43.5, but with Bishop having
> a 54.4-45.6 edge among Coalition voters. The poll was conducted last night from a sample of 3502.


----------



## IFocus

SirRumpole said:


> Ha ha ha. Another embarrassing wally who should be off playing in a sandpit.
> 
> Where do they get these people ?




One issue not discussed is the talent on the back bench and lack f talent on the front bench


----------



## pixel

SirRumpole said:


> Ha ha ha. Another embarrassing wally who should be off playing in a sandpit.
> 
> *Where do they get these people ?*




That's the problem: The Aussie electorate voted them in! 

... and given that so many wallies are in fear of their front bench seats and ministerial perks, should TA be rolled, there is a real danger that the motion will be defeated and we're back in the same old same old.

The thing that irks me most: Abbott doesn't even argue about the Common Wealth, but only whinges that Libs are not Labor and must therefore follow their leader. What a bag of twaddle! Even if we know he doesn't care about ordinary Australians half as much as about himself: he could at least pretend... :1zhelp:


----------



## drsmith

pixel said:


> That's the problem: The Aussie electorate voted them in!



Before rushing to condemn this government as a whole we do have to consider where we would be today had we voted Labor back in under Kevin Rudd.

Meanwhile, someone's smiling,


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> Before rushing to condemn this government as a whole we do have to consider where we would be today had we voted Labor back in under Kevin Rudd.




Keep the talking points coming Doc.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> Before rushing to condemn this government as a whole we do have to consider where we would be today had we voted Labor back in under Kevin Rudd.
> 
> Meanwhile, someone's smiling,




Could you expand on this?

A bit of compare and contrast seems to be in order.

Exactly what is better today because of the Abbott Govt.

* Budget spending controlled?  I don't think so.
* Spending on wasteful policies reduced?  PPL may finally be dead, but school chaplains is still a core policy
* Improved revenue?  Nope.  Cut the MRRT and Carbon tax but didn't take back the compensation provided.
* Unemployment is up, participation is down.
* Businesses ain't investing at anywhere near the levels required to transition the economy from the mining CAPEX cliff that's rapidly approaching.  Investment in clean energy has pretty much dried up in Australia, the ONLY country that's had this issue.
* Using CBAs to determine where finite Govt resources wil be used?  Nope.  Was happily handing over billions to the Victoria Govt on a road that provided just 45c in the $ of economic benefits.
* What about the FTAs he's wrapped up?  Well he's had to accept IDS clauses that will likely bite us in the butt.  Access for Australian farmers is so far in the future the benefits are likely to be minimal even by 2020.
*Allowed the car industry to shutter, never thinking that the major issue was the high AUD. Now we'll likely be importing cars under a lower AUD at a higher cost than if we'd continued to locally manufacture them.

Then we have to ask why is the Abbott so determined on increasing the number of 456 Visa workers in the country?  When unemployment is rising fast and employers are finding it easy to hire appropriately qualified locals for jobs, why are we bringing in work foreign workers that are really stealing a local's job?

Then there's the great new tax on all things internet.  $700M to set up, well over $100M a year to run, and can be avoided by using gmail and viber for all communications, al the while trying to hide the cost from the senate and voters, and not really getting just how useless it will be.

So besides your favourite stopping the boats, what policies has the Abbott Govt brought in that have left the Australian public better off?


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> Could you expand on this?



In the context of reflection on how the electorate voted at the last election, where we would be today had we voted Labor back in under Kevin Rudd ?

It's just a simple question.


----------



## SirRumpole

drsmith said:


> In the context of reflection on how the electorate voted at the last election, where we would be today had we voted Labor back in under Kevin Rudd ?
> 
> It's just a simple question.




Who knows ?


----------



## Tisme

Alternative Media views:

https://independentaustralia.net/po...ay-we-told-you-so-,7348#.VNbC0eZIYM0.facebook


----------



## Tisme

Then there's Tony's supporters:


----------



## Julia

pixel said:


> That's the problem: The Aussie electorate voted them in!



The electorate can only vote from the candidates on offer.  Voting is compulsory so the least worst choice has to be made.  It is entirely wrong to interpret that as people having voted FOR any belief in the capacity of the person whose box they reluctantly ticked.



> The thing that irks me most: Abbott doesn't even argue about the Common Wealth, but only whinges that Libs are not Labor and must therefore follow their leader. What a bag of twaddle! Even if we know he doesn't care about ordinary Australians half as much as about himself: he could at least pretend... :1zhelp:



We all see what we want to see.  My interpretation of the behaviour and personalities of TA, MT, and BS is that, despite the woeful stumblings, it's probably TA who most has Australia's interests at heart.  The other two are all about themselves.

Do you really want someone whose main talent is an empty capacity to deliver motherhood statements and impressive sounding rhetoric?  Didn't we have that in Kevin Rudd?  He was great on the oratory but a complete failure on the actual delivery.  Yet you want someone to 'pretend' about their real objectives and views?

I just do not understand that.


----------



## SirRumpole

> it's probably TA who most has Australia's interests at heart. The other two are all about themselves.




And how does he demonstrate that "interest" ? By destroying the car industry ? Increasing the price of education ? Deprecating the role of science and technology in favour of pulling rocks out of the ground while mineral prices fall through the floor ? 

Even most of the Liberal supporters here admit he is a stumbler with no vision. Two disastrous State government defeats can be sheeted home in large part to his management style. 

He may be a nice guy for all I know but if he stays in, he will drag the Libs down like he did to Victoria and Queensland and take the rest of the country down with him.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> And how does he demonstrate that "interest" ? By destroying the car industry ? Increasing the price of education ? Deprecating the role of science and technology in favour of pulling rocks out of the ground while mineral prices fall through the floor ?




So you think the Australian car industry will be saved, if Labor return to office? 
The cost of education will be less and we will shut down mining, sounds like a fairy tale to me.


----------



## drsmith

SirRumpole said:


> And how does he demonstrate that "interest" ? By destroying the car industry ? Increasing the price of education ? Deprecating the role of science and technology in favour of pulling rocks out of the ground while mineral prices fall through the floor ?
> 
> Even most of the Liberal supporters here admit he is a stumbler with no vision. Two disastrous State government defeats can be sheeted home in large part to his management style.
> 
> He may be a nice guy for all I know but if he stays in, he will drag the Libs down like he did to Victoria and Queensland and take the rest of the country down with him.



Julia's statement didn't strike me as a defence of his prime ministership but rather a reflection of his character relative to Labor's leaders.

In that sense, I agree. He has the nation's interests more at heart than the hypocritical Labor party who block their own savings in the senate and the Greens who don't even believe in sovereign nationhood.


----------



## drsmith

Is this the final nail in the coffin of Tony Abbott's prime ministership ?



> The Queensland election result is headed for the courts, with the Electoral Commission planning to refer the seat of Ferny Grove to the Court of Disputed Returns.
> 
> It will then determine whether to order a by-election, because a candidate there was disqualified.



If the current three undecided seats fall the way they're most likely to fall and Ferny Grove goes to a by-election, office is still up for grabs in Queensland.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-...esult-in-hands-of-the-courts-ecq-says/6078592


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> Julia's statement didn't strike me as a defence of his prime ministership but rather a reflection of his character relative to Labor's leaders.
> 
> In that sense, I agree. He has the nation's interests more at heart than the hypocritical Labor party who block their own savings in the senate and the Greens who don't even believe in sovereign nationhood.




Is it hypocrisy to block cost savings in opposition then state you will cut the deficit, cut taxes all while not cutting spending on health education the ABC etc etc, only to then renege on those promises at the first opportunity?  Abbott seems to run to the defence of the Banks and Mining companies before those who actually vote.

One of the first things Abbott did in office was to try and wind back the protections of the FOFA legislation.  The NBN promise was broken within 3 months of being elected.  Australian students already pay considerably more than the OECD average for their education, yet Abbott believes they should pay more, take on more debt.  

It has been these and many many more poor choices that have gotten the Abbott Govt is into so much strife.  How many times can they shoot themselves in the foot?  Parliament isn't even sitting and the whole summer has been about the poor choices of the Government.  It's raining barnacles with no end in site.

I don't know how you can argue that you are 100% sure this is better than what Labor would have offered.  I think it'd be a neck and neck race for the tweedle brothers


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> I don't know how you can argue that you are 100% sure this is better than what Labor would have offered



What about Labor and what they had to offer ?

Some of it was so good they're now blocking it in the senate.


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> What about Labor and what they had to offer ?
> 
> Some of it was so good they're now blocking it in the senate.




You are sounding a lot like a desperate  Abbott, face it the Coalition has blown up in the worst possible way the back bench wants its leader gone and I dare say more than 1/2  of the front bench with him.

Its a massive move rarely seen, face it other than the boats this mob have absolutely stuffed it in every way with sheer arrogance also rarely seen  and as a example basically achieved higher spending while claiming the budget is now under control WTF.

And you say better than Labor..........


----------



## dutchie

IFocus said:


> the Coalition has blown up in the worst possible way the back bench wants its leader gone and I dare say more than 1/2  of the front bench with him.




It's all Labors fault.






IFocus said:


> And you say better than Labor..........




*Anything*, and I do mean anything, is better than Labor!


----------



## orr

drsmith said:


> What about Labor and what they had to offer ?




The Gulags would have a nicer coat of paint... And Rudd, like Turnbull, can afford to educate their children without '_plain brown paper bag_'  scholarships.... Could have  the budget have beeeeen as big a fiasco?  Newman might likely be still Premier... Bernadi's blood pressure would be higher... Kevin Andrews would be just as relevant. Bronwyn Bishop wouldn't look as ridiculous, Christopher Pyne would. etc etc..  in short quite a lot.  

Don't you really mean ; the Labor / Green Alliance??

Oh, and a Science Minister.....


----------



## dutchie

Spill won't get up.


----------



## Tisme

I love this. The discussion board party faithful are so hell bent on showing how open minded they are, they are giving up rusted_on in favour of eutectic bonding. And the squirmy pipe and slippers veneer of "I'm not a Liberal voter" is just so humorous. 

Imposters of the original Liberal Party doctrine are everywhere from the highest seat in the land to the blue collar wannabe King pauper princes.

Take a look at Turnbull and you will see the closest thing to a true Liberal Party believer, like him or not. Personally I think he is happy with the stick in "D" and the radio turned up. 

It's pretty obvious the Australian public generally don't care who is in charge (there's been zip public reaction to the latest QLD state election). When in opposition Abbott commoditised parliament and in response the public are applying consumerism rules to that product, which is not so much skewed to brand loyalty, but to brand dissatisfaction. We buy it, test it, toss it out until we find a keeper that doesn't cost a premium..... I am guilty of it.


----------



## SirRumpole

> When in opposition Abbott commoditised parliament and in response the public are applying consumerism rules to that product, which is not so much skewed to brand loyalty, but to brand dissatisfaction. We buy it, test it, toss it out until we find a keeper that doesn't cost a premium..... I am guilty of it.




Why do I get the feeling that recent governments have been made in China ?


----------



## drsmith

The spill motion has failed 61 to 39.


----------



## SirRumpole

drsmith said:


> The spill motion has failed 61 to 39.




39 is a significant dissention in the Party.

TA had better lift his game very fast or he will be gone in a few months.


----------



## basilio

Congratulations to all the Tony Abbott supporters.  He is most certainly The Ghost That Walks.

All he has to do now in his reincarnation as the next Phantom is show just how much more capable and inclusive he can be than that  Fwitted predecessor he has replaced.

Good luck  !!


----------



## chiff

Only twelve votes need to be changed next challenge to roll Tony.On past challenges,Keating versus Hawke in particular,not too hard at all.
Can Tony change his behaviour?Can a leopard change its spots?


----------



## Logique

SirRumpole said:


> 39 is a significant dissention in the Party.
> TA had better lift his game very fast or he will be gone in a few months.



Indeed. Hawke beat Keating 66-44 the first time around.

Julie Bishop seems too attached to the Foreign Minister job to be the 'Jim Hacker' third candidate. But antagonism to Turnbull runs deep in the party.


----------



## SirRumpole

Logique said:


> Indeed. Hawke beat Keating 66-44 the first time around.
> 
> Julie Bishop seems too attached to the Foreign Minister job to be the 'Jim Hacker' third candidate. But antagonism to Turnbull runs deep in the party.




The 'Hacker' candidate may be Andrew Robb. He seems to have a lot of respect in the Party and it doesn't seem he would divide the Party as Turnbull may.

Whether his public profile is high enough to sway the electorate is another matter.


----------



## Tisme

drsmith said:


> The spill motion has failed 61 to 39.





Wow 39 votes, even I'm surprised there were that many.... what happened to the paltry 5?

Of course we are supposed to be satisfied that the 100 had the smarts to vote for their leader in the interest of the nation, not the politics.


----------



## Tisme

"West Australian MP Luke Simpkins said he believed Mr Abbott would lead the Coalition to the next election."

and 

"Another critic, LNP backbencher Andrew Laming, has dumped plans to introduce a Private Member's Bill to scrap the knights and dames honours system in a show of support.

He said he was satisfied a "signal" had been sent to the Prime Minister.

"We're confident now he's going to make the right moves," he said."


Thank goodness the air has been cleared


----------



## basilio

What chance does Malcolm Turnball have of staying in cabinet ? The knives are out already.  And it seems that Malcolm does not have any confidence in Tonys leadership even if he has promised to stay loyal. 

This is utter madness.


----------



## dutchie

Their ABC, Fairfax, et al  will be relentless in stirring the pot for Abbott to resign or speculate that there is a plot against him, yadda yadda yadda

Irrespective of what Abbott does or says they will be after his blood.

Barrie Cassidy will be the leader of this hounding of Abbott.

(Labor paying back the LNP)


----------



## chiff

dutchie said:


> Their ABC, Fairfax, et al  will be relentless in stirring the pot for Abbott to resign or speculate that there is a plot against him, yadda yadda yadda
> 
> Irrespective of what Abbott does or says they will be after his blood.
> 
> Barrie Cassidy will be the leader of this hounding of Abbott.
> 
> (Labor paying back the LNP)




It will depend on the polls


----------



## drsmith

dutchie said:


> Their ABC, Fairfax, et al  will be relentless in stirring the pot for Abbott to resign or speculate that there is a plot against him, yadda yadda yadda
> 
> Irrespective of what Abbott does or says they will be after his blood.
> 
> Barrie Cassidy will be the leader of this hounding of Abbott.
> 
> (Labor paying back the LNP)



Barrie Cassidy had the inside tip when Kevin Rudd was about to knock Julia Gillard off. 

He was left to guess though in this case.


----------



## Anglers Rest

TA has been quoted by News Corp - from the Daily Telegraph:



> Earlier Mr Abbott delivered a rousing speech to the party room after he fought off a motion to spill his leadership, finishing with a rally call to unite against the real enemy.
> 
> “I brought down Kevin Rudd and Julie Gillard, “ he told them.
> 
> “And they are bigger figures than Bill Shorten.
> 
> “With your backing I’ll bring down Bill Shorten as well”.




Eighteen months in and immediately after the spill vote he's still behaving like he did in opposition, seeking to bring down the "opposing" party ahead of moving the country forward.


----------



## Tisme

Anglers Rest said:


> TA has been quoted by News Corp - from the Daily Telegraph:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Earlier Mr Abbott delivered a rousing speech to the party room after he fought off a motion to spill his leadership, finishing with a rally call to unite against the real enemy.
> 
> “I brought down Kevin Rudd and Julie Gillard, “ he told them.
> 
> “And they are bigger figures than Bill Shorten.
> 
> “With your backing I’ll bring down Bill Shorten as well”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eighteen months in and immediately after the spill vote he's still behaving like he did in opposition, seeking to bring down the "opposing" party ahead of moving the country forward.
Click to expand...



He must be less than half the man he was before election, because he managed two PMs by himself, but he now needs mates to bring down and opposition leader.


----------



## Tisme

chiff said:


> It will depend on the polls




Depends on Rupert Murdoch and he's already made his decision.


----------



## pixel

Tisme said:


> He must be less than half the man he was before election, because he managed two PMs by himself, but he now needs mates to bring down and opposition leader.




ridiculouser and ridiculouser.
Somebody ought to tell him that it's not his job to bring people down, but to build the Common Wealth up.

Meanwhile, the opposition sees its odds Shorten considerably.


----------



## bellenuit

Tisme said:


> He must be less than half the man he was before election, because he managed two PMs by himself




One could argue that with his stupid captain's calls, he has almost brought down 3 PMs all by himself.


----------



## dutchie

bellenuit said:


> One could argue that with his stupid captain's calls, he has almost brought down 3 PMs all by himself.




Good point. He will have to change his ways a lot for this not to be true.

The question is has he got it in him to make the requisite changes?


----------



## drsmith

dutchie said:


> The question is has he got it in him to make the requisite changes?



I hope so but probably not.

History hasn't been kind to PM's who've been challenged in the party room.


----------



## SirRumpole

dutchie said:


> Good point. He will have to change his ways a lot for this not to be true.
> 
> The question is has he got it in him to make the requisite changes?




He said he wants the public to throw him out.

So call an election Tony, and we will gladly oblige.


----------



## banco

bellenuit said:


> One could argue that with his stupid captain's calls, he has almost brought down 3 PMs all by himself.




I guarantee you it will be a while before an Australian politician will refer to something they've done as a captain's call.


----------



## DB008

dutchie said:


> Their ABC, Fairfax, et al  will be relentless in stirring the pot for Abbott to resign or speculate that there is a plot against him, yadda yadda yadda
> 
> Irrespective of what Abbott does or says they will be after his blood.
> 
> Barrie Cassidy will be the leader of this hounding of Abbott.
> 
> (Labor paying back the LNP)




Or even the biased-towards-the-left-Guardian....

Check out this headline (LOL)



> Australian prime minister survives *'near-death experience'* party vote
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/feb/09/australian-prime-minister-survives-near-death-experience-party-vote


----------



## sptrawler

drsmith said:


> I hope so but probably not.
> 
> History hasn't been kind to PM's who've been challenged in the party room.




My guess, as I said early on in this thread, he will become the sacrificial anode and fall on his sword. Absorb all the blame and move on, just not yet.


----------



## IFocus

Shorten will be popping the champagne tonight, close call Bill.


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> Shorten will be popping the champagne tonight, close call Bill.




I doubt Bill will ever be P.M, he just doesn't have 'it'. IMO


----------



## drsmith

Bill "boats" shorten ??

Never.


----------



## sydboy007

Poor Tony.  Practically buried in the wiches ditch


----------



## dutchie

Tony Abbott is going to come good, despite the forthcoming efforts of the ABC.

There is no one to replace him from either side.


----------



## IFocus

Talking about the ABC and facts here are some more disturbing facts


As our economy suffers, cue the clowns





> The pantomime being played out in Canberra has only served to divert attention from the grim reality facing the economy and the absence of any cogent plan to restore the nation's finances, writes Ian Verrender.






> Australia is facing a revenue crisis, far worse than former treasurer Wayne Swan was forced to confront. This time, China will not be riding to the rescue. If Goldman Sachs economist Tim Toohey is correct, $*40 billion in previously estimated income is likely to evaporate over the next four years.
> 
> What is the Federal Government's response? It crows that it has eliminated revenue sources to the tune of $8 billion or more a year*.






> Why? Because it has pandered to the interests of big business rather than act in the best interest of the nation. And it is not the first government to do so.
> 
> Money has always bought political influence. But as Australian business power has become ever more concentrated among a collection of cosy duopolies, or at best oligopolies, the situation has become worse.






> It is astounding that so few economists have bothered to pick up on the obvious; that why on earth during a revenue crisis, would a government's most urgent action be to eliminate revenue.
> 
> *Even worse, with the carbon tax, it has replaced a revenue source with a multi-billion dollar spending program that is likely to make Labor's pink batts fiasco look positively tame.*






> It wasn't an entirely original idea. Paul Keating introduced one almost 30 years ago on oil and gas deposits in Australian territorial waters. It's worked brilliantly. And it is still in operation today. In fact, the Abbott Government endorsed its extension, to include oil and gas operations on land.
> 
> *So, if there's one thing Abbott and his Treasurer, Joe Hockey, have never explained,* it's why a mining tax on iron and coal is evil and a "handbrake on the economy", when they happily accept the revenue from a mining tax on oil and gas.






> *
> Given our mining industry is about 80 per cent owned by foreigners*, it is astounding that most business economists happily endorse the idea that the one-off profits from mining should be allowed to flow offshore and that the burden of budgetary repair should instead fall on ordinary Australians.







> *Meanwhile, the circus goes on. The finale approaches. Bring on the clowns.*




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-09/verrender-as-our-economy-suffers-cue-the-clowns/6078828


----------



## Tisme

“My question is to the Prime Minister,” he said. “Given that one-third of her parliamentary colleagues and a quarter of her cabinet colleagues have today expressed their lack of confidence in her, how can she claim to have a mandate to continue as Prime Minister?” Mr Abbot said




"Given that nearly half of his parliamentary colleagues, including two-thirds of his Liberal backbenchers, have today expressed a lack of confidence in the PM, how can the PM claim to have a mandate for this country?" Mr Shorten said.

 Tony's response is to accuse the Labs of killing people with insulation ...... incredibly ill informed and very insensitive to families and friends of the people who died not following the mandatory WHS&S MSDS and SWMS procedures that were in place.

The same old mantra of "Labor's Mess" is still there; nothing has changed and they refuse to accept they are supposed be in govt, not opposition. Even Julie Bishop on AM was harping  how effective they were in opposition, but now they have been given a kick up the bum they will start to govern....WTF?


----------



## banco

dutchie said:


> Tony Abbott is going to come good, despite the forthcoming efforts of the ABC.
> 
> There is no one to replace him from either side.




We've got baghdad bob over here.


----------



## dutchie

banco said:


> We've got baghdad bob over here.




But can he speak English?


----------



## drsmith

sptrawler said:


> My guess, as I said early on in this thread, he will become the sacrificial anode and fall on his sword. Absorb all the blame and move on, just not yet.



It was some weeks ago now but he did make a comment to that effect if the polls stayed bad.


----------



## sptrawler

drsmith said:


> It was some weeks ago now but he did make a comment to that effect if the polls stayed bad.




Well it does make a lot of sense, everyone is so busy focusing all the blame on Abbott, he becomes the root cause of everything. Labor are being pretty dumb. IMO


----------



## Logique

She's smart Julie Bishop, I'd have no problem with her becoming PM.

On the money here: http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...-protective-julie-bishop-20150209-13a9sj.html


----------



## drsmith

Logique said:


> She's smart Julie Bishop, I'd have no problem with her becoming PM.
> 
> On the money here: http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...-protective-julie-bishop-20150209-13a9sj.html



It's going to be interesting to see if in the coming weeks she has a greater presence in domestic politics as part of a grooming process.

Her interview on ABC radio this morning is below.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2015/s4176975.htm


----------



## Knobby22

I'm happy for Julie to be Prime Minister and Turnbull to be treasurer.

Julie has excellent credentials as a manager and would do a good job of keeping the dry's happy well being a proper conservative Prime Minister.

A truly excellent article in todays Age by a Conservative lawyer (Grey Connolly) accuses Abbott of betraying his own beliefs and letting the Libertarians control Parliament. For instance, it has always been Liberal policy to be pro family and encourage a Mum to stay at home with young children, and since when has it been Liberal policy to cut defence pay while a war is on? 


Definitely worth a read. 
from the article:

Many of the Abbott government's problems would have been avoided had Abbott the man asserted himself on his own government.  Instead, he capitulated to small-minded people and petty ideas he must privately disdain and now rue.

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/to...ot-conservative-at-heart-20150209-139m3a.html

Number one small minded person in Parliament is Andrew Robb imo.


----------



## sptrawler

Knobby22 said:


> I'm happy for Julie to be Prime Minister and Turnbull to be treasurer.
> 
> Julie has excellent credentials as a manager and would do a good job of keeping the dry's happy well being a proper conservative Prime Minister.
> 
> A truly excellent article in todays Age by a Conservative lawyer (Grey Connolly) accuses Abbott of betraying his own beliefs and letting the Libertarians control Parliament. For instance, it has always been Liberal policy to be pro family and encourage a Mum to stay at home with young children, and since when has it been Liberal policy to cut defence pay while a war is on?
> .




I know it is bit picky, but what you have said there is one of the main problems, the defence force were getting a pay rise not a pay cut.

Just shows the power of the press and their misrepresentation of the the truth. 
What the fuss was about, was the pay rise was not more than inflation, this was o.k during the wages accord period apparently not so now.

Somewhat along the same lines that pensions were to be cut, when in actual fact they were to be linked to cpi instead of average wages.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> I know it is bit picky, but what you have said there is one of the main problems, the defence force were getting a pay rise not a pay cut.
> 
> Just shows the power of the press and their misrepresentation of the the truth.
> What the fuss was about, was the pay rise was not more than inflation, this was o.k during the wages accord period apparently not so now.
> 
> Somewhat along the same lines that pensions were to be cut, when in actual fact they were to be linked to cpi instead of average wages.




Is that like Abbott's waving of a pensioner electricity bill in parliament claiming it had doubled due to the carbon tax.

Or the claims of a python squeeze on the economy that would see us all destitute?

A resource tax that would kill investment (no it didn't)

Or maybe his rallying for the 16000 super pensioners receiving over 100K tax free.

Maybe similar to his objections to keeping a log book to claim car expenses against taxable income.

Then it's come out he's bought votes from SA senators on the building of the next gen submarines.  Suddenly we've gone from the Government doesn’t “have time to go through a speculation process”, to:



> “Decisions on a design partner and construction of the submarines will be based on a competitive evaluation process managed by the Department of Defence that takes fully into account capability requirement, cost, schedule, technical risk and value for money considerations”…
> 
> “Any Australian company that can credibly meet these criteria will be considered on merit, as will potential international partners.”




Then we have Joe hockey's misrepresentations of the truth.  Remember his claims we work half the year to pay our tax to the Government?  

We have Hockey claiming employment is growing, so the rise in unemployment isn't too big an issue, yet aggregate hours worked are back to 2011 levels, and that with something like an extra 1M people to share them amongst with a falling participation rate.

We had hockey claim treasury told him the fuel indexation was a progressive tax.  Nope, they didn't.  His claims about healthcare becoming unaffordable for the country.  Nope.  The richer we get the more we spend on healthcare, but then it actually isn't costing us much more as a % of our incomes.

So before we point the fingers at the media, the Govt really needs to be the ones who start telling the truth to the Australian public, though with the amount of lies and broken promises they've given us, I'm not sure if anyone will take notice or believe anything they say.


----------



## boofhead

I had a feeling the defence force pay issue Lambie is on about is the general pay rate for the forces.

There is a seperate issue that happened earlier relating to forces on active duty and also how the active duty is classified.


----------



## basilio

Just how is this going to work ?  Not only does Tony Abbott *look like* a lying, pig headed fool he is now *seen as such *by probably 60% of the electorate. And that obviously includes a big swag of Liberal voters.

And of course there is the small matter of the 30 plus backbenchers and indeterminate cabinet members who are shaking their head and wondering *how his standing will affect their future*.

And we are supposed to believe that there will be a significant turnaround in six months ?

Pass the riff  guys. This will need a particularly long toke...


----------



## basilio

> Morse code to Tony:
> 
> Team Straya is sinking in a sea of lies. That's what happens when you move all the deck chairs to Starboard....no that's the far right Tony but you have to be facing forward to know that.
> 
> No point in manning the life boats, Malcolm has mutinied knowing it's him and back benchers first. However, there is a submarine waiting off the coast so swim hard because the baggage of front bench people hanging onto your budgie smugglers is significant.
> 
> If you make it Tones you are officially a boat person looking for asylum...good luck!




Can't take credit for this but too good to overlook


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Is that like Abbott's waving of a pensioner electricity bill in parliament claiming it had doubled due to the carbon tax.
> 
> Or the claims of a python squeeze on the economy that would see us all destitute?
> 
> A resource tax that would kill investment (no it didn't)
> 
> Or maybe his rallying for the 16000 super pensioners receiving over 100K tax free.
> 
> Maybe similar to his objections to keeping a log book to claim car expenses against taxable income.
> 
> Then it's come out he's bought votes from SA senators on the building of the next gen submarines.  Suddenly we've gone from the Government doesn’t “have time to go through a speculation process”, to:
> 
> 
> 
> Then we have Joe hockey's misrepresentations of the truth.  Remember his claims we work half the year to pay our tax to the Government?
> 
> We have Hockey claiming employment is growing, so the rise in unemployment isn't too big an issue, yet aggregate hours worked are back to 2011 levels, and that with something like an extra 1M people to share them amongst with a falling participation rate.
> 
> We had hockey claim treasury told him the fuel indexation was a progressive tax.  Nope, they didn't.  His claims about healthcare becoming unaffordable for the country.  Nope.  The richer we get the more we spend on healthcare, but then it actually isn't costing us much more as a % of our incomes.
> 
> So before we point the fingers at the media, the Govt really needs to be the ones who start telling the truth to the Australian public, though with the amount of lies and broken promises they've given us, I'm not sure if anyone will take notice or believe anything they say.




I'm sure if Abbott is P.M at the next election the LNP will be thrown out, I'm equally sure he won't be P.M at the next election.
I'm also confident smoking Joe won't be treasurer.


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> I'm sure if Abbott is P.M at the next election the LNP will be thrown out, I'm equally sure he won't be P.M at the next election.
> I'm also confident smoking Joe won't be treasurer.




Not so sure about that one SP.

Abbotts best assets will be next year when the Victorian Labor party goof and if Labor take over the reigns in Queensland...Both states will be in a hell of a financial mess by then and voters will start to realize Labor aren't all they are cracked up to be.
Palaszczuk has not indicated any plan how to fix the Queensland finances, so she will go on borrowing money like Anna Bligh did....More debt and deficit is in Labor's DNA....They just do not know how to handle money.


----------



## sptrawler

noco said:


> Not so sure about that one SP.
> 
> Abbotts best assets will be next year when the Victorian Labor party goof and if Labor take over the reigns in Queensland...Both states will be in a hell of a financial mess by then and voters will start to realize Labor aren't all they are cracked up to be.
> Palaszczuk has not indicated any plan how to fix the Queensland finances, so she will go on borrowing money like Anna Bligh did....More debt and deficit is in Labor's DNA....They just do not know how to handle money.




You can't expect to retain office, on the assumption others will stuff up, thereby making your stuff ups look better.

What the coalition has suggested, probably needs implementing, to implement it requires public support.

They handled the selling of it in a ham fisted way, somewhat like Labors handling of the post GFC handouts.

They shot from the hip with spending cuts, before they carried out the review of the tax system, resulting in another blow your feet off situation.

Labor were crucified for ineptness and pandering to minority party agendas, the LNP have fared no better.

Sad really.
So what do we do now, hope that someone finds batteries, for the magic wand.


----------



## Tink

We are already having problems here in Vic, noco, you don't have to wait until next year.
This whole fiasco with Daniel Andrews is already costing Victoria dearly.
We seem to be spending a lot of money in courts, because of Daniel Andrews, now and before he was elected.

Agree with you, sptrawler, but in saying that, I was glad that Abbott came through and am hoping that he can change and listen to what the others are saying. 

My local has been vocal on both federal and state, and I am glad that he is.


----------



## Knobby22

Hockey has told the Coalition party room the deficit will be about 56 billion dollars!
Even if his budget had of gone through the deficit would still be at best 45 billion dollars! 
Some thinking is needed, yet aren't they promising tax cuts in the next budget???? 
I don't think they know what to do.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Not so sure about that one SP.
> 
> Abbotts best assets will be next year when the Victorian Labor party goof and if Labor take over the reigns in Queensland...Both states will be in a hell of a financial mess by then and voters will start to realize Labor aren't all they are cracked up to be.
> Palaszczuk has not indicated any plan how to fix the Queensland finances, so she will go on borrowing money like Anna Bligh did....More debt and deficit is in Labor's DNA....They just do not know how to handle money.




By the same token the punters are already waking up to the fact the Abbott Govt has no answers to the massive economic issues we're facing.

When was the last time you heard a Govt minister talk about productivity reforms that didn't involve cutting wages?

The Abbott Govt hasn't stabilised the budget, let alone got it anywhere near balanced.  Do you think by late 2016 the picture is going to be any prettier than it is now?  Talk of Ford pulling up stumps this year, with the associated closures of component manufacturers.  Will probably make Holden close early too.  Then there's 10000 direct jobs for the CSG LNG plants in QLD as construction is completed, with another 10000 gone from the associated support services and retail jobs in the area.  Roughly 500 jobs survive in the operational phase.

Both major parties have no idea.  They're hooked on the population housing ponzi.  We've nothing left.  What's left of the tradeables sector isn't nearly enough till fill the dearth of demand that's coming.  Yet the Abbott Govt is hell bent on bringing in more and more "workers" to suppress wages.  That in turn keeps pumping up land prices and exacerbating our lack of competitiveness, increases congestion, and causes the need for more spending on infrastructure to cope with the increased demand.  

Where's the adult conversation about our world leading tax expenditures?  Where's the desire to see the balancing of the budget shared by all, instead of what we got in the last budget of forcing most of the costs onto the poor and those who are least able to afford it?

The current mob in power are pretty much toast.  Why not go out with a bang on some meaningful reform and target super concessions and negative gearing?  Why not talk about getting Govt revenue back up to around 25% of GDP which is what seems to be required to balance the budget?  How about stepping out of the way of Infrastructure Australia and let them decide where spending will best boost productivity so that we can save some construction jobs from the mining CAPEX cliff.  We can't afford more Abbot infrastructure investments that provide a 55% economic loss.

The thing is, good economic reform has the facts behind you, with a lot of support not only from businesses but from a lot of other groups.  How about the Abbott Govt sit doing with ACOSS ACTU and BCA and nut out some good policy that will have active support from these groups?  They got together themselves in despair over what Abbott has been up to.  Isn't that the kind of support this Govt needs?


----------



## IFocus

Can anyone tell me how the open / closed tendering system works so Japan gets to build the subs?

Is it normal for liberal MPs from SA to be complete dopes believing Abbott?


----------



## IFocus

sptrawler said:


> I know it is bit picky, but what you have said there is one of the main problems, the defence force were getting a pay rise not a pay cut.
> 
> J




They were suppose to get 3% instead got1.5% well below the rate of inflation mean while Abbott drapes himself in the flag along side our best serving in harms way.........complete dog act from Abbott but we all know thats how he is.

Forgot to add throws money for padres in schools clearly saving souls in priority.


----------



## Logique

An utterly disgraceful way to treat a junior backbencher.



> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/..._question_of_loyalty_but_who_owes_it_to_whom/
> 
> ...[Wyatt] Roy, trying to be helpful, stood at the table to tell the Prime Minister that broken promises were the fundamental cause of the government’s problems. It might be a good idea, Roy suggested, to apologise to people a la Peter Beattie and move on.
> 
> Abbott was furious. He rounded on Roy, yelled at him, then directed his remarks to all of them that there were no effing broken promises and no one should concede there had been...


----------



## Tisme

Logique said:


> An utterly disgraceful way to treat a junior backbencher.




I wonder how Wyatt voted 7/8 months later? I bet is was for Tony.


----------



## drsmith

Logique said:


> An utterly disgraceful way to treat a junior backbencher.



I'd like to know whether Liberal insider Niki Savva was there or whether that was a leak to her.

Either way it doesn't look good. As it reads, poor Wyatt Roy copped a large serve of towing the party line.

I's suggest he'd have been one that would have voted in favour of the spill.


----------



## banco

So Tony lies in private as well as in public.........


----------



## SirRumpole

banco said:


> So Tony lies in private as well as in public.........




Ranting and raving is not a good look, even in private as it's bound to leak out.

Just another indication of an unstable personality. Maybe as bad as Rudd but without the brains...


----------



## basilio

> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a...es_it_to_whom/
> 
> ...[Wyatt] Roy, trying to be helpful, stood at the table to tell the Prime Minister that broken promises were the fundamental cause of the government’s problems. It might be a good idea, Roy suggested, to apologise to people a la Peter Beattie and move on.
> 
> Abbott was furious. He rounded on Roy, yelled at him, then directed his remarks to all of them that there were no effing broken promises and no one should concede there had been...




If that is an accurate reporting of the situation it is completely unnerving. It sounds both delusional and horrific leadership.  It reminds me of the infamous Hitler bunker scene in Downfall when Hitler went off his brain at the useless general staff.

It would take an unreal change of attitude to win back respect after such outburst.


----------



## Tisme

How come the "new" LNP in Canberra is still setting up publicity stunts where they can ramble on about "Labor's Mess", "No Plan Labor",  "No Policy Labor", etc etc?

I thought good government was starting last week, not govt masquerading as the No No opposition it was starting 2007.

An alien visiting would be forgiven in thinking Abbott and Coy were the opposition and Labor in charge.

I agree sydboy07 that the LNP is toast and should go out with a (sensible) bang. Maybe three years in the wilderness will allow them time to learn their product and how to govern without blaming everything on somebody else.

It is we the voters who put Labor in for two terms and the LNP currently, so any mess is our mess; and any  criticism/insult of previous and current govts is a criticism/insult, as a democracy, on us.


----------



## orr

From the US; a mob a tad more credible than the IPA.  It's only with distance that you are able to perceive the true horror;

_'A prominent US think tank has published a piece arguing that Tony Abbott is the most incompetent leader of an industrialised democracy and has 'proven so incapable' that he has to go.'_

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ing-review-PM-s-leadership.html#ixzz3RZSWnYDp 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nk-gives-scathing-review-PM-s-leadership.html

It's only the navel gazing of the LNP that they are able to protect themselves with boiler plate like ignorance.

Team Australia, the wooden spoon?


----------



## drsmith

Tisme said:


> How come the "new" LNP in Canberra is still setting up publicity stunts where they can ramble on about "Labor's Mess", "No Plan Labor",  "No Policy Labor", etc etc?
> 
> I thought good government was starting last week, not govt masquerading as the No No opposition it was starting 2007.
> 
> An alien visiting would be forgiven in thinking Abbott and Coy were the opposition and Labor in charge.
> 
> I agree sydboy07 that the LNP is toast and should go out with a (sensible) bang. Maybe three years in the wilderness will allow them time to learn their product and how to govern without blaming everything on somebody else.
> 
> It is we the voters who put Labor in for two terms and the LNP currently, so any mess is our mess; and any  criticism/insult of previous and current govts is a criticism/insult, as a democracy, on us.



I hope we're not about to start pretending that Labor who sit in the senate blocking their own budget savings are saints both in opposition and from their last time in government.

Governments in office make spending decisions well beyond their time in office. Labor for example did deals with the states on education that even went beyond the 4-year budget estimates (Gonski) that were financially unsustainable.

We know Labor will bring back a carbon price, a mining tax and not turn back the boats. 

What else will they do and how would they fund it ?


----------



## SirRumpole

> We know Labor will bring back a carbon price, a mining tax and not turn back the boats.
> 
> What else will they do and how would they fund it ?




This is starting to sound like the "Reds under the Beds" excuse that kept Menzies and Bjelke Peterson in government for many years.

The public are more cynical about that type of scare tactics now as Queensland recently demonstrated.

The best example of scare tactics exhibited in Australian politics these days is two people, Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> This is starting to sound like the "Reds under the Beds" excuse that kept Menzies and Bjelke Peterson in government for many years.
> 
> The public are more cynical about that type of scare tactics now as Queensland recently demonstrated.
> 
> The best example of scare tactics exhibited in Australian politics these days is two people, Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey.




"REDS UNDER THE BED"????????

Ah yes...no more under the bed....they are now out in the open and gaining strength and they are winning.

I won't mention the "F" word.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> I hope we're not about to start pretending that Labor who sit in the senate blocking their own budget savings are saints both in opposition and from their last time in government.
> 
> Governments in office make spending decisions well beyond their time in office. Labor for example did deals with the states on education that even went beyond the 4-year budget estimates (Gonski) that were financially unsustainable.
> 
> We know Labor will bring back a carbon price, a mining tax and not turn back the boats.
> 
> What else will they do and how would they fund it ?




Well, if you don't support raising relatively efficient taxes, and you do support Abbott for cutting the taxes but not associated spending, then exactly how do you propose they get the budget towards a more even keel?  Waiting 1.5 years to even look at tax reforms when they claimed the budget was in CRISIS seems to be like moving the deck chairs on the titanic.

They've distanced themselves from the Murray Financial Review, so meaningful reform looks unlikely.  They're hiding the intergenerational report and wont release costings for their internet tax.  The Govt seems to be getting more and more secretive and definitely losing the ticker to realy do anything meaningful till the next election.

So I'm wondering what justification they'll provide for the $50B deficit that's coming our way.  Surely it' only wasteful spending and incompetence that could see the budget blow out that badly, well at least that's what Hockey was gleefully saying in opposition.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> "REDS UNDER THE BED"????????
> 
> Ah yes...no more under the bed....they are now out in the open and gaining strength and they are winning.
> 
> I won't mention the "F" word.




If they are winning, it's because the other side is rubbish


----------



## drsmith

SirRumpole said:


> This is starting to sound like the "Reds under the Beds" excuse that kept Menzies and Bjelke Peterson in government for many years.
> 
> The public are more cynical about that type of scare tactics now as Queensland recently demonstrated.
> 
> The best example of scare tactics exhibited in Australian politics these days is two people, Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey.



What are Labor's policies beyond bringing back a carbon price, a mining tax, not turning back the boats and how would they fund it ?

I posed that as a question.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> Well, if you don't support raising relatively efficient taxes, and you do support Abbott for cutting the taxes but not associated spending, then exactly how do you propose they get the budget towards a more even keel?
> 
> They've distanced themselves from the Murray Financial Review.
> 
> So I'm wondering what justification they'll provide for the $50B deficit that's coming our way.  Surely it' only wasteful spending and incompetence that could see the budget blow out that badly, well at least that's what Hockey was gleefully saying in opposition.



I remember when many last year including Labor complained last year's budget projections were way too pessimistic.

How wrong they all were. 

Is your reference to my comments on tax above a reference to comments I've made in the recently started GST thread ?

If so, there might be a better place for a response to any specific points.


----------



## SirRumpole

drsmith said:


> What are Labor's policies beyond bringing back a carbon price, a mining tax, not turning back the boats and how would they fund it ?
> 
> I posed that as a question.




What did we hear of Coalition policies during the 6 years they were in Opposition ?

The fact is that Oppositions don't have to release any policies until the election campaign (sometimes not even then), so don't hold your breath waiting for about 18 months at least.


----------



## drsmith

SirRumpole said:


> What did we hear of Coalition policies during the 6 years they were in Opposition ?
> 
> The fact is that Oppositions don't have to release any policies until the election campaign (sometimes not even then), so don't hold your breath waiting for about 18 months at least.



The Coalition during that period said they would scrap the carbon and mining and taxes and stop the boats.

Labor in government at the same time were watching the boats increase and delivering their fantasy budget surpluses.

The fact oppositions don't release and cost policy detail earlier is a broader deficiency of our political culture. The pickings though from Labor at the moment are extremely thin.

As it presently stands, they don't even have an NBN policy.



> A future Labor government cannot simply switch back the National Broadband Network to a fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP) model, shadow communications minister Jason Clare has said. Even so, Labor wants to come up with a policy that moves Australia towards a fibre future, Clare said today at the CommsDay NBN Rebooted conference.
> 
> “None of it’s simple, and [Communications Minister] Malcolm Turnbull showed just how hard it is to change from one model to another,” said Clare.
> 
> *“What I’ll do is spend the next 12 to 18 months working with [stakeholders] about what our policy should be.*
> 
> “But the underlying principle here is that … the endgame is fibre. The question is how and when would we get there? The original policy was you do it in one stage. Now it’s going to have to be done in two.”




http://www.computerworld.com.au/art...-fibre-future-still-working-nbn-policy-clare/

My bolds.


----------



## SirRumpole

> The Coalition during that period said they would scrap the carbon and mining and taxes and stop the boats.




And it took them six years to think up those massively visionary policies ?

No wonder we are in trouble.


----------



## overhang

drsmith said:


> What are Labor's policies beyond bringing back a carbon price, a mining tax, not turning back the boats and how would they fund it ?
> 
> I posed that as a question.




Where are you getting this from drsmith?  



> "We will not have a carbon tax, the Australian people have spoken and Labor is not going to go back to that"



http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...out-return-of-carbon-tax-20141011-114nmp.html



> "The mining tax that was repealed, we won't be bringing back"



http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...or-declares-bill-shorten-20140909-10eccc.html

And they seem to not be ruling out turning back the boats


> "We get the impact but we do have anxieties about the policies, we're open minded about it," Mr Marles said.
> 
> If there was a situation where Indonesia were co-operating with this policy I think that's a complete game-changer"



http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...the-boats-richard-marles-20141026-11bym6.html


----------



## drsmith

overhang said:


> Where are you getting this from drsmith?



You didn't read my post carefully enough.

I said carbon price and Labor's policy is to introduce an ETS.

Mining tax,



> “The mining tax that was repealed, we won’t be bringing back,” Shorten told Adelaide radio station FiveAA on Tuesday.




But in the same breath,



> Bill Shorten has left the door open to drawing up a new federal mining tax, but emphasised that any such proposal would follow consultation with state governments and the resources industry.




http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/09/bill-shorten-labor-could-new-mining-tax

On boat turn backs, Richard Marles was overruled by Bill Shorten after Tanya Plibersek cracked the whip on that particular suggestion.



> Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has drawn a line under debate in the Labor Party over a policy shift on asylum seekers, slapping down immigration spokesman Richard Marles' suggestion the ALP could embrace boat turn backs.




http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...or-support-for-turnbacks-20141028-11cwt6.html


----------



## overhang

drsmith said:


> You didn't read my post carefully enough.
> 
> I said carbon price and Labor's policy is to introduce an ETS.
> 
> Mining tax,
> 
> 
> 
> But in the same breath,
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/09/bill-shorten-labor-could-new-mining-tax
> 
> On boat turn backs, Richard Marles was overruled by Bill Shorten after Tanya Plibersek cracked the whip on that particular suggestion.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...or-support-for-turnbacks-20141028-11cwt6.html




I certainly don't think you can conclude from that what you claimed.  Do you believe we will also have an amended version of work choices under Abbott?


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> If they are winning, it's because the other side is rubbish




I don't think so Rumpy...You see the Fabians have control of most of the media outlets and present their propaganda to the naive and it is the subtle way they go about without people really knowing what they are doing....The Green/Labor left wing socialist have put a lot of thought into their modus operandi...... They have the ABC, SBS, GETUP, Insiders with Barry Cassidy, QandA with Tony Jones, Media report and the support of the Fairfax newspaper...I should also include Kochie on channel 7....All are so biased against any form of conservative governments and take every opportunity in discrediting the Liberal Government when ever they can....Now please don't tell me that is not true.
Any sane thinking person could see what they have been up to, but who knows things might change for the better I hope.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> I don't think so Rumpy...You see the Fabians have control of most of the media outlets and present their propaganda to the naive and it is the subtle way they go about without people really knowing what they are doing....The Green/Labor left wing socialist have put a lot of thought into their modus operandi...... They have the ABC, SBS, GETUP, Insiders with Barry Cassidy, QandA with Tony Jones, Media report and the support of the Fairfax newspaper...I should also include Kochie on channel 7....All are so biased against any form of conservative governments and take every opportunity in discrediting the Liberal Government when ever they can....Now please don't tell me that is not true.
> Any sane thinking person could see what they have been up to, but who knows things might change for the better I hope.




I assume you have your tongue in cheek while saying this ?

Has Tony Abbott's old mate Rupert turned into a Fabian ? Alan Jones ? Ray Hadley ? Andrew Bolt ?

Some of the above have been refreshingly honest and said that TA isn't up to the job.

Maybe things are changing for the better.


----------



## chiff

Have you ever been to a meeting of the Fabian Society Noco?I haven't-but I believe that they are a think tank,centre or centre left,after new ideas to improve society.Ideas that benefit the population at large.
What they are not is a reactionary, conservative think tank.If I was called a Fabian it would mean that I was an original thinker.I may even be proud of that.
On another matter----Have you had a few bad weeks Noco?


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I assume you have your tongue in cheek while saying this ?
> 
> Has Tony Abbott's old mate Rupert turned into a Fabian ? Alan Jones ? Ray Hadley ? Andrew Bolt ?
> 
> Some of the above have been refreshingly honest and said that TA isn't up to the job.
> 
> Maybe things are changing for the better.




That is because they are unbiased and had good reason to be critical
.

Do you ever hear the ABC and their associate programs rubbish Bill Shorten for not passing the $5 billion of their own savings in the Government budget?
Do you hear the ABC rubbish Gillian Trigg for her old report on children in detention in the Labor era while trying to make Abbott look bad? 
Do you ever hear the ABC pounding Shorten why he is being is in denial over the mess Labor left and why he is not part of the solution to fix that mess?
Do you ever hear any criticism from the ABC about the Queensland Labor party over the $80 billion debt left by the previous Bligh government.
Perhaps you now begin to understand my point when I say that democratic socialism (communism) is winning...Control the media and you control how people vote.....discredit the current government on every minute detail....make up and exaggerate where they can..Even AM Agenda on SKY news is starting to irritate me...They also have become biased towards the Labor Party.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> What are Labor's policies beyond bringing back a carbon price, a mining tax, not turning back the boats and how would they fund it ?
> 
> I posed that as a question.




Probably the same as what Abbott was proposing before the 2013 election.


----------



## SirRumpole

> Do you ever hear the ABC pounding Shorten why he is being is in denial over the mess Labor left and why he is not part of the solution to fix that mess?




You may like to read this

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-10/bill-shorten-unemployment-fact-check/5951442

The ABC takes Shorten to task for not telling the full story.

May I suggest noco that you don't read the ABC a lot so you may not really know what they are saying.

It's also interesting that you don't accuse Bolt & co of Labor bias when they criticise the government , but everyone else who does so are raging commies.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> The Coalition during that period said they would scrap the carbon and mining and taxes and stop the boats.
> 
> Labor in government at the same time were watching the boats increase and delivering their fantasy budget surpluses.
> 
> The fact oppositions don't release and cost policy detail earlier is a broader deficiency of our political culture. The pickings though from Labor at the moment are extremely thin.
> 
> As it presently stands, they don't even have an NBN policy.
> 
> http://www.computerworld.com.au/art...-fibre-future-still-working-nbn-policy-clare/
> 
> My bolds.





Could you point me to the specific policies the Abbott oppostion had announced say early 2012?

Wasn't the original Abbott NBN policy to rip it up and not build it?

It's like now that labor is out of office they're still the ones to blame because they're not coming up with the policies that the Liberals should be.

Seriously, the current Govt is meandering along without any reformist zeal.  

Can you name any rational economic reform that the current Govt has on the agenda?  What policies are they offering that improves productivity?  I don't think road investments that have a 55% economic loss fits the bill.

How does school chaplains raise productivity?  How does PPL?  How does the internet tax, the GP tax?  What reform from the last budget improved productivity?

Youth unemployment the highest since 1998.  Unemployment the highest in a decade, and yet the mining CAPEX cliff is still high.  By mid to late next year over 100K of high paying jobs will be gone, most of them wont ever be replaced because those manufacturing jobs will never return, well not unless the AUD sits at 40c to the USD and our wages are more in line with Malaysia or Thailand.

So rather than whining that Labor is holding their cards very close to their chest, how about you lay the blame at the Govt which are supposedly the ones with the power to enact change for the better.


----------



## noco

chiff said:


> Have you ever been to a meeting of the Fabian Society Noco?I haven't-but I believe that they are a think tank,centre or centre left,after new ideas to improve society.Ideas that benefit the population at large.
> What they are not is a reactionary, conservative think tank.If I was called a Fabian it would mean that I was an original thinker.I may even be proud of that.
> On another matter----Have you had a few bad weeks Noco?




Cliff, I have never been to a Fabian meeting because I know how communism works.. Cliff do you realize the Fabian society is an off shoot of communism...there aim to for central control and central control has been a failure and that is why Russia gave up on it....Look at the poverty in South Korea.
Do you really want to have a government controlling the banks, media (and they already have a foot hold there), mining, agriculture. manufacturing what is left of it and even the way you live.
They are a think tank alright...A think tank for the Green/Labor left wing socialist Party.
I have posted this link before but I will post again in case you missed on previous occasions.

http://www.restoreaustralia.org.au/fabians-and-pm-gillard/
Gillrsd was a confessed communist and the late Gough Whitlam was their patron.
Also you might like to note, GETUP, you know that pseudo independent organization is run by the Green/Labor coalition...Bill Shorten is a foundation member and ex board member.


----------



## SirRumpole

> .Look at the poverty in South Korea.




South Korea is doing fine last I heard.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> That is because they are unbiased and had good reason to be critical
> .
> 
> Do you ever hear the ABC and their associate programs rubbish Bill Shorten for not passing the $5 billion of their own savings in the Government budget?
> Do you hear the ABC rubbish Gillian Trigg for her old report on children in detention in the Labor era while trying to make Abbott look bad?
> Do you ever hear the ABC pounding Shorten why he is being is in denial over the mess Labor left and why he is not part of the solution to fix that mess?
> Do you ever hear any criticism from the ABC about the Queensland Labor party over the $80 billion debt left by the previous Bligh government.
> Perhaps you now begin to understand my point when I say that democratic socialism (communism) is winning...Control the media and you control how people vote.....discredit the current government on every minute detail....make up and exaggerate where they can..Even AM Agenda on SKY news is starting to irritate me...They also have become biased towards the Labor Party.




Hmm.  What's happened to the Hockey 2018 surplus?

What's happened to the projected budget deficit this year?  Looks like it's going to hit $50B.  How is that labor's fault?

How is the internet tax fixing the budget?  How is school champlains?  How does the GP tax fix the budget long term?  How can Abbott honestly say he's trying to balance the budget when the pension and super are off limits - they are the 2 largest budget outlays.

I'm hoping you can provide the policies from the Abbott Govt that improve productivity.  Mind you, Labor productivity is quite sterling.  last year it was 1.3%, while capital productivity fell by 2%.  Can you imagine that, workers being dragged down by management's poor capital allocation.  Those dastardly fabians one upping the C level execs.

You seem to be describing the Abbott opposition play book.  Create an air of crisis, block at every front, force the Govt to look weak and as if it can't get anything done.

How is the media treating Abbott any differently to how it treated Rudd or Gillard?  Specific examples would be welcome rather than gross generalisations.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> South Korea is doing fine last I heard.



Correction : That should have been North Korea ....thanks for revealing that to me.
South Korea is certainly not under communist control.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Hmm.  What's happened to the Hockey 2018 surplus?
> 
> What's happened to the projected budget deficit this year?  Looks like it's going to hit $50B.  How is that labor's fault?
> 
> How is the internet tax fixing the budget?  How is school champlains?  How does the GP tax fix the budget long term?  How can Abbott honestly say he's trying to balance the budget when the pension and super are off limits - they are the 2 largest budget outlays.
> 
> I'm hoping you can provide the policies from the Abbott Govt that improve productivity.  Mind you, Labor productivity is quite sterling.  last year it was 1.3%, while capital productivity fell by 2%.  Can you imagine that, workers being dragged down by management's poor capital allocation.  Those dastardly fabians one upping the C level execs.
> 
> You seem to be describing the Abbott opposition play book.  Create an air of crisis, block at every front, force the Govt to look weak and as if it can't get anything done.
> 
> How is the media treating Abbott any differently to how it treated Rudd or Gillard?  Specific examples would be welcome rather than gross generalisations.



Labor lied about the deficit....the week before the 2013 election they stated $18 billion when in actual gact it was $48 billion.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Labor lied about the deficit....the week before the 2013 election they stated $18 billion when in actual gact it was $48 billion.




Labor is not responsible for the 2014-15 budget

So why is the deficit blowing out to something like $50B.  Is it gross incompetency?  Is it lack of decent economic policies?  is it trying to force an unrealisticly low revenue % of GDP.

In 2012-13, Labor's last full budget, government spending as a share of GDP was 24.1 per cent. The unwind from the GFC stimulus was more or less complete.

Mr Hockey's MYEFO numbers show that government revenue will rise to 24.3 per cent of GDP in 2016-17 and 24.8 per cent of GDP in 2017-18.

Those of you with a sharp mind can see that if Mr Abbott had not relaxed the budget purse strings and held government spending at Labor's post-GFC level at 24.1 per cent, there would be budget surpluses from 2016-17 (as Labor has budgetted for under PEFO), with a budget surplus at around $13 billion in 2017-18. The fact is that for this and every year of the Abbott government's forward estimates, government spending as a share of GDP is 25.2 per cent or more.

In 2013 the IMF examined Australia's budgetary history.  Overall, Australia was judged very favourably. For most of the country’s history, governments of both persuasions had been prudent economic managers. The IMF identified only four periods of profligacy. The two biggest were during the Howard–Costello years. They were in 2003 and then between 2005 and 2007, and they accompanied the mining boom.  The tax cuts Howard and Costello gave are now costing the budget about $30 billion a year, and the deficit’s $40 billion.  Of the $169 billion in tax cuts, 42 per cent of them, or $71 billion, went to the top 10 per cent of income earners. The top 10 per cent got more in tax cuts than the bottom 80 per cent.  A perfect example of neo liberal trickle down economics for you.

Compare that expenditure history and then look at the last budget, with its 10-12 per cent cut to the disposable incomes at the bottom end of the income scale – people on $50,000 or $60,000, and less than 1 per cent cut to disposable income at the top end.

So Howard gaveth to the rich, and Abbott taketh from the poor.


----------



## banco

noco said:


> Labor lied about the deficit....the week before the 2013 election they stated $18 billion when in actual gact it was $48 billion.




Noco, the $18 billion figure actually comes from the secretary of the Treasury and the secretary of the finance department.


----------



## moXJO

banco said:


> Noco, the $18 billion figure actually comes from the secretary of the Treasury and the secretary of the finance department.




I'm pretty sure treasury puts out a few sets of numbers and labor quoted the lowest.


----------



## SirRumpole

moXJO said:


> I'm pretty sure treasury puts out a few sets of numbers and labor quoted the lowest.




And Hockey quoted the highest


----------



## namrog

orr said:


> From the US; a mob a tad more credible than the IPA.  It's only with distance that you are able to perceive the true horror;
> 
> _'A prominent US think tank has published a piece arguing that Tony Abbott is the most incompetent leader of an industrialised democracy and has 'proven so incapable' that he has to go._



_

Ah for Christ sake, It doesnt take some one from the US to state, that If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, etc etc.............

Abbott is toast, and surely he knows it,  but does he know something that we don't ?, and is he trying to time his demise to ultimately benefit his party in the long run, as I suspect Howard may have gambled on, knowing that the 2008 financial crisis was upon us ..?      Just a personal hunch and theory  I have...._


----------



## banco

moXJO said:


> I'm pretty sure treasury puts out a few sets of numbers and labor quoted the lowest.




I'm pretty sure you have zero idea what you're talking about.  The 18 billion figure is from pre-election economic and fiscal outlook which the Secretaries of Treasury and Finance are obliged to put shortly after an election is called. They only provide one relevant figure.


----------



## moXJO

banco said:


> I'm pretty sure you have zero idea what you're talking about.  The 18 billion figure is from pre-election economic and fiscal outlook which the Secretaries of Treasury and Finance are obliged to put shortly after an election is called. They only provide one relevant figure.




Are you sure? Because being "pretty" sure sounds like hedging your bets.
 I remember treasury saying something about releasing different sets of figures-worst case , middle of the road and best outlook. It is entirely possible it was not for these figures


----------



## Logique

I have listened and good government starts now.

By scapegoating Phillip Ruddock. Sacking a respected 41 year veteran, and replacing him with loyalist cronies.

Did Dame Credlin authorize this.

I think 61-39 just narrowed.


----------



## basilio

You have to give Abbott credit for being industrious.  Particularly when it comes to digging his political grave.

Dumping Phillip Ruddock as Party Whip because the back bench was so xissed off is  worth at least another three feet of digging.  By the time he has finished his grave he will be able to fit the whole party.



> *
> Tony Abbott decision to dump Philip Ruddock after spill motion angers backbench
> *
> Date
> February 14, 2015 - 6:30AM
> 
> 
> Philip Ruddock axed as Chief Whip
> Tony Abbott's near-death experience in spill attempt
> 
> Tony Abbott has again fanned the flames of insurrection in his ranks by gratuitously dumping veteran party Whip Philip Ruddock in the wake of this week's attempted spill motion.
> 
> The move has angered many on his backbench and threatens to reopen the leadership question after some who stuck with him revealed they were appalled at the vindictiveness and sheer brutality of the move on Mr Ruddock.
> In better times: Philip Ruddock helps then Opposition Leader Tony Abbott with his high vis vest in West Melbourne in 2013.




http://www.canberratimes.com.au/fed...-motion-angers-backbench-20150213-13ekeh.html


----------



## IFocus

moXJO said:


> Are you sure? Because being "pretty" sure sounds like hedging your bets.
> I remember treasury saying something about releasing different sets of figures-worst case , middle of the road and best outlook. It is entirely possible it was not for these figures




As far as I know its one set of numbers regardless its gone up with the Coalitions extra spending and hand outs.

I think this mob are a train wreck even with a leadership change Abbott this week has confirmed this on all fronts except one and thats their protests over the proposed execution of two members of the Bali 9.

The protests are unusual from the Coalition wondering if its to help cover up the fact that it was a Coalition Government that put them into this position?


----------



## Julia

moXJO said:


> Are you sure? Because being "pretty" sure sounds like hedging your bets.
> I remember treasury saying something about releasing different sets of figures-worst case , middle of the road and best outlook. It is entirely possible it was not for these figures



I have a similar recollection, going back probably a year or more.


Logique said:


> I have listened and good government starts now.
> 
> By scapegoating Phillip Ruddock. Sacking a respected 41 year veteran, and replacing him with loyalist cronies.
> 
> Did Dame Credlin authorize this.
> 
> I think 61-39 just narrowed.



This is just one more example of how Mr Abbott has lost the plot completely.  That he could behave in such a blatantly childishly spiteful way toward a highly respected Liberal figure must be alienating what supporters he had left.

The sooner someone, for my money Julie Bishop,  makes a definitive move against him the better.  
I've never liked Malcolm Turnbull but there's no chance he could be worse than Abbott.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> That is because they are unbiased and had good reason to be critical
> .
> 
> Do you ever hear the ABC and their associate programs rubbish.




I have to say I must watch the wrong shows because the only times I see criticisms are the rare occasion I watch the DRUM and the odd Q&A, but they are patently obvious personal opinions from talking heads. They certainly aren't 10@10 Andrew Bolt shows.


----------



## Tisme

Clive speech education


----------



## Knobby22

Can someone tell Abbott to stop talking down to us.
"Bad people" etc.  I find it insulting.


----------



## Julia

I appreciate your point, Knobby, but there are hundreds of thousands out there in voter land with whom "bad people" would resonate strongly.

Is it worth it, though, to further alienate the more discerning?  I doubt that it matters much what he says at this stage.  The discussion seems to have moved on to who will be the better replacement - Mr Turnbull or Ms Bishop.
Mr Turnbull has noticeably shifted his commentary from 'loyal support' to decidedly critical, at least over the sacking of Philip Ruddock.  Presumably he's feeling his way upwards.


----------



## sydboy007

Julia said:


> I appreciate your point, Knobby, but there are hundreds of thousands out there in voter land with whom "bad people" would resonate strongly.
> 
> Is it worth it, though, to further alienate the more discerning?  I doubt that it matters much what he says at this stage.  The discussion seems to have moved on to who will be the better replacement - Mr Turnbull or Ms Bishop.
> Mr Turnbull has noticeably shifted his commentary from 'loyal support' to decidedly critical, at least over the sacking of Philip Ruddock.  Presumably he's feeling his way upwards.




many feel Abbott's treatment of Ruddock was disloyal, so I'd say MT is on safe ground to be critical of the captain's call.

It's just yet another demonstration of Abbott's lack of judgement.  Considering the slap down he gave  a back bencher after the budget, it's a bit rich for Abbott to complain Ruddock wasn't getting the feedback required for Abbott to truly understand how alienated the back bench was.

I don't think he even gets it that the invisible man garnered nearly as many free votes in the spill motion as he did.

I'd prefer the political agenda was reset to focus on the below graph.  BREE are being heroic in their assumptions a lot of under the water potential projects will make sense in a few years when the price of I/O Coal LNG are in a falling elevator waiting to over shoot the cost base of the marginal producer.  There is nothing in the near future that is going to replace even a decent chunk of the below mining CAPEX cliff.





This chart from FMG presentation could sum up the choice the RBA made for Australia during the ramp up of the resource boom.


----------



## Tisme

sydboy007 said:


> It's just yet another demonstration of Abbott's lack of judgement.  Considering the slap down he gave  a back bencher after the budget, it's a bit rich for Abbott to complain Ruddock wasn't getting the feedback required for Abbott to truly understand how alienated the back bench was.




The way I look at it :- he got the Captain's job over Malcolm by one vote back in the day; that margin has increased = sweet.


----------



## sydboy007

Seems like Abbott has quickly stepped beyond the bounds of Jul-liar

The ever trustworthy Australian reported last week about how Abbott and Abe had a gentleman's agreement that Australia would buy Japanese subs in return for the FTA being signed.

Then Abbott does a behind the scenes deal with the SA senators for their votes in return for a verbal contract of an open tender for the submarine contract.

Somehow between that weekend verbal contract and the Monday after the libspill vote, Abbott was now calling it an evaluation rather than a tender.  I suppose he had to flag to Abe that their gentleman's agreement was still in play.  Definitely 4 votes for Turnbull after that reneging on a promise.

But the first sub is unlikely to arrive for a decade, so what's the rush Tony?  We're talking medicare for a year to build the subs, and I think I'd like to see the rationale behind us buying them.  What military alternatives could that funding be used for?

I seem to remember Tony complaining day after day about Labor not having a CBA for the NBN (though he was quite happy to promise roads funding for projects without a CBA thereby breaking a pre election promise before even getting into office) but how can you guarantee that we will get the best subs at the best price without an open tender?  It seems the more money being spent on a pet project the less willing the Liberals are willing to examine the rationale for the spending.


----------



## banco

Julia said:


> I appreciate your point, Knobby, but there are hundreds of thousands out there in voter land with whom "bad people" would resonate strongly.




Probably the same dummies who apparently lap up the tired sports analogies: "team australia" and "captain's pick".


----------



## Tink

Liberal voters split over Abbott future

_Liberal voters are split over whether Tony Abbott should be dumped as leader.

The latest Essential poll published on Tuesday found 48 per cent of coalition voters believed Mr Abbott should stay on as leader until the next election due in 2016.

But 34 per cent said he should be given six months to improve and 14 per cent said he should be removed immediately.

Thirty-nine per cent of all voters said he should be replaced as soon as possible, while 22 per cent gave him six months and 28 per cent said he should be kept on to the election.

Asked whether Mr Abbott would still be leader at the election, 61 per cent said no, including 40 per cent of coalition voters.
_

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/poli.../liberal-voters-split-over-abbott-future.html


----------



## sydboy007

If this is ending the age of entitlement, then we truly have no hope left for sound economic policy from this Govt.



> Scott Morrison said tackling rules that deter people from selling the family home and buying a smaller, cheaper properties “needs further consideration”.
> 
> Many age pensioners are reluctant to sell their home because the cash affects their eligibility for the pension under the income test…
> 
> Although enabling pensioners to downsize, yet keep the pension would most likely cost the budget money, Mr Morrison argued that enabling retirees to cash in the equity in their homes would be good for the economy because of the extra disposable income it would create.




This is hot on the heels for a blanket ban on including the primary residence in the pension assets test from Morrison.

Each decision like this just goes to show that those under the age of 45 lost the intergenerational ware before a single shot was fired.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> If this is ending the age of entitlement, then we truly have no hope left for sound economic policy from this Govt.
> 
> 
> 
> This is hot on the heels for a blanket ban on including the primary residence in the pension assets test from Morrison.
> 
> Each decision like this just goes to show that those under the age of 45 lost the intergenerational ware before a single shot was fired.




Unless the primary residence earns income I see no reason to include it in the pensions assets test. 

Why should people have their pensions cut and therefore have their cost of living increased just because they want to live in their home that they have worked hard to pay for ?


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> Unless the primary residence earns income I see no reason to include it in the pensions assets test.
> 
> Why should people have their pensions cut and therefore have their cost of living increased just because they want to live in their home that they have worked hard to pay for ?




Why should gen x and y and millenials struggle to pay their mortgages and rent, seeing their cost of living continue to rise above inflation, just so older people can continue to live in their home and receive massive levels of Govt support?

I'm not advocating forcing people to sell their house, but some form of loan scheme that is paid when the house is eventually sold is the only way we can cope with the oncoming pension time bomb.

How does a reducing workforce support the ever burgeoning cost of the pension?  The boomer retirements are yet to really hit, and already the pension is the single largest Govt spending initiative.  Seems your advocating for income taxes and uni costs and all assortment of charges to be higher for younger people so as to support this.  Why should workers slave away under massively high debts to pay taxes that are predominantly going to benefit older people?

Pensioners have had their income increased by the best of CPI or average weekly earnings, younger poor people on other forms of Govt support have had to make do with CPI increases, falling further behind.

Young people have gone backwards over the last decade.   It's only those in 55+ age households that have gone forwards.  Doesn't this mean they are now more capable of funding their retirement?  

Also, younger people are falling behind in home ownership, so is it fair that older people get a free kick on treating the primary residence as an invisible asset?





In 1990 there was 5.25 workers per retiree.  Today just 4, by 2025 3.5, and 2030 likely just 3.  So you are expecting a group of people who are in aggregate terms much poorer that older people to continue to pay ever increasing amounts of taxation just so those same older people don't have to tap their accumulated wealth tied up in housing?

The pension already costs $40B a year, and we've only got 2.3M pensioners.  By 2030 that figure will be more like 4M, but remember that cost burden will be paid for by a third less workers.  That's a situation just 15 years away.


----------



## SirRumpole

> Why should gen x and y and millenials struggle to pay their mortgages and rent, seeing their cost of living continue to rise above inflation, just so older people can continue to live in their home and receive massive levels of Govt support?




I doubt you would say that if you ever tried to live on the pension, and in any case your argument is flawed as your two precepts are not necessarily dependent on each other. You could as well say "why should most Australians live in affluence when there are people living in gutters in Delhi".

I suggest that changes to negative gearing to swing the balance from investors to first home buyers and bring down the cost of homes would be far more beneficial to your generation than the pension changes that you suggest.


----------



## pixel

SirRumpole said:


> I doubt you would say that if you ever tried to live on the pension, and in any case your argument is flawed as your two precepts are not necessarily dependent on each other. You could as well say "why should most Australians live in affluence when there are people living in gutters in Delhi".
> 
> I suggest that changes to negative gearing to swing the balance from investors to first home buyers and bring down the cost of homes would be far more beneficial to your generation than the pension changes that you suggest.




+1

And another major aspect is usually overlooked:
More often than not, first home buyers are looking at the total package: 4 bed, 2 bath, double garage, home theatre ... you name it. If one suggested a more modest starting point, a blank stare would be the answer.
What happens if you tell them that our first home had two bedrooms, brick veneer, and we made do with hand-me-downs and DIY? They'll be offended because everybody tells them "You're worth it!" 

I call it a consequence of the* Age of Entitlement*, which started under Howard and his squandered $Billions on middle class welfare.  The GST added to the stupidity by aligning Government self-interest (let people consume, rather than save and make a personal effort, so we get more GS Tax) with people's vanity and laziness (let others "do"; we put it on plastic.)


----------



## Julia

Yes, we boomers did do the saving, working multiple jobs, making do with second hand furniture etc., but I don't think that has anything to do with the unreasonableness of age pensioners living in a multi million dollar home and drawing the full pension.

Scott Morrison made the point that the actual numbers of such pensioners are so few as to be fairly irrelevant in the whole scheme of the cost of the age pension, but there's the moral aspect as well.  I can absolutely understand young people trying to save for a deposit on their first home being resentful that another group is apparently not doing their bit.

I agree with Syd:  no one needs to leave their home.  It would not be difficult to set up a government operated scheme with a type of reverse mortgage, to apply to homes over an agreed amount, perhaps $2 million, perhaps a bit less, replacing the age pension partly with privately funded income stream.

We're all pretty good at criticising others for being unprepared to pay a contribution for GP visits etc., so I reckon we retirees need to accept some limitations as well.  I don't think it would be unreasonable for the tax free status in pension phase to be looked at either.


----------



## SirRumpole

> I agree with Syd: no one needs to leave their home. It would not be difficult to set up a government operated scheme with a type of reverse mortgage, to apply to homes over an agreed amount, perhaps $2 million, perhaps a bit less, replacing the age pension partly with privately funded income stream.




A meritorious idea that should be considered, as long as the threshold applies to those with more than average wealth in terms of their family home, but if this is only a small number of people is it worth the trouble ?


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> I doubt you would say that if you ever tried to live on the pension, and in any case your argument is flawed as your two precepts are not necessarily dependent on each other. You could as well say "why should most Australians live in affluence when there are people living in gutters in Delhi".
> 
> I suggest that changes to negative gearing to swing the balance from investors to first home buyers and bring down the cost of homes would be far more beneficial to your generation than the pension changes that you suggest.




NG losess are around $7-8B a year.  Not insignificant, but certainly not growing at the rate of the cost of the aged pension.

I'm not saying the pension is a grand sum to live on, but how do does a falling worker base support a fast increase in the number of those receiving support?

Certainly making housing more affordable would improve the lot of younger people, but with a political class geared up to their eye balls in IPs how likely are changes?



pixel said:


> +1
> 
> And another major aspect is usually overlooked:
> More often than not, first home buyers are looking at the total package: 4 bed, 2 bath, double garage, home theatre ... you name it. If one suggested a more modest starting point, a blank stare would be the answer.
> What happens if you tell them that our first home had two bedrooms, brick veneer, and we made do with hand-me-downs and DIY? They'll be offended because everybody tells them "You're worth it!"
> 
> I call it a consequence of the* Age of Entitlement*, which started under Howard and his squandered $Billions on middle class welfare.  The GST added to the stupidity by aligning Government self-interest (let people consume, rather than save and make a personal effort, so we get more GS Tax) with people's vanity and laziness (let others "do"; we put it on plastic.)




Could you point me to the affordable housing available to a family of 4 in a major city?  A couple on a median income of $100K would have trouble finding anything in the 3 to 4 times income range.  Is trading up a smart option when you start facing massive stamp duty costs on each upgrade.  That modest 2BR could become quite expensive.  In NSW it's 9K for a 300K property, and you'd be struggling to find much available that price or less in Sydney.

Isn't the attitude I've paid my taxes I deserve the pension just the same kind of attitude you're criticising the young over?  Is it the young's fault those who retired over invested in housing, due to the massive preferential tax treatment?  Is it fair to penalise someone for having $1M in income producing assets when anothe rperson with a $2M primary residence can access a full pension?


----------



## banco

pixel said:


> +1
> 
> And another major aspect is usually overlooked:
> More often than not, first home buyers are looking at the total package: 4 bed, 2 bath, double garage, home theatre ... you name it. If one suggested a more modest starting point, a blank stare would be the answer.
> What happens if you tell them that our first home had two bedrooms, brick veneer, and we made do with hand-me-downs and DIY? They'll be offended because everybody tells them "You're worth it!"




Are these the kind of dumb cliches you trade in at the retirement home?


----------



## SirRumpole

> Could you point me to the affordable housing available to a family of 4 in a major city? A couple on a median income of $100K would have trouble finding anything in the 3 to 4 times income range.




I think we know that cheap housing is not available because it's in the interests of developers to build big to squeeze as much as they can out of home buyers.

It needs some planning intervention by State governments to allow "modular" type homes that can be extended later as a family grows. 

The trouble is that developers are entwined in political parties like ivy and getting them out is very difficult.


----------



## drsmith

Julia said:


> I agree with Syd:  no one needs to leave their home.  It would not be difficult to set up a government operated scheme with a type of reverse mortgage, to apply to homes over an agreed amount, perhaps $2 million, perhaps a bit less, replacing the age pension partly with privately funded income stream.



This sort of thing has been tried before, not in relation to the age pension but at the state level.

In the early 2000's, the then WA state Labor government proposed a premium property tax of 2%pa on properties valued over $1m. When confronted with the prospect of asset rich cash flow poor pensioners having to sell their family home to pay the tax, the then state government then suggested the tax debt in those cases could accumulate and be paid out of the estate upon their death.

No prizes for guessing what that got called and that tax proposal was subsequently dropped.

That doesn't make it necessarily wrong in principal but there are may other options before going down what is at an estate level a death duty. Also, like the existing assets test for the pension, it would need to be a tiered structure, say, full pension at a property value of $2m grading to no pension at $4m for example and property values over time would need to be indexed.

In broader terms though, we should be looking at the robustness of the income and consumption tax bases before taxing assets. Taxing assets because assets can't be moved (as Ken Henry suggested) is just going after the low hanging fruit.


----------



## pixel

Julia said:


> Yes, we boomers did do the saving, working multiple jobs, making do with second hand furniture etc., but I don't think that has anything to do with the unreasonableness of age pensioners living in a multi million dollar home and drawing the full pension.




I mentioned *one aspect* that's rarely mentioned. That doesn't mean I dismiss -

the injustice of pensioners living in mansions;
the price gouging by negative gearing and subsequent Auctioning;
the abundance of tax loopholes favouring the unscrupulous;
Those are all issues for the Abbott Government to fix; but given the general sound of this Captain's calls, I won't hold my breath.


----------



## Julia

drsmith said:


> When confronted with the prospect of asset rich cash flow poor pensioners having to sell their family home to pay the tax, the then state government then suggested the tax debt in those cases could accumulate and be paid out of the estate upon their death.
> 
> No prizes for guessing what that got called and that tax proposal was subsequently dropped.



Well, the facts are what they are.  Syd has put up the graphic reality of the future for the age pension - massively increasing with fewer taxpayers to support it.  Something has to give.

Of course people wouldn't like either inclusion of the family home in the assets test, or any scheme which diminishes the present excellent preservation of family wealth.  The whole generosity of everything to do with Super has become a wealth management sinecure for the very affluent.

No one is going to leap up and down in unbridled joy at any suggestion they be taxed/penalised in any way at all.  We all want it to happen to someone else.

We need a government that will simply point out what needs to be done, consult widely with relevant interest groups as to the fairest way to do it, and then just say "this is what will happen".

The aggressive media, plus the power of social media, seems to have turned politicians into apologetic, approval seeking wimps which may well be one of the reasons they are currently earning so little respect.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> I think we know that cheap housing is not available because it's in the interests of developers to build big to squeeze as much as they can out of home buyers.
> 
> .




Two other major factors are 1) councils pushing greenfield and brownfield infrastructure spend (roads, drainage, power, etc) onto the developer 2) the adoption of BCA and all it's high cost addons to a simple wall and roof house.

Apparently all those 100 year old houses out there that have stood the test of time are not adequate to live in these days...which makes me wonder why they can be inhabited.


----------



## noco

Julia said:


> Well, the facts are what they are.  Syd has put up the graphic reality of the future for the age pension - massively increasing with fewer taxpayers to support it.  Something has to give.
> 
> Of course people wouldn't like either inclusion of the family home in the assets test, or any scheme which diminishes the present excellent preservation of family wealth.  The whole generosity of everything to do with Super has become a wealth management sinecure for the very affluent.
> 
> No one is going to leap up and down in unbridled joy at any suggestion they be taxed/penalised in any way at all.  We all want it to happen to someone else.
> 
> We need a government that will simply point out what needs to be done, consult widely with relevant interest groups as to the fairest way to do it, and then just say "this is what will happen".
> 
> The aggressive media, plus the power of social media, seems to have turned politicians into apologetic, approval seeking wimps which may well be one of the reasons they are currently earning so little respect.




i believe the social welfare and the medicare crisis is finally beginning to trickle out of the government and from various quarters of the media....On the Richo/Jones show on 601 Foxtel, Jones emphasized this in the interview with Chris Bowen that something has to be done......Bowen was a like stunned mullet when asked what the threshold was for payment of tax....Jones asked him something like 4 times and he evaded the question each time....Why didn't he say "I did not know?"......Bowen was also asked what was the rate of tax above the $18,200..... Was it 15% or 19%...once again he did not know....Can you imagine the media flogging if that had been Joe Hockey....And Bowen wants to be the treasurer in the next government IF labor should win.
Bowen finally succumbed to the fact that welfare and medicare was rising at a rapid rate......But Bowen had no answer as to how to fix the problem...He kept saying we will release all our policies in the next 12 months but in the mean time he and Shorten are happy to let the situation get worse.....I don't think what ever the government propose to rectify the situation, the Green/Labor party in the senate along with PUP will find reason to  reject it  on the grounds it is not fair.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> i believe the social welfare and the medicare crisis is finally beginning to trickle out of the government and from various quarters of the media....On the Richo/Jones show on 601 Foxtel, Jones emphasized this in the interview with Chris Bowen that something has to be done......Bowen was a like stunned mullet when asked what the threshold was for payment of tax....Jones asked him something like 4 times and he evaded the question each time....Why didn't he say "I did not know?"......Bowen was also asked what was the rate of tax above the $18,200..... Was it 15% or 19%...once again he did not know....Can you imagine the media flogging if that had been Joe Hockey....And Bowen wants to be the treasurer in the next government IF labor should win.
> Bowen finally succumbed to the fact that welfare and medicare was rising at a rapid rate......But Bowen had no answer as to how to fix the problem...He kept saying we will release all our policies in the next 12 months but in the mean time he and Shorten are happy to let the situation get worse.....I don't think what ever the government propose to rectify the situation, the Green/Labor party in the senate along with PUP will find reason to  reject it  on the grounds it is not fair.




The cost of medicare has increased roughly with the rate of incomes.

It's pretty much shown through history that the wealthier we get the more we spend on healthcare.

Now one can debate as to how effective that spending is, but please don't try to pull the Government line that medicare costs are increasing at an unsustainable rate.

If spending on super tax concessions and the pension can rise at multiples of the increase in medicare, and the Govt sees no problem, well there's half the reason why the budget deficit is ballooning by $100M a day.  When NG and over investment in housing is not seen as a problem.  

Morrison has pretty much said go big in housing, over invest as much as you can, so when you hit retirement you can down size and store maybe $1M in income generating assets invisible to the pension assets test.  there'l be 2 types of pensioners with this policy.  Those living the high life due to property, and those who made non housing investments seeing their access to the pension severely curtailed when compared to their property owning friends.

Soon we'll have a worker / retiree level back to where we were in the 1970s, yet the tax base has been significantly eroded.

The below wealth graph shows which age cohort is most able to help with the expanding cost of aged care, and it's definitely not the youth of today facing the highest levels of unemployment since Oct 1998!


----------



## basilio

I'm a bit peed off with the constant comparison of no of workers Vs no of older pensioners.  It's true but not a complete picture.

In the past 20 years we have seen a mass reduction in employment by almost all employers. Rationalisation, cutbacks whatever.  But as far as I can see the remaining workforce is being forced to do the jobs of those who have been retrenched and in many cases for less money  ( I have watched this process in a number of industries.)

Meanwhile the management that has engineered these rationaisations is giving itself multi millionaire dollar bonuses - effectively the wages of people they have sacked.

And to make sure they keep all this money they use every trick in the Superannuation handbook and tax avoidance industry.

To top it off many of the companies that rationalise their workforce but still make enormous profits have become adept at simply not paying tax through creative accounting. Or alternatively they just import all product from China and have a few sales staff at minimum wages providing exceptional profits to a its owners.

So in the big picture we have a  workers work force that is squeezed both numerically and financially with a small number of super rich managers and a corporate structure that treats tax as optional.

And we wonder why we have trouble balancing the budget ?


----------



## SirRumpole

> Isn't the attitude I've paid my taxes I deserve the pension just the same kind of attitude you're criticising the young over? Is it the young's fault those who retired over invested in housing, due to the massive preferential tax treatment? Is it fair to penalise someone for having $1M in income producing assets when anothe rperson with a $2M primary residence can access a full pension?




If you are going to say that your generation is worse off than previous ones, you may like to mention the current mortgage interest rate of around 4.5% compared to the 18% that some of us paid.


----------



## Bintang

basilio said:


> And we wonder why we have trouble balancing the budget ?




In the bigger, bigger picture fiscal responsibility is required on the spending side as well as the revenue side if the budget is to be balanced.

The trouble is voters of all stripes always want their own particular ‘free lunches’, to be maintained. They will only agree to spending cuts that affect the ‘other guy but not me’.

Meanwhile in order to get elected the politicians will continue to promise ‘free lunches’ to all and sundry especially because they don’t pay for it themselves – ‘other people’ pay for it.

By all means soak the rich (companies and individuals) to the maximum extent possible but by itself the measure will still never balance the books.  Especially, when there is always a Labor party waiting in the wings who will find ways to increase spending faster than the rich can be soaked.


----------



## Bintang

SirRumpole said:


> If you are going to say that your generation is worse off than previous ones, you may like to mention the current mortgage interest rate of around 4.5% compared to the 18% that some of us paid.




Interest rates were at the 18% level around 1991/2 if I recall correctly, at which time the Australia-wide median house price was around $140,000

Median house price today is probably around $600,000 (I’m estimating – haven’t had time to look it up).
So:
18% x 140,000 = 25,200
4.5% x 600,000 = 27,000

I’m not sure the relative advantages/disadvantages are quite as extreme as 18% versus 4.5% might suggest.


----------



## SirRumpole

> Especially, when there is always a Labor party waiting in the wings who will find ways to increase spending faster than the rich can be soaked.




I doubt if a lot of Labor MP's especially prospective Cabinet Ministers are interested in soaking the rich, because most of them are rich themselves, or at least not badly off. 

I'd suggest that they want to keep their negative geared investments and super tax breaks as much as anyone else. 

Why do you think that they did nothing about this for the 6 years they were in ?


----------



## Bintang

SirRumpole said:


> I'd suggest that they want to keep their negative geared investments and super tax breaks as much as anyone else.
> 
> Why do you think that they did nothing about this for the 6 years they were in ?




I agree with you absolutely about this. So they will only soak the rich in ways, which will not affect themselves personally. Hence the amount of ‘soak’ revenue will be lower than it otherwise should be and the predicament I outlined earlier will be exacerbated.
Either way the Labor party will still find ways to spend money faster than they can collect it and irrespective of the absolute amount of ‘soaking’ that they can actually achieve.

This is a world-wide phenomenon. It can never be fixed by a change of Government anywhere. ‘Natural forces’ will ultimately fix it – i.e. a world-wide financial Armageddon that gives neither voters nor politicians choices about their respective ‘free lunches’. All ‘free lunches’ will disappear down the black-holes of world debt. It will not be pretty when it happens but it is coming.


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> If you are going to say that your generation is worse off than previous ones, you may like to mention the current mortgage interest rate of around 4.5% compared to the 18% that some of us paid.




this RBA graph shows the lie to that claim.  Just look how easy it was after 2 years during the high inflation high interest rate environment compared to recent times.





the entire article is well worth a read - http://www.rba.gov.au/speeches/2013/sp-so-230413.html


----------



## Bintang

Bintang said:


> Interest rates were at the 18% level around 1991/2 if I recall correctly, at which time the Australia-wide median house price was around $140,000
> 
> Median house price today is probably around $600,000 (I’m estimating – haven’t had time to look it up).
> So:
> 18% x 140,000 = 25,200
> 4.5% x 600,000 = 27,000
> 
> I’m not sure the relative advantages/disadvantages are quite as extreme as 18% versus 4.5% might suggest.






sydboy007 said:


> this RBA graph shows the lie to that claim.  Just look how easy it was after 2 years during the high inflation high interest rate environment compared to recent times.




I can't see what you a referring to in the chart. Doesn't look like that much difference to me.


----------



## basilio

It's not just Tony Abbott that has trashed his Government reputation for good governance

The treatment of the Human Rights Commissioner Gillian Triggs has been a disgrace. Trying to force her resignation, attacking her personally for the report on children in detention (as distinct from addressing the report).

Latest story is how George Brandis insisted that his staff member be present when Gillian spoke with the Opposition Attorny General  Mark Dreyfus.  I'm surprised that her ofice hasn't been wired and her computers bugged "for security reasons".  George Brandis is quite capable doing that.

What a pig...!



> * Labor objects to George Brandis's staffer 'overseeing' meeting with Gillian Triggs
> *
> Exclusive: Attorney general instructed his staff member to be present when Mark Dreyfus met human rights commissioner
> Gillian Triggs
> Tony Abbott has refused requests for a meeting with Gillian Triggs, above, and George Brandis has been unable to find time in recent months. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP
> 
> Lenore Taylor, political editor
> @lenoretaylor
> 
> 
> Labor has complained that the attorney general, George Brandis, “inappropriately” insisted his staff “oversee” a meeting between the human rights commissioner, Gillian Triggs, and the opposition.
> 
> The shadow attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, told Guardian Australia he had complained to Brandis after the attorney general instructed his staff member be present when Dreyfus met Triggs late last year, not long after the commission delivered to government its final report on children in detention. The meeting was not about the report.




http://www.theguardian.com/australi...taffer-overseeing-meeting-with-gillian-triggs


----------



## SirRumpole

basilio said:


> It's not just Tony Abbott that has trashed his Government reputation for good governance
> 
> The treatment of the Human Rights Commissioner Gillian Triggs has been a disgrace. Trying to force her resignation, attacking her personally for the report on children in detention (as distinct from addressing the report).
> 
> Latest story is how George Brandis insisted that his staff member be present when Gillian spoke with the Opposition Attorny General  Mark Dreyfus.  I'm surprised that her ofice hasn't been wired and her computers bugged "for security reasons".  George Brandis is quite capable doing that.
> 
> What a pig...!




So much for a free country when people can't talk to each other without a commissar in attendance.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> It's not just Tony Abbott that has trashed his Government reputation for good governance
> 
> The treatment of the Human Rights Commissioner Gillian Triggs has been a disgrace. Trying to force her resignation, attacking her personally for the report on children in detention (as distinct from addressing the report).
> 
> Latest story is how George Brandis insisted that his staff member be present when Gillian spoke with the Opposition Attorny General  Mark Dreyfus.  I'm surprised that her ofice hasn't been wired and her computers bugged "for security reasons".  George Brandis is quite capable doing that.
> 
> What a pig...!
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/australi...taffer-overseeing-meeting-with-gillian-triggs




What else would you expect from that communist paper, the Guardian...Lenore Taylor is so biased towards the Green/laborParty..That is the sort of reporting you would expect from her.
.
The fact is, Gillian Trigg was advised by Tony Burke and Chris Bowen to hold the report until after the 2013 election..She lied about those meetings at the senate inquiry and was well and truly caught out.....That stuck out like the dog's proverbials.


----------



## Knobby22

noco said:


> What else would you expect from that communist paper, the Guardian...Lenore Taylor is so biased towards the Green/laborParty..That is the sort of reporting you would expect from her.
> .
> The fact is, Gillian Trigg was advised by Tony Burke and Chris Bowen to hold the report until after the 2013 election..She lied about those meetings at the senate inquiry and was well and truly caught out.....That stuck out like the dog's proverbials.




I think Gillian Trigg's political leanings was known by the Liberal party hence the concern and the reasons for being extra careful.
There appears to be a good case for bias of the commission in my view. It would be nice of public servants were seen to above the political fight as used to occur rather than part of it.


----------



## sydboy007

Knobby22 said:


> I think Gillian Trigg's political leanings was known by the Liberal party hence the concern and the reasons for being extra careful.
> There appears to be a good case for bias of the commission in my view. It would be nice of public servants were seen to above the political fight as used to occur rather than part of it.




Does that include not appointing people with very right or left leaning views to chair Govt reviews?

Is it appropriate to say have Dick Warbuton running the RET review when he's been very outspoken against wind farms?  

Surely if the Govt is paying your salary to run a review then for all intents and purposes you are a public servant during that period.

Fortunately, even with hand picked / stacked reviews they've turned out to provide the Govt some very uncomfortable advice, with Hockey going on about how the Murray review was a report for the Govt, not by the Govt, and did not reflect offical policy.


----------



## Knobby22

I agree completely Syd. 
The Dick Warburton incident was a slap in the face to the Australian public. Probably the most obvious and among the worst political appointments of all time and another reason why I can't stand this Abbott Government.


----------



## sydboy007

Bintang said:


> I can't see what you a referring to in the chart. Doesn't look like that much difference to me.




The claim made was that people today have it so much easier because interest rates are not 18%

The chart I provided from the RBA shows just how much disposable income is being feed to the mortgage monster these days, and it's comparable to when interest rates were 18%.

The blue dotted line shows you how much income is required after 2 years of repayments, and the current low interest rate period turns out to be not quite as easy as the high inflation high interest environment before financial deregulation.

People buying property today don't get inflation doing a lot of the hard work for them, especially when it was common to be getting wage rises 3 or 4 times what they have been lately.

But hte real point I'm trying to make is why is it fair to have what is the largest asset for the majority of households be excluded from determining access to the pension, especially when the relatively small group of over 65s has something like 1/3 of the wealth of the country.  Is it fair that when the wealth of most younger generations has been going backwards there is push by older Australians to force through cuts to Govt spending that go more to younger / poorer people than wealthy older retirees?

Is it sensible for the Govt to flag to people that investing in housing could be the most tax effective retirement strategy, because you'll be able to sell up, downsize or rent and have investable assets well above the current pension asset test that will not impact on access to the pension?  Why do income taxes have to be higher, or the GST raised just to keep the current very generous pension asset & income tests?  A couple can earn over $73K a year tax free and still get a part pension.  That up there with a working couple earning the median wage each after tax, and significantly better if you look at it from a disposable income basis.


----------



## IFocus

Knobby22 said:


> I think Gillian Trigg's political leanings was known by the Liberal party hence the concern and the reasons for being extra careful.
> There appears to be a good case for bias of the commission in my view. It would be nice of public servants were seen to above the political fight as used to occur rather than part of it.




Knobby, Triggs was equally critical of both political parties in the most recent report about kids in detention with a Liberal supporters name on the report (Wilson) strange Abbott hasn't mentioned that.


----------



## IFocus

I am surprised no one has mention the obvious about Abbotts recent behaviour over the Bali 2

After praising the Coalition I fine now they are happey to play politics over there now certain execution.

Once you start pointing fingers at the Indo's its all over

The Bali 2 will now be executed no if no buts Abbotts behaviour was I think for local consumption nothing more it would have gone against any advice from the diplomats.


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> Knobby, Triggs was equally critical of both political parties in the most recent report about kids in detention with a Liberal supporters name on the report (Wilson) strange Abbott hasn't mentioned that.



Gillian Triggs showed her bias late last year with her unsubstantiated claims about armed guards on Xmas Island and that detention camps were like prison.

Meanwhile, the current government continues to solve the problem at the source,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-19/asylum-seeker-boat-intercepted-off-cocos-islands/6152002


----------



## drsmith

Julia said:


> Well, the facts are what they are.  Syd has put up the graphic reality of the future for the age pension - massively increasing with fewer taxpayers to support it.  Something has to give.
> 
> Of course people wouldn't like either inclusion of the family home in the assets test, or any scheme which diminishes the present excellent preservation of family wealth.  The whole generosity of everything to do with Super has become a wealth management sinecure for the very affluent.
> 
> No one is going to leap up and down in unbridled joy at any suggestion they be taxed/penalised in any way at all.  We all want it to happen to someone else.
> 
> We need a government that will simply point out what needs to be done, consult widely with relevant interest groups as to the fairest way to do it, and then just say "this is what will happen".
> 
> The aggressive media, plus the power of social media, seems to have turned politicians into apologetic, approval seeking wimps which may well be one of the reasons they are currently earning so little respect.



Did you read the last two paragraphs of the post you quoted ?

It wasn't about just wanting it to happen to someone else.


----------



## moXJO

IFocus said:


> I am surprised no one has mention the obvious about Abbotts recent behaviour over the Bali 2
> 
> After praising the Coalition I fine now they are happey to play politics over there now certain execution.
> 
> Once you start pointing fingers at the Indo's its all over
> 
> The Bali 2 will now be executed no if no buts Abbotts behaviour was I think for local consumption nothing more it would have gone against any advice from the diplomats.




Abbott carried on like an idiot. He must have known better then to try and blackmail the Indo's. Not sure if he needed to w hore himself out to the media like that to score brownie points.


----------



## Julia

drsmith said:


> Did you read the last two paragraphs of the post you quoted ?
> 
> It wasn't about just wanting it to happen to someone else.



This is what from your post I quoted and responded to:


> When confronted with the prospect of asset rich cash flow poor pensioners having to sell their family home to pay the tax, the then state government then suggested the tax debt in those cases could accumulate and be paid out of the estate upon their death.
> 
> No prizes for guessing what that got called and that tax proposal was subsequently dropped.



I stand by what I said in response which is essentially that a reverse mortgage type of scheme would work for people determined to stay in their very expensive homes whilst drawing full pension, and too bad if it's unpopular.
Doesn't matter if it's a tax debt or access to full pension.

The present system is broken and unsustainable so some unpopular decisions will have to be made.

Syd has repeatedly laid out sensible suggestions for what needs to happen.


----------



## chiff

I agree with what you are saying Julia-or else taxpayers are funding capital gains windfalls for those with expensive homes.
The pension scheme is a safety net,not a scheme to allow some to benefit disproportionately.
The ones most opposed would be those that will inherit .


----------



## drsmith

Julia said:


> This is what from your post I quoted and responded to:
> 
> I stand by what I said in response which is essentially that a reverse mortgage type of scheme would work for people determined to stay in their very expensive homes whilst drawing full pension, and too bad if it's unpopular.
> Doesn't matter if it's a tax debt or access to full pension.
> 
> The present system is broken and unsustainable so some unpopular decisions will have to be made.
> 
> Syd has repeatedly laid out sensible suggestions for what needs to happen.



By only considering part of that post though in your response, you're considering it out of context.


----------



## Julia

drsmith said:


> By only considering part of that post though in your response, you're considering it out of context.



I don't know why you're going on about this.  I don't think I'm obliged to comment on every part of all of your posts.

As it happens, I don't entirely agree with the latter part of your original post (the top two paragraphs from which I responded to), perhaps unusually because I more often than not do agree with you and make that clear.

So I just expressed what I feel strongly about, ie the unfairness of people living in multi million dollar homes and drawing full pension when a perfectly reasonable option like a reverse mortgage exists.

I don't care whether it's popular or not to change the status quo.  Part of the reason we're in the current situation is the vote buying by successive governments in handing out tax cuts, middle class welfare etc, to the point where it has become an expectation.

It's time for the government, whether Labor or Liberal, to have the courage to take some unpopular decisions and for the opposition and the Senate to start being realistic in support.
Just my , of course.


----------



## Logique

Sorry to be discursive, but couldn't find a more specific thread for this, so I'll try it here.

The author argues that the US should stay neutral on Ukraine. I don't know enough of the background to hold a position, but certainly the article reads well, and I love the last sentence (under).



> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-should-be-neutral-on-ukraine-2015-02-06?page=2
> 
> ...If the U.S. is to have a role in the Ukraine conflict, it should be as mediator. Otherwise, it’s a European affair. You cooked it, you eat it.”


----------



## IFocus

Things are looking grim, Liberals leaking against Abbott and the Australian (Liberal Daily) running negative articles seems hardly a day goes pass without the Coalition staggering from one bad headline to the next.


Abbott looking drawn and wasted.


----------



## Logique

Pretty clear that _The Australian_ and it's owner have arrived at the same conclusion as many Lib voters.  

Loyalty to colleagues is a fine quality, but we are talking the future of the nation here.

One key staffer has to go, and one high profile Ministry needs a new incumbent. 

Within this thread I doubt that I need to fill in the gaps.


----------



## banco

You'll notice Abbott's non-denial denial:

TONY Abbott has denied “formally” proposing that Australia should unilaterally invade Iraq to take on Islamic State.

Responding to revelations in The Weekend Australian today that he had suggested sending 3500 ground troops into Iraq, the Prime Minister said the report was “false” and “fanciful”.

Mr Abbott conceded that he had “lots of discussions” about the security situation in Iraq but that he had never formally proposed invading.

“The idea there was a meeting in late November where I formally asked for advice and formally suggested that a large Australian force should go unilaterally to Iraq is just wrong,” he said.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...l-to-invade-iraq/story-fn59niix-1227233681839


----------



## Bintang

Logique said:


> Pretty clear that _The Australian_ and it's owner have arrived at the same conclusion as many Lib voters.




I didn’t think _The Australian_ and it's owner would want a Labor Government back in Canberra. But every gibe they make against the current Government will only encourage voters to deliver in spades at the next election what they would not normally wish for.

Strange?


----------



## SirRumpole

Bintang said:


> I didn’t think _The Australian_ and it's owner would want a Labor Government back in Canberra. But every gibe they make against the current Government will only encourage voters to deliver in spades at the next election what they would not normally wish for.
> 
> Strange?




Yes, but maybe not for the reason you may think.

 Murdoch is just trying to install someone responsive to his own interests, and I have a feeling he may have come to a "gentleman's" agreement over media ownership with Turnbull or someone else and is doing his bit to undermine the current leadership, after which when he gets his own Liberal leader he will support them to the hilt.


----------



## Bintang

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, but maybe not for the reason you may think.
> 
> Murdoch is just trying to install someone responsive to his own interests, and I have a feeling he may have come to a "gentleman's" agreement over media ownership with Turnbull or someone else and is doing his bit to undermine the current leadership, after which when he gets his own Liberal leader he will support them to the hilt.




That did cross my mind but but the time he starts supporting them to the hilt he might find he has run out of time to hose down the volatility and Queensland has demonstrated just how volatile the electorate has become.


----------



## pixel

SirRumpole said:


> Murdoch is just trying to install someone responsive to his own interests, and I have a feeling he may have come to a "gentleman's" agreement over media ownership with Turnbull or someone else and is doing his bit to undermine the current leadership, after which when he gets his own Liberal leader he will support them to the hilt.




Murdoch "undermining the current leadership"?
I think the current leadership does a splendid job of it himself and doesn't need anyone's help.

The sooner the next spill succeeds, the better. Even Malcolm will need more than a few months to turn the ship around. And Julie will get some time to make herself useful without having to make soothing phone calls to "explain away" any offense dished out by her Boss.


----------



## drsmith

A future PM was on the ABC's Insiders this morning and it wasn't David Marr.


----------



## drsmith

Julia said:


> I don't know why you're going on about this.  I don't think I'm obliged to comment on every part of all of your posts.
> 
> As it happens, I don't entirely agree with the latter part of your original post (the top two paragraphs from which I responded to), perhaps unusually because I more often than not do agree with you and make that clear.
> 
> So I just expressed what I feel strongly about, ie the unfairness of people living in multi million dollar homes and drawing full pension when a perfectly reasonable option like a reverse mortgage exists.
> 
> I don't care whether it's popular or not to change the status quo.  Part of the reason we're in the current situation is the vote buying by successive governments in handing out tax cuts, middle class welfare etc, to the point where it has become an expectation.
> 
> It's time for the government, whether Labor or Liberal, to have the courage to take some unpopular decisions and for the opposition and the Senate to start being realistic in support.
> Just my , of course.



The two parts of that post go together to form its broader theme. 

We can look at any individual area of tax/welfare through the prism of social equity but how does that fit in with the bigger picture ?

The problem is that approach is that new distortions are created such as high EMTR's or wealth traps which in themselves can be a disincentive to earning more income or generating greater personal wealth. 

From that broader context, there are other and better options for managing the robustness of the overall tax/welfare mix than means testing the family home for the age pension and that's the primary point that post as a whole was making. In the discussion that's followed, you've hinted at one such as superannuation tax concession reform.


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> A future PM was on the ABC's Insiders this morning and it wasn't David Marr.




Your dreaming....just like the right wing that Australia wont experiment again with to soon.

The Coalition seemed to think the Australian voters voted Abbott in when they voted Labor out no matter who was standing around.

Morrison is working hard to soften his profile giving away nice bits to the punters he is basically all the right have left.

I think he would make a far better treasurer than Hockey and possibly better than Turnbul but PM never.


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> A future PM was on the ABC's Insiders this morning and it wasn't David Marr.




You mean bruiser?  And you thought Tony Abbott had trouble with female voters.


----------



## SirRumpole

banco said:


> You mean bruiser?  And you thought Tony Abbott had trouble with female voters.




I don't know, I'm not a woman and I usually vote Labor, but I thought Morrison was impressive on Insiders. Direct and to the point, whereas Abbott with his shifty eyes always seems to be trying to hide something.

He may be a generation away from being PM but I think he has a chance, especially with the lack of talent the Libs currently have.


----------



## banco

SirRumpole said:


> I don't know, I'm not a woman and I usually vote Labor, but I thought Morrison was impressive on Insiders. Direct and to the point, whereas Abbott with his shifty eyes always seems to be trying to hide something.
> 
> He may be a generation away from being PM but I think he has a chance, especially with the lack of talent the Libs currently have.




He's justifiably regarded as a bully/thug within the Canberra bubble.  It wouldn't take long for that to come out if he was leader.  Think Campbell Newman but with less charm.


----------



## sptrawler

banco said:


> He's justifiably regarded as a bully/thug within the Canberra bubble.  It wouldn't take long for that to come out if he was leader.  Think Campbell Newman but with less charm.




Yes, he has huge problems calling a spade a spade. 
There is no way, people want to hear that.
Much better to adopt the, suck up to the press and any one else that wants to bitch about tough times.
Then again he would have a hard time sucking up to the Indonesians, he may have to employ Kev to do that.


----------



## noco

drsmith said:


> A future PM was on the ABC's Insiders this morning and it wasn't David Marr.




Yes Doc, he is my first choice also......He has got it all and is the one we need so badly.


----------



## noco

banco said:


> He's justifiably regarded as a bully/thug within the Canberra bubble.  It wouldn't take long for that to come out if he was leader.  Think Campbell Newman but with less charm.




In that case he will be a good match for Bill Shorten...Put two thugs in a ring and what do you get?


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> Yes, he has huge problems calling a spade a spade.
> There is no way, people want to hear that.
> Much better to adopt the, suck up to the press and any one else that wants to bitch about tough times.
> Then again he would have a hard time sucking up to the Indonesians, he may have to employ Kev to do that.




SP,there is one thing I would say about him, he knows how to handle the left wing socialist media...He runs rings around them.


----------



## Logique

noco said:


> SP,there is one thing I would say about him, he knows how to handle the left wing socialist media...He runs rings around them.



Bolt certainly seems keen on him, and that can't hurt.


----------



## sptrawler

noco said:


> SP,there is one thing I would say about him, he knows how to handle the left wing socialist media...He runs rings around them.




Yes noco, I like him, he did a good job of a difficult task, when handling the boats issue.


----------



## sydboy007

I'd thought Abbott would have grabbed the life line provided by the scandals coming out of the banks to launch a Royal Commission into them.

Not often good politics marries so well with good policy.

Seems he's more interested in sending the troops off to the middle east or somehow getting 3 feet in his mouth when talking to Indonesia.

Sorry to say Tony, but I'm more scared to see a financial advisor than I am of being bombed in a Sydney cafe.


----------



## banco

sydboy007 said:


> I'd thought Abbott would have grabbed the life line provided by the scandals coming out of the banks to launch a Royal Commission into them.
> 
> Not often good politics marries so well with good policy.




They aren't going to investigate their golf partners/dinner guests.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Sorry to say Tony, but I'm more scared to see a financial advisor than I am of being bombed in a Sydney cafe.




That is untill you are the one in the cafe, with the nut case, then you would be wishing he was a financial advisor.


----------



## explod

sptrawler said:


> That is untill you are the one in the cafe, with the nut case, then you would be wishing he was a financial advisor.




The nutcases become that way due to a lack of education and good employment.  And of course youth under 25 are still developing and experimenting with life,  they absolutely love attention and good ole Tony is giving them prime time. 

All the money wasted on war with troops overseas could be much better spent. We have some of the best land in the world for food production,  and many of our outer towns would spring back to life in a heartbeat if we banned live meat exports. Things maybe a bit more expensive for awhile but such initiatives would soon correct with less dole,  illness/drug taking, war equipment and one could go on. 

But Tony does not think or set up inhouse think tanks to involve a cross section of minds.   No,  ideas are outsourced to private groups who supply recommendations that support thier own income streams and businesses,  mostly offshore too. 

So noco,  for the umpteenth,  where are the jobs coming from,  and do not quote the latest figures which are so trumped up it is obvious.  They will be revising down the previous monthly figures before long as the US have been doing since the crash of 08.


----------



## banco

explod said:


> The nutcases become that way due to a lack of education and good employment.  And of course youth under 25 are still developing and experimenting with life,  they absolutely love attention and good ole Tony is giving them prime time.




Yes I recall the rash of lone wolf terrorism attacks in the early 90's when youth unemployment was at record levels.


----------



## explod

Watching Parliament this afternoon,  what a joke,  not one idea to fix things at all in my view. 

Environment Minister Hunt gave a report on the Green action group,  meritorious but not scratching the surface on what is needed or could do with just a few simple changes. 

Square miles of homes going up across some of the most fertile land in Australia towards Warragul near Melbourne,  with good rainfall too.   And the roofs are all in black tiles which use 10% more energy to heat and cool. 

We need the Greens urgently and growing numbers of people are getting that message.   The ideas I put up are what we are developing.


----------



## moXJO

explod said:


> Square miles of homes going up across some of the most fertile land in Australia towards Warragul near Melbourne,  with good rainfall too.   And the roofs are all in black tiles which use 10% more energy to heat and cool.
> .




I agree with both of the above.
But the greens have too much of a loopy mix in to take seriously.
Plod steal all the greens sensible policies and start the 'practical plodders party'


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> That is untill you are the one in the cafe, with the nut case, then you would be wishing he was a financial advisor.




How many lives have been destroyed by nut cases in a cafe?

How many lives destroyed by financial advisors?

I'm reasonably confident I've got more chance of having my life turned upside down due to a financial scammer than due to a lone wolf nutter.


----------



## sydboy007

many years ago it was said 'Good Germans have nothing to fear"

Now with the growing police state in Australia we're told "Those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear."

Except maybe the massive financial cost of the surveillance system, or that the data stored about them is accessed inappropriately, possibly stolen by hackers and used to aid in identify fraud.

Throw in tat the Govt of the day can change with no parliament oversight what is actually stored, and to me there's plenty of potential for the net to continually widen.

I'd hoped Labor woudl grow a spine over this, especially when it's so easily to ridicule the policy since the simple use of whatsapp and viber would render mr terry wrist and mr paedophile invisible to it.

Our internet costs are already uncompetitively high compared to our major trading partners.  Why are we voluntarily making them even more expensive?


----------



## sydboy007

explod said:


> Watching Parliament this afternoon,  what a joke,  not one idea to fix things at all in my view.
> 
> Environment Minister Hunt gave a report on the Green action group,  meritorious but not scratching the surface on what is needed or could do with just a few simple changes.
> 
> Square miles of homes going up across some of the most fertile land in Australia towards Warragul near Melbourne,  with good rainfall too.   And the roofs are all in black tiles which use 10% more energy to heat and cool.
> 
> We need the Greens urgently and growing numbers of people are getting that message.   The ideas I put up are what we are developing.




Some of the family first housing policies are good too, though the gun law reforms should be left in the NRA garbage can


----------



## basilio

Was just watching the Senate Committee this morning interviewing Gillian Triggs President of the Human Rights Commission.

Absolute eyeopener. When I started watching Penny Wong was quietly and forensically asking Ms Triggs to discuss how she had been approached by the Attorney Generals staff member to resign her position and was then assured she would be given another job.

Ms Triggs rejected the request to resign and pointed out that she had a 5 year position which was specifically established as a fixed term appointment* to ensure governments couldn't simple nobble the Commission*.  

And in any case asking a person in such a position to resign and then immediately offering another position is effectively a bribe - offering an inducement to an officer to affect their behaviour. To a lawyer with 46 years experience that is as clear a case of corruption as you could find. Gillian Triggs herself would have been as guilty of corruption by accepting the  bribe as Senator Brandis is offering one!

Ok discussion finished. So the Senate Chair Ian Macdonald starts haranguing Gillian Triggs over her report !!  He is the Chair! He didn't even have the grace to at least step down as Chair while he wanted to question her.

But it gets better.. He begins by asking his questions very belligerently.  As Gillian Triggs starts to answer, HE INTERUPTS, and INTERRUPTS AGAIN. She just cannot complete her answer because he won't let her.
Meanwhile Penny Wong and others are asking on Points of Order for Ian McDonald to either temporarily step down from the Chair or at least allow Ms Triggs to answer the question without interruption.

And at the end of it what do we discover?  That this pig of a politician who was haranguing Gillian Triggs about the report *hadn't even read it *

It was an absolute disgrace, an abuse of Parliament and an indictment of this government.


----------



## basilio

On later reflection I believe I should withdraw my comments about Honourable Ian Macdonald being a *"pig of a politician".*

It does not reflect well on Mr McDonald and certainly defames pigs who from my experience would have behaved in a far more respectful way..


----------



## Logique

A much better Question Time from the PM and Govt today. The penny might just have dropped, you _dance with the one that brung you._ 

Labor Lite is not wanted.

Josh Frydenberg, Oxford and Harvard educated (Law and Economics, he's no dill), is showing potential as Asst Treasurer. The Speaker was a bit soft on the Labor 'Phil Spector' _Wall of Sound._

Was Professor Triggs offered another job or not...big deal, just a Labor diversion. The Govt has correctly called her out.._Professor Labor_.


----------



## basilio

Well we have another special precedent by Senator Brandis. 

A message for all judges, commissions and enquiries and in particular those that might embarrass the Government.

_"Your welcome to investigate any issue as far as you want.  But bear in mind that *we are the government* and if we don't like what you have to say we will simply "lose confidence" in you, villify you in Parliament and do everything we can to remove you from your position"

Don't feel threatened or alarmed of course. Just make sure that we can at least agree with your final verdicts so we can avoid any unpleasantness"_


----------



## dutchie

basilio said:


> Well we have another special precedent by Senator Brandis.
> 
> A message for all judges, commissions and enquiries and in particular those that might embarrass the Government.
> 
> _"Your welcome to investigate any issue as far as you want.  But bear in mind that *we are the government* and if we don't like what you have to say we will simply "lose confidence" in you, villify you in Parliament and do everything we can to remove you from your position"
> 
> Don't feel threatened or alarmed of course. Just make sure that we can at least agree with your final verdicts so we can avoid any unpleasantness"_





OR maybe they lost confidence in her because.......



Australian Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs who is heading an inquiry into children in detention. Picture: James Croucher

THE Human Rights Commission president must resign after turning her inquiry on children in detention into a political witch-hunt last week.

Gillian Triggs’ behaviour was unforgivable for someone with semi-judicial powers, able to force witnesses to appear under threat of jail.

We cannot have the head of an inquiry showing such bias, heckling witnesses and making false and emotive claims from the bench to make the Christmas Island detention centre seem a hellhole.

Nor can we have an inquiry head giving media interviews attacking witnesses and summing up the issues before hearing all the evidence.

We also cannot have an inquiry head refusing to correct explosive claims about suicide attempts in detention when they’ve been debunked.

It is now impossible to have confidence in Triggs’ impartiality.

In fact, it’s hard not to suspect her inquiry is designed to reach a prejudged conclusion ”” to damn the Abbott Government’s successful border laws.

The very fact that Triggs, a law academic, called this taxpayer-funded inquiry is highly suspect.

The last time her commission looked into this issue was 2004 ”” which, what a surprise, was when the Howard government was stopping the boats, too.

No further inquiry was held in the seven years of Labor’s Rudd and Gillard governments, during which the border laws were weakened, luring more than 1200 men, women and children to their deaths and filling detention centres to bursting.

No, Triggs, appointed by Labor in 2012, waited until another Liberal government was back in power, stopping the boats and emptying the detention centres.

Sev Ozdowski, the former human rights commissioner responsible for the 2004 inquiry, calls this timing “very odd”.

“When the boats were arriving in large numbers and Labor was at its peak of cruelty towards the boat arrivals, (the commission) almost did not see the problem.”



But Triggs is now on the case, seemingly filled with a righteous anger at the Abbott Government, even though the boats have now stopped and the number of children in detention more than halved.

Last month, for instance, she claimed “we’ve had reports that have been confirmed during the day that 10 women have attempted suicide” on Christmas Island.

False. There has been only one case of self-harm by a woman that could with any credibility be described as “attempted suicide”. And, no, Madam President, sipping some shampoo does not qualify.

Triggs also claimed last month she’d visited the detained children on Christmas Island and “almost all of them, including the adults, were coughing, were sick, were depressed, unable to communicate (and) weak”, which made her want to ask: “What’s going on? Why is this child not being treated?”

False again. Sick children are indeed being treated and the Government hotly disputes Triggs’ claim that almost every detained child on Christmas Island is sick.

Told this, Triggs ”” with her inquiry still to hear from Immigration Minister Scott Morrison ”” gave another media interview rebuking Morrison as needing “to be better advised”, and insisting “all children should be removed from the detention centres and placed in the community”.

Er, isn’t that the very thing the inquiry is meant to determine at the end of the hearings, and not near the start? Should an inquiry head really be attacking witnesses even before they’ve given their evidence?

But if all that was bad, last week was a disgrace.

Morrison appeared before her inquiry and Triggs flew for his throat: “How can you justify detaining children in these conditions for more than a year when there is no evidence that this is the policy that is stopping the boats but rather Operation Sovereign Borders, however you define it, with three-star generals or civilian authorities, whatever name you put to it, the reality is that physical force and power have stopped these boats?”

Not biased? Triggs?

On it went.

Triggs insisted “the people on Christmas Island are being detained in a prison effectively” because on her three visits she had noticed “you cannot get into any of the sections without going through armed guards”.

That infuriated the Immigration Department secretary Martin Bowles, who protested at Triggs’ “emotive statements”.

“It is not fair to characterise the detention system as a jail,” he said, and Triggs should correct a falsehood.

“We do not have armed guards, President. I would like you to acknowledge that.”

Triggs would not, despite being repeatedly challenged on her “facts”.

But if the head of an inquiry can see armed guards where there are none, and a prison where there are only pool fences, what else is she imagining about what she’s supposed to impartially judge?

No, Triggs must resign. She is meant to confront injustice, not commit it.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...ren-in-detention/story-fni0ffxg-1227034983124



Lying is unprofessional.


----------



## Bintang

dutchie said:


> No, Triggs must resign. She is meant to confront injustice, not commit it.
> 
> 
> *Lying is unprofessional*.




But why then are there so many *professional liars* in politics?

George Orwell – springs to mind:

_“In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.”_


----------



## galumay

basilio said:


> Well we have another special precedent by Senator Brandis.
> 
> A message for all judges, commissions and enquiries and in particular those that might embarrass the Government.
> 
> _"Your welcome to investigate any issue as far as you want.  But bear in mind that *we are the government* and if we don't like what you have to say we will simply "lose confidence" in you, villify you in Parliament and do everything we can to remove you from your position"
> 
> Don't feel threatened or alarmed of course. Just make sure that we can at least agree with your final verdicts so we can avoid any unpleasantness"_




Yes, today marked a disgraceful attack on the Human Rights Commission, there appears to be nothing this corrupt government will not stoop to. The savaging of Gillian Triggs for telling the horrific truth about the rape and abuse of children in custody was a new low even for this desperate rabble. It was bullying at its worst.

It looks like Brandis may have his actions referred to the AFP, no wonder the Libs dont want a permanent corruption commission - they are rightly terrified of the consequences.

What amazes me is their misjudgement of the winds of public opinion, there is just the most widespread disgust at this behaviour today, lots of lib voters, and women in particular - there is almost no public sentiment in support of the Gov except from the most extreme, bolted on conservatives. The sight of elderly men bullying a woman like that just looks awful and they just dont seem to realise the negative impact in the electorate. 

I guess thats one of the problems with a party that has so few women in its cabinet.

Oh, well, I am no fan of Little Bill, but all he has to do is sit back and let the self destruction take its toll and he will be handed government on a platter.


----------



## SirRumpole

> Oh, well, I am no fan of Little Bill, but all he has to do is sit back and let the self destruction take its toll and he will be handed government on a platter.




I'm no fan of TA either but on the surface, the timing of the HRC does seem political.

No credit seems to be given for the release of 1,000 children from detention by the Abbot government, no mention of what happened under Rudd/Gillard in relation to drownings.

You can certainly make an argument that the handling of refugees by this government has been heavy handed, but frankly I'm not sure that the electorate cares, out of sight out of mind.


----------



## boofhead

Abbott and co screwed up the politics of the report. All they needed to do was highlight the issue, show the progress the Coalition were making to fixing the children in detention and how they were a result of Labor's term. Seems to be the instinct for any other issue - blame Labor. Same bad political advice from somewhere.


----------



## basilio

Dutchie when you quote Andrew Bolt to support a hatchet job on Gillian Triggs you have dug out of the barrel and into the sewer. I would never, ever, ever take his information as a basis for accurate understanding. It just never happens.

I'm not going to pretend I know everything that has happened in this situation. But so far the things I am sure about are:

1) The immigration department supplied almost all of the information to Gillian Triggs for her report.  The bare facts are not contested

2) The Government was given this report back in October last 2014.  They had an opportunity to challenge its accuracy. They didn't.

3) The behaviour of the Government representatives in the Senate inquiry to Gillian Triggs was just appalling. I described it earlier. I would sincerely like to see that whole examination put up on You Tube and ask 1000 people what they thought of the behaviour of Senator Ian Mcdonald and Senator Brandis.

The criticial issue is one of the separation of powers. A bedrock of our democracy is that Judges are not subject to direct government intervention. That is specifically done to stop governments just sacking a judge who doesn't  follow what they want to happen versus proper judicial processes.  The reason why the position of Human Rights Commissioner was made a fixed 5 year term was to offer some protection against any government that wanted to move the President simply becasue they didn't like what they were saying.

So when Senator Brandis *the highest legal officer in the country*, knowing he can't actually sack Professor Triggs, sends his man over to "ask" her to resign and offers her another job instead - that is as close to corruption and bribery as you can get.

And if he succeeds he sends the message to the head of every organisation that reports to the Government 

*" Either do us a "nice" report or you will  be trashed"*

I will be surprised if the legal profession as a whole in Australia doesn't become very concerned at this turn of events.


----------



## basilio

It looks as if the Australian Federal Police may be asked to investigate the attempt by Senator Brandis to pressure Gillian Triggs to resign and offer her "something else" in in place of the position.  This will be interesting...


> *
> Defiant Gillian Triggs resists pressure from Abbott government to resign*
> 
> The Abbott government has been accused of breaching the criminal code by offering Gillian Triggs an incentive to resign as president of the Human Rights Commission.
> 
> It came after both Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Attorney-General George Brandis stepped up their attacks on Professor Triggs, accusing her of orchestrating a political stitch-up and losing the confidence of the Australian people.
> *
> Labor's shadow attorney-general, Mark Dreyfus, has written to the Australian Federal Police commissioner, Andrew Colvin, saying the offer may "constitute corrupt and unlawful conduct". He has asked that the matter be investigated as a priority for possible referral to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions*. The Greens are set to request their own investigation.
> 
> ....Senator Hanson-Young later said the Greens were considering a formal referral to the Australian Federal Police.
> 
> "This is an extremely serious case. If a position was offered, as an inducement to encourage the President to resign, that would be a clear breach of the Criminal Code," she said.



http://www.canberratimes.com.au/fed...ott-government-to-resign-20150224-13npiq.html


----------



## Tisme

boofhead said:


> Abbott and co screwed up the politics of the report. All they needed to do was highlight the issue, show the progress the Coalition were making to fixing the children in detention and how they were a result of Labor's term. Seems to be the instinct for any other issue - blame Labor. Same bad political advice from somewhere.




Yes they have over played their hand as usual. A simple thanks for the report and a review of adoptions would have sufficed.

But we all know the real story is succession plans for their man Timmy to take over.


----------



## Julia

basilio said:


> Well we have another special precedent by Senator Brandis.
> 
> A message for all judges, commissions and enquiries and in particular those that might embarrass the Government.
> 
> _"Your welcome to investigate any issue as far as you want.  But bear in mind that *we are the government* and if we don't like what you have to say we will simply "lose confidence" in you, villify you in Parliament and do everything we can to remove you from your position"
> 
> Don't feel threatened or alarmed of course. Just make sure that we can at least agree with your final verdicts so we can avoid any unpleasantness"_



You put up something in quotes without explaining where it comes from.
The inclusion of "your" rather than "you're" in the first line indicates someone with few clues.
You might like to tell us who this erudite contributor is.



SirRumpole said:


> I'm no fan of TA either but on the surface, the timing of the HRC does seem political.
> 
> No credit seems to be given for the release of 1,000 children from detention by the Abbot government, no mention of what happened under Rudd/Gillard in relation to drownings.



Good on you, Rumpole for retaining some objectivity.  You're a Labor voter yet can make independent observations here.



boofhead said:


> Abbott and co screwed up the politics of the report. All they needed to do was highlight the issue, show the progress the Coalition were making to fixing the children in detention and how they were a result of Labor's term. Seems to be the instinct for any other issue - blame Labor. Same bad political advice from somewhere.



They repeatedly pointed out the improvement they have made since taking office, that the many in detention under Labor are now down to almost nothing.

However, it doesn't suit the media, particularly the ABC and Fairfax to report that.  Oh no, they just climb onto the familiar "let's say everything we can to discredit Abbott and the government" bandwagon.

As someone who voted for the Coalition I'm disappointed in their performance, but the handling of children in detention is absolutely not one of their failures as it was undoubtedly under Labor.

Ms Triggs has been caught out providing conflicting evidence, so have a think about it before any of you paint her as some sort of noble martyr.  Her timing of the enquiry/report was clearly political.


----------



## banco

Julia said:


> However, it doesn't suit the media, particularly the ABC and Fairfax to report that.  Oh no, they just climb onto the familiar "let's say everything we can to discredit Abbott and the government" bandwagon.
> 
> As someone who voted for the Coalition I'm disappointed in their performance, but the handling of children in detention is absolutely not one of their failures as it was undoubtedly under Labor.
> 
> Ms Triggs has been caught out providing conflicting evidence, so have a think about it before any of you paint her as some sort of noble martyr.  Her timing of the enquiry/report was clearly political.




Of course it's going to lead the media if the Government is out attacking the Human Rights Commission.  It makes for better soundbites.  The fact that Abbott didn't know and/or didn't care what effect his handling of this would have on the media cycle just reflects his ineptitude. They've turned what would have been a 2 day story into one that's sucked up oxygen for weeks. Can you imagine John Howard carrying on the way Abbott has about the report?


----------



## sptrawler

banco said:


> Of course it's going to lead the media if the Government is out attacking the Human Rights Commission.  It makes for better soundbites.  The fact that Abbott didn't know and/or didn't care what effect his handling of this would have on the media cycle just reflects his ineptitude. They've turned what would have been a 2 day story into one that's sucked up oxygen for weeks. Can you imagine John Howard carrying on the way Abbott has about the report?




No, because the media wouln't have made such a song and dance about it.
Haven't you noticed, most newspaper articles are about what Abbott has said, and trying to make it into a news article.

There is no debate at all on the fiscal or budget situation, it is all about trying to discredit Abbott.
Which is really funny, because they have already done that, just lazy reporting.lol

Absolute dicks.IMO

But it must work, because they have most on here sucked in.


----------



## banco

sptrawler said:


> No, because the media wouln't have made such a song and dance about it.
> Haven't you noticed, most newspaper articles are about what Abbott has said, and trying to make it into a news article.




Yes because what he's said was newsworthy.  If he'd tabled it in late december said "we disagree with the conclusions and number of kids in detention is way down" it's forgotten by new years. The blunt truth is Australians by and large don't care what happens to brown kids in immigration detention so there was never any great risk of political fallout from the report anyway.

I don't know what papers you read but there's discussion every day about the budget/fiscal situation.


----------



## Bintang

sptrawler said:


> No, because the media wouln't have made such a song and dance about it.
> Haven't you noticed, most newspaper articles are about what Abbott has said, and trying to make it into a news article.
> 
> There is no debate at all on the fiscal or budget situation, it is all about trying to discredit Abbott.
> Which is really funny, because they have already done that, just lazy reporting.lol
> 
> Absolute dicks.IMO




+1
_"most newspaper articles are about what Abbott has said_" OR what he has 'supposedly' said.


----------



## Julia

sptrawler said:


> No, because the media wouln't have made such a song and dance about it.
> Haven't you noticed, most newspaper articles are about what Abbott has said, and trying to make it into a news article.
> 
> There is no debate at all on the fiscal or budget situation, it is all about trying to discredit Abbott.
> Which is really funny, because they have already done that, just lazy reporting.lol
> 
> Absolute dicks.IMO
> 
> But it must work, because they have most on here sucked in.



+1.  At least those whose own personal preferences are reflected in this sort of rubbish 'journalism'.


----------



## banco

That's a rather interesting quote Bintang:

Whenever I hear people arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on them personally” - Abraham Lincoln

No doubt there'd be less people arguing for putting children in immigration detention if they saw it tried on their own children.


----------



## sptrawler

banco said:


> Yes because what he's said was newsworthy.  If he'd tabled it in late december said "we disagree with the conclusions and number of kids in detention is way down" it's forgotten by new years. The blunt truth is Australians by and large don't care what happens to brown kids in immigration detention so there was never any great risk of political fallout from the report anyway.
> 
> I don't know what papers you read but there's discussion every day about the budget/fiscal situation.




Just read your own response and how much emphasis you put on the issues.

My case rests.


----------



## Bintang

banco said:


> That's a rather interesting quote Bintang:
> 
> Whenever I hear people arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on them personally” - Abraham Lincoln
> 
> No doubt there'd be less people arguing for putting children in immigration detention if they saw it tried on their own children.




Except you are trying to blame the wrong people:
It can only happen to their own children if those same people first put their children at risk by putting them on a boat and using them to try and enter Australia illegally.


----------



## banco

Bintang said:


> Except you are trying to blame the wrong people:
> It can only happen to their own children if those same people first put their children at risk by putting them on a boat and using them to try and enter Australia illegally.




You are forgetting the intermediary step where the Australian Government chooses to put them in immigration detention. A lot of western countries don't.


----------



## Bintang

banco said:


> You are forgetting the intermediary step where the *Australian Government* chooses to put them in immigration detention. A lot of western countries don't.




You mean like the Australian Government when it was lead by Kevin Rudd.
Meanwhile they did nothing to stop the influx of boats which of itself contributed to the deaths of many, many children.

And we are a sovereign nation. Thank goodness our Government is not trying to copy the mistakes of other western countries.


----------



## sptrawler

banco said:


> That's a rather interesting quote Bintang:
> 
> Whenever I hear people arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on them personally” - Abraham Lincoln
> 
> No doubt there'd be less people arguing for putting children in immigration detention if they saw it tried on their own children.




Try taking your own children on a boat and enter Japanese waters illegally, see if that has a good outcome.

Why you think it is o.k to just land in Australia in an illegal boat, and then be welcomed with open arms, is unbelievable.

Why not just say anyone who wants to come here can, you would empty out Africa in 10 minutes.


----------



## noco

Julia said:


> You put up something in quotes without explaining where it comes from.
> The inclusion of "your" rather than "you're" in the first line indicates someone with few clues.
> You might like to tell us who this erudite contributor is.
> 
> 
> Good on you, Rumpole for retaining some objectivity.  You're a Labor voter yet can make independent observations here.
> 
> 
> They repeatedly pointed out the improvement they have made since taking office, that the many in detention under Labor are now down to almost nothing.
> 
> However, it doesn't suit the media, particularly the ABC and Fairfax to report that.  Oh no, they just climb onto the familiar "let's say everything we can to discredit Abbott and the government" bandwagon.
> 
> As someone who voted for the Coalition I'm disappointed in their performance, but the handling of children in detention is absolutely not one of their failures as it was undoubtedly under Labor.
> 
> Ms Triggs has been caught out providing conflicting evidence, so have a think about it before any of you paint her as some sort of noble martyr.  Her timing of the enquiry/report was clearly political.




It seemed fairly clear to me upon watching some of the senate inquiry that Trigg was under instruction from Tony Burke and Chris Bowen to delay the report until after the 2013 election and Trigg has become their pawn...It has backed fired on them.
As at the 16th February 2015 there was only 126 children in detention....probably less by now.


----------



## Bintang

noco said:


> It seemed fairly clear to me upon watching some of the senate inquiry that Trigg was under instruction from Tony Burke and Chris Bowen to delay the report until after the 2013 election and Trigg has become their pawn...It has backed fired on them.
> As at the 16th February 2015 there was only 126 children in detention....probably less by now.




And there were zero at the end of the Howard Government but around 2000 in 2013 before the election.
So the Abbott Government has done a great job of clearing up the mess and those remaining (however unfortunate that is) are clearly a legacy of Labor's ineptitude.


----------



## dutchie

Bintang said:


> But why then are there so many *professional liars* in politics?
> 
> George Orwell – springs to mind:
> 
> _“In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
> 
> “The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.”_





Liars and hypocrites on both (all) sides of politics.

It's our system and we love it (going by how we keep voting for them).


----------



## Bintang

dutchie said:


> Liars and hypocrites on both (all) sides of politics.
> 
> It's our system and we love it (going by how we keep voting for them).




Maybe most people only keep voting for them because voting is compulsory.

And would we get anything better if voting was not compulsory? I doubt it.
I think it's always just a choice between bad alternatives. 
One can only hope that the electorate chooses the least bad.
(Which btw is what I think we have at the moment)


----------



## dutchie

Yes Tony Abbott is so bad.

He has the temerity to complain about a Labor plant who lied about conditions in detention centres.
The same person who did not worry about 1000 children being in detention but waits till the coalition
 are in power before she acts.

Tony is very bad. How on earth has he the gall to change an inherited system that let over 50000 illegal
 immigrants into our country, had over 1000 people drown at sea, had over 1000 children in detention.
The sheer audacity to stop the boats and stop illegal immigration, reduce the children in detention
 down to just over 100, stop people drowning at sea. Burn him at the stake!

Get rid of him and lets get back to the previous system, lots of new boats, lots of people in detention,
 lots more children in detention again. Fantastic. Australia can hardly wait.

A lot of hypocrites on this thread.


----------



## Bintang

dutchie said:


> Yes Tony Abbott is so bad.
> 
> Get rid of him and lets get back to the previous system, lots of new boats, lots of people in detention,
> lots more children in detention again. Fantastic. Australia can hardly wait.
> 
> A lot of hypocrites on this thread.




The Abbott government's achievement in stopping the boats is one of the things that for me puts them in the category of 'least bad'. But they are not perfect.

And yes a future vote for Labor will be a vote for more boats
A vote for more boats will be a vote for more muslims entering our country
And more muslims entering our country will mean more future votes for Labor.


----------



## SirRumpole

> And yes a future vote for Labor will be a vote for more boats
> A vote for more boats will be a vote for more muslims entering our country
> And more muslims entering our country will mean more future votes for Labor.




Are you a speech writer for Tony Abbott ?


----------



## noco

Bintang said:


> The Abbott government's achievement in stopping the boats is one of the things that for me puts them in the category of 'least bad'. But they are not perfect.
> 
> And yes a future vote for Labor will be a vote for more boats
> A vote for more boats will be a vote for more muslims entering our country
> And more muslims entering our country will mean more future votes for Labor.




You are so correct Bintang.....Shorten has already stated he will not turn back the boats so you can bet your boots the  people smugglers will back in business the day after, If Labor were reelected in 2016.


----------



## Bintang

SirRumpole said:


> Are you a speech writer for Tony Abbott ?




No. Peta wouldn't give me the job.


----------



## Logique

Bintang said:


> No. Peta wouldn't give me the job.



Ahem, that's Dame Credlin to you.


----------



## Bintang

Logique said:


> Ahem, that's Dame Credlin to you.




There must be something wrong with your spellchecker. 
I didn't say Damn Credlin cause I was trying to remain civil.


----------



## basilio

How quickly some people can forget.



> *11:06am: Mr Abbott is asked about Professor Triggs: "She wasn't asked to resign and no inducement was offered."*
> 
> Which is not was came out of Senate estimates yesterday.




http://www.canberratimes.com.au/fed...cs-live-february-25-2015-20150225-13o0ko.html


----------



## luutzu

Bintang said:


> There must be something wrong with your spellchecker.
> I didn't say Damn Credlin cause I was trying to remain civil.




He meant Dame, as in Dame... like His Royal Highness Prince Phillip, consort to Her Majesty the Queen of England, Great Britain and colonies (and also Knight of Australia)... haha


----------



## luutzu

basilio said:


> How quickly some people can forget.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.canberratimes.com.au/fed...cs-live-february-25-2015-20150225-13o0ko.html




Aren't those High Court Justices feel relief to have come out on the side of the government.


----------



## moXJO

Triggs meeting with Chris Bowen and Tony Burke prior to the last election, regarding this report. What was that all about. Hang her out to dry. If you have a clear political agenda in such a position, you are an embarrassment. Labor up to its old tricks again in dodgy sting attempts. Gretch affair, Gillard /Abbott being mobbed at the restaurant, the misogyny speech the list goes on.

Libs need to hammer labor and the greens over this and get the message out that labor and greens policy was worse by far.


----------



## basilio

Question time has become very interesting today.




> 2:11pm: Opposition leader Bill Shorten reads out a section of the transcript from yesterday's hearing in which the secretary of the Attorney-General's Department, Chris Moraitis, confirmed that Professor Triggs was told a senior role would be available if she resigned.
> 
> *Ms Bishop says she spoke to Mr Moraitis earlier today who told her no offer was made and Professor Triggs was not asked to resign.*
> 
> "I would back the secretary of the Attorney-General's department over anyone on that side."
> 
> 2:04pm: The opposition asks Foreign Minister Julie Bishop (who represents the Attorney-General George Brandis) what role was offered to Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs in exchange for her resignation.
> 
> "I can advise that no such offer was made," Ms Bishop says.
> 
> (Which is very interesting given the evidence in the Senate estimates committee yesterday.)




Perhaps we should just leave it to the AFP to thoroughly investigate this allegation and work out exactly who is lying through their teeth.

Clearly if no pressure was put on Gillian Triggs to resign and no alternative employment offer was made what do we make of the statements by Mr Moriatis at the Senate Review Committee yesterday ?  Clearly the poor boy needs to be taken in hand...


----------



## Bintang

luutzu said:


> He meant Dame, as in Dame... like His Royal Highness Prince Phillip, consort to Her Majesty the Queen of England, Great Britain and colonies (and also Knight of Australia)... haha




And I was making a joke of it.


----------



## Julia

basilio said:


> How quickly some people can forget.



  That's exactly what you can say about Gillian Triggs. 

 She originally categorically denied having had any discussions about an enquiry with either Mr Bowen or Mr Burke, but, oops, later '_remembered_' that she had in fact had discussions about this with both these Ministers prior to the last election when Labor was still the government.
She subsequently decided not to initiate the enquiry until the Coalition government had been in power for around six months.

And you don't think there's anything political going on here????
Give me a break!


----------



## SirRumpole

Anyone hear Scott Morrison at the National Press Club today ?

At the start of his speech he said that the biggest expenditure on social welfare was the Age Pension followed by Family Tax Benefits.

He went on to ask older people to keep on working to relieve themselves of the pension, but nothing further was said about Family Tax Benefits.

Unlike getting old , having a disability, or in most cases not being able to find a job, having children is a personal choice that people have to decide whether they can afford before they commit themselves to increasing the brood. I would have thought that personal choice and responsibility would rank high with the current government, but apparently not.

By all means make it easier for people to increase the taxpaying and consumer base, but I suggest any investment in childcare should be funded by reductions in FTB, not by extra levies on business. FTB costs around $15 billion pa and  is unaffordable with current revenue.


----------



## noco

moXJO said:


> Triggs meeting with Chris Bowen and Tony Burke prior to the last election, regarding this report. What was that all about. Hang her out to dry. If you have a clear political agenda in such a position, you are an embarrassment. Labor up to its old tricks again in dodgy sting attempts. Gretch affair, Gillard /Abbott being mobbed at the restaurant, the misogyny speech the list goes on.
> 
> Libs need to hammer labor and the greens over this and get the message out that labor and greens policy was worse by far.




Trigg was under instructions from Bowen and Burke to delay the report until after the 2013 election because they believed it would hurt the coalition......Trigg became the fall guy and probably did not foresee the back lash that finally has occurred...Trigg has been caught out stretching the truth.


----------



## banco

Good to see Turnbull continues to troll abbott:

Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has directly contradicted Prime Minister Tony Abbott's scathing critique of Australian Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs, heaping praise on the embattled professor and stressing the importance of getting children out of detention.


----------



## dutchie

banco said:


> Good to see Turnbull continues to troll abbott:
> 
> Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has directly contradicted Prime Minister Tony Abbott's scathing critique of Australian Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs, heaping praise on the embattled professor and stressing the importance of getting children out of detention.




MT is not a team player.He will never lead the Coalition even if Abbott is gorne.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> Trigg was under instructions from Bowen and Burke to delay the report until after the 2013 election because they believed it would hurt the coalition......Trigg became the fall guy and probably did not foresee the back lash that finally has occurred...Trigg has been caught out stretching the truth.




How do you know all that fanciful stuff? Conspiracy theories are so 90s internet


----------



## drsmith

Tisme said:


> How do you know all that fanciful stuff? Conspiracy theories are so 90s internet



Listen to the following video from 15:00 to 16:11 and you'll see one example of how her bias impacts her judgment.

It gets worse when she admits that an enquiry was off limits during Labor's term from when Julia Gillard announced the election date 6-months in advance in March 2013 (from approx 16:45).



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGXi6S-7FCQ


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> How do you know all that fanciful stuff? Conspiracy theories are so 90s internet




Because I know how the Labor Party operate.....Trigg denied having a conversation with Bowen and Burke but she was caught out lying and came clean that she had had conversation with Bowen and Burke before the 2013 election...It is not fanciful stuff as blind Freddy could see what those two Labor rats were up to....Anybody who cannot see that are very naive.


----------



## banco

noco said:


> Because I know how the Labor Party operate.....Trigg denied having a conversation with Bowen and Burke but she was caught out lying and came clean that she had had conversation with Bowen and Burke before the 2013 election...It is not fanciful stuff as blind Freddy could see what those two Labor rats were up to....Anybody who cannot see that are very naive.




I've no doubt she leans to the left but to think that she's going to have a conversation with Bowen and Burke where they suggest she screw the liberal party by waiting until after the election to launch the inquiry (or that she made the suggestion) is cuckoo land stuff.


----------



## drsmith

Listen from 1:50,



Julia Gillard in fact specified the election date as September 14 2013 in January of that year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92zRReRL_BA


----------



## Tisme

drsmith said:


> Listen to the following video from 15:00 to 16:11 and you'll see one example of how her bias impacts her judgment.
> 
> It gets worse when she admits that an enquiry was off limits during Labor's term from when Julia Gillard announced the election date 6-months in advance in March 2013 (from approx 16:45).
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGXi6S-7FCQ





She sounds like a Toorak labourer to me...... you sure she is a Labor hack rather than one of the unaligned chosen elites that finds seats for bums in commissions and boards where they make living as a talking head?


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> Because I know how the Labor Party operate......




I thought I had a bit of a handle on the machinery in their too and something as blatant turning a public servant's head prior to a pending election just sounds too obtuse. It's not unusual for servants to refrain from being involved any cannon fodder moments around elections and historically accepted by parties.

I'm not sure using apples to measure the performance of an orange is valid in the LNP attack on the woman. Maybe they should apply similar tactics on Credlin?


----------



## drsmith

Tisme said:


> She sounds like a Toorak labourer to me...... you sure she is a Labor hack rather than one of the unaligned chosen elites that finds seats for bums in commissions and boards where they make living as a talking head?



The numbers weren't going down ?

In March 2013 we were living with the reality of an election at any time when the then PM Julia Gillard had already announced the election date of Sept 14 3013 in January of that year ??

There's no logical justification for the first inconsistency but perhaps with the second she'd been talking to Kevin Rudd.


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> The numbers weren't going down ?
> 
> In March 2013 we were living in the reality that an election could be called at any time when the then PM Julia Gillard had already announced the election date of Sept 14 3013 in January of that year ??
> 
> There's no logical justification for the first inconsistency but perhaps with the second she'd been talking to Kevin Rudd.




I'm not sure why you think the numbers going down is such a killer argument for why there shouldn't have been an inquiry.  I suspect the number of child abuse victims linked to the catholic church has reduced from say 20 years ago but they are still holding a royal commission into that and other institutions in 2015.

 If your argument is that she should have held the inquiry when the numbers were at their peak (well yes maybe she should have but we only know it was the peak in hindsight).


----------



## Tisme

drsmith said:


> The numbers weren't going down ?
> 
> In March 2013 we were living with the reality of an election at any time when the then PM Julia Gillard had already announced the election date of Sept 14 3013 in January of that year ??
> 
> There's no logical justification for the first inconsistency but perhaps with the second she'd been talking to Kevin Rudd.




The thing about the service is everyone in it generally knows everything before the main players do. I seem to recall we all knew the election was coming in like locals know the Fremantle Doctor is about to arrive.

I have a healthy dislike of these commissars and I'm guessing some on the estimates committees (et al) do too. The scene in Blues Bros about Illinois Nazis comes to mind.


----------



## drsmith

banco said:


> I'm not sure why you think the numbers going down is such a killer argument for why there shouldn't have been an inquiry.  I suspect the number of child abuse victims linked to the catholic church has reduced from say 20 years ago but they are still holding a royal commission into that and other institutions in 2015.
> 
> If your argument is that she should have held the inquiry when the numbers were at their peak (well yes maybe she should have but we only know it was the peak in hindsight).



She tried to claim they weren't going down as justification for the timing of her enquiry after earlier acknowledging that they were going down.

If she was waiting for a peak, she could still be waiting if we had retained a Labor government. On the way up is a more appropriate time to have it than on the way down.


----------



## Bintang

drsmith said:


> She tried to claim they weren't going down as justification for the timing of her enquiry after earlier acknowledging that they were going down.




Triggs would be a very interesting candidate for interrogation by Dr Lightman of "Lie To Me" fame.


----------



## drsmith

Bintang said:


> Triggs would be a very interesting candidate for interrogation by Dr Lightman of "Lie To Me" fame.



Scott Morrison does a pretty good job towards the end of the following video,



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqelojjTmDc


----------



## Logique

For anyone interested in the facts, as opposed to Labor's, and the good Professor's political opportunism.  It's in the Love Media, so it must be true.

Watch out for the inevitable I'll Ride With You Gillian social media campaign.



> *Gillian Triggs: Set on a course of self-martyrdom* - February 26, 2015 - by Paul Sheehan, SMH
> http://www.smh.com.au/comment/gillian-triggs-set-on-a-course-of-selfmartyrdom-20150225-13oook.html
> 
> ..She [Triggs] was never asked to resign. Both the Attorney-General, Senator George Brandis, and the head of his department, flatly denied ever asking for her resignation. In her testimony to the Senate inquiry on Tuesday, it emerged she had inferred this meaning out of comments made in a meeting that she herself had requested.
> 
> The government's confidence in her judgement started eroding a long time ago. Late last year, she claimed the detention centre on Christmas Island was patrolled by armed guards. This was not true and was one of several *inflammatory observations that did not withstand scrutiny*..
> 
> ..Now, under Dr Triggs, the commission has moved to attach blame for the mental cruelties imposed on children in detention to the government which did not create the problem and has largely solved it.
> 
> This is not a first for the commission. It is a divisive bureaucracy which spends $25 million a year on its permanent quest for relevance in a country with an abundance of human rights protections.


----------



## noco

banco said:


> I've no doubt she leans to the left but to think that she's going to have a conversation with Bowen and Burke where they suggest she screw the liberal party by waiting until after the election to launch the inquiry (or that she made the suggestion) is cuckoo land stuff.




The commission had an inquiry before the 2007 election when there were only 4 in detention under Howard and none after that while the Labor party allowed in 50,000 with 1200 deaths at sea....Why didn't Trigg or the HRC have an inquiry between 2007 and 2013 when the flood of illegals were allowed in by an incompetent government...At that stage over 2000 children were in detention and the detention centers were full and overflowing....There was no room left in detention centers so the Green/Labor party allowed these people into the community without proper scrutiny just to relieve the pressure on the detention centers....Trigg gloated how quick the Green/Labor party had processed these illegals in just 3 months while the Liberal Party were taking 6 months....Now you can see why.

Gillard called the September election in March 2013 and Trigg admitted had she released the report after March 2013 it could have been political damaging to the Labor Party....The Labor Party could not possibly have been in caretaker mode for 6 months....She is a  Labor hack and that cannot be denied.

It was all about one big effort by Trigg, Bowen and Burke to discredit the Liberal Party...IMO They are rotten to the core.


----------



## noco

noco said:


> The commission had an inquiry before the 2007 election when there were only 4 in detention under Howard and none after that while the Labor party allowed in 50,000 with 1200 deaths at sea....Why didn't Trigg or the HRC have an inquiry between 2007 and 2013 when the flood of illegals were allowed in by an incompetent government...At that stage over 2000 children were in detention and the detention centers were full and overflowing....There was no room left in detention centers so the Green/Labor party allowed these people into the community without proper scrutiny just to relieve the pressure on the detention centers....Trigg gloated how quick the Green/Labor party had processed these illegals in just 3 months while the Liberal Party were taking 6 months....Now you can see why.
> 
> Gillard called the September election in March 2013 and Trigg admitted had she released the report after March 2013 it could have been political damaging to the Labor Party....The Labor Party could not possibly have been in caretaker mode for 6 months....She is a  Labor hack and that cannot be denied.
> 
> It was all about one big effort by Trigg, Bowen and Burke to discredit the Liberal Party...IMO They are rotten to the core.




How the Green/Labor party and the ABC have come to the defence of Trigg says it all.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...-unlikely-victim/story-fni0ffxg-1227239124238

*Triggs should be finished as president of the Human Rights Commission. She has destroyed its reputation — such as it was — for impartiality. She refused to hold an inquiry into children in detention when Labor was in power and there were nearly 2000 of them, minus the dozens who’d drowned coming over.

No, she waited until after the 2013 election, when the Abbott Government was in power, stopping the boats and releasing all but 10 per cent of the children that Labor locked up at its peak.*


----------



## Bintang

Logique said:


> For anyone interested in the facts, as opposed to Labor's, and the good Professor's political opportunism.  It's in the Love Media, so it must be true.
> 
> Watch out for the inevitable I'll Ride With You Gillian social media campaign.
> 
> "This is not a first for the commission. It is a divisive bureaucracy which spends $25 million a year on its permanent quest for relevance in a country with an abundance of human rights protections."




Wasn't the HRC a Labor creation in the first place? I think it came into being during the Hawke era.
I would like to see a list of all the other garbage reports this mob has produced for $25 million a year.


----------



## SirRumpole

Bintang said:


> Wasn't the HRC a Labor creation in the first place? I think it came into being during the Hawke era.
> I would like to see a list of all the other garbage reports this mob has produced for $25 million a year.




Maybe you would also like to criticise the appointment of Tim Wilson, IPA and Liberal Party functionary to the Commission at a salary of $389,000 plus $56,000 expenses pa. (That's more than a Cabinet Minister).

Mr Wilson has formerly said that the Commission should be abolished, but he is number one for hypocrisy when it comes to snouts at the trough.


----------



## themeinvestor

Just to throw my 2c in....

I'm basicallly a liberal voter (if you don't want to vote Labor, there's not a lot else to choose from (no the Greens are not a grown-ups party)).

I have always said, and a journalist more or less said it yesterday, Abbott is an 'attack dog'.

Deployed the right way, Abbott can be extremely effective at tearing his opponent apart, but he was never leadership material.  He can't bring people together.


----------



## Bintang

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe you would also like to criticise the appointment of Tim Wilson, IPA and Liberal Party functionary to the Commission at a salary of $389,000 plus $56,000 expenses pa. (That's more than a Cabinet Minister).
> 
> Mr Wilson has formerly said that the Commission should be abolished, but he is number one for hypocrisy when it comes to snouts at the trough.




If they are all part of it then YES.
My question is about whether the HRC is giving us value for money.


----------



## SirRumpole

Bintang said:


> If they are all part of it then YES.
> My question is about whether the HRC is giving us value for money.




I doubt if it is.

 There seems to be no shortage of lawyers who want to stick their noses into the human rights issue who are not paid a salary by the taxpayer, so why not leave it to them to put the case ?


----------



## Bintang

themeinvestor said:


> I'm basicallly a liberal voter (if you don't want to vote Labor, there's not a lot else to choose from (no the Greens are not a grown-ups party)).




The choice at the ballot box is always between what is bad and what is less bad.
The political class on both sides of politics is in it for themselves first and foremost. Anybody who thinks/claims otherwise is either one of them or retarded.
In the past I have voted Labor when I thought it was in the best interest of the country to do so.
Haven't thought that way for many years now.
But it doesn't make me a rusted on Liberal voter. I wish we had better choices.


----------



## banco

SirRumpole said:


> I doubt if it is.
> 
> There seems to be no shortage of lawyers who want to stick their noses into the human rights issue who are not paid a salary by the taxpayer, so why not leave it to them to put the case ?




Because they don't have the power to force the Government to hand over information?


----------



## SirRumpole

banco said:


> Because they don't have the power to force the Government to hand over information?




Maybe the ordinary citizen should have this ability, with judicial oversight, rather than just giving the power to selected people.

There is the Freedom of Information Act, which should be extended to make the government give good reasons for withholding information, rather than the bureaucratic mess that it is now.


----------



## Knobby22

I'm with Bintang.

I have voted Liberal more than Labor but have voted both ways depending on who will best serve the country as a whole. I think Abbott has completely lost sight of this as he really wants to fight rather than thinking what he can do to improve the country. I thought the scare might change his attitude slightly but he seems to be even worse.

I am also very disappointed in the political class of this country. In the days of Hawke and Howard we had parties with vision. Rudd may have had a vision but was too much a dictator. Gillard wasn't up to the job and if Abbott was honest with himself he is at Gillard's level. 

There is so much talent in the Libs but the old warhorses in the Cabinet are blocking it. 
Come on Libs just get on with it, sack Abbott. Once he is gone he can't hurt you. Just too many career politicians.


----------



## SirRumpole

> Gillard wasn't up to the job and if Abbott was honest with himself he is at Gillard's level.




I have to disagree there.

Gillard's main mistake (there weren't all that many) was to change her mind on the Carbon tax because of the election result. Had she led a majority government I think she would still be there.

She was good negotiator and administrator but she fell foul of the Liberal luvvies and Labor haters in the media.

Ce la vie I suppose, but I don't think she gets the credit she deserves.


----------



## Bintang

SirRumpole said:


> Ce la vie I suppose, but I don't think she gets the credit she deserves.




I think she does get the 'credit' she deserves all zero of it.


----------



## Knobby22

SirRumpole said:


> She was good negotiator and administrator
> 
> .




Yes, but not a leader.

To be fair she didn't get much of a go, having to deal with the Greens, but I found her vision very limited and more to do with pleasing the education sector. I can't point to anything that showed any real vision except maybe the Carbon Tax which she didn't want.

...and maybe I am being nice to Abbott as I don't think he know  the meaning of negotiation though he may have a touch more vision, though it is basically one eyed looking through a cardboard tube.


----------



## Bintang

SirRumpole said:


> I have to disagree there.
> 
> Gillard's main mistake (there weren't all that many) was to change her mind on the Carbon tax because of the election result. Had she led a majority government I think she would still be there.
> 
> She was good negotiator and administrator but she fell foul of the Liberal luvvies and Labor haters in the media.




Gillard would disagree with you there.
She thinks her main mistake was being female.

How the worm turns. That media of Liberal luvvies and Labor haters is the same media of  Labor luvvies and Liberal haters that we have now.  Not sure what happened to the Green huggers and Green slayers.


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> I have to disagree there.
> 
> Gillard's main mistake (there weren't all that many) was to change her mind on the Carbon tax because of the election result. Had she led a majority government I think she would still be there.
> 
> She was good negotiator and administrator but she fell foul of the Liberal luvvies and Labor haters in the media.
> 
> Ce la vie I suppose, but I don't think she gets the credit she deserves.






Bintang said:


> I think she does get the 'credit' she deserves all zero of it.




Rumpole, which model of Julia Gillard are you talking about?  I'll remember her chiefly for her multiple announcements of "now you're going to see the real Julia".   

I'm 100% with Bintang and Knobby.  And to think we used to whine about Costello's 'smirk'.
Oh to have the Howard/Costello team back!  John Howard had authority, something none of the subsequent leaders have had a clue about.


----------



## drsmith

Julia Gillard wasn't much of a negotiator either.

A carbon tax sat with her ideologically and the Greens and independents demands that one be implemented for forming government was simply cover for that. 

Could one have ever imagined Tony Windsor ever supporting an Abbott government. These same Greens and independents would have never supported an Abbott led Coalition government and Julia Gillard would have known that.

Then there was the mining tax. A fix for the 2010 election that was designed much more to be political than anything else. 

John Howard did this nation a great disservice by not adequately recognising his time was over in the lead up and managing an orderly leadership transition process to Peter Costello prior to the 2007 election. That episode of our political history illustrates why individual leaders should only occupy the office of PM for a maximum period before changing to someone new. 4-year fixed terms with a particular PM for a maximum of 2 terms would be better than what we have now in my view. Same for state governments and their premiers as well.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> I'm 100% with Bintang and Knobby.




Maybe you will surprise me one day Julia.


----------



## Knobby22

Good point re negotiation dr smith.  I forgot how she pathetically gave away everything in the carbon tax and she could have done better on negotiating the climate change tax. Just too eager to be in power.


----------



## Bintang

Julia said:


> I'm 100% with Bintang and Knobby.






SirRumpole said:


> Maybe you will surprise me one day Julia.




I would like to be a good sport and help out on this.
Julia do you have any suggestions as to what we could disagree about so as to surprise Rumpole?


----------



## Knobby22

Good post by Jonathon Green showing how Abbott could have had a win-win on the Triggs issue. I am sure that is how Howard would have handled it. Triggs would have been shamed, Abbott would have been the hero, why can't he do this?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-2...triggs/6263032


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I have to disagree there.
> 
> Gillard's main mistake (there weren't all that many) was to change her mind on the Carbon tax because of the election result. Had she led a majority government I think she would still be there.
> 
> She was good negotiator and administrator but she fell foul of the Liberal luvvies and Labor haters in the media.
> 
> Ce la vie I suppose, but I don't think she gets the credit she deserves.




And don't forget she fell foul with Bill Shorten the exterminator.


----------



## Bintang

Knobby22 said:


> Good post by Jonathon Green showing how Abbott could have had a win-win on the Triggs issue. I am sure that is how Howard would have handled it. Triggs would have been shamed, Abbott would have been the hero, why can't he do this?




Yes, Jonathon Green's post is excellent.


----------



## Bintang

drsmith said:


> Julia Gillard wasn't much of a negotiator either.




Even if she was a good negotiator as well as administrator so what?

These hackneyed attributes seem to be the best that anyone one has come up with in her defense but if she was so good at these two things she should have kept on doing them instead of trying to be Prime Minister. 

Good negotiators and good administrators are needed and should be there to serve a good Prime Minister. But the good Prime Minister will have other attributes, the most important of which are leadership and authority.

TA also his deficiencies but at least he isn't using the Prime Minister's office to run a crusade against misandry.


----------



## drsmith

Knobby22 said:


> Good post by Jonathon Green showing how Abbott could have had a win-win on the Triggs issue. I am sure that is how Howard would have handled it. Triggs would have been shamed, Abbott would have been the hero, why can't he do this?
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-2...triggs/6263032



Gillian Griggs publically went too far with her partisanship on this issue for the above to have been a practical alternative. 

How could a PM have someone standing beside him who describes his government's detention centres as prisons and who would be standing there utterly discredited on her reasons for the timing of the enquiry ?

Had the PM done that, he would have been seen as weak at the very least by the government's own constituency and more broadly, in particular from those who seek political advantage. 

That being said, if the government had lost confidence in Julian Griggs impartiality, it should have just said so and not muddied the waters with other employment possibilities.


----------



## SirRumpole

Bintang said:


> TA also his deficiencies but at least he isn't using the Prime Minister's office to run a crusade against misandry.




Instead he seems to be running a crusade against the Australian workforce and the younger generation.

To him the workforce are obviously not good enough to build cars or submarines, and the young are not deserving enough to afford a good education unless their parents have money.


----------



## Bintang

SirRumpole said:


> Instead he seems to be running a crusade against the Australian workforce and the younger generation.
> 
> To him the workforce are obviously not good enough to build cars or submarines, and the young are not deserving enough to afford a good education unless their parents have money.




No-one can satisfy all of the punters all of the time.
We could make an equivalent list for JG but the thing she will be most remembered for, especially internationally, is her diatribe against misogyny.


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> Gillian Griggs publically went too far with her partisanship on this issue for the above to have been a practical alternative.
> 
> How could a PM have someone standing beside him who describes his government's detention centres as prisons and who would be standing there utterly discredited on her reasons for the timing of the enquiry ?
> 
> Had the PM done that, he would have been seen as weak at the very least by the government's own constituency and more broadly, in particular from those who seek political advantage.
> 
> That being said, if the government had lost confidence in Julian Griggs impartiality, it should have just said so and not muddied the waters with other employment possibilities.




Yes because a PM with a reputation for being overly aggressive and a bully should avoid being seen weak by always going on the offensive. There was was such heightened public interest in this report.


----------



## drsmith

banco said:


> Yes because a PM with a reputation for being overly aggressive and a bully should avoid being seen weak by always going on the offensive. There was was such heightened public interest in this report.



Any PM would be seen as weak under such circumstances.

Malcolm Turnbull for example wouldn't fare any better.


----------



## Julia

Knobby22 said:


> Good post by Jonathon Green showing how Abbott could have had a win-win on the Triggs issue. I am sure that is how Howard would have handled it. Triggs would have been shamed, Abbott would have been the hero, why can't he do this?



Jonathon Green's post, plus some of the responses here, all assume that the government did not *intend* to make Gillian Triggs, and their loss of confidence in her, the issue.

It overlooks other issues about her such as her assertion that there were armed guards at the Christmas Island detention centre, that it was 'like a jail', whereas in fact there are no armed guards and the children have a play area and access to a swimming pool.

Then she recommended $350,000 in compensation for a detained Indonesian man who beat his Australian wife to death with a bicycle..  She recommended he be released into the community despite also having been involved in 50 behaviour related incidents whilst in detention and prior to that having a long record of violent crime and bail violations since arriving from Papua New Guinea.

Then there was the recommendation of a $300,000 payout to a US born convicted fraudster  after he had been deported because of swindling $744,000 from taxpayers and banks in Australia.

So the notion that the government have no genuine basis for declaring loss of faith in Ms Triggs seems somewhat misplaced to me.


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe you will surprise me one day Julia.



You never know, Rumpole.  You have the edge on me.  I have already registered my appreciation of your occasional objectivity despite your affection for Labor.



Bintang said:


> I would like to be a good sport and help out on this.
> Julia do you have any suggestions as to what we could disagree about so as to surprise Rumpole?



Hmm, I'll have to think about that, Bintang.  Rumpole is actually correct:  I do rarely disagree with you.

Happy to consider any suggestions in the interests of the Enlightenment of Rumpole.


----------



## banco

Julia said:


> Jonathon Green's post, plus some of the responses here, all assume that the government did not *intend* to make Gillian Triggs, and their loss of confidence in her, the issue.
> 
> It overlooks other issues about her such as her assertion that there were armed guards at the Christmas Island detention centre, that it was 'like a jail', whereas in fact there are no armed guards and the children have a play area and access to a swimming pool.
> 
> Then she recommended $350,000 in compensation for a detained Indonesian man who beat his Australian wife to death with a bicycle..  She recommended he be released into the community despite also having been involved in 50 behaviour related incidents whilst in detention and prior to that having a long record of violent crime and bail violations since arriving from Papua New Guinea.
> 
> Then there was the recommendation of a $300,000 payout to a US born convicted fraudster  after he had been deported because of swindling $744,000 from taxpayers and banks in Australia.
> 
> So the notion that the government have no genuine basis for declaring loss of faith in Ms Triggs seems somewhat misplaced to me.




Whether they did or not their handling of it has been a pyrrhic victory at best.


----------



## Bintang

Julia said:


> Hmm, I'll have to think about that, Bintang.  Rumpole is actually correct:  I do rarely disagree with you.
> 
> Happy to consider any suggestions in the interests of the Enlightenment of Rumpole.




Julia if by that you mean Enlightenment about Labor I seriously doubt that for Rumpole it is possible. 
*In which case I DISAGREE with you.* 

There we go Rumpole.  Are you surprised?


----------



## drsmith

I would seem that Gillian Triggs was aware of an alternative role prior to George Brandis sending Immigration Department secretary Chris Moraitis to advise her of no confidence,

http://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=253202&operation_mode=parlview

That's according to Chris Moraitis (from 35 minutes and again from 50 minutes) and implied by Gillian Triggs herself (~1h32m).

What did Gillian Triggs and Chris Moraitis talk about for an hour if that meeting was as brief as she indicated and why did she phone him earlier interrupting his holiday with his children (1h29m to 1h35m) ?

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/andrewbolt/


----------



## SirRumpole

Bintang said:


> Good negotiators and good administrators are needed and should be there to serve a good Prime Minister. But the good Prime Minister will have other attributes, the most important of which are leadership and authority.




And you think Abbott has these qualities ?

He's being white-anted at every turn by you know who, an incredible parallel universe to what we saw with Rudd-Gillard.

Continual criticism of Labor is pointless, the Libs now have to fix their own ship, and it's apparent that they are just as bad as Labor and just as capable of making bad leadership choices.


----------



## drsmith

The Australian,



> TONY Abbott has hinted that human rights commissioner Gillian Triggs might have instigated talk of an alternative role after the government lost confidence in her.
> 
> Federal police are examining whether Prof Triggs was offered an inducement to resign from her role as the nation’s human rights chief.
> 
> Mr Abbott and Attorney-General George Brandis said they had no confidence in Prof Triggs following her report into children in detention.
> 
> Mr Abbott described the report as a “political stitch-up” designed to embarrass his coalition government.
> 
> Labor used question time on Thursday to quiz Mr Abbott and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop on the detail of a discussion between the secretary of the attorney-general’s department Chris Moraitis and Prof Triggs.
> 
> Ms Bishop told parliament no job offer was made to Prof Triggs, nor was she asked to resign or any inducement offered.
> 
> *“A role was raised that related to international affairs,” Ms Bishop said.*
> 
> “As the secretary of the attorney-general’s department said in Senate estimates, it was a sensitive matter that he did not wish to give details of in Senate estimates so I don’t give details of it.” Asked about the difference between a job offer and a “role raised”, Mr Abbott told parliament: “There is a world of difference. It depends on who raised the issue of a role and no specific job offer was made.” Comment was being sought from Prof Triggs, although she did tweet her gratitude to her supporters.
> 
> “Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to tweet, email & write letters of support.Your encouragement matters to all at @AusHumanRights,” she tweeted.
> 
> Shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus asked Mr Abbott whether he would allow the release of notes of the meeting between Mr Moraitis and Prof Triggs to clear the air.
> 
> “They’re notes that belong to the gentleman that made them whom we have total trust and confidence in,” Mr Abbott said.
> 
> Labor failed in an attempt to censure the government over the attack on Prof Triggs.
> 
> “Every day there’s a new lie from the government,” Mr Dreyfus said.
> 
> Mr Moraitis told the Senate hearing his notes relating to the episode were lost.



By whom ?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-scandal-deepens/story-fn59niix-1227240332838

My bolds.


----------



## Bintang

SirRumpole said:


> And you think Abbott has these qualities ?




No. He clearly doesn’t.



SirRumpole said:


> Continual criticism of Labor is pointless, the Libs now have to fix their own ship, and it's apparent that they are just as bad as Labor and just as capable of making bad leadership choices.




Agreed.
As I explained in another post I am not a rusted on Liberal supporter.
Both sides of politics present us with bad choices. We can only choose the least bad at any particular time.
I’m also a swinging voter. I will take a swing at any side of politics when I think it is deserved and the opportunity presents itself.


----------



## Bintang

drsmith said:


> _"Mr Moraitis told the Senate hearing his notes relating to the episode were lost."_




From listening to the videos you posted earlier it seems that Triggs might have also misplaced a few notes.
Maybe it's an endemic problem for the political class.


----------



## sptrawler

Great to see Fairfax taking an interest in tax reform.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...r-campaign-on-tax-reform-20150226-13pwxr.html


----------



## Julia

Bintang said:


> Julia if by that you mean Enlightenment about Labor I seriously doubt that for Rumpole it is possible.
> *In which case I DISAGREE with you.*
> 
> There we go Rumpole.  Are you surprised?




I won't spoil it by agreeing with you that there is little hope of Rumpole being disabused of his affection for Labor.

Back to the leadership question, 7.30 this evening has excitedly informed us that there is ongoing speculation about a leadership challenge.  This could, hold your breath, occur as early as next week.
Just one problem:  there is no challenger.

An article in "The Australian" today by Nikki Savva savages Peta Credlin.  It's largely the same old, same old.
But one of the following comments struck me as about right:


> Malcolm Turnbull undermined his way into being Leader of the Opposition and he was a complete failure.  He couldn't handle Question time, his people skills were poor,  He lost all that the Liberals had gained and the polls dropped like a lead balloon.  *Because he is rich people assume he has skills he does not actually have.  There is a lot more to being a PM than starring in Q&A.  He is not an economist or an accountant, he is an investor and an investment banker.  Very different.*




(Bolding is mine.)


----------



## banco

The rusted on liberal voters (dr smith etc.) are still going to be picking over the entrails of the Triggs affair when Tony Abbott (having followed their advice to respond to the Triggs affair like a shock jock) is sitting on the back bench:

BACKBENCHERS have reportedly told Malcolm Turnbull he has the numbers to beat Tony Abbott in a leadership spill, but Liberal Ministers have to “bring it on”.

7 News Political Editor Mark Riley reports that a growing number of MPs have gone to see Mr Turnbull in his office with a clear message.

They had reportedly told the Communications Minister “we’ll back you if Ministers bring it on”.

http://www.news.com.au/national/sev...leadership-spill/story-fncynjr2-1227240513824


----------



## Bintang

Julia said:


> But one of the following comments struck me as about right:
> 
> _"Because he is rich people assume he has skills he does not actually have. There is a lot more to being a PM than starring in Q&A. He is not an economist or an accountant, he is an investor and an investment banker. Very different." _




Maybe I am just 'grasping at straws’ but I have always thought that someone as rich as MT who is in politics does not need to be in it for ‘the money’, thereby offering hope that his judgments would not be clouded by the drive to maximize his tax-payer funded pension upon leaving office.

PS: The female lawyer we used to have as a PM was also not an economist or an accountant.


----------



## drsmith

banco said:


> They had reportedly told the Communications Minister “we’ll back you if Ministers bring it on”.
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/national/sev...leadership-spill/story-fncynjr2-1227240513824



They're probably the ones that wouldn't back him. Rather than passing judgment as you are so keen to do, Malcolm Turnbull needs to let the exercise with Gillian Triggs run its course. He rushed in once before as opposition leader and that didn't end so well for him.

The ABC's 730 ran a segment on the government leadership tonight that was nothing more than a chat between Leigh Sales and Sabra Lane.


----------



## moXJO

banco said:


> BACKBENCHERS have reportedly told Malcolm Turnbull he has the numbers to beat Tony Abbott in a leadership spill, but Liberal Ministers have to “bring it on”.



Turnbulls speech about Triggs was a turn off and made me question if he has learnt anything at all. He played the wrong card at the wrong time.


----------



## Julia

Bintang said:


> Maybe I am just 'grasping at straws’ but I have always thought that someone as rich as MT who is in politics does not need to be in it for ‘the money’, thereby offering hope that his judgments would not be clouded by the drive to maximize his tax-payer funded pension upon leaving office.



Bintang, I don't think anyone chooses politics for the money.  It is much more about power.
For Malcolm Turnbull especially so imo



> PS: The female lawyer we used to have as a PM was also not an economist or an accountant.




And how did that turn out, huh?


----------



## Bintang

Julia said:


> Bintang, I don't think anyone chooses politics for the money.  It is much more about power.




Initially the lure might just be power but I would be surprised if the pecuniary benefits of incumbency do not become a strong influence.

If I was Turnbull and I became PM the first thing I would do is announce that my Prime Ministerial salary and future pension benefits will be donated 100% to charity.


----------



## luutzu

Julia said:


> Bintang, I don't think anyone chooses politics for the money.  It is much more about power.
> For Malcolm Turnbull especially so imo
> 
> 
> 
> And how did that turn out, huh?




I thought Turnbull was a lawyer, used to work for Kerry Packer [?]. Then turn to investment banking, probably more for his legal ability (in M&A?) than the banking and finance side.

Anyway, yea Turnbull is definitely not into politics for money. Though it wouldn't hurt to consult for the big boys after retirement from the top job... Murdoch may even bribe, i mean pay, a couple millions for a memoir if this NBN thing get delayed and won't hurt his cable business for a while.


----------



## drsmith

The Australian,



> THE conduct of Australian Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs has again been called into question amid revelations she signalled she would consider resigning the post if her reputation could be protected and she could secure altern*ative employment.
> 
> Evidence that Professor Triggs sent indirect signals to Attorney-General George Brandis just last month comes after a week of controversy in which she claimed to have been shocked by suggestions from the government that she might resign ”” even though it was revealed she instigated the meeting about her standing.
> 
> It also came one day after Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull defended her, a move interpreted as an attempt to distance himself from the strong attacks on her conduct from Senator Brandis and Tony Abbott.
> 
> Late yesterday, Professor Triggs “categorically” denied “any suggestion that the issue of a job and resignation” came at her instigation, saying she “stands by her evidence” at this week’s estim*ates committee.
> 
> However, multiple highly placed sources close to the government and the commission, together with the evidence at this week’s Senate estimates hearings, support the version of events that has Professor Triggs kicking off considerations about her future.
> 
> Professor Triggs ended last year deeply mired in controversy after a disastrous Senate estim*ates performance when she contradicted herself and failed to explain why she did not hold an inquiry into children in detention under Labor, when close to 2000 children were detained at any one time, but launched a public inquiry after the Coalition took government and stopped the boats.
> 
> Over the Christmas break and through the first half of last month, the president discussed her future with a number of other AHRC staff members and trusted colleagues.
> 
> Some of them urged her to stand aside for her own peace of mind and to protect the commission from further damage.
> 
> She indicated to them that she was thinking of taking that option but would need assurances that her reputation would not be damaged in the process and that she might obtain suitable alternative employment.
> 
> These considerations were relayed to the Attorney-General, who sent a response through the same back-channels that he would speak positively and publicly about her and he was certain consultancies in her special field of international law might be available.
> 
> However, on Tuesday, Profes*sor Triggs told the Senate estim*ates committee she was “deeply shocked” when, in a meeting with the secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department Chris Mor*aitis, the option of her departure was raised.
> 
> “He said he had been asked to deliver the message from the attor*ney that he required my resignation,” Professor Triggs said.
> 
> Mr Moraitis flatly denied this version of events: “I never sought resignation ”” I did not use the word ‘resignation’ ever.”
> 
> In his evidence, Mr Moraitis revealed that his meeting with the president came about only after Professor Triggs phoned him last month.
> 
> Subsequently, she confirmed this call had taken place.
> 
> “Professor Triggs asked me to expressly seek from the attorney his views about her role and her status as chairman, which I undertook to do on my return to the office,” Mr Moraitis said.
> 
> This evidence correlates with the timing and version of events relayed by other sources connected to the government and the commission.
> 
> It also squares with public comments by Senator Brandis earlier this month, when he told Sky News that Professor Triggs was a “very illustrious lawyer” and a “very decent” person.
> 
> “She is a good person, she is a fine lawyer, her heart is in the right place,” Senator Brandis said.
> 
> Close colleagues of Professor Triggs suggest that, after initially warming to the idea of resignation, her attitude had changed before the meeting with Mr Moraitis.
> 
> Her stance hardened as she considered her position and discussed the situation with other colleagues and human rights advocates urging her to dig in.
> 
> On November 22, The Australian reported: “It is understood the Abbott government and the minister who oversees the *commission, Attorney-General George Brandis, have lost faith in Professor Triggs.” That has been put firmly on the record in parliament this week.
> 
> However, writing in The Australian today, Senator Brandis argues the issue was never about the individual but more about the judgments and decisions made through the AHRC.
> 
> “How odd it is that when Malcolm Turnbull and I make substantially identical remarks about Professor Triggs, (Bill) Shorten should treat Turnbull’s remarks as a chivalrous defence and mine as ‘character assassination’,” he writes.
> 
> “In a democracy, it is not character assassination to call a public official to account, nor to subject their performance to public scrutiny.”




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/triggs-was-prepared-to-shift-jobs/story-e6frg6n6-1227240725442

Note: The above article was not behind a pay wall at the time of posting.


----------



## Logique

I too doubt that Malcolm Turnbull is in it for the money. But his moment may have come and gone. Tony Abbott looked much better this week, and Scott Morrison is doing splendidly. Caucus need to think long and hard before reinstalling the dear chap.

I wonder what Professor Triggs is in it for? Wiki says she was born in 1945, making her 70 years old. Clinging tenaciously to her  public sector sinecure or 'suitable alternative'. 

Of course we've diagnosed this all wrong, Clementine Ford has the answer. It's that they're all bully boys and simply can't handle smart women. And people should leave Peta Credlin alone too:  http://www.theage.com.au/comment/bu...-cant-handle-smart-women-20150226-13p3wu.html


----------



## Tink

Well said, Logique.



moXJO said:


> Turnbulls speech about Triggs was a turn off and made me question if he has learnt anything at all. He played the wrong card at the wrong time.




Agree, moXJO

Malcolm was quick to jump on the ABC and discredit Abbott and co, regarding Triggs.

It does feel like the media is pushing this.


----------



## SirRumpole

Julia said:


> I won't spoil it by agreeing with you that there is little hope of Rumpole being disabused of his affection for Labor.




If I see a Liberal party with some vision and decent policies I would have no objection to voting for them.

Some of Labor's policies are good, but if they keep the stupid rule that you an only be a union member to belong to the party, that lets me out and a lot of other people as well.

 Labor has to modernise itself and prove that they are not just a union party , as the Libs have to prove that they are not just a big business party. Neither has done so to my satisfaction yet.


----------



## Tisme

Logique said:


> I wonder what Professor Triggs is in it for? Wiki says she was born in 1945, making her 70 years old. Clinging tenaciously to her  public sector sinecure or 'suitable alternative'.




Not everyone wants to play lawn bowls.

She may see herself as the praetorian guard, protecting the organisation against patently partisan political seat stacking (e.g. Tim the "Freedom Commissioner" Wilson). This appears to be an LNP Greek Tragedy playing out, to me.


----------



## Bintang

SirRumpole said:


> Some of Labor's policies are good, but if they keep the stupid rule that you an only be a union member to belong to the party, that lets me out and a lot of other people as well.
> 
> Labor has to modernise itself and prove that they are not just a union party , as the Libs have to prove that they are not just a big business party. Neither has done so to my satisfaction yet.




Orr posted a link in the Abbott is Gorne thread to an interesting article which might find a better context here:



orr said:


> The attached link will  test the attention span, it a few thousand words, of one or maybe two of the contributors to this thread, but for those capable of digesting the ideas presented in 'Fixing Politics', I'd be interested in critiques.
> 
> http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/...flannery-and-catriona-wallace/fixing-politics




I've read it but still thinking about it. Might read it a second time before daring to comment. It's definitely interesting.


----------



## Bintang

Tisme said:


> Not everyone wants to play lawn bowls.
> 
> She may see herself as the praetorian guard, protecting the organisation against patently partisan political seat stacking (e.g. Tim the "Freedom Commissioner" Wilson). This appears to be an LNP Greek Tragedy playing out, to me.




Maybe she intends to fulfill Joe Hockey's prediction of living to 150 and therefore wants to top up her pension a bit more.

PS: that aside $500k a year is a pretty good inducement not to take up lawn bowls.


----------



## moXJO

Logique said:


> I too doubt that Malcolm Turnbull is in it for the money. But his moment may have come and gone.
> 
> I wonder what Professor Triggs is in it for? Wiki says she was born in 1945, making her 70 years old.
> 
> Of course we've diagnosed this all wrong, Clementine Ford has the answer.




Not sure if Tbull panicked when he saw that Abbott put in a good week and thought his leadership aspirations would be over as time went by. But he put a lot of liberal voters offside with his speech. His political timing is still out which is a shame.

Hey I love work and would go till 80 if the body held out.

That fairfax would give that twit Clementine Ford speaks volumes.


----------



## Julia

Logique said:


> I too doubt that Malcolm Turnbull is in it for the money. But his moment may have come and gone. Tony Abbott looked much better this week, and Scott Morrison is doing splendidly. Caucus need to think long and hard before reinstalling the dear chap.







Tink said:


> Well said, Logique.



+1.  (Though, of course, according to the ABC, Mr Abbott has had a terrible week.)



> Malcolm was quick to jump on the ABC and discredit Abbott and co, regarding Triggs.



He has form in this regard.  When the referendum on the republic failed, Mr Turnbull said of *John Howard:

"History will remember him for one thing. He was the prime minister who broke this nation's heart." *

He also declared that " 'I will not lead a party that is not as committed to effective action on climate change as I am"



> It does feel like the media is pushing this.



Certainly does.  Presumably for the same reason Labor voters want Mr Turnbull, ie his world view aligns with theirs.


----------



## dutchie

Bintang said:


> PS: The female lawyer we used to have as a PM was also not an economist or an accountant.




She was not a lawyer (not an employable one). But she was good at knitting.


----------



## dutchie

SirRumpole said:


> Continual criticism of Labor is pointless,....... .




No its not, it's great fun.

I figure that since they were pathetic for six long years then they deserve to be continuously criticised for six years.

So they have another 4 1/2 years or so to go. Even longer if they persist with previously failed policies (carbon tax, not stopping the boats etc.)


----------



## pixel

Apparently, it's not only the much-maligned ABC that would prefer change:
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/opinion/a/26443087/turnbull-may-never-have-a-better-time-to-be-pm/


----------



## Knobby22

I disagree with one statement from the West Australian, the longer this goes, the stronger the position for MT imo.

All the far right dragging out quotes about climate change etc. just don't get it. To win elections you have to win the middle ground. Climate change is an unfortunate truth. Hottest year ever last year and people are worried about it. people are worried as to whether their kids can go to Uni if they do well at school, people are worrying about the death of manufacturing.

But in the end as quoted by an MP to Mark Kenny of the Age it is simple.
"There is a motive problem with voters"
"Any change would need to convince voters that our intentions are sound, and are not ideological" 

Hear Hear. Dinosaurs get out of the way or NSW will fall next.


----------



## SirRumpole

dutchie said:


> No its not, it's great fun.
> 
> I figure that since they were pathetic for six long years then they deserve to be continuously criticised for six years.
> 
> So they have another 4 1/2 years or so to go. Even longer if they persist with previously failed policies (carbon tax, not stopping the boats etc.)




See how much fun it is when the Libs turn out to be a one term government.

Campbell who ?


----------



## dutchie

SirRumpole said:


> See how much fun it is when the Libs turn out to be a one term government.
> 
> Campbell who ?




You might be right. They will get their share of criticism (from me) too if they are as hopeless as Labor was.

For Australia's sake I hope your wrong. We won't survive another term of current Labor.


----------



## Julia

Knobby22 said:


> All the far right dragging out quotes about climate change etc. just don't get it. To win elections you have to win the middle ground. Climate change is an unfortunate truth. Hottest year ever last year and people are worried about it.



I think I'm the only one who has  'dragged out quotes about climate change'.  It was to illustrate how distant Malcolm Turnbull was from his colleagues at the time, a situation that I don't believe will have changed.  He had so little sense of unity with his party that he was prepared to cross the floor to vote with Labor.

Is there any reason to think that he would not be similarly autocratic when leader again?
Mr Turnbull is of the 'born to rule' class.

And, Knobby, I don't think I'm aligned with the 'far Right':  plenty of people who take no stand on AGW are simply against Australia disadvantaging herself as occurred when we had a carbon tax that was not replicated across the world.

If eventually global agreement is reached in which participation does not unfairly disadvantage any single country, objections to either a carbon tax or an ETS would, imo, largely disappear.


----------



## banco

When the choice is between certain defeat and MT the Liberals will choose the latter. Meanwhile Dr Smith etc. will be to Abbott what Anne Summers is to Gillard.


----------



## Bintang

*Headlines from The Age newspaper today*

 - Abbott's leadership enters the death zone
 - The Death Stare Strikes Back
 - 'Abbott should go': ex News boss 
 - Llama chase covered live on US TV

Memo to The Age: *Could we please have more stories about llamas?*


----------



## Knobby22

Julia said:


> I think I'm the only one who has  'dragged out quotes about climate change'.  It was to illustrate how distant Malcolm Turnbull was from his colleagues at the time, a situation that I don't believe will have changed.  He had so little sense of unity with his party that he was prepared to cross the floor to vote with Labor.




And how far distant some in the Coalition are from the public?
Why is it in that in Britain the Conservatives are doing something about emissions etc. while we will be seeking to stop agreement at the conference?
Some in the party align themselves with the Republicans who are libertarians. As does that Liberal Democrat guy. I completely along with many of the public reject this philosophy.

If they want to be voted back in they better act like Conservatives.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> See how much fun it is when the Libs turn out to be a one term government.
> 
> Campbell who ?




Annastacia WHO?

Daniel WHO?


----------



## noco

If there is a spill next week, I believe the rank outsider Scott Morrison will throw his hat in the ring with good prospects of winning with perhaps  Turnbull as Treasurer....If that does happen, I can't see Tony Abbott staying in politics too much longer.


----------



## explod

Just watching Tony now being interviewed in NZ. 

"We are gerring on with the job"  nods the head

"we are doing what we were elected to do" looks around,  drops lip

"yeh that's what we are doing,  ballancing the budget and getting jobs for the people"

But there is absolutely no content,  HOW,  no detail on companies spoken to and plans made with them to enhance production,   or can we work together to do this(an actual project)  or should we look at protection against overseas competition for this.   No,  he has no  idea like previous leaders.  And that includes the last two of labour,  they had content,  even if it was not what you wanted,  they were at least saying somerhing that we could engage with and  discuss.


----------



## Smurf1976

Julia said:


> I don't think I'm aligned with the 'far Right':  plenty of people who take no stand on AGW are simply against Australia disadvantaging herself as occurred when we had a carbon tax that was not replicated across the world.
> 
> If eventually global agreement is reached in which participation does not unfairly disadvantage any single country, objections to either a carbon tax or an ETS would, imo, largely disappear.




I consider myself to be in that category. Politically, I've slowly drifted away from the Right over the years as I've seen serious flaws in the rationality of such thinking. I'd describe myself as slightly to the Left these days although I do see a need for proper financial management.

But I'm against an Australia-only carbon tax for the simple reason that it doesn't well serve any particular outcome. It's not particularly effective at reducing emissions, it simply aids their offshoring rather than removal as such, and it harms those needing employment. Socially, the cost is too high for what it achieves in my view.

Something I've never understood is the apparent linkage between unrelated issues. It seems to be that to the Right we've got religion, good financial management, an incredible faith in coal and support for corporate welfare. To the Left we've got still some support for the existence of a god, overspending, support for clean energy and support for human welfare. 

So who is someone who doesn't believe there's any such thing as a god, who supports responsible financial management, supports a shift to sustainability and believes welfare should be there for those actually in need vote for? I'd expect that's a fairly common line of thinking, and yet it's not well supported by any of the major parties. 

Back to Tony Abbott, like many I'm just over the whole thing. It's like any situation where something is clearly "over" and is just being prolonged for the sake of it. Failing relationships, animals suffering in pain, old cars falling apart, whatever. In most situations the best thing to do is put an end to it once the point of no return has passed rather than delaying the inevitable.


----------



## SirRumpole

> But I'm against an Australia-only carbon tax for the simple reason that it doesn't well serve any particular outcome. It's not particularly effective at reducing emissions, it simply aids their offshoring rather than removal as such, and it harms those needing employment. Socially, the cost is too high for what it achieves in my view.




Fair enough , but some of the revenue went into clean energy subsidies which reduced the load on the grid and reduced the need for building more expensive power stations.

A lot more of the energy infrastructure is on people's roofs and less in wasteful coal powered stations due to the carbon tax.

 Why is that a high social cost ?


----------



## Bintang

explod said:


> But there is absolutely no content,  HOW,  no detail on companies spoken to and plans made with them to enhance production,   or can we work together to do this(an actual project)  or should we look at protection against overseas competition for this.   No,  he has no  idea like previous leaders.  And that includes the last two of labour,  they had content,  even if it was not what you wanted,  they were at least saying somerhing that we could engage with and  discuss.




It would help if the media tried asking some intelligent questions instead of taking every opportunity to bore us with questions about the Liberal party leadership.


----------



## sydboy007

http://www.zeit.de/datenschutz/malte-spitz-data-retention

The surveillance state brought to you by the anti liberals and a jelly kneed labor


----------



## SirRumpole

Bintang said:


> Orr posted a link in the Abbott is Gorne thread to an interesting article which might find a better context here:
> 
> 
> 
> I've read it but still thinking about it. Might read it a second time before daring to comment. It's definitely interesting.




Thanks for that, and to orr as the original poster.

The article pretty much sums up my feelings about politics and what can be done about the vacuum of policy and decision making ability.

Maybe a first step is to reform the Senate election process so small party and individual drongos can't get in on a donkey vote. 

Next step is to publicly fund parties and individuals with outside donations either banned or severely capped. We need these people top work for us, not someone else.

Neither of the major parties will do this, maybe the Greens would do some, but I think it needs a new broad based party, led by someone like Nick Xenophon who can capture the centre vote.

I hope I live long enough to see it happen.


----------



## basilio

It was a very interesting article Orr.  

I suppose from my perspective I have become very disillusioned with the political/economic system. it certainly makes sense to develop thoughtful, constructive ways of dealing with our needs and bigger problems.

But frankly I'm politics as a mechanism to enhance and protect the very wealthy in our society at the expense of everyone and everything else. In my view the advancement of the super rich and very rich has become a self fueling fire.


----------



## Julia

Knobby22 said:


> Some in the party align themselves with the Republicans who are libertarians. As does that Liberal Democrat guy. I completely along with many of the public reject this philosophy.



I imagine you're referring here to David Leyonjhelm.

When you refer above to "Republicans who are libertarians", what do you mean?  Are you talking about US Republicans (who would surely be essentially aligned with our notion of Conservatives) or people in Australia who want a Republic?



> If they want to be voted back in they better act like Conservatives.



I'm now completely confused about what you want.    A typical Conservative is Cory Bernadi?  Is he the sort of role model you want?  Conservatives in Australia tend to be sexist, prefer the monarchy to a Republic, abhor abortion, and absolutely do not want such as gay marriage.

Is that in line with your thinking?  I wouldn't have thought so from your past comments.




explod said:


> Just watching Tony now being interviewed in NZ.
> 
> "We are gerring on with the job"  nods the head
> 
> "we are doing what we were elected to do" looks around,  drops lip
> 
> "yeh that's what we are doing,  ballancing the budget and getting jobs for the people"
> 
> But there is absolutely no content,  HOW,  no detail on companies spoken to and plans made with them to enhance production,   or can we work together to do this(an actual project)  or should we look at protection against overseas competition for this.



Er, explod, Mr Abbott was interviewed in New Zealand, presumably largely for a NZ audience.  Why would they have any particular interest in any detail about various policies that relate only to Australia.    Their only vague interest, if any, would be along the lines "oh, so the Australian PM is visiting for 24 hours.  Yawn, yawn!



Smurf1976 said:


> I consider myself to be in that category. Politically, I've slowly drifted away from the Right over the years as I've seen serious flaws in the rationality of such thinking. I'd describe myself as slightly to the Left these days although I do see a need for proper financial management.
> 
> But I'm against an Australia-only carbon tax for the simple reason that it doesn't well serve any particular outcome. It's not particularly effective at reducing emissions, it simply aids their offshoring rather than removal as such, and it harms those needing employment. Socially, the cost is too high for what it achieves in my view.
> 
> Something I've never understood is the apparent linkage between unrelated issues. It seems to be that to the Right we've got religion, good financial management, an incredible faith in coal and support for corporate welfare. To the Left we've got still some support for the existence of a god, overspending, support for clean energy and support for human welfare.
> 
> So who is someone who doesn't believe there's any such thing as a god, who supports responsible financial management, supports a shift to sustainability and believes welfare should be there for those actually in need vote for? I'd expect that's a fairly common line of thinking, and yet it's not well supported by any of the major parties.



Agree, Smurf.  A very good summary of what many of us feel.



Bintang said:


> It would help if the media tried asking some intelligent questions instead of taking every opportunity to bore us with questions about the Liberal party leadership.



There are all sorts of things happening in the world, yet the news bulletins are being led by excited announcement of "the Liberal Party speculation continues to escalate".  But it's followed by no evidence to that effect at all.  No ministers or even back benchers are named.  Mr Turnbull gives no indication he will challenge Mr Abbott.  All they have is "sources have told......."
For god's sake, just shut up about it unless and until there is actually something to report.


----------



## Bintang

Julia said:


> There are all sorts of things happening in the world, yet the news bulletins are being led by excited announcement of "the Liberal Party speculation continues to escalate"........
> For god's sake, just shut up about it unless and until there is actually something to report.




Exactly. I finally got so fed up with the cr@p this week that I cancelled my online newspaper subscriptions. I have donated 30% of my savings in annual subscriptions to the anti-halal movement and will find some other worthy causes for the rest - preferably any persons or organisations who are attempting to disseminate information that the mainstream media will not handle because of self-imposed political correctness type constraints.

Besides, there are plenty of alternatives for free news on the internet and I realised that my paid subscriptions were a 'habit' I can do without.


----------



## IFocus

1st dog sums up here pretty well

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...w-to-make-it-the-report-not-the-abuse-go-away

Just a couple of questions

Anyone actually know how the children are going in detention ?

You do know Triggs criticised Labor more than the rabble now in government in her report? 

You do know human rights is about treating kids good?

You do know we treat kids in detention inhumanly  by any measure?

We do have a government don't we?

Or do we have a bloke who stands in as many flags as possible to get the polls up?

As to the timing of the report it was a perfect opportunity for Abbott to point out the differences between Labor and Coalition policy's and how he fixed the boat problem.......wouldn't it?

Any way how are the children in detention going?

Any one here going to put there hand up and start clapping about our high standard of morals in this regard?

Last question a really hard tricky one how did Abbott become a Rhodes Scholar?


----------



## sydboy007

Smurf1976 said:


> Something I've never understood is the apparent linkage between unrelated issues. It seems to be that to the Right we've got religion, good financial management, an incredible faith in coal and support for corporate welfare. To the Left we've got still some support for the existence of a god, overspending, support for clean energy and support for human welfare.
> 
> So who is someone who doesn't believe there's any such thing as a god, who supports responsible financial management, supports a shift to sustainability and believes welfare should be there for those actually in need vote for? I'd expect that's a fairly common line of thinking, and yet it's not well supported by any of the major parties.




It's generally all about paandering to the party base.  Keeping them on side.  We're lucky that compulsory voting means the various parties don't have to get too extreme.  I fear we'll end up like the USA where small extremes in the parties force potential candidates each election cycle to move further and further away from the centre.  It's practically impossible for a Republican to be voted in who believes in evolution.  Heck nearly 1 in 4 Americans think Jesus will come back during their life time.

I thoroughly recommend macrobusiness.com.au

Seems to be one of the few centrist economically focused sites, and I like they praise good policy and condemn bad policy with little bias I can see.  They've been scathing of Abbott lately, but are equally calling for Shorten to step up with some viable policy alternatives.  That they were explaining what was going to happen with the economy 2-3 years in advance has been an added boon for restructuring my finances to better take advantage of the changing economics here.

I also find the comments sections there quite interesting.  There's a lot of discussion over the various issues we're facing, with people adding external links to a wealth of information.  It's certainly changed my views on a number of issues.

One thing they're asking at present is what's the case for the building of new submarines.  The biggest single spending initiative and it seems that there's been no questioning as to do we need them or could that kind of money be spent on other hardware to provide a better security outcome.  With climate change going to have increasing impacts in the area are submarines and new armoured troop carriers really the kinds of expensive military hardware we need to be buying?  Should we stop using military spending as make work programs bribes for votes?


----------



## dutchie

Bintang said:


> Exactly. I finally got so fed up with the cr@p this week that I cancelled my online newspaper subscriptions. I have donated 30% of my savings in annual subscriptions to the anti-halal movement and will find some other worthy causes for the rest - preferably any persons or organisations who are attempting to disseminate information that the mainstream media will not handle because of self-imposed political correctness type constraints.
> 
> Besides, there are plenty of alternatives for free news on the internet and I realised that my paid subscriptions were a 'habit' I can do without.





Good onya Bintang


----------



## sydboy007

Yet we're still told we don't need an RC into the financial services industry

_During a dramatic week, ASIC revisited its sweep of 10 institutions, including NAB's Meritum which offered complex financial advice to customers.

That sweep had found that a staggering *50 per cent of files it reviewed had "insufficient evidence of compliance"*, including inadequate consideration of the client's needs, unsuitable gearing recommendations, misrepresentation of the products and risk and lack of transparency on fees charged. It also found instances of "boilerplate" statements of advice.

In Meritum's case, it found systemic breaches by two unnamed advisers, and the company subsequently "terminated" them._

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/bank...regulation-20150227-13qd3n.html#ixzz3T1Q3Ipn8

Sadly Labor is helping with the intransigent denial within the Govt that there's systemic issues that need to be resolved.

I bet an RC would find a lot more financial terrorists than the data retention policy ever will.


----------



## banco

sydboy007 said:


> Yet we're still told we don't need an RC into the financial services industry
> 
> _During a dramatic week, ASIC revisited its sweep of 10 institutions, including NAB's Meritum which offered complex financial advice to customers.
> 
> That sweep had found that a staggering *50 per cent of files it reviewed had "insufficient evidence of compliance"*, including inadequate consideration of the client's needs, unsuitable gearing recommendations, misrepresentation of the products and risk and lack of transparency on fees charged. It also found instances of "boilerplate" statements of advice.
> 
> In Meritum's case, it found systemic breaches by two unnamed advisers, and the company subsequently "terminated" them._
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/bank...regulation-20150227-13qd3n.html#ixzz3T1Q3Ipn8
> 
> Sadly Labor is helping with the intransigent denial within the Govt that there's systemic issues that need to be resolved.
> 
> I bet an RC would find a lot more financial terrorists than the data retention policy ever will.




The reality is with the financial adviser industry the economics of well qualified people giving advice to ordinary couples doesn't add if it's done on a fee for service basis.


----------



## orr

sydboy007 said:


> Yet we're still told we don't need an RC into the financial services industry
> 
> [I
> I bet an RC would find a lot more financial terrorists than the data retention policy ever will.




Don't tell me! Another glaring systemic failure of our current political _'dynamic' _...when will  Adele Ferguson be dame'd rather than damned??... Corrected me if I'm wrong, But is it the fees and kick backs on $24 odd billion these shonks have embezzled and vaporised from investors. $24 Billion.

Thanks to those who've read 'fixing politics'


----------



## sydboy007

banco said:


> The reality is with the financial adviser industry the economics of well qualified people giving advice to ordinary couples doesn't add if it's done on a fee for service basis.




I'm not 100% sure I agree on that.  Financial advice is not that expensive, though I'd argue very very difficult to get any good advice.  My last experience was paying $450 for a plan I never received.  I gave up chasing the guy for it, and told myself from now I I learn what I need to know and to not rely on an industry that is unfortunately full of mostly parasites.

The current system is not providing even a basic service to a majority of people.  If this was any other industry it would be unacceptable.  The way the banks are following the catholic Church method of moving the problem along is sickening.  ASIC wasn't even aware of the majority of those NAB planners that have been sacked.  If you read the SMH article you'd see how one planner Alfie Chong moved to NEO Financial Solutions and when they did background checks with NAB they were not made aware of any of the issues that were becoming known about him.  How NAB can argue they're being open and transparent about the issues is beyond me.

If the Govt think it's money well spent dredging up union corruption and pink bats, which deal with many less billions that the financial services industry, then I don't know what argument they can use to deny an RC is required.  The fact ASIC is blissfully unaware of the issues is as much a failing on their part as a system of coverup and moving the problem advisors to avoid a PR issue.

With a super industry moving towards $2T, and I have no idea how much investible assets are outside super, it's about time something was done to protect people, partly from themselves, but more so from far too many within the financial services industry who are all about making a profit for themselves and where the outcome for the client is not particularly relevant.


----------



## Smurf1976

Practically the entire economy has been financialised with a transfer of power and influence away from the productive parts of the economy and toward the financial sector.

There was a time when finance was a means of facilitating the physical production of goods and services. But it was those doing physical things who had the influence and made things happen. These days, the reverse is true, the physical dances to the tune of finance.

Hence we end up with all sorts of inquiries into physical things - construction unions, roof insulation and so on but hardly a word is said about things financial. In 2015 we regulate everything physical from pubs to tradesmen to an almost ridiculous extent but there are very few barriers in the way of the financial industry.


----------



## Smurf1976

SirRumpole said:


> The article pretty much sums up my feelings about politics and what can be done about the vacuum of policy and decision making ability.




Current mainstream political thinking essentially outsources policy to the market. That goes for everything from health to energy, the idea that governments would lead has given way to simply following the market. Trouble is, the what's good for private profit and markets isn't necessarily what's good for the country or society as a whole.


----------



## SirRumpole

Smurf1976 said:


> Current mainstream political thinking essentially outsources policy to the market. That goes for everything from health to energy, the idea that governments would lead has given way to simply following the market. Trouble is, the what's good for private profit and markets isn't necessarily what's good for the country or society as a whole.




+100


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> 1st dog sums up here pretty well
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...w-to-make-it-the-report-not-the-abuse-go-away
> 
> Just a couple of questions
> 
> Anyone actually know how the children are going in detention ?
> 
> You do know Triggs criticised Labor more than the rabble now in government in her report?
> 
> You do know human rights is about treating kids good?
> 
> You do know we treat kids in detention inhumanly  by any measure?
> 
> We do have a government don't we?
> 
> Or do we have a bloke who stands in as many flags as possible to get the polls up?
> 
> As to the timing of the report it was a perfect opportunity for Abbott to point out the differences between Labor and Coalition policy's and how he fixed the boat problem.......wouldn't it?
> 
> Any way how are the children in detention going?
> 
> Any one here going to put there hand up and start clapping about our high standard of morals in this regard?
> 
> Last question a really hard tricky one how did Abbott become a Rhodes Scholar?



I seem to recall you recently saying something about acknowledging the success of the current government's border protection policies with your gripe being about the secrecy that effectively removed the shipping news service to people smugglers on the success or otherwise of their ventures.

I see though now that it's back to being about the kiddies.



IFocus said:


> Anyone actually know how the children are going in detention ?



They're coming out of detention and they're now mostly out of detention because this government has stopped Labor's boats.


----------



## Logique

The Bolta was very chummy with Julie "class act" Bishop this morning on his program. 

We know he likes Scott Morrison too, but lately seems to have gone off Malcolm Turnbull.


----------



## drsmith

Logique said:


> The Bolta was very chummy with Julie "class act" Bishop this morning on his program.
> 
> We know he likes Scott Morrison too, but lately seems to have gone off Malcolm Turnbull.



Unlike when Barrie Cassidy got the inside tip on Kevin Rudd's toppling of Julia Gillard beforehand, Insiders was essentially guesswork discussion about the Lib leadership today.

It did however show a small segment of footage where Tony Abbott cracked a joke about his own leadership problems when doing a media presentation with his NZ counterpart. That in itself might be interesting.


----------



## noco

drsmith said:


> I seem to recall you recently saying something about acknowledging the success of the current government's border protection policies with your gripe being about the secrecy that effectively removed the shipping news service to people smugglers on the success or otherwise of their ventures.
> 
> I see though now that it's back to being about the kiddies.
> 
> 
> They're coming out of detention and they're now mostly out of detention because this government has stopped Labor's boats.




There was 123  children in detention as of the 16 February...Probably been halved again since then.


----------



## sydboy007

tis a shame there's not a great furore over youth unemployment

How anyone can support Abbott on his unlimited A380 loads of 457 Visas is beyond me





queue stereotype arguments that they're lazy and don't want to work etc etc.


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> I seem to recall you recently saying something about acknowledging the success of the current government's border protection policies with your gripe being about the secrecy that effectively removed the shipping news service to people smugglers on the success or otherwise of their ventures.
> 
> I see though now that it's back to being about the kiddies.
> 
> 
> They're coming out of detention and they're now mostly out of detention because this government has stopped Labor's boats.




See you avoided the moral dilemma of how children are treated in detention


----------



## Bintang

IFocus said:


> See you avoided the moral dilemma of how children are treated in detention




How about the treatment of thousands of children who will get forced onto unseaworthy boats under a Labor revived open-borders policy? 

Will that treatment (combined with its proven risk of certain death to many of them) be better than the treatment of the few (and soon to be zero) remaining children in detention.

Do the people smugglers provide the following services?:

_"…. education services, including English language instruction, cultural classes and sporting activities. Health care is provided soon after individuals are detained. Dental and hospital services are provided where required and medical care is available around the clock. Qualified chefs, in consultation with dieticians, prepare three meals per day. Detainees can assist in formulating culturally appropriate menus through the Detainee Representative Committees. Milk is available for children to drink. Recreational facilities such as playgrounds, toys and games are provided. 'Individually tailored management plans' are developed for all unaccompanied minors, taking into consideration special needs such as educational and social requirements"._


----------



## IFocus

Bintang said:


> How about the treatment of thousands of children who will get forced onto unseaworthy boats under a Labor revived open-borders policy?
> 
> Will that treatment (combined with its proven risk of certain death to many of them) be better than the treatment of the few (and soon to be zero) remaining children in detention.





Cannot believe you have been suckered so easily with the attempted political attack by Abbott. 

You miss the point once those children are in our care we are responsible for their treatment. 

Abbott chose along with those complete fools in the senate enquiry to attack Triggs personally for what.....stating the obvious.


----------



## Bintang

IFocus said:


> Abbott chose along with those complete fools in the senate enquiry to attack Triggs personally for what.....stating the obvious.




The Government should go further than that. The HRC including Triggs' salary package costs the tax payer $25 million per year.  I say close down the HRC, let Triggs go off and play lawn bowls and use the $25 million per year to help Brazilian street children:

*Child Poverty in Brazil *
http://www.childrenofbahia.com/childpoverty.htm
_Street children are those that are not taken care of by parents or other protective guardians. Street children live in abandoned buildings, cardboard boxes, parks or on the street itself. Street children are deprived of family care and protection. Most children on the streets are between the ages of about 5 and 18 years old.

The life expectancy of a child living on the streets is terrifyingly low - few expect to reach their 18th Birthday.

Estimates on the numbers of Brazilian street children vary from 200,000 to 8 million. In one recent survey in SÃ£o Paulo, 609 children were found to be sleeping on the streets. At least 50 were under 12 and unaccompanied by adult relations._


----------



## banco

IFocus said:


> Cannot believe you have been suckered so easily with the attempted political attack by Abbott.
> 
> You miss the point once those children are in our care we are responsible for their treatment.
> 
> Abbott chose along with those complete fools in the senate enquiry to attack Triggs personally for what.....stating the obvious.




But, but the only way to deprive the people smugglers of a product to sell is to make the children's' lives a living hell. It's their parents fault after all for bringing them here.


----------



## Bintang

banco said:


> But, but the only way to deprive the people smugglers of a product to sell is to make the children's' lives a living hell.






IFocus said:


> Cannot believe you have been suckered so easily …….




Labor and Greens want the people smugglers to have a product to sell and people like IFocus get suckered into believing it is good public policy.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> tis a shame there's not a great furore over youth unemployment
> 
> How anyone can support Abbott on his unlimited A380 loads of 457 Visas is beyond me
> 
> View attachment 61802
> 
> 
> queue stereotype arguments that they're lazy and don't want to work etc etc.




Sydboy, I cannot believe you have not educated yourself or read reports on why there are so many 457 visa offered......Are you in denial that most of those jobs are in remote locations and the unemployed city dwellers just do not want to give up city life....You keep harping on and on about these 457 visas and blame Abbott for it.........Companies have to prove Australians do not want certain work before they enter into applications for 457 visas. 

So please stop complaining about overseas workers taking Australian jobs......There are plenty of jobs available in the fruit picking industry but some of the dole bludgers find that work too hard or too far from their sacred city life.


----------



## Bintang

noco said:


> ……. some of the *dole bludgers* find that work too hard or too far from their *sacred city life*.




Especially the ones for whom there would be no local mosque to go to.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> ....Companies have to prove Australians do not want certain work before they enter into applications for 457 visas.
> 
> So please stop complaining about overseas workers taking Australian jobs......There are plenty of jobs available in the fruit picking industry but some of the dole bludgers find that work too hard or too far from their sacred city life.




That is not true noco,  only recently workers in Tasmania wanted to take on fruit picking but the farmer opted for 457,s and was paying them less than $2 an hour. 

We are getting back to the concept of raddled sheep alright.


----------



## banco

There are plenty of ways to game the 457 visa process. IT companies will advertise something that requires high level skills ins a dozen areas, say they can't find anyone and then hire some indian with low level skills in one of those areas.


----------



## Smurf1976

explod said:


> only recently workers in Tasmania wanted to take on fruit picking but the farmer opted for 457,s and was paying them less than $2 an hour.




Plenty of unemployed locals who would be willing to give it a go. But the work isn't available to locals in the first place, and there's also a requirement to rent accommodation from the employer which makes it really only suitable for 457's and backpackers etc.

A 100% profits tax on such operators would not be at all unreasonable in my opinion. They are doing no good for Australian society whatsoever and we'd be better off without them, thus creating a market for a legit operator to come into and actually employ someone local.


----------



## Bintang

Smurf1976 said:


> Plenty of unemployed locals who would be willing to give it a go. But the work isn't available to locals in the first place, and there's also a requirement to rent accommodation from the employer which makes it really only suitable for 457's and backpackers etc.




I don't follow. How can the work not be available to locals in the first place?


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Sydboy, I cannot believe you have not educated yourself or read reports on why there are so many 457 visa offered......Are you in denial that most of those jobs are in remote locations and the unemployed city dwellers just do not want to give up city life....You keep harping on and on about these 457 visas and blame Abbott for it.........Companies have to prove Australians do not want certain work before they enter into applications for 457 visas.
> 
> So please stop complaining about overseas workers taking Australian jobs......There are plenty of jobs available in the fruit picking industry but some of the dole bludgers find that work too hard or too far from their sacred city life.




I posted a while back that the current Govt increase surveillance of the 457 visa programme by 20%.  They had a 67% increase in the rate of non compliance detected.

* Murphy Pipe and Civil, repeatedly misled the Immigration Department to help Irish workers fraudulently obtain visas to work on the Queensland Curtis Liquefied Natural Gas project and West Australia's Sino Iron project.

* On 12 March 2014, the Government confirmed that employers would no longer be penalised if they breach the law on how many foreign workers they bring in to Australia. An employer approved for, say, five skilled staff from overseas can now bring in an unlimited number of labourers, without fear of government action.

* Mid last year the 7.30 Report found that Australian smallgoods firm Primo Meats had replaced its Australian workforce with young Taiwanese, employed through a labour hire company and sent to work without skills or an understanding of their rights or legal pay. The ABC reported that some workers were then subject to sexual harassment, unsafe workplaces and unlawful pay and conditions.

* Audits by the Fair Work Ombudsman have found up to 40 per cent of foreign workers employed under 457 visas were underpaid, not performing the jobs they were supposed to do or no longer employed by the person who sponsored their entry into Australia.

* The random audits by the Fair Work Ombudsman of 457 visa holders also identified 420 cases where people were no longer employed by their sponsor or whose sponsor could not be located, raising doubts about the bona fides of those visa applications.

* last month there was the report about 13 Chinese and 16 Filipino workers employed by Taiwanese company Chia Tung Development Corporation are working ten to eleven hours per day, seven days per week and earning $40 to $100 per day.

* Last year Morrisson said the current English-language requirements were "unnecessarily restrictive" and tantamount to "an industrial lockout" by unions.  I mean why would you need to be able to understand English in Australia?

Lest we forget Gina's calls for us to compete better against Africans on $2 a day.

But no, I can understand why you don't believe there's a problem Noco.  It's not like low and medium skilled jobs are being sold to foreigners or anything like that.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> I posted a while back that the current Govt increase surveillance of the 457 visa programme by 20%.  They had a 67% increase in the rate of non compliance detected.
> 
> * Murphy Pipe and Civil, repeatedly misled the Immigration Department to help Irish workers fraudulently obtain visas to work on the Queensland Curtis Liquefied Natural Gas project and West Australia's Sino Iron project.
> 
> * On 12 March 2014, the Government confirmed that employers would no longer be penalised if they breach the law on how many foreign workers they bring in to Australia. An employer approved for, say, five skilled staff from overseas can now bring in an unlimited number of labourers, without fear of government action.
> 
> * Mid last year the 7.30 Report found that Australian smallgoods firm Primo Meats had replaced its Australian workforce with young Taiwanese, employed through a labour hire company and sent to work without skills or an understanding of their rights or legal pay. The ABC reported that some workers were then subject to sexual harassment, unsafe workplaces and unlawful pay and conditions.
> 
> * Audits by the Fair Work Ombudsman have found up to 40 per cent of foreign workers employed under 457 visas were underpaid, not performing the jobs they were supposed to do or no longer employed by the person who sponsored their entry into Australia.
> 
> * The random audits by the Fair Work Ombudsman of 457 visa holders also identified 420 cases where people were no longer employed by their sponsor or whose sponsor could not be located, raising doubts about the bona fides of those visa applications.
> 
> * last month there was the report about 13 Chinese and 16 Filipino workers employed by Taiwanese company Chia Tung Development Corporation are working ten to eleven hours per day, seven days per week and earning $40 to $100 per day.
> 
> * Last year Morrisson said the current English-language requirements were "unnecessarily restrictive" and tantamount to "an industrial lockout" by unions.  I mean why would you need to be able to understand English in Australia?
> 
> Lest we forget Gina's calls for us to compete better against Africans on $2 a day.
> 
> But no, I can understand why you don't believe there's a problem Noco.  It's not like low and medium skilled jobs are being sold to foreigners or anything like that.




Do you have links for all your so called reports  or are these reports similar to Gillian Trigg just to suit the Green/Labor left wing socialist..Her report was all a pack of lies. So I would not be surprised if your reports were designed to discredit the Liberal Government and also stretching the truth to the limit.


----------



## Tink

Well going back to the polls.

The new poll in today favors Tony Abbott.

Senior Liberals believe the latest opinion poll shows voters do not want the party room to cut down Tony Abbott as prime minister.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-02/poll-boost-for-abbott-focus-shift-economy/6272636

I agree with your comment in the Turnbull thread, noco. 
I wouldn't be happy if the Liberals put in Malcolm, as he is too far to the left.

I see the ABC now has a Liberal Leadership Turmoil section


----------



## IFocus

Tink said:


> Well going back to the polls.
> 
> The new poll in today favors Tony Abbott.
> 
> Senior Liberals believe the latest opinion poll shows voters do not want the party room to cut down Tony Abbott as prime minister.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-02/poll-boost-for-abbott-focus-shift-economy/6272636
> 
> I agree with your comment in the Turnbull thread, noco.
> I wouldn't be happy if the Liberals put in Malcolm, as he is too far to the left.
> 
> I see the ABC now has a Liberal Leadership Turmoil section




Labor will be breaking out the champagne  Abbotts the best chance they have of re-election.


----------



## noco

Tink said:


> Well going back to the polls.
> 
> The new poll in today favors Tony Abbott.
> 
> Senior Liberals believe the latest opinion poll shows voters do not want the party room to cut down Tony Abbott as prime minister.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-02/poll-boost-for-abbott-focus-shift-economy/6272636
> 
> I agree with your comment in the Turnbull thread, noco.
> I wouldn't be happy if the Liberals put in Malcolm, as he is too far to the left.
> 
> I see the ABC now has a Liberal Leadership Turmoil section




With the latest opinion polls favoring the Liberal Party with great improvement, I should imagine some panic will be setting  in on the Green/Labor left wing socialists including Malcolm Turnbull....Turnbull may not be so cocky now and who knows the Green/Labor coalition may start thinking of a new leader if Shorten keeps going down hill...The boot will be on the other foot for a change.....

People are starting to wake up to the propaganda and rhetoric of the socialists...Shortens negativity  and lack of policy and ideas is beginning to resonate amongst the public....He stands for nothing...lack of vision..lack of ideas...he can't even allow his own savings of some $5 billion to go through the senate...What a miserable cad with absolutely no interest the in the National welfare...Just more wrecking of the economy.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/26470796/campaign-against-pm-dying-says-robb/


----------



## SirRumpole

Bintang said:


> I don't follow. How can the work not be available to locals in the first place?




Maybe they don't want to work for $2 per hour ?

My guess is that employers don't want to get involved with locals because locals have the capacity to organise and complain about pay and conditions whereas backpackers will take anything they can get. Also I think there would be a few 'grey nomads' who would follow the fruit picking around to finance their holidays.


----------



## IFocus

Bintang said:


> The Government should go further than that. The HRC including Triggs' salary package costs the tax payer $25 million per year.  I say close down the HRC, let Triggs go off and play lawn bowls and use the $25 million per year to help Brazilian street children:
> 
> *Child Poverty in Brazil *
> http://www.childrenofbahia.com/childpoverty.htm
> _Street children are those that are not taken care of by parents or other protective guardians. Street children live in abandoned buildings, cardboard boxes, parks or on the street itself. Street children are deprived of family care and protection. Most children on the streets are between the ages of about 5 and 18 years old.
> 
> The life expectancy of a child living on the streets is terrifyingly low - few expect to reach their 18th Birthday.
> 
> Estimates on the numbers of Brazilian street children vary from 200,000 to 8 million. In one recent survey in SÃ£o Paulo, 609 children were found to be sleeping on the streets. At least 50 were under 12 and unaccompanied by adult relations._




A very practical approach Bintang but doesn't deal with the issue of the treatment of children in detention under various Australian governments who all fail to meet any standard we would expect including you.  

Again Abbott and his dogs in the senate attacked the messenger not the issue I am surprised you all jumped on board not seeing the obvious.


----------



## IFocus

Bintang said:


> I don't follow. How can the work not be available to locals in the first place?




Conditions, rates hire and fire at will not to mention pressure on locals to accept any thing a employer  asks.

The right wing want a US system of working poor class


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe they don't want to work for $2 per hour ?
> 
> My guess is that employers don't want to get involved with locals because locals have the capacity to organise and complain about pay and conditions whereas backpackers will take anything they can get. Also I think there would be a few 'grey nomads' who would follow the fruit picking around to finance their holidays.




Fruit picking is done on a piece meal basis....they get paid on their results....Back packers can earn good money if they work hard.


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> Conditions, rates hire and fire at will not to mention pressure on locals to accept any thing a employer  asks.
> 
> The right wing want a US system of working poor class




Wages have increase more under the Liberals than Labor.....statistics are there to prove it.


----------



## Knobby22

Julia said:


> I imagine you're referring here to David Leyonjhelm.
> 
> When you refer above to "Republicans who are libertarians", what do you mean?  Are you talking about US Republicans (who would surely be essentially aligned with our notion of Conservatives) or people in Australia who want a Republic?
> 
> 
> I'm now completely confused about what you want.    A typical Conservative is Cory Bernadi?  Is he the sort of role model you want?  Conservatives in Australia tend to be sexist, prefer the monarchy to a Republic, abhor abortion, and absolutely do not want such as gay marriage.
> 
> Is that in line with your thinking?  I wouldn't have thought so from your past comments.
> 
> .




Yes, USA Republicans, and Cory Bernardi is a good example of that type of libertarian thinking, I mean he even followed the Republicans around on their campaign. 

An example of a Conservative type of leader/government overseas would be England's David Cameron or New Zealand's John Key. That's what Australia is looking for.

USA Republican thinking and classic Conservatives are not the same thing.


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> Labor will be breaking out the champagne  Abbotts the best chance they have of re-election.




Abbott's best asset will be the Victorian and Queensland Labor governments...History will repeat itself in both states.

I note the Labor Party in NSW has parroted the Queensland and Victorian governments...they cannot help themselves with negative rhetoric....the Abbott factor and the tired old propaganda..."DON'T LET THE LIBERALS  SELL OUR ASSETS".
iT ...It is like a broken record.

Assets have to be sold or leased to pay back Labor's bad debts...The Green/Labor left wing socialists have no idea how to handle finances.


----------



## SirRumpole

> Yes, USA Republicans, and Cory Bernardi is a good example of that type of libertarian thinking, I mean he even followed the Republicans around on their campaign.




Can you really describe a Right Wing Christian Conservative as "libertarian", when they oppose such things as abortion, the right to die and Gay Marriage ?

"Cory Bernardi a libertarian" is an oxymoron.


----------



## Knobby22

SirRumpole said:


> Can you really describe a Right Wing Christian Conservative as "libertarian", when they oppose such things as abortion, the right to die and Gay Marriage ?
> 
> "Cory Bernardi a libertarian" is an oxymoron.




American writers, political parties and think tanks adopted the word libertarian to describe advocacy of capitalist free market economics and a night-watchman state.

A night-watchman state, or a minimal state, is variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it is a form of government in political philosophy where the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from assault, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes various civil service and emergency-rescue departments (such as the fire departments), prisons, the executive, the judiciary, and the legislatures as legitimate government functions.

(from Wikapeadia)


----------



## Julia

SirRumpole said:


> Can you really describe a Right Wing Christian Conservative as "libertarian", when they oppose such things as abortion, the right to die and Gay Marriage ?
> 
> "Cory Bernardi a libertarian" is an oxymoron.



Pretty much my interpretation of 'libertarian' also.  I don't quite see the point of taking American definitions to apply here when the meanings of terms are so often quite different.

David Leyonjhelm is overwhelmingly regarded as 'libertarian' here and he'd have mostly opposite views to Cory Bernardi.

Recently I went to a talk on local government and one of the speakers was a bloke, a councillor, who describes himself as the archetypal Conservative.  He idolises Bernardi, calmly tells us that his wife is inferior to him because she's a woman, wants to wipe out abortion, wants homosexuals 'treated',believes in creationism, thinks we should have never admitted a single Muslim into Australia etc etc.

There's no doubt, however, about the ability of John Key, and yes he's conservative compared to Labor on the Left, but I'd describe him basically as a small 'l' liberal.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Do you have links for all your so called reports  or are these reports similar to Gillian Trigg just to suit the Green/Labor left wing socialist..Her report was all a pack of lies. So I would not be surprised if your reports were designed to discredit the Liberal Government and also stretching the truth to the limit.




Google is your friend.

If you believe what I've posted is false do a bit of research.

I don't see the point of providing false information as it's just too easy to check it.

What's the difference between an "illegal" immigrant on a leaky boat and an A380 457 Visa holder who is "illegally" working in a different position or for a different employer?

Do you believe there should be no limit to the number of 457 Visas issued by the Govt?  Abbott does.

How do younger workers gain access to the job market when the Govt allows employers to easily gain access to workers who will work for below minimum pay.  There's reports of migration companies in Asia selling 457 Visa jobs to unsuspecting workers who end up in a form of debt slavery here.

I don't know how you can support bringing in a "skilled" worker who can't speak or write English at a decent level.  The already lax standards have been effectively neutered.  What other country allows foreigners such easy access to local jobs?

Then there's something like 230-250K of people on working holiday visas in the country in any one year, who are able to double their stay to 2 years via the Howard initiative of working for 3 months in a rural job.  The farmers using shoddy labour hire companies know these people want to stay longer so their working conditions are nowhere near where they should be.  Why hire a local when you can hire a desperate backpacker.  That's what Smurf was trying to get at.  A lot of jobs in the fruit and vegetable picking industry aren't available to locals because they know their rights and would complain.

Then there's all the foreign students being used by the retail industry.  Sadly it's often people from their home country taking advantage of them.  I've known many Thai and Indo students over the years working on way below minimum pay, turning up for a 6 hour shift only to be told to go home after 2 hours because it's quiet.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Wages have increase more under the Liberals than Labor.....statistics are there to prove it.




FALSE / WRONG

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) has just released its Wage Price Index for the December quarter of 2014, which revealed a continuation of soft wages growth across the economy, with annual wages growth also tracking at the lowest rate in the series’ 16-year history





We're zeroing in on recession we had to have levels.

Go team Abbott.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Google is your friend.
> 
> If you believe what I've posted is false do a bit of research.
> 
> I don't see the point of providing false information as it's just too easy to check it.
> 
> What's the difference between an "illegal" immigrant on a leaky boat and an A380 457 Visa holder who is "illegally" working in a different position or for a different employer?
> 
> Do you believe there should be no limit to the number of 457 Visas issued by the Govt?  Abbott does.
> 
> How do younger workers gain access to the job market when the Govt allows employers to easily gain access to workers who will work for below minimum pay.  There's reports of migration companies in Asia selling 457 Visa jobs to unsuspecting workers who end up in a form of debt slavery here.
> 
> I don't know how you can support bringing in a "skilled" worker who can't speak or write English at a decent level.  The already lax standards have been effectively neutered.  What other country allows foreigners such easy access to local jobs?
> 
> Then there's something like 230-250K of people on working holiday visas in the country in any one year, who are able to double their stay to 2 years via the Howard initiative of working for 3 months in a rural job.  The farmers using shoddy labour hire companies know these people want to stay longer so their working conditions are nowhere near where they should be.  Why hire a local when you can hire a desperate backpacker.  That's what Smurf was trying to get at.  A lot of jobs in the fruit and vegetable picking industry aren't available to locals because they know their rights and would complain.
> 
> Then there's all the foreign students being used by the retail industry.  Sadly it's often people from their home country taking advantage of them.  I've known many Thai and Indo students over the years working on way below minimum pay, turning up for a 6 hour shift only to be told to go home after 2 hours because it's quiet.




Labor's left wing supporter Gillian Trigg gave false information in her report to suit Labor and I have no doubt that other reports follow the same pattern.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> FALSE / WRONG
> 
> The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) has just released its Wage Price Index for the December quarter of 2014, which revealed a continuation of soft wages growth across the economy, with annual wages growth also tracking at the lowest rate in the series’ 16-year history
> 
> View attachment 61814
> 
> 
> We're zeroing in on recession we had to have levels.
> 
> Go team Abbott.




That graph in 2009 is not a good reflection on Labor.


----------



## banco

noco said:


> That graph in 2009 is not a good reflection on Labor.




Noco, you are either a master troll or incredibly stupid.  What happened in 2008/2009? GFC


----------



## drsmith

banco said:


> Noco, you are either a master troll or incredibly stupid.  What happened in 2008/2009? GFC



The reference could be the difference between private sector and public sector wage outcomes over that period.

A question though in relation to that is whether or not the public sector operates under longer enterprise agreements than the private sector as a whole. The private sector dip in growth was quiet short and it doesn't appear that the public sector trend had an influence on the overall outcome over that period which is odd relative to the rest of the graph.



IFocus said:


> See you avoided the moral dilemma of how children are treated in detention



You didn't read my post.


----------



## noco

banco said:


> Noco, you are either a master troll or incredibly stupid.  What happened in 2008/2009? GFC




Watch your mouth sport....I hope Joe is onto you.


----------



## Joe Blow

Just reminding everyone to please keep it civil for the sake of the discussion.

There's no place for insults and personal attacks, no matter how much you might disagree with someone.

Thank you for your co-operation.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> That graph in 2009 is not a good reflection on Labor.




I'm assuming that as the mining boom continues to fade, when $50B budget deficits are the norm, that in no way will the current state of the economy bare any relevance to the performance of the Abbott Govt, in that the poor performance is theirs to wear, but events outside their control should not be taken into consideration.

One could argue that the drop in wages growth during the GFC was a good thing.  It certainly helped with the relatively low drop in employment at the time. Less hours worked were shared.

I see you didn't acknowledge that your statement that wages growth under the Liberals was higher than Labor, unless of course you're talking about the debt fuelled Howard years?  

It would be good if you could keep your claims based on facts as you currently seem to be doing exactly what you claim Julian Trigg's did.


----------



## drsmith

Debt fuelled Howard years ??

That really is stretching it when it comes to excuses for Labor's debt and deficits.


----------



## Logique

Thanks for that moderation Joe.

On another subject, I'm expectantly awaiting the Media Watch review of the recent Could Be a Spill As Early as Tomorrow hysteria from Fairfax and the ABC.  



> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ing_abbott_recovery_to_just_49_to_51_against/
> 
> ..Abbott’s recovery dates from the time he decided he had to stop trying so hard to appease the media Left and repair his relations with the conservative base..


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> Wages have increase more under the Liberals than Labor.....statistics are there to prove it.





So why do electioneering Libs raise the bogey of wages blowouts under Labor?


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> Abbott's best asset will be the Victorian and Queensland Labor governments...History will repeat itself in both states.
> 
> I note the Labor Party in NSW has parroted the Queensland and Victorian governments...they cannot help themselves with negative rhetoric....the Abbott factor and the tired old propaganda..."DON'T LET THE LIBERALS  SELL OUR ASSETS".
> iT ...It is like a broken record.
> 
> Assets have to be sold or leased to pay back Labor's bad debts...The Green/Labor left wing socialists have no idea how to handle finances.




Well seeing as the LNP were voted out because of their arrogance, cronyism, over policing and tin ears, the assets sell off is rather a non issue in the scheme of things. Campbell was a just another Rob Borbidge moment of dipping toes in the water to see if the LNP had changed it's ways and it hadn't.

Looking at their counterparts Federally and in other states it seems at least the inability to tune into the electorate dynamics and imperatives shows the dangers of stoic conservatism in a rapidly changing needs based nation. Even Howard had to give away his dream of a lazy 1950s lifestyle for all.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> Labor's left wing supporter Gillian Trigg gave false information in her report to suit Labor and I have no doubt that other reports follow the same pattern.





The tragedy in the matter is the willingness of servile people to slavishly feast on the corpses of free thinkers who upset the ruling class.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> Can you really describe a Right Wing Christian Conservative as "libertarian", when they oppose such things as abortion, the right to die and Gay Marriage ?
> 
> "Cory Bernardi a libertarian" is an oxymoron.





Cory is old school Roman Catholic through and thru. I would hazard a guess he would fit very well into a Mediterranean patriarchal family model.


----------



## Tisme

Knobby22 said:


> American writers, political parties and think tanks adopted the word libertarian to describe advocacy of capitalist free market economics and a night-watchman state.
> 
> A night-watchman state, or a minimal state, is variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it is a form of government in political philosophy where the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from assault, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes various civil service and emergency-rescue departments (such as the fire departments), prisons, the executive, the judiciary, and the legislatures as legitimate government functions.
> 
> (from Wikapeadia)




I was once ripped off on one of my many jaunts to the USA over a product purchase in New York.  I was so infuriated I went to see a govt type to demand consumer justice and found there was no real consumer protection (buyer be ware), but this fella pursued it and pursued it and actually succeeded in getting money back for me .... he was as surprised as I was and it made me think there might be a case for less enshrined justice and more need for the right people for the right job.


----------



## Tisme

drsmith said:


> The reference could be the difference between private sector and public sector wage outcomes over that period.
> 
> A question though in relation to that is whether or not the public sector operates under longer enterprise agreements than the private sector as a whole. The private sector dip in growth was quiet short and it doesn't appear that the public sector trend had an influence on the overall outcome over that period which is odd relative to the rest of the graph.
> 
> 
> You didn't read my post.




Various private sectors have been under duress for some time. This is especially true in the commercial construction industry where major majority engineering companies have closed up due to the inability to make a profit. Many hoped to trade out, but it was futile, some hangers on have resorted to capital raising and sellout to multinationals looking for vertical and/or horizontal integration. There is still some shakeout yet to come.


----------



## noco

drsmith said:


> Debt fuelled Howard years ??
> 
> That really is stretching it when it comes to excuses for Labor's debt and deficits.




+1...Doc, the lefties don't want to talk about that...They are still in denial as to what happened in 2007/2013.

Oh yes, the GFC was the excuse.


----------



## orr

Debt fuelled Howard years ?? ... no wonder you have trouble with the hard questions.

The fact that Howard dumped debt on the future is not even a contested idea. The structural deficit engineered by Howard and bullied into place over his  lily livered treasurer is the  'big chicken' that's come home to roost on this governments all to inept financial dullards... glorious to watch.

When eventually we get an RC onto the antics of the Financial Sector, we can always build more exorbitantly expensive space to camp the miscreants in our gulags, it the lest they deserve. Padded through life. padded for life.


----------



## drsmith

orr said:


> Debt fuelled Howard years ?? ... no wonder you have trouble with the hard questions.
> 
> The fact that Howard dumped debt on the future is not even a contested idea. The structural deficit engineered by Howard and bullied into place over his  lily livered treasurer is the  'big chicken' that's come home to roost on this governments all to inept financial dullards... glorious to watch.
> 
> When eventually we get an RC onto the antics of the Financial Sector, we can always build more exorbitantly expensive space to camp the miscreants in our gulags, it the lest they deserve. Padded through life. padded for life.



The self proclaimed fiscal conservatives that took over didn't seem to mind the Howard Government's fiscal settings. So happy were they in fact that they opened our borders to people smugglers to the tune of over $12bn and still counting and that amongst a broad range of other fiscally wasteful policies for the wishful thinking. While the Howard governments fiscal settings weren't as robust as they should have been in its latter years, it's Labor's chook more than it is anyone else's. Wayne Swan's constant denial in his budget surpluses wasn't glorious to watch in any sense. To this day, Labor still lives in denial with the blockage of its own savings in the senate, being happy to reignite the people smuggling business and its overall unfunded empathy. 

As Peter Costello said, if it wasn't handed back to the taxpayer Labor would have wasted it. History proved him right on that even much more than we dared to dread and to this day despite the growing debt, Labor still fail to learn.


----------



## Logique

So Medicare co-payment is officially gone as of today, and good riddance.

Here's how to make savings on Medicare.
Curb:
- over-prescribing, 
- over-radiology testing
- over-pathology testing

And get all patient records onto high speed internet, so GPs don't need to request unnecessary testing.

You're welcome Minister Ley.


----------



## drsmith

Logique said:


> So Medicare co-payment is officially gone as of today, and good riddance.
> 
> Here's how to make savings on Medicare.
> Curb:
> - over-prescribing,
> - over-radiology testing
> - over-pathology testing
> 
> And get all patient records onto high speed internet, so GPs don't need to request unnecessary testing.
> 
> You're welcome Minister Ley.



A big issue was how they went about it and about the subsequent contortions. Susan Lea even suggested recently a tiered co-payment based on ability to pay (income). I was trying to imagine the administration of that.  

The CPI indexation freeze of the current rebate will hopefully over time help bring the medical profession to the table.


----------



## orr

drsmith said:


> The self proclaimed fiscal conservatives that took over didn't seem to mind the Howard Government's fiscal settings. So happy were they in fact that they opened our borders to people smugglers to the tune of over $12bn and still counting and that amongst a broad range of other fiscally wasteful policies for the wishful thinking. While the Howard governments fiscal settings weren't as robust as they should have been in its latter years, it's Labor's chook more than it is anyone else's. Wayne Swan's constant denial in his budget surpluses wasn't glorious to watch in any sense. To this day, Labor still lives in denial with the blockage of its own savings in the senate, being happy to reignite the people smuggling business and its overall unfunded empathy.
> 
> As Peter Costello said, if it wasn't handed back to the taxpayer Labor would have wasted it. History proved him right on that even much more than we dared to dread and to this day despite the growing debt, Labor still fail to learn.




Ohh, so the debt of the Howard years now comes into clouded view , even to you.
Poor forward thinking, it's not what a government is there for.

It is a lot easier to give things than to take them away; try an ice cream and a kiddie some time.
Also the above posted unemployment stats do illustrate something. Close to the heart of the right nut-job ideologues is the desire to see again in an economic down turn, the machine gun nests that Henry Ford set up out side his plants in the US circa 1930... Ahhh  the motivation of starvation . And so we see trumpeted by our current Gov's Fiscal Fools, 6 months of 'cold kikuri soup' for the young unemployed.
And for the achievements, that still stand, of previous administration; From just the NBN and plain packaging of cigarettes. What is a 21st century communications network worth to this country, care to hazard a guess over the next 30 to 50 years .  These alone will deliver more to this Nation than.......... and here I'm struggling to think of anything LNP has put in place in this or it's previous administration. oh! there is the Darwin/aAdelaide  Ghan, what's the return on investment there?
I know we'd all luv to beat to death the poor hungry brown wretches of the world with shovels to save the difference on the monthly payment between an Audi and a Commodore, but wasn't always thus, hey doc.   

Your infrastructure  'Captain Clown shoes' can't get his head around to the fact that, 'for best results, you play to strengths', he's even deaf to the advice of Lin Fox, for an investment of $5 billion the country can have the 'budget' version of the Melb/Bris freight rail. An agricultural Rural and logistical Nation building  artery par excellence.


----------



## drsmith

orr said:


> Ohh, so the debt of the Howard years now comes into clouded view , even to you.
> Poor forward thinking, it's not what a government is there for.



The above is not the first time I've been critical of elements of the Howard Government's fiscal stance but the debate there is between two points of headline surplus and a nation with money in the bank, not the huge debt and deficits that Labor raked up.

Labor followed the Howard government with 6-years in office. That's 6-years to modify the fiscal settings from which they largely agreed as broader economic circumstances changed.

Poor forward thinking is not what a government is there for and even in opposition, Labor can't grasp that.


----------



## Tisme

I noticed the poll showing an increase in Abbott's popularity was a furphy. Somebody in his office didn't get to the other pollsters in time it seems.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> Debt fuelled Howard years ??
> 
> That really is stretching it when it comes to excuses for Labor's debt and deficits.








The debt no one dears to speak of.


----------



## Tisme

sydboy007 said:


> View attachment 61836
> 
> 
> The debt no one dears to speak of.




Hawke's fault?

You mean that surplus Howard left was actually cash at bank and not profit ...damn who woolda think it


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> The debt no one dears to speak of.



What debt is that ?

Net federal government debt ??

A log scale at least would put it into the appropriate context over such a long timeframe.


----------



## sptrawler

drsmith said:


> What debt is that ?
> 
> Net federal government debt ??
> 
> A log scale at least would put it into the appropriate context over such a long timeframe.




No doc that would be all debt, when people decided that their house was a hamburger and required flipping, every few years for a profit.

Bit of a ponzi scheme, but now the new punters aren't happy with the risk/ return odds.lol,lol


----------



## McLovin

drsmith said:


> What debt is that ?
> 
> Net federal government debt ??
> 
> A log scale at least would put it into the appropriate context over such a long timeframe.




That's the debt of an economy that runs a budget surplus and a CAD.


----------



## drsmith

I thought the numbers were a bit big even for Labor's debt and deficits.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> What debt is that ?
> 
> Net federal government debt ??
> 
> A log scale at least would put it into the appropriate context over such a long timeframe.




That's the economy wide net debt.

Just seems funny that the panic over the Federal debt gets so much newsplay, but the fact the economy has so much private debt sloshing around in it and no one seems to care.


----------



## sydboy007

ABott in 2013 "We’ve got to be very careful dealing in a powder keg like the Middle East that we don’t take action, well-intentioned action, which could end up making a bad situation worse."

After his near death #libspill he's sending an extra 300 trainers.  How much does that help the budget deficit??

If that's what you get with an 8 flag announcement, I hate to think what's going to happen when he finally decides to wrap it around himself like a sports personality.  Maybe he'll order the invasion he seems so fond of.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy,

Was it you that asked the question on Q&A on Monday about the pensions asset test ?


----------



## Tisme

sydboy007 said:


> If that's what you get with an 8 flag announcement, I hate to think what's going to happen when he finally decides to wrap it around himself like a sports personality.  Maybe he'll order the invasion he seems so fond of.




The man is a walking clichÃ©. "Labor's Mess", etc are just distractions to appease the non thinking and going to war is the biggest clichÃ© a political leader resorts to when his/her fortunes are waning. 

I don't understand why Australia has a monopoly on exportable soldier training expertise, yet we can't seem to win any wars these days.


----------



## SirRumpole

> I don't understand why Australia has a monopoly on exportable soldier training expertise, yet we can't seem to win any wars these days.




Yes, it seems the Taliban would be a better bet.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, it seems the Taliban would be a better bet.




Maturity just walked into the room


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> sydboy,
> 
> Was it you that asked the question on Q&A on Monday about the pensions asset test ?




hah. nope.  i dun watch much old style tv.  streaming is how i entertain myself.


----------



## drsmith

The article below on where the government wants to go now on Medicare is quiet interesting in the broader detail that it offers,



> The good news is that the one in four patients who are now charged around $75 for a doctor’s visit would see that upfront fee cut in half under this policy.
> 
> Other general patients who are currently bulk billed would pay an upfront fee for the first time if their doctor chose to introduce a co-payment.
> 
> It would provide doctors with a way of maintaining their incomes over the next four years while the government freezes the amount of money they get from Medicare.
> 
> The AMA did not support the government’s $5 GP fee because it involved a cut to the Medicare rebate to doctors, but the new plan involves no such cut and would, instead, involve a pay rise for doctors.
> 
> However, there are a number of reservations, including that doctors could not be prevented from directly billing pensioners, and there would be no cap on what doctors could charge.
> 
> Health Minister Sussan Ley has made clear even though the $5 GP copayment has been scrapped she still wants general patients to pay to see a doctor.
> 
> The government wants concession card holders and children to be bulk billed, but says it is wrong that seven in ten working people pay nothing to see a doctor.
> 
> “What I have said, what the PM has said is that those who can make a modest contribution to their cost of care should be encouraged to do so,” she told Parliament yesterday.
> 
> “It is necessary to ensure that the well over 75 per cent of episodes of care in this country for non-concessional (patients) that are bulk-billed needs to reduce,” she said.
> 
> Asked what she was planning, Ms Ley told Radio National yesterday she wanted a “system-wide approach to give doctors the flexibility to make the fee setting arrangements that work in their practice”.
> 
> News Corp Australia understands that system-wide approach would involve changing Medicare’s rules to allow doctors to charge patients a small fee.
> 
> Currently, doctors can either bulk bill patients and accept the Medicare rebate of $37 as the entire payment for the service.
> 
> Alternatively, they must charge patients their full fee upfront, generally about $75, and the patient has to claim back the $37 Medicare rebate.
> 
> Doctors are prevented from claiming the $37 rebate from Medicare and then charging the patients an additional small fee of around $10.
> 
> The government is discussing a plan with doctors that would for the first time give GPs this flexibility.
> 
> Negotiations over such a change are part of a wider discussion about Medicare reforms, which include removing waste and duplication such as different doctors ordering the same medical tests or frivolous blood tests.
> 
> Greens health spokesman Senator Richard Di Natalie said the move was a “back door co-payment”, and would not get the support of the Greens in the Senate.
> 
> “The co-payment has done a John Howard. It’s Lazarus with a triple bypass,” Senator Di Natalie said.
> 
> Opposition health spokeswoman Catherine King said it appeared the government was completely incapable of developing a health policy without imposing a GP tax.
> 
> “As the minister has today again confirmed, the Abbott Government remains committed to the GP tax, committed to forcing patients to pay more to see a doctor and committed to driving down bulk-billing,” she said.
> 
> “It’s clear, whatever they end up calling it, the government is determined to increase costs for patients,” she said.




http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/he...ng-from-the-dead/story-fneuz9ev-1227248137618


----------



## orr

To; the governments of Our poor near neighbours(Manus Is, Timor Leste)

'Ear' in Straila we've got an issue with old and gettin older. And we're $hit scared of a lot things and throw $billions to try'n and make them go away, or at least not get 'ear', but we're 'runin' out of ready'$$. The only lot do'n any good are the pill pusher's 'n' quacks. 
  Ear's what we're offr'n. For a fraction of what we're pee'n up the back fence make'n it smell to bad to get over, we can build a  world class training hospital, all the standed few day's in, fews days recoup stuff 'hip's, knees some of the more complex organ stuff, in your neck of the woods to service a reasonable pecentage of our decrepit, i mean if we can give the refo's a 'Holiday in Cambodia' why can't our pensioners your tropical delights,  use'n a whole lot of 'cost effective factors' local to your region that make the thing viable.  
 That's just the out line back of the 'beer coasta', as I look down the coast of your palm fringed beach. We know the first 'ta' squeal back 'ear', it  i'll be the AMA, don't worry we'll just tell'm 'the only other alternative is to open up 457's  to foreign Doctors, that'll put'm back thier bunker for a while till they organise a scare campaign, while their dividing their time between that and choose'n the next yatch, we, the GOV i'll cut a deal with Big Phama  stich'n up all the kick back's that thier used  to, to an 'in-service' stint over at your's, they wont know if their 'arther or matha'.' Fuk do I av to do something' or 'is that a nice place to take the yatch'.
 'n' just think with a facility like that for the local population take advantage of for income and health, just down the end of the street', you guy's might get an average life expectance north of 55... in a decade or so.

Look forward to ear'n form ya

P.S we know you guy's are used to being screwed over, 'n' it's a big leap to imagine that we'd be fair-dinkum. As a peace offering, you can have Alexander Downer 'n' cook'im any way you like.


----------



## basilio

Clever, creative response.

Lazarus with  a triple bypass!!



> *Bruised and battered, but more genuine, Tony Abbott has lightened up*
> 
> Date
> March 6, 2015 - 5:43AM
> 
> 127 reading now
> Comments 186
> 
> Mark Kenny
> 
> Follow Mark on Twitte
> 
> Abbott's near-death-experience has resulted in some positive developments which could benefit the country.



http://www.canberratimes.com.au/com...-abbott-has-lightened-up-20150305-13vki0.html


----------



## drsmith

Oh dear Joe.

I don't agree with this,

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...to-enter-property-market-20150306-13xe3l.html

It will simply pump more capital into an already over-inflated residential housing market.

Joe Hockey is either a complete idiot or the government is very worried about the future of house prices.


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> Oh dear Joe.
> 
> I don't agree with this,
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...to-enter-property-market-20150306-13xe3l.html
> 
> It will simply pump more capital into an already over-inflated residential housing market.
> 
> Joe Hockey is either a complete idiot or the government is very worried about the future of house prices.




I assume the Liberals internal polling indicates that house prices are a big issue in the NSW election and that's why you have Baird with his building pledge, the crackdown on dodgy chinese buyers etc.


----------



## basilio

drsmith said:


> Oh dear Joe.
> 
> I don't agree with this,
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...to-enter-property-market-20150306-13xe3l.html
> 
> It will simply pump more capital into an already over-inflated residential housing market.
> 
> Joe Hockey is either a complete idiot or the government is very worried about the future of house prices.




Plus 10

Just seems crackers..Biggest winners are developers and current home owners.


----------



## drsmith

Hopefully we're just going through a dumb ideas phase to keep people thinking about the IGR and then moving on to more sensible suggestions.


----------



## basilio

I didn't like the way the IGR paper was written and presented. It is a very big issue. It will require a long term, *bi partisan agreed* set of thoughtful policy approaches. I saw nothing  creative in the approaches offered by Joe Hockey. Just the same story about having to cut pensions, health and education.  (I suppose if people get sick and die quicker the problem will be lessened..)

A  critical need to address at least part of the issue is developing a social and economic role for people between 60 and 80. It is not going to be full time work  under the current demands of employers.  But for all sorts of reasons people do have to have a range of productive roles in the community for a longer period of time than currently envisaged. 

Obviously...


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> Hopefully we're just going through a dumb ideas phase .




Have been doing this for 18 months +


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> Have been doing this for 18 months +




Maybe in the eyes of the Green/Labor left wing socialists you would expect to hear that.

So you would say the removal of Carbon dioxide tax. the mining tax, the stopping the smugglers boats and three FTA were all dumb ideas?


----------



## Smurf1976

noco said:


> So you would say the removal of Carbon dioxide tax. the mining tax, the stopping the smugglers boats and three FTA were all dumb ideas?




FTA's in general are always highly suspect given that those on the other side don't do the "level playing field" thing that Australia tends to do.


----------



## SirRumpole

Smurf1976 said:


> FTA's in general are always highly suspect given that those on the other side don't do the "level playing field" thing that Australia tends to do.




Yes, plus the fact that our government would sign anything to keep the Nationals on side by getting a few deals for a few farmers, while the rest of our economy gets swamped with foreign goods.


----------



## chiff

What seems to be the case is that the Submarine contract has gone to Japan-as a sweetener to sign the FTA with them.


----------



## drsmith

Fairfax, "Treasurer for Sale" and Mark Kenny,



> THE chief executive of Fairfax Media Greg Hywood warned treasurer Joe Hockey that he should be “thankful” he was getting a printed apology for a false article because he could end up being “another Craig Thomson,” if he took the matter to court.
> 
> On the first day of the defamation trial between Treasurer Joe Hockey and Fairfax Media, the court heard that an article that ran a headline “Treasurer for Sale” was motivated out of “petty spite” after a dispute between Mr Hockey and the editors of The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, Darren Goodsir and Andrew Holden.
> 
> On May 5 last year, the Herald and The Age ran the story under the headline “Treasurer for Sale” on their front pages, claiming the North Sydney Forum charged annual membership fees of up to $22,000 for perks including “VIP” meetings with Mr Hockey.
> 
> Mr Hockey claims the articles falsely implied he accepted bribes to influence his decisions, corruptly sold privileged access to businessmen and lobbyists, and knowingly permitted a Liberal fundraising forum with which he was associated to accept money from the “corrupt Obeid family”.
> 
> The Herald and Age were forced to apologise to Mr Hockey after an earlier report that incorrectly claimed the Treasurer personally had to pay back money to Australian Water Holdings. AWH was being examined by the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption and was connected to corrupt former NSW Labor MP Eddie Obeid’s family. NSW Liberal figures, including senator Arthur Sinodinos, were also connected to the company.
> 
> Mr Hockey’s barrister Bruce McClintock SC told the court when Mr Hockey contacted Fairfax CEO Greg Hywood after the first story Mr Hywood told him to be “thankful”.
> 
> “Be thankful you are getting what you are ... Be careful if an issue like this gets to court you are not another Craig Thomson.”
> 
> In 2011, Mr Thomson, the then federal Labor MP, dropped a defamation case against Fairfax over articles that claimed he had misused his union credit card, including paying for prostitutes. The allegations were later found to be accurate.
> 
> *Mr McClintock went through emails between Mr Goodsir, Mr Holden and political correspondent Mark Kenny.
> 
> The court heard that Mr Kenny was told to rewrite an analysis piece to go with the story because Mr McClintock claims it did “not put the boot in” hard enough to Mr Hockey.*
> 
> Mr McClintock also told the court the “Treasurer for Sale” story was all but finished by the end of March but was released a week before the federal budget to do “maximum damage” to Mr Hockey.
> 
> Mr McClintock said the the North Sydney Forum was ostensibly a small business forum and was not unlike any political party event where members paid money to attend events with politicians.
> 
> Documents reveal that Mr Hockey’s office was furious about the March story written by Fairfax political correspondent Mark Kenny, with Mr Hockey’s press secretary calling Goodsir’s home at 2am the day it was published demanding an apology.
> 
> According to Goodsir’s affidavit, Mr Hockey personally contacted Fairfax chief executive Greg Hywood about the story. He in turn contacted Goodsir.
> 
> “I have had a call personally from Joe Hockey about an article in today’s paper. He was insistent there be a correction, an apology. He was very upset,” Mr Hywood told Goodsir.
> 
> “Greg, the matter is in hand,” Goodsir replied.
> 
> “Thanks Darren, I’ll leave it to you,” Mr Hywood said.
> 
> After being forced into running an apology, Goodsir urged Holden not to run a follow-up story immediately but rather “have a red-hot go at this issue next week, and really go for it”.
> 
> On March 21, Goodsir told NSW political reporter Sean Nicholls to “drop all other work and be full-time on digging into NSF”, describing it as a “slush fund”.
> 
> After being updated by Nicholls of his progress on the story several days later, Goodsir wrote in an email to Holden and senior Fairfax reporters: “Given what Andrew and I endured last week with Hockey, I want to have this nailed to the cross in more ways than one ... I have long dreamed (well, actually only since last Friday), of a headline that screams: Sloppy Joe! I think we are not far off, but perhaps even more serious than that.”
> 
> Holden also discussed a news story in text messages the day after the initial controversial story ran. “In that story you can run Hockey’s claim he knew nothing though as members of the forum entitled to meet him he must have seen membership list. Beyond that f..k him,” Holden texted Goodsir.
> 
> Holden also complained about the government “freezing us out”.
> 
> “Amazing they freeze us out and then think they have a relationship that allows them to call in the middle of the night.”
> 
> The case continues.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...t-of-petty-spite/story-e6frg996-1227254856904

My bolds.


----------



## banco

Of course political donations don't influence politicians   That's why companies give them (to compound their lack of influence over politicians).


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, plus the fact that our government would sign anything to keep the Nationals on side by getting a few deals for a few farmers, while the rest of our economy gets swamped with foreign goods.




Oh come on Rumpy....Have you even read the agreements?....The Green/Labor left wing socialist sat on their hands and did nothing and most likely did not have the intelligence and know how to be able to do it.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> ..
> and most likely did not have the intelligence and know how to be able to do it.




Dear ole noco,  the smartest one of all. 

Where are the jobs coming from?


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Dear ole noco,  the smartest one of all.
> 
> Where are the jobs coming from?




explod, once again, sarcasm is the lowest from of wit from the uneducated.

Jobs have been created by Liberal governments and Labor and their union masters destroy them....check out Victoria ...7000 jobs will be lost on the East/West link.

I am waiting for the Queensland Labor government to kill of the Adami Coal project...Their Green comrades will dictate terms there and thousands more jobs will be lost.

Perhaps you should do some more research before making such statements.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> explod, once again, sarcasm is the lowest from of wit from the uneducated.
> 
> Jobs have been created by Liberal governments and Labor and their union masters destroy them....check out Victoria ...7000 jobs will be lost on the East/West link.
> 
> I am waiting for the Queensland Labor government to kill of the Adami Coal project...Their Green comrades will dictate terms there and thousands more jobs will be lost.
> 
> Perhaps you should do some more research before making such statements.




And empty vessel's make the most noise. 

You blah blah on and offer no constructive content.  You could at least tell us where the jobs are coming from. 

And calling those who see life differently to you you call "unintelligent".   That is a statement of defamation.   Could you explain how I am unintelligent. 

East west link was ill concieved,  overpriced and of no benefit to Melbourne traffic.   It was to feed into already over taxed Tullamarine freeway,  the Westgate freeway and thereby backing up and further choking the Monash Freeway.   In peak ours Melbourne is almost allways in gridlock.   We need a connection with the western ring road with east link to take through traffic  right  away from the city.   In my dumb uneducated way I have had a lot of hands on experience in forward planning demographics of Metropolitan Melbourne. Have a good look at a map of Melbourne and then tell me I am wrong. 

And these jobs are merely temporary for the life of fhe project.   We need permanent jobs that will contribute to the wealth our community.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> And empty vessel's make the most noise.
> 
> You blah blah on and offer no constructive content.  You could at least tell us where the jobs are coming from.
> 
> And calling those who see life differently to you you call "unintelligent".   That is a statement of defamation.   Could you explain how I am unintelligent.
> 
> East west link was ill concieved,  overpriced and of no benefit to Melbourne traffic.   It was to feed into already over taxed Tullamarine freeway,  the Westgate freeway and thereby backing up and further choking the Monash Freeway.   In peak ours Melbourne is almost allways in gridlock.   We need a connection with the western ring road with east link to take through traffic  right  away from the city.   In my dumb uneducated way I have had a lot of hands on experience in forward planning demographics of Metropolitan Melbourne. Have a good look at a map of Melbourne and then tell me I am wrong.
> 
> And these jobs are merely temporary for the life of fhe project.   We need permanent jobs that will contribute to the wealth our community.




What ever you say explod...You are the one smart cookie. ....Perhaps you could tell me how the Green/Labor Party would do it.......borrow more money .....what do you think?


----------



## sptrawler

explod said:


> And empty vessel's make the most noise.
> 
> You blah blah on and offer no constructive content.  You could at least tell us where the jobs are coming from.
> 
> And calling those who see life differently to you you call "unintelligent".   That is a statement of defamation.   Could you explain how I am unintelligent.
> 
> East west link was ill concieved,  overpriced and of no benefit to Melbourne traffic.   It was to feed into already over taxed Tullamarine freeway,  the Westgate freeway and thereby backing up and further choking the Monash Freeway.   In peak ours Melbourne is almost allways in gridlock.   We need a connection with the western ring road with east link to take through traffic  right  away from the city.   In my dumb uneducated way I have had a lot of hands on experience in forward planning demographics of Metropolitan Melbourne. Have a good look at a map of Melbourne and then tell me I am wrong.
> 
> And these jobs are merely temporary for the life of fhe project.   We need permanent jobs that will contribute to the wealth our community.




That is the question everyone from all sides of politics are asking.


Where are the jobs going to come from? We have relatively high labour costs, we now have relatively high energy costs, we have a small population therefore a small market place.

We have a generous welfare system, and until recently we encouraged people to come  on over and enjoy it. That obviously isn't the root cause of the issue, but shows the issue wasn't being addressed.

We have to tax harder, to have any chance of meeting, or maintaining our welfare obligations, we just have to decide who we tax.

You can tax workers more, but in the end that leads to increased wages to support it, then the worker becomes less competitive and jobs are lost.

You can tax companies more, they look elsewhere to do business, i.e NZ company tax rate 22%.

You can tax resources, they reduce exploration, banks refuse to lend money to start ups. 
Big companies swing their capital expenditure away to low taxed areas.

That leaves the small person, can't use creative accounting, don't have access to overseas bank accounts.

Hit super, bring back death duties. Not looking good for the next generation IMO
Or this generation of retirees, unless you are one of the 5000 that have squillions in super.

We could always take the Greens stance, and say we will survive on tourism. 
The problem with that is Venice, an Island smaller than Phillip Island has 20million tourists a year, they still have money problems.
We have 8 million tourists a year, and somehow people think that will cover some of our costs? Absolutely amazing.


----------



## dutchie

Good to see Joe suing Fairfax. Hope he gets a motza.

Next it will be Tony suing ABC for being so prejudice.


----------



## Ferret

dutchie said:


> Good to see Joe suing Fairfax. Hope he gets a motza.




I'm surprised that he has the time to spend days in court.  Shouldn't he be concentrating on his duties as Treasurer?


----------



## sptrawler

Ferret said:


> I'm surprised that he has the time to spend days in court.  Shouldn't he be concentrating on his duties as Treasurer?




Why bother with that, Lambie, Palmer and Labor, are undermining all of that stuff. 
May as well take Fairfax to court for talking $hit, they don't have parliamentary priviledge.

I think the coming six months, are going to be excellent, some hard lessons will be learnt.


----------



## Knobby22

Good to see Costello step in on the super debate. 
Listen Joe Hockey....listen.

Also listen to David Murray. Come on and I know you are ideologically blinkered but if you listen to these guys you can bring down a good budget. They are not considered left wing, they are talking sense. Stop thinking that you have any idea what you are doing and listen to the experts.


----------



## drsmith

Knobby22 said:


> Good to see Costello step in on the super debate.
> Listen Joe Hockey....listen.
> 
> Also listen to David Murray. Come on and I know you are ideologically blinkered but if you listen to these guys you can bring down a good budget. They are not considered left wing, they are talking sense. Stop thinking that you have any idea what you are doing and listen to the experts.



It was interesting that Peter Costello also highlighted the difficulty of trying to make tax on super progressive in a reflection on his surcharge and how changes outside of super (income tax rates) impact on the calculated concessions. The simplest answer with concessions I'd suggest is to review the limits under which concessional contributions can be applied. 

Having listened to the discussion re-first home buyers over the past few days I'd suggest this was one of those ideas that was just thrown out there for debate and it looks increasingly like it will be a short debate. That being said, the appearance left is one of a government still not in control of the economic agenda.


----------



## drsmith

On another topic, I note the commentary on remote communities.

The stats from WA as provided by the ABC are as follows,



> Remote communities at a glance:
> 
> •There are 274 remote communities in Western Australia and 12,113 Aboriginal people live in them
> 
> •507 people live in 115 of the smallest communities - an average of 4.4 people per community
> 
> •Premier Colin Barnett flagged the closure of up to 150 communities but has not named them
> 
> •The last community to shut down was in 2011, when Oombulgurri in the East Kimberley was shut down after a host of social problems
> 
> •The cost of providing power and water to communities is approximately $85,000 per person per year
> 
> •The state and federal governments contributed $30 million per year to fund services, but the Commonwealth will cease its funding contribution in two years




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-11/abbott-defends-indigenous-communities-lifestyle-choice/6300218


----------



## Knobby22

An interesting problem and some action is required. Howard would have made a case of it and explained why he thought it had to be done. Tony just want to use a one liner...and a poor one at that.
I am with Noel Pearson on this...

_Indigenous leader Noel Pearson told the ABC remote Indigenous communities deserved an "extensive" explanation and not "off-the-cuff" comments._


----------



## sptrawler

Knobby22 said:


> An interesting problem and some action is required. Howard would have made a case of it and explained why he thought it had to be done. Tony just want to use a one liner...and a poor one at that.
> I am with Noel Pearson on this...
> 
> _Indigenous leader Noel Pearson told the ABC remote Indigenous communities deserved an "extensive" explanation and not "off-the-cuff" comments._




If emotions can be kept out of it, I'm sure a compromise will be found. 
But having said that, there is no way the media will keep emotions out of it.

I'm looking forward to seeing what we are discussing in 12 months time, our fiscal situation will be much clearer by then.


----------



## banco

sptrawler said:


> If emotions can be kept out of it, I'm sure a compromise will be found.
> But having said that, there is no way the media will keep emotions out of it.
> 
> I'm looking forward to seeing what we are discussing in 12 months time, our fiscal situation will be much clearer by then.




I am broadly supportive of the idea of shutting down the less viable remote communities but to tell people who live there (or know people who do) not to get emotional about it is silly.


----------



## sptrawler

banco said:


> I am broadly supportive of the idea of shutting down the less viable remote communities but to tell people who live there (or know people who do) not to get emotional about it is silly.




If you read my post,I was inferring the press won't allow emotions to be kept out of it. 
Not that it isn't an emotive matter for those involved.

I have actually been involved with village power supplies in W.A, and to a point understand the issues involved.


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> Having listened to the discussion re-first home buyers over the past few days I'd suggest this was one of those ideas that was just thrown out there for debate and it looks increasingly like it will be a short debate. That being said, the appearance left is one of a government still not in control of the economic agenda.




Either Joe Hockey is a complete moron or he's a cynic who knew that the policy wouldn't help FHB but would make a good headline.


----------



## sptrawler

banco said:


> Either Joe Hockey is a complete moron or he's a cynic who knew that the policy wouldn't help FHB but would make a good headline.




Just to be counter cyclical, why is it better for a young person e.g 25 years old, to have no house at retirement, but have heaps of money in super?
By then, they may have had it confiscated to supply their pension, yet have never had the ability to buy a house.

I personally don't think it is a good idea, to let people access their super, as all it will do in the present climate is inflate prices.
Yet I read plenty of articles suggesting super should be taxed harder and access to the pension should be limited if a person has super.

So in a way, we are really just annexing young peoples money, to pay for their own pensions.


----------



## Logique

We're not here to subsidize lifestyle choices, says the PM to remote aboriginal communities.

Presumably unless you're wishing to take 6 months paid maternity leave. Or apply for education allowance, or family tax benefit.


----------



## SirRumpole

Logique said:


> We're not here to subsidize lifestyle choices, says the PM to remote aboriginal communities.
> 
> Presumably unless you're wishing to take 6 months paid maternity leave. Or apply for education allowance, or family tax benefit.




It seems that some people want to live traditional lifestyles on other people's money. If they want to live like their ancestors then they can hunt and fish and live off the land. 

The victim mentality is alive and well. Other people have to move to find work, I don't see why that should be different for a particular group.


----------



## sptrawler

Logique said:


> We're not here to subsidize lifestyle choices, says the PM to remote aboriginal communities.
> 
> Presumably unless you're wishing to take 6 months paid maternity leave. Or apply for education allowance, or family tax benefit.




Being fair, it isn't a subsidy of $85,000 per person for power and water, but don't let facts get in the way of your story.

I'm finding it amazing, how every unsustainable issue is now finding a champion for it.

Maybe the government should put forward a plan, that allows those who feel strongly about an issue, being able to have tax deductible payments taken from their pay to support it.

If then there isn't the money forethcoming, they can examine the validity of the cause.

Just watched Tony Jones try and tie up Hockey, bloody rude, interjected and tried to push his agenda.IMO

When Jones harped on about Hockey's suggestion that young people can access their super, I wish Hockey had said " Tony would you prefer to own your own home in retirement? Or have $200k more in super?"

Jones and all the rest are just idiots.IMO

I don't think using super to buy ridiculous mortgages is right in the current market, but I don't think going into retirement without a PPR is good either.

To just ridicule the suggestion, and  throw it out because of media generated hype, is dumb also.

Why couldn't there be joint super/ government estates established, where crown land and FHB estates are established.

Just hope the government puts up the top tax rate to 60% as it was 30 years ago, that would give Jones and all the fat cats something to bitch about.
Rather than sitting back "killing the pig", while spruiting their concern for the little guy.
Absolute dicks.IMO


----------



## noco

banco said:


> I am broadly supportive of the idea of shutting down the less viable remote communities but to tell people who live there (or know people who do) not to get emotional about it is silly.




There are some 150 communities with less than 8 people in each....Do they expect the government to give them a school,a house, a job, power and  a water and sewage system?

There are some ghost mining towns around so why don't combine the lot and shift them into one area where those facilities exist.



http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...inal-communities/story-fni0ffxg-1227258907690

*But wait. Let’s separate the facts from the emoting. Abbott was defending the West Australian Government’s plan to close 150 *remote communities, so tiny that they average fewer than eight people each.

Imagine a house or two — taxpayer-funded — on the end of a taxpayer-funded road in the middle of a desert.

Imagine that settlement in the area described recently by Rachelle Irving, co-ordinator of the East Kimberley Homelessness Project: “(As a volunteer ambulance officer) I was confronted with this scene ad infinitum: a three-bedroom basic government-owned/leased house with a large number of people present.

“Yards littered with empty cans and a stench that permeated the air, consisting of stale beer, disregarded rubbish and food scraps ...*


----------



## sptrawler

noco said:


> There are some 150 communities with less than 8 people in each....Do they expect the government to give them a school,a house, a job, power and  a water and sewage system?
> 
> There are some ghost mining towns around so why don't combine the lot and shift them into one area where those facilities exist.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...inal-communities/story-fni0ffxg-1227258907690
> 
> *But wait. Let’s separate the facts from the emoting. Abbott was defending the West Australian Government’s plan to close 150 *remote communities, so tiny that they average fewer than eight people each.
> 
> Imagine a house or two ”” taxpayer-funded ”” on the end of a taxpayer-funded road in the middle of a desert.
> 
> Imagine that settlement in the area described recently by Rachelle Irving, co-ordinator of the East Kimberley Homelessness Project: “(As a volunteer ambulance officer) I was confronted with this scene ad infinitum: a three-bedroom basic government-owned/leased house with a large number of people present.
> 
> “Yards littered with empty cans and a stench that permeated the air, consisting of stale beer, disregarded rubbish and food scraps ...*




Been there seen that.
I had to extend a switchboard, which entailed shutting down the power station, this included a large irrigated orange plantation.
When I informed the manager, they would be without power for 4 hours during Sunday night, he cracked up laughing.
The fruit was just falling off the trees anyway, nobody could be bothered picking it.


----------



## sptrawler

Another one, apparently the power fails and when employees arrive, the diesel fuel tanks are empty.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> It seems that some people want to live traditional lifestyles on other people's money. If they want to live like their ancestors then they can hunt and fish and live off the land.
> 
> The victim mentality is alive and well. Other people have to move to find work, I don't see why that should be different for a particular group.




It's not just indigenous people, that are having trouble adjusting to a lack of money, to support their lifestyle.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/26599676/police-harvest-600k-drug-crop/

The drop in living standards will hit most, other than those in a secure government jobs. 
IMO it will be worse than the last recession of 1982.
Don't want to be pessimistic, but hearing the comments on here, strap yourselves in, for the ride of your lives.lol


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> Another one, apparently the power fails and when employees arrive, the diesel fuel tanks are empty.




I was in town water supply and sewage many years ago when there was a case where the commonwealth government engaged the services of a consulting engineer to go to a particular community in the  NT to seek underground water and set a reticulation system...The design work was completed, tenders called and accepted..A contractor, who I knew very well, went to the site to survey the situation only to find that particular community had moved on to a new location.

Incidentally, the water had been tested at 2.5 PH, the same as Coca Cola.


----------



## Knobby22

When the communities start living in a shanty at the edge of a main town there will be a bit of a backlash from the locals!

They need a plan, and it will be the WA government who will have to make one. 

I don't understand Abbott, he always goes in half cocked.


----------



## basilio

Close down the aboriginal settlements ... We can't afford to keep financing these lifestyles.. Move em on.

What a thought bubble! So exactly where are these communities supposed to move to ? How will they get there ? Magic carpets perhaps? Are there jobs there ? Housing ? Will they be welcomed ? 

Nah . Stop talking sense. This is just vapid Tony Abbott  BS feeding into robust local racism with some very interested mining companies on the fringe looking for new opportunities when native aboriginal lands are vacated.

_________________________________________________________

By the way what is the cost of keeping up services to other non aboriginal rural communities and when should we expect to see them closed down. For some reality on the situation check out the following story.



> * Of three remote communities here, why are only the two Aboriginal ones under threat?*
> 
> Tony Abbott says living in remote communities is a ‘lifestyle choice’. For the thousands of Indigenous people who actually live in them, it’s a matter of life and death. A special report from Guardian Australia’s Perth correspondent
> 
> Words and photographs by Calla Wahlquist in the Kimberley
> 
> Wednesday 11 March 2015 13.29 AEDT Last modified on Thursday 12 March 2015 07.22 AEDT
> 
> 
> There are three small communities within 30km of each other in the Kimberley, the isolated north-western corner of Australia.
> 
> Because of a new funding deal struck between Australia’s state and federal governments, two of those communities could be closed.
> 
> Two of the communities are Aboriginal. The third is not. It will not be closed.


----------



## basilio

Another particularly stupid action currently in play by the Abbott government is  using the funding of the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Scheme (NCRIS) as a lever to force the Senate to agree to proposed changes to University funding. 

This was a brainchild of the Howrad government and established high tech research facilities across 27 facilities to give Australia an opportunity to  become technological leaders.

And now this present pack of non leaders is holding a gun to the scheme if it doesn't get its way in the Senate. If this is good government God help us.



> *NCRIS funding cuts: A science risk that's not worth taking*
> 
> Date
> March 11, 2015 - 11:45PM
> 
> Catriona Jackson
> 
> 
> Last week, Brian Schmidt stood in the Senate Courtyard, on the same spot as the day he won the Nobel Prize, and told us a calamity was about to hit Australian science.
> 
> *He warned that 27 national research facilities – all part of the federal government's National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Scheme (NCRIS) – were on the brink of collapse. A single year of operational funding has become caught up in the universities deregulation debate, and unless it is released the nation's research effort will be permanently damaged.*
> 
> These cutting-edge, high-tech 27 NCRIS facilities span all disciplines and all regions, and include the one, Astronomy Australia, that supports Schmidt's work.
> 
> Back in October 2011, when Schmidt won the prize, he told us what had lured him from his US home to work here. It was the intellectual excitement and collaborative nature of Australia scientists, but also – and this was a big factor – the brilliant infrastructure, the huge telescopes at Mount Stromlo, without which he cannot do his work.
> 
> That infrastructure doesn't come cheap, and Australia has done a great job providing it. T*he brainchild of the Howard government, the NCRIS scheme kicked off in 2005. Under then education minister Julie Bishop, the groundbreaking scheme got the best equipment and the best people, put them together, and let the discoveries and innovation flow.*
> 
> Bishop understood that test tubes and beakers were no longer the basic equipment of science – that the modern scientific kit is big, expensive and high-tech. It is marine-observing systems that span entire oceans, huge telescopes, and the supercomputers needed to crunch all the data once it is collected.
> 
> She said the scheme was "essential to build our national capacity to generate knowledge and use it to advance our economic, social and environmental objectives".
> 
> She was right then, and is right now.
> 
> And 11 years on, the scheme has worked and worked brilliantly, attracting the best researchers from home and abroad – 1700 skilled scientists and support staff are employed across the nation; 35,000 people, including many from industry, use the high-quality services they provide.
> 
> NCRIS success stories include a nano-patch to deliver life-saving vaccines without refrigeration, very important for remote Australians and poor countries; marine models and data to search for Malaysian Airlines flight MH370; and the weather-prediction technology that picked up the recent Northern Territory and Queensland cyclones.
> 
> The facilities are the backbone of the research system. They are used by the nation's top researchers, from all sectors, to tackle the really big challenges and opportunities, and to address the issues that will determine how successful we are in the 21st century.
> 
> So what's the problem? Surely a government wouldn't put at risk a hugely successful scheme, of its own devising – a $3.5 billion capital investment? Think again.
> 
> In May's budget, Education Minister Christopher Pyne found a last-minute sum – $150 million to fund the facilities for 2015-16 – while kicking off a review to identify long-term funding options.
> 
> Scientists were pleased with the move, and fully support the review. It seems to be making good progress towards a decent set of recommendations, and will issue a final report to government in a few months.
> 
> But the $150 million has not flowed, and under pressure this week Mr Pyne has made it crystal clear that it would not, unless his package of university deregulation reforms passed the Senate. He refused to de-link the two issues.
> 
> That's why this week the nation's science, research and education sector – the National Research Alliance – stood as one to call on the Prime Minister to act to prevent this calamity.
> 
> *This is not only an education issue; the impacts and work spans almost every portfolio in government, agriculture, health and environment – it is truly a whole-of-government issue.*
> 
> It is hard to believe that the government could allow a highly successful, nation-building scheme, a multibillion-dollar capital investment, to fall over for want of one year's worth of operating money. With only four months before the NCRIS money runs out, on June 30, researchers are starting to panic: boards are discussing insolvency, and staff are looking for jobs elsewhere. Facilities are measuring their existence in terms of weeks, not months or years.
> 
> If the government does not move very quickly to release the funds, there is the very real possibility that a good number of the 27 facilities will close.
> 
> *Standing in Parliament House last week, Professor Schmidt put it more bluntly: "We are about to take everything we have built up over a decade and crush it."*
> 
> Surely nobody wants that.
> 
> Catriona Jackson is CEO of the peak body Science and Technology Australia, a member of the National Research Alliance.




http://www.canberratimes.com.au/com...k-thats-not-worth-taking-20150311-140y69.html


----------



## drsmith

basilio said:


> Another particularly stupid action currently in play by the Abbott government is  using the funding of the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Scheme (NCRIS) as a lever to force the Senate to agree to proposed changes to University funding.
> 
> This was a brainchild of the Howrad government and established high tech research facilities across 27 facilities to give Australia an opportunity to  become technological leaders.
> 
> And now this present pack of non leaders is holding a gun to the scheme if it doesn't get its way in the Senate. If this is good government God help us.
> 
> http://www.canberratimes.com.au/com...k-thats-not-worth-taking-20150311-140y69.html



It's unfortunate that the legislative agenda with the senate has become so problematic but when there are x-bench senators elected on such a small proportion of the vote, it's obvious what one area of reform is.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> It seems that some people want to live traditional lifestyles on other people's money. If they want to live like their ancestors then they can hunt and fish and live off the land.
> 
> The victim mentality is alive and well. Other people have to move to find work, I don't see why that should be different for a particular group.




We talking LNP farmers?


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> We talking LNP farmers?




That comparison has already been made, but at least the farmers are producing something.


----------



## sptrawler

Tisme said:


> We talking LNP farmers?




We're talking everyone, nobody wants to change anything, so we continue down the whirlpool.lol

Let's blame Tony, that will fix it, everything can stay the same then.

If Tony goes, the handouts stay, the status quo remains, sunshine and lollipops for everyone.yeh

All these things are sustainable, all we have to do is take more of the productive sector, to sustain them.
Then when they run out of money, we um we find whoever is left with money and tax them more, yeh that's a plan. Pass the cone.lol


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> We're talking everyone, nobody wants to change anything, so we continue down the whirlpool.lol
> 
> Let's blame Tony, that will fix it, everything can stay the same then.
> 
> If Tony goes, the handouts stay, the status quo remains, sunshine and lollipops for everyone.yeh




Do you think the vote at the last election was really about stopping the endless changes to everything that the Labs seem to fixate on when they emerge from the wilderness of the opposition benches? I know I would have liked some time to take a breather instead of worrying about the Libs devolving everthing, seemingly to remove the smell of Lab territory marking.


----------



## sptrawler

Tisme said:


> Do you think the vote at the last election was really about stopping the endless changes to everything that the Labs seem to fixate on when they emerge from the wilderness of the opposition benches? I know I would have liked some time to take a breather instead of worrying about the Libs devolving everthing, seemingly to remove the smell of Lab territory marking.




Sounds very earthy, I thought the last election was about fiscal mismanagement, obviously Fairfax don't agree.

It would appear, fiscal mismangement is far preferable to sustainable self reliance.

We now, no doubt will see the outcome, in 10 or so years time.

As far as removing Labor territory marking. 
It may sound wonderfully poetic, and in some self deprecating way be inwardly fullfilling, for the Labor needy.

However the fact remains the debt keeps increasing, which reduces the available funds for welfare.

Shorten and Labor aren't going to fare well in the next election.IMO

Missing in action, doesn't instill confidence in the electorate.

Bill actually comes across as politically impotent.IMO
He's a bit of a beige one each way sort of a guy, a no suds washing powder sort of person.lol


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> Sounds very earthy, I thought the last election was about fiscal mismanagement, obviously Fairfax don't agree.
> 
> It would appear, fiscal mismangement is far preferable to sustainable self reliance.
> 
> We now, no doubt will see the outcome, in 10 or so years time.
> 
> As far as removing Labor territory marking.
> It may sound wonderfully poetic, and in some self deprecating way be inwardly fullfilling, for the Labor needy.
> 
> However the fact remains the debt keeps increasing, which reduces the available funds for welfare.
> 
> Shorten and Labor aren't going to fare well in the next election.IMO
> 
> Missing in action, doesn't instill confidence in the electorate.
> 
> Bill actually comes across as politically impotent.IMO




I'm not sure the bleed away from the majors won't continue at the next election. Many of my Lib party diehard friends are already vocal about the impotency of Tony and his cabinet. While they would never vote Lab, their discontent could persuade a swinging voter to side with Billyboy.


----------



## sptrawler

Tisme said:


> I'm not sure the bleed away from the majors won't continue at the next election. Many of my Lib party diehard friends are already vocal about the impotency of Tony and his cabinet. While they would never vote Lab, their discontent could persuade a swinging voter to side with Billyboy.




I would doubt that, for all Abbotts highlighted faults, most would prefer someone who stands up for their beliefs.

Than a knife merchant, that helped us get into the dismal situation, we find ourselves in.

They didn't have a clue when in office, and they lost a lot of their level headed at the last election.

I held some hope, that Bowen would rise above the swarming masses of self servers, but alas he can't talk sense these days.

It is a bit like the crap Hockey is taking at the moment. 
Days and days of abuse, because he made mention, an option that could be discussed was young people accessing super to buy their first home.

If I was 25 years old and had $25k in super, I would much rather use it as a deposit for a home, than hope I could use it in 42 years time.

I would prefer  to own a home at retirement than have some extra money in super, which would no doubt reduce my pension entitlement.

It really is a no brainer, except for the Fairfax press and Labor die hards. 
They seem to be fixated, on anything anti government, be it good or bad for the individual.

Drone mentality.


----------



## Tisme

I think the concern for me with young people accessing their super is it can fuel a rise in house prices that are already relatively high indexed to wages. The money presumably finds its way into the bankers hands that would otherwise be used for whatever supe funds use money for.


----------



## banco

sptrawler said:


> If I was 25 years old and had $25k in super, I would much rather use it as a deposit for a home, than hope I could use it in 42 years time.
> 
> I would prefer  to own a home at retirement than have some extra money in super, which would no doubt reduce my pension entitlement.
> 
> It really is a no brainer, except for the Fairfax press and Labor die hards.
> They seem to be fixated, on anything anti government, be it good or bad for the individual.
> 
> Drone mentality.




It's only a no brainer if you are economically illiterate.  If everyone can access their super than that new spending power will just be baked into the prices.  Not to mention that $25000 taken out of super will put a much bigger dent in your retirement savings than $25000 taken out at age 50.  Probably why the Cabinet etc. is scurrying away from this stupid idea as fast as possible.


----------



## sptrawler

Tisme said:


> I think the concern for me with young people accessing their super is it can fuel a rise in house prices that are already relatively high indexed to wages. The money presumably finds its way into the bankers hands that would otherwise be used for whatever supe funds use money for.




I agree with that completely and how that could be stopped would be difficult, but probably not impossible.

But to just ridicule and bash the idea, without giving it some due diligence, is doing the young people a disservice.IMO

Maybe it could only be linked to new buildings upto a certain value, somewhat like the first home buyers grant. 
Or some form of Government co sponsored builders, that build capped price houses, for first home buyers.

Even some form of tax initiative to build said houses, e.g first home buyers can claim a tax deduction for interest on their PPR. 
This could be offset by the removal of said deduction for investors, who knows?

But I am sure young people are better served with the subject being debated, rather than seeing it as another opportunity to bash Abbott/ Hockey.

Just dumb media and spitefull Laborites, putting their personal vendetta before peoples welfare.IMO


----------



## sptrawler

Here is another symptom of our times.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/cont...-bongs-to-luxury-sailing-20150313-142hmp.html

I have four kids, all in the early to mid 30's, non went to uni.

But they are a lot more affluent than I was at their age, my wife still doesn't spend anything on hair colouring, false finger nails or designer clothing.

What the kids spend on themselves make me cringe, but hang on I'm the baby boomer selfish generation.lol

I still look for the bargain, and yes pick up the 5 cent pieces, the kids can't be bothered picking up. They laugh at me and say "dad don't pick it up, it isn't worth anything". 
I just shrug and say "old habits die hard".

These same kids I took along roads to pick up aluminium cans, to take for scrap metal and gave them the money. So they would appreciate the value of it.
Shows, that was a waste of my time. lol

We really do need a reality check.IMO


----------



## banco

sptrawler said:


> Here is another symptom of our times.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/business/cont...-bongs-to-luxury-sailing-20150313-142hmp.html
> 
> I have four kids, all in the early to mid 30's, non went to uni.
> 
> But they are a lot more affluent than I was at their age, my wife still doesn't spend anything on hair colouring, false finger nails or designer clothing.
> 
> What the kids spend on themselves make me cringe, but hang on I'm the baby boomer selfish generation.lol
> 
> I still look for the bargain, and yes pick up the 5 cent pieces, the kids can't be bothered picking up. They laugh at me and say "dad don't pick it up, it isn't worth anything".
> I just shrug and say "old habits die hard".
> 
> These same kids I took along roads to pick up aluminium cans, to take for scrap metal and gave them the money. So they would appreciate the value of it.
> Shows, that was a waste of my time. lol
> 
> We really do need a reality check.IMO


----------



## sptrawler

banco said:


> View attachment 61975





Good one banco.


----------



## drsmith

Today stinks because the price of bananas is going up and the growers who had a lift last week from good flows in the Gascoyne river have copped something much more nasty,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-13/tc-olwyn-bananas-pastoral-stations/6315222


----------



## sptrawler

Actually banco, today doesn't stink at all, we have never had it better.

The only issue is house prices in inner city areas, apart from that, things have never been better or cheaper.

In relative terms, cars have never been cheaper, white goods have never been cheaper, electronic goods have never been cheaper. Actually there isn't much that relative to wages hasn't got cheaper, also there is a lot more choice now than there used to be.

It is only Capital City house prices, that have outstripped incomes and welfare, I bet properties in Geelong and Elizebeth aren't sky rocketing.

I know in country W.A prices are similar to what they were pre GFC.

Maybe we are so fixated on Sydney, Melbourne house prices, that we are talking ourselves into a depressed state. Or the media harping on about it, induces a panic and despair state in the population.

It really is time for people to realise how good we have it, and work out how we are going to keep it so.IMO


----------



## IFocus

The myth of Coalition economic management



> Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey are on track to destroy one of the most commonly held beliefs in Australian politics, namely, that the Coalition are better economic managers than Labor.
> 
> Indeed, smashing this "truism" may be one of their few lasting legacies.




*As economist Stephen Koukoulas noted back in 2012, Howard and Costello were accorded a respect their actual economic record didn't deserve:*



> The budget papers ... show that the Howard government was the highest taxing government in Australia's history. In 2004-05 and 2005-06, the tax to GDP ratio reached a record high 24.2 per cent. In addition, there have been only seven occasions where the tax to GDP ratio has been in excess of 23.5 per cent of GDP and all seven were under the Howard government.
> 
> In a similar vein, in the last 30 years, there have been 10 occasions when the tax to GDP ratio has been below 22.0 per cent of GDP and all 10 were under a Labor Government. To put simply, the Howard government was a high taxer, while the current Labor Government is a lower taxer.
> 
> In terms of government spending, there have been only five years in the four decades leading up to 2012-13 when real government spending was cut in real terms. None of those cuts were delivered by a Coalition government.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-12/dunlop-the-myth-of-coalition-economic-management/6308704


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> The myth of Coalition economic management
> 
> 
> 
> *As economist Stephen Koukoulas noted back in 2012, Howard and Costello were accorded a respect their actual economic record didn't deserve:*
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-12/dunlop-the-myth-of-coalition-economic-management/6308704




So they were the highest taxing, yet yourself and others bag them, for giving out personal tax cuts?

At the moment we don't take enough tax to cover our running costs, and everyone is bagging that.

So what is the problem with Howard, you are highlighting?

I'm confused. 

They were high taxing and returned the budget to surplus. 
Then they reduced personal tax rates, to stimulate spending, borrowing and investment.

Isn't that what everyone is saying is needed now? Isn't that why the reserve bank is reducing interest rates?

I would argue it was sensible.

Labor didn't increase taxes as revenue dropped, untill the penny dropped, then it was knee jerk reaction tax time.


----------



## Smurf1976

sptrawler said:


> In relative terms, cars have never been cheaper, white goods have never been cheaper, electronic goods have never been cheaper. Actually there isn't much that relative to wages hasn't got cheaper, also there is a lot more choice now than there used to be.




The world has changed so much in that regard that anyone born in the past 25 years probably doesn't grasp just how limited in choice and expensive practically everything used to be. 

Housing and food aren't cheap, but practically everything else is ridiculously cheap these days compared to what it cost a generation ago.


----------



## IFocus

sptrawler said:


> I would doubt that, for all Abbotts highlighted faults, most would prefer someone who stands up for their beliefs.




What is it Abbott believes in other than saving his own skin?

He has sold out on virtually everything he and Hockey stand for robbing the poor to give to the rich ahla US Republican nutter territory.

Looks like he has even sold the Aboriginals down the road after what appears to be him using them for his own profile rather than any thing useful.

To be honest even I have been really shocked at how totally incompetence Abbott and this government have been on all fronts other than stopping the boats (which I didn't think they could do but I underestimated how nasty a right winger can be).


----------



## Logique

Shock horror, Tony Abbott on a farm inspection, bites into a raw onion!  Oh the humanity!

The Left are a story written by Herman Melville. Like so many Captain Ahabs in monomaniacal pursuit of their white whale. They ought to take note of how that turned out.

It is the best argument for keeping TA in the leadership, as it was for John Howard before him.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...e-eats-a-raw-onion-whole-20150313-143syz.html
Tony Abbott shocks as he eats a raw onion whole - SMH, 14 March 2015


----------



## IFocus

sptrawler said:


> So they were the highest taxing, yet yourself and others bag them, for giving out personal tax cuts?




No one is arguing against the fact that Howard bought elections handing out middle class welfare along with tax cuts during a revenue boom setting up future governments with a structural budget black hole. Rudd also went along with the ride on his 1st election win.



> At the moment we don't take enough tax to cover our running costs, and everyone is bagging that.




All I hear is Labors wasteful spending fine answers simple just stop those wasteful spending policy's why hasn't Abbott done that?







> They were high taxing and returned the budget to surplus.
> Then they reduced personal tax rates, to stimulate spending, borrowing and investment.




They ended up in a revenue boom along with selling assets (Telstra alone was $70bil) Howard and Costello as a result were hailed as economic genius's.  



> Isn't that what everyone is saying is needed now? Isn't that why the reserve bank is reducing interest rates?




Howard said interest rates would always be lower under the Coalition looks like he was right as we head towards our 1st recession in a while under Abbott.


----------



## Tisme

Just a bit of a score card fot Tony. I would post one for Bill, but he isn't PM yet:


http://www.phonytonyabbott.com/content/broken-promises


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> No one is arguing against the fact that Howard bought elections handing out middle class welfare along with tax cuts during a revenue boom setting up future governments with a structural budget black hole. Rudd also went along with the ride on his 1st election win.
> 
> 
> 
> All I hear is Labors wasteful spending fine answers simple just stop those wasteful spending policy's why hasn't Abbott done that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They ended up in a revenue boom along with selling assets (Telstra alone was $70bil) Howard and Costello as a result were hailed as economic genius's.
> 
> 
> 
> Howard said interest rates would always be lower under the Coalition looks like he was right as we head towards our 1st recession in a while under Abbott.




I give in, get Labor back in, let's see how that goes.


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> All I hear is Labors wasteful spending fine answers simple just stop those wasteful spending policy's why hasn't Abbott done that?
> 
> They ended up in a revenue boom along with selling assets (Telstra alone was $70bil) Howard and Costello as a result were hailed as economic genius's.




If the Green/Labor left wing socialist coalition would co-operate and approve some $23 billion cut in spending  in the senate including the $5 billion Labor were going cut but now renege, our financial situation would be a lot better.

Howard sold of Telstra to pay of the $90 billion debt left behind by Keating.

Ifocus, do you have a short memory or have you just left school?


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> I give in, get Labor back in, let's see how that goes.




SP, don't give up.....we have to keep hammering home what the Green/Labor left wing socialists are really up to.

They want to send us bankrupt by borrowing more until then renege in paying back the debt......Engage in central control...control the media ( they are well on the way there with the ABC), banks, mining, manufacturing, agriculture and even the way we live...It is called democratic socialism (communism).....They will not use these terms because they know there would a back lash from voters.....the Green/Labor coalition are going about things in a very subtle way and the naive do not realize just what the end result will be...When they do find out, it will be too late. 

Free enterprise  and profits are dirty words in the eyes of the Green/Labor coalition....They have done their best to kill of free enterprise by introducing the carbon tax and the mining tax along with lots of Labor red and green tape....Drive companies off shore.

I can expect a barrage of hits from the lefties, but it will not worry me....I know the lefties have no time for me because most of them know it is the truth.

Having followed the modus operandi of the Green/Labor coalition and Labor before the Greens came on the scene,
I know what I am talking about....They will also push for a republic and then we will fall into to the hands of a dictatorship.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Being fair, it isn't a subsidy of $85,000 per person for power and water, but don't let facts get in the way of your story.
> 
> I'm finding it amazing, how every unsustainable issue is now finding a champion for it.
> 
> Maybe the government should put forward a plan, that allows those who feel strongly about an issue, being able to have tax deductible payments taken from their pay to support it.
> 
> If then there isn't the money forethcoming, they can examine the validity of the cause.
> 
> Just watched Tony Jones try and tie up Hockey, bloody rude, interjected and tried to push his agenda.IMO
> 
> When Jones harped on about Hockey's suggestion that young people can access their super, I wish Hockey had said " Tony would you prefer to own your own home in retirement? Or have $200k more in super?"
> 
> Jones and all the rest are just idiots.IMO
> 
> I don't think using super to buy ridiculous mortgages is right in the current market, but I don't think going into retirement without a PPR is good either.
> 
> To just ridicule the suggestion, and  throw it out because of media generated hype, is dumb also.
> 
> Why couldn't there be joint super/ government estates established, where crown land and FHB estates are established.
> 
> Just hope the government puts up the top tax rate to 60% as it was 30 years ago, that would give Jones and all the fat cats something to bitch about.
> Rather than sitting back "killing the pig", while spruiting their concern for the little guy.
> Absolute dicks.IMO




why not move towards bribing the states with money on opening up land faster.  possibly using some funds to encourage  a move to a land tax system and help to reduce the obscene upfront developer levies.  IF there was going to be a lot of new supply brought online then I'd say using some super money to hep witht he purchase wouldn't be such a bad idea, but what's the point if there's limited new supply but a few extra billions added to demand?

Singapore allows locals to use their form of super to purchase a house, and if you saw a chart of house price growth there it sort of makes sydney price growth look a bit sedate over the last decade.

as for higher income taxes, no need to do it.  just start shutting down a lot of the loopholes available to the rich.  discretionary family trusts comes to mind, along with NG and halving of CGT.  Tax super contributions at marginal rates.  So far none of this is on the agenda.


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> He has sold out on virtually everything he and Hockey stand for robbing the poor to give to the rich ahla US Republican nutter territory.
> 
> .




Ifocus, that crummy line by Labor is old hat...Labor has been using that propaganda for 100 years......

This the 21 st century.


----------



## dutchie

Holy Moly, I just found out Tony Abbott ate a raw onion.

I agree with Fairfax - this makes him unsuitable to be PM!


----------



## basilio

Great, great story by Jack Waterford on how  Tony Abbotts determination that the Government can't continue to support "unviable lifestyle options" will be spread across the whole community.  Exquisite stuff.

Go for it Tones!




> *
> If Tony Abbott thinks remote communities aren't viable, he can start with Tasmania*
> 
> Date
> March 14, 2015 - 9:30PM
> 
> Tony Abbott has done all Australians a favour by raising the question of the economical viability of remote communities. He is surely right to wonder if we can continue to spend large sums of money in areas where there are no real jobs, and little in the prospects of finding them. People, it seems, are going to have to move to where the work is.
> 
> Because he was dealing with a question about the defunding of Aboriginal outstations, there were some who drew the conclusion that he was confining himself to their situation. Nothing could be further from the truth.
> 
> Indeed he was privileging Aboriginal Australians, as John Howard did before with the Aboriginal intervention, with a scheme he means to make of general application. It's a great idea, so why should not our first people be the first to know, or to experience the benefit.
> 
> The proposal is about saving future generations from the unconscionable burden of intergenerational theft, Labor's debt and deficit nightmare and the churlish refusal of senators to adopt last year's budget.
> Advertisement
> 
> As luck has it, it may emerge that Abbott will not be discriminating in favour of Aboriginal communities as he develops his plan to make everyone, and everything and everywhere viable. That's because there are bigger targets, as a result of which they may have to wait their turn.
> 
> As we shift people away from unviable areas and communities, we can flog the vacated real estate, perhaps to Tonga. Or Kiribati, sinking into the ocean. Or New Zealand, China, the United States, perhaps even to Israel or the Islamic State.
> 
> This could solve our foreign debt problems for all time, and put a smile on every face. Let others face the problem of making such areas viable.




http://www.canberratimes.com.au/com...-can-start-with-tasmania-20150314-14349j.html


----------



## drsmith

The prospect of leaving the Greens to stand up on their own two feet in their wonderland of Tasmania is one that at first glance is quiet appealing.


----------



## Bintang

dutchie said:


> Holy Moly, I just found out Tony Abbott ate a raw onion.
> I agree with Fairfax - this makes him unsuitable to be PM!




It could certainly have the negative effect of adding symbolic odor to the frequent practice of ‘fluffing his lines’.


----------



## Bintang

drsmith said:


> The prospect of leaving the Greens to stand up on their own two feet in their wonderland of Tasmania is one that at first glance is quiet appealing.




lol…… especially if their activities and influence could be confined to that small realm.
But after honing their economic demolitions skills on Tasmania they are clearly not satisfied with having reduced the island of Tasmania to a condition of ‘non-viability’. Given the chance they would do the same to our entire Nation.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> why not move towards bribing the states with money on opening up land faster.  possibly using some funds to encourage  a move to a land tax system and help to reduce the obscene upfront developer levies.  IF there was going to be a lot of new supply brought online then I'd say using some super money to hep witht he purchase wouldn't be such a bad idea, but what's the point if there's limited new supply but a few extra billions added to demand?
> 
> Singapore allows locals to use their form of super to purchase a house, and if you saw a chart of house price growth there it sort of makes sydney price growth look a bit sedate over the last decade.
> 
> as for higher income taxes, no need to do it.  just start shutting down a lot of the loopholes available to the rich.  discretionary family trusts comes to mind, along with NG and halving of CGT.  Tax super contributions at marginal rates.  So far none of this is on the agenda.




Good points Syd, also I think I heard, that in Singapore the government build housing for people to buy. I know that wouldn't happen here, but there is no reason they couldn't designate a certain percentage of crown land released, be for low cost housing. 

There are a lot of options, one of the least attractive, IMO, is to tie up young peoples money for 40 years.
While the capitalist system, goes to work screwing the future value of said savings. 

The only ones who will benefit from the savings, will be the super funds and the Government.IMO


----------



## drsmith

Uni deregulation, Christopher Pyne and the NCRIS funding,



> Christopher Pyne accused of trying to 'blackmail' crossbenchers to secure support for university deregulation bill




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-...ail-to-secure-support-university-bill/6320478

Labor in government did not provide funding for the NCRIS beyond June 30 2013 until the 3013/14 budget (May 2013) and then only budgeted funding for the two years to June 30 2015.

From the 2013 budget papers,



> The Government will provide $185.9 million over two years to continue the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy, which funds the operation and maintenance of critical national research infrastructure. This funding will allow the most critical existing research facilities to continue to deliver maximum benefits to the research community.
> 
> A review and evaluation will be undertaken to plan and manage strategic, long‑term future funding and investments in research infrastructure, in line with the National Research Investment Plan.




http://www.budget.gov.au/2013-14/content/bp2/html/bp2_expense-16.htm

The Abbott government then extended funding for one year (2015/16) in last year's budget,



> The Government will provide $150.0 million in 2015‑16 to continue the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy, which funds the operation and maintenance of critical national research infrastructure. This funding will allow the most critical existing research facilities to continue to deliver maximum benefits to the research community.




http://www.budget.gov.au/2014-15/content/bp2/html/bp2_expense-09.htm

It's this funding the government is threatening to withdraw if it can't get uni deregulation through the senate. 

Neither government was funding the NCRIS on a long term basis and if the timing of funding from the 2013/14 budget is any guide, no one should be panicking just yet.


----------



## Ferret

sptrawler said:


> There are a lot of options, one of the least attractive, IMO, is to tie up young peoples money for 40 years.
> While the capitalist system, goes to work screwing the future value of said savings.
> 
> The only ones who will benefit from the savings, will be the super funds and the Government.IMO




How do you figure that, SP?  Every figure for super fund long term rates of return that I have ever seen has demonstrated earnings above the rate of inflation.


----------



## sptrawler

Ferret said:


> How do you figure that, SP?  Every figure for super fund long term rates of return that I have ever seen has demonstrated earnings above the rate of inflation.




Yes Ferret, but untill the end, nobody tells you, how much of it you can have. lol

With you PPR at least your not paying rent, no matter what the rent is, it is a weekly return on your investment.

I'm not saying super isn't great, but you only have to read this forum, to realise it is resented even by those who would most benefit.

Before the current downturn and backlash from younger people, I would have said super was a great investment, now there is strong support to demonise those savings.

I would now suggest owning your own house is far more sensible, the return from not paying rent, has to be weighed against an increased dollar value of super balance.

This may not be accessible, may be restricted as to how it is taken, may reduce pension entitlements, may reduce access to medical services, may increase the cost of prescriptions

Maybe you can look in the crystal ball and tell me the benefits. lol,lol
With the current verbal vitreol against super, I would definatelly be avoiding it, only my opinion of course.

Another take on it is a married couple with their own home can have approx $300k and get full pension. That wont change because $300k doesn't sound like not much money.
If that same couple downsized and put another $800k in super, they get no pension or perks.

Now the first couple get $32k pension, all the perks and top up the pension by $20k from savings = $52k

Second couple get 3% on their $1m invested to give them $30k, but they have to take out $40k because of minimum drawdown. Therfore they are minus $10k on their capital, also they don't get the other pensioner perks.

So why would anyone live a frugal life to save more? Other than for self respect?

The days of getting out what you put in seem to be behind us, it seems to have been overtaken by take what you can get, IMO.


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> It's this funding the government is threatening to withdraw if it can't get uni deregulation through the senate.





Take away all the rest of the blather and the above is the bottom line.


----------



## sptrawler

banco said:


> Take away all the rest of the blather and the above is the bottom line.




Well, on the other hand, why should the low income earners, subsidise the doctors and high income earners degrees.

If you want to put a Fairfax bent on it.lol

Why should low income earners pay for a degree in journalism? When someone on a breakfast show earns $700,000 a year?


----------



## banco

sptrawler said:


> Well, on the other hand, why should the low income earners, subsidise the doctors and high income earners degrees.
> 
> If you want to put a Fairfax bent on it.lol
> 
> Why should low income earners pay for a degree in journalism? When someone on a breakfast show earns $700,000 a year?




I'd say that one reason is because the low income earners may want their children to have the oppurtunity to go to uni in the future.


----------



## Tisme

Yes







banco said:


> I'd say that one reason is because the low income earners may want their children to have the oppurtunity to go to uni in the future.




Yes, without letting sp's tongue in cheek being taken seriously, good parents, no matter their economic situation want their kids to aspire.

Similarly if we are supposedly going to move up the market evolutionary scale and leave the menial tasks to third world countries, we need an effective and affordable training regime that older adults can tap into without mortgaging their limited future.


----------



## basilio

Well  surprise, surprise , surprise...

Christopher Pyne decides that sacking 1700 elite researchers if the Senate doesn't approve his university defunding Bill might look a tad xxxxxxxx  stooopid. He has separated the bills and decided to continue funding the research centres and their work.

*How could he ever let the government get into such an obviously stupid situation and continue to threaten the  science community up until yesterday?
*
Just bad government.


----------



## IFocus

Talking of dysfunction and unable to run its own finances and of course that bloody left wing commo biased  program 4 Corners........... 


Peta Credlin likened to 'horsewoman of the apocalypse' in leaked text messages 



> ABC’s Four Corners program has obtained message sent by federal Liberal party treasurer using the description and asking for Credlin’s removal






> Tony Abbott’s chief of staff, Peta Credlin, has been described as a “horsewoman of the apocalypse” as further leaks emerge from within the Liberal party executive.
> 
> ABC’s Four Corners program has obtained a text message sent from federal Liberal party treasurer Philip Higginson to a senior party figure, in which he describes Credlin as the “horsewoman of the apocalypse” with “black robes flowing”.
> 
> The text message continues: “I do hope you can negotiate the removal of Credlin. That would be a huge win in itself,” the ABC reports.
> 
> A leaked email from earlier this year shows Higginson had sent an email outlining his concerns that Credlin’s marriage with the Liberal party director, Brian Loughnane, could create a conflict of interest.




http://www.theguardian.com/australi...man-of-the-apocalypse-in-leaked-text-messages


----------



## IFocus

1st dogs view must read sums up the current government 

 Peta Credlin and the horsepersons of the apocalypse
First Dog on the Moon


http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...redlin-and-the-horsepersons-of-the-apocalypse


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> 1st dogs view must read sums up the current government
> 
> Peta Credlin and the horsepersons of the apocalypse
> First Dog on the Moon
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...redlin-and-the-horsepersons-of-the-apocalypse





Ah yes!!!!!!...what else would one expect from the good old communist paper.


----------



## drsmith

drsmith said:


> Uni deregulation, Christopher Pyne and the NCRIS funding,



Christopher Pyne has today thrown in the towel on uni deregulation and will leave it to the senate x-bench to scrape off the barnacle.

The rest is just political theatrics.


----------



## Tisme

Who would have thought the social anxiety Tony Abbott spawned while opposition leader would come back to hurt him and his obsequious cohorts as negative rumination in the broader community.

I think the many people are quietly enjoying the long walk Tony is making to political oblivion....Malcolm would be one of those people I reckon.   He survived the Ides of March, but now he has get past the budget with only "Labor's Mess" to blame for economic stagnation, de industrialisation and forth coming massive capital outflow to the US and Europe under his watch.

I have a feeling we are about to enter a period where those with real money will be able to pick up some generational assets for cheap. History will not be kind to this govt.


----------



## sptrawler

Tisme said:


> Who would have thought the social anxiety Tony Abbott spawned while opposition leader would come back to hurt him and his obsequious cohorts as negative rumination in the broader community.
> 
> I think the many people are quietly enjoying the long walk Tony is making to political oblivion....Malcolm would be one of those people I reckon.   He survived the Ides of March, but now he has get past the budget with only "Labor's Mess" to blame for economic stagnation, de industrialisation and forth coming massive capital outflow to the US and Europe under his watch.
> 
> I have a feeling we are about to enter a period where those with real money will be able to pick up some generational assets for cheap. History will not be kind to this govt.




I agree with you Tisme, unfortunately both the current and previous governments, will be tarred with the same brush. IMO
They both smack of incompetence and appear to be  deprived of ability

This will lead to a quandary, as to how the general population will vote.
An election will have to be called sooner rather than later, as the impasse in the senate is untenable, as it was always going to be.

The period post Howard will go down in history, as the period where personal political survival, was put in front of the Countries welfare.IMO


----------



## Knobby22

Tisme said:


> I have a feeling we are about to enter a period where those with real money will be able to pick up some generational assets for cheap. History will not be kind to this govt.




The bond market is picking a recession. If this budget is made of spending cuts and still doesn't address the issues as per David Murray's recommendations then I predict the bond market will be right. 

Once we go into a spiral downwards it will be hard to get out of. The good news is that business are cracking some Liberal heads so hopefully it won't come to that. There are some pretty dense heads though.


----------



## sptrawler

Knobby22 said:


> The bond market is picking a recession. If this budget is made of spending cuts and still doesn't address the issues as per David Murray's recommendations then I predict the bond market will be right.
> 
> Once we go into a spiral downwards it will be hard to get out of. The good news is that business are cracking some Liberal heads so hopefully it won't come to that. There are some pretty dense heads though.




The problem with a recession it isn't selective who it hurts, spending cuts still happen, they just happen with less opposition.
This is because everyone has bigger things to worry about, like 10%+ unemployment, crashing values, increasing inflation and the like.


----------



## Knobby22

sptrawler said:


> The problem with a recession it isn't selective who it hurts, spending cuts still happen, they just happen with less opposition.
> This is because everyone has bigger things to worry about, like 10%+ unemployment, crashing values, increasing inflation and the like.




True but cutting spending during a recession makes it worse and tax income will fall markedly meaning higher taxes. Hopefully we avoid it.


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> The problem with a recession it isn't selective who it hurts, spending cuts still happen, they just happen with less opposition.
> This is because everyone has bigger things to worry about, like 10%+ unemployment, crashing values, increasing inflation and the like.




Yes it's getting more serious than people jousting on discussion boards and at cocktail parties. I've sold off a fair bit of property of late to put myself in a less exposed position and cash ready for acquisitions if they pop up. The GFC showed some stark differences between the USA and Oz when it came to pumping the economies with borrowed monies .... the USA leapt to the business challenge, while we coalesced with our TVs and sporting heroes thinking China would buffer us...... can do mindset the yanks.


----------



## sptrawler

Knobby22 said:


> True but cutting spending during a recession makes it worse and tax income will fall markedly meaning higher taxes. Hopefully we avoid it.




Apparently we avoided a recession after the GFC, because Kev sent out $900 cheques to everyone on welfare, it was nothing to do with the mining boom. Or so Fairfax and Laborites told us at the time.

So the answer is simple, all Tony has to do is send out $900 cheques to everyone on welfare, problem solved. lol, lol, lol.

That should fix it, Labor economics 101.

By the way it is hard to cut spending when you can't pass cuts, the same goes for increasing taxes, so that leaves increased debt.


----------



## sptrawler

Tisme said:


> Yes it's getting more serious than people jousting on discussion boards and at cocktail parties. I've sold off a fair bit of property of late to put myself in a less exposed position and cash ready for acquisitions if they pop up. The GFC showed some stark differences between the USA and Oz when it came to pumping the economies with borrowed monies .... the USA leapt to the business challenge, while we coalesced with our TVs and sporting heroes thinking China would buffer us...... can do mindset the yanks.




Yep we pumped money into Chinese plasma t.v's.


----------



## IFocus

sptrawler said:


> *Apparently we avoided a recession after the GFC, because Kev sent out $900 cheques to everyone on welfare, it was nothing to do with the mining boom. Or so Fairfax and Laborites told us at the time.*
> 
> So the answer is simple, all Tony has to do is send out $900 cheques to everyone on welfare, problem solved. lol, lol, lol.
> 
> That should fix it, Labor economics 101.
> 
> By the way it is hard to cut spending when you can't pass cuts, the same goes for increasing taxes, so that leaves increased debt.




FFS mining shed 19% of its work force due to the GFC................if retail did the same(biggest employer at the time Australia wide) what do you think would have happen........hint we would have been fu(ked.

Again it was Ken Henry who had experienced previous recessions and quote "Go early, go hard and go households" who steered Australia thought the biggest financial contraction since the 1930's.


----------



## banco

IFocus said:


> FFS mining shed 19% of its work force due to the GFC................if retail did the same(biggest employer at the time Australia wide) what do you think would have happen........hint we would have been fu(ked.
> 
> Again it was Ken Henry who had experienced previous recessions and quote "Go early, go hard and go households" who steered Australia thought the biggest financial contraction since the 1930's.




 Strewth old Sp has a better grasp of economics than that pointy head Ken Henry.


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> FFS mining shed 19% of its work force due to the GFC................if retail did the same(biggest employer at the time Australia wide) what do you think would have happen........hint we would have been fu(ked.
> 
> Again it was Ken Henry who had experienced previous recessions and quote "Go early, go hard and go households" who steered Australia thought the biggest financial contraction since the 1930's.




So FIFO was shutdown, don't think so, you can't shut down construction that quick, smoke and mirrors garbage. Retail did nothing, because nothing happened, in the general economy.
Mining has shed more than they ever did during the gfc, as the construction phase has ended. 
Now we must really be fu{ked, so why not give out another $900, as I said more have been laid off, therefore by your reasoning, retail will do the same?
Labor reasoning 101.

Also it became obvious how many people took notice of what Ken Henry said, when Labor who commissioned him, didn't take any notice of him. FFS

Labor ran with knee jerk policy for their whole term of office, now they are blocking cuts that they themselves suggested.

No credibility, no honour, no clue.


----------



## sptrawler

banco said:


> Strewth old Sp has a better grasp of economics than that pointy head Ken Henry.




No old SP has a better grasp of reality, than IFocus.

You wouldn't be quoting a report set up by Abbott, that he then didn't act on, you would be bagging it.

So why start quoting Labor reports, that Labor didn't act on. 
Jeez I suppose you will be quoting Blanchet's talk to the U.N because Rudd, had her and some other actors over for a brain fart. 
How anyone can give any credibility to Rudd, Gillard, Rudd terms of office, should have a reality check.IMO
The only winner out of all that, was Bob Brown.

Just look at the Labor royalty ,that walked after that fiasco.


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> So FIFO was shutdown, don't think so, you can't shut down construction that quick, smoke and mirrors garbage. Retail did nothing, because nothing happened, in the general economy.
> Mining has shed more than they ever did during the gfc, as the construction phase has ended.
> Now we must really be fu{ked, so why not give out another $900, as I said more have been laid off, therefore by your reasoning, retail will do the same?
> Labor reasoning 101.
> 
> Also it became obvious how many people took notice of what Ken Henry said, when Labor who commissioned him, didn't take any notice of him. FFS
> 
> Labor ran with knee jerk policy for their whole term of office, now they are blocking cuts that they themselves suggested.
> 
> No credibility, no honour, no clue.




I think Labor used 3 out of 148 recommendations by Ken Henry...near enough to nothing.


----------



## banco

sptrawler said:


> No old SP has a better grasp of reality, than IFocus.
> 
> You wouldn't be quoting a report set up by Abbott, that he then didn't act on, you would be bagging it.
> 
> So why start quoting Labor reports, that Labor didn't act on.
> Jeez I suppose you will be quoting Blanchet's talk to the U.N because Rudd, had her and some other actors over for a brain fart.
> How anyone can give any credibility to Rudd, Gillard, Rudd terms of office, should have a reality check.IMO
> The only winner out of all that, was Bob Brown.
> 
> Just look at the Labor royalty ,that walked after that fiasco.




I think you are confusing yourself again.  The quote that Ifocus used from Ken Henry isn't from his taxation review.  Do you really think the phrase "go hard" would find its way into an official report. 

CHRIS UHLMANN: So can you tell us exactly what you said in that little phrase?

DR KEN HENRY: Well I did say, ‘Go Hard, Go Early and Go to Households.’ I did say that.

CHRIS UHLMANN: And do you feel vindicated, particularly after that first stimulus package because you did see an effect on the economy which came very quickly?

DR KEN HENRY: Yeah, I think so, I do. It’s not a personal thing. I must say that in the Treasury we had discussed this possibility years earlier. And we’d asked ourselves a question, senior group of people in the Treasury – what would we do if we were to be hit with another big negative shock and how would we respond, what would our advice to the Government be? And everybody in the senior levels of the Department was of a one mind on how the Department should provide advice. 

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3503553.htm


----------



## sptrawler

banco said:


> I think you are confusing yourself again.  The quote that Ifocus used from Ken Henry isn't from his taxation review.  Do you really think the phrase "go hard" would find its way into an official report.
> 
> CHRIS UHLMANN: So can you tell us exactly what you said in that little phrase?
> 
> DR KEN HENRY: Well I did say, ‘Go Hard, Go Early and Go to Households.’ I did say that.
> 
> CHRIS UHLMANN: And do you feel vindicated, particularly after that first stimulus package because you did see an effect on the economy which came very quickly?
> 
> DR KEN HENRY: Yeah, I think so, I do. It’s not a personal thing. I must say that in the Treasury we had discussed this possibility years earlier. And we’d asked ourselves a question, senior group of people in the Treasury – what would we do if we were to be hit with another big negative shock and how would we respond, what would our advice to the Government be? And everybody in the senior levels of the Department was of a one mind on how the Department should provide advice.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3503553.htm




That probably explains why, no one listened to him, he was wanting to prove a theory he previously espoused. Lets be honest, non other than the media have given him much credit, Labor included. Well that's from my observations, I will stand corrected if someone can point out accolades for his report.
Or indeed any post report commissions he has been offered?

The mining boom was in full swing, construction in the Pilbara was full steam ahead, when the GFC hit contracts that could be put on hold were, contractors that were on short term contracts weren't renewed.

China's demand didn't drop and it was business as usual very quickly. 
It wasn't long after the gfc hit, that the Labor government was screaming about the lack of skilled tradespeople and pushing for 457 immigration.

As I said, the crisis is happening now, the demand for resources has dropped, construction is over.

Why if the retail sector needed saving then, doesn't it need saving now?

Small business are failing at record rates and consumer spending is at its lowest level in years.

Wouldn't you say, Abbott has just as much reason as Rudd had, to splurge money out?

However if he did you would be screaming about, trying to buy votes etc.

Let's be honest, our dollar is nearly one to one with New Zealand, we now for the first time in years have more NZ people going home, than coming here.

We are just so up ourselves, we can't see how bad the situation is getting. lol

I'm all for giving Labor another couple of terms, really, it will be a reality check everyone obviously needs.

I kid you not, Abbott/ Hockey are no Howard Costello, also Shorten/ Bowen are no Hawke /Keating so get over it.
Welfare as is, is unaffordable and taxation as it is is unaffordable, Syd seems to be the only Laborite that has a grasp of reality. lol


----------



## drsmith

noco said:


> I think Labor used 3 out of 148 recommendations by Ken Henry...near enough to nothing.



Was one of those 3 his flawed mining tax that Julia Gillard turned into her mining tax for which Wayne Swan spent the revenue it never raised ?


----------



## Knobby22

drsmith said:


> Was one of those 3 his flawed mining tax that Julia Gillard turned into her mining tax for which Wayne Swan spent the revenue it never raised ?




Yes.


----------



## Tisme

I hear the govt is salivating over a double dissolution ... the hope is that Labor will win and inherit the poisoned chalice of a country going in a recession we didn't have to have.

Abbott Govt (and prior) reminds me of this:




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3xb11Bf5lM


----------



## sptrawler

Tisme said:


> I hear the govt is salivating over a double dissolution ... the hope is that Labor will win and inherit the poisoned chalice of a country going in a recession we didn't have to have.
> 
> ]




He has probably realised if you can't implement your policy, you may as well go to an election.

Compromising your position, to bow and scrape to fringe parties cost Labor the election, the same fate will befall the coalition.

They are voted in to provide leadership and direction, not go begging  to minorities, then end up with half ar$ed results.

Abbott should have gone straight back to the polls after the election, as he said he would, if he didn't get a clear majority.
It cost Gillard and unless Abbott calls their bluff, it will cost him.IMO


----------



## SirRumpole

*A bit like the old story of the frog that gets boiled alive because the temperature of the water in which it sits rises only gradually, we don't seem to quite be able to take in the growing realisation that we actually are being governed by idiots and fools, or that this actually has real-world consequences.*


Laura Tingle

Australian Financial Review

http://www.afr.com/opinion/columnis...overned-by-fools-is-not-funny-20150319-1m2wd1

When you have esteemed journalists going to the lengths of describing the government as fools, it's time to acknowledge that this is a one term government.


Not that the Opposition is much better in some respects, but it can hardly be worse.


----------



## dutchie

Disgusting Politician uses the word  “Goebbels” to make a point.




Date: March 11, 2011 

*Mark Dreyfus* 

“Abbott's wildest claim is that he is running a "truth campaign". Leaving aside the *Goebbellian* cynicism of labelling a scare campaign a "truth campaign"”

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...oebbels-in-truth-campaign-20110310-1bq45.html


former Treasurer *Wayne Swan*: 

“In recent weeks there has been a *Goebbels* type campaign by the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), and others on his front bench to remake their image from hard Right ideologues to soft, cuddly, caring, non-threatening middle of the road type social democrats. “



*Labor MP Jill Hall*:  2006

“They have vilified asylum seekers and refugees in a way that would make *Goebbels* blush.”


----------



## dutchie

SirRumpole said:


> *esteemed journalists *




I think that's a bit of an oxymoron. I can't think of one journalist that I would tag as "esteemed".

You might be better to describe Tingle as "an anti-Abbott journalist"

However I do agree with some of the content in her article.


----------



## Tisme

dutchie said:


> Disgusting Politician uses the word  “Goebbels” to make a point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Date: March 11, 2011
> 
> *Mark Dreyfus*
> 
> “Abbott's wildest claim is that he is running a "truth campaign". Leaving aside the *Goebbellian* cynicism of labelling a scare campaign a "truth campaign"”
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...oebbels-in-truth-campaign-20110310-1bq45.html
> 
> 
> former Treasurer *Wayne Swan*:
> 
> “In recent weeks there has been a *Goebbels* type campaign by the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), and others on his front bench to remake their image from hard Right ideologues to soft, cuddly, caring, non-threatening middle of the road type social democrats. “
> 
> 
> 
> *Labor MP Jill Hall*:  2006
> 
> “They have vilified asylum seekers and refugees in a way that would make *Goebbels* blush.”




One would expect more maturation from the Fuhrer of the govt than mere cabinet ministers. Utterances from Prime Ministers have a world stage interest and upsetting the international Jewish community with cheap shots ain't a good move.


----------



## Knobby22

Everyone is being a bit precious aren't they? Really its that bad? I can't see how anyone would truly be upset.

Bit like the fake furore when the girly man quote was used. 

Are we a nation of wowsers or what? It's really just the right wing media looking for an easy hit in tis case. It will be the other media next week. Pathetic.


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> Was one of those 3 his flawed mining tax that Julia Gillard turned into her mining tax for which Wayne Swan spent the revenue it never raised ?




No it wasn't exactly, Rudd backed down on the original Gillard's version was a hybrid. 

It was a terrible thing, caused Gina to get onto the back of a truck and cry poor.


----------



## Smurf1976

SirRumpole said:


> *we don't seem to quite be able to take in the growing realisation that we actually are being governed by idiots and fools, or that this actually has real-world consequences.*




I don't know if it was always the case, but as I've grown older I've increasingly lost confidence in politicians and other supposed "leaders" in general.

When I was, say, 20 years old I always assumed that anyone in a position of power and influence must know what they are doing, otherwise they wouldn't be in such a position in the first place. The odd mistake certainly, but as a whole I thought the system to be reasonably sound. Slowly but surely, that illusion has been shattered.

At best, it's just a big cycle where the current crop of people in charge recycle the ideas of a generation or two earlier. At worst, they're outright clueless or corrupt.

No doubt there are exceptions, but most seem to fit into this category.


----------



## SirRumpole

Smurf1976 said:


> I don't know if it was always the case, but as I've grown older I've increasingly lost confidence in politicians and other supposed "leaders" in general.
> 
> When I was, say, 20 years old I always assumed that anyone in a position of power and influence must know what they are doing, otherwise they wouldn't be in such a position in the first place. The odd mistake certainly, but as a whole I thought the system to be reasonably sound. Slowly but surely, that illusion has been shattered.
> 
> At best, it's just a big cycle where the current crop of people in charge recycle the ideas of a generation or two earlier. At worst, they're outright clueless or corrupt.
> 
> No doubt there are exceptions, but most seem to fit into this category.




I think you are right. 

I once held out some hopes that the professionals in the Public Service would form some sort of barrier around clueless policy making, and maybe this does go on behind the scenes, but this government increasingly seems to be made up of loose cannons who don't take advice and whose main aim seems to be screwing their political opponents.


----------



## IFocus

Lenore takes a timely look at comparing Fraser against Abbott


 Malcolm Fraser's steady hand is in stark contrast to Tony Abbott's chaotic manoeuvres
Lenore Taylor

John Howard praised Fraser’s ability to restore order to the nation’s affairs, a standard that would see protege Abbott judged very harshly




> Successors, on both sides of politics, often criticised Malcolm Fraser for not doing enough to modernise the Australian economy. Judging him solely by this yardstick, they argued the “wasted” Fraser years were something every leader had to strive to avoid. But John Howard, Fraser’s treasurer, who criticised his timidity on economic change, did concede that Fraser had “restored a sense of order” after the Whitlam years.
> 
> *Which begs the question as to what Howard must make of his protege Tony Abbott, who appears on track to achieve little for the economy, and create a maximum sense of chaos in the process.*
> 
> This week, for example, Abbott has apparently decided that if he smiles winningly and displays a sunny disposition the electorate won’t notice that much of his first-term agenda is* lying in a smoking ruin* somewhere outside the Senate chamber.





http://www.theguardian.com/australi...k-contrast-to-tony-abbotts-chaotic-manoeuvres


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> No it wasn't exactly, Rudd backed down on the original Gillard's version was a hybrid.
> 
> It was a terrible thing, caused Gina to get onto the back of a truck and cry poor.



You really should refrain from scratching around in the poo in the bottom of your cage. That'll only give you squelchy feet.

Kevin Rudd didn't back down. He fell forward over the mining tax at the hand of Julia Gillard and it was the nation that was left to cry poor with her "negotiated" mining tax raising little revenue and Labor still spending the anticipated proceeds.


----------



## Smurf1976

SirRumpole said:


> II once held out some hopes that the professionals in the Public Service would form some sort of barrier around clueless policy making




There are two types of senior people in the PS. Those who insist on doing what is right, based on proper research and analysis, and those intent on climbing the ladder.

The latter will simply put forward whatever case suits the governments ideology. They'll go to the Right when the Liberals are in power, and will go as far as themselves joining a union if Labor is in power. They are the classic "yes men" and offer no barrier or even an effective filter around policy making. There are many such people in the PS and they tend to remain there a long time, becoming known as "survivors".

The former stick to their guns but many find themselves a victim of the political process by doing so. If the government strongly disagrees, they simply replace said person with a yes man. Hence you often see new people in senior positions in the the PS shortly after a change of government, particularly when the new government plans a policy agenda substantially different to their predecessors involving a particular department.

Having worked in the (state) PS I came to a certain realisation after a while. Most perceive that public servants, at any level, work for the public since that is who is ultimately paying their wages via taxation and who is supposedly receiving the benefits of their work. In reality, public servants work for the government and are employed to serve the government, not the public. There is a major difference there and this applies to at least some extent even at the lowest levels of PS employment.


----------



## basilio

The issue of an apolitical public service versus one that simply reflects the views and wishes of the current government is critical to good governance in Australia.

We are immeasurably better as country when developing a range of thoughtful policy options in different portfolios, working out effective administration and oversight of departments and having  an honest public service is part of our system. It is just taking teh long view.

Privatization is about profit first, second and third. A quality public service is about quality public service.  A politicized public service which is only allowed to offer ideas that the current government agrees with is just nuts.


----------



## orr

No coincidence either that Malcolm Frasers resignation from the Liberal party was timed with Abbott taking over the party leadership.

_'Fraser resigned from the Liberal Party shortly after Tony Abbott came to the leadership. He told me about it early this year, in confidence, as his co-author. Naturally I wanted to break the story, but he held me to the confidence. The deal was that when the news broke, I would be at liberty to write as I chose. But not until then.'_
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/05/26...s-resignation-abbott-appealed-to-him-to-stay/

They'd been filth since the 'Tampa' in his view.

And now this Government stands as a parody of a satire of a farce.


----------



## Tisme

The fixer

[video=vimeo;122723510]https://vimeo.com/122723510[/video]


----------



## dutchie

Tisme said:


> The fixer
> 
> [video=vimeo;122723510]https://vimeo.com/122723510[/video]




LOL

Some people have too much time on their hands, but they are very clever.


----------



## Tisme

dutchie said:


> LOL
> 
> Some people have too much time on their hands, but they are very clever.




I take it you have also seen this:

[video=vimeo;116863440]https://vimeo.com/116863440[/video]


----------



## dutchie

Tisme said:


> I take it you have also seen this:




No, but LOL also.

Thanks.


----------



## trainspotter

Current government logic.


----------



## orr

trainspotter said:


> View attachment 62091
> 
> 
> Current government logic.




 And from the _poop deck _no less... gold.


----------



## drsmith

I really do fail to understand how this government thinks it can improve its credibility either economically or politically by adopting Labor's dumb tax-grab ideas,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-...set-to-introduce-tax-on-bank-deposits/6355662


----------



## Logique

drsmith said:


> I really do fail to understand how this government thinks it can improve its credibility either economically or politically by adopting Labor's dumb tax-grab ideas,
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-...set-to-introduce-tax-on-bank-deposits/6355662



I agree, it's exasperating.  How soon can Tony Nutt start in the PM's office.


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> I really do fail to understand how this government thinks it can improve its credibility either economically or politically by adopting Labor's dumb tax-grab ideas,
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-...set-to-introduce-tax-on-bank-deposits/6355662




Because despite all the bull**** rhetoric they know there are deficits as far as the eye can see and they need to shore up Australia's credit rating.


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> There are two types of senior people in the PS. Those who insist on doing what is right, based on proper research and analysis, and those intent on climbing the ladder.
> 
> The latter will simply put forward whatever case suits the governments ideology. They'll go to the Right when the Liberals are in power, and will go as far as themselves joining a union if Labor is in power. They are the classic "yes men" and offer no barrier or even an effective filter around policy making. There are many such people in the PS and they tend to remain there a long time, becoming known as "survivors".
> 
> The former stick to their guns but many find themselves a victim of the political process by doing so. If the government strongly disagrees, they simply replace said person with a yes man. Hence you often see new people in senior positions in the the PS shortly after a change of government, particularly when the new government plans a policy agenda substantially different to their predecessors involving a particular department.
> 
> Having worked in the (state) PS I came to a certain realisation after a while. Most perceive that public servants, at any level, work for the public since that is who is ultimately paying their wages via taxation and who is supposedly receiving the benefits of their work. In reality, public servants work for the government and are employed to serve the government, not the public. There is a major difference there and this applies to at least some extent even at the lowest levels of PS employment.




It is a bit like the situation in W.A.

The Government spends $300m to refurbish 4 x 60 MW coal fired 50 year old units, without reheaters.

While shutting down 2 x 200MW + 2 x 120MW units with reheaters that can fire three fuels?

Go figure, does my head in.


----------



## drsmith

banco said:


> Because despite all the bull**** rhetoric they know there are deficits as far as the eye can see and they need to shore up Australia's credit rating.



Broadening the base of the existing major taxes in the way to fix that as well as many other aspects of tax/transfer.

A bank deposit tax is just wrong on so many fronts including the critical area of tax reform.


----------



## Knobby22

Instead of just floating ideas they should provide the arguments for and against.
It's good that Hockey is coming up with things but they need to be fleshed out a bit more.


----------



## Smurf1976

sptrawler said:


> It is a bit like the situation in W.A.




And don't forget the other 2 x 120MW that could fire two fuels.

At the risk of making another "electrical" post in an unrelated thread, the situation with energy generally in WA is actually a very good example of all that ails Australia at the moment.

In short, what they've done is:

1. Have the private sector build a massive amount of new generating capacity that isn't actually needed and in some cases is prohibitively expensive to run (far more so than the existing plants being closed).

2. Become overly reliant on one particular fuel (gas) via a single pipeline which didn't work out too well when a gas processing plant blew up a few years ago. The response to that was to re-commission 4 x 50 year old units at Muja power station which had been shut down. That cost an outright fortune and 2 of those units still aren't generating power and likely never will.

3. To address the over-supply, they've shut down Kwinana Power Station, the second largest plant in WA and the most flexible in fuel supply (coal, oil, gas can be used interchangeably in 4 of the 6 units, the other two being oil or gas). Whilst closing KPS has saved some money as such, it would be far cheaper to have not built all those new plants in the first place.

4. Now the cost of mining coal is going up, first sending the mining companies broke and in due course once the price is passed on, making the coal-fired plants less economic to operate. 

5. Mining costs are rising because the best and most easily accessed coal has already been used and what remains is more costly and inferior. In short, that's resource depletion staring you right in the face. And the proposed solution? Ramp up production and export the coal, thus accelerating depletion.

6. And then there's gas. WA has heaps of it but it's actually somewhat scarce locally given that the vast majority is now committed to export. Scarce to the point that there's a government report that suggests importing coal from Indonesia as one possible workaround. Yep, that's right, export the coal we have and then import more. 

It's a sad tale the whole thing and it's costing the state over $50 million a month in losses to my understanding, a figure that is increasing and won't be going away anytime soon. Meanwhile WA keeps muttering something about wanting their share of GST to fill the self-inflicted black hole.

My point here is not really about keeping the lights on in Perth. It's about the incredibly stupid way we're running things in this country. A lack of foresight that has to be seen to be believed, failing to see what's obvious and staring our supposed leaders in the face. Unfortunately this situation is not confined to WA and it is not confined to the energy industry. Rather, it's a broad problem facing practically everything we're doing at the moment, the WA power industry being just one example (albeit one with fairly broad consequences economically).


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> And don't forget the other 2 x 120MW that could fire two fuels.
> 
> At the risk of making another "electrical" post in an unrelated thread, the situation with energy generally in WA is actually a very good example of all that ails Australia at the moment.
> 
> In short, what they've done is:
> 
> 1. Have the private sector build a massive amount of new generating capacity that isn't actually needed and in some cases is prohibitively expensive to run (far more so than the existing plants being closed).
> 
> 2. Become overly reliant on one particular fuel (gas) via a single pipeline which didn't work out too well when a gas processing plant blew up a few years ago. The response to that was to re-commission 4 x 50 year old units at Muja power station which had been shut down. That cost an outright fortune and 2 of those units still aren't generating power and likely never will.
> 
> 3. To address the over-supply, they've shut down Kwinana Power Station, the second largest plant in WA and the most flexible in fuel supply (coal, oil, gas can be used interchangeably in 4 of the 6 units, the other two being oil or gas). Whilst closing KPS has saved some money as such, it would be far cheaper to have not built all those new plants in the first place.
> 
> 4. Now the cost of mining coal is going up, first sending the mining companies broke and in due course once the price is passed on, making the coal-fired plants less economic to operate.
> 
> 5. Mining costs are rising because the best and most easily accessed coal has already been used and what remains is more costly and inferior. In short, that's resource depletion staring you right in the face. And the proposed solution? Ramp up production and export the coal, thus accelerating depletion.
> 
> 6. And then there's gas. WA has heaps of it but it's actually somewhat scarce locally given that the vast majority is now committed to export. Scarce to the point that there's a government report that suggests importing coal from Indonesia as one possible workaround. Yep, that's right, export the coal we have and then import more.
> 
> It's a sad tale the whole thing and it's costing the state over $50 million a month in losses to my understanding, a figure that is increasing and won't be going away anytime soon. Meanwhile WA keeps muttering something about wanting their share of GST to fill the self-inflicted black hole.
> 
> My point here is not really about keeping the lights on in Perth. It's about the incredibly stupid way we're running things in this country. A lack of foresight that has to be seen to be believed, failing to see what's obvious and staring our supposed leaders in the face. Unfortunately this situation is not confined to WA and it is not confined to the energy industry. Rather, it's a broad problem facing practically everything we're doing at the moment, the WA power industry being just one example (albeit one with fairly broad consequences economically).




The result of deregulation and desegregation by Labor, to make electricity cheaper. lol,lol,lol
Break up Western Power, so they can't cross subsidies. 
Then encourage private enterprise, by paying them availabilty payments for installed capacity, whether they generate or not.lol,lol,lol
In the end you have to shut down public owned, efficient plant, to make the others generate, next we will have to pay the higher price of generation.

Absolute dickwits, why would you vote Labor, they don't sell your electricity system just make you pay for nothing.


----------



## Logique

Wow, Scott Morrison will need a thread of his own soon.



> Scott Morrison, the sharpest pencil in the box, puts it right - April 4, 2015
> 
> Peter Hartcher, SMH: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/scott...in-the-box-puts-it-right-20150403-1mea4p.html
> 
> ..."He [Morrison] has enormous ability, he's on top of his portfolio, he doesn't need advisers around him to tell him what to say.
> 
> " Xenophon has had a lot of dealings with many ministers who have sought to win passage of their legislation through the Senate.
> 
> His conclusion?  "Other ministers could learn from him, including the prime minister."...


----------



## noco

Logique said:


> Wow, Scott Morrison will need a thread of his own soon.




Morrison is the most capable and efficient member of cabinet and must surely be the best candidate to become Prime Minister.


----------



## banco

Logique said:


> Wow, Scott Morrison will need a thread of his own soon.




That story is called a source greaser (for which Hartcher is notorious for). He slobbers all over Morrison so he can use him as a source in future.


----------



## Ferret

banco said:


> That story is called a source greaser (for which Hartcher is notorious for). He slobbers all over Morrison so he can use him as a source in future.




Maybe, but it is still music to my ears.  The country desperately needs a good leader.


----------



## sptrawler

Logique said:


> Wow, Scott Morrison will need a thread of his own soon.




When the question was posed, "who would replace Abbott"?

Morrison was suggested by a few.

Definitely a better performer, under pressure, than Turnbull or Bishop.IMO

Also would have no trouble with Shorten.IMO


----------



## IFocus

Mean while back at the ranch as the fire rages out of control in the home stead and the heard stands around looking stunned (what, punters don't understand the Coalitions right of arrogance to rule and rip off the low life working poor to fund greater profits for the corporate gods = Coalition donors). 

Lose the West and its all over for the Coalition so much for Gina's bag lady  Bishop. 

Coalition's primary support in WA sinks to 14-year low, Newspoll analysis reveals 



> The Abbott government’s primary vote in Western Australia has slumped to 38% in opinion polling, the lowest in the Liberal stronghold state since 2001.
> 
> WA had the highest Coalition primary vote at the federal election in 2013. That has fallen more than 13 percentage points to stand at 38% in the March quarter.




Abbott will have to past some more draconian security laws to address this



> Nationwide, just 27% of respondents are satisfied with Abbott’s performance as prime minister, compared with 65% who are dissatisfied.




No doubt the Coalition extreme right will have Morrison dancing around with more kindy kids ready for the knife fight for control of the Liberal party.............of course they would have missed the fact a conservative just won an election for reform playing to the middle............thats right Malcolm sits around there too.............the Coalition extreme right and their supporters would rather eat their own children than back Malcolm. 


One Term Tony...........three worded slogans seem to work there days don't they?






> Labor leads 55% to 45% in two-party preferred terms.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> The result of deregulation and desegregation by Labor, to make electricity cheaper. lol,lol,lol
> Break up Western Power, so they can't cross subsidies.
> Then encourage private enterprise, by paying them availabilty payments for installed capacity, whether they generate or not.lol,lol,lol
> In the end you have to shut down public owned, efficient plant, to make the others generate, next we will have to pay the higher price of generation.
> 
> Absolute dickwits, why would you vote Labor, they don't sell your electricity system just make you pay for nothing.




You were talking about WA weren't you ?

Who is in power there at the moment ?

(I believe it's the Libs)


----------



## Tisme

So some self appointed business groups have come out in an union to denounce the Abbott govt for lack of whatever it takes to drive and direct the country's prosperity .... where were they when the Libs elected Tony as there boss nearly six years ago? Anyone with half a wit could see the man was a walking clichÃ© of negatives who could (and has) white ant our nation into stagnation.

On the weekend the news shows were featuring Bill Shorten for his advice on all things a Govt minister(s) should have been espousing. I'm guessing even the commercial channels are getting fed up with "Labor's Mess"  and the big black hole of talent within the LNP camp. I have no doubt our snide finance minister and shrinking violet treasurer will be out and about this morning priming the electorate for a useless budget and blaming Shorten and Labor for a backsliding economy.....useless t1ts both of them playing with our wealth, our savings our prosperity.

I know brand loyalty is a hard nut to crack, but surely Lib voters should be joining up to local branches and demanding talent be incorporated into cabinet?


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> I know brand loyalty is a hard nut to crack, but surely Lib voters should be joining up to local branches and demanding talent be incorporated into cabinet?




The less competent that the current leadership is , the less they want bright sparks in Cabinet showing them up.

That's the crux of the current problem, keep the competition in Cabinet down by appointing yes men and drones.

If we want a talented Cabinet, the first step is talented leadership, so obviously, the current leadership must go.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> The less competent that the current leadership is , the less they want bright sparks in Cabinet showing them up.
> 
> That's the crux of the current problem, keep the competition in Cabinet down by appointing yes men and drones.
> 
> If we want a talented Cabinet, the first step is talented leadership, so obviously, the current leadership must go.




And what do you say about comrade Shorten?


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> You were talking about WA weren't you ?
> 
> Who is in power there at the moment ?
> 
> (I believe it's the Libs)




Yes it is, and as usual have to sort out the mess Labor left them.
Labor broke up Western Power and to encourage so called competition, paid the private sector capacity payments for installed generating capacity, whether they ran it or not.

Barnett is going to make the private generators run their plant, we are paying for it anyway, might as well get something for your money.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> Yes it is, and as usual have to sort out the mess Labor left them.
> Labor broke up Western Power and to encourage so called competition, paid the private sector capacity payments for installed generating capacity, whether they ran it or not.
> 
> Barnett is going to make the private generators run their plant, we are paying for it anyway, might as well get something for your money.




I suppose the next NSW Labor gov't will have to pick up the pieces after Baird sells our poles and wires. They are just as bad as each other.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I suppose the next NSW Labor gov't will have to pick up the pieces after Baird sells our poles and wires. They are just as bad as each other.




Lease ..not sell.....Pleased to see the NSW voters have got more sense than Victoria and Queensland....The voters of NSW did not fall for Labor's lies.

Have to admire some of the true Labor people like Martin Ferguson and 3 or 4 others who put the weights up on Foley and now they want to expel Ferguson....Just goes to show the Labor Party are full of puppets....Speak your mind adversely and you are out.....The Green/Labor left wing socialists do not believe in democracy.


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> Mean while back at the ranch as the fire rages out of control in the home stead and the heard stands around looking stunned (what, punters don't understand the Coalitions right of arrogance to rule and rip off the low life working poor to fund greater profits for the corporate gods = Coalition donors).
> 
> Lose the West and its all over for the Coalition so much for Gina's bag lady  Bishop.
> 
> Coalition's primary support in WA sinks to 14-year low, Newspoll analysis reveals
> 
> 
> 
> Abbott will have to past some more draconian security laws to address this
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt the Coalition extreme right will have Morrison dancing around with more kindy kids ready for the knife fight for control of the Liberal party.............of course they would have missed the fact a conservative just won an election for reform playing to the middle............thats right Malcolm sits around there too.............the Coalition extreme right and their supporters would rather eat their own children than back Malcolm.
> 
> 
> One Term Tony...........three worded slogans seem to work there days don't they?





You don't think it coincidental that the news corp poll, comes out after Murdoch spat the 'chewy', over Turnbull's threat to change media ownership rules.

They are all circling the carcass of channel 10 and from my understanding, unless the cross media ownership laws are changed, Murdoch and friends will end up taking it.

IMO it seems we have a full court press against the coalition, Fairfax and now Newscorp.
Looks like poor old Tony is between a rock and a hard place.

Better get Bill in then the electricity tax can be re introduced, at least then we can get more tax money out of people.


----------



## IFocus

sptrawler said:


> You don't think it coincidental that the news corp poll, comes out after Murdoch spat the 'chewy', over Turnbull's threat to change media ownership rules.
> 
> They are all circling the carcass of channel 10 and from my understanding, unless the cross media ownership laws are changed, Murdoch and friends will end up taking it.
> 
> IMO it seems we have a full court press against the coalition, Fairfax and now Newscorp.
> Looks like poor old Tony is between a rock and a hard place.
> 
> Better get Bill in then the electricity tax can be re introduced, at least then we can get more tax money out of people.




The numbers reflect the absolute failure of the Abbott government at all levels.......except when they were allowed to be nasty to the boat people which I think they were very successful.

As for the press coverage Abbott has had an incredible free ride compared to Gillard. 

Abbott gives no real press interviews out side the lovies and wont answer questions at door stops.


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> The numbers reflect the absolute failure of the Abbott government at all levels.......except when they were allowed to be nasty to the boat people which I think they were very successful.




I thought the only remaining gripe you had with this government's border protection policies was the secrecy which itself was essential to not be providing a shipping news service to people smugglers as was the case under Labor. It's easy to see however in the above backhanded praise that you still cling to the other discredited ideals you've long held.

There remains nothing nastier on this than encouraging people to die at sea which is what Labor and the Greens wanted and still want to continue to allow in preference to stopping the boats.


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> I thought the only remaining gripe you had with this government's border protection policies was the secrecy which itself was essential to not be providing a shipping news service to people smugglers as was the case under Labor. It's easy to see however in the above backhanded praise that you still cling to the other discredited ideals you've long held.
> 
> There remains nothing nastier on this than encouraging people to die at sea which is what Labor and the Greens wanted and still want to continue to allow in preference to stopping the boats.




Hang in there DR it can only get worse for this current woeful non government.

A good morality test of the border protection polices is the speed at which Morrison is distancing himself from them.................


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> A good morality test of the border protection polices is the speed at which Morrison is distancing himself from them.................



In case you haven't noticed, he's in a different portfolio now.


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> Hang in there DR it can only get worse for this current woeful non government.
> 
> A good morality test of the border protection polices is the speed at which Morrison is distancing himself from them.................




Would that be like the way, Labor are distancing themselves from budget measures, they proposed?

That really shows morality issues.


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> Would that be like the way, Labor are distancing themselves from budget measures, they proposed?
> 
> That really shows morality issues.




Jeez Sp, going by the last few posts, you seem to be on a frenetic crusade to patch the shell holes others are firing at your LNP ship ... you are turning into NOco


----------



## sptrawler

Tisme said:


> Jeez Sp, going by the last few posts, you seem to be on a frenetic crusade to patch the shell holes others are firing at your LNP ship ... you are turning into NOco




Just trying to help out noco, he seems to be outnumbered.lol

Supporting the LNP, is a bit like the Alamo, shoulder to shoulder, backs to the wall.lol

Massively outnumbered, but not surrendering the flag.


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> Just trying to help out noco, he seems to be outnumbered.lol
> 
> Supporting the LNP, is a bit like the Alamo, shoulder to shoulder, backs to the wall.lol
> 
> Massively outnumbered, but not surrendering the flag.




 I like your style


----------



## sptrawler

I see China are going to prop up their uneconomical iron ore miners.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/a/27027955/china-to-prop-up-its-domestic-miners/

I certainly hope the FIRB, is instructed to block any attempt by Chinese companies, from buying our struggling iron ore juniors.
China ramps up demand, then when production is increased, wind back demand to send companies broke. Twiggy Forrest is right about us reducinging supply, to meet the market. Opec have been doing it for years, and that was o.k.


----------



## sptrawler

Tisme said:


> Jeez Sp, going by the last few posts, you seem to be on a frenetic crusade to patch the shell holes others are firing at your LNP ship ... you are turning into NOco




Here you go tisme, the Abbott Government put fiscal pressure on people to vacinate their kids, do they get credit?

Hell no.

It was the Daily telegraph that did it.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...r-no-jab-reforms/story-fnpn118l-1227300073570

It's a shame the press only applaud Government initiatives, that coincide with theirs.

Obviously the press have the font of all knowledge and know what should be done.

Absolute dicks, when we have a third world economy, they will tell us why it happened. 

Because the Government didn't cut back spending.
Because wages were too high and we weren't competitive.
Because we poured money into a car industry to make cars unique to our country.
Because we demanded that things can't change.
Because we put the world climate ahead of our future, honourable but stupid, as it made zero difference.
We live a champagne lifestyle with a beer economy, it is about time the media woke up.


----------



## drsmith

Mathias Cormann lays it on the table for Colin Barnett over WA's GST share,



> In the meantime, and while that work is being done, GST shares should be frozen at this year’s level for everyone.
> 
> This would mean a GST share of 37.6 per cent for WA instead of just 30 with all other GST relativities for every other jurisdiction remaining the same next year as this year.






> There just is no credible public policy argument in favour of state ownership of a TAB.






> Yes we must work together to sort out the GST sharing arrangements. Not just for WA but for Australia.
> 
> But the WA Government must also show that it is serious about reform in our own backyard.




http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/opi...nd-must-be-fixed/story-fnhocuug-1227299769181


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> Here you go tisme, the Abbott Government put fiscal pressure on people to vacinate their kids, do they get credit?
> 
> Hell no.
> 
> It was the Daily telegraph that did it.
> 
> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...r-no-jab-reforms/story-fnpn118l-1227300073570
> 
> It's a shame the press only applaud Government initiatives, that coincide with theirs.




Do you think the press has much influence on what is becoming a very perfunctory readership? Sure there are Nocos out here who hang off every word that suits their predetermined argument, but from what I observe social media is the news source of the hip and happenings and old fossils like me who have given up hoping for fair and unbiased reporting in print. Remaining print media is by and large a political propaganda machine for its owner's and editor's stable mates, as far as I can see.

We know the govt has introduced laws to ping the imbeciles who play roulette with their kids, but there is an underlying niggle that the Abbott govt has to be dragged kicking and screaming into the social welfare Bora ring, lest it be seen as some kind of traitor to its puzzling and hotchpotch (Liberal?) dogma.


----------



## noco

27% Tony????....Not any more.....Tony is now right on the heels of BS Billy.





http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...seven-month-high/story-fnihsrk2-1227301753372


----------



## Knobby22

It's funny , the same poll in the Age led to completely different headlines. 2PP preferred vote for the Libs has fallen again and if an election had been held the votes would have been 54% Labor, 46% Coalition. 

This poll really doesn't matter in my view. The new budget will make or break Abbott and Hockey. Hope its a good one for the country's sake. We shall see.


----------



## noco

Knobby22 said:


> It's funny , the same poll in the Age led to completely different headlines. 2PP preferred vote for the Libs has fallen again and if an election had been held the votes would have been 54% Labor, 46% Coalition.
> 
> This poll really doesn't matter in my view. The new budget will make or break Abbott and Hockey. Hope its a good one for the country's sake. We shall see.




Wake up Knobby!!!......The AGE is  LABOR biased rag....very unreliable.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> I see China are going to prop up their uneconomical iron ore miners.
> 
> https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/a/27027955/china-to-prop-up-its-domestic-miners/
> 
> I certainly hope the FIRB, is instructed to block any attempt by Chinese companies, from buying our struggling iron ore juniors.
> China ramps up demand, then when production is increased, wind back demand to send companies broke. Twiggy Forrest is right about us reducinging supply, to meet the market. Opec have been doing it for years, and that was o.k.




Do you disagree with the WA Govt propping up the mining juniors?

Hasn't twiggy tripled his production recently?

What about Gina and Roy Hill?  Not in production yet.  Should the mine be mothballed before increasing the over supply?

Now the WA Govt is crying poor, even after receiving something like an extra $7B in GST payments over the last 4 years.

Then we had the previous Liberal QLD Govt throwing hundreds of millions ot building new high cost coal mine to supply what the Govt is claiming will be the new major coal importer now that China has started to cut back on the coal use.  Why would you throw tax payer money at a project that needs prices to double just to try and break even?

Then we've got the internet tax, a policy already neutered 

http://www.cnet.com/au/news/vpn-use-increases-in-australia-amid-data-retention-and-piracy-concerns/



> "As of early March, subscriptions went through the roof," he said. "We observed a 500 percent rise in subscriptions from Australia. Traffic and sales from the Australian region has surpassed even the United States!"






> Speaking to TorrentFreak, Ben Van der Pelt of TorGuard said his company's VPN service had proven popular with Australians, with subscriptions from this country now accounting for half of the company's total business.
> 
> "Over the past week TorGuard has seen a massive jump in Australian subscribers," said Van der Pelt. "Traffic from this region is currently up over 150% and recent trends indicate that the upsurge is here to stay."




Great to see the economic rationalists moving us in the right direction /sarc


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Wake up Knobby!!!......The AGE is  LABOR biased rag....very unreliable.




Yet you think The Australian has no bias at all?


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Yet you think The Australian has no bias at all?




Do you think the ABC has no bias??????????????????....The ABC is the left wing socialist propaganda machine.


----------



## Tisme

One for the WEST Australians :

http://www.afr.com/opinion/columnists/weve-boundless-plains-to-share--cept-with-wa-20150412-1mi1l4



> *On the other hand Exasperated eastern states leave in a huff, leaving Western Australia to stew in its own rotten wealth. *
> by  Rowan Dean
> In a shock move that is set to rock the Australian federation to its core, a group of leading political and business figures from Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Hobart and Adelaide today called for the Eastern states of Australia to finally secede from WA.
> 
> "We've had it up to here with those pesky West Australians," said a spokesperson. "They think they run the whole show, they never give a damn about us all the way over here and on top of which, they're a bloody drain on our economic wellbeing. It's time we cut ourselves free. Imagine what a prosperous, wealthy, independent place the East would be without having to put up with all those troublesome Westerners draining our natural resources – the GST in particular."
> 
> The Eastern secessionist group points to the unfair balance between the prosperous East and the near-bankrupt West. "Everybody over in the West is either a bankrupt iron ore magnate or a bankrupt Perth real estate agent or a bankrupt second-hand Maserati dealer. It's a disgrace. Why should we carry on supporting that lot?"
> 
> Experts have long pointed out that through a lucky quirk of geography, the Eastern states of Australia happen to contain all the natural wealth-creating assets of the federation, such as politicians, public servants, economists, think tanks, lobby groups, government grants and the like. Meanwhile, the West is forced to scratch around in the dirt trying to make a squalid living out of near-worthless rocks, minerals, gases, liquids, sheep, cattle, fruit, vegetables, cotton, wheat, seafood, oysters, wineries, pearls, diamonds, gold, uranium and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> "Clearly, the wealth of the nation resides entirely in the East," said an economist speaking from an eco-latte cafÃ© in Sydney's prosperous inner suburbs. "If we didn't have to waste our precious taxes propping up all those farmers and miners from WA, there would be much more government cash we could keep for ourselves. On top of which, the East is where all the critical infrastructure projects take place, such as new bike lanes through the Sydney CBD and that tunnel thing in Melbourne, which we're proudly investing nearly a billion dollars in not building. There's plenty of stuff we can waste our money on over here without wasting it over there as well."
> 
> However, others believe that any attempt by the East to "go it alone" is doomed to fail. "The cultural heart of Australia is over in the West," said one proponent of keeping the federation intact. "That's where Van Diemen nailed his first plate. That's where Alan Bond painted his first sign. That's where Rolf Harris wiggled his first wobble board. That's where Brian Burke filled in his first travel expense form. That's where Gina Rinehart first sat on her daddy's knee. The list goes on and on. Australia wouldn't be the nation it is today without that rich cultural heritage keeping us all togethe


----------



## IFocus

Tisme said:


> One for the WEST Australians :
> 
> http://www.afr.com/opinion/columnists/weve-boundless-plains-to-share--cept-with-wa-20150412-1mi1l4




Barnett is in trouble over here in the West and debt is running out of control after the previous Labor governments handed over a sold surplus the GST is just a side show.

I actually think Barnett has done a pretty fair job of running the state particularly given the other Liberal sitting members are complete boneheads.


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> Barnett is in trouble over here in the West and debt is running out of control after the previous Labor governments handed over a sold surplus the GST is just a side show.
> 
> I actually think Barnett has done a pretty fair job of running the state particularly given the other Liberal sitting members are complete boneheads.



A former Labor person on ABC local radio a little while ago commented that regardless of what people thought of Colin Barnett, the collective IQ of the WA parliament will be halved when he goes.

The concept of horizontal fiscal equalisation in a national context is fundamentally sound however Colin Barnett is right is saying that the present system is flawed. The first and most immediate problem is the lag in the grants process that results in differences in real and averaged commodity prices that the GST distribution ratio's are based on. 

It's right for the other states to share in the mineral wealth of the nation but this lag presently artificially smooths the budget impact of the lesser resource intensive states and enhances it for the more resource intensive states such as Western Australia. Overall, this has a net negative effect on sound fiscal management throughout all states. Presently, the states who benefit from WA's GST share have in effect an artificial gain to their budget bottom lines as WA did in the years of rising commodity prices. That though will change as we have seen so dramatically in WA will change.

In short, averaging should be reconsidered and all states should share in the real volatility that comes with commodity prices and manage their budgets accordingly.

The second problem is in fundamental conflict with horizontal fiscal equalisation and thus harder to solve. it fundamentally has a negative impact on incentive to invest in natural resources.  Tasmania is cited in this context but in terms of GST distribution, the NT is getting a whopping return of over $5 for every GST dollar raised there. Given that, the quality of their parliamentarians is perhaps no surprise. They don't have to encourage mining. The money just keeps rolling in and their carry-on comedy continues.

Individual states need incentives to invest so perhaps to that end, there should also be a floor and a ceiling with individual state/territory GST distribution ratios to better satisfy that objective.


----------



## banco

Averaging helped WA when the mining boom was in its early stages.  Swings and roundabouts.

It's been most amusing to see Barnett touring Australia like an aging hooker looking for one last payday. There are going to be a lot of cheap second hand jetskis for sale in WA as the cashed up bogans aren't so cashed up anymore.


----------



## SirRumpole

I don't understand the formula used, but I would have thought that it should aim for a equitable per capita amount of the total GST raised to go to each state.


----------



## SirRumpole

banco said:


> Averaging helped WA when the mining boom was in its early stages.  Swings and roundabouts.
> 
> It's been most amusing to see Barnett touring Australia like an aging hooker looking for one last payday. There are going to be a lot of cheap second hand jetskis for sale in WA as the cashed up bogans aren't so cashed up anymore.




States like WA should have stashed something away for a rainy day while they could. Iron ore prices are cyclical, like the stock market. Don't spend all your winnings at once.


----------



## bellenuit

banco said:


> Averaging helped WA when the mining boom was in its early stages.  Swings and roundabouts.
> 
> It's been most amusing to see Barnett touring Australia like an aging hooker looking for one last payday. There are going to be a lot of cheap second hand jetskis for sale in WA as the cashed up bogans aren't so cashed up anymore.




I don't have the figures to hand, but I read yesterday that when WA was a net beneficiary, the amount in question was only about 20% more than they collected and the "donor" states at the time were only receiving about 20% less than they collected. A 70% difference is out of the park IMO.


----------



## sydboy007

bellenuit said:


> I don't have the figures to hand, but I read yesterday that when WA was a net beneficiary, the amount in question was only about 20% more than they collected and the "donor" states at the time were only receiving about 20% less than they collected. A 70% difference is out of the park IMO.




$7B over 4 years is what WA received in excess GST payments on the upswing.  Not what I call small change.

Now if they were willing to say see what the average would end up being over this and the last 4 years, then I might have a bit of sympathy for them, but to only complain about the system when you lose is a bit much.

Their treasury boffins also need to be sacked for their incompetence in making the Govt think they had revenue galore coming in.  That lead to a lot fo wasteful spending.

The states are going to have to accept they need to bring in land taxes because GST reform will unlikely ever get through.  Might happen when the AAA rating has been trashed all around the country and borrowing costs start to escalate.


----------



## Smurf1976

sydboy007 said:


> Now if they were willing to say see what the average would end up being over this and the last 4 years, then I might have a bit of sympathy for them, but to only complain about the system when you lose is a bit much.
> 
> Their treasury boffins also need to be sacked for their incompetence in making the Govt think they had revenue galore coming in.  That lead to a lot fo wasteful spending.




My perception of the WA government is one of arrogance.

According to what they say, WA put in the hard yards to get mining happening in that state. Government policy made it all happen apparently, and it's the fault of the state governments in SA, Tas and any other place not doing so well that they didn't do the same. Paraphrasing there obviously, but that's essentially what the WA Treasurer has been saying.

OK then, how about SA or Tas decides to do the same as WA? What policies, exactly, do we need in order to suddenly end up with billions of tonnes of iron ore sitting just below the surface and heaps of gas just off the coast? What policies, exactly, do the other states need in order to have these minerals magically appear? 

There's a huge benefit to WA if they tell us, since then we won't need their GST revenue you see. And if they're worried about competition with iron ore, then presumably the same policy could be used to make other minerals appear?

I tell you what, I'll fly every member of the WA government down to Tas at my personal expense if they can just tell me how to do this mineral making magic. I'll take them up to Great Lake, get them to put their policies in action, and then we'll have a lake with $1.35 Trillion worth of oil at current prices. Even better, we can use the existing Poatina penstock to get the oil out of the lake and we can even run the stuff through the turbines and generate power from gravity without burning it. And Tas will never again need so much as 1 cent of WA's GST revenue. The only downside would be loss of irrigated agriculture and aquaculture downstream, since the current water flow would stop, but for that sort of money I think we'll be able to pipe water from somewhere else quite easily.

OK, I'm being a bit silly here but back in reality, WA just happened to get lucky. The state was propped up by NSW and Vic for decades until mining came along in a big way and it's pure luck that they happen to have easily extracted minerals just below the surface that are in high demand. It's pure chance that those same minerals are in WA and not somewhere else.


----------



## banco

Smurf1976 said:


> OK, I'm being a bit silly here but back in reality, WA just happened to get lucky. The state was propped up by NSW and Vic for decades until mining came along in a big way and it's pure luck that they happen to have easily extracted minerals just below the surface that are in high demand. It's pure chance that those same minerals are in WA and not somewhere else.




That's what annoys me.  They act like they've built silicon valley out or something.  Rather than the stuff just happened to be buried there.


----------



## sptrawler

I'm really suprised by the lack of insight by you guys.

In the last 10 years, W.A's population has risen by an enormous amount, add to this the infrastructure required to support the mining development.

Then think about the fact it is the biggest state by a fair margin, that started with a small population to support the infrastructure.

Jeez you guys are hard to understand.

Tasmania, small state, that struggles to make ends meet, shuts down any manufacturing it has and tops it up with handouts.

Victoria, small state, large population close to the epicentre of Australia, don't give a rats about anyone else.

NSW, Old school centre of wealth, again small state large population, don't need anyone else.

The infrastructure W.A has put in recently is long overdue, to penalise W.A while bleeding it dry is somewhat a reflection on our society.IMO

Some need to look at a map of Australia, then get their head around the logistics of supporting a massive influx in the north of W.A, with a population 1/3 that of Victoria.

Also the road , power , medical, housing, education, water, sewage. etc

Really look at a MAP.

That goon from Victoria, should be taken out the back by Barnett and given a stern talking to.

Better than saying, punching his lights out.lol

Barnett's not saying "give us more", he is just saying "don't take a greater amount".

We're not talking about reducing the amount all the rest get, just about not increasing it.

But we saw in the budget, how people see, not getting more.lol,lol,lol

Australia, wow, we are a really impressive country.lol


----------



## sptrawler

I suppose the other side of the coin is, when the W.A royalties = FA

Their GST goes from 30% to 100+ %

Then N.T, Tas and S.A, have to bleed NSW and Vic, for more money, beautifull. Can't wait to see that.

Then they will say, $hit we don't produce anything , how can we support Tassie that does FA.lol

NSW will say, $hit we can support ourselves , but we can't support Tassie , NT and S.A.

Absolute FW's. It makes me sick listening to these self centred idiots, that can't look past themselves.lol

My rant for this year. It just epitomises where we are at.IMO Sad very sad


----------



## sydboy007

Looks like Uncle Rupert is very much going to get just what he's been asking for from teh Abbott Govt.  Help to prop up his old world business against the leaner and meaner new internet kids on the block.

http://www.theguardian.com/technolo...der-proposed-copyright-legislation-say-choice



> VPNs are used by hundreds of thousands of Australians to access overseas content online.
> 
> But they could be blocked by the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015, which was introduced to parliament last month.
> 
> If it is passed, copyright owners would be able to apply for a federal court order requiring internet service providers to block overseas sites whose primary purpose is infringing copyright or facilitating the infringement of copyright…
> 
> The campaigns manager for Choice, Erin Turner, says at least 684,000 Australian households currently employ VPNs to bypass geoblocks and access overseas content at globally competitive prices…
> 
> The Australian Copyright Council said using a VPN to circumvent a geoblock may be considered copyright infringement if it requires downloading or streaming in a way that is without the permission of the copyright owner.




Lest you come out swinging that's it's just a leftist whinge, let's revisit what the IT pricing committee had to say on this issue.  The Abbot Govt is siding with some of the largest multinational companies to ensure Australians are restricted in the media content they can access and forced to pay the Australia tax for the digital breadcrumbs we're given.  If they sign the TPP we'll be rightly rogered with all Ip based products escalating in price, with the PBS gaining even more than the current $200M in extra costs due to the evergreening rights provided to US big pharma.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary...atives_Committees?url=ic/itpricing/report.htm

Copyright, circumvention, competition, and remedies

Recommendation 4
The Committee recommends that the parallel importation restrictions still found in the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) be lifted, and that the parallel importation defence in the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) be reviewed and ￼broadened to ensure it is effective in allowing the importation of genuine goods.

Recommendation 5
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government amend the Copyright Act’s section 10(1) anti-circumvention provisions to clarify and secure consumers’ rights to circumvent technological protection measures that control geographic market segmentation.

Recommendation 6
The Committee further recommends that the Australian Government investigate options to educate Australian consumers and businesses as to:
• the extent to which they may circumvent geoblocking mechanisms in order to access cheaper legitimate goods;
• the tools and techniques which they may use to do so; and
• the way in which their rights under the Australian Consumer Law
may be affected should they choose to do so.

Recommendation 7
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, in conjunction with relevant agencies, consider the creation of a ‘right of resale’ in relation to digitally distributed content, and clarification of ‘fair use’ rights for consumers, businesses, and educational institutions, including restrictions on vendors’ ability to ‘lock’ digital content into a particular ecosystem.

Recommendation 8
The Committee recommends the repeal of section 51(3) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

Recommendation 9
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government consider enacting a ban on geoblocking as an option of last resort, should persistent market failure exist in spite of the changes to the Competition and Consumer Act and the Copyright Act recommended in this report.

Recommendation 10
That the Australian Government investigate the feasibility of amending the Competition and Consumer Act so that contracts or terms of service which seek to enforce geoblocking are considered void.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> I'm really suprised by the lack of insight by you guys.
> 
> In the last 10 years, W.A's population has risen by an enormous amount, add to this the infrastructure required to support the mining development.
> 
> The infrastructure W.A has put in recently is long overdue, to penalise W.A while bleeding it dry is somewhat a reflection on our society.IMO
> 
> Some need to look at a map of Australia, then get their head around the logistics of supporting a massive influx in the north of W.A, with a population 1/3 that of Victoria.




So lets put a bit of perspective to your claims

Below is the populations of the states

2000

NSW - 6.463   VIC - 4.765   WA - 1.88  

2014

NSW - 7.544  VIC - 5.866  WA - 2.589

Net POP growth

NSW - 1.081  VIC - 1.101  WA - 0.709

Nearly 400,000 less than NSW and VIC, but only WA deserves sympathy for the growing pains and extra infrastructure spending required.  Put another way NSW and Victoria both had to fund infrastructure for 50% more people than WA.

I think a lot of people all over Australia would think recent infrastructure investments were long overdue.  The infrastructure deficit is not WAs alone.

My understanding is that one of the reasons WA received $7B in excess GST revenues over 4 years was due to the fact that the interest rate they were paying on the borrowings for infrastructure development was over inflated ie WA got extra money because they invested in their economy.  But no, it's all boo hoo for them.

In 2014-15 WA received $249m more in GST than it would have received under a strict per capita distribution, purely due to the extra cost of providing education in that state.

The Commonwealth Grants Commission noted that WA’s budget has taken a hit from falling iron ore revenue is not in itself a reason to increase the amount of GST it should receive. Rather pointedly, the commission stated that the distribution of GST “seeks to equalise fiscal capacities, not states’ budgetary circumstances which include *their policy choices*”.





WA received plenty of extra revenue the last few years.  How much more should they receive?  What states will lose funding to allow this to happen?  What infrastructure or services need to be cut to allow this to happen?  Why are people in WA more deserving on overal funding?

WA has for a long time received far more $$$ that it would if we had funding based purely on population




Saul Eslake, suggests the state is “to some extent, like a pensioner who’s won the lottery and then complains about having lost the pension and having to pay income tax”.


----------



## drsmith

Population growth needs to be considered in percentage terms relative to its base.

In relation to the WA's share of general revenue to grants graph, WA as an individual state has a much smaller population relative to its eastern seaboard mainland peers. In other words, the period while WA received a net benefit, other states would not have been reduced to the extent WA currently is as they had and still have a  bigger population (economic) base from which to absorb the equalisation.


----------



## sptrawler

As I said Syd, it is much cheaper and easier to build infrastructure in Victoria, than W.A.
For one, you are near the most densely populated area of the Country, therefore wages by virtue of competition, is much cheaper.
Secondly the main manufacturing hub of Australia is there also.
Thirdly Victoria has an area of 237,000 sq km, with a population of 6million, very compact and relatively easy to service.

From W.A's perspective, most of the population is located in the SW corner, yet the infrastructure, materials and manufactured equipment, needs transporting 1,000's of klm's to the NW.

W.A has an area of 2,500,000 sq km, with all the towns requiring first world services, no matter how remote they are.

The cost of everything is much higher than Eastern States, due to the remoteness.

90,000 workers, fly in and out of the State, they need services and facilities.

The logistics of doing things in remote areas of the State adds a huge cost. 
While the taxes are coming in obviously there isn't a problem, however to say tough when the main income drops so rapidly, is ridiculous.

The analogy of the pensioner who won lotto and complains when he loses his pension, is another stupid remark. 

W.A won nothing, it gets royalties and has to supply services and infrastructure, to areas like the Pilbara, Goldfields and mid West, so that the mines can operate.

If it doesn't have the money from royalties and or GST and can't provide the infrastructure, everyone loses.


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> As I said Syd, it is much cheaper and easier to build infrastructure in Victoria, than W.A.
> For one, you are near the most densely population area of the Country, therefore wages by virtue of competition, is much cheaper.
> Secondly the main manufacturing hub of Australia is there also.
> Thirdly Victoria has an area of 237,000 sq km, with a population of 6million, very compact and relatively easy to service.
> 
> From W.A's perspective, most of the population is located in the SW corner, yet the infrastructure, materials and manufactured equipment, needs transporting 1,000's of klm's to the NW.
> 
> W.A has an area of 2,500,000 sq km, with all the towns requiring first world services, no matter how remote they are.
> 
> The cost of everything is much higher than Eastern States, due to the remoteness.
> 
> 90,000 workers, fly in and out of the State, they need services and facilities.
> 
> The logistics of doing things in remote areas of the State adds a huge cost.
> While the taxes are coming in obviously there isn't a problem, however to say tough when the main income drops so rapidly, is ridiculous.
> 
> The analogy of the pensioner who won lotto and complains when he loses his pension, is another stupid remark.
> 
> W.A won nothing, it gets royalties and has to supply services and infrastructure, to areas like the Pilbara, Goldfields and mid West, so that the mines can operate.
> 
> If it doesn't have the money from royalties and or GST and can't provide the infrastructure, everyone loses.




You know I have been engaged in the NW to construct this and that and they get a pretty good deal, and I'm staffing and resourcing from Brisbane. The truth is that the Perth building contractors, for instance, were profiteering and finally put themselves out contention by making it viable for Asian dudes, Asian KDKs and Asian prefab high rise to be shipped in ... you can thank your own (soon to be a banana bender) Roy Hill owner, Gina for that and a weak government who wouldn't stand up to her.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> As I said Syd, it is much cheaper and easier to build infrastructure in Victoria, than W.A.
> For one, you are near the most densely populated area of the Country, therefore wages by virtue of competition, is much cheaper.
> Secondly the main manufacturing hub of Australia is there also.
> Thirdly Victoria has an area of 237,000 sq km, with a population of 6million, very compact and relatively easy to service.
> 
> From W.A's perspective, most of the population is located in the SW corner, yet the infrastructure, materials and manufactured equipment, needs transporting 1,000's of klm's to the NW.
> 
> W.A has an area of 2,500,000 sq km, with all the towns requiring first world services, no matter how remote they are.
> 
> The cost of everything is much higher than Eastern States, due to the remoteness.
> 
> 90,000 workers, fly in and out of the State, they need services and facilities.
> 
> The logistics of doing things in remote areas of the State adds a huge cost.
> While the taxes are coming in obviously there isn't a problem, however to say tough when the main income drops so rapidly, is ridiculous.
> 
> The analogy of the pensioner who won lotto and complains when he loses his pension, is another stupid remark.
> 
> W.A won nothing, it gets royalties and has to supply services and infrastructure, to areas like the Pilbara, Goldfields and mid West, so that the mines can operate.
> 
> If it doesn't have the money from royalties and or GST and can't provide the infrastructure, everyone loses.




the costs in Sydney and Melbourne to build new roads or train lines is massive compared to what it would cost in Perth.  Just look at the cost of the East West link in Melbourne.  $1M a meter for the tunnel.  $3.3B just to get the first stage of Westconnex built in Sydney, with a final cost of $10B.

Perth was able to build a 30Km rail line to Joondalup for around $2B in todays dollars, but Melbourne is looking at a cost to reach Doncaster by rail of $8-12B for just 20Km.  Underground stations are generally in the order of five times more expensive than at-grade stations to construct, and they're pretty much what you have to build in Sydney or Melbourne.

The fact is a large part of the problems WA is now facing are due to the poor economic management of the Govt during the boom years.  They predicted the good times to not only roll on forver, but to get better and better year after year and started funding glory projects.  A Liberal Govt is responsible for the loss of the state's AAA rating.  Spending was outstripping revenue during the largest resource boom in the country.  You're scathing of federal Labor during that time, yet seem to be giving the WA Govt a free kick.

WA elected Colin Barnett. Colin Barnett knew about the GST cliff ahead. Colin Barnett knew he was running a state budget with a history of boom and bust cycles. Thus Colin Barnett has proven to be a spectacularly inept commodity state budget manager and one implicitly reliant upon moral hazard. Why should everyone else bail him out so that WA is stuck with a dill at the tiller?


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> You're scathing of federal Labor during that time, yet seem to be giving the WA Govt a free kick.




Fair comment.


----------



## Logique

Sorry to be discursive.

I feel that the Australian Parliament House should go to open plan offices. Which is where they'd like send us, but not themselves.

Silicon Valley got it wrong: *the open-plan office trend is destroying the workplace* - April 20, 2015
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/silic...destroying-the-workplace-20150420-1molwh.html


----------



## sydboy007

I wonder if Abbott and Turnbull will be wiling to admit they were wrong is claiming NBN were building the rolls royce gold plated satellite internet platform now that their claims the private sector could have provided the service has fallen into voluntary administration.

If NBNCo had followed Abbott and Turnbull we'd be in a situation now with a barely half finished satellite and years behind schedule.  Compare that to NBNCo getting ready to launch their first satellite later this year on time and on budget that was set 5 years ago.

One has to wonder if Turnbull stands by his claims from 2012.

http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/govern...tes-amid-newsat-collapse-20150420-1mopac.html



> "There are Australian companies, there's one Australian company in particular NewSat ... which was in the press today which provides satellite services to the United States Defence Department in the Middle East, in Afghanistan and so forth so they're presumably pretty capable at what they're doing. Anyway, they've been brushed, they don't get a look in here. There is no need for the NBN to own this infrastructure itself..." Mr Turnbull said on February 8, 2012.


----------



## sydboy007

So we finally have to concrete data to show how Direct Action is failling.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/abbott-blows-his-carbon-budget-in-first-direct-action-auction-26282



> The Abbott government appears to have already blown its carbon budget, selling emissions abatement in the first round of auctions at a price that would make it impossible to meet even Australia’s modest 5 per cent cut in emissions by 2020 (from 2000 levels).
> 
> The Clean Energy Regulator said on Thursday said it had contracted to spend $660 million buy more than 47 million tonnes of abatement – mostly from carbon farming and landfill gas projects at an “average” price of $13.95.
> 
> It means that the government has theoretically met one quarter of its target at the first go, although nearly half the abatement bought in the first auction will not be delivered before 2020.
> 
> Unless the government can find much cheaper abatement, it will not be able to meet the target of buying around 236 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent to meet that 2020 target.
> 
> The Climate Institute said at these prices, the government would deliver only 15 per cent of its own 2020 target, but had already spent one quarter of its money.




So Direct Action is already over budget, but Greg Hunt is out trumpeting what a success it's been.  Just another privatise the profits and socialise the losses project by the Liberals.


----------



## wayneL

Yes they canned the carbon tax, they should dump that piece of crap also.


----------



## sydboy007

wayneL said:


> Yes they canned the carbon tax, they should dump that piece of crap also.




You mean you want Abbott to break yet another promise??  Does he have many left?


----------



## wayneL

sydboy007 said:


> You mean you want Abbott to break yet another promise??  Does he have many left?




You believe pollie promises?

Personally, I don't care about promises, I just want good policy. Promises get you elected, good policy doesn't.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> You believe pollie promises?
> 
> Personally, I don't care about promises, I just want good policy. Promises get you elected, good policy doesn't.




A policy is no more than a party or Government idea. 

Where there is no action,  there is no substance and no result.   So far the Rabbit Guvmints policies are about absolute nought.


----------



## wayneL

explod said:


> A policy is no more than a party or Government idea.
> 
> Where there is no action,  there is no substance and no result.   So far the Rabbit Guvmints policies are about absolute nought.




Hostile Senate my man. It's hard the govern when the opposition has carte blanche to sabotage the gu'mint via the Senate.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> A policy is no more than a party or Government idea.
> 
> Where there is no action,  there is no substance and no result.   So far the Rabbit Guvmints policies are about absolute nought.




Had the worlds best treasurer (the GOOSE ) told the truth about the deficit being $48 billion instead of $18 billion, then perhaps Abbott may not have found it necessary to break some promises.
The GOOSE said the budget was in surplus before the election then it suddenly rose to $11 billion then to $18 billion when in fact it was $48 billion.
I mean to say just how could the worlds greatest treasurer be so far out.
And then don't forget Penny Wrong who made errors totaling $123 billion over her period as finance Minister.


----------



## sydboy007

wayneL said:


> You believe pollie promises?
> 
> Personally, I don't care about promises, I just want good policy. Promises get you elected, good policy doesn't.




I don't fully agree with that

Good policy is usually attractive to a lot of voters.  It might not sway those rusted on to a particular party, but policies that let parents think the future will be better for the children, that pass the pub test on fairness, they generally garner respect and enough swing voters to be enacted.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Had the worlds best treasurer (the GOOSE ) told the truth about the deficit being $48 billion instead of $18 billion, then perhaps Abbott may not have found it necessary to break some promises.
> The GOOSE said the budget was in surplus before the election then it suddenly rose to $11 billion then to $18 billion when in fact it was $48 billion.
> I mean to say just how could the worlds greatest treasurer be so far out.
> And then don't forget Penny Wrong who made errors totaling $123 billion over her period as finance Minister.




Do not disagree.   But you harp on about the past noco.   It is not productive but only,  in most cases,  to deflect attention away from  the new Governments innabilities.   The blame game is zero sum Champ. 

So there is some debt there but it is minor compared to company and personal debt.   To borrow for good projects for the  future means that those benefitting in the future also contribute.  The Government needs to get over this mentality and do something for youth in particular.   How about bringing in some form of National Service,  would substancially reduce dole numbers and may turn thier lives around and improve discipline. 

Now instead of going crook noco,  over to you,  your turn for some positive ideas with some substance.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Do not disagree.   But you harp on about the past noco.   It is not productive but only,  in most cases,  to deflect attention away from  the new Governments innabilities.   The blame game is zero sum Champ.
> 
> So there is some debt there but it is minor compared to company and personal debt.   To borrow for good projects for the  future means that those benefitting in the future also contribute.  The Government needs to get over this mentality and do something for youth in particular.   How about bringing in some form of National Service,  would substancially reduce dole numbers and may turn thier lives around and improve discipline.
> 
> Now instead of going crook noco,  over to you,  your turn for some positive ideas with some substance.




The Green/Labor left wing socialist should start thinking of the national interest and stop blocking saving in the senate.....Savings of some $6billion which they proposed themselves before the election ....another broken promise by Shorten.
Shorten also agreed to the construction of the East west freeway and the unions changed his mind for him..

You cannot compare company debt to government debt...that is just crazy talk. Companies can borrow for a certain project like setting up the infrastructure for a mining venture which eventually pays off the debt.
As you well know, the stupid Labor party borrowed to the kilts on hare brain schemes which are still costing the tax payers $1 billion a month in interest.

The blame for all our financial mess is squarely at the feet of the Labor Party just like it is in Queensland....I am still waiting for Palaszczuk to tell us how she is going to pay back the $80 billion debt left by the Beattie/ government.  

For you to try and make such comparisons between Government and company debt. shows your ignorance in business management.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> For you to try and make such comparisons between Government and company debt. shows your ignorance in business management.




"... your ignorance... " if you have no answers you attack the man, 
as earlier pointed out.   

With such a negative approach I wonder if you understand management at all.  And how DID my example indicate ignorance?


----------



## noco

explod said:


> "... your ignorance... " if you have no answers you attack the man,
> as earlier pointed out.
> 
> With such a negative approach I wonder if you understand management at all.  And how DID my example indicate ignorance?




plod, I owned four business in my life times and managed one for 28 years.....all with success, so I would hasten to say I do know quite a lot about the way a business in managed.

It was not my intention to attack you personally and it is regrettable if you have taken it that way.

I tried to point out to you the difference with government debt and company debt which you do not seem to understand.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> The Green/Labor left wing socialist should start thinking of the national interest and stop blocking saving in the senate.....Savings of some $6billion which they proposed themselves before the election ....another broken promise by Shorten.
> Shorten also agreed to the construction of the East west freeway and the unions changed his mind for him..
> 
> You cannot compare company debt to government debt...that is just crazy talk. Companies can borrow for a certain project like setting up the infrastructure for a mining venture which eventually pays off the debt.
> As you well know, the stupid Labor party borrowed to the kilts on hare brain schemes which are still costing the tax payers $1 billion a month in interest.
> 
> The blame for all our financial mess is squarely at the feet of the Labor Party just like it is in Queensland....I am still waiting for Palaszczuk to tell us how she is going to pay back the $80 billion debt left by the Beattie/ government.
> 
> For you to try and make such comparisons between Government and company debt. shows your ignorance in business management.




So Government investing in infrastructure, say a new port, road, rail line, airport, these are not investments that eventually pay themselves off?  It's what happened in Australia pretty much since federation till the dud idea of getting the private sector involved and inflated user charges.

It's good to know that all the Liberal state Govts recently kicked out were spending money appropriately.  Do you support the prior Vic Liberal Govt, along with the Liberal Federal Govt, from pushing through with funding the world's most expensive road tunnel, that was projected to provide just a 45c in the $ economic return.  Is that the kind of hare brained scheme that you accuse Labor of doing?

We have the current Liberal Govt now talking about winding back the lowered tapering rate for access to the pension the prior Liberal Govt brought in.  That change alone has cost the budget billions a year, bloating centrelink with thousands of more staff simply to cope with the hundreds of thousands of extra part pensioners from that choice.

Infrastructure Australia has a decent list of projects that make a sound economic case for investment.  Isn't it better for the Govt to borrow at < 3% for 15 years.  Basically they're getting the money for free as inflation will be not much less that the interest rate they pay.  There's plenty of infrastructure projects that would deliver economic returns well in excess of 3%, but the Abbott Govt has woven a straight jacket around itself by demonising debt.  Debt that self liquidates is sensible.  Debt to keep the lights on not so much.  Not all debt is bad, otherwise you'd be telling off people for not paying cash when they buy their homes.

Do you know how much debt Campbell Newman racked up in just 3 years of Office?  How about Beattie and Anna Bligh?  How much of that debt funded infrastructure?  If the Govt hadn't borrowed for the infrastructure, how else would it have been built?


----------



## wayneL

sydboy007 said:


> I don't fully agree with that
> 
> Good policy is usually attractive to a lot of voters.  It might not sway those rusted on to a particular party, but policies that let parents think the future will be better for the children, that pass the pub test on fairness, they generally garner respect and enough swing voters to be enacted.




In some cases. But I doubt the national interest overcomes self interest during election campaigns. Sorry just don't have your faith in the plebeians to think very far ahead at all.


----------



## IFocus

sydboy007 said:


> I don't fully agree with that
> 
> Good policy is usually attractive to a lot of voters.  It might not sway those rusted on to a particular party, but policies that let parents think the future will be better for the children, that pass the pub test on fairness, they generally garner respect and enough swing voters to be enacted.




Actually the sheer ineptitude of the current incumbents to be able to negotiate with one of the biggest conservative cross benches seen for a long time shines the light on what a bunch of dim witted conservative IPA flunky arrogant right wing bone heads ruling the Liberal party now.


Howard would have given his eye teeth for the same set of circumstances when he didn't have the senate.

Now its all about saving Abbott's job nothing about actually running the country.


----------



## SirRumpole

> but the Abbott Govt has woven a straight jacket around itself by demonising debt.




Abbott tightened his own straitjacket by repoliticising Infrastructure Australia so he could use infrastructure money to pork barrell for himself and his mates in the States like Napthine.

He came a cropper over the EastWest link when the Victorian electorate told him where to jump, now he should just admit that IA can do a better job of deciding the best infrastructure spend than his pork barell policies can and give them back their independence.


----------



## Smurf1976

sydboy007 said:


> So Government investing in infrastructure, say a new port, road, rail line, airport, these are not investments that eventually pay themselves off?  It's what happened in Australia pretty much since federation till the dud idea of getting the private sector involved and inflated user charges.




Liberal funnels money to big business just as Labor funnels money to unions.

The whole "must not borrow money, therefore we'll have to get the private sector to build it" argument has absolutely nothing to do with cost, indeed privately owned usually costs more for the simple reason that profit is required. What it's about, is using the fear of debt as an excuse to preclude public ownership, thus enabling private profit from critical infrastructure.

The sad thing is that it reduces Australia's overall economic competitiveness. It's hard to think of a business that doesn't in some way rely on roads, rail, ports, airports, electricity, water, gas or communications infrastructure in order to conduct its' operations. The end result is that a small number of businesses, those who own the infrastructure, profit but that comes at the cost of higher input costs for every other business. That is effectively a tax on virtually all economic activity.

Much was said in the 1990's about the need for Australia to be "competitive" internationally and few would seriously dispute that point today. But if you want to be competitive, then you need to have competitive input costs for business rather than paying unnecessarily high costs for everything from transport to power.

In general terms the whole anti-debt, pro-privatisation push makes a few businesses rich at the expense of just about everyone else and adds to the problem of Australia being a high cost place in which to do business.


----------



## wayneL

On the face of it that makes sense, Im one more in favour of public ownership of utilities for a number the of reasons you've highlighted. 
Two questions 
1/ I dont think that accounts for the whole reason cost if business is so high here. Can you think of othet factors

2/ How does Oz compare with other similarly privatized economies including US & UK?


----------



## sydboy007

wayneL said:


> On the face of it that makes sense, Im one more in favour of public ownership of utilities for a number the of reasons you've highlighted.
> Two questions
> 1/ I dont think that accounts for the whole reason cost if business is so high here. Can you think of othet factors
> 
> 2/ How does Oz compare with other similarly privatized economies including US & UK?




No privatised major airports in the USA.  Why provide a monopoly to a company and then give them free reign over access charges say like Sydney Airport?  The world's highest parking charges.  Darwin airport decided they're prefer to see Jetstar not use them as a base for 1 stop flights on A320s to Asia than negotiate on tranist passenger costs.

The cost of land in Australia is probably the largest issue we face in terms of competitiveness.  It feeds through the entire economy whether for business rents or wages pressure.  When the land for a factory is multiple times that our our competitors we're already behind the 8 ball.

Next is the lack of a coherent energy policy.  No natural gas reservation policy for domestic industries and manufacturing.  We've linked ourselves into paying Asia prices and lost a competitive advantage for it, along with putting over 40,000 jobs on the east coast at risk due to escalating costs, and now there's talk of building a pipeline from Darwin to the east coast to bring in gas when there's no need to.  The current Government is part of the problem when you have ministers saying stuff like _"We've got to make sure that every molecule of gas that can come out of the ground does so. Provided we've got the environmental approvals right, we should develop everything we can"._


----------



## Smurf1976

Private toll roads, private airports, sucking all the gas out of the ground....

All this and more could be summed up quite simply. If it can be sold, we've sold or are in the process of selling it. If it can be dug up then we've either already dug it or are about to.

In other words, we're essentially liquidating the nation's public assets, both man-made and natural, in order to fund recurrent expenditure. 

That's worse than even running up debt for the same reason. You can repay a debt and start again but we'll never likely see anyone give up a lucrative near-monopoly over airports in any particular region and we sure can't put gas back in the ground.

If a company sells off some of its' assets each year, whilst acquiring few if any new assets, then most would agree that isn't sustainable and that the asset sales are hiding what is most likely an unprofitable underlying business. And yet that's pretty much what we're doing on a grand scale in Australia - selling off public assets and selling off natural resources like there's no tomorrow.


----------



## SirRumpole

> and selling off natural resources like there's no tomorrow.




And getting a pittance in return.

A 78% profits tax on oil and gas production in Norway hasn't done their sovereign risk any harm, and they are stashing billions away for when their oil and gas run out.

How stupid are we ?

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ustralia-a-thing-or-two-about-managing-wealth


----------



## Smurf1976

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-24/latest-study-finds-alinta-solar-thermal-power/6418680



> The rate of return that we modelled in the study was 12 per cent - that probably wouldn't cut it when you're talking about private investment, not to say you couldn't find some financial model that would make it work, but at the current cost for this technology, it's not something that a private company would invest in




And therein lies the great trouble with government's aversion to debt.

The Port Augusta power station (coal) is closing in the next decade or so regardless, and that's a huge blow to the local economy. And here's a proposal for a new power station (solar) to replace both the energy supply and at least some of the employment created by the present plant.

Private sector can't or won't do it at 12%? Government could do it for _half_ that at most. 

I don't blame Alinta by the way, it's the flawed overall structure that is to blame. First the creation of unnecessary financial risk in what is otherwise a very stable industry (electricity) and secondly, using that unnecessarily created risk as justification for higher rates of return. Meanwhile, the real economy gets screwed by higher than necessary prices for an input cost that affects practically every business and household.

There's a proper place for private enterprise certainly, but I'd prefer that it didn't involve rent seeking via critical infrastructure at the expense of the entire productive economy. 

Note that I'm not singling out Alinta in that, just using the situation in Port Augusta as an example. The sad thing is, government is more likely to throw money at "make work" schemes or keeping the coal plant running than to address the bigger picture without costing taxpayers a cent.


----------



## sydboy007

Smurf1976 said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-24/latest-study-finds-alinta-solar-thermal-power/6418680
> 
> 
> 
> And therein lies the great trouble with government's aversion to debt.
> 
> The Port Augusta power station (coal) is closing in the next decade or so regardless, and that's a huge blow to the local economy. And here's a proposal for a new power station (solar) to replace both the energy supply and at least some of the employment created by the present plant.
> 
> Private sector can't or won't do it at 12%? Government could do it for _half_ that at most.
> 
> I don't blame Alinta by the way, it's the flawed overall structure that is to blame. First the creation of unnecessary financial risk in what is otherwise a very stable industry (electricity) and secondly, using that unnecessarily created risk as justification for higher rates of return. Meanwhile, the real economy gets screwed by higher than necessary prices for an input cost that affects practically every business and household.
> 
> There's a proper place for private enterprise certainly, but I'd prefer that it didn't involve rent seeking via critical infrastructure at the expense of the entire productive economy.
> 
> Note that I'm not singling out Alinta in that, just using the situation in Port Augusta as an example. The sad thing is, government is more likely to throw money at "make work" schemes or keeping the coal plant running than to address the bigger picture without costing taxpayers a cent.




15 year Govt bond rate is around 2.8%.  We definitely need to be taking advantage of the hunt for yield in much of the world, while also improving the competitiveness of the country.

I just don't see the current Govt being able to move the goal posts any further than they have ie a reduction in the debt to gdp ratio is as good as reducing debt.  To starting talking about good debt and borrowing to invest in the future, it just can't happen with the current ministry because they're all tarnished with their debt is bad mantra.  That's the problem when you paint the world in 2 bit black or white and no shades of grey.

labor seems to be flat footing the Govt with their recent policy announcements.  Will be very interesting what economic rabbits Hockey has left in his hat.


----------



## SirRumpole

As if we didn't know...

*Negative gearing and capital gains tax discount benefit wealthy by $4.3b: report*



> A new report estimates that more than half the benefits of negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts go to the top 10 per cent of income earners.
> 
> The report by GetUp and The Australia Institute, using economic modelling by NATSEM, finds that over a third of negative gearing tax benefits went to the top 10 per cent, while almost three quarters (73 per cent) of capital gains tax (CGT) discounts went to that top income bracket.
> 
> The report estimates that negative gearing is costing the Federal Government about $3.7 billion a year in lost revenue, while the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount wipes off $4 billion.
> 
> It finds that 56 per cent of this lost revenue, or $4.3 billion, goes to the top 10 per cent of income earners, with just over two-thirds going to the top fifth of households.
> 
> The Australia Institute's senior economist Matt Grudnoff told ABC News Online that the typical negatively geared property investor earns substantially more than the typical person who does not use the tax break.
> 
> "The median taxable income for those who don't negatively gear is $38,500 a year, whereas the median taxable income for people who do negatively gear is about 45 per cent higher than that," he said.
> 
> More at...
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-...al-gains-tax-discount-benefit-wealthy/6428202


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> As if we didn't know...
> 
> *Negative gearing and capital gains tax discount benefit wealthy by $4.3b: report*




the below charts make it a bit easier to understand how NG and CGT concessions are just subsidies to the wealthy to over invest in housing

What doesn't bode well is how Scott Morrison has drunk the Property Council cool aid and sees NG is primarily used by battler, forgetting the fact that the after tax incomes used are after all NG deductions rather than gross incomes.  So that 80K battler is doing quite nicely compared to the average of roughly $55K.  Could explain the lack of empathy to the true battlers.

This is what the RBA has to say about NG - something the Government is choosing to ignore: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/negative-gearers-are-the-opposite-of-battlers-and-they-dont-build-many-new-homes-20150427-1msy10.html



> Reserve Bank calculations suggest the top 20 per cent of earners owe the bulk of investor housing debt (60 per cent). The bottom 20 per cent owe just 2 per cent.
> 
> It is disturbing that a government minister would prefer the assessment of the Property Council to that of the Reserve Bank – all the more so when that minister is in charge of social services, the department responsible for working out who really is a battler…
> 
> The ANU Tax and Transfer Policy Institute says dumping negative gearing could save up to $7 billion and fund “Reagan-style tax cuts”. The US president Ronald Reagan moved against negative gearing in 1986.
> 
> What do we get for it? Very few new homes. The more popular negative gearing has become, the less it has been used to build new homes and the more it has been used to bid up the price of existing ones. Back in the 1980s, every fifth new investor loan built a home. It is now every 15th.




How can the Minister of social services justify a policy that costs billions, that forces up the cost of housing, hurting the very people he's supposed to be advocating for?


----------



## sptrawler

Is it only me? Or has Fairfax cut back on the Abbott bashing, I've noticed their webpapers aren't full of anti Abbott hate articles.

Wow, maybe Fairfax has realised, we are all in the same fiscal mess.

It doesn't matter who is in office, the problems are the same.


----------



## moXJO

sptrawler said:


> Is it only me? Or has Fairfax cut back on the Abbott bashing, I've noticed their webpapers aren't full of anti Abbott hate articles.
> 
> Wow, maybe Fairfax has realised, we are all in the same fiscal mess.
> 
> It doesn't matter who is in office, the problems are the same.




No, they are trying to incorporate it into other articles not necessary to do with politics. Blaming the Abbott govt over the Bali executions, Indonesia ties (damned if Australia is too hard or soft, yet asking for both at the same time) housing, environment, in fact anything they can smear the current govt over. They are just ducking for cover after one of their employees jumped on the ANZAC abuse wagon with that other dkhead from sbs.
That rag will never run out of hate.


----------



## Tisme

The interest rate cut must be a continuing sign of an economy in decline ... well according to Joe Hockey's expert opinion back in the days of Wayne Swan treasurer. 

I still reckon the best litmus test of good economic governance is to ask the questions of oneself 

"would you have them running your corporation?"
and 
"do you let voting bias get in the way of employing the best for the company?".


----------



## Craton

Tisme said:


> I still reckon the best litmus test of good economic governance is to ask the questions of oneself
> 
> "would you have them running your corporation?"
> and
> "do you let voting bias get in the way of employing the best for the company?".




Agreed in part and I grant we're talking economics here but there's a lot more to running a country like a company isn't there?

I'm fairly certain most companies don't have armed forces and the general populace to deal with. Nor are they the makers of the nations rules and regs, have a national health system, social services etc, etc. Makes me wonder though, would any of the top 50 boards do any better at running this great land of ours?

For us Aussies at present neither side of politics seem to have the "goods" but I'd agree with Tisme that based on  said litmus test, as unpopular as they may be TA's mob appears to be pick of the bunch and are doing a credible job against some very stiff head winds.


----------



## Knobby22

The new pension tests are Ok as far as they go and I know we have to save money.
It really goes for the middle class though and I bet that limit of $823,000 (from $1.15 mil) won't go up every year with inflation.
They say it will affect 235,000 people badly but it will be the long term affect that will reduce the money spend overall especially with the sharper dropping off of the part pension.


----------



## Smurf1976

Tisme said:


> I still reckon the best litmus test of good economic governance is to ask the questions of oneself
> 
> "would you have them running your corporation?"




We live in a society, the economy being just one part of that but it's by no means the whole show.

Economic management is part of what a government needs to get right, an important part, but that's not the only thing they need to do by any means.


----------



## Logique

In the UK election, the Conservatives smashed Labour, and are just 10 seats away from governing in their own right.  This had not been predicted by the opinion polls.

Economically at least, this is a good outcome.


----------



## trainspotter

> THE golden era of dirt cheap internet shopping, streaming and downloading appears to be over.
> This is especially bad news for our nation of binge-watchers, with the government set to slap the goods and services tax (GST) on streaming services, such as Netflix.
> The Australian reported on Monday that Cabinet ministers had killed off the policy, over fears that it would be seen as a “naked grab for more money”, but Fairfax reports this morning that the “Netflix tax” will be included in Tuesday’s Federal Budget.
> Customers are set to pay 10 per cent more for movies, music, e-books and software provided by overseas companies online, with *the Abbott Government set to extend the GST to these “intangible” products.* Currently, the tax only applies to imported parcels worth more than $1000.




http://www.news.com.au/technology/h...online-purchases/story-fn8tnfhb-1227341594378

Waaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh   I just got Netflix this month. An extra $1.50 per month on my subscription. How will I ever survive ??


----------



## sydboy007

trainspotter said:


> http://www.news.com.au/technology/h...online-purchases/story-fn8tnfhb-1227341594378
> 
> Waaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh   I just got Netflix this month. An extra $1.50 per month on my subscription. How will I ever survive ??




In principle I support it, but the regulation to enforce it will be interesting.  I can see it generating a lot of red tape.

With netflix, what happens if a person just signs up for Netflix USA.  Roughly 200K worth of Aussies have already done this.  Will the threat of GST just encourage them to drop their aussie subscription and get a USA or UK based one instead?

I've often thought adding a 5% tax on all forex credit card transactions might be the way to go.  Certainly cheaper than the alternatives of lowering the $1000 limit, and it might help to encourage more local shopping and holidays.

Or why not just a small tobin tax on all financial transactions?


----------



## noco

Logique said:


> In the UK election, the Conservatives smashed Labour, and are just 10 seats away from governing in their own right.  This had not been predicted by the opinion polls.
> 
> Economically at least, this is a good outcome.




Also good news for the Abbott government.....I believe the trend will extend to Aus....Shorten does not stand for anything good ATM.


----------



## Ferret

noco said:


> Also good news for the Abbott government.....I believe the trend will extend to Aus....Shorten does not stand for anything good ATM.




I can't see that the UK result will have any influence on Australian politics, but I agree about Shorten.

He is totally uninspiring as an alternative PM.  Labor need to move on.


----------



## Tisme

sydboy007 said:


> In principle I support it, but the regulation to enforce it will be interesting.  I can see it generating a lot of red tape.
> 
> With netflix, what happens if a person just signs up for Netflix USA.  Roughly 200K worth of Aussies have already done this.  Will the threat of GST just encourage them to drop their aussie subscription and get a USA or UK based one instead?
> 
> I've often thought adding a 5% tax on all forex credit card transactions might be the way to go.  Certainly cheaper than the alternatives of lowering the $1000 limit, and it might help to encourage more local shopping and holidays.
> 
> Or why not just a small tobin tax on all financial transactions?




I read somewhere that Netflix Oz is effectively NetflixLite because of lockout deals with local cable/tellie providers not to show certain programs.

Red tape is how the Labor Party create jobs through PS, QANGOS and NGOs.....a tax payer funded, high wage, high super, but nonetheless non productive policy that keeps paper pushers off the street. It seems the Libs might be going down the same street by stealth.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> Also good news for the Abbott government.....I believe the trend will extend to Aus....Shorten does not stand for anything good ATM.




I don't know ... Cameron is articulate, passionate and a professional politician. He doesn't seem to display the heart filled contemptible hate that Abbott and his compatriots have for others not inAbbott's clique. UK parliament retains the old skool maturity/politeness that Canberra lost completely a few elections ago IMO.


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> I don't know ... Cameron is articulate, passionate and a professional politician. He doesn't seem to display the heart filled contemptible hate that Abbott and his compatriots have for others not inAbbott's clique. UK parliament retains the old skool maturity/politeness that Canberra lost completely a few elections ago IMO.




You should stop listening to the ABC and Fiarfax biased crap about Abbott....Mark Scott is about to get the big "A" and the sooner the better.


----------



## Logique

noco said:


> Also good news for the Abbott government.....I believe the trend will extend to Aus....Shorten does not stand for anything good ATM.



The UK FTSE index rose 2.3% overnight, although all Europe indices had good sessions.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> You should stop listening to the ABC and Fiarfax biased crap about Abbott....Mark Scott is about to get the big "A" and the sooner the better.




I don't listen to either organisation Noco. I have made it fairly clear in the past that I get my info from the actual departmental information releases and social media; both sources far more accurate than television and print media. Doesn't Alan Jones work for Fairfax?

If Mark Scott gets the bullet, it might be a welcome end to the soccer bias on ABC, but it will reveal the Federal  Liberal Party as another Campbell Newmanesque tragic that allows corruption of fairness in favour of cronyism. 

The only way to silence the ABC from presenting anything anti Lib or pro Lab is to dumb it down; it is a fact of life that as people educate they move from self interest (self actualisation) to social awareness, which creates the impression of bias to Labor, when in actual fact it's the absence of social identification in the Liberal Party that creates the illusion of bias. The ABC is full of erudite staff, not necessarily Labor voters and from my circle of friends many are indeed rusted on Liberals.


And before you do your normal routine of referring to others being guilty of the same, two wrongs do not make a right and I personally do not have faith in any of the majors to behave with the fiduciary responsibilities we all expect fro what we are paying for.


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> I don't listen to either organisation Noco. I have made it fairly clear in the past that I get my info from the actual departmental information releases and social media; both sources far more accurate than television and print media. Doesn't Alan Jones work for Fairfax?
> 
> If Mark Scott gets the bullet, it might be a welcome end to the soccer bias on ABC, but it will reveal the Federal  Liberal Party as another Campbell Newmanesque tragic that allows corruption of fairness in favour of cronyism.
> 
> The only way to silence the ABC from presenting anything anti Lib or pro Lab is to dumb it down; it is a fact of life that as people educate they move from self interest (self actualisation) to social awareness, which creates the impression of bias to Labor, when in actual fact it's the absence of social identification in the Liberal Party that creates the illusion of bias. The ABC is full of erudite staff, not necessarily Labor voters and from my circle of friends many are indeed rusted on Liberals.
> 
> 
> And before you do your normal routine of referring to others being guilty of the same, two wrongs do not make a right and I personally do not have faith in any of the majors to behave with the fiduciary responsibilities we all expect fro what we are paying for.




It is a well known fact that the ABC is controlled by the Green/Labor left wing socialists and that is where the bias towards the Labor come in.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> It is a well known fact that the ABC is controlled by the Green/Labor left wing socialists and that is where the bias towards the Labor come in.




I may be well known to you, but anyone to the left of Ghengis Khan is a socialist to you.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I may be well known to you, but anyone to the left of* Genghis* Khan is a socialist to you.




And all are a dangerous lot in the welfare of Australia and in the national interest.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> It is a well known fact that the ABC is controlled by the Green/Labor left wing socialists and that is where the bias towards the Labor come in.




Not a "FACT"  at all,  it is a well held view of the right who can everyone with a different or opposing perspectve. 

I requested your description of "a red"  a few weeks back,  but still no answer.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Not a "FACT"  at all,  it is a well held view of the right who can everyone with a different or opposing perspectve.
> 
> I requested your description of "a red"  a few weeks back,  but still no answer.




The RED is for communism and that is why they call the Greens the watermelon party.

GREEN outside and RED inside.

And all this time I thought you knew that.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> The RED is for communism and that is why they call the Greens the watermelon party.
> 
> GREEN outside and RED inside.
> 
> And all this time I thought you knew that.




Tell that to the increasing Green membership in Sydney who come from the right wing elite of the Liberal Party.   On labour left wingers I would agree with Red but you sling off with wild words out of context regarding anything or anyone who will not bow under your arrogant thumb. 

Now answer my question about the ABC?


----------



## sptrawler

We really do need to lift the discourse of the the thread, if we are going to degenerate to 'Reds and Greenie's', Julia will roll in her grave.IMO

Let's try and keep the debate, to sensible, thought out argument.

Otherwise, I for one won't be involved in the forum, it had robust meaningful debate.

If it degenerates, we all lose.

Noco, I'm sure that not all Labor  and Green politicians are communists.

Also Explod, I'm sure all Greenies, don't give a rat's ar$e about the enviroment. More likely they are concerned about their public persona, and the vote pulling power of it.

So let's keep it real, sensible and relevant..
This is the Abbott thread.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> It is a well known fact that the ABC is controlled by the Green/Labor left wing socialists and that is where the bias towards the Labor come in.




Who in particular and how does he/she feel about you looking over his/her shoulder at the voting booth? 


James Spigelman 
Cheryl Bart 
Jane Bennett
Peter Lewis
Simon Mordant 
Matt Peacock
Mark Scott 
Steven Skala 
Dr Fiona Stanley


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> Who in particular and how does he/she feel about you looking over his/her shoulder at the voting booth?
> 
> 
> James Spigelman
> Cheryl Bart
> Jane Bennett
> Peter Lewis
> Simon Mordant
> Matt Peacock
> Mark Scott
> Steven Skala
> Dr Fiona Stanley




Not to mention Janet Albrechtsen, well known right wing commentator.

Wouldn't surprise me if Andrew Bolt or Alan Jones get appointed to the board soon.


----------



## SirRumpole

Another stupid Abbott/Pyne idea rejected by sensible people

Students praise UWA for ditching controversial $4m Bjorn Lomborg Consensus Centre think tank





> Audio: Listen to Jessica Kidd's report (AM)
> 
> "The fact that we had international partners saying they wanted to pull out because of the association. So the reputational damage was probably the main complaint.
> 
> "There are a number of people who take issue with Lomborg's methodology, and with Lomborg's sort of research standing.
> 
> "The example that I use is there was a unit at UWA that used to use Lomborg's book as an example of bad science, and what not to do for students, and so a primary concern was the fact that he would be allowed to be associated with UWA when we hold our first year students who are 17, right out of high school, to a higher standard than that."
> 
> Education Minister Christopher Pyne has told newspaper journalists he is seeking legal advice about the university's decision to hand back the funding, but he said he would find another university to host the consensus centre.
> 
> It's absolutely not censorship, it's about the academics being really concerned about academic standards and the integrity of the institution.
> Gabe Gooding, National Tertiary Education Union
> 
> Mr Pyne on Friday tweeted that UWA's decision marked "a sad day for academic freedom".
> 
> Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce said the decision did not give university students enough credit, to decide for themselves which facts are relevant.
> 
> "I like an exciting world where you can hear challenging points of view, even if you disagree with them," he said.
> 
> "Universities, they're supposed to be the crucible of allowing people to investigate and ponder an idea and come up with their own conclusions."
> 
> Meanwhile, National Tertiary Education Union's WA division secretary, Gabe Gooding, said members would be relieved and rejected suggestions that Dr Lomborg's views were being censored.
> 
> "Those people who were particularly supportive of it will be painting this as censorship but it's absolutely not censorship, it's about the academics being really concerned about academic standards and the integrity of the institution," Ms Gooding said.
> 
> "It's never been about shutting down an alternative view."
> 
> Labor's higher education spokesman Senator Kim Carr said the Government's support for the centre was politically motivated and the grant for the think tank was an inappropriate use of public money at a time when other universities and research institutes have had their budgets cut.
> 
> "What this government has to understand is that the Australian research program is not the plaything of individual ministers, nor a slush fund for the Liberal Party," he said.
> 
> "This is clearly not an appropriate way to fund research in Australia.
> 
> "We need to protect the integrity of the research program to ensure that it is not subject to the political fortunes of individual ministers or the political prejudices of the Prime Minister."
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-...for-ditching-bjorn-lomborg-think-tank/6457210


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> We really do need to lift the discourse of the the thread, if we are going to degenerate to 'Reds and Greenie's', Julia will roll in her grave.IMO
> 
> Let's try and keep the debate, to sensible, thought out argument.
> 
> Otherwise, I for one won't be involved in the forum, it had robust meaningful debate.
> 
> If it degenerates, we all lose.
> 
> Noco, I'm sure that not all Labor  and Green politicians are communists.
> 
> Also Explod, I'm sure all Greenies, don't give a rat's ar$e about the enviroment. More likely they are concerned about their public persona, and the vote pulling power of it.
> 
> So let's keep it real, sensible and relevant..
> This is the Abbott thread.




SP, I am deeply concerned at the subtle way the Green/Labor party are going about their ideology of democratic socialism...In my mind, democratic socialism is all about central control and they start off by controlling the media, particularly the ABC....Where ever possible the ABC will discredit the Liberal Party and Fairfax is right up there with them.
The majority of the Greens and the Labor left are members of the Fabian society which is an off shoot of communism.
Democratic socialism do not believe  in free enterprise and profits are a dirty word, so Labor do all they can to tax business as high as they can which results in business taking their investments overseas....Is it any wonder business Chanel  their money to Singapore where the corporate tax rate is only 17%.....They have done it legally and I do believe Hockey has endeavored to plug the hole.


----------



## Smurf1976

Fundamentally, it seems reasonable to me that if you do business in Australia then you pay tax in Australia in relation to that business activity. I don't see anything wrong with that concept as such.

Where it gets complicated is with the rate of tax applied and the means of collection.

What rate? 17% seems rather low in view of the overall financial situation, rates of taxation on other things (eg individual income tax) and society's expectations of government. But at the other end, we don't want to end up with something ridiculous like 50% or more.


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> We really do need to lift the discourse of the the thread, if we are going to degenerate to 'Reds and Greenie's', Julia will roll in her grave.IMO
> 
> Let's try and keep the debate, to sensible, thought out argument.
> 
> Otherwise, I for one won't be involved in the forum, it had robust meaningful debate.
> 
> If it degenerates, we all lose.
> 
> Noco, I'm sure that not all Labor  and Green politicians are communists.
> 
> Also Explod, I'm sure all Greenies, don't give a rat's ar$e about the enviroment. More likely they are concerned about their public persona, and the vote pulling power of it.
> 
> So let's keep it real, sensible and relevant..
> This is the Abbott thread.





SP, although a bit off beat of this thread, here is something to digest regarding the Fabian society, what they stand for and some of the notable Labor people who are members...I repeat this list are the notables......I know for a fact the likes of Labor MP'S Chris Bowen, Tony Burke and Jenny Macklin are also members of the Fabian society......The Greens are all members of the Fabians and use the environment as a front.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Fabian_Society

*The Australian Fabians have historically had close ties with the Australian Labor Party, also known as the ALP. This is evidenced by the number of past ALP prime ministers, federal ministers and state premiers who were active members of the Australian Fabians while in office. The role of patron of the Australian Fabians is currently vacant, but ceremonially filled by former Australian prime minister, the late Gough Whitlam.[3] This is a temporary arrangement and the position will be filled when an appropriate person to fund and uphold the society's values is found.

The Australian Fabians have had a significant influence on public policy development in Australia since the Second World War,[citation needed] with many of its members having held influential political offices in Australian governments.[citation needed]*

A list of the notables.


*Gough Whitlam (ALP Prime Minister 1972–75)
    Bob Hawke (ALP Prime Minister 1983–1991)
    Paul Keating (ALP Prime Minister 1991–1996)
    John Cain (ALP Premier of Victoria)
    Jim Cairns (ALP Deputy Prime Minister)
    Don Dunstan (ALP Premier of South Australia)
    Geoff Gallop (ALP Premier of Western Australia)
    Neville Wran (ALP Premier of NSW 1976–86)
    Frank Crean (ALP Deputy Prime Minister)
    Arthur Calwell (ALP Former Leader)
    Race Mathews (ALP MHR and Victorian MLA)
    John Faulkner (ALP Senator and National President)
    Julia Gillard (ALP Australia's first female Prime Minister)
    John Lenders (ALP Treasurer of Victoria)
    Clarrie Martin (ALP Attorney General of New South Wales)
    Tanya Plibersek (Federal member for Sydney (ALP) 1998 - )
    Henry Hyde Champion (Journalist)
    Nettie Palmer (Writer)
    Charles Strong (Clergyman)
    Charles Marson (Clergyman)
    David Charleston (Trade Unionist)
    Bernard O'Dowd (Writer)
    Phillip Adams (Broadcaster)
*


----------



## McLovin




----------



## trainspotter

McLovin said:


> View attachment 62537








Just drink the Kool Aid McLovin


----------



## explod

If one wants to win the argument yet not have the answers then the slinging of mud seems to be effective here. 

This thread is touching on winning the argument being uppermost,  almost to the non-objective. 

Thown up has been the "fabians,  lefties,  commos and reds"  as the opposing threats to the Libs and society itself. 

One could equally on the right side of politics,  introduce the Freemasons,  the Carbonara and the banking system ie Rothchilds who are the real ones controlling all Governments. 

Allthough being aware of the above, it is my view in discussions that we respect each others different point of view so that we may learn of where we are at here,  on the ground,  today in society.   I for example am not involved  in some undermining dark group,  but just wanting to live in harmony with the people (of all persuasions) whithin my own suburb and community. 

Lets talk of ideas,  where are the jobs coming from,  can we help the poor and business alike,  can we stop our inventions from going offshore,  would we be better to create jobs with a livable pay rate for the unemployed,  and so on. 

Can we be objective.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> If one wants to win the argument yet not have the answers then the slinging of mud seems to be effective here.
> 
> This thread is touching on winning the argument being uppermost,  almost to the non-objective.
> 
> Thown up has been the "fabians,  lefties,  commos and reds"  as the opposing threats to the Libs and society itself.
> 
> One could equally on the right side of politics,  introduce the Freemasons,  the Carbonara and the banking system ie Rothchilds who are the real ones controlling all Governments.
> 
> Allthough being aware of the above, it is my view in discussions that we respect each others different point of view so that we may learn of where we are at here,  on the ground,  today in society.   I for example am not involved  in some undermining dark group,  but just wanting to live in harmony with the people (of all persuasions) whithin my own suburb and community.
> 
> Lets talk of ideas,  where are the jobs coming from,  can we help the poor and business alike,  can we stop our inventions from going offshore,  would we be better to create jobs with a livable pay rate for the unemployed,  and so on.
> 
> Can we be objective.




Slinging "MUD"????????...I don't see any mud, what I see is fact and you when it is pointed out to you, you do not like it because it is a slur on Labor..

Where are the fobs coming from?????????????
Certainly not from the Queensland government...Palsazczuk is destroying jobs in Queensland.
One of her Ministers stated this week that miners have no right to mine in Queensland.

Private enterprise is the work engine of the country...Destroy their incentive with higher taxes and red and green tape like the Labor did and you will have higher unemployment....Governments don't create jobs except in the PS which normally gets over loaded under Labor.

More frontline jobs are at threat under the Palaszczuk-Gordon Government.
The LGAQ is today warning 1500 frontline jobs are at threat because of State Government moves to unionise councils.
This follows the sacking of 65 frontline health workers yesterday. It comes just hours after Energy Minister Mark Bailey told parliament – “I regard all of our staff in the public sector as frontline staff. We will defend them.”

The only job the Palaszczuk-Gordon government has saved this week, is Billy Gordon’s, the Member for Cook.

*Queensland’s unemployment rate is 0.5% above the national average, as Labor’s infrastructure freeze continues.More frontline jobs are at threat under the Palaszczuk-Gordon Government.
The LGAQ is today warning 1500 frontline jobs are at threat because of State Government moves to unionise councils.
This follows the sacking of 65 frontline health workers yesterday. It comes just hours after Energy Minister Mark Bailey told parliament – “I regard all of our staff in the public sector as frontline staff. We will defend them.”

The only job the Palaszczuk-Gordon government has saved this week, is Billy Gordon’s, the Member for Cook.
Queensland’s unemployment rate is 0.5% above the national average, as Labor’s infrastructure freeze continues.*


----------



## SirRumpole

Smurf1976 said:


> Fundamentally, it seems reasonable to me that if you do business in Australia then you pay tax in Australia in relation to that business activity. I don't see anything wrong with that concept as such.
> 
> Where it gets complicated is with the rate of tax applied and the means of collection.
> 
> What rate? 17% seems rather low in view of the overall financial situation, rates of taxation on other things (eg individual income tax) and society's expectations of government. But at the other end, we don't want to end up with something ridiculous like 50% or more.




Maybe get rid of all company profits tax and just tax the distribution to shareholders at their marginal rate.

No expenses or deductions to worry about for the tax department and would be a saving on compliance costs for business.

Overseas distributions of dividend would be taxed at say 30%, equal to the old corporate tax. Of course you would get shareholders moving offshore to reduce their tax, but they will at least pay their fair share.


----------



## banco

The childcare stuff is a good idea but they need to go harder on the oldies:

The Abbott government has unveiled its long-promised childcare package pledging more money for many families from 2017 but stripping others, such as stay at home mothers, of nearly all of the childcare assistance they currently receive unless they meet a new more rigorous work activity test. 

The plan would see some parents substantially better off with a claimed $1500 a year average advantage - a sweetener for a budget to released on Tuesday that was supposed to continue the task of deficit reduction, while being otherwise dull and routine.

The model introduces a means tested single payment and a new childcare card in the $3.5 billion package in which childcare centres are paid directly by government for the baseline costs of service provision.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/fede...eveals-childcare-reforms-20150509-ggy4y6.html


----------



## Smurf1976

Here's one way that tax is being avoided. The very sort of thing that needs to be clamped down on well before we start raising the rates for those actually paying tax or throwing those in genuine need on the scrap heap. 

http://www.watoday.com.au/business/...ler-of-the-highest-order-20150509-ggwvm3.html



> appears to be merrily making after-tax net profits from lending to its subsidiaries. Put another way, it is getting foreign taxpayers to pay for its third-party loans. There is $15 billion in related-party loans.


----------



## sptrawler

I watched Bowen on the ABC today, it was quite interesting, he suggested the government needs to apply strict fiscal management. 
Actually the whole spiel was weird, I wondered why the presenter didn't ask him, why Labor were so inept for six years.

It would appear Howard, Costello and Abbott, Hockey are to blame for our situation.
The Labor years, are seemingly being removed, from our history.

At street level, my mates who work for the council, are worried we are going to end up like Greece.

The next election, will see a big majority, one way or the other.IMO


----------



## sptrawler

Here we go go again, the Government needs to tighten middle class welfare, Labor want to torpedo it.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/f...ss-out-in-childcare-plan-20150510-ggye85.html

The budget keeps blowing out.

The problem is compounding up, and up, and up.

It won't be too many years, before the debt payments exceed our capacity, to meet our obligations.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Here we go go again, the Government needs to tighten middle class welfare, Labor want to torpedo it.
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/national/f...ss-out-in-childcare-plan-20150510-ggye85.html
> 
> The budget keeps blowing out.
> 
> The problem is compounding up, and up, and up.
> 
> It won't be too many years, before the debt payments exceed our capacity, to meet our obligations.




Both parties have their blinkers.

labor doesn't want reasonable changes to the pension.

Liberals don't want to touch the sacrosanct super tax concessions.

Labor wont support an increase in fuel excise, even though it would marginally help with the environment.  

Liberals foiled Labor's attempts to stop the car FBT rort.

Neither party is particularly coherent in their economic claims.

The question is why is it OK for the Liberals to bring in a $45B deficit, when Labor was being howled down for less?  Hockey now talks not about reducing the absolute deficit, but just stabilising it as a % of GDP ie as long as the deficit increases at a slower rate than GDP growth that's OK.  If Labor was proposing this I'm sure there's be plenty of vitriolic comments on this forum.


----------



## Tisme

Latest budget = what emergency!!?? Actually we are such good shape we can run a bigger deficit, no probs.

I'm starting to think Abbott and his fawning ministers might have sold his adoring fans a pup insofar as the dire warnings of our fiscal and financial affairs.   The solution all along was simply to take away the undeserved freebies being given to the poor, needy and lower income earners ... you know that humanity anchor around all our collective necks who spoil an otherwise hard working latte lifestyle followed by a deserved early, tax payer subsidised, retirement. If only the no hopers would go out and get a job and pay tax so we didn't need to suffer.

Apparently governance is a three year cycle : 

First year is a honeymoon period where you do nothing but blame the previous administration as an excuse for doing that same nothing;

Second year is for bringing in the serious ambit control measures that apparently should have been done urgently done by the previous administration, but required a gap year to work out by the same highly paid public servants who recommended the spend in the first place;

Third year is to go into election mode and grease pork barrels in readiness for the tough fight to keep the previous administration from wrecking all the good work  done in the last three years, come election time.


----------



## Tisme

Whoops I just turned on the telly and Mathias Cormann has laid out the problem ... it's all Labor's fault that they can't govern. I forgot that Bill Shorten is actually Prime Minister and the Libs are trying to push their agenda into strong headwinds of continuing Labor mismanagement.

At least Matt is accepting the Labor Govt can't control the falling income from mining, but they(Labor) still need to fix their mess. 

I have to go and apologise to my drinking mates down the pub for insisting the LNP were voted in last election by a lot of voting people who thought they had the answers to a fabricated emergency, as it turns out.


----------



## sydboy007

well worth a read

http://www.project-syndicate.org/co...l-polarization-by-mohamed-a--el-erian-2015-05



> One such trend is the political fragmentation and polarization evident in Western democracies. Fringe movements, some operating within established political structures, and others seeking to create new ones, are placing pressure on traditional parties, making it difficult for them to mobilize their supporters, and, in some cases, causing them real damage. *Desperate not to appear weak, long-established parties have become wary of cooperating across the aisle.*






> Likewise, policymakers should be revamping incoherent and inconsistent tax structures that are riddled with unfair exemptions. And they should be pursuing immigration reform to overhaul a system that penalizes talent, encourages malfeasance, and, as illustrated by the thousands of migrants who have drowned in the Mediterranean Sea in recent years while trying to reach Europe, often leads to human tragedy.






> Add to that an increasingly polarized and quasi-tribal news media, which can amplify divisions in society, and the scope for collaborative transformation is extremely limited.


----------



## Tisme

Tisme said:


> Whoops I just turned on the telly and Mathias Cormann has laid out the problem ... it's all Labor's fault that they can't govern. I forgot that Bill Shorten is actually Prime Minister and the Libs are trying to push their agenda into strong headwinds of continuing Labor mismanagement.
> 
> At least Matt is accepting the Labor Govt can't control the falling income from mining, but they(Labor) still need to fix their mess.
> 
> I have to go and apologise to my drinking mates down the pub for insisting the LNP were voted in last election by a lot of voting people who thought they had the answers to a fabricated emergency, as it turns out.




It's not just Mathias who can't string a sentence together without referring to Labor, for the last two nights of senate broadcast the same can be said for the LNP talking heads as a whole.

Anyway, risking some kind of conspiracy outcry from our resident LNP tragic about ABC bias, I thought this Lateline special was particularly entertaining last night (please note you will be watching someone with intelligence demolish a metasyntactic knucklehead):


snippet here:

http://www.news.com.au/finance/econ...-mathias-cormann/story-fn84fgcm-1227352758789

full interview here:

http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/lateline/NC1571H047S00

I do love it when Australians pass the fair go boundaries


----------



## orr

Tisme said:


> It's not just Mathias who can't string a sentence together without referring to Labor, for the last two nights of senate broadcast the same can be said for the LNP talking heads as a whole.
> 
> Anyway, risking some kind of conspiracy outcry from our resident LNP tragic about ABC bias, D




The lunar right, anti immigration, cage the reffo's, english dipstick Nigel Franage in his own self-serving crude way was able to lampoon the Belgian's in the EU. Little wonder Mathias looked as comfortable as he was receiving a chilli oil " 'enema' reachy", when quizzed by someone capable of taking him apart with his own rusty scalpel. Give that man an 'exploding'  cigar.

Farage ... for those who care to waste their time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bypLwI5AQvY


----------



## trainspotter

orr said:


> The lunar right, anti immigration, cage the reffo's, english dipstick Nigel Franage in his own self-serving crude way was able to lampoon the Belgian's in the EU. Little wonder Mathias looked as comfortable as he was receiving a chilli oil " 'enema' reachy", when quizzed by someone capable of taking him apart with his own rusty scalpel. Give that man an 'exploding'  cigar.
> 
> Farage ... for those who care to waste their time.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bypLwI5AQvY




Why does Herman van Rompuy look like John Howard?



*=*


----------



## orr

trainspotter said:


> Why does Herman van Rompuy look like John Howard?




Because Will Smith has ears like




 a porcupine???


----------



## trainspotter

orr said:


> Because Will Smith has ears like
> 
> View attachment 62567
> 
> 
> a porcupine???
> 
> View attachment 62564
> View attachment 62565




Now you are just being silly.


----------



## sptrawler

So, the whole thread is going to degenerate, to teenage stupid humour?

Maybe one of you clowns, can do a real life image ,of Rudd eating earwax.

Really, most would be wondering why they bother, reading the posts.

This really is degenerating.


----------



## Caveman

I Kinda thought the thread degenerated a long time ago.


----------



## orr

sptrawler said:


> So, the whole thread is going to degenerate, to teenage stupid humour?
> 
> 
> 
> This really is degenerating.




Obviously you neglected to view M. time in the pillory with Ms Alberici. Welcome your critique when your ready.
At least the Abbott Gov hasn't degenerated, It's the same hapless slime it was to start with. Will Abbott preside over the first years of recession in a quarter century? There's degeneration.....


----------



## Tisme

Remember that day we were all blindsided by Rudd announcing a Mining Tax? I certainly remember the WTF thought bubble and the instant prediction poor 'ol Kevin was for the knacker's yard.

Well now that poor 'ol Tony has been made to sideline Credlin, he may not have had the instant hit to the senses Kevin did, but his rudderless (pun) ship with the crew doing whatever they want, is tantamount to the same end game. I can see a new thread pending by year's end : "The Morrison Government".

The budget is so glaringly a back pedal, even to those who have blind faith in the whatever the LNP stand for this year. The major voting plank of economic and fiscal responsibility is out the window and 18% debt to GDP here we come in a few years. Of course though they crow it, the LNP govt have never taken "responsibility" for economic and fiscal issues :- it's all Labor's (i.e. half the voting public's) fault, lust like it was Keating's fault until time enough had passed to give credit where credit was due and then it was Howard's ideas anyway.

Is there anyone out there who wants to lead, without punishing the public for their errant voting of the past


----------



## sydboy007

Tax whitepaper - tax free super for over 60s is unsustainable

Tony Abbott on super taxation - There will be no changes to super, no adverse changes to super in this term of Parliament, and we have no plans to make adverse changes to super in the future,”

So before much community discussion about tax reform has been allowed we have the Govt saying:

* No Negative Gearing reforms

* No super tax reforms

* Primary residence to remain invisible for access to the pension

One has to wonder why they even bothered with the expense of all the inquiries.

Combined with their utopian views of revenue in the budget, and Rusty Iron Titanicus is well and truly moving deck chairs for the finale.  Hockeynomics at it's finest.

I wonder if sports bets will have anything for who presides over the next recession / loss of the AAA rating.


----------



## dutchie

Tisme said:


> Is there anyone out there who wants to lead, without punishing the public for their errant voting of the past




No there is not.

The only aim, *of both parties*, at the start of a new government (from day 1) is to get re-elected.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Tax whitepaper - tax free super for over 60s is unsustainable
> 
> Tony Abbott on super taxation - There will be no changes to super, no adverse changes to super in this term of Parliament, and we have no plans to make adverse changes to super in the future,”
> 
> So before much community discussion about tax reform has been allowed we have the Govt saying:
> 
> * No Negative Gearing reforms
> 
> * No super tax reforms
> 
> * Primary residence to remain invisible for access to the pension
> 
> One has to wonder why they even bothered with the expense of all the inquiries.
> 
> Combined with their utopian views of revenue in the budget, and Rusty Iron Titanicus is well and truly moving deck chairs for the finale.  Hockeynomics at it's finest.
> 
> I wonder if sports bets will have anything for who presides over the next recession / loss of the AAA rating.





I must admit, I'm shocked, for all the song and dance about the tax revue, they've done nothing.

Extremely disappointing, Australian politics has become an absolute joke. IMO


----------



## Knobby22

sptrawler said:


> I must admit, I'm shocked, for all the song and dance about the tax revue, they've done nothing.
> 
> Extremely disappointing, Australian politics has become an absolute joke. IMO




Trying to make some sense of it all,
 But I can see that it makes no sense at all,
 Is it cool to go to sleep on the floor,
 'Cause I don't think that I can take anymore
 Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right,
 Here I am, stuck in the middle with you

Read more: Stealers Wheel - Stuck In The Middle With You Lyrics | MetroLyrics


----------



## SirRumpole

Budget 2015: Assistant Treasurer Josh Frydenberg admits wife 'double dipped' on paid parental leave


Assistant Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has revealed his wife claimed paid parental leave payments from her employer and the Government, as Labor steps up its attacks on the Coalition's plan to stop women benefiting from two schemes.



"We accessed both schemes as my wife was entitled to and there are many people I'm sure on both sides of the House who have done that," Mr Frydenberg told Sky News.



Finance Minister Mathias Cormann, who is also on cabinet's Expenditure Review Committee, has deflected questions about whether his wife claimed money from two schemes.



Earlier today Senator Cormann described the Coalition's push to stop women getting two payments as a "fairness measure" and defended the Government calling it "double dipping".

Analysis from The Drum



Johnathan Green: We've fallen through the ideological looking glass

Alan Kohler: You call yourself an 'infrastructure prime minister'?



But this afternoon, under questioning from Labor senator Sam Dastyari, Senator Cormann did not deny his wife Hayley, a Perth lawyer, received benefits from her employer, Clayton Utz, and the Government PPL scheme.



"Let me confirm for him that I have indeed had a little child in 2013 and that our family of course worked within a system that was available at the time like any other family and that my family will work within whatever system is in place in the future," Senator Cormann said.



The Clayton Utz website specifies that: "Staff with five years' continuous service or more will receive 18 weeks' leave at full pay, with maximum non-primary carer benefits increasing to three weeks' leave at full pay".

More on this story:



New paid parental leave scheme needs to acknowledge existing deals, Nick Xenophon says

Tony Abbott denies ministers called mums 'rorters and fraudsters' over PPL 'double-dipping'

Childcare package overshadowed by concerns over proposed cuts to paid parental leave scheme

Mathias Cormann urges Bill Shorten to 'show us the money' in reply speech

Nationals urge Joe Hockey to bring forward immediate tax write-off for fencing, irrigation at farms



"The firm's parental pay policy offering is in addition to the Government's Paid Parental Leave scheme."



Malcolm Turnbull earlier refused to back the language his frontbench colleagues Joe Hockey and Scott Morrison have used to criticise the existing paid parental leave arrangements.



On Sunday, Mr Hockey agreed with Channel Nine journalist Laurie Oakes that getting money from both schemes was "basically fraud".



The next day, Mr Morrison told Sky News being able to benefit from both schemes was "in many cases... a rort".



Mr Turnbull said he agrees with the policy change but will not back his colleagues' language.



"I don't agree that ministers have used that language," Mr Turnbull said.



"Let's not have an argument about semantics.



"I'm not using that language and I don't agree.



"I think it's very important that we always respect and show due empathy and concern and consideration for families and particularly mothers."

More at

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-14/budget-2-15-josh-frydenberg-ppl-wife-double-dipped/6469578


Rorters and fraudsters all...


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> Budget 2015: Assistant Treasurer Josh Frydenberg admits wife 'double dipped' on paid parental leave
> 
> 
> Assistant Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has revealed his wife claimed paid parental leave payments from her employer and the Government, as Labor steps up its attacks on the Coalition's plan to stop women benefiting from two schemes.
> 
> 
> 
> "We accessed both schemes as my wife was entitled to and there are many people I'm sure on both sides of the House who have done that," Mr Frydenberg told Sky News.
> 
> 
> 
> Finance Minister Mathias Cormann, who is also on cabinet's Expenditure Review Committee, has deflected questions about whether his wife claimed money from two schemes.
> 
> 
> 
> Earlier today Senator Cormann described the Coalition's push to stop women getting two payments as a "fairness measure" and defended the Government calling it "double dipping".
> 
> Analysis from The Drum
> 
> 
> 
> Johnathan Green: We've fallen through the ideological looking glass
> 
> Alan Kohler: You call yourself an 'infrastructure prime minister'?
> 
> 
> 
> But this afternoon, under questioning from Labor senator Sam Dastyari, Senator Cormann did not deny his wife Hayley, a Perth lawyer, received benefits from her employer, Clayton Utz, and the Government PPL scheme.
> 
> 
> 
> "Let me confirm for him that I have indeed had a little child in 2013 and that our family of course worked within a system that was available at the time like any other family and that my family will work within whatever system is in place in the future," Senator Cormann said.
> 
> 
> 
> The Clayton Utz website specifies that: "Staff with five years' continuous service or more will receive 18 weeks' leave at full pay, with maximum non-primary carer benefits increasing to three weeks' leave at full pay".
> 
> More on this story:
> 
> 
> 
> New paid parental leave scheme needs to acknowledge existing deals, Nick Xenophon says
> 
> Tony Abbott denies ministers called mums 'rorters and fraudsters' over PPL 'double-dipping'
> 
> Childcare package overshadowed by concerns over proposed cuts to paid parental leave scheme
> 
> Mathias Cormann urges Bill Shorten to 'show us the money' in reply speech
> 
> Nationals urge Joe Hockey to bring forward immediate tax write-off for fencing, irrigation at farms
> 
> 
> 
> "The firm's parental pay policy offering is in addition to the Government's Paid Parental Leave scheme."
> 
> 
> 
> Malcolm Turnbull earlier refused to back the language his frontbench colleagues Joe Hockey and Scott Morrison have used to criticise the existing paid parental leave arrangements.
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, Mr Hockey agreed with Channel Nine journalist Laurie Oakes that getting money from both schemes was "basically fraud".
> 
> 
> 
> The next day, Mr Morrison told Sky News being able to benefit from both schemes was "in many cases... a rort".
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Turnbull said he agrees with the policy change but will not back his colleagues' language.
> 
> 
> 
> "I don't agree that ministers have used that language," Mr Turnbull said.
> 
> 
> 
> "Let's not have an argument about semantics.
> 
> 
> 
> "I'm not using that language and I don't agree.
> 
> 
> 
> "I think it's very important that we always respect and show due empathy and concern and consideration for families and particularly mothers."
> 
> More at
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-14/budget-2-15-josh-frydenberg-ppl-wife-double-dipped/6469578
> 
> 
> Rorters and fraudsters all...





Here we go again, media and political bull$hit, last year it was get rid of PPL as it's middle class welfare.

This year, it's let the middle class get Government PPL and employer PPL, jeez some of these people need a reality check.

My daughter recieved two weeks PPL from her job, after 13 years service, she has taken 12 months leave without pay as a single mother and doesn't complain at all.
I'm not saying she is a saint, but people really need to get over themselves. This me, me , me mentality will be the end of Australia, as we know it.IMO

Unfortunately, the politicians seem to be the worst example of the phenomena.IMO


----------



## Knobby22

Josh Frydenberg did not do anything wrong or dishonest.
All the other families did not do something wrong or dishonest.

They were the rules and now the Libs want to change it as is their right. 
This is getting ridiculous.


----------



## noco

Knobby22 said:


> Josh Frydenberg did not do anything wrong or dishonest.
> All the other families did not do something wrong or dishonest.
> 
> They were the rules and now the Libs want to change it as is their right.
> This is getting ridiculous.





Bill Shorten is always sprouting about fairness for all.

So is this fair for all or should some get more than others.?


----------



## pixel

Knobby22 said:


> Josh Frydenberg did not do anything wrong or dishonest.
> All the other families did not do something wrong or dishonest.
> 
> They were the rules and now the Libs want to change it as is their right.
> This is getting ridiculous.




It's the rhetoric that's getting ridiculous:

Nobody would accuse Mrs Gormann or Frydenberg of any wrongdoing in a legal sense. Morally, it might be questionable why a highly-paid lawyer and wife of an overpaid politician needs that kind of support, but when was the last time you've seen that kind of morality...
The fact that she could claim taxpayer support can only be seen as a flaw in the enabling legislation, and it's commendable that plans are now being drawn up to address the previous mistake. 
It should, however, be done citing the true reason: "We're correcting an oversight that led to unintended consequences", not with the "double-dipping" accusation implying it was the mothers' fault. But again, when was the last time you heard a politician admitting "we stuffed up and this is how we'll fix it"...


----------



## Logique

Removal of the double-dipping parental leave has been one of the better government decisions in many years.

It's been a rort, at the expense of their private sector and stay-at-home sisters.

Emma Alberici, the ABC have been grooming her for years, she complies obediently to the prevailing orthodoxy. As does Leigh Sales.  

What might have been.


----------



## IFocus

Away overseas on hols at the moment been out of contact in paradise surfing the dream and find this thread dormant...............wonder why then I see the budget and the spin jaw dropping is the polite way to describe it all.  

I this mob for real? 

Seriously will Abbott do any thing to get re-elected and against a weak ineffectual opposition, desperation plus as new lows reached.

Got that off my chest now back to paradise and the next wave to catch, after another Bintang please .........


----------



## trainspotter

IFocus said:


> Away overseas on hols at the moment been out of contact in paradise surfing the dream and find this thread dormant...............wonder why then I see the budget and the spin jaw dropping is the polite way to describe it all.
> 
> I this mob for real?
> 
> Seriously will Abbott do any thing to get re-elected and against a weak ineffectual opposition, desperation plus as new lows reached.
> 
> Got that off my chest now back to paradise and the next wave to catch, after another Bintang please .........




Boleh saya minta satu dingin kecil Bir Bintang .. cepat cepat. Is what you should have said IFocus


----------



## IFocus

trainspotter said:


> Boleh saya minta satu dingin kecil Bir Bintang .. cepat cepat. Is what you should have said IFocus




Thanks Trainspotter learning Bahsa Indonesian is on my list


----------



## trainspotter

IFocus said:


> Thanks Trainspotter learning Bahsa Indonesian is on my list




Which part of Indo are you at IFocus?


----------



## trainspotter

*Strong results for the Coalition and Prime Minister Tony Abbott in new poll results*




> A markedly different picture emerged from a new Fairfax-Ipsos poll, which found support for the Coalition and Labor at 50 per cent each, a marked increase for the government since April’s 46-54 result.
> In the first time since April last year, Tony Abbott has shot into the lead, ahead of Labor’s Bill Shorten, as the preferred prime minister, at 44-39.
> Mr Abbott’s approval rating ”” sitting at minus eight ”” has climbed by eight percentage points while Mr Shorten’s has sunk to minus four, according to Fairfax Media.




http://www.news.com.au/national/pol...new-poll-results/story-fns0jze1-1227358413171


----------



## SirRumpole

trainspotter said:


> *Strong results for the Coalition and Prime Minister Tony Abbott in new poll results*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/national/pol...new-poll-results/story-fns0jze1-1227358413171




Seems that people have forgotten that if it wasn't for the Opposition the Budget would be full of booby traps for those on lower incomes and those who could not fight back with big donations to the Liberal party.

This is the most political budget from the most untrustworthy government in decades, and if they think it's an election winner, they should have a go at one.


----------



## sydboy007

Logique said:


> Removal of the double-dipping parental leave has been one of the better government decisions in many years.
> 
> It's been a rort, at the expense of their private sector and stay-at-home sisters.
> 
> Emma Alberici, the ABC have been grooming her for years, she complies obediently to the prevailing orthodoxy. As does Leigh Sales.
> 
> What might have been.




Private sector companies are complaining that they will have to renegotiate their workplace agreements now that offering paid maternity has been declared null and void by the Govt.

I find it strange that people who've probably negotiated away some take home pay are now viewed as double dipping rorters.

The Govt isn't funding the private sector paid maternity leave, and enjoyed the lower wages from having the public sector negotiate for it.

They've basically flip flopped from telling woman for years that 6 months is the minimum time they should be home with their child while receiving Govt support to being told 18 weeks is pretty much it.


----------



## sydboy007

trainspotter said:


> *Strong results for the Coalition and Prime Minister Tony Abbott in new poll results*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/national/pol...new-poll-results/story-fns0jze1-1227358413171




So the voters just reward Governments offering bribes yet again.

We surely do get the Govts we deserve.


----------



## trainspotter

sydboy007 said:


> So the voters just reward Governments offering bribes yet again.
> 
> We surely do get the Govts we deserve.




Which is why we voted the last lot out


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> I find it strange that people who've probably negotiated away some take home pay are now viewed as double dipping rorters.
> .




Or you have the other side of the coin, where workers have negotiated away most of their maternity leave for a pay rise.

As has happened in my daughters work place, which mainly is composed of older women.

Funnily enough she is on around $40k a year, paid for IVF (no partner), saved enough to support herself for 12 months leave without pay. Her EBA included two weeks paid maternity leave.

The really interesting part is, she doesn't complain, just gets on with it.

It is something she decided to do and she did it. My wife and myself have helped as much as we can, but she never asked for assistance.

It shows there are people, who are responsible enough, to accept their responsibilities.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Seems that people have forgotten that if it wasn't for the Opposition the Budget would be full of booby traps for those on lower incomes and those who could not fight back with big donations to the Liberal party.
> 
> This is the most political budget from the most untrustworthy government in decades, and if they think it's an election winner, they should have a go at one.




The majority of people have not forgotten the financial mess the Green/Labor socialist coalition left the country in, in 2013.

Abbott tried to stop the extravagant spending by Labor 2007/2013 and Shorten is trying the stop the savings Abbott is trying to make in this current period....The Labor propaganda machine pound the footpath with this NO..NO..NO.. by Abbott as an excuse to retaliate.

You can read Labor like a book.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> The majority of people have not forgotten the financial mess the Green/Labor socialist coalition left the country in, in 2013.
> 
> Abbott tried to stop the extravagant spending by Labor 2007/2013 and Shorten is trying the stop the savings Abbott is trying to make in this current period....The Labor propaganda machine pound the footpath with this NO..NO..NO.. by Abbott as an excuse to retaliate.
> 
> You can read Labor like a book.




Meanwhile Abbott is out spending every last dollar saved, and then some more, to try and save his political bacon.

He's canned any talk on the GST, super taxation reform, Negative Gearing, and pension income.  The tax white paper has been neutered to the point of wondering why he wasted the money to run it????  Hockey was scathing of Labor for ignoring the Henry Tax Review, yet he's quite happy to nod away while Abbott basically stalls any meaningful reform.

What will you say when it starts to become obvious the utopian budget settings aren't occurring and the deficit starts to head for the mid 40s?

At what time does the current Government start to own the deficit?


----------



## Tisme

sydboy007 said:


> At what time does the current Government start to own the deficit?




Do you not remember "that" kid at primary school who was always on the periphery telling tales, cajoling, spreading innuendo, blaming anyone but himself/herself for whatever was supposed to be wrong, basically lying through his/her teeth and causing friction and hate for the sake of it? Did you ever see that kid take the blame for anything? ....did you ever wonder what happened to the little snot and what crack he/she crawled back into?


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> The majority of people have not forgotten the financial mess the Green/Labor socialist coalition left the country in, in 2013.
> 
> Abbott tried to stop the extravagant spending by Labor 2007/2013 and Shorten is trying the stop the savings Abbott is trying to make in this current period....The* Labor propaganda machine *pound the footpath with this NO..NO..NO.. by Abbott as an excuse to retaliate.
> 
> You can read Labor like a book.




Then there is the minority of us who don't forget the misery from high interest rates in the eighties caused by gross economic mismanagement during the late seventies. Us who don't forget how trade pacts negotiated by the ALP govt between our Asian neighbours were hijacked by the LNP because of overt racial bias and pro USA sentiment. Us who don't forget the troops sent to a war that had no foundation in Iraq. Us who don't forget the lies on election eve about babies overboard. The lies that economic management of selling public owned institutions (established by a nationalistic ALP) to pay down debt is good economic management, and now the cupboard is bare there is nothing else to sell so lets have a go at state assets. 

We don't forgive or forget the "*propaganda machine*" that is News Corp and it's manipulation and exclusion of facts and fairness.

We don't forget how stupid and naÃ¯ve this govt and the previous govt is/was. We want maturity of governance for Australians where we are allowed to be traditionally politically incorrect and allowed to have a go without all the fricken trade restrictions from govt red tape and permissions. That's really what we true blues want = to be left alone to make a quid and enjoy life don't you think?


----------



## trainspotter

Tisme said:


> We don't forget how stupid and naÃ¯ve this govt and the previous govt is/was. We want maturity of governance for Australians where we are allowed to be traditionally politically incorrect and allowed to have a go without all the fricken trade restrictions from govt red tape and permissions. That's really what we true blues want = to be left alone to make a quid and enjoy life don't you think?













Words fail me so I thought I would respond with a series of cartoons instead that aptly describe the political mood of the Australian sheeple when the Labor government were in power.


----------



## Tisme

This is the Abbott govt thread. You need to post that in the ALP thread instead.


----------



## trainspotter

Just reminding the squeaky wheels that it is not a one way street


----------



## Tisme

trainspotter said:


> Just reminding the squeaky wheels that it is not a one way street




I appreciate that too. But by now you would realise I'm impervious to tribalism and if I'm a sheep I'm generally a lone one on another street altogether. I blame my political pedigree for the scepticism of all things political.


----------



## trainspotter

Wolves attack the lone sheep first 




Meanwhile back at the ranch ...



> *A deal has been reached to reduce Australia's renewable energy target to 33,000 gigawatt hours after the government agreed to drop regular reviews of the scheme.*
> 
> The government and Labor reached an agreement during talks in Melbourne on Monday morning, ending more than 12 months of political deadlock.
> 
> It is hoped the deal will unlock investment in Australia's renewable energy sector which has been stalled since the government launched its review last year of the bipartisan target of 41,000 gigawatt hours of annual renewable energy production by 2020




http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...wable-energy-target-deal-20150518-gh4161.html


----------



## sydboy007

Tisme said:


> Then there is the minority of us who don't forget the misery from high interest rates in the eighties caused by gross economic mismanagement during the late seventies. Us who don't forget how trade pacts negotiated by the ALP govt between our Asian neighbours were hijacked by the LNP because of overt racial bias and pro USA sentiment. Us who don't forget the troops sent to a war that had no foundation in Iraq. Us who don't forget the lies on election eve about babies overboard. The lies that economic management of selling public owned institutions (established by a nationalistic ALP) to pay down debt is good economic management, and now the cupboard is bare there is nothing else to sell so lets have a go at state assets.
> 
> We don't forgive or forget the "*propaganda machine*" that is News Corp and it's manipulation and exclusion of facts and fairness.
> 
> We don't forget how stupid and naÃ¯ve this govt and the previous govt is/was. We want maturity of governance for Australians where we are allowed to be traditionally politically incorrect and allowed to have a go without all the fricken trade restrictions from govt red tape and permissions. That's really what we true blues want = to be left alone to make a quid and enjoy life don't you think?




Why is it the Abbott Govt is about the only one fully gungho on signing the TPP?

Why is it the Australian parliament is one of the few to not have actually seen the draft texts of the TPP.  Even the Malaysia parliament has been read in.  The only info that Australians have is what Edward Snowden has leaked.  How is that a way to treat a democracy?

Now there's rumours that the USA wants further access for yankee beef into the country.  Yeah, as if we want the risk of the odd mad cow entering the food chain here.

Will be very very interesting to see if the Nationals have the cajones to actually stand up for the rural voters they're supposed to represent, of it it will be just another rubber stamp on what the Liberals put in front of them.

Our best hope is the US senate continues to Kibosh Obahma's fast track approval which would hold up the TPP well into the presidential race and pretty much kill it off for a couple of years - at least.

Considering we know how well the AUS US FTA has been for the country, with PBS costs over $200M higher every year and the trade deficit with the USA ballooning, surely the Libs don't need to bend the country over yet again fro another good rogering via a dud (mis)managed trade deal???


----------



## explod

Tisme and Sydboy,   for recent posts. 

Some of us older codgers just cannot believe the way of Guvmint today. And probably why we do not post much,  we are aghast. 

Just listening to the enquiry into abuse of youngsters by the Catholic Church in the 80s covering Ballarat today.  The Bishop and Police knew but turned a blind eye five years prior to the greater abuse that led to multiple suicides. 

The youngsters,  stired up by Liberal propoganda to defy (as youngsters do)  and returning from overseas as they now see their error.   I have no doubt these kids would not have involved themselves if Governments had the sense to not flood the news with this rubbish.  Let them come home,  they are just full of juvinile beans. 

And our best trading partner now,  China being slapped in the face by allowing the US to upgrade its arsenal in Darwin.  Chineses buying farms and helping to hold the property market up,  top officials out here playing golf.   What's going on. 

And boat people drowning at sea and no one gives a fiddlers.   The give 300 of them 500 acres,  food for 6 months then they have to feed and look after themselves (chooks and vegitables) water of course and I betbin 2 years they would be selling excess. 

We are in such dreamland now that no one can see the way to help each other and our fellows. 

CCuumoorn noco,  where are the jobs actually coming from.  6th prompt.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Tisme and Sydboy,   for recent posts.
> 
> 
> CCuumoorn noco,  where are the jobs actually coming from.  6th prompt.




Have patience dear Liza, have patience...They are on the way.

But I would not depend on the Queensland government...They are destroying jobs.


----------



## explod

What is on the way noco,  is it somesort of trade or security secret. 

We are just talking about jobs,  and if pointed the right way with some government investment they would reduce the deficit. 

Noco,  the jobs,  7th prompt??


----------



## trainspotter

Bit early to be hitting the sauce bottle plod? 

Where are the jobs coming from ....... Hmmmmmmmmmm let's think about that now shall we 



> *The government has placed an emphasis on the creation of jobs in Australia.* A big part of this is the announcement that small businesses will get an immediate 100 per cent tax write off for assets costing less than $20,000, as well as the reduction of tax for small business owners - those with annual turnover under $2 million. *This will allow startups and SMEs to stimulate jobs growth*, as they can improve their cash flow and create new employment opportunities.
> 
> *The SME sector is the biggest employer in Australia and offers significant potential for innovation and the creation of new jobs and industries in the coming years. *The stimulation package that has been announced is likely to have a *positive impact on jobs by freeing up cash flow* to enable these businesses to grow and invest in their future.
> 
> *In addition to this, the treasurer has announced the Australian Infrastructure Facilit*y, will 'unleash our nation’s potential'. *With $5 billion available for concessional loans for infrastructure *in the north of the country, as well as $101.3 million in funding over four years to improve road infrastructure for cattle supply chains,* these investments in the North will create jobs*. More importantly, it will create an infrastructure that will enhance Australia's capability to interact with Asia and maximise the job potential the free trade agreements have created.




http://www.randstad.com.au/workforce360/articles/2015-federal-budget-the-good-and-bad-for-jobs

Now that would be the government pointing in the right way for you ?

*hiccup*


----------



## explod

Rabbit was at Longreach last week,  the country for grazing was stuffed in the late 60's eaten out and conitinual droughts to this day means they are throwing good money after bad just to appease a strong CP Lib support populace there. 

Housing is on the verge of a huge collapse and  Tradies in outer ares are just not able to get enough work to make ends meet.  Out of work car industry and mine workers with slumped shoulders everywhere.   The figures not fully reflective yet but its clear why suicide and ice use is on the rise. 

I am involved in voluntary work among underprivileged and regardless of Rabbit's incentives they are not getting thier heads round the big picture.   In fact if you have not lived on the other side of the tracks you cannot understand and as I am beginning to appreciate,  if you are ok Jack then you do not give a fig either.


----------



## sptrawler

explod said:


> Rabbit was at Longreach last week,  the country for grazing was stuffed in the late 60's eaten out and conitinual droughts to this day means they are throwing good money after bad just to appease a strong CP Lib support populace there.
> 
> Housing is on the verge of a huge collapse and  Tradies in outer ares are just not able to get enough work to make ends meet.  Out of work car industry and mine workers with slumped shoulders everywhere.   The figures not fully reflective yet but its clear why suicide and ice use is on the rise.
> 
> I am involved in voluntary work among underprivileged and regardless of Rabbit's incentives they are not getting thier heads round the big picture.   In fact if you have not lived on the other side of the tracks you cannot understand and as I am beginning to appreciate,  if you are ok Jack then you do not give a fig either.




Just how many jobs do you think were lost with the dumb carbon tax?
Remember that tax? you know the one Qantas nearly went broke, $300million loss $100million carbon tax, lots of job losses. lol memory lapse or what?

Now you have the audacity to talk about miners with slumped shoulders, after your dumb mining tax, get a grip of reality. Jeez


----------



## trainspotter

I googled "Tony Abbott is the devil" for you plod because Tony Abbott stopped the rain in Longreach in the 60's, caused the housing boom in Melbourne and Sydney ... no wait ... it is on the verge of a "huge collapse" according to plod, Tradies out of work in the outer areas (mebbe they should't have charged so much in the first place  ) and of course it was his fault that Ford, Toyota and Holden (GM badge from USA) decided to leave the country because he came to power (elected by the people) read this plod for more info on the car industry http://www.carsguide.com.au/car-new...y-once-the-factories-close-29726#.VVsZ_bmqqko and WHY it has left our shores AND FINALLY he has caused the iron ore prices to drop GLOBALLY !!!!!!!



> Explaining Wood Mackenzie's short-term outlook in more detail Mr Emslie says: "Iron ore prices may be languishing at their lowest level for nearly six years, but it remains difficult to make a positive case for prices in the short term. Chinese steel mills have cut production in recent weeks due to a combination of weak demand and planned maintenance and this is feeding through directly to iron ore requirements. With the Lunar New Year holidays just a few weeks away Chinese steel production will get worse before it gets better. Steel mills will not re-stock in a falling or stagnant market and when they do there should be* plenty of slack in the system, as shown by the high level of inventory held at Chinese mines. * Outside of China the picture is similarly uninspiring due to a combination of seasonal and structural factors.  Other than the Middle East and India *none of the major iron ore importers have shown any meaningful improvement in demand*, a situation that is unlikely to change in the short term."




http://www.woodmac.com/public/media-centre/12526191

Yep you are right plod ... he is the Devil.


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> Just how many jobs do you think were lost with the dumb carbon tax?
> Remember that tax? you know the one Qantas nearly went broke, $300million loss $100million carbon tax, lots of job losses. lol memory lapse or what?
> 
> Now you have the audacity to talk about miners with slumped shoulders, after your dumb mining tax, get a grip of reality. Jeez




SP, I think you are wasting your time responding to Plod.....When there is a reduction in unemployment he either won't be satisfied or will try to give credit to his Labor union  comrades.

Plod would sooner blame the Abbott government for the demise of the car industry and lots of other manufactures who have either gone broke or shifted their business overseas rather than blame his union comrades for their outlandish demands over the past 60 years....

Plod you should be redirecting your questions on jobs to the Queensland and Victorian governments who have not only destroyed jobs in their respective states but they have not created any.....Palaszczuk won't have an infrastructure plan for another 12 months...So please ask her what happens in the meantime....She has gone to sleep at the wheel. 

NB. Plod's disrespect for our Prime Minister is appalling and shows the hatred he has for Tony Abbott.


----------



## explod

sptrawler said:


> Just how many jobs do you think were lost with the dumb carbon tax?
> Remember that tax? you know the one Qantas nearly went broke, $300million loss $100million carbon tax, lots of job losses. lol memory lapse or what?
> 
> Now you have the audacity to talk about miners with slumped shoulders, after your dumb mining tax, get a grip of reality. Jeez




Not at all,  mistakes were made and not saying the current demise is that of the present Government.   Most has occurred due to world financial change,  cheaper labour overseas,  robotics,  computer sales.   The world is changing very fast and Governments need to be ahead of it.   The inner governmental research abilities have gone,  now input is outsourced and that input has its own vested interest.   Like some of the offshore retraining programmes with thier offices most often located next to Centre_link offices,  training people for jobs that do not exist but collecting fat payments from taxpayers.   We were vastly better off with TAFF colleges,  only talkingto an ex teacher  on such aspects today. 

I know who needs to get a grip.   The Government and its suporters here need to move on from the past and the blame game to come up WITH REAL ALTERNATIVES THAT ARE PRODUCTIVE.   Or they will be soon be seen to be as bad if not worse than the last mob.  People forget quickly and as times are deteriorating will punish those in the chair come next election. 

Cummooorn,  where are the ideas for actual work ideas.   Get rid of overseas ownership of primary industry,  stop exporting livestock will rejuvenate countless country towns and cummunities and reduce the dole payments very substantially.  Compared to what farmers recieve there are huge profits being made on meat by the middle men.  And I could go on.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Not at all,  mistakes were made and not saying the current demise is that of the present Government.   Most has occurred due to world financial change,  cheaper labour overseas,  robotics,  computer sales.   The world is changing very fast and Governments need to be ahead of it.   The inner governmental research abilities have gone,  now input is outsourced and that input has its own vested interest.   Like some of the offshore retraining programmes with thier offices most often located next to Centre_link offices,  training people for jobs that do not exist but collecting fat payments from taxpayers.   We were vastly better off with TAFF colleges,  only talkingto an ex teacher  on such aspects today.
> 
> I know who needs to get a grip.   The Government and its suporters here need to move on from the past and the blame game to come up WITH REAL ALTERNATIVES THAT ARE PRODUCTIVE.   Or they will be soon be seen to be as bad if not worse than the last mob.  People forget quickly and as times are deteriorating will punish those in the chair come next election.
> 
> Cummooorn,  where are the ideas for actual work ideas.   Get rid of overseas ownership of primary industry,  stop exporting livestock will rejuvenate countless country towns and cummunities and reduce the dole payments very substantially.  Compared to what farmers recieve there are huge profits being made on meat by the middle men.  And I could go on.




The Abbott Government have come up with alternatives and savings, even $6 billion of Labor's saving which they refuse to pass in the senate.
The Green/Labor left wing socialist coalition are hell bent on destroying the government and this great nation of ours......If they had any respect for the welfare of Australia, they would do the right thing and stop holding up some $30 billion in savings the government want the senate to approve.


----------



## Tisme

Well one thing I have to applaud with the latest budget is the try before you buy with 4 weeks work experience to dole recipients, free to employers. I think we came up with that one a while back (I think we suggested a little longer) so that's another thumbs up for ASF.

Now if Tony and the rest can stop playing the blame game and get on with the job we might get back into nation building mode. He and his cohorts need to understand that the ALP spend was readily accepted by just about any citizen that was eligible..... I would have too if I had been allowed ... greed is good.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Just how many jobs do you think were lost with the dumb carbon tax?
> Remember that tax? you know the one Qantas nearly went broke, $300million loss $100million carbon tax, lots of job losses. lol memory lapse or what?
> 
> Now you have the audacity to talk about miners with slumped shoulders, after your dumb mining tax, get a grip of reality. Jeez




Do you have any figures?  Qantas went through a cyclical bad patch brought about by it's insistence to keep the 65% line in the sand capacity on the domestic market.  So for every seat Virgin added QF had to add 2.  Now look at the profitability as the 2 airlines have reached a gentlemans understanding and adding capacity far more in line with demand growth, along with the plunge in oil prices.  You're trying to pull an Abbott pensioner bill doubling hoodwink on us.

I know Abbott tried to link the carbon tax to closures, but not one company ever mentioned the tax as a reason.  I'm still waiting for BHP to start the olympic dam expansion that Abbott pretty mch promised would occur with the resource tax and carbon tax killed.  How's that going?  Why isn't my electricity bill falling?  Why is my gas bill more expensive after the carbon tax was removed?  Wouldn't a gas reservation policy have more hope of helping local manufactures, just like the USA has, rather than allowing every molecule of gas to be hoovered up and sold offshore unless we're willing to pay export parity prices?

How many jobs have been lost due to the stalled renewable energy investments?  The gutted RET will see something like $6B less invested by 2020.  It seems likely the only way the Govt meets it's 5% reduction target is by seeing local manufacturing decimated.

But that's all good, as we keep the coal mines digging, the coal fired power stations burning, all while leaving the profits in the private sector but the real health costs borne by the individuals affected and tax payers footing a large chunk of the bill.


----------



## sydboy007

OMG.  I am surprised to be saying this, but Hockey has surprised me in a good way.  Now if he could make similar good policy moves on NG, super tax concessions, affordable housing he might have a chance to build a better Australia.

Hockey's supporting South Australia in moving towards a broadly based land tax.  Now if he could cajole the other states into similar policy moves.  Stamp duty is far to pro cyclical.  Provides the states wth a lot of funding in the good years, but when things slow down the states find themselves facing some lean times.

As Hockey would know, well if he's read his own tax white paper - http://bettertax.gov.au/files/2015/03/TWP_combined-online.pdf



> Stamp duties are some of the most inefficient taxes levied in Australia… they are levied selectively on activities or products and are taxed on the total transaction value, rather than the ‘value added’ component. Such transaction taxes are more likely to discourage turnover of taxed goods, as taxpayers attempt to reduce or avoid paying the tax…
> 
> Because revenue growth is driven by property prices and numbers of transactions, stamp duties on conveyances are a highly volatile tax, with revenue collected from stamp duties on conveyances fluctuating by over 50 per cent in previous years. Stamp duties on conveyances add to the costs of buying and selling property and can discourage businesses from undertaking productivity enhancing purchases of existing land and capital. The outcome can be retention of land for relatively unproductive purposes…
> 
> Stamp duties also impact on consumers by increasing the cost of buying and selling houses. As house prices increase over time, unadjusted progressive tax rates also increase the tax burden associated with stamp duty. For example, the burden of stamp duty on a median-priced house in Melbourne has almost doubled over the past 20 years ”” from 2.67 per cent of the sale price in 1988 to 5.16 per cent in 2011.
> 
> This clearly adds to transaction costs and contributes to Australia’s high (by international standards) costs of moving. These costs can discourage householders from moving to housing that best suits their needs and can be an important barrier to labour mobility. A number of reviews have found that, by dampening the number of house sales, stamp duties can also add to commuting times.183 Stamp duty can also be inequitable ”” those who move more frequently face higher costs than those who move less frequently, even if their circumstances are otherwise similar…
> 
> Modelling also suggests that broad-based land taxes, such as municipal rates, have a low economic cost (Chart 2.9). This is because land is immobile (unlike other capital) and cannot be moved or varied to avoid tax. The model applies this assumption to both domestic and foreign ownership of land. Land taxes paid by foreign and domestic landowners are only redistributed to the domestic households, providing a benefit to Australian households and generating a negative marginal excess burden for a broad-based land tax shown in the chart.


----------



## SirRumpole

> Just how many jobs do you think were lost with the dumb carbon tax?
> Remember that tax?




Yes, and I also remember one called fuel excise indexation that Abbot wants to bring back that was knocked back by the Senate.


----------



## Tink

*The surprise findings of who's backing who in the colourful Senate chamber*

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...colourful-senate-chamber-20150521-gh6bj9.html

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/feral_greens/


----------



## sptrawler

explod said:


> Not at all,  mistakes were made and not saying the current demise is that of the present Government.   Most has occurred due to world financial change,  cheaper labour overseas,  robotics,  computer sales.   The world is changing very fast and Governments need to be ahead of it.   The inner governmental research abilities have gone,  now input is outsourced and that input has its own vested interest.   Like some of the offshore retraining programmes with thier offices most often located next to Centre_link offices,  training people for jobs that do not exist but collecting fat payments from taxpayers.   We were vastly better off with TAFF colleges,  only talkingto an ex teacher  on such aspects today.
> 
> I know who needs to get a grip.   The Government and its suporters here need to move on from the past and the blame game to come up WITH REAL ALTERNATIVES THAT ARE PRODUCTIVE.   Or they will be soon be seen to be as bad if not worse than the last mob.  People forget quickly and as times are deteriorating will punish those in the chair come next election.
> 
> Cummooorn,  where are the ideas for actual work ideas.   Get rid of overseas ownership of primary industry,  stop exporting livestock will rejuvenate countless country towns and cummunities and reduce the dole payments very substantially.  Compared to what farmers recieve there are huge profits being made on meat by the middle men.  And I could go on.




The first thing to do is to put a brake on accelerating debt, then spend to create jobs.
Apparently Bill is talking promises costing a further $40b, if they don't create jobs, deeper $hit.
I don't now how you run your budget, but you would go broke, if you were self funded with that outlook.


----------



## explod

sptrawler said:


> The first thing to do is to put a brake on accelerating debt, then spend to create jobs.
> Apparently Bill is talking promises costing a further $40b, if they don't create jobs, deeper $hit.
> I don't now how you run your budget, but you would go broke, if you were self funded with that outlook.




Increasing debt,  yes,  a lot due to decreasing revenue from mining. 

However this banging on and noise about debt is norrowing the minds from the  bigger picture.   Home investors think nothing of only 10% equity.   In 1948 just after the  war Australia's debt to GDP was 140%, today it is only 30%.  

So how about some reality,  stop exporting livestock and process ourselves,  develope some of the  amazing medical innovations from our universities instead of US companies taking them over.   And I could go on and on at what we could do.   In fact post 2nd WW the Liberal Government did amazing things. 

Lets get off our ar..es and do something instead of winging with head in the  sand as this current guvinmint is doing.


----------



## IFocus

Always a relief to see who is running this country...........hint not the Coalition but their masters

How a non-existent inquiry hurt Twiggy and Abbott


> Both Tony Abbott and Twiggy Forrest have come out of this failed push for an iron ore inquiry looking a little dishevelled. Perhaps it's time to remember the adage: when you're in a hole, stop digging. Peter Ryan writes.
> 
> After a week of spin, broadsides and dummy spits, you get the impression that Andrew Forrest always knew his tilt for an inquiry into the iron ore industry was a 50-50 chance at best.
> 
> So after being knocked back in a terse two-paragraph statement from Treasurer Joe Hockey late yesterday, it should be no surprise that the Fortescue Metals chairman has championed the very public rejection as a small victory for democracy.
> 
> While Mr Hockey says the Federal Government will not entertain an inquiry "at this time", *Mr Forrest is convinced ordinary Australians are better off because he has taken on the might of BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto in accusing them of manipulating the iron ore price.*
> 
> "The cat is out of the bag. The Australian people know they can ask the questions. They should be asking the questions. They should be expecting the answers. So eventually this will all come out and I'm looking forward to that day," Mr Forrest told me on AM the morning after the night before.








http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-22/ryan-how-a-non-existent-inquiry-hurt-twiggy-and-abbott/6490144


----------



## SirRumpole

> Now you have the audacity to talk about miners with slumped shoulders, after your dumb mining tax, get a grip of reality. Jeez




There were two dumb things about the mining tax

1> They spent it before they got it

2> They let the mining companies off easy, they should have gone in a lot harder.

People don't seem to realise that we have had an oil and gas RRT for decades and investment in gas is this country is booming.

 Non renewable resources are always going to be in demand. Sure there are other countries that mine minerals but there is also a lot of demand. If we don't make the most of our resources before they disappear then we are fools. Which is a pretty good description of the current government.


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> There were two dumb things about the mining tax
> 
> 1> They spent it before they got it
> 
> 2> They let the mining companies off easy, they should have gone in a lot harder.
> 
> People don't seem to realise that we have had an oil and gas RRT for decades and investment in gas is this country is booming.
> 
> Non renewable resources are always going to be in demand. Sure there are other countries that mine minerals but there is also a lot of demand. If we don't make the most of our resources before they disappear then we are fools. Which is a pretty good description of the current government.




Simpler to just sell 5 year export quotas.

Could to a degree reduce the over production of resources, though if the capacity is built then not much benefit in idling it??

Sell quotas to the highest bidders.

Might have helped stop the likes of Roy Hill and FMG from their over expansion.

Could see Adani pack it bags rather than building at a breakeven cost of $70 a tonne for coal.

Somehow we've been diddled into believe the resource companies own the stuff when all they've got is a right to extract.  WE OWN it and should have gotten a lot more for it over the last decade.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Somehow we've been diddled into believe the resource companies own the stuff when all they've got is a right to extract.  WE OWN it and should have gotten a lot more for it over the last decade.




Exactly what Barnett has been saying. 
The Federal LNP haven't backed him and Labor before them didn't back him. 
Seems crazy to have a super profits tax, when they are offshoring their profits.
More intelligent to charge them for how much they extract.


----------



## Macquack

noco said:


> NB. *Plod's disrespect for our Prime Minister *is appalling and shows the * hatred *he has for Tony Abbott.




Get off your soap box, boy.

Try these quotes for someone showing disrespect for the PM.



noco said:


> The image of our Prime Minister, the *right 'DISHONOURABLE' **Juliar* Gillard MP .






noco said:


> This *fraud of a Prime Minister*, *Juliar*, *could not not lie straight in bed *if she tried.






noco said:


> *Juliar* Gillard must be *so dense *and *narrow minded *I'm sure she *can see through a keyhole with both eyes.*





Pot calling the kettle black.

explod is a decent bloke with more than his own self interest at heart.


----------



## trainspotter

Go back to whale watching ... zzzzzzZzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Exactly what Barnett has been saying.
> The Federal LNP haven't backed him and Labor before them didn't back him.
> Seems crazy to have a super profits tax, when they are offshoring their profits.
> More intelligent to charge them for how much they extract.




Barnett was out encouraging as much expansion and production as he could when prices were high.

Can see it with LNG as well.

Prob was Barnett bought into the $120 floor price, and mistook the massive increase in demand to build new ships and mines and infrastructure as permanent demand when it was reasonably transitory.

I was reading an article that is showing over 100 ships will be scrapped this year.  At the peak of the ship building freenzy something like 43M tonnes was being delivered, now it's in the tens of thousands.  100M tonnes of steel demand in shipping alone is now gone.

Barnett is also crazy in giving the juniors a rebate on royalties.  They're going to die.  What's the point of propping them up when the I/O price will never remain high enough to make them sustainable?  The more you support uneconomic production, the more we lose.  

Also remember it was the current resource minister Ian macfarlane pretty much said on getting into office "We've got to make sure that every molecule of gas that can come out of the ground does so."  He's also out still pushing for increased CSG on the east coast, yet wont ensure it's reserved for local use, so any increase in production is shipped out the country.

From David Uren at the Australia



> Sino Iron’s $10 billion mine on Clive Palmer’s leases in the Pilbara has got its production costs below $US100 a tonne for the first time in the past few months, but they are still double the prevailing iron ore price.
> 
> Consulting firm AME lists Sino Iron as the world’s highest- cost operation supplying the Chinese market in seaborne trade. The firm counts only the mine’s variable costs such as wages, processing and transport. Adding in the capital charges could easily double its costs.
> 
> If Atlas Iron with production costs of around $US60 a tonne is in trouble, Sino Iron should be mothballed. There is no obvious economic justification for keeping it going. The mine’s continued operation says much about what is wrong with the iron ore market and also flashes danger signals for the outlook for the Chinese economy.




Rumour has it there's been some activity around FMG.  Possibly the Chinese are looking to prop him up.  If China can engineer enough backdoor support to keep FMG going then it will have effective control of 200 million tonnes of Pilbara iron ore and it is game over for the iron ore price permanently.

Do you really believe Abbott would have the balls to say no to the Chinese if they made a take over offer, or at least asked for majority ownership of FMG?


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Barnett was out encouraging as much expansion and production as he could when prices were high.
> 
> Can see it with LNG as well.
> 
> Prob was Barnett bought into the $120 floor price, and mistook the massive increase in demand to build new ships and mines and infrastructure as permanent demand when it was reasonably transitory.
> 
> I was reading an article that is showing over 100 ships will be scrapped this year.  At the peak of the ship building freenzy something like 43M tonnes was being delivered, now it's in the tens of thousands.  100M tonnes of steel demand in shipping alone is now gone.
> 
> Barnett is also crazy in giving the juniors a rebate on royalties.  They're going to die.  What's the point of propping them up when the I/O price will never remain high enough to make them sustainable?  The more you support uneconomic production, the more we lose.
> 
> Also remember it was the current resource minister Ian macfarlane pretty much said on getting into office "We've got to make sure that every molecule of gas that can come out of the ground does so."  He's also out still pushing for increased CSG on the east coast, yet wont ensure it's reserved for local use, so any increase in production is shipped out the country.
> 
> From David Uren at the Australia
> 
> 
> 
> Rumour has it there's been some activity around FMG.  Possibly the Chinese are looking to prop him up.  If China can engineer enough backdoor support to keep FMG going then it will have effective control of 200 million tonnes of Pilbara iron ore and it is game over for the iron ore price permanently.
> 
> Do you really believe Abbott would have the balls to say no to the Chinese if they made a take over offer, or at least asked for majority ownership of FMG?




There is no win with you, is there? It is Labor all the way. 

Seems pointless, putting up any suggestions, that any LNP members, Federal or State are worth anything.

Can't wait to see the next Labor fiasco unfold.

I rack my que.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> There is no win with you, is there? It is Labor all the way.
> 
> Seems pointless, putting up any suggestions, that any LNP members, Federal or State are worth anything.
> 
> Can't wait to see the next Labor fiasco unfold.
> 
> I rack my que.




Nope.  Labor are generally complicit.

But how does anything get better when the current "leaders" are all about the NOW and sugar hit for the economy rather than the long term?

What's the point of encouraging further overproduction of our resources?


----------



## Tisme

We constantly witness News Corp and it's drone worshippers complaining about Labor blocking all the wholesome goodness legislations of the LNP, but does anyone know the true scorecard of pass/fail ?

I did my own precursory check and there seems to be an error in what the we would be told and what actually is happening...might just be a bad data set I'm looking at.

It was Labor that blocked supply all those years ago in the seventies and started the whole distrust of the Empire Monarchy and obstructionist politics...wasn't it?


----------



## noco

Macquack said:


> Get off your soap box, boy.
> 
> Try these quotes for someone showing disrespect for the PM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/B]
> 
> Pot calling the kettle black.
> 
> explod is a decent bloke with more than his own self interest at heart.




What took you so long comrade?

How do you relate Abbott with Rabbit?.....just disrespect

How do you relate Julia Gillard with Juliar?...Very simple....."THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER A GOVERNMENT I LEAD"........

And yes she should could not lie straight in bed.

"There will be no challenge to Kevin Rudd's leadership"..."I SUPPORT HIM 100%"...Then Gillard knifed Rudd in the next 24 hours after she said it.......Disrespect?...NO.....It is fact you and your comrades cannot deny.

And what about her association with Wilson and the AWU?...Why did she get the sack from Slater and Gordon?

My quotes were very fitting of Julia Gillard.


----------



## Knobby22

I think its very bad news for the Liberal party that poll numbers have improved.
If Tony Abbott is still the leader next election then they have no hope of getting in.
I am a natural Liberal voter and I will never vote for him again.


----------



## sydboy007

From the AFR



> Chinese-linked companies have applied to the Foreign Investment Review Board seeking permission for an investment involving Fortescue Metals Group.
> 
> Australia’s third-largest iron ore producer has held discussions with China’s largest steel producer, Baosteel, and China’s largest conglomerate, CITIC, about a recapitalision to shore up its balance sheet.
> 
> It is unclear if the applications to FIRB are from CITIC or Baosteel but sources said there is interest in Fortescue from one or more companies which are Chinese or part-Chinese owned.




I hear on sportsbet it's already an odds on favourite for Hockey to wave it through.  When the thoughts at Liberal HG will be on the media cycle:

* Govt allows thousand of FMG jobs to go in collapse

or

* Chinese investment saves thousands of FMG employees with the promise of increase jobs in the future.

If the Liberals are truly worried about the ToT and long term price of I/O then allowing the Chinese any form of controll or propping up of FMG would see a very long term price at close to the cost of production for BHP and Rio.  Not much in the way of profits.  Heck, allowing any mine to run long term at a loss is against the national interest.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> From the AFR
> 
> 
> 
> I hear on sportsbet it's already an odds on favourite for Hockey to wave it through.  When the thoughts at Liberal HG will be on the media cycle:
> 
> * Govt allows thousand of FMG jobs to go in collapse
> 
> or
> 
> * Chinese investment saves thousands of FMG employees with the promise of increase jobs in the future.
> 
> If the Liberals are truly worried about the ToT and long term price of I/O then allowing the Chinese any form of controll or propping up of FMG would see a very long term price at close to the cost of production for BHP and Rio.  Not much in the way of profits.  Heck, allowing any mine to run long term at a loss is against the national interest.




The problem is Syd, if they wave it through, you and all the Laborites will 'bag it'.

If they knock it back, you and the Laborites will 'bag it'.

You're lack of balanced comment, de values, your otherwise excellent posts.IMO


----------



## sptrawler

I see now, the LNP want to make maths and science compulsory, in year 11 and 12.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/pa...ience-in-year-12/story-fngqim8m-1227368782277

Where will it end? The Government are so out of touch, don't they know how hard those subjects are?

Also how difficult will it be for the universities, to gear up again, for students that aren't illiterate and have mathematical ability.

Someone needs to remind the Government we are interested in quantity, not quality.

Just ask Bill ,and the teachers union.IMO


----------



## Macquack

sptrawler said:


> The problem is Syd, if they wave it through, you and all the* Laborites will 'bag it'*.
> 
> If they knock it back, you and the* Laborites will 'bag it'*.
> 
> You're *lack of balanced comment*, de values, your otherwise excellent posts.IMO




西勒勒杰 哦伊艾哦 弗伊艾伊艾诶哦勒艾 勒艾杰艾艾伊

You better get used to reading this type of response, particularly if you live in W.A.

So what is your position on this issue sptrawler, let us know, so we can * "bag"* you also.


----------



## sptrawler

Macquack said:


> 西勒勒杰 哦伊艾哦 弗伊艾伊艾诶哦勒艾 勒艾杰艾艾伊
> 
> You better get used to reading this type of response, particularly if you live in W.A.
> 
> So what is your position on this issue sptrawler, let us know, so we can * "bag"* you also.




Well as I've said for a long time, Barnett has been saying, what Syd is saying.

The resources belong to us and we own them, it is just unfortunate Barnett is LNP.

This automatically causes a spray from loonie left and Fairfax.

Being '*bagged'* by you doesn't bother me , being bagged by Syd bothers me more.

At least he has a sensible measured argument, some I agree with, some I don't.

Your's seem to based mainly on emotion, rather than sensible analysis of the issue, so 'bag away .


It really is time for people to start and understand, we can't keep going the way we are, those on welfare will end up worse off.
Labor can talk it up as much as they like, they did sod all to when in office, now they want re election on a trust us basis.

It is just dumb, they stuffed up when in government, I'll need more than Bill is offering to belive they have improved.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Nope.  Labor are generally complicit.
> 
> But how does anything get better when the current "leaders" are all about the NOW and sugar hit for the economy rather than the long term?
> 
> What's the point of encouraging further overproduction of our resources?




You really sometimes, need to sit back and take a breath, try to be objective.

So much ability, wasted on so focused a hate, distorts reality. IMO


----------



## drsmith

sptrawler said:


> I see now, the LNP want to make maths and science compulsory, in year 11 and 12.
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/pa...ience-in-year-12/story-fngqim8m-1227368782277



One of the options on the survey in the article is for year 12 only and 16 dills have given it the thumbs up.

On dills and economics, GST and tampons shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence. That's the kind of thing Labor would suggest.


----------



## sptrawler

drsmith said:


> One of the options on the survey in the article is for year 12 only and 16 dills have given it the thumbs up.
> 
> On dills and economics, GST and tampons shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence. That's the kind of thing Labor would suggest.




We really are being driven, down a path to the lowest common denominator, doc.

When everyone is in abject poverty, we can all rejoice at being equal.

There is an old saying: "You can't bring someone up to your level, you can only go down to theirs".

It is so true.


----------



## Tisme

Just thought I would let members know that the Tax dept will start looking at sole traders come July. They have already been onto me for details of our sole trader subbies for not declaring the GST component  and paying income tax on same....(that means I have to pay the GST + 10% on top of the 10% I already paid).

Obviously I only use PTY LTD subbies now.

And you know that $20k full depreciation thing, well it opens up a tax trail and please explain for the tax dept too. Clever buggers


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> The problem is Syd, if they wave it through, you and all the Laborites will 'bag it'.
> 
> If they knock it back, you and the Laborites will 'bag it'.
> 
> You're lack of balanced comment, de values, your otherwise excellent posts.IMO




I've stated that allowing the Chinese to prop up FMG is against the national interest.

How much more supporting to Hockey blocking them can I be?


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Well as I've said for a long time, Barnett has been saying, what Syd is saying.
> 
> The resources belong to us and we own them, it is just unfortunate Barnett is LNP.
> 
> This automatically causes a spray from loonie left and Fairfax.




From the Westralian



> The State Government says it has started the formal process of acquiring land for the Anketell Port project in the Pilbara despite the depressed iron ore market.
> 
> Premier and State Development Minister Colin Barnett and Lands Minister Terry Redman said the land acquisition was vital to the development of the port about 30 kilometres east of Karratha, which they said was potentially the last major port to be built in the Pilbara.
> 
> “Last year, the Government signed a $20 million native title agreement with the Ngarluma people over 4300 hectares of land covering the planned Anketell site,” Mr Barnett said.




So on the one hand BHP and RIO are naughty for flooding the market with high quality cheap to produce I/O.

On the other hand Barnett is off spending tax payer money to help increase the supply of low quality high cost I/O onto the market.

What is the logic of spending scarce $$$ on infrastructure that's not required, at least for a few decades?

Obviously the $500M GST refund from the Feds has gave Barnett a bit of cash to flash.


----------



## Macquack

sptrawler said:


> You really sometimes, need to sit back and take a breath, *try to be objective*.
> 
> So much ability, wasted on so focused a hate, distorts reality. IMO




I hate to say this, but, sptrawler you are a pretty clued up guy with many good ideas.

Having said that, take a look in the mirror and give Sdyboy a break.


----------



## Tisme

If anyone is using Port Hedland an it's environs as a litmus test of what's to come, as of last week about 17 substantial companies had gone to the wall, the previously wealthy are the new poor, abandoned buildings stand half finished, people are migrating to Karratha and the only thing missing is spinifex balls sweeping through the streets.

Many long standing agreements for supply have been torn up by the majors and new ones being negotiated that are not favourable to maintaining the infrastructure and labour resources previously req'd. 

Of course companies like Qantas who make lotsa money from the fly in fly outs are in for some turbulence as a consequence.

Things are going gangbusters with some parts of the economy under Abbott's watch.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> From the Westralian
> 
> 
> 
> So on the one hand BHP and RIO are naughty for flooding the market with high quality cheap to produce I/O.
> 
> On the other hand Barnett is off spending tax payer money to help increase the supply of low quality high cost I/O onto the market.
> 
> What is the logic of spending scarce $$$ on infrastructure that's not required, at least for a few decades?
> 
> Obviously the $500M GST refund from the Feds has gave Barnett a bit of cash to flash.




You know and I know, it takes years to install infrastructure, like the Port you mention.

Yet the price of iron ore can swing within months, to stop and start infrastructure being installed , because of price swings can't be done. Well that is unless you are Victorian.

The fact the World will need more of the ore is fact, the requirement for another port isn't diminishing, the price will recover as is always the case for a finite resource.

Barnett was blasted, by the media for threatening BHP and Rio, it has become obvious that it makes no difference to peoples perception of him.

Obviously people can't rise above party bias, when formulating opinions.

On an Abbott Government note, I read Hockey claims living away from home, while living in a house his wife owns.

Now that, IMO, is a rort.


----------



## SirRumpole

> On an Abbott Government note, I read Hockey claims living away from home, while living in a house his wife owns.
> 
> Now that, IMO, is a rort.




Absolutely correct, it is a rort. 

I'm sure he's not the only one, but such allowances should be a recoup of actual expenses (capped), paid to people who are in the business of supplying accommodation where the applicant incurs those expenses performing official duties.

And Hockey has the gall to talk about "entitlement".


----------



## trainspotter

Ironic that small businesses are now putting on a solar panel system under 20k and claiming the tax break in the Fed Govt budget.


----------



## trainspotter

Tisme said:


> If anyone is using Port Hedland an it's environs as a litmus test of what's to come, as of last week about 17 substantial companies had gone to the wall, the previously wealthy are the new poor, abandoned buildings stand half finished, people are migrating to Karratha and the only thing missing is spinifex balls sweeping through the streets.
> 
> Many long standing agreements for supply have been torn up by the majors and new ones being negotiated that are not favourable to maintaining the infrastructure and labour resources previously req'd.
> 
> Of course companies like Qantas who make lotsa money from the fly in fly outs are in for some turbulence as a consequence.
> 
> Things are going gangbusters with some parts of the economy under Abbott's watch.




Port Hedland and Karratha are bloated cess pits of cronyism, graft and corruption. Port Hedland is a dump. They had to put the sh1te from Noahs Ark somewhere and Karratha is not much better.



> Addressing the media, Mr McGowan attacked the government for buying 50 units in the 174-apartment Pelago East tower for $30 million in 2012 ”” and now not being able to sell many of them.
> 
> The government has struggled to sell 28 of the units since putting them on the market 10 months ago, and is now offering them under shared equity, a scheme usually aimed at struggling first-home buyers.




http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wes...-property-market/story-fnhocxo3-1227060534295

Barnett government and NOT Abbott government. Libs yes but not of the same genetic pool.

I spent many a month in BOTH towns and nothing would surprise me as to what goes on. Rampant waste under the guise of "safety" and "mining". 10 people to do a 2 man job cause the union dictates it. 

$1600 per hour to hire crane and dogger. Minimum 10 hours plus "mobilisation" fees for a 1 hour job to lift a beam. Not part of reality in any way shape or form. Stop work to have a "stop work" meeting right at the crucial time that the crane turns up, then it's off to lunch and then to a safety meeting then its "See you tomorrow"

Yeah ... love Port Hedland and Karratha.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> You know and I know, it takes years to install infrastructure, like the Port you mention.
> 
> Yet the price of iron ore can swing within months, to stop and start infrastructure being installed , because of price swings can't be done. Well that is unless you are Victorian.
> 
> The fact the World will need more of the ore is fact, the requirement for another port isn't diminishing, the price will recover as is always the case for a finite resource.
> 
> Barnett was blasted, by the media for threatening BHP and Rio, it has become obvious that it makes no difference to peoples perception of him.
> 
> Obviously people can't rise above party bias, when formulating opinions.
> 
> On an Abbott Government note, I read Hockey claims living away from home, while living in a house his wife owns.
> 
> Now that, IMO, is a rort.










> China’s scrap ratio is currently only around 10%, compared with around 60% in the rest of the world. However, the availability of scrap in China is increasing rapidly, as the material used during the rapid growth in consumption of machinery, autos and appliances in early 2000s, is converted to scrap. Moreover, the government is encouraging setting up of collection centers, and though the government cancelled tax exemption for steel scrap recycling in 2011, we expect supportive policies in the future.




The Citi outlook is bearish enough but take a moment to consider if the forecasts of Professor Ross Garnaut and Chinese steel researchers are met. They see 700mt tonnes in total steel production output by 2030. If 300mt tonnes of that comes from scrap and China preserves 200mt of iron ore mining capacity (equal to 130mt of steel) then total import demand for iron ore will be…wait for it…around 270mt. That is, roughly 28% of last year. 

So as i said before, the new port is unlikely to be required fro decades.  India has plenty of its on I/O and there's no other markets capable of absorbing the excess production.

So no, I'm not bashing Barnett because he's Liberal, I'm bashing him because he's wasting scarce $$ that could be devoted to building infrastructure that improves the productivity of WA over the long term, infrastructure that self liquidates so it doesn't end up being a long term burden to the economy and tax payers.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> View attachment 62735
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Citi outlook is bearish enough but take a moment to consider if the forecasts of Professor Ross Garnaut and Chinese steel researchers are met. They see 700mt tonnes in total steel production output by 2030. If 300mt tonnes of that comes from scrap and China preserves 200mt of iron ore mining capacity (equal to 130mt of steel) then total import demand for iron ore will be…wait for it…around 270mt. That is, roughly 28% of last year.
> 
> So as i said before, the new port is unlikely to be required fro decades.  India has plenty of its on I/O and there's no other markets capable of absorbing the excess production.
> 
> So no, I'm not bashing Barnett because he's Liberal, I'm bashing him because he's wasting scarce $$ that could be devoted to building infrastructure that improves the productivity of WA over the long term, infrastructure that self liquidates so it doesn't end up being a long term burden to the economy and tax payers.




As per usual good points Syd, also well researched. 

I tend to think as per usual, self interest by some of these so called forecaster, tend to paint the picture that suits their agenda. 
With Asia becoming an industrialised Continent, the long term consumption of raw materials will be much greater than we have currently seen.IMO
There are billions of people up there that want to live like us, and they are taking our tertiary manufacturing base to support it.
The real issue for us is being able to supply that demand

The port facility at Port Headland is a hopeless bottleneck, and will need to be rationalised anyway, irrespective of existing capacity.
Also there is an obvious push, to develop a de-centralised population hub in the N.W of W.A, be this for minerals, future agriculture or a combination of both.
There is one thing for sure, it is better to build infrastructure to support industry, than to stall infrastructure to increase welfare due to unemployment. Just my opinion.


----------



## sptrawler

Macquack said:


> I hate to say this, but, sptrawler you are a pretty clued up guy with many good ideas.
> 
> Having said that, take a look in the mirror and give Sdyboy a break.




Funny you should say that, Syd is one of the main reasons I am active on this forum.

It is smart young blokes like him, that are our future. 
I debate him, on the off chance, my age and experiences can shine a different light on his perspective.

I was a young headstrong idealist in my 20's and 30's, age and experience has shown me, nothing is black and white. Especially regarding politics.

It is young blokes like Syd, that give me hope that Australia, has a bright future.

Anyway enough of the waxing on, back to bashing you loonie leftie's.lol


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> As per usual good points Syd, also well researched.
> 
> I tend to think as per usual, self interest by some of these so called forecaster, tend to paint the picture that suits their agenda.
> With Asia becoming an industrialised Continent, the long term consumption of raw materials will be much greater than we have currently seen.IMO
> There are billions of people up there that want to live like us, and they are taking our tertiary manufacturing base to support it.
> The real issue for us is being able to supply that demand
> 
> The port facility at Port Headland is a hopeless bottleneck, and will need to be rationalised anyway, irrespective of existing capacity.
> Also there is an obvious push, to develop a de-centralised population hub in the N.W of W.A, be this for minerals, future agriculture or a combination of both.
> There is one thing for sure, it is better to build infrastructure to support industry, than to stall infrastructure to increase welfare due to unemployment. Just my opinion.




You are confusing seperate markets for I/O

Much of Asia has adequate domestic supplies.  Certainly India has, plenty of which is yet to be developed.  Outside of India the populations of the rest of Asia are relatively insignificant when compared to the massive demand China introduced.  The growth just isn't there.

Supply growth is another matter.  With the Chinese getting Chummy with Vale, it's quite likely the S11D expansion will hit the market in 2018.  They have a vested interest in taking a fair amount of tonnage from them, now that Vale is selling their valemax ships to Chinese shipping firms.  The valemax ships have pretty much reduced the competitive advantage Australia had from being closer to China.  Vale I/O is also a few % higher grade than from Australia, another competitive advantage for them.  Factor in the AUD taking off against the BRL and well the future of seaborne I/O shipped from Australia aint so crash hot, even with a decent devaluation over the next 12 months.




I'm glad you're confident that I/O shipments will continue to increase from WA, but I don't see it being a long term thing.  I'm also pretty confident that Barnett could be spending the infrastructure $$$ on other projects that would have a greater economic return for Westralians.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> View attachment 62735
> 
> 
> .




If you look at the graph, historical growth in scap usage is fairly linear, for the purpose of the argument the future growth is exponential.

If this was to be believed, you would be loading up on Sims shares, they would be a gold mine.

So if you think the accuracy of the article is sound, are you piling into Sims Metal?


----------



## orr

Ye olde adage that Australia is 15 t0 20yrs behind the US rings so true the ...gobsmacking ineptitude of Abbott is a resounding  echo of G WBush.
This may seem like code to many hear. My youngest is in the later years of primary school, I work with him with an open source programmable platform know as 'Arduino' . To listen to the cretinous dolt we have as a PM flounder around what is being taught and its importance to the future of this country is indicative of the shallowness of this tragic figure.
As we speak the world is being shaped by those that code.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/nat...y-in-school-coding-gaffe-20150528-ghbdal.html

SGM have a habit of 20%+  drops for what seem mercurial reasons, I'd look closer again at around $9.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> If you look at the graph, historical growth in scap usage is fairly linear, for the purpose of the argument the future growth is exponential.
> 
> If this was to be believed, you would be loading up on Sims shares, they would be a gold mine.
> 
> So if you think the accuracy of the article is sound, are you piling into Sims Metal?




When a country goes from a low 10% scrap usage to a world average of 60% you tend to have exponential growth during that catch up phase.

I doubt sims metals is in China in a big way, but possibly investing in the Chinese equivalents could be a good ground floor opportunity.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> When a country goes from a low 10% scrap usage to a world average of 60% you tend to have exponential growth during that catch up phase.
> 
> I doubt sims metals is in China in a big way, but possibly investing in the Chinese equivalents could be a good ground floor opportunity.




We are getting off topic however, I'm just trying to show, that because analysts forecast something doesn't in itself make a fact.

From SIMS homepage:

Sims Metal Management is the world’s largest listed metals and electronics recycler.  We are global leaders in the secure and sustainable management of resources for industry, organisations and the public-at-large.  Today, Sims Metal Management has over 250 locations on five continents, and more than 6,000 employees. In addition to its industry-leading metal recycling business, Sims Metal Management also operates the world’s largest electrical and electronics recovery and recycling business, Sims Recycling Solutions, as well as Sims Municipal Recycling, which handles curbside materials. - See more at: http://www.simsmm.com/#sthash.xjwsYlq2.dpuf

Therefore if Citi believed what they projected, they would be bullish on SIMS. They are the same price they were ten years ago.

That is why I struggle to give a lot of credibility to analysts, telling me what is going to happen.

If they knew what was going to happen, they would already be retired, rich on the profits from their analysis.


----------



## Tisme

orr said:


> . To listen to the cretinous dolt we have as a PM flounder around what is being taught and its importance to the future of this country is indicative of the shallowness of this tragic figure.
> As we speak the world is being shaped by those that code.
> 
> 
> http://www.canberratimes.com.au/nat...y-in-school-coding-gaffe-20150528-ghbdal.html
> 
> .




Yes. One of my own was teaching visual basic to year 8s, robotics to year 10's, etc  as well as E Commerce to year 10's onwards, six years ago. The Newman Govt put the kybosh on that nonsense, because it was obviously Labor mismanagement.

My guess is that there some who are intimidated by stuff they refuse to embrace. It beggars belief that he (Abbott) still doesn't understand the internet after quarter of a century and the importance of NBN as it was conceived. Perhaps he is concerned coding in primary school will lead to tech savvy children and parents who will start asking why we have been denied fibre to premises and potentially denied world class education because of unaffordable university fees.


----------



## sydboy007

the future ain't looking pretty






> Outlook: 15/16 downgraded from already bleak to now recessionary -18% y/y






> But, this data is so bad it would worry the RBA, and now raises the risk they cut rates again ahead (but probably not until after Q2 CPI). Indeed, a recessionary capex outlook is a downside risk to our already well below consensus GDP forecast of 2.2% y/y in in 2015 and 2.8% in 2016.




Understatement of the year - Hockey said the data was "disappointing"

Somehow Hockey thinks the $20K small business instant asset write off is going to keep us afloat.  How long before they're forced to redo the budget forecasts to something resembling reality?  No way non mining investment is going to grow at 4.5% and 7% over the next 2 fiscal years.

MYEFO - $45B deficit.  Final result closer to $50B and AAA rating looking vulnerable as bank bad debts start to rise from WA property losses slowly marching eastward and south from QLD.  Pretending things are on the up and up just makes solving the problems we're facing that much harder.

If you're still in TDs time to move your money to decent quality corporate bonds before the next round of rates cuts kicks in.


----------



## trainspotter

Who's debt is it?



> When Labor's Paul Keating lost the federal election to the Liberal Party's John Howard in 1996, about $110 billion of Commonwealth debt had been issued as part of the Labor government's policy program to lift the country out of recession.
> 
> At that time, Commonwealth securities represented nearly 21 per cent of the country's gross domestic product. In the 2013 financial year it was 17 per cent.
> 
> By the time Mr Howard was voted out of office more than a decade later, *the Coalition had returned the budget to surplus* and lowered the ratio of CGS to *GDP to 5.4 per cent.*
> 
> "As a result of 10 years of strong economic management, net debt was eliminated in April 2006," the Coalition said in its 2006-07 budget.
> 
> Even during periods of surplus, the AOFM will issue securities in order to maintain liquidity in the bond market, meaning gross debt is never entirely eliminated.
> 
> Running a budget in surplus means the government can pay interest on its CGS liabilities from its surplus. When the budget is in deficit, interest is paid from government borrowings.
> 
> When Labor's Kevin Rudd took over as prime minister in 2007, there was $59 billion in Commonwealth securities on issue. Under Mr Rudd, the ratio to GDP continued to fall for another three years, hitting the lowest point of the past 30 years.
> 
> The amount of Commonwealth securities on issue almost doubled in the year to June 2009. It has continued to rise as successive deficits have been recorded.
> 
> When the Abbott Government came to power in September 2013, there was $270 billion in Commonwealth securities on issue.
> 
> The growth in public debt reflected the impact of the sharp slowdown in the economy at that time - which hit the tax take hard - and the economic stimulus policies the Labor government said were implemented to counteract the global financial crisis.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-12/joe-hockey-one-billion-a-month-interest-fact-check/5478480




And now you have the Libs falling into the same trap ... HARUMPH !


----------



## IFocus

I will sleep well at night knowing Immigration Minister Peter Dutton (has to be the biggest dick head in politics going) is looking at getting further extraordinary big brother powers (to protect my freedom no doubt). 

What is it with this government and the continued need for total authoritarian powers and erosion of basic freedoms?


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-30/support-for-proposal-to-revoke-terrorists-citizenship/6508944


----------



## luutzu

IFocus said:


> I will sleep well at night knowing Immigration Minister Peter Dutton (has to be the biggest dick head in politics going) is looking at getting further extraordinary big brother powers (to protect my freedom no doubt).
> 
> What is it with this government and the continued need for total authoritarian powers and erosion of basic freedoms?
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-30/support-for-proposal-to-revoke-terrorists-citizenship/6508944




It's good for blackmail and interrogation. 

Don't worry, they might move to curb it a bit once a few of them get caught calling escorts or visit certain sites one too many and have their career handed to them.

Maybe then "our" freedom and privacy will become important again.

Until then, if they can't snoop and track all law-abiding citizens electronic trails, the terrorists (and the Russians, and soon the Chinese) will win.


----------



## drsmith

I never thought the day would come but today I find myself agreeing with a comment from David Marr. On the ABC's Insiders program today he commented that the base of the GST should be broadened. 

I also remain of the view that negative gearing, super tax concessions and capital gains tax should be reformed and it's disappointing that the current government seems to be crab walking from this ahead of its tax white paper.

What worries me with Labor though when it talks about any of the above is that it looks at it in the sense of increasing the tax base rather than broader tax reform.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> I never thought the day would come but today I find myself agreeing with a comment from David Marr. On the ABC's Insiders program today he commented that the base of the GST should be broadened.
> 
> I also remain of the view that negative gearing, super tax concessions and capital gains tax should be reformed and it's disappointing that the current government seems to be crab walking from this ahead of its tax white paper.
> 
> What worries me with Labor though when it talks about any of the above is that it looks at it in the sense of increasing the tax base rather than broader tax reform.




Problem is they're boxed into their respective corners.  Abbot has moved from everything on the table to focusing on politics when saying no to changes with super and NG.

Both parties are too scared to actually proffer some meaningful reforms.  Labor wont support the Govts reasonable changes to the pension by getting rid of the reduce taper rates from Howard.  The Liberals wont support Labors reasonable reform to tax free super pensions that will help a bit with the massive drain on the budget.  They cut off their noses to spite their faces.  Abbott probablly regreat blocking some of Labors revenue raising proposals when in opposition.  Shorten needs to think that some of the revenue measures from Abbott will come in handy for when Labor is voted back in.  3 months seems to be long term thinking these days.

There is no leadership, and I don't believe anyone in either the Govt or Opposition has the ability to sell major reforms to voters.  We definitely need it, because without major structural reforms the only way we regain our competitiveness within the tradeables sector is via a long stagnation in incomes.  That is not the smart way forward, but seems the most likely outcome.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> Problem is they're boxed into their respective corners.  Abbot has moved from everything on the table to focusing on politics when saying no to changes with super and NG.
> 
> Both parties are too scared to actually proffer some meaningful reforms.  Labor wont support the Govts reasonable changes to the pension by getting rid of the reduce taper rates from Howard.  The Liberals wont support Labors reasonable reform to tax free super pensions that will help a bit with the massive drain on the budget.  They cut off their noses to spite their faces.  *Abbott probablly regreat blocking some of Labors revenue raising proposals when in opposition.  Shorten needs to think that some of the revenue measures from Abbott will come in handy for when Labor is voted back in.  3 months seems to be long term thinking these days.*
> 
> There is no leadership, and I don't believe anyone in either the Govt or Opposition has the ability to sell major reforms to voters.  We definitely need it, because without major structural reforms the only way we regain our competitiveness within the tradeables sector is via a long stagnation in incomes.  That is not the smart way forward, but seems the most likely outcome.



I agree in general with the politics of the above but in relation to the highlighted point above, it's not only about the revenue.

For example, a broadening of the GST base should go towards eliminating nuisance taxes. Changes to negative gearing, the CGT discount and super concessions should go towards reducing marginal tax rates and providing capital gains protection for the CPI component of growth and eliminating property transaction taxes such as stamp duty. 

Where's Bill Shorten an Labor on that ?

Unfortunately, neither side of politics presently has the balls or political capital to tackle genuine tax/transfer reform.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> I agree in general with the politics of the above but in relation to the highlighted point above, it's not only about the revenue.
> 
> For example, a broadening of the GST base should go towards eliminating nuisance taxes. Changes to negative gearing, the CGT discount and super concessions should go towards reducing marginal tax rates and providing capital gains protection for the CPI component of growth and eliminating property transaction taxes such as stamp duty.
> 
> Where's Bill Shorten an Labor on that ?
> 
> Unfortunately, neither side of politics presently has the balls or political capital to tackle genuine tax/transfer reform.




NG is up for discussion at the next Labor conference.  That's a long way further to reform than Abbott's NO.  I fear Abbott is transitioning back to an opposition mentality.

Super taxes are at least being looked at by Labor.  Abbott has boxed himself into no reform ever.  Only way for that to change is to remove him from the Liberal leadership.

As to broadening the GST.  I'd prefer other reform long before it.  I don't trust the Govt and community to ensure the regressiveness is not borne by the poor over the long term.  Better to bring in a broadly based land tax to help fund the states.  They can do it themselves.  No need to wait for Canberra to get its act together.

CGT and NG reform would be preferable too.  Change super tax from flat rate to a % reduction in marginal rates.  Ross Garnaut has proposed a 15% reduction, meaning those on lower incomes would pay minimal to no super taxes, a far cry from pay more or around their current marginal rates.

Does the Govt really need to be wasting it's time on trying to strip citizenship from people when we have the very grim prospect of recession in 12-18 months?


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Problem is they're boxed into their respective corners.  Abbot has moved from everything on the table to focusing on politics when saying no to changes with super and NG.
> 
> Both parties are too scared to actually proffer some meaningful reforms.  Labor wont support the Govts reasonable changes to the pension by getting rid of the reduce taper rates from Howard.  The Liberals wont support Labors reasonable reform to tax free super pensions that will help a bit with the massive drain on the budget.  They cut off their noses to spite their faces.  Abbott probablly regreat blocking some of Labors revenue raising proposals when in opposition.  Shorten needs to think that some of the revenue measures from Abbott will come in handy for when Labor is voted back in.  3 months seems to be long term thinking these days.
> 
> There is no leadership, and I don't believe anyone in either the Govt or Opposition has the ability to sell major reforms to voters.  We definitely need it, because without major structural reforms the only way we regain our competitiveness within the tradeables sector is via a long stagnation in incomes.  That is not the smart way forward, but seems the most likely outcome.




From what I decipher of Abbott when in opposition, he tried to curtail the Green/Labor socialist party from over spending whereas Shorten has gone out of his way to stop Abbott saving.....Shorten does not want Abbott to succeed in getting the budget back into surplus.....Shorten is pure and simply political and it is starting to back fire on him.

Watch the coming polls.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> NG is up for discussion at the next Labor conference.  That's a long way further to reform than Abbott's NO.  I fear Abbott is transitioning back to an opposition mentality.
> 
> Super taxes are at least being looked at by Labor.  Abbott has boxed himself into no reform ever.  Only way for that to change is to remove him from the Liberal leadership.
> 
> As to broadening the GST.  I'd prefer other reform long before it.  I don't trust the Govt and community to ensure the regressiveness is not borne by the poor over the long term.  Better to bring in a broadly based land tax to help fund the states.  They can do it themselves.  No need to wait for Canberra to get its act together.
> 
> CGT and NG reform would be preferable too.  Change super tax from flat rate to a % reduction in marginal rates.  Ross Garnaut has proposed a 15% reduction, meaning those on lower incomes would pay minimal to no super taxes, a far cry from pay more or around their current marginal rates.
> 
> Does the Govt really need to be wasting it's time on trying to strip citizenship from people when we have the very grim prospect of recession in 12-18 months?




Abbott should bring back the CARBON DIOXIDE tax , the mining tax, open the borders so we have more people on the social security and more houses to build for the immigrants, higher land tax, death duties, hit the rich who have big superannuation, cut out negative gearing, increase the GST to 15% on everything. ...What did I miss that Labor would do?

Problem solved and with full support from the Green/Labor socialist party and the crazy senate and then everybody is happy....I don't think so.....What about the less well off?

Politics has gone crazy......It is about time both sides got together with bi-partition support in the national interest and stop these childish games that are going on in the name of popularity. 

What do you think Sydboy?


----------



## SirRumpole

> As to broadening the GST. I'd prefer other reform long before it. I don't trust the Govt and community to ensure the regressiveness is not borne by the poor over the long term. Better to bring in a broadly based land tax to help fund the states. They can do it themselves. No need to wait for Canberra to get its act together.




I don't know about land tax, but they should definitely fix up corporate tax avoidance, negative gearing and super tax concessions for the rich before introducing or widening any tax that hits lower income earners who don't have the means to avoid tax that the better off have.

It's been pointed out before that super tax concessions cost more than the pension. Tax super contributions at 80% of the taxpayers highest marginal rate. That still provides an incentive to invest in super, but increases government revenue and reduces the deficit.


----------



## sydboy007

One has to wonder what Hockey was up to when framing the budget forecasts on CAPEX by business

Here's his forecast from a 2 week old budget





Note that total business investment is projected to fall -7% over 2015/16 and -3.5% over 2016/17.

A week after the budget is released we get the ABS CAPEX outlook which has CAPEX in at -18% for the optimists or -24% for the realists (depending upon what realisation ratio you choose) for 2015/16 alone.  2016/17 starts to look dire, especially when you factor in the Govt is forecasting further CAPEX growth when the car industry is closing down, likely taking most of the component manufacturers with them.

There's a $30B gap between the budget and ABS forecast.  Is there no communication within the Government and departments?  Did Hockey choose to ignore what business were telling the ABS?

Hockey was very critical of Labor's forecasting, but so far his efforts have been as bad, and starting to look downright dart thrown at a number on the wall.


----------



## Tisme

sydboy007 said:


> One has to wonder what Hockey was up to when framing the budget forecasts on CAPEX by business
> 
> Here's his forecast from a 2 week old budget
> 
> View attachment 62814
> 
> 
> Note that total business investment is projected to fall -7% over 2015/16 and -3.5% over 2016/17.
> 
> A week after the budget is released we get the ABS CAPEX outlook which has CAPEX in at -18% for the optimists or -24% for the realists (depending upon what realisation ratio you choose) for 2015/16 alone.  2016/17 starts to look dire, especially when you factor in the Govt is forecasting further CAPEX growth when the car industry is closing down, likely taking most of the component manufacturers with them.
> 
> There's a $30B gap between the budget and ABS forecast.  Is there no communication within the Government and departments?  Did Hockey choose to ignore what business were telling the ABS?
> 
> Hockey was very critical of Labor's forecasting, but so far his efforts have been as bad, and starting to look downright dart thrown at a number on the wall.




I think that table is optimistic.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> One has to wonder what Hockey was up to when framing the budget forecasts on CAPEX by business
> 
> Here's his forecast from a 2 week old budget
> 
> View attachment 62814
> 
> 
> Note that total business investment is projected to fall -7% over 2015/16 and -3.5% over 2016/17.
> 
> A week after the budget is released we get the ABS CAPEX outlook which has CAPEX in at -18% for the optimists or -24% for the realists (depending upon what realisation ratio you choose) for 2015/16 alone.  2016/17 starts to look dire, especially when you factor in the Govt is forecasting further CAPEX growth when the car industry is closing down, likely taking most of the component manufacturers with them.
> 
> There's a $30B gap between the budget and ABS forecast.  Is there no communication within the Government and departments?  Did Hockey choose to ignore what business were telling the ABS?
> 
> Hockey was very critical of Labor's forecasting, but so far his efforts have been as bad, and starting to look downright dart thrown at a number on the wall.




Syd can you tell me what the resource revenue was when Labor were in, as opposed to what it is now.

From memory, a lot of your excuses for Labors dismal performance, was plunging revenue.

Love to know how they would be going now.


----------



## banco

Julie Bishop's still leaking like a sieve to Fairfax.


----------



## sptrawler

banco said:


> Julie Bishop's still leaking like a sieve to Fairfax.




IMO Fairfax have nothing good to say about the economy, or Australia in general, it is just make up your own news journalism.


----------



## banco

sptrawler said:


> IMO Fairfax have nothing good to say about the economy, or Australia in general, it is just make up your own news journalism.




They get the cabinet leaks and the RBA leaks ahead of time.


----------



## sptrawler

banco said:


> They get the cabinet leaks and the RBA leaks ahead of time.




The biggest issue IMO, is China picking up our mining companies for a song, when they have sent them  broke.

Why isn't the media all over that? Why should China, who dictate the price of iron ore, be able to buy our miners?

What happens when they own enough of our mines, that they basically give it to themselves for free.

We get nothing.lol

Maybe Shorten, Fairfax and the ABC can get onto that, rather than marriage issues.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/mini...ling-australian-iron-ore-20150601-ghe50r.html


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Syd can you tell me what the resource revenue was when Labor were in, as opposed to what it is now.
> 
> From memory, a lot of your excuses for Labors dismal performance, was plunging revenue.
> 
> Love to know how they would be going now.




You missed the point I was making SP.

The fact that 1 week after the budget is realesed the ABS shows CAPEX intentions by business is up to $30B lower than budget forecasts, and that's only for the 2015/16 budget year.  The blowout a year later is heading to double that.  If Swan has released similarly dodgy figures  what would your reaction be?

Did Hockey massage the budget figures, or is he so isolated he had no idea of what the ABS was being told?  All the assumptions on the budget are now toast.  Lower CAPEX means higher unemployment, lower corporate and income taxes.  The states will see lower GST income.  Hockey was scathing of Labor's forecasting ability, but he's beat them by having his figures shown to be wrong within 1 week of release.

The budget is fanciful, and stops the Govt from being forced to start dealing with the issues fast approaching.

The falling ToT and cut to Govt revenue never seemed to be relevant on this forum when Labor was in office, so why is it relevant now?

Maybe Bubbles Abbott and Hockey are right.  Housing price growth will save us.

A trip back down memory lane for some Tony Bubbles quotes:



> “What’s it called? Mortgage stress? The advent of the Rudd Government has caused serious mortgage stress for a section of the Australian community, i.e. former Howard government ministers!” he said at the time.






> “You don’t just lose power … you certainly lose income as well, and if you are reliant on your parliamentary salary for your daily living, obviously it makes a big difference.”






> When Kevin Rudd announced a salary freeze for all politicians in early 2008 – a decision greeted with bipartisan loathing around the corridors – Mr Abbott remarked that it was “all very well for politicians who have other sources of income or who have very high income from their spouses”.




Could explain his grim determination to hold onto the PM salary for as long as he can.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> You missed the point I was making SP.
> 
> The fact that 1 week after the budget is realesed the ABS shows CAPEX intentions by business is up to $30B lower than budget forecasts, and that's only for the 2015/16 budget year.  The blowout a year later is heading to double that.  If Swan has released similarly dodgy figures  what would your reaction be?
> 
> Did Hockey massage the budget figures, or is he so isolated he had no idea of what the ABS was being told?  All the assumptions on the budget are now toast.  Lower CAPEX means higher unemployment, lower corporate and income taxes.  The states will see lower GST income.  Hockey was scathing of Labor's forecasting ability, but he's beat them by having his figures shown to be wrong within 1 week of release.
> 
> The budget is fanciful, and stops the Govt from being forced to start dealing with the issues fast approaching.
> 
> The falling ToT and cut to Govt revenue never seemed to be relevant on this forum when Labor was in office, so why is it relevant now?
> 
> Maybe Bubbles Abbott and Hockey are right.  Housing price growth will save us.
> 
> A trip back down memory lane for some Tony Bubbles quotes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could explain his grim determination to hold onto the PM salary for as long as he can.




Abbott must be doing  something right having overhauled Bill Shorten as preferred Prime Minister and a substantial gain in the primary vote.

The Greens must be Labor's biggest worry these days, but there again Labor cannot do without their comrades preferences.....What do you think Sydboy?


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...-almost-repaired/story-fnmnl1y0-1227378811657


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Abbott must be doing  something right having overhauled Bill Shorten as preferred Prime Minister and a substantial gain in the primary vote.
> 
> The Greens must be Labor's biggest worry these days, but there again Labor cannot do without their comrades preferences.....What do you think Sydboy?
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...-almost-repaired/story-fnmnl1y0-1227378811657




You've highlighted the problem Noco.  Abbott is too much worried about the polls, because his party is too worried about the polls, so they're incapable of making any decent policy because they fear what it will do to the polls.

A tax whitepaper with everything on the table, but then announcement after announcement about what is now off the table.  Abbott is showing weather vane politics.  Sinodinous has even admitted that Abbott made a captains call based purely on politics for his never ever changes to super.

Why are poor people targeted for major cuts to income, when NG and CGT is left on the table?  over 70% of CGT concessions go to the top 10%.  Explain to me how that is fair.  Combined with the near limitless ability to use IP losses to reduces income tax the over investment in unproductive housing is plain to see.  Over 90% of investors buy an existing property.  So how can the Govt argue it's helping to keep rents lower?  It doesn't increase the available housing stock by much.

I think this will be the year when voters get sick of hearing the Abbot Govt saying it's Labor's fault.  They need to start owning the effects of their policy decisions.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> You've highlighted the problem Noco.  Abbott is too much worried about the polls, because his party is too worried about the polls, so they're incapable of making any decent policy because they fear what it will do to the polls.
> 
> A tax whitepaper with everything on the table, but then announcement after announcement about what is now off the table.  Abbott is showing weather vane politics.  Sinodinous has even admitted that Abbott made a captains call based purely on politics for his never ever changes to super.
> 
> Why are poor people targeted for major cuts to income, when NG and CGT is left on the table?  over 70% of CGT concessions go to the top 10%.  Explain to me how that is fair.  Combined with the near limitless ability to use IP losses to reduces income tax the over investment in unproductive housing is plain to see.  Over 90% of investors buy an existing property.  So how can the Govt argue it's helping to keep rents lower?  It doesn't increase the available housing stock by much.
> 
> I think this will be the year when voters get sick of hearing the Abbot Govt saying it's Labor's fault.  They need to start owning the effects of their policy decisions.




And of course Bill Shorten does not look for the populous vote....No no,no he would not dream of it.

The blame will be on Labor for a decade with the debt and deficit they left behind after 2013....But obviously, you expect the Liberals to clean up Labor's mess in 18 months.

Anyway I thought this year was Labor's year of new ideas as to how they would fix the mess they left behind.

Been very quiet so far except hit the super to raise about $1.5 billion over 4 years...A mere drop in the bucket

Where are their ideas for the sake of the national interest....All Labor has done so far is obstruct and repair the Liberals put forward even some $6 billion of their own savings which they have rejected in the senate.

What do you say about sydboy?


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> And of course Bill Shorten does not look for the populous vote....No no,no he would not dream of it.
> 
> The blame will be on Labor for a decade with the debt and deficit they left behind after 2013....But obviously, you expect the Liberals to clean up Labor's mess in 18 months.
> 
> Anyway I thought this year was Labor's year of new ideas as to how they would fix the mess they left behind.
> 
> Been very quiet so far except hit the super to raise about $1.5 billion over 4 years...A mere drop in the bucket
> 
> Where are their ideas for the sake of the national interest....All Labor has done so far is obstruct and repair the Liberals put forward even some $6 billion of their own savings which they have rejected in the senate.
> 
> What do you say about sydboy?




They're going to discuss NG at the Labor conference in July.  That's a far site better than what Abbott is proposing.  Still over a year till the election for Labor to release some decent policy.  Hopefully they do because we've got nothing of substance comming from Abbott.  It's all about the status quo really.  Any time something that could spook the older boomer and grey vote is proposed, Abbott is first out to say no.

So what do you think of Hockey's inability to forecast CAPEX.  1 week after he releases his budget forecasts the ABS blows them out of the water.  How does a treasurer get his forecast up to $30B wrong in just 1 week?  Does he sit in his office making up the figures?  Does he talk to the ABS to get an idea of what business are saying they're investment  plans are?  Seems like the former rather than later.

When the budget is closer to $50B than the fanciful $35B forecast, how will that affect you perception of the Liberals economic credentials, or will you still find yet another way to lay the blame on labor?


----------



## sydboy007

The Abbott Govt has a strange take on democracy

Don't we have a right to know what our political leaders are signing us up for???

http://www.theguardian.com/business...ade-deal-text-on-condition-of-confidentiality



> MPs and senators were briefed on the deal Monday night by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade assistant secretary Elizabeth Ward and other officials.
> 
> The MPs were told that, despite the negotiations being “in the final stages” and “at the end game”, key provisions had not been agreed – including intellectual property clauses of deep concern to the Australian government and controversial legal avenues for corporations to take action against governments – so-called investor state dispute settlements (ISDS). They were also told the ISDS process itself was still being negotiated, including provisions on transparency.
> 
> They were told they could view the current TPP negotiating text on Tuesday “subject to certain confidentiality requirements” and were shown a document they would be required to sign before any viewing…




Confidentially document can be seen here - http://static.guim.co.uk/ni/1433217576506/Trans-Pacific-Partnership-a.pdf

4 year gag order.  Very patriotic of the Govt.


----------



## sydboy007

Further proof that Hockey is drinking some serious koolaid



> I’m not going to give commentary on commentary. We’ve had a terrific set of numbers that came out today and those numbers have proven that there are some clowns out there that are talking about recession and dark clouds on the horizon. There have been proven to be looking foolish, those people, and we should be focussing on what is before us which is raw data that says the Australian economy is in the last quarter one of the fastest growing economies in the developed world. How good is that?




I suppose if you ignore:


Lowest wage growth in decades
Real NDI down 1.6% over the year
ToT down 11.4% over the year
real GDP per hour worked fell by 0.8% over the March quarter and was up just 0.2% over the year, suggesting labour productivity growth has stalled
Households savings rate falling from 9.6% to 8.3% indicating we're gearing up more and more.
Capex forecast to be down 24% next FY, blowing a $30B hole in Govt forecasts.
Then yes, it's all sunshine and lollipops with ponycorn rides for all.


----------



## Knobby22

He's got to at least try to talk it up Syd. 
If he starts looking worried in the media, the recession will be self fulfilling.
Wish he had a clue though.


----------



## trainspotter

sydboy007 said:


> Then yes, it's all sunshine and lollipops with ponycorn rides for all.




What is a ponycorn ride? Is that like a cheap version of a unicorn ride?


----------



## sydboy007

Oh my.  You know that instant 20K small business write off the Government has been talking about 24/7 since the budget was released.  Yes yes, I saw the eye rolls.

Well Labor today asked for a vote to approve the legislation, but wait for it, the Abbott Govt voted against it.  I mean, they've been complaining about Labor blocking stuff, but when there's some bipartisan support for a rort, the Govt can't bring itself to vote for it.

"What we saw from the opposition this morning was yet another childish stunt from the Labor Party, an attempt by the Labor Party to deny 11 Labor members and 31 Coalition members the right to speak on this bill and ensure that they were able to demonstrate their support for the small businesses of Australia," Mr Abbott said. 

WTF.  Why do you need to talk about it any more?  Just get it voted on, signed and delivered.  I mean isn't that what Govt is about, actually doing rather than talking.  Of what benefit is there to allowing those 42 members of parliament to have more of a gabfest on something you claim will help save the economy from the mining CAPEX cliff?


----------



## SirRumpole

Knobby22 said:


> He's got to at least try to talk it up Syd.
> If he starts looking worried in the media, the recession will be self fulfilling.
> Wish he had a clue though.




About time Turnbull got the Treasury, and Hockey was relegated to Veterans Affairs where he can do less damage.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> Oh my.  You know that instant 20K small business write off the Government has been talking about 24/7 since the budget was released.  Yes yes, I saw the eye rolls.
> 
> Well Labor today asked for a vote to approve the legislation, but wait for it, the Abbott Govt voted against it.  I mean, they've been complaining about Labor blocking stuff, but when there's some bipartisan support for a rort, the Govt can't bring itself to vote for it.
> 
> "What we saw from the opposition this morning was yet another childish stunt from the Labor Party, an attempt by the Labor Party to deny 11 Labor members and 31 Coalition members the right to speak on this bill and ensure that they were able to demonstrate their support for the small businesses of Australia," Mr Abbott said.
> 
> WTF.  Why do you need to talk about it any more?  Just get it voted on, signed and delivered.  I mean isn't that what Govt is about, actually doing rather than talking.  Of what benefit is there to allowing those 42 members of parliament to have more of a gabfest on something you claim will help save the economy from the mining CAPEX cliff?



What I find interesting is that while the government still struggles with the economic narrative and cabinet leaks, the opposition is reduced to silly publicity stunts.


----------



## sptrawler

The problem is they are both playing populist politics, to a very sad media audience. supported by very poor journalism.

God help us.IMO

Another problem we have,IMO, is the politicians from all walks of life, have their nosed stuffed so hard into the trough nothing will be done about NG.


----------



## Logique

I'd be shocked if Julie Bishop is the Cabinet leaker.  

Other candidates more likely for mine.


----------



## SirRumpole

drsmith said:


> What I find interesting is that while the government still struggles with the economic narrative and cabinet leaks, the opposition is reduced to silly publicity stunts.




Well, I agree with Syd. If everyone agrees with this Bill (the legislation not Shorten), just do it. 

There is too much hot air in Canberra as it is. Question Time is a joke. The Libs just want to throw more dirt at Labor by getting as many windbags as they can to pointscore. Now that's a stunt.


----------



## banco

Logique said:


> I'd be shocked if Julie Bishop is the Cabinet leaker.
> 
> Other candidates more likely for mine.




She's my guess as it's clear from other columns from the same journalist that she's one of his main sources.


----------



## drsmith

SirRumpole said:


> Well, I agree with Syd. If everyone agrees with this Bill (the legislation not Shorten), just do it.
> 
> There is too much hot air in Canberra as it is. Question Time is a joke. The Libs just want to throw more dirt at Labor by getting as many windbags as they can to pointscore. Now that's a stunt.



Some of those windbags as you call them were to be from Labor.

It's going to pass in this session regardless and when it does, Labor will be left just looking silly. That's unless they do something really stupid in which case, they will look much worse.


----------



## trainspotter

This can't be right can it? If smokin' Joe reckons it is then it is good enough for me ...



> 'This growth is broad-based,' Mr Hockey told reporters in Canberra.
> 
> 'Growth in exports, household spending, services and new dwellings confirms that the government's economic plan is working.'
> 
> Mr Hockey noted the growth occurred before the May budget, which was designed to stimulate the small business sector through tax breaks.
> 
> 0.9 per cent figure makes Australia one of the fastest growing economies in the developed world and faster than any of the G7 countries for the quarter.




http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-...onomy-is-broadening.html#sthash.LhkrtmVj.dpuf


----------



## noco

trainspotter said:


> This can't be right can it? If smokin' Joe reckons it is then it is good enough for me ...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-...onomy-is-broadening.html#sthash.LhkrtmVj.dpuf




But it will not be good news for the lefties on ASF......They will say it just cannot be right....The Liberals could not possibly have done it so quickly....The credit has to go to Labor after all the Liberals have only been in for 21 months.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> But it will not be good news for the lefties on ASF......They will say it just cannot be right....The Liberals could not possibly have done it so quickly....The credit has to go to Labor after all the Liberals have only been in for 21 months.




I suppose if you ignore:

Lowest wage growth in decades
Real NDI down 1.6% over the year
ToT down 11.4% over the year - still 25% above the average for the last 20ish years so plenty more falls to come.
real GDP per hour worked fell by 0.8% over the March quarter and was up just 0.2% over the year, suggesting labour productivity growth has stalled.  Competitiveness is slowing to going backwards again.
Households savings rate falling from 9.6% to 8.3% indicating we're gearing up more and more.  Maybe we'll get back to Howard Govt levels of savings
Capex forecast to be down 24% next FY, blowing a $30B hole in Govt forecasts.
Households with debt at 160% of GDP - not much gearing left in the tank.
Then yes, it's all sunshine and lollipops with ponycorn rides for all.

GDP is a poor measurement.  Real NDI is what is in the pockets of consumers, and effectively what drives spending and savings in the economy.

How much further do we need to see the savings rate fall before you'll start to wise up the growth is on borrowed time.

Even if we don't get the technical 2 quarters of negative GDP growth, which is difficult when you pump up population growth through immigration, the voters are going to feel like it's a recession because they can see their wages are not keeping up with the cost of living.  

Better Hockey started to be honest with Australians so they understand some of the hard choices that are going to be necessary over the next few years.


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> What I find interesting is that while the government still struggles with the economic narrative and cabinet leaks, the opposition is reduced to silly publicity stunts.




Sorry but the stunt was Abbotts and Billsons calling Labor to bring it on and not stand in the way so Labor did. 

Abbotts quote here 



> Abbott said on Monday that it was “important that these budget measures to help small business get through the parliament as quickly as possible”.
> 
> “Some small businesses are reluctant to invest until the measure has passed the parliament,” he said on Monday. “I say to the leader of the opposition, let us not let politics get in the way of economics. Let us not let self-interest get in the way of national interest. Let us pass this bill straight away.”


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> But it will not be good news for the lefties on ASF......They will say it just cannot be right....The Liberals could not possibly have done it so quickly....The credit has to go to Labor after all the Liberals have only been in for 21 months.




http://www.afr.com/news/economy/mon...s-australians-to-raid-savings-20150603-ghfus8



> “*Australia’s living standards are falling on a sustained basis for the first time in 50 years – this is not a short-term trend,*” said Andrew Charlton, co-founder of economic advisory firm AlphaBeta and an ex-adviser to former prime minister Kevin Rudd.
> 
> The figures confirmed that real GDP growth has lagged below the long-run average for the past 11 quarters and all but three of the past 27 quarters – the longest run in data going back more than half a century, according to Dr Charlton.
> …
> Dr Charlton – a former Rhodes Scholar and Boston Consulting Group analyst – said the data showed low interest rates and government spending were adding to “ominous financial bubbles” in houses and stocks and a potentially “spiralling debt burden”.
> 
> *He cautioned that Treasury and the Reserve Bank were making a mistake by assuming the income shock would be a short-run event that could be managed away. “The real answer has to be a focus on lifting the long-term drivers of growth through economic reform and other structural policies,*” he said.




Pretending there is no problem means those required reforms are not on the agenda

You can judge the strength of the economy in many ways.   3 of the best measures are

The three measures chosen are:


National Disposable Income (NDI), which is “considered a good measure of progress for living standards because it is an indicator of Australians’ capacity to purchase goods and services for consumption” (see ABS explanation here -http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/1370.0main+features402013 ).
Gross national expenditure (GNE), which is “the total expenditure within a given period by Australian residents on final goods and services (i.e. excluding goods and services used up during the period in the process of production). It is equivalent to gross domestic product plus imports of goods and services less exports of goods and services”.
Domestic final demand (DFD), which is the sum of “government final consumption expenditure, household final consumption expenditure, private gross fixed capital formation and the gross fixed capital formation of public corporations and general government”.

Let’s consider per capita NDI. This measure fell by 0.3% in the March quarter in trend terms, and has fallen by 3.6% since December 2011, suggesting falling living standards

The divergence between per capita NDI and Real GDP is now over 6%.

An examination of the national accounts data also shows that real per capita NDI since the onset of the GFC has grown far more slowly than at the same time after the early-1990s recession – 1.4% total growth since June 2008 versus 8.4% growth at the same point after the early-1990s recession.

If you compare GDP growth since the GFC against the 70s, 80s, 90s recession you'll realise just how anaemic growth has been.

27 quarters after the onset of the GFC (June 2008), Real GDP per capita has only risen by 5.0%. The trends also are likely to widen the gaps further as the once-in-a-century mining investment boom unwinds over coming years, offset only partly by rising export volumes.

That, combined with falling per capita income, is why it feels like a recession already.

Without meaningful strucutral reforms this income recession is only going to get worse.  We're kicking the can down the road again and again and eventually we're going to have to take some exceedingly bitter medicine because of poor political leadership from both the major parties.


----------



## SirRumpole

> Let’s consider per capita NDI. This measure fell by 0.3% in the March quarter in trend terms, and has fallen by 3.6% since December 2011, suggesting falling living standards




With the potential to cause a burst of the housing bubble as people decide they cannot afford to buy a house and stop looking.

Lets see what that does to the growth figures.


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> Sorry but the stunt was Abbotts and Billsons calling Labor to bring it on and not stand in the way so Labor did.
> 
> Abbotts quote here



This session of parliament was Tony Abbott's context.


----------



## SirRumpole

The electorate is increasingly distrusting the Abbott government on housing prices

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/smh-l...t-on-rising-house-prices-20150602-ghev77.html


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> I suppose if you ignore:
> 
> Lowest wage growth in decades
> Real NDI down 1.6% over the year
> ToT down 11.4% over the year - still 25% above the average for the last 20ish years so plenty more falls to come.
> real GDP per hour worked fell by 0.8% over the March quarter and was up just 0.2% over the year, suggesting labour productivity growth has stalled.  Competitiveness is slowing to going backwards again.
> Households savings rate falling from 9.6% to 8.3% indicating we're gearing up more and more.  Maybe we'll get back to Howard Govt levels of savings
> Capex forecast to be down 24% next FY, blowing a $30B hole in Govt forecasts.
> Households with debt at 160% of GDP - not much gearing left in the tank.
> Then yes, it's all sunshine and lollipops with ponycorn rides for all.
> 
> GDP is a poor measurement.  Real NDI is what is in the pockets of consumers, and effectively what drives spending and savings in the economy.
> 
> How much further do we need to see the savings rate fall before you'll start to wise up the growth is on borrowed time.
> 
> Even if we don't get the technical 2 quarters of negative GDP growth, which is difficult when you pump up population growth through immigration, the voters are going to feel like it's a recession because they can see their wages are not keeping up with the cost of living.
> 
> Better Hockey started to be honest with Australians so they understand some of the hard choices that are going to be necessary over the next few years.




Sydboy I would have been most disappointed if you had not come back with some adverse comment.

Was Swannie honest with Australians?...Was Gillard honest with Australians?...Don't shout your answer too loud....Was Combet honest with Australians?

You have to admit this latest news is a large improvement on the 2007/2013 Labor era.


----------



## IFocus

Australia's trade deficit of $3.9b its worst on record



> Australia has posted its worst monthly trade deficit on record, with imports exceeding exports by nearly $3.9 billion.
> 
> Bureau of Statistics data show the deficit of $3,888 million in April just edged the previous record of $3,881 million set in February 2008 as commodity prices slumped during the peak of the global financial crisis.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-04/trade-deficit-more-than-trebles/6521468


----------



## SirRumpole

IFocus said:


> Australia's trade deficit of $3.9b its worst on record
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-04/trade-deficit-more-than-trebles/6521468




So much for Free Trade Agreements


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Sydboy I would have been most disappointed if you had not come back with some adverse comment.
> 
> Was Swannie honest with Australians?...Was Gillard honest with Australians?...Don't shout your answer too loud....Was Combet honest with Australians?
> 
> You have to admit this latest news is a large improvement on the 2007/2013 Labor era.




My comments are adverse because that's the reality.  GDP growth doesn't matter when incomes are falling.  GDP doesn't matter when the ToT is falling over 11% in a quarter, making us all poorer.

What is positive news?  The largest monthly trade deficit on record.  Real incomes falling for most people.  Housing growth unsustainable in Sydney and Melbourne.  Household debt levels the highest on record, and still climbing.  Savings rate in decline.

IS your argument that because person A wasn't totally honest that this then makes it OK fro person B to do the same.  I thought you were always saying the Abbott Govt was better than labor, but not you're justifying them doing exactly the same mistakes as Labor.

in 6-9 months Hockey is going to rue his comments from yesterday as people suddenly realise the economy is tanking, and wonder why they were told by the Govt that everything was good in June 2015.

But don't worry Noco, keep your head in the sand along with the Govt and she'll be right mate.  

Why would I admit things are better now when everything points to a deteriorating economy.  You're just too ideologically biased to read the stats and see if for yourself.  It'as as much the fault of Abbott as it was Rudd or Gillard, but they like to pretend they control and manage the economy like a car, so they can take the negatives since they like to boast when things they're not in control of go their own way.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> My comments are adverse because that's the reality.  GDP growth doesn't matter when incomes are falling.  GDP doesn't matter when the ToT is falling over 11% in a quarter, making us all poorer.
> 
> What is positive news?  The largest monthly trade deficit on record.  Real incomes falling for most people.  Housing growth unsustainable in Sydney and Melbourne.  Household debt levels the highest on record, and still climbing.  Savings rate in decline.
> 
> IS your argument that because person A wasn't totally honest that this then makes it OK fro person B to do the same.  I thought you were always saying the Abbott Govt was better than labor, but not you're justifying them doing exactly the same mistakes as Labor.
> 
> in 6-9 months Hockey is going to rue his comments from yesterday as people suddenly realise the economy is tanking, and wonder why they were told by the Govt that everything was good in June 2015.
> 
> But don't worry Noco, keep your head in the sand along with the Govt and she'll be right mate.
> 
> Why would I admit things are better now when everything points to a deteriorating economy.  You're just too ideologically biased to read the stats and see if for yourself.  It'as as much the fault of Abbott as it was Rudd or Gillard, but they like to pretend they control and manage the economy like a car, so they can take the negatives since they like to boast when things they're not in control of go their own way.





Well, obviously this a trait of the Green/Labor left wing socialist....Talk doom and gloom...talk the economy down.

Typical Fabian modus operandi...Criticize the conservative government and its leader at every turn.....Shame...Shame ..Shame.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Well, obviously this a trait of the Green/Labor left wing socialist....Talk doom and gloom...talk the economy down.
> 
> Typical Fabian modus operandi...Criticize the conservative government and its leader at every turn.....Shame...Shame ..Shame.




How is talking about reality a socialist fabian plot?

This is where we are Noco.

http://www.lngworldnews.com/cheniere-starts-construction-on-second-lng-export-project/



> The Corpus Christi project is designed for up to three trains with production capacity of approx. 13.5 million tonnes per annum, three LNG storage tanks with capacity of about 10.1 Bcfe, two LNG carrier docks and a 22-mile, 48″ natural gas supply pipeline.
> 
> The first train is expected to start operations as early as 2018, with the second train expected to commence operations approximately six to nine months thereafter.
> 
> Total project costs of about $11.5 billion for the first two trains, two LNG storage tanks, one dock and the natural gas supply pipeline, will be funded with $3.1 billion of project equity and $8.4 billion of debt.




*$16 billion for three trains producing 80% of the output of the $54 Gorgon project* or a quarter of the cost for six trains on Curtis Island. I know that the western gas will have a cheaper cash cost once flowing but, jeez, good luck getting more investment here!

Just exactly how is Australia competitive in just about anything these days?  Profitless exports after tens of billions in writedowns.  But don't worry.  The Abbott Govt would love for more LNG to be dumped to an already over supplied market.  The only positive is east coast has prices may not totally decimate manufacturing, unless we're forced to subsidse a billion dollar pipeline to bring in gas from the NT.  Ship it from QLD as LNG via expensive infrastructure, sucking it out of the east cost economy, and then spending to pipe it from the NT.  Go Australia.


----------



## Tisme

I see Abbott got pipped by Rolf Harris as most hated public figure, book ended by Kyle Sandlands. Another one of those indepth pollsters


----------



## drsmith

Tisme said:


> I see Abbott got pipped by Rolf Harris as most hated public figure, book ended by Kyle Sandlands. Another one of those indepth pollsters



Bill Shorten must be the shelf.

http://www.afr.com/news/politics/na...l-shorten-down-newspoll-shows-20150602-ghejnw


----------



## SirRumpole

Shorten needs to stop waffling and say as much as possible in as few words as possible. Voters don't remember long winded speeches or answers. I'm not saying he should go for the three word slogans, just keep it concise and to the point.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> How is talking about reality a socialist fabian plot?
> 
> This is where we are Noco.
> 
> http://www.lngworldnews.com/cheniere-starts-construction-on-second-lng-export-project/
> 
> 
> 
> *$16 billion for three trains producing 80% of the output of the $54 Gorgon project* or a quarter of the cost for six trains on Curtis Island. I know that the western gas will have a cheaper cash cost once flowing but, jeez, good luck getting more investment here!
> 
> Just exactly how is Australia competitive in just about anything these days?  Profitless exports after tens of billions in writedowns.  But don't worry.  The Abbott Govt would love for more LNG to be dumped to an already over supplied market.  The only positive is east coast has prices may not totally decimate manufacturing, unless we're forced to subsidse a billion dollar pipeline to bring in gas from the NT.  Ship it from QLD as LNG via expensive infrastructure, sucking it out of the east cost economy, and then spending to pipe it from the NT.  Go Australia.




Yes it is a Fabian plot that has been going on for over 6 decades....They have been set on a course of economic destruction.

Thanks to the corrupt communistic dominated unions, we now import goods we used to make in Australia...Can't make it here because wages are too high.......We used to make foot wear, clothing, woolen knitting mills, motor vehicles and steel......all gone overseas and we ask ourselves why are the imports $3.6 billion over imports.

The cost to build a submarine is 3 times that of a sub built overseas.

On top of that, demand for iron ore and coal has decreased....


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Yes it is a Fabian plot that has been going on for over 6 decades....They have been set on a course of economic destruction.
> 
> Thanks to the corrupt communistic dominated unions, we now import goods we used to make in Australia...Can't make it here because wages are too high.......We used to make foot wear, clothing, woolen knitting mills, motor vehicles and steel......all gone overseas and we ask ourselves why are the imports $3.6 billion over imports.
> 
> The cost to build a submarine is 3 times that of a sub built overseas.
> 
> On top of that, demand for iron ore and coal has decreased....




Business running as oligopolies has nothign to do with our lack of competitiveness eh?

As the Trade Minister Andrew Robb has noted _"We are an oligopoly community. We shouldn't fight it. We should make the most of it. It does provide us with the critical mass and the size and innovation and for that ability to compete with overseas countries"_

Just how exactly is competition going to thrive when you have a mindset within Govt that see oligopolies as good for the country???

Was it sane for 3 different companies to all build LNG trains at the same location at the same time?  Was it so unforeseeable that there would be an explosion in wages for all types of labor involved, that the high demand would cause cost blowouts for pretty much all inputs?  Would it have been smarted for those same companies to have set up a LNG company and shared the costs of building the LNG trains one at a time, thereby bringing production online faster and at a cost competitive rate.

Was it sane for BHP and RIO to expand production as much as they did?  Was it sane for FMG to go from 0 to 150M+ tonnes of production based on high cost low quality ore?  All these projects running at the same time, once again pushing up the cost of all inputs, to the determinant of not only shareholders but to national income.

Should we even allowed for so much export expansion of gas from the east coast?  Have we given up what was an economic advantage of cheaper energy?  Why doesn't Australia have an energy policy?  Why don't we have a gas reservation policy like the USA?

These issues aren't even on the radar Noco.  It's so easy to blame the workers for high wages, when it generally poor management that is the underlying problem.  Funny how CEO pay is all about attracting the best, but when it comes to the average worker higher wages is suddenly an issue.

We have an RBA flip flopping on the AUD, leaving it at a still uncompetitive levels.  We're still up 20% against the Brazilian Real, so Vale is getting a massive boost from that.

So if demand for iron ore has fallen, is it sensible for the WA Govt to be giving the mining juniors royalty rebates?  Is keeping extra production in play detrimental to the long term national interest?  Do you think the Abbott Govt will allow a Chinese propping up of FMG, or even a takeover?  It would be suicide to allow the Chinese to keep 150+M tonnes of uneconomic production in play, but the chinese would love it.

Take your ideological blinkers off and start asking the right questions.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Business running as oligopolies has nothign to do with our lack of competitiveness eh?
> 
> As the Trade Minister Andrew Robb has noted _"We are an oligopoly community. We shouldn't fight it. We should make the most of it. It does provide us with the critical mass and the size and innovation and for that ability to compete with overseas countries"_
> 
> Just how exactly is competition going to thrive when you have a mindset within Govt that see oligopolies as good for the country???
> 
> Was it sane for 3 different companies to all build LNG trains at the same location at the same time?  Was it so unforeseeable that there would be an explosion in wages for all types of labor involved, that the high demand would cause cost blowouts for pretty much all inputs?  Would it have been smarted for those same companies to have set up a LNG company and shared the costs of building the LNG trains one at a time, thereby bringing production online faster and at a cost competitive rate.
> 
> Was it sane for BHP and RIO to expand production as much as they did?  Was it sane for FMG to go from 0 to 150M+ tonnes of production based on high cost low quality ore?  All these projects running at the same time, once again pushing up the cost of all inputs, to the determinant of not only shareholders but to national income.
> 
> Should we even allowed for so much export expansion of gas from the east coast?  Have we given up what was an economic advantage of cheaper energy?  Why doesn't Australia have an energy policy?  Why don't we have a gas reservation policy like the USA?
> 
> These issues aren't even on the radar Noco.  It's so easy to blame the workers for high wages, when it generally poor management that is the underlying problem.  Funny how CEO pay is all about attracting the best, but when it comes to the average worker higher wages is suddenly an issue.
> 
> We have an RBA flip flopping on the AUD, leaving it at a still uncompetitive levels.  We're still up 20% against the Brazilian Real, so Vale is getting a massive boost from that.
> 
> So if demand for iron ore has fallen, is it sensible for the WA Govt to be giving the mining juniors royalty rebates?  Is keeping extra production in play detrimental to the long term national interest?  Do you think the Abbott Govt will allow a Chinese propping up of FMG, or even a takeover?  It would be suicide to allow the Chinese to keep 150+M tonnes of uneconomic production in play, but the chinese would love it.
> 
> Take your ideological blinkers off and start asking the right questions.




*The communist dominated unions are to blame and it has come back to bite us on the backside...They have done their job just as Gillard did her job.....economic ruin leads to central control (communism)*


----------



## Tisme

drsmith said:


> Bill Shorten must be the shelf.
> 
> http://www.afr.com/news/politics/na...l-shorten-down-newspoll-shows-20150602-ghejnw




You might well be right 

I liked the quip one journo made about Abbot in the immediate past, paraphrasing : if Abbott was a woman PM his performance would be described as ......


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> Yes it is a Fabian plot that has been going on for over 6 decades....They have been set on a course of economic destruction.
> 
> Thanks to the corrupt communistic dominated unions, we now import goods we used to make in Australia...Can't make it here because wages are too high.......We used to make foot wear, clothing, woolen knitting mills, motor vehicles and steel......all gone overseas and we ask ourselves why are the imports $3.6 billion over imports.
> 
> The cost to build a submarine is 3 times that of a sub built overseas.
> 
> On top of that, demand for iron ore and coal has decreased....




I have a feeling you haven't been to the land of the free and witnessed the standard of living our American cousins enjoy? Many (most) would be lucky to see a Sunday, even for church, by our standards they dress poor, live poor, are educated poorly, but food is cheap and they eat to excess in the absence of brain food. They give over any difficulties of conscience to Jesus so they can concentrate on making a hand to mouth living. Friendly though, very friendly.


----------



## sydboy007

Sums up Hockey's lack of economic comprehension quite nicely

http://www.afr.com/news/economy/hoc...ng-as-trade-deficit-blows-out-20150604-ghgvix



> Asked by shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen why Australian living standards were falling, Mr Hockey said “that is a ridiculous statement, and it’s wrong … because we have got asset values going up in Australia.
> 
> …”The incomes of Australian families are under significant pressure and the Treasurer hasn’t bothered to acquaint himself with the facts,” Mr Bowen said. “Mr Hockey should ask Treasury for a briefing on real net national disposable income per capita.”
> 
> …Saul Eslake, an economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, said it was “reasonable” to describe living standards as having fallen after four quarters of contraction in net national disposable income per capita.
> 
> “It’s a better measure of living standards than per-capita GDP because it takes account of change in Australians’ command over goods and services produced by foreigners as a result of changes in the terms of trade,” he said.
> 
> …*”What Hockey’s doing is in essence confusing income statements with balance sheets,” Mr Eslake said.*




Hockey doesn't seem to grasp that a rising house price doesn't make paying the weekly grocery bill any easier.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> Sums up Hockey's lack of economic comprehension quite nicely
> 
> http://www.afr.com/news/economy/hoc...ng-as-trade-deficit-blows-out-20150604-ghgvix
> 
> 
> 
> Hockey doesn't seem to grasp that a rising house price doesn't make paying the weekly grocery bill any easier.




No , but it makes those  in the negative gearing welfare industry a lot better off, and guess who Hockey cares about most ?

This Treasurer is a joke, blathering on about entitlements while paying his wife taxpayers money so he can stay at home. The sooner he's booted out the better.


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> I have a feeling you haven't been to the land of the free and witnessed the standard of living our American cousins enjoy? Many (most) would be lucky to see a Sunday, even for church, by our standards they dress poor, live poor, are educated poorly, but food is cheap and they eat to excess in the absence of brain food. They give over any difficulties of conscience to Jesus so they can concentrate on making a hand to mouth living. Friendly though, very friendly.




Well, my friend your feeling is your water because I have traveled the world and have been to many different countries and observed and noted their different cultures.


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> No , but it makes those  in the negative gearing welfare industry a lot better off, and guess who Hockey cares about most ?
> 
> This Treasurer is a joke, blathering on about entitlements while paying his wife taxpayers money so he can stay at home. The sooner he's booted out the better.




It seems to only be a rort when those of the opposite political persuasion do it, otherwise if you're on the right side of the political fence then you're just accessing a perfectly legal entitlement.

Wonder what spin Hockey will have for the construction PMI out today.  Came in at 47.8, so still contraction.  All 4 sub sectors of the PMI showed further declines, with a steeper rate for apartment building, and even steeper for houses.  Surely a PMI in decline doesn't bode well for his rubbery CAPEX figures.  Looks like the ABS may finally be getting some figures right.  NUMBERWANG goes to Hockey 





Noco will surely be happy to see construction worker wages on their continued decline.  The less money those commifabisocs have the better.


----------



## Smurf1976

sydboy007 said:


> Business running as oligopolies has nothign to do with our lack of competitiveness eh?




Over the past 25 or so years we have effectively outsourced pretty much everything to "the market".

First it was big things like aviation and power. Now we're down to WA selling the street lights (yes really) and Tas doing some dodgy "no need for a tender" deal to outsource the traffic lights. That's scraping the bottom of the barrel stuff surely.

What is the (insert policy area here) of Australia or of any particular state? That's up to the market to decide.

The trouble with all this is that markets focus on what's good for the individual, they don't focus on what's good for the nation in the long term. You can't even fly from one city to another these days without paying monopoly rent to the private owner of the relevant airports - and they are indeed in the rent seeking business when you look at how much money they're making simply having planes take off and land on their property.


----------



## Macquack

Smurf1976 said:


> Over the past 25 or so years we have effectively outsourced pretty much everything to "the market".
> 
> First it was big things like aviation and power. Now we're down to WA selling the street lights (yes really) and Tas doing some dodgy "no need for a tender" deal to outsource the traffic lights. That's scraping the bottom of the barrel stuff surely.




This point reminded me of the 3 unnecessary sets of traffic lights that have appear fairly recently where I live (Sydney). Traffic lights on minor side streets that have added at least 5 minutes to the time to travel one kilometre.

Just have to wonder about the growth of "traffic light" business, put traffic lights anywhere, irrespective of if they are necessary.

I can see a point in the future where at least half of traffic lights will be torn down, and traffic will start to flow again.


----------



## luutzu

Smurf1976 said:


> Over the past 25 or so years we have effectively outsourced pretty much everything to "the market".
> 
> First it was big things like aviation and power. Now we're down to WA selling the street lights (yes really) and Tas doing some dodgy "no need for a tender" deal to outsource the traffic lights. That's scraping the bottom of the barrel stuff surely.
> 
> What is the (insert policy area here) of Australia or of any particular state? That's up to the market to decide.
> 
> The trouble with all this is that markets focus on what's good for the individual, they don't focus on what's good for the nation in the long term. You can't even fly from one city to another these days without paying monopoly rent to the private owner of the relevant airports - and they are indeed in the rent seeking business when you look at how much money they're making simply having planes take off and land on their property.




It's the invisible hand rubbing the shoulders of politicians feathering their retirement nest.

Let see, if I were to run a street light company how would I make more profit? I'd probably reduce the number of street lights; classify a bunch of them as unnecessary; reduce maintenance on vital ones; replace wattage and size... then invest in towing franchises and expand into private security and flashlights and batteries.

unless i'm paid by the number of lights erected and maintain. Kiss that CO2 target goodbye.


----------



## sydboy007

Smurf1976 said:


> Over the past 25 or so years we have effectively outsourced pretty much everything to "the market".
> 
> First it was big things like aviation and power. Now we're down to WA selling the street lights (yes really) and Tas doing some dodgy "no need for a tender" deal to outsource the traffic lights. That's scraping the bottom of the barrel stuff surely.
> 
> What is the (insert policy area here) of Australia or of any particular state? That's up to the market to decide.
> 
> The trouble with all this is that markets focus on what's good for the individual, they don't focus on what's good for the nation in the long term. You can't even fly from one city to another these days without paying monopoly rent to the private owner of the relevant airports - and they are indeed in the rent seeking business when you look at how much money they're making simply having planes take off and land on their property.




Even policy seems to have been outsourced.  Before doing anything Governments get industry insiders to run a review and then provide options for reform.

PPPs using expensive private sector debt instead of Government building the assets and selling 30+ year bonds to hungry pension funds desperate for yield paid off with tolls that pay off the debt over the economic life of the asset.  We could be filling the demand gap by renewing our crumbling infrastructure, but debt is such a bad word these days.

In NSW the Govt has done a deal with AGL to provide pensioner energy plans.  No open tender, no talking to other providers.  Packers gets a free casino license, then gets to overbuild even more to make his project economic.

That song from 89 was oh so true

I've no excuse
I just want you to use me
(Use me)
Take me and abuse me
I got no taboos
I'll make a trade with you
(With you)
I'll do anything you want me to

Money talks
(You know)
Money talks
Dirty cash
I want you
Dirty cash
I need you, oh

I wasn't right
And now I'm so behind
I want to get rich quick
I want success
And all that goes with it
And I'm gonna use myself

I want your money
I need you money
Dirty cash I want you
I want your money
I need you money
Ooh


----------



## IFocus

This really irritates me when Griggs continually under mines Abbotts attempts to improve his polling.



Democracy undermined by new laws says Gillian Triggs 




> Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs has come under fire for being out of touch after she launched a stinging criticism of counterterrorism laws, saying they infringed on democratic rights and freedoms.
> 
> Speaking at the Human Rights Law Centre and Justice Connect annual dinner in Melbourne last night, Professor Triggs launched a stinging rebuke of the laws passed by parliament over the last decade and said they had undermined a healthy, robust democracy.
> 
> “What are the options for democracy when both major parties, in government and opposition, agree upon laws that violate fundamental freedoms?” she said.
> 
> Professor Triggs claimed the overreach of the executive was clear in the proposal to strip citizenship from people accused of being jihadists fighting against Australian interests, if they are dual nationals.
> 
> “This proposal strikes at the heart of Australia as a largely migrant nation,” she said.
> 
> “Not only may this idea violate Australia’s international obligation not to render a person stateless, but also the decision may be at the discretion of a minister, without recourse to judicial processes.”





http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...s-gillian-triggs/story-e6frg6n6-1227385702823


----------



## sydboy007

IFocus said:


> This really irritates me when Griggs continually under mines Abbotts attempts to improve his polling.
> 
> Democracy undermined by new laws says Gillian Triggs
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...s-gillian-triggs/story-e6frg6n6-1227385702823




This is what worries me



> “Not only may this idea violate Australia’s international obligation not to render a person stateless, but also the decision may be at the discretion of a minister, without recourse to judicial processes.”




We were dragged into a multi billion dollar war in Iraq on faulty / false "intelligence".  Allowing a politician to declare someone is a terrorist, with no recourse to the courts, no verification of the evidence used to make the decision, well if this gets through in the current form then mission creep for the Government will continue with the erosion of our rights as Australian citizens.

Before the right on this forum start charging me as being pro terrorist, no I'm not.  If someone is stupid enough to go off and fight with some militant organisation then there needs to be consequences for those actions, but we should also clean up our own mess.  If someone has lived in Australia for the majority of their life, is it fair to fob them off to their "home" country when they have little to any ties to it?  Does it make sense to take away the option for someone realising what a stupid idea it was to go off and play soldier and they cannot come back to Australia.  They should face criminal action, end up in jail, but at least they'd know they could leave the fighting rather than stick it out to the death.  Possibly their stories might make the good fight not seem so filled with blessed virgins for those thinking of jihad, and who knows, they might provide a bit of actionable intelligence as well.

Can anyone say they truly trust a politician and political party enough that they wouldn't use these powers for political gain?  I don't.  Actions done in secrecy eventually leads to poor outcomes.  It's the old addage of what would you do if you knew you could get away with it.


----------



## IFocus

> QUOTE=sydboy007;871357]This is what worries me





I think its disgusting pretty much all with Shortens support because he is incapable of presenting an opposing argument like you never every, every give powers that belong to the courts to the ruling executive.

The sooner we get rid of this current bunch of low intellectual populists on both sides the better.

Abbott and co are just unbelievable.


----------



## IFocus

Amanda Vanstone criticises Tony Abbott's citizenship policy and Cabinet handling: 'That's either lazy, sneaky or both'




> Amanda Vanstone, former immigration minister under the Howard government who presents Counterpoint on ABC Radio National, took aim at Tony Abbott in an opinion column published by Fairfax.
> 
> "Tony Abbott is a constitutional monarchist and a self-confessed Anglophile, so for him to tolerate, let alone be at the helm of, a ship that throws the Westminster system of Cabinet government out the window is simply astounding," she said.
> 
> "The public will not long tolerate people who say one thing and do another."
> 
> Her comments were triggered by the leaked Cabinet discussion over citizenship policy and what she described the lack of "proper process".





http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-...athing-tony-abbott-citizenship-policy/6529278


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> Amanda Vanstone criticises Tony Abbott's citizenship policy and Cabinet handling: 'That's either lazy, sneaky or both'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-...athing-tony-abbott-citizenship-policy/6529278




I guess that must please you no end....So pleased to see a smile on your face.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:
			
		

> We were dragged into a multi billion dollar war in Iraq on faulty / false "intelligence". Allowing a politician to declare someone is a terrorist, with no recourse to the courts, no verification of the evidence used to make the decision, well if this gets through in the current form then mission creep for the Government will continue with the erosion of our rights as Australian citizens.






> Section 80.1 of the Criminal Code, contained in the schedule of the Australian Criminal Code Act 1995,[4] defines treason as follows:
> 
> A person commits an offence, called treason, if the person:
> 
> (a) causes the death of the Sovereign, the heir apparent of the Sovereign, the consort of the Sovereign, the Governor-General or the Prime Minister; or
> (b) causes harm to the Sovereign, the Governor-General or the Prime Minister resulting in the death of the Sovereign, the Governor-General or the Prime Minister; or
> (c) causes harm to the Sovereign, the Governor-General or the Prime Minister, or imprisons or restrains the Sovereign, the Governor-General or the Prime Minister; or
> (d) levies war, or does any act preparatory to levying war, against the Commonwealth; or
> (e) engages in conduct that assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist, an enemy:
> 
> (i) at war with the Commonwealth, whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared; and
> (ii) specified by Proclamation made for the purpose of this paragraph to be an enemy at war with the Commonwealth; or
> 
> (f) engages in conduct that assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist:
> 
> (i) another country; or
> (ii) an organisation;
> 
> that is engaged in armed hostilities against the Australian Defence Force; or
> (g) instigates a person who is not an Australian citizen to make an armed invasion of the Commonwealth or a Territory of the Commonwealth; or
> (h) forms an intention to do any act referred to in a preceding paragraph and manifests that intention by an overt act.
> 
> A person is not guilty of treason under paragraphs (e), (f) or (h) if their assistance or intended assistance is purely humanitarian in nature.
> 
> The only permissible penalty for treason is life imprisonment. Section 24AA of the Crimes Act 1914 creates the related offence of treachery.[5]
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason




So, on a reading of that section (by a non lawyer), it would seem that all that is necessary is a Proclamation to be issued that we are engaged in hostilities with ISIL, and then any person who assists that organisation can be tried for treason.

I wonder why this point has not arisen yet.


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> So, on a reading of that section (by a non lawyer), it would seem that all that is necessary is a Proclamation to be issued that we are engaged in hostilities with ISIL, and then any person who assists that organisation can be tried for treason.
> 
> I wonder why this point has not arisen yet.




That wouldn't let Abbott do his soap box grand standing and try to wedge labor on not being as tough on terrorism as the coalition.

Same thing with data retention. Even the law enforcement agencies couldn't provide much proof that existing laws were hampering their investigations that much.


----------



## IFocus

The masters are stirring


Libertarian thinktank IPA denounces Coalition's sole citizenship proposal 


> The Liberal party’s ideological allies in the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) have called on the government to rule out a minister stripping sole nationals of their Australian citizenship, saying this would be “an outrageous attack on the rule of law”.
> 
> Simon Breheny, director of the IPA’s legal rights project, also called for the coming legislation dealing with dual nationals to include a comprehensive judicial review process so that a person could challenge the case.
> 
> Breheny’s comments come as the government prepares to introduce legislation in the next sitting fortnight to give the immigration minister, Peter Dutton, the power to revoke the Australian citizenship of dual nationals who are deemed to be involved in terrorism even if they have not been convicted of a crime.





http://www.theguardian.com/australi...enounces-coalitions-sole-citizenship-proposal


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> The masters are stirring
> 
> 
> Libertarian thinktank IPA denounces Coalition's sole citizenship proposal
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/australi...enounces-coalitions-sole-citizenship-proposal




What else would you expect from the the Guardian communist paper....Most unreliable news.

The paper which opposes anything the Liberal Government submits.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> What else would you expect from the the Guardian communist paper....Most unreliable news.
> 
> The paper which opposes anything the Liberal Government submits.




Blame the messengers eh ?

The Right are splitting and fighting themselves.

How delicious


----------



## Macquack

"Rope a Dope" Hockey is up to his usual irrelevance.

Joe "I have never paid for a tank of fuel in my entire life" Hockey denied that the Sydney real estate market was becoming unaffordable for first-home buyers. 

"*If housing were unaffordable in Sydney, no-one would be buying it*," Hockey said.

This Hockey character would make a great understudy for Kim Jong-un, a fat rich kid completely out of touch with reality.

Tony Abbott, please get rid of this goon.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-...nsensitivity-over-sydney-house-prices/6532630


----------



## banco

Macquack said:


> "Rope a Dope" Hockey is up to his usual irrelevance.
> 
> Joe "I have never paid for a tank of fuel in my entire life" Hockey denied that the Sydney real estate market was becoming unaffordable for first-home buyers.
> 
> "*If housing were unaffordable in Sydney, no-one would be buying it*," Hockey said.
> 
> This Hockey character would make a great understudy for Kim Jong-un, a fat rich kid completely out of touch with reality.
> 
> Tony Abbott, please get rid of this goon.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-...nsensitivity-over-sydney-house-prices/6532630




Funny thing is Hockey had a good "announceable" as they say in Canberra about the crackdown on foreign buyers yet by the end of the day his gaffe leads the news.


----------



## noco

Macquack said:


> "Rope a Dope" Hockey is up to his usual irrelevance.
> 
> Joe "I have never paid for a tank of fuel in my entire life" Hockey denied that the Sydney real estate market was becoming unaffordable for first-home buyers.
> 
> "*If housing were unaffordable in Sydney, no-one would be buying it*," Hockey said.
> 
> This Hockey character would make a great understudy for Kim Jong-un, a fat rich kid completely out of touch with reality.
> 
> Tony Abbott, please get rid of this goon.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-...nsensitivity-over-sydney-house-prices/6532630




So therefore you must have a lower opinion of the the goose, I mean Swan.


----------



## SirRumpole

Macquack said:


> "Rope a Dope" Hockey is up to his usual irrelevance.
> 
> Joe "I have never paid for a tank of fuel in my entire life" Hockey denied that the Sydney real estate market was becoming unaffordable for first-home buyers.
> 
> "*If housing were unaffordable in Sydney, no-one would be buying it*," Hockey said.
> 
> This Hockey character would make a great understudy for Kim Jong-un, a fat rich kid completely out of touch with reality.
> 
> Tony Abbott, please get rid of this goon.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-...nsensitivity-over-sydney-house-prices/6532630




No one seems to have told Hockey that 60% of the financing for mortgages in Sydney goes to investors. You know, those people who live in leafy North shore Sydney where Hockey and Abbot and Turnbull live.

They probably think that anywhere west of Ryde doesn't exist.


----------



## Smurf1976

Macquack said:


> "*If housing were unaffordable in Sydney, no-one would be buying it*," Hockey said.




"If wages were unaffordable for business, no-one would be employed" is a similar logic.

I trust that the Liberals will now be joining with the Unions in order to come up with a plan for rapid wages growth, at least matching the pace of house price growth, since we haven't yet reached the point where business can't afford to employ anyone.

I'm joking of course, wages and house prices are high as it is, but if house prices going through the roof isn't a problem as long as someone can afford to buy then logically wages going through the roof wouldn't be a problem as long as at least one business can afford to pay. 

One way to spot a flawed argument is to apply the same logic to a different but comparable issue and see if it makes sense.


----------



## Tisme

Logic is only worth something if it suits the person it's targeted at. Politics and tribal glue are much stronger than common sense.

Won't be a problem anyway because the bank shares are diving and the housing prices will follow too. Sydney has  been a jaw dropper, head shaker with housing trends since the late seventies. 

Bit dangerous pinning our GDP reports on housing prices, but Hockey has just about killed off any green shoots from mining and industry, so he has to create  something else for the equation and housing is it at the expense of the consumer (a kind of stealth tax in a way).


----------



## MrBurns

Hockey needs a slap in the back of the head...how does the poor bloke stuck on the average wage, and lucky to get it, after finding a job at long last feel as he sits in front of the TV with his family in their rented home, feel when the Treasurer of Australia casually advises that he should get a job with more money if he wants to buy a home for his wife and kids.


----------



## trainspotter

SirRumpole said:


> No one seems to have told Hockey that 60% of the financing for mortgages in Sydney goes to investors. You know, those people who live in leafy North shore Sydney where Hockey and Abbot and Turnbull live.
> 
> They probably think that anywhere west of Ryde doesn't exist.




And anyone who lives in Sydney does not think that anywhere West of Penrith does not exist 

Keep living your life in a fish bowl


----------



## SirRumpole

trainspotter said:


> And anyone who lives in Sydney does not think that anywhere West of Penrith does not exist
> 
> Keep living your life in a fish bowl




I live west of Penrith and think that this thing called Sydney is actually a myth made up by parents to frighten naughty children.


----------



## trainspotter

SirRumpole said:


> I live west of Penrith and think that this thing called Sydney is actually a myth made up by parents to frighten naughty children.




Katoomba? I hear the banjos play real sweet at dusk .... 



> There are plenty of stereotypes about Australia. We all live in the desert, we have pet koalas and ride kangaroos to work, and supposedly everything we eat has Vegemite on it, but the other stereotype is that we all come from Sydney.
> Why does it have to be that we are all from Sydney? Do we need to live with a clunky old bridge in our backyard or an opera house that lights up once a year just to keep people interested in it? Why not one of the other beautiful cities in Australia?




http://bittenbythetravelbug.com/visiting-australia-theres-more-to-see-than-just-sydney/

I am going to call my pet monster under the bed "Sydney" from now on


----------



## SirRumpole

trainspotter said:


> Katoomba? I hear the banjos play real sweet at dusk ....




Further over the mountains


----------



## trainspotter

SirRumpole said:


> Further over the mountains




Out the back of Bourke?


----------



## SirRumpole

trainspotter said:


> Out the back of Bourke?




Orange area, but I lived in Sydney for 40 years and when I left it was a relief because the urban density was becoming annoying.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Orange area, but I lived in Sydney for 40 years and when I left it was a relief because the urban density was becoming annoying.




So what has your post got to do with Tony Abbott?


----------



## trainspotter

SirRumpole said:


> Orange area, but I lived in Sydney for 40 years and when I left it was a relief because the urban density was becoming annoying.




 Orange is the new black ! Had an Aunty who lived in Orange. Dead now. Smelled of napthalene and gin. 

Treasurer "Have a go Joe" tells it like it is on a Tuesday ....



> Yesterday Mr Hockey told reporters Sydney real estate was affordable because people kept buying it.
> And his advice to first home buyers was: “The starting point for a first homebuyer us to get a good job that pays good money.
> “If you’ve got a good job that pays good money and you have security in relation to that job then you can go to the bank and you can borrow money.
> “That’s readily affordable, more affordable than ever. (It’s more affordable to) borrow money for a first home now than it’s ever been.”




http://www.news.com.au/finance/econ...him-are-personal/story-fnu2pwk8-1227391093551


----------



## trainspotter

noco said:


> So what has your post got to do with Tony Abbott?




Because he lived next door to Tony in Forestville and he was becoming annoying


----------



## Macquack

SirRumpole said:


> I live west of Penrith and think that this thing called Sydney is actually a myth made up by parents to frighten naughty children.




Love your work SirRumpole.

Can I add that the "frightened naughty children" are actually the adult children still living at home with mum and dad.


----------



## trainspotter

Wilted housing prices due to what exactly?



> Louise Abbott works in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and appears to have benefited from a Canberra *housing market wilting after widespread public service job cut*s.




http://www.news.com.au/finance/econ...-property-ladder/story-fnu2pwk8-1227392710384

And they get away with this?

Could also be represented in the Australian Property Prices thread .?


----------



## Logique

The ABC is in full Gillian Triggs the Martyr mode this morning.  A Fran Kelly interview, then Michelle Grattan, then Shadow Attorney-Gen Mark Dreyfus.   

The beastly government should stop picking on poor brave Gillian, who seems to have found her voice of late.    

More balanced reporting at taxpayers expense.


----------



## SirRumpole

Logique said:


> The ABC is in full Gillian Triggs the Martyr mode this morning.  A Fran Kelly interview, then Michelle Grattan, then Shadow Attorney-Gen Mark Dreyfus.
> 
> The beastly government should stop picking on poor brave Gillian, who seems to have found her voice of late.
> 
> More balanced reporting at taxpayers expense.




It is balanced reporting considering the Triggs hate fests on the commercial stations, who will never present her point of view.


----------



## overhang

Logique said:


> The ABC is in full Gillian Triggs the Martyr mode this morning.  A Fran Kelly interview, then Michelle Grattan, then Shadow Attorney-Gen Mark Dreyfus.
> 
> The beastly government should stop picking on poor brave Gillian, who seems to have found her voice of late.
> 
> More balanced reporting at taxpayers expense.




The ABC just need to report on the facts.  The fact that we have a PM who is hell bent on stifling investment in this country all to appease Allan Jones just because he finds wind farms visually unappealing.  Then we have a government driven to stop the 'leaners' but won't do anything about the upper class leaners in the way of super concessions and negative gearing, this is from a government who strives to get our budget back under control.

 We have our government looking to give Peter Dutton the right to revoke citizenship of duel nationals all at his discretion without any without any legal recourse.  This is the same Peter Dutton that who claimed that Senator Hanson-Young wasn't spied on but evidence has since come out to the contrary and rather than correct the record and issue an apology Peter Dutton has continued his character assassination of Senator Hanson-Young.  This man isn't fit be a doorman never mind being responsible for the citizenship of Australians.


----------



## Tisme

overhang said:


> We have our government looking to give Peter Dutton the right to revoke citizenship of duel nationals all at his discretion without any without any legal recourse.  This is the same Peter Dutton that who claimed that Senator Hanson-Young wasn't spied on but evidence has since come out to the contrary and rather than correct the record and issue an apology Peter Dutton has continued his character assassination of Senator Hanson-Young.  This man isn't fit be a doorman never mind being responsible for the citizenship of Australians.




Dutton is just another of the hate cult that is the modern LNP. They hate anything that is not part of their exclusive brethren. I used to be proud of a country that was run by politicians who could put in the good fight during sittings and have a friendly beer or meal after. Not anymore, the latest crews are silent gen offspring who actually believe the other side is evil.


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> Dutton is just another of the hate cult that is the modern LNP. They hate anything that is not part of their exclusive brethren. I used to be proud of a country that was run by politicians who could put in the good fight during sittings and have a friendly beer or meal after. Not anymore, the latest crews are silent gen offspring who actually believe the other side is evil.




What was it like under communist rule in Vietnam?


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> What was it like under communist rule in Vietnam?




I don't know what  you are driving at, but I'm merely lamenting the loss of Australian custom.


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> I don't know what  you are driving at, but I'm merely lamenting the loss of Australian custom.




I just bet you are comrade.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> I just bet you are comrade.





 Cute as a fox eh?


----------



## luutzu

Tisme said:


> Dutton is just another of the hate cult that is the modern LNP. They hate anything that is not part of their exclusive brethren. I used to be proud of a country that was run by politicians who could put in the good fight during sittings and have a friendly beer or meal after. Not anymore, the latest crews are silent gen offspring who actually believe the other side is evil.




Was there ever a time when politicians, or at least the senior front-bench politicians, were real statesman? real leaders? The kind that put the country and the people first?

I don't think it's an exaggeration that if we're at war (ISIS is not a real existential threat here).. .that if we're in real danger, these lot will sell us out for a few bucks without flinching.

I mean, it's understandable that the PM must bite his tongue and approve dirty coal use and export for the sake of the economy and jobs... but Abbott seems to really really believe it's good and any alternative is nuts.

Then you got a Treasurer, the guy who presumably know the economy is in somewhat of a pickle, who's asking for belt tightening and sacrifices... and turns out he play the legal loophole game and rip Australian taxpayers of $12k a year in expenses for staying at a house he and his wife used to jointly owned.

What's $12,000 for a guy like him with a rich wife like his? But he did it. fah!

Australian children may need to dig deeper into history to find role models.


----------



## IFocus

Is there any chance this government can sink any lower...........well yes after looking to remove the process of law from the courts (remember separation of powers?) and hand the rule of law over to the biggest deuce bag (Peter Dutton, have you ever seen anyone with a blank look like his?)

All because we have to save Abbott..........strong on security is a poll winner FFS not because its good policy.

They are now appointing a wind farm commissioner........WTF.............no minister for science WTF..........

This is so 3rd world its beyond belief............oh but we can all relax because this mob are far better than Labor, f@#k aaaahhhhh.


----------



## Smurf1976

IFocus said:


> This is so 3rd world its beyond belief




We are starting to suffer a problem that's fairly common in resource rich countries. If you can simply dig up wealth then government has no real need for the population to be clever or even think too much. Take a look globally and that's fairly common - having a modest amount of natural resources seems to be a good thing, it removes the need to import, but having abundance to the point of underpinning a nation's economy leads to bad outcomes in many cases.

For the sake of the long term future, Australia needs an orderly adjustment whereby mining shrinks as a % of exports to the point that we are effectively forced to become good at something that requires ongoing human inputs on a major scale rather than relying on the one-off extraction of natural capital. Services, manufacturing and so on.

So long as wealth simply comes out of the ground, there's no real need for government to give a damn about the general population since people aren't the source of the nation's wealth. We'd likely be seeing a very similar outcome under current circumstances no matter who was in power unless they had avoided the situation in the first place.


----------



## SirRumpole

Smurf said:
			
		

> We are starting to suffer a problem that's fairly common in resource rich countries.




It's no problem in Norway.

A 78% tax on North Sea oil profits and every Norwegian is a notional millionaire.

As for us, well...

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ustralia-a-thing-or-two-about-managing-wealth


----------



## Tisme

Any chance the Abbott Govt can cut funding to the various institutes that are in reality political arms of the various political parties?

How about getting rid of the huge "consulting" bill by sending the parasites back into the private sector where they can battle it out in a competitive work environment.

Finally how about the govt focus on engendering an entrepreneurial spirit and the good old Aussie have a go for broke attitude ... sound like New Zealand goddammit!

There's gotta be some savings and revenue in there somewhere.


----------



## sydboy007

You can't help but laugh 

[video=youtube_share;zrxj2eQTIhc]http://youtu.be/zrxj2eQTIhc[/video]


----------



## dutchie

sydboy007 said:


> You can't help but laugh





Your right , you can't help laughing.

(I wonder what they are discussing)


----------



## Tisme

Poor Larissa Waters getting branded a bigot by one who knows what a bigot is for asking how Tony Abbott will reconcile his master's encyclical about climate change. Enquiring minds need to know.


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> Poor Larissa Waters getting branded a bigot by one who knows what a bigot is for asking how Tony Abbott will reconcile his master's encyclical about climate change. Enquiring minds need to know.




Larrisa Waters is a Fabian and to the best of my knowledge all Fabians are atheists so why is she using the Pope to extend her Global Warming campaign?
It it for convenience?


----------



## IFocus

noco said:


> Larrisa Waters is a Fabian and to the best of my knowledge all Fabians are atheists so why is she using the Pope to extend her Global Warming campaign?
> It it for convenience?




Abbott is a Neanderthal so why would you ask him a question to do with science and expect a sensible answer?


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> Abbott is a Neanderthal so why would you ask him a question to do with science and expect a sensible answer?




Maybe you could enlighten us, on which politicians are qualified to give sensible answers, on science questions.

Maybe they are all Neanderthals since Barry Jones retired, but then again, no one was listening to him in the end.

Politics has become a soap opera.


----------



## IFocus

sptrawler said:


> Maybe you could enlighten us, on which politicians are qualified to give sensible answers, on science questions.
> 
> Maybe they are all Neanderthals since Barry Jones retired, but then again, no one was listening to him in the end.
> 
> Politics has become a soap opera.




Talking soap Abbott sprouts its daily to the point of Ad Nauseam...seriously when has he said anything sensible in the last 12 months......anything.

As for science a minister would at least be able to present the case for funding and further the interests for the future of Australia instead we get a f$%king commissioner for wind turbines / advocate for further coal mining what bunch of dick heads.


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> Talking soap Abbott sprouts its daily to the point of Ad Nauseam...seriously when has he said anything sensible in the last 12 months......anything.
> 
> As for science a minister would at least be able to present the case for funding and further the interests for the future of Australia instead we get a f$%king commissioner for wind turbines / advocate for further coal mining what bunch of dick heads.




I don't disagree with you, but I'm yet to see anything more promising or enlightening, from any other party.


----------



## Tisme

IFocus said:


> Talking soap Abbott sprouts its daily to the point of Ad Nauseam...seriously when has he said anything sensible in the last 12 months......anything.
> 
> As for science a minister would at least be able to present the case for funding and further the interests for the future of Australia instead we get a f$%king commissioner for wind turbines / advocate for further coal mining what bunch of dick heads.




I have to congratulate you on giving me a good laugh on that post ...thanks


----------



## sydboy007

One has to wonder how long the Govt will stand by it's forecasts

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-25/mathias-cormann-says-budget-negotiations-are/6571714



> MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: The IMF is warning that the Government’s budget repair is in danger because of over-inflated revenue and spending expectations. It’s saying economic growth is likely to be closer to 2.5 per cent, well short of the forecast 3.5 per cent?
> 
> MATHIAS CORMANN: Well, we stand by our forecast. If you look at the growth figures in the first quarter of this calendar year, you will see that it is one of the strongest growth rates anywhere in the developed world, at 0.9 per cent, stronger growth rate than any of the G7 countries
> 
> What we have been able to observe is that our economic plan for stronger growth is working, economic growth is strengthening, employment growth is strengthening…




The Govt CAPEX forecasts have already been crushed by the ABS - 18-24% decline compared to the fairy dust -7% forecast from Hockey.

We had another 11.4% fall in the ToT over the march quarter which will start filtering through to reduced national incomes.  There's still a few more years worth of ToT falls to come, crimping income growth and tax revenues with it.

How about some honesty from the Govt instead of pretending everything is sunshine and lollipops, which makes voterland squeamish about the changes we need to make to regain our international competitiveness.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> How about some honesty from the Govt instead of pretending everything is sunshine and lollipops, which makes voterland squeamish about the changes we need to make to regain our international competitiveness.




Not being funny, but they tried that and no one liked hearing it, so it was all back to the warm fuzzy feel good $hit.
That's what everyone today wants to hear, no one wants to hear tighten the belt.
They want to hear lower the credit card interest rate, so we can fit more on it. lol,lol,lol

When we have squeezed the savers onto welfare, then we have to find the next easy target, must keep the spenders afloat at all cost.lol


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Not being funny, but they tried that and no one liked hearing it, so it was all back to the warm fuzzy feel good $hit.
> That's what everyone today wants to hear, no one wants to hear tighten the belt.
> They want to hear lower the credit card interest rate, so we can fit more on it. lol,lol,lol
> 
> When we have squeezed the savers onto welfare, then we have to find the next easy target, must keep the spenders afloat at all cost.lol




Last years budget that attacked the poor and young.  it in no way tried to repair the structural deficinicies of the budget.

At least this year we've seen the winding back of the howard Costello pension tapering largesse, though the ruling out of any changes to the super and NG / CGT means the shovelling of capital into unproductive housing will continue to prop the bubble up.

me thinks Abbott is taking Torror Australis a bit too far and his time would be better spent getting on with meaningful reforms rather than tryign to filter the internet where 8.8.8.8 will likely see it made ineffective.

I supose we shoudl eb thankful that Abbott is taking action to ensure wind farms wont harm more people /sarc


----------



## Tisme

So an early election next, now they have defamed the ABC, compromised the Greens', stopped the boats (being reported)  and neutered Bill Shorten, Julie Bishop and Malcolm.


----------



## Logique

SirRumpole said:


> It's no problem in Norway.
> A 78% tax on North Sea oil profits and every Norwegian is a notional millionaire.
> As for us, well...
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ustralia-a-thing-or-two-about-managing-wealth



If we're going to be like Norway, let's go all the way and build more dams to enable most of our electricity generation by hydro-electric generation, and while we're at it, let's license a series of trial nuclear plants.

Actually, all is not rosy in the Norwegian Wood, as the oil price slumps.



> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-oil-losses-have-government-exploring-options
> 
> ..A 56 percent plunge in the price of Brent crude since a June high has undermined Norway’s currency and beaten back its stock market. The krone has lost 20 percent against the dollar over the period.
> 
> Norway’s benchmark equity index is down 9 percent. Oil producers including the country’s biggest, Statoil ASA, and service companies have already cut thousands of jobs to adjust and unions are calling for government measures to protect the industry...
> 
> 
> ...“Right now, there’s somewhat of a state of emergency in the oil industry -- some would call it a panic,” Walter Qvam, CEO of Kongsberg Gruppen ASA, a Norwegian defense and oil services company, said in an interview.
> 
> “Norway needs this reminder, and it’s very good that we’re getting it now. We’re going to stay an oil nation, but we now need to create the next version of Norway, because the version we’ve been living in for the past 35 years is on the wan.”...


----------



## drsmith

Tisme said:


> So an early election next, now they have defamed the ABC, compromised the Greens', stopped the boats (being reported)  and neutered Bill Shorten, Julie Bishop and Malcolm.



This post is very similar to another in the ABC thread as is my response.

Talk of an early election is nothing more than wishful thinking by some.


----------



## SirRumpole

> “Norway needs this reminder, and it’s very good that we’re getting it now. We’re going to stay an oil nation, but we now need to create the next version of Norway, because the version we’ve been living in for the past 35 years is on the wane.”...




At least they have the money to build something new...


----------



## SirRumpole

drsmith said:


> Talk of an early election is nothing more than wishful thinking by some.




Does that come from Party HQ , or is it just your opinion ?


----------



## Ves

SirRumpole said:


> Does that come from Party HQ , or is it just your opinion ?



I understand that Abbott cannot call the next half-senate election until 1 July 2016  (the next earliest date).

But considering Abbott already has the confidence of the house of reps  (ie.  control), which he can call an election for,  there is probably no point.   

Besides,  do you think having a separate house of reps election,  then probably another senate election next year,   would really make the public show their delight?

There's the double dissolution route...   but,  that too is frought with problems.  The first being,  which current bill before parliament gives enough precedence for the G-G to accept a DD? I can't think of any.

Edit:  Oh,  and there is also the current state of the Senate vote distribution system,  and the major party line of thinking that it needs to be fixed.   The logistics of fixing it.... well,  they wouldn't be done in time for an early election in Winter or Spring this year IMO.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> Does that come from Party HQ , or is it just your opinion ?




Who would wish an election on the public anyway. Who are these people who know it's no on the agenda?


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> At least they have the money to build something new...




Norways oil is due to run out next year.

Norway has a VAT of 28 % on everything you purchase....No wonder they have plenty of money,

Just imagine the hue and cry if Australia increased the GST to 28% let alone 15% where it should be now to help  pay back the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd bad debt. The states would benefit and the Feds would not have to subsidize the states which in turn would release money to pay the bad debt.


----------



## Knobby22

noco said:


> Norways oil is due to run out next year.
> 
> Norway has a VAT of 28 % on everything you purchase....No wonder they have plenty of money,
> 
> Just imagine the hue and cry if Australia increased the GST to 28% let alone 15% where it should be now to help  pay back the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd bad debt. The states would benefit and the Feds would not have to subsidize the states which in turn would release money to pay the bad debt.




Norway is the most socialist in Europe, probably the world. All their taxes are incredibly high, Part of their constitution are written by Karl Marx. 
Honestly the worm has turned when the Libs are pushing higher taxes.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Norways oil is due to run out next year.
> 
> Norway has a VAT of 28 % on everything you purchase....No wonder they have plenty of money,
> 
> Just imagine the hue and cry if Australia increased the GST to 28% let alone 15% where it should be now to help  pay back the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd bad debt. The states would benefit and the Feds would not have to subsidize the states which in turn would release money to pay the bad debt.




They also save the majority of the Kroner they earned from that oil, unlike Australia that has pretty much used it's mineral wealth to increase the cost of housing.  As a people they have been thinking much longer term than we have.


----------



## Logique

sydboy007 said:


> They also save the majority of the Kroner they earned from that oil, unlike Australia that has pretty much used it's mineral wealth to increase the cost of housing.  As a people they have been thinking much longer term than we have.



I know we tend to go around in circles in this thread, but in the very recent past, Australia had money too! 

Then along came middle class welfare, from both sides of parliament, a panicked response to the GFC, $900 'plasma television' grants, and six years of a tax-and-spend government. The Treasury was looted, and it's by no means over, as we've allowed a culture of self-entitlement to develop.

I'll give this to the Norwegians, they at least stayed the course, and have protected their treasury reserves. They'll need them.


----------



## chiff

Before Norway struck it lucky with North Sea oil their main earners were shipping and fishing.They knew what it was like to lag the rich countries-hence they saved their windfall.
I will be there again next year-and from my experience they do not begrudge the taxes they pay.(having said that a nephew of mine is living in Spain for a few years with his family-a high earner)But he is returning to Norway when his children are of high school age.
As a generalisation housing was cheaper than in Australia-maybe not so in Oslo where the trendies are pushing up prices.   
As I was told when I bucked at the prices at a restaurant "You have to pay'-I took that to mean -stop your moaning.


----------



## noco

Knobby22 said:


> Norway is the most socialist in Europe, probably the world. All their taxes are incredibly high, Part of their constitution are written by Karl Marx.
> Honestly the worm has turned when the Libs are pushing higher taxes.




So would you say socialism is the answer?


----------



## Logique

drsmith said:


> This post is very similar to another in the ABC thread as is my response.
> 
> Talk of an early election is nothing more than wishful thinking by some.



The Coalition would be running cake stalls to keep Bill Shorten in the job.

'Tarnished' barely begins to describe the Opposition Leaders's political standing. And the heir apparent is.. Tanya Plibersek. It's an absolute gift.


----------



## Knobby22

noco said:


> So would you say socialism is the answer?




No. Where is their industry? And they were lucky to have the reserves. They would probably argue they had State Capitalism. And what's so good about 28% GST?

Crony capitalism as we seem to be getting in Australia has its negatives also though. 

Popular Capitalism as expounded by David Cameron is what I prefer.


----------



## SirRumpole

Logique said:


> The Coalition would be running cake stalls to keep Bill Shorten in the job.
> 
> 'Tarnished' barely begins to describe the Opposition Leaders's political standing. And the heir apparent is.. Tanya Plibersek. It's an absolute gift.




Yeah that's true at the moment, but if Shorten comes out of the Royal Commission well then he's still a good chance.

Point is that Shorten may have lied to a DJ about an internal Party matter, but Abbott lied to the electorate about things that affect the ordinary voter. Neither of them cover themselves with credit but I would still rather trust Shorten than Abbott on matters of policy and the national interest.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Yeah that's true at the moment, but if Shorten comes out of the Royal Commission well then he's still a good chance.
> 
> Point is that Shorten may have lied to a DJ about an internal Party matter, but Abbott lied to the electorate about things that affect the ordinary voter. Neither of them cover themselves with credit but I would still rather trust Shorten than Abbott on matters of policy and the national interest.




Rumpy, if Labor had been honest about the deficit being $18 billion instead of $48 billion in 2013 he (Abbott) may have had no need to lie....Abbott found himself $30 billion short so hence the reason for having to deny people of the "NO CUTS".

Does that make sense to you?


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> Yeah that's true at the moment, but if Shorten comes out of the Royal Commission well then he's still a good chance.
> 
> Point is that Shorten may have lied to a DJ about an internal Party matter, but Abbott lied to the electorate about things that affect the ordinary voter. Neither of them cover themselves with credit but I would still rather trust Shorten than Abbott on matters of policy and the national interest.




Lets not forget that abbott has form on obfuscation with the hanson slush fund from a decade ago

Some of his memorable quotes were:

* "there are some things the public has no particular right to know."

*  "I just believe private conversations should be private."


----------



## noco

There are some things that are worth knowing and there are somethings which scare the hell out of  us.

Much to the disliking of the lefties who wanted to see and tried hard to make the current government fail, there is progress being made.

Can Bill Shorten and the Green/Labor socialist left party match Abbott's current achievements?...When ever silly Billy opens his mouth it all about Tony Abbott...What happened to Labor's year of new ideas?...The silence is deafening.



http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2015/06/27/prime-minister-address-58th-liberal-federal-council

* I should ask: who’s Labor for these days?

I guess the ‘Killing Season’ answered that: they’re for themselves.

They’re the party that promised to be like John Howard, but weren’t.

They’re the party that promised us they wouldn’t restart the boats, but did.

They’re the party that promised surpluses, but delivered record debt and deficits.

They’re the party that said no carbon tax, but gave us one anyway.

Labor has not changed.

Almost two years into this term, they still want a carbon tax; they still have no policies to stop the boats and they’re still addicted to taxes and spending.

The choice is clear.

They’re for boats, we’re for none.

They’re for a carbon tax, we’re for lower tax.

They’re for taxes, we’re for jobs.

They do union bidding.

We stand for all of us.

Now I have to confess, I did sneak a peak at that ABC series The Killing Season.

The one thing that Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard could agree on was : you can’t trust Bill Shorten.

If Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd don’t trust Bill Shorten, why should you?

If the workers of the AWU couldn’t trust Bill Shorten, why should you?

Only the Liberal party and our National Party colleagues can be trusted to build a strong, prosperous economy and a safe, secure Australia.

Our party was not built on union deals, on union donations or on union arm twisting.

It’s built by people who believe in our country and who believe that our best days are ahead of us. *


----------



## Knobby22

And that's exactly the point noco. Even in this thread we don't seem to be discussing Liberal policy.

The Liberals are just electioneering against Labor instead of governing.

Abbott doesn't appear to have any direction. The debt is increasing. The powerful donors appear to have complete control. They have to get rid of him and put someone else in charge or I predict you will see the biggest Liberal loss in living memory.


----------



## noco

Knobby22 said:


> And that's exactly the point noco. Even in this thread we don't seem to be discussing Liberal policy.
> 
> The Liberals are just electioneering against Labor instead of governing.
> 
> Abbott doesn't appear to have any direction. The debt is increasing. The powerful donors appear to have complete control. They have to get rid of him and put someone else in charge or I predict you will see the biggest Liberal loss in living memory.




Err, the debt is increasing?????....I learned just recently where several billions of savings have been made to reduce the debt....It would have been considerably high had Labor stayed in power.

How could you say Abbott does not have any direction...He has made made lots of inroads IMO.

I think you should reconsider what you hear from the Fabian propaganda machine.


----------



## Knobby22

noco said:


> Err, the debt is increasing?????....I learned just recently where several billions of savings have been made to reduce the debt....It would have been considerably high had Labor stayed in power.
> 
> How could you say Abbott does not have any direction...He has made made lots of inroads IMO.
> 
> I think you should reconsider what you hear from the Fabian propaganda machine.




Hate to say, they will *double *the debt by the end of next year. Didn't the Courier Mail advise you of this?

http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/10/27/coalition-on-track-to-double-labor’s-debt-and-deficit/ 

Bring Back Costello from retirement...please or put a proven manager in charge (Bishop) or a merchant banker and successful businessman (you know who). The career politician is failing us.


----------



## SirRumpole

Knobby22 said:


> Bring Back Costello from retirement...




So what is there left to sell ?


----------



## sydboy007

Knobby22 said:


> Hate to say, they will *double *the debt by the end of next year. Didn't the Courier Mail advise you of this?
> 
> http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/10/27/coalition-on-track-to-double-labor’s-debt-and-deficit/
> 
> Bring Back Costello from retirement...please or put a proven manager in charge (Bishop) or a merchant banker and successful businessman (you know who). The career politician is failing us.




half the current issues with the budget are due to Costello, so please don't bring him back.  he only had one way of managing the budget - spend spend spend.

Whether removing fuel indexation, halving capital gains tax, reducing the tapering of the pension assets test, making it easier to get a seniors card, the Abbott Govt is having to confront these bad choices, but seems one Liberal Govt has to fix the mess of a previous one.

Do you remember when Costello was overseeing spending out of control in the final term of the Howard Govt?  Interest rates had to hit their highest level in a generation to try and slow the economy and put a break on inflation that was at 3.6% by the end of 2006.  That's definitely not the kind of economic management we require now.  We need someone with a bit of ticker who can take on the vested interests to make some meaningful reforms about pensioner incomes and housing taxation, capital gains while being able to work with the states to get them to move away from inefficient stamp duties and reforming the cost shifting that occurs in the health sector.  A bit of efficiency would go a long way.


----------



## noco

Knobby22 said:


> Hate to say, they will *double *the debt by the end of next year. Didn't the Courier Mail advise you of this?
> 
> http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/10/27/coalition-on-track-to-double-labor’s-debt-and-deficit/
> 
> Bring Back Costello from retirement...please or put a proven manager in charge (Bishop) or a merchant banker and successful businessman (you know who). The career politician is failing us.




Costello?????????.... hell no....why Costello when we have the worlds greatest treasurer sitting on the back bench...You know the one, who in 2013 who said we were in surplus and then corrected himself to $2 billion deficit, then $11 billion, then $18 billion and then find out after the 2013 election we were $48 billion in the red....all in about 6 weeks.


----------



## Knobby22

To be fair, Costello had it pretty easy, boom times. And he did try to save some of the money but it was wanted by his fellow politicians to try to win the next election.

Anyway, by the by, the debt is doubling. The "goose" in power now promises and doesn't deliver.
I don't think he has any vision which is why he chops and changes so much. He is just a political warrior, not the leader we need at the moment.


----------



## noco

Knobby22 said:


> Hate to say, they will *double *the debt by the end of next year. Didn't the Courier Mail advise you of this?
> 
> http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/10/27/coalition-on-track-to-double-labor’s-debt-and-deficit/
> 
> Bring Back Costello from retirement...please or put a proven manager in charge (Bishop) or a merchant banker and successful businessman (you know who). The career politician is failing us.




Once again it never ceases to amaze when I see quotes from a leftist paper like Crikey.

Crickey was originally started by a guy named Stephan Mayne who was tied in with Jeff Kennett and later sold his interest to Guy Rundle for $1 million.....Now Guy Rundle is anti capitalist and pro Marx......He speaks a lot about Karl Marx and about revolution away from capitalism. 

His Editor Marnie Cordell is also very critical of conservative governments and recently had a run in with Gerard Henderson over comments she made about Anne Henderson, Gerard Henderson's wife. 

https://overland.org.au/2014/11/making-revolution-a-reply-to-davidson/

I would not hesitate to say, the Green/Labor party must surely have some influence over crickey.com.au even though it is purported as being an independent paper.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Costello?????????.... hell no....why Costello when we have the worlds greatest treasurer sitting on the back bench...You know the one, who in 2013 who said we were in surplus and then corrected himself to $2 billion deficit, then $11 billion, then $18 billion and then find out after the 2013 election we were $48 billion in the red....all in about 6 weeks.




Considering how badly hockey will be looking by the end of the year. Can't even get the business CAPEX forecasts to last a week from the budget.

The liberals are definitely finding life tougher when Australians are saving again and revenue isn't rising faster than GDP growth.

Why no surplus yet when we had Govt members in opposition promising surplus after surplus even through a GFC style down turn?


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Considering how badly hockey will be looking by the end of the year. Can't even get the business CAPEX forecasts to last a week from the budget.
> 
> The liberals are definitely finding life tougher when Australians are saving again and revenue isn't rising faster than GDP growth.
> 
> Why no surplus yet when we had Govt members in opposition promising surplus after surplus even through a GFC style down turn?




I think you are becoming confused with the Green/Labor socialist left who were the ones who promised a surplus...Swan and Gillard stated it 500 times before the election.
I am sorry I have to keep reminding you.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> I think you are becoming confused with the Green/Labor socialist left who were the ones who promised a surplus...Swan and Gillard stated it 500 times before the election.
> I am sorry I have to keep reminding you.




back in 2013 Hockey said "Based on the numbers presented last Tuesday night we will achieve a surplus in our first year in office and we will achieve a surplus for every year of our first term."

back in 2012 Christopher Pyne claimed "Well if there had been a Coalition government for the last five years, Kieran, I think most people accept that we would have had continuing surpluses."

october 2013 Abbott pledged “We will get back to surplus at least as quickly as the former government claimed that it would get back to *surplus."

I wont go on, but there were plenty of claims while in opposition that a surplus would be easy to produce.  They probably were easy when some of them were member of the Howard Govt and had a rising ToT to provide windfall revenue - $100B extra by some estimates.  It's a very different experience when you face a declining ToT and the unwinding of the largest CAPEX boom in history, but that info isn't really relevant.  Deficit = bad and poor management in Liberal speak.

What's your views on the Liberals accepting mafia money?  More importantly, what's your views on Vandstone providing a visa for a mafia boss who then gets caught a few years later over one of the largest ecstasy busts in Australia.  I'd have thought you'd be on you soap box by now shouting all about it, but since it's not Labor or some fabian socialist plot it's not bothering you too much?


----------



## sptrawler

Well it looks as though university fees may come back on the agenda, as people are talking about the ridiculous amount of students doing degrees.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/unive...ng--success-and-job-prospects-20150630-gi0d4a

Maybe Uni students are stressed, because they really don't have the academic ability, for the course.
The whole education system has become a joke, it starts as a child minding service, and ends as a sausage factory with limited quality control.IMO


----------



## luutzu

sptrawler said:


> Well it looks as though university fees may come back on the agenda, as people are talking about the ridiculous amount of students doing degrees.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/comment/unive...ng--success-and-job-prospects-20150630-gi0d4a
> 
> Maybe Uni students are stressed, because they really don't have the academic ability, for the course.
> The whole education system has become a joke, it starts as a child minding service, and ends as a sausage factory with limited quality control.IMO




One way is to blame the universities, the other is to blame poor economic management and investment decisions that does not create enough demand for goods and services that will lead to greater demand for graduates and employment in general.

Let say those graduate do not go to university but attend TAFE or just get a job... if there's no job in the trades or the fast food industry, what then? It's not like there's plenty of jobs just too many unqualified uni graduates.

There's just way too much vested power pushing to dumb down the population, pushing too much debt on them.
But maybe the thinking is when the mines and minerals runs out, we'll just invest in cattle and export those to China or something. Who needs engineers and scientists, artist, poets, innovators and just generally well read people - there's YouTube and public libraries if they want to learn stuff after their shifts.


----------



## SirRumpole

luutzu said:


> Who needs engineers and scientists, artist, poets, innovators and just generally well read people - there's YouTube and public libraries if they want to learn stuff after their shifts.




Who needs qualified tradespeople when you can import unqualified ones from China.

This country is just going under to Right Wing IPA led stupid free market bulldust economics.


----------



## sptrawler

luutzu said:


> Who needs engineers and scientists, artist, poets, innovators and just generally well read people - there's YouTube and public libraries if they want to learn stuff after their shifts.




We need engineers and scientists, apparently not enough students enrol in those courses, they're too hard.

As for artists, poets and navel gazers, we have plenty queueing for those courses.


----------



## sydboy007

For tyhose cheering on Abbott for the FTA with China I wonder if you're also happy with the clause that allows Chinese companies to bring in workers on 457 Visas and they will not have to meet Australian standards.

According to a letter outlining the deal, there will be no requirement for Chinese electricians, cabinetmakers, carpenters and mechanics to undergo mandatory skills assessment in order to qualify for a 457 visa. 

We had a spike under the previous Liberal Govt with workplace deaths, and now they want to import "skilled" workers from China where there's over 70,000 work place deaths a year.

It gets worse with Robb promising the Chinese the Govt will look at trying to remove all skills assessments within 5 years.  Robb claims the Chinese workers will have to provide evidence of their qualifications, but if they can't make toothpaste safely, what's a qualification worth out of China?  

Hands up those who'd be happy to have a non english speaking Chinese worker redo the electrical wiring in their house?

This is a Liberal sell out of local workers, and Labor should hold their head in shame they've waved this through the parliament.


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> Who needs qualified tradespeople when you can import unqualified ones from China.
> 
> This country is just going under to Right Wing IPA led stupid free market bulldust economics.






sptrawler said:


> We need engineers and scientists, apparently not enough students enrol in those courses, they're too hard.
> 
> As for artists, poets and navel gazers, we have plenty queueing for those courses.




Prob partly stems from the fact we don't have a science minister, nor much support from the Govt to encourage students into STEMs courses.  Constant cut backs to the CSIRO, along with manufacturing in what could be terminal decline, the job opportunities may not be so crash hot in the near future.  I'd not want to leave uni with 50K or more of debt to only end up in a lowish paying job due to lack of demand for the skills I've gained.

It seems perverse there's plenty of incentive to get into the parasitic finance industry through uni, but not much encouragement to get people into more productive courses that would help to rebuild our infrastructure and competitiveness in the tradeables sector.

I don't believe any political party is taking this seriously at present.


----------



## luutzu

sptrawler said:


> We need engineers and scientists, apparently not enough students enrol in those courses, they're too hard.
> 
> As for artists, poets and navel gazers, we have plenty queueing for those courses.




Too hard to get a job afterwards. 

Whereas with English majors and naval gazing, there's the Ministry of Information and big banks or their wholly owned subsidiaries in Canberra 

But even with plenty of jobs and crazy pay for those in finance, they still managed to write bad propaganda and continuously wreck economies for some reason.


----------



## luutzu

sydboy007 said:


> Prob partly stems from the fact we don't have a science minister, nor much support from the Govt to encourage students into STEMs courses.  Constant cut backs to the CSIRO, along with manufacturing in what could be terminal decline, the job opportunities may not be so crash hot in the near future.  I'd not want to leave uni with 50K or more of debt to only end up in a lowish paying job due to lack of demand for the skills I've gained.
> 
> It seems perverse there's plenty of incentive to get into the parasitic finance industry through uni, but not much encouragement to get people into more productive courses that would help to rebuild our infrastructure and competitiveness in the tradeables sector.
> 
> I don't believe any political party is taking this seriously at present.




Like the US, we're becoming a one-party country: the pro-Business party.


----------



## Ald123

Look chaps it's too Expensive to educate people in Australia. It's much easier and cheaper to set the universities up to milk money from foreigners and pay the university ranking crowds to bolster Australian university rankings up so that everyone believes that Australian universities are the best in the world. It's much cheaper to get a fully qualified immigrant who has already paid for his studies and is willing to come to Australia and pay the Australian government to come here plus pay to get set up with his savings from elsewhere then waste time educating a local. Why would you do that? It's also cheaper to get a foreign worker in on a 457 visa then to hire an Australian local. Why would you hire an Australian when you can bring somebody else in who will then work hard to build himself a future and spend his wages in Australia because in Australia nobody can save anything to send home anyway. It's one more consumer you bring into the country. The  true blue Australian can sell his house and give some taxes back to the government and move somewhere into outback Australia to get another job at a lower standard of living if he can't compete. The Chinese guy will be a future Australian anyway. The aim of the government of Australia is to increase the population of Australia and to have that foreigner bring all his foreign money into Australia. It's not like the True blues Australian is going to leave right? If the true blue Australian complains to much and gets restless well that's why we have the militarised police and strict laws to keep him in place. This thread title, the Abbot Goverment, what a load of utter baloney! What difference does it make who's government is is, nothing changes. Every time I go vote in my electorate I just want to laugh and laugh and laugh, I get liberal shirts, and labour shirts and the greens shirts and I ask the lady who hands me a ballot paper and the pencil if she knows that pencil can be rubbed out while she has no clue what I am even suggesting. It's a joke, before elections you will have family members At a drunken barbecue in the park shouting and arguing with each other frothing at the mouth because one is labour the other is liberal, as if that is of any significance whatsoever? I love Australians and Australia its the best place in the world for a good laugh. I read the Australian newspapers and they are the best. Its first class entertainment from speeches in parliament on misogyny, Johnny Depp and his Dogs, big dick swinging politicians, Italian Mafia connections, Shane warne. The place is incredible.


----------



## luutzu

Ald123 said:


> Look chaps it's too Expensive to educate people in Australia. It's much easier and cheaper to set the universities up to milk money from foreigners and pay the university ranking crowds to bolster Australian university rankings up so that everyone believes that Australian universities are the best in the world. It's much cheaper to get a fully qualified immigrant who has already paid for his studies and is willing to come to Australia and pay the Australian government to come here plus pay to get set up with his savings from elsewhere then waste time educating a local. Why would you do that? It's also cheaper to get a foreign worker in on a 457 visa then to hire an Australian local. Why would you hire an Australian when you can bring somebody else in who will then work hard to build himself a future and spend his wages in Australia because in Australia nobody can save anything to send home anyway. It's one more consumer you bring into the country. The  true blue Australian can sell his house and give some taxes back to the government and move somewhere into outback Australia to get another job at a lower standard of living if he can't compete. The Chinese guy will be a future Australian anyway. The aim of the government of Australia is to increase the population of Australia and to have that foreigner bring all his foreign money into Australia. It's not like the True blues Australian is going to leave right? If the true blue Australian complains to much and gets restless well that's why we have the militarised police and strict laws to keep him in place. This thread title, the Abbot Goverment, what a load of utter baloney! What difference does it make who's government is is, nothing changes. Every time I go vote in my electorate I just want to laugh and laugh and laugh, I get liberal shirts, and labour shirts and the greens shirts and I ask the lady who hands me a ballot paper and the pencil if she knows that pencil can be rubbed out while she has no clue what I am even suggesting. It's a joke, before elections you will have family members At a drunken barbecue in the park shouting and arguing with each other frothing at the mouth because one is labour the other is liberal, as if that is of any significance whatsoever? I love Australians and Australia its the best place in the world for a good laugh. I read the Australian newspapers and they are the best. Its first class entertainment from speeches in parliament on misogyny, Johnny Depp and his Dogs, big dick swinging politicians, Italian Mafia connections, Shane warne. The place is incredible.




That seem to be the current thinking. To think otherwise require real Statesman and strategic geniuses... too bad we're being run by career politicians and accountants (apologies to accountants, haha).


----------



## Tisme

I see Environmental Justice Australia is about to sue the govt for inaction on climate change, based on Urgenda's success in Holland. Looks like the courts are going to set the targets from now on in around the first world nations.

And I also see that the ALP have uncovered plans to review the superannuation rules, after the govt said no changes in this or next term.


----------



## sydboy007

Tisme said:


> I see Environmental Justice Australia is about to sue the govt for inaction on climate change, based on Urgenda's success in Holland. Looks like the courts are going to set the targets from now on in around the first world nations.
> 
> And I also see that the ALP have uncovered plans to review the superannuation rules, after the govt said no changes in this or next term.




Well Abbott and Robb are set to leash the Govt to ISDS clauses, so get used to foreign corps telling us what we can and can't do.

Shame teh nationals wont have the balls to block the TPP legislation since it wont give the farmers anything, but will make a lot of IP much more expensive for us.


----------



## drsmith

Bank deposits tax not yet dead but government backbenchers are protesting,

http://www.afr.com/news/politics/bank-deposit-tax-faces-backbench-revolt-20150629-gi08n9


----------



## Smurf1976

luutzu said:


> too bad we're being run by career politicians and accountants (apologies to accountants, haha).




There's a role for accountants certainly, just as there is a role for many different people, but I do consider current thinking to be excessively focused on _short term_ finances to the detriment of the long term.

Take a look at practically any big game changing project that has ever been built. Few if any would be built under current circumstances simply because the "returns" took 10+ years to commence. Engineers and many other professions are comfortable with that concept but it doesn't suit those focused on short term politics and one year's financial results.


----------



## SirRumpole

Smurf1976 said:


> There's a role for accountants certainly, just as there is a role for many different people, but I do consider current thinking to be excessively focused on _short term_ finances to the detriment of the long term.
> 
> Take a look at practically any big game changing project that has ever been built. Few if any would be built under current circumstances simply because the "returns" took 10+ years to commence. Engineers and many other professions are comfortable with that concept but it doesn't suit those focused on short term politics and one year's financial results.




Private enterprise did not fund the Snowy Mountains Scheme and will not fund major infrastructure in this country because it's too much of a risk for them. 

Someone in government has to have the foresight to do nation building with infrastructure, and find the finance for it.


----------



## Ald123

SirRumpole said:


> Private enterprise did not fund the Snowy Mountains Scheme and will not fund major infrastructure in this country because it's too much of a risk for them.
> 
> Someone in government has to have the foresight to do nation building with infrastructure, and find the finance for it.




EXACTLY yet these muppets in parliament worry only about how they can undermine the opponent. 

The Australian Parliament is a highly dysfunctional entity filled with highly dysfunctional people voted in by a highly dysfunctional electorate living in a highly dysfunctional country. Sorry it's the truth about us. 

If we one day decide to change things for the better we can. It's upto us.


----------



## dutchie

Ald123 said:


> EXACTLY yet these muppets in parliament worry only about how they can undermine the opponent.
> 
> The Australian Parliament is a highly dysfunctional entity filled with highly dysfunctional people voted in by a highly dysfunctional electorate living in a highly dysfunctional country. Sorry it's the truth about us.
> 
> If we one day decide to change things for the better we can. It's upto us.




This is a world problem, not just Australia.

New parliament members come into Canberra thinking - "how can I make a difference". A week later having been indoctrinated into the system they are now thinking what everyone else is thinking - "what do I have to do to get re-elected".


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> Private enterprise did not fund the Snowy Mountains Scheme and will not fund major infrastructure in this country because it's too much of a risk for them.
> 
> Someone in government has to have the foresight to do nation building with infrastructure, and find the finance for it.




The Brits made sure a large part of the project materials were manufactured in their own backyards too.


----------



## Tisme

dutchie said:


> This is a world problem, not just Australia.
> 
> New parliament members come into Canberra thinking - "how can I make a difference". A week later having been indoctrinated into the system they are now thinking what everyone else is thinking - "what do I have to do to get re-elected".




I think it's pretty obvious the current govt had no idea how hard it is to take charge and defend attacks that the opposition are expected to mete out. 

Honeymoon or no honeymoon period, things are moving so quickly now with technology and changing social constructs, I reckon parliamentary parties need to shift their selection preferences away from lawyers and public servant types and get some savvy mercantile and techo gyrogearlooses into the mix.


----------



## pixel

Tisme said:


> I think it's pretty obvious the current govt had no idea how hard it is to take charge and defend attacks that the opposition are expected to mete out.
> 
> Honeymoon or no honeymoon period, things are moving so quickly now with technology and changing social constructs, I reckon parliamentary parties need to shift their selection preferences away from lawyers and public servant types and get some savvy mercantile and techo gyrogearlooses into the mix.




Good idea, Tisme,
BUT: The "savvy mercantile and techo gyrogearlooses" are much too smart to get into the mix. They can make a living from their being savvy and smart; and if our Gov'mint is too stupid and/or bogged down by their lawyer and public servant types, they take their knowledge and apply it abroad. That's called "Brain Drain" and leaves Australia worse off in the "Clever Country" races. But Jesuits and Serfs hoping for a Foreign Knighthood are still living in the Two-Class Society of past centuries, so they can't see that they're preventing Astrayans from being "young and free".


----------



## bunyip

This is pretty close to the mark....Bill Shorten at his best.

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...ts/bill_tells_it_straight/#.VY8L9IWBmo0.email


----------



## sydboy007

hey big spender


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> hey big spender




So in what areas has the spending increased ?


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> So in what areas has the spending increased ?




Social security is one area I would like to mention.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Social security is one area I would like to mention.




Yeah.  Pensions are taking an increasing share of the budget.  Super tax concessions too.

The current budget saw just about every saving spent.  Child care is expensive.

When Labor lost office Govt debt was at $178B net.  In just one year it went up over $61B

Pre-election Abbott told the Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry just a year before the election that the Coalition had “identified $50 billion of savings, for an $11 billion improvement in the budget bottom line and a reduction of $30 billion in net debt”.  Where are those savings now?

Abbott was telling us of the woes of paying $20M a day in interest, but things are fine now we're paying near $40M a day 

A tax white paper that has most of it's potential reforms already blocked by Abbott, I wonder how he plans to get the budget under control?

With 42 weeks in office during the 2013/14 FY Hockey could only muster up the excuse it was Labor's fault.  If you don't make any changes to the budget then I'd assume that means you agree with it??

Last year - The MYEFO released by the Government states that since the 2013 PEFO, policy decisions, which includes spending and revenue decisions, has had a $13.7 billion negative impact on the underlying cash balance over the forward estimates.

Fault Labor for their GFC spending if you want, but the truth is for their last 3 budgets they were very spend thrift, with 2 of them cutting spending in real terms.

Why is Abbott on such a spending spree?


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Yeah.  Pensions are taking an increasing share of the budget.  Super tax concessions too.
> 
> The current budget saw just about every saving spent.  Child care is expensive.
> 
> When Labor lost office Govt debt was at $178B net.  In just one year it went up over $61B
> 
> Pre-election Abbott told the Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry just a year before the election that the Coalition had “identified $50 billion of savings, for an $11 billion improvement in the budget bottom line and a reduction of $30 billion in net debt”.  Where are those savings now?
> 
> Abbott was telling us of the woes of paying $20M a day in interest, but things are fine now we're paying near $40M a day
> 
> A tax white paper that has most of it's potential reforms already blocked by Abbott, I wonder how he plans to get the budget under control?
> 
> With 42 weeks in office during the 2013/14 FY Hockey could only muster up the excuse it was Labor's fault.  If you don't make any changes to the budget then I'd assume that means you agree with it??
> 
> Last year - The MYEFO released by the Government states that since the 2013 PEFO, policy decisions, which includes spending and revenue decisions, has had a $13.7 billion negative impact on the underlying cash balance over the forward estimates.
> 
> Fault Labor for their GFC spending if you want, but the truth is for their last 3 budgets they were very spend thrift, with 2 of them cutting spending in real terms.
> 
> Why is Abbott on such a spending spree?




And if the  Green/Labor socialists win the next election it will be Greece Mark11..


----------



## Tisme

sydboy007 said:


> Why is Abbott on such a spending spree?




My question is "where" is the money being spent and on "what" and to "whom"? It's not on infrastructure, it's not on keeping the industrial sector humming, don't know about rural expeditures,...perhaps it's going into another public servant retirement pool future fund just like our assets did when Howard trawled for votes from the upper middle class (who are well represented by federal public servants as it turns out).


----------



## Tisme

I have another question:

will Tony Abbott make a good Prime Minister, if and when the Liberals take over from Labor?


----------



## pixel

sydboy007 said:


> Yeah.  Pensions are taking an increasing share of the budget.  Super tax concessions too.
> 
> The current budget saw just about every saving spent.  Child care is expensive.
> 
> When Labor lost office Govt debt was at $178B net.  In just one year it went up over $61B
> 
> Pre-election *Abbott told the Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry just a year before the election that the Coalition had “identified $50 billion of savings, for an $11 billion improvement in the budget bottom line and a reduction of $30 billion in net debt”.  Where are those savings now?
> 
> Abbott was telling us of the woes of paying $20M a day in interest, but things are fine now we're paying near $40M a day *
> 
> A tax white paper that has most of it's potential reforms already blocked by Abbott, I wonder how he plans to get the budget under control?
> 
> With 42 weeks in office during the 2013/14 FY Hockey could only muster up the excuse it was Labor's fault.  If you don't make any changes to the budget then I'd assume that means you agree with it??
> 
> Last year - The MYEFO released by the Government states that since the 2013 PEFO, policy decisions, which includes spending and revenue decisions, has had a $13.7 billion negative impact on the underlying cash balance over the forward estimates.
> 
> Fault Labor for their GFC spending if you want, but the truth is for their last 3 budgets they were very spend thrift, with 2 of them cutting spending in real terms.
> 
> Why is Abbott on such a spending spree?




Pre-Election, Abbott was telling lies about everything, just to get elected.
Post-Election, he no longer tells anything of substance; he gags his ministers, lest they tell something; and if he gets his way with the new laws - all under the pretense of "National Security" - he will gag and jail everybody else who speaks up and says anything that could expose him.

Police State, here we come.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> And if the  Green/Labor socialists win the next election it will be Greece Mark11..




Does that mean you agree that Abbott is basically trying to spend his way into a second term and just kicking the reform can down the road till we face our own Greek crisis?


----------



## sydboy007

pixel said:


> Pre-Election, Abbott was telling lies about everything, just to get elected.
> Post-Election, he no longer tells anything of substance; he gags his ministers, lest they tell something; and if he gets his way with the new laws - all under the pretense of "National Security" - he will gag and jail everybody else who speaks up and says anything that could expose him.
> 
> Police State, here we come.




Yes.  His fully costed and 3 year rollout NBN comes to mind.  Whinging about Labor not doing a CBA for infrastructure and promising all $100M+ projects would get a CBA if he was in office, only to break that promise before elected.

Infrastructure Australia has a list of projects that have potential for Govt investment.  They'd offer better returns to the public and economy than the world's most expensive tunnel

http://infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/projects/files/IPL_Web_update.pdf

I'm waiting for the day Brandis demands all encryption keys or some back door for the Govt to monitor and access communications.  For our protection of course.  Any opposition will be painted as beign sympathetic to terry wrists and paedophiles.

google already knows your movements, and apple records it as well.

https://maps.google.com/locationhistory

fortunately neither is under the data retention laws, but one has to wonder what nasties might be in the impending TPP - one of those things the public is deemed not needing to know by Abbott.  Considering how many of the potential members love to monitor their people, including the USA, could we see easy access forced on google and apple??


----------



## Tisme

Poor bloke can't buy a ticket to ride the equal opportunity train:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/sixthworst-in-the-world-the-gender-charts-that-shame-the-abbott-government-20150707-gi6m1y.html


----------



## sydboy007

IF anyone is worried what the potential fallout is from the Chinese stock market crashing or GREXIT, fear not as our PM has set in motion ways to shield us from the impending crisis.  Groceries to the rescuuueeeeeee.

http://www.pm.gov.au/media/2015-07-07/joint-doorstop-interview-sydney-0



> QUESTION:
> 
> Prime Minister, how concerned are you about the problems in China and Greece, those economic problems spreading to Australia and especially the plunge in the Chinese stock prices?
> 
> PRIME MINISTER:
> 
> Michael, look, the important thing is to do whatever we can to build a strong and prosperous economy locally, and again I get back to the Grocery Code of Conduct. This is about ensuring that we have the strongest possible local businesses to supply the strongest possible local businesses. We have a great supermarket system. That rests on the shoulders of great local suppliers and this is about ensuring that we continue to have very strong local suppliers, best possible product at the best possible price so that we get the best possible deal for consumers – and if we do that we will avoid the problems that we see overseas.






> QUESTION:
> 
> PM, are you concerned that the Chinese Government potentially has intervened in their stock market to try and prop it up given the losses that have been experienced over the last two weeks?
> 
> PRIME MINISTER:
> 
> Well, again, look, I’m not going to offer a running commentary on what other governments do. My business today and every day is to ensure our country is in the best possible position to deal with whatever comes. Whether it be challenges to our economic security, whether it be challenges to our national security, the job of this Government is to make our country as strong as it possibly can be and that's why the small business budget boost was so important with the instant asset write-off which has done so much to boost confidence, and that’s why today’s Grocery Code of Conduct is so important. It’s all about producing stronger local businesses and if we’ve got stronger local businesses, we’ll have a stronger economy and we'll be very well placed to deal with whatever the future throws at us.


----------



## Tisme

sydboy007 said:


> IF anyone is worried what the potential fallout is from the Chinese stock market crashing or GREXIT, fear not as our PM has set in motion ways to shield us from the impending crisis.  Groceries to the rescuuueeeeeee.
> 
> http://www.pm.gov.au/media/2015-07-07/joint-doorstop-interview-sydney-0




Thank GOD for Green Grocers, the engine room of Oz


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> Thank GOD for Green Grocers, the engine room of Oz




Wasn't there something on TV this week about the Mafia taking over the greengrocer business ?

No wonder Tony is so interested .


----------



## sydboy007

I thought the adults in charge was supposed to give the consumer a bit of pep in their step?

This definitely doesn't bode well for consumption propping up economic growth going forward




sample size is 26000.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> I thought the adults in charge was supposed to give the consumer a bit of pep in their step?
> 
> This definitely doesn't bode well for consumption propping up economic growth going forward
> 
> View attachment 63320
> 
> 
> sample size is 26000.




The government makes a big noise about small business packages increasing business confidence, but it will do no good unless the consumers are willing to open their pockets and start buying, and that doesn't look likely to happen anytime soon.


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> The government makes a big noise about small business packages increasing business confidence, but it will do no good unless the consumers are willing to open their pockets and start buying, and that doesn't look likely to happen anytime soon.




Yes, blow out the trade deficit in the interest of kicking the can a bit further.

Funny how no one mentions the ATO targeting Tony's tradies for roughly $2.3B in tax.



> Hundreds of thousands of building industry contractors who may have dodged their GST or income-tax obligations have been hit with $2.3 billion in tax bills.
> 
> But there could be billions more outstanding, as the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) continues data matching information reported to it to identify operators in the cash economy.
> 
> A reporting system was introduced in 2012-13 that requires businesses in the building and construction industry to report payments they make to contractors.
> 
> The ATO had so far contacted about 250,000 contractors. As a result it has identified income tax and GST liabilities of $2.3 billion for 2012-13.




They may find the new holden / ford ute with the full bling bling may have to wait as they pay their fair share of tax.


----------



## sydboy007

Little in the way of agricultural access to the USA market.  Now it seems the TPP will be blocking further access to generics, making the situation post US FTA even worse as we have the cost of the PBS some $200M a year higher due to increased patent terms.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnbrinkley/2015/07/07/tpp-still-has-a-long-way-to-go/



> The governments of several TPP countries are incensed at the U.S. government’s insistence on protecting American drug patents against encroachment by generics. They say the Obama administration is putting the profits of the American pharmaceutical industry ahead of the protection of public health – a claim that’s hard to refute.
> 
> *Politico reported last week that a leaked copy of the TPP’s intellectual property chapter included a provision restricting foreign governments’ rights to approve generic drugs that copy American brands. According to Politico, the provision would allow American pharmaceutical companies to claim patent infringement at the drop of a hat.*
> 
> U.S. patent law allows for copies of all manner of patented consumer products – watches, musical instruments, computer software and many others – under certain circumstances, with one exception: prescription drugs. Now, the Obama administration is trying to force that regime on the 11 other TPP countries…
> 
> The pharmaceutical industry says rigid enforcement of its patents is necessary to recoup the high cost of developing new drugs and getting them through the government-approval process. But they spend more on 60-second TV commercials and lavishing doctors with money and largesse than on R&D.




This is what DFAt had to say last month



> The Government is negotiating intellectual property provisions in the TPP within the framework of Australia’s existing laws and policies and does not support any proposals that would require changes to Australia’s current intellectual property arrangements, including our copyright and enforcement regimes…
> 
> The Government has stated clearly that it will not accept an outcome in the TPP which adversely affects the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme or our health system more generally, or an outcome that increases the price of medicines for Australians.




Does anyone believe that the Govt would walk away from the TPP even though it's not going to benefit farmers and will increase the cost of pharmaceuticals and music / movies / software??


----------



## luutzu

sydboy007 said:


> Little in the way of agricultural access to the USA market.  Now it seems the TPP will be blocking further access to generics, making the situation post US FTA even worse as we have the cost of the PBS some $200M a year higher due to increased patent terms.
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnbrinkley/2015/07/07/tpp-still-has-a-long-way-to-go/
> 
> 
> 
> This is what DFAt had to say last month
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone believe that the Govt would walk away from the TPP even though it's not going to benefit farmers and will increase the cost of pharmaceuticals and music / movies / software??




Heard from one of Joe Stiglitz's lectures that Big Pharma managed to push through one line of restriction in some bill that forbid the US gov't, yea, forbid the US gov't, from negotiating drug prices with them.

So the largest buyer of drugs cannot use its purchasing power to negotiate for a better deal, something you and I could do when we buy two of anything.

That one line costs US taxpayers $1 Trillion over 10 years. With a T. 


I wouldn't be surprised if that same line will be pushed into the TPP somewhere. That and extending their patent by a further 15 years on top of the current 20 - for innovation of course. 


But of course we got other more important topic to talk about, like what's up with Q&A and whose side is the ABC on.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Yes, blow out the trade deficit in the interest of kicking the can a bit further.
> 
> Funny how no one mentions the ATO targeting Tony's tradies for roughly $2.3B in tax.
> 
> 
> 
> They may find the new holden / ford ute with the full bling bling may have to wait as they pay their fair share of tax.




I wonder if that is a result of the stimulus incentive, where small business could write off a vehicle, up to $50k or something like that ?

When Labor were in office.

It was a bit of a rope the dope carrot.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> I wonder if that is a result of the stimulus incentive, where small business could write off a vehicle, up to $50k or something like that ?
> 
> When Labor were in office.
> 
> It was a bit of a rope the dope carrot.




Not sure what you're talking about.

I do remember Labor had a slightly less generous version of instant tax writeoff to what Hockey has launched

Small businesses with less than $2 million in turnover were able to write off each business asset, including laptops and office furniture, costing under $6500.

That was back in the 2012-13 tax year iirc.

I'd say it's just generally due to the fact the construction industry has been full of tax cheats for a very long time and it's only recently the ATO has started to collect the information required to force those who wont play by the rules to pay the appropriate amount of tax.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Not sure what you're talking about.
> 
> I do remember Labor had a slightly less generous version of instant tax writeoff to what Hockey has launched
> 
> Small businesses with less than $2 million in turnover were able to write off each business asset, including laptops and office furniture, costing under $6500.
> 
> That was back in the 2012-13 tax year iirc.
> 
> I'd say it's just generally due to the fact the construction industry has been full of tax cheats for a very long time and it's only recently the ATO has started to collect the information required to force those who wont play by the rules to pay the appropriate amount of tax.




It is certainly interesting especially with the amount they are talking about. They must have sprung a lot of tradies.

The incentive vehicle tax write off I think may have been this one.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...ary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview201112/CarTax

A lot of tradies bought the ss utes and 4x4's. I actually thought it was a bit earlier, because the guy over the road jumped in, couldn't wait to show off the new 4x4.

Alarm bell rang in my head when I saw it, one minute he was screaming poor, next minute he is making enough to make it worthwhile to buy a car for a tax write off. Weird


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> It is certainly interesting especially with the amount they are talking about. They must have sprung a lot of tradies.
> 
> The incentive vehicle tax write off I think may have been this one.
> 
> http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...ary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview201112/CarTax
> 
> A lot of tradies bought the ss utes and 4x4's. I actually thought it was a bit earlier, because the guy over the road jumped in, couldn't wait to show off the new 4x4.
> 
> Alarm bell rang in my head when I saw it, one minute he was screaming poor, next minute he is making enough to make it worthwhile to buy a car for a tax write off. Weird




Yes that was my immediate thought ... a Trojan horse that roots out tax evasion


----------



## IFocus

What a extraordinary bad government Abbott is leading.

Budget emergency..........remember, how can debt double yet its no longer issue.

How is it Abbott standing in front of a zillion flags and says the baddy's are coming to get each and every one of us and we need a new force in fancy uniforms and further loss of freedoms. (Turnbul made a mockery of this)

Is this done to protect us....no its because Abbott believes it will influence polling and save his neck what a shocker.

So how come 2 women die every week from domestic violence and the minister for women (is it still Abbott?) is silent?

How is it Abbott runs grubby royal commissions against his political opponents with commissioners prejudiced proceedings  wasting money yet allows the mafia to flourish and gain political influence in this country?

How is it Abbott and his agriculture minister allows coal mining over a significant farm land water table?

What a bunch of losers only reason they continue to govern is because of an inept and  ineffectual opposition.


----------



## Tisme

I must admit even the stony faced inquisitor having a go at Billy isn't enough for me to take the commission seriously as anything but yet another an attack on Labor at our expense.

You'd think the Obeid inquiry would have put the LNP off having them, as it seems the LNP do pretty much the same or worse things when it comes to finagling.

Anyway I hope they pursue the building and construction companies through the courts for breaking the law and they should be made to pay heavy fines for their complicity ....if any of it's true, which it probably is given the industry has been doing deals for like ever.


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> I must admit even the stony faced inquisitor having a go at Billy isn't enough for me to take the commission seriously as anything but yet another an attack on Labor at our expense.
> 
> :




Now there is a novel thought !


----------



## sydboy007

while I don't think getting a company to pay for your staff is a good idea, there seems to be relative acceptance by the LNP of the below shuffling between interest groups and government staff.  How can one argue there's no influence on Govt policy from this?

there doesn't seem to be any problem with a LNP Govt providing a free casino license to packer in NSW, estimated to be worth around $1B if it had been auctioned.

There also doesn't seem to be any issue with the LNP buddying up with AGL on providing a Govt stamp of approval for AGL pensioner accounts.  Once again no tender or consulting with competitors was done.

Hockey doesn't seem to believe that selling membership to the North Sydney Forum and providing privileged access to himself and treasury officials in any way compromises himself.  We also don't have a right to know who's been getting that privileged access.  If you're ponying up $22K one has to wonder what the expectations are.  At a minimum certain points of view are more likely to be heard than from those who can't afford to buy their way into meetings.

Yup, Labor does similar activities.  Does that make it right, or does it just show how corrupted our political system is?


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> Yup, Labor does similar activities.  Does that make it right, or does it just show how corrupted our political system is?




The second of those.

The advent of the Internet allows political parties to communicate with the public at a much cheaper rate. There is much less requirement for high cost blanket advertising which should be banned anyway. Parties can maintain their web sites and if people want to know their policies, they can access the party website.

Funding for election expenses, up to a cap, should come from the taxpayer or membership fees and donations (maximum $500 per member per year), with other donations from corporates (including unions) and individuals illegal.

This is the only way we can get credibility back into the political system.


----------



## sydboy007

lambie ranting, but for once actually makes a bit of sense.  What is the point of the nationals being a member og the Govt when they seem to have no voice

[video=youtube_share;xNgLQmuGK-c]http://youtu.be/xNgLQmuGK-c[/video]


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> lambie ranting, but for once actually makes a bit of sense.  What is the point of the nationals being a member og the Govt when they seem to have no voice
> 
> [video=youtube_share;xNgLQmuGK-c]http://youtu.be/xNgLQmuGK-c[/video]




Onya Jacquie !

Very clever (surprisingly) and very pertinent.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Onya Jacquie !
> 
> Very clever (surprisingly) and very pertinent.




Lambie is making out that the agriculture land will be forfeited for a coal mine..

The coal mine is in territory not used and cannot be used for agriculture purposes....The mine will only be using 1% of the underground water.......

Where is the conflict?......The farmer is happy as he will receive heaps of dough. 

A big beat up by the loonie left and  Barnby Joyce and now Tony Windsor wants to get into the act to enhance his bid for reentry into the political scene....Lets not forget Tony Windsor sold his farm to mining interests.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Lambie is making out that the agriculture land will be forfeited for a coal mine..
> 
> The coal mine is in territory not used and cannot be used for agriculture purposes....The mine will only be using 1% of the underground water.......
> 
> Where is the conflict?......The farmer is happy as he will receive heaps of dough.
> 
> A big beat up by the loonie left and  Barnby Joyce and now Tony Windsor wants to get into the act to enhance his bid for reentry into the political scene....Lets not forget Tony Windsor sold his farm to mining interests.




I see at least two conflicts:-

*1. The rights of property owners to say how their properties are used
*
    I don't know if the property owner has given his consent, but if he hasn't then its his land and if he says NO, then that should be end of story. I would have thought that only Commo's and Fabians would support compulsory seizure of land.

*2. Potential contamination of a common asset, ie the groundwater system*

  This is a serious issue and unless there is some way it CAN'T happen, there is no reason to suppose it won't.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Lambie is making out that the agriculture land will be forfeited for a coal mine..
> 
> The coal mine is in territory not used and cannot be used for agriculture purposes....The mine will only be using 1% of the underground water.......
> 
> Where is the conflict?......The farmer is happy as he will receive heaps of dough.
> 
> A big beat up by the loonie left and  Barnby Joyce and now Tony Windsor wants to get into the act to enhance his bid for reentry into the political scene....Lets not forget Tony Windsor sold his farm to mining interests.




So you support a communist controlled company building a new mine at a cost that's unlikely to be economic to bring further supply into a market that already has tens of millions of tonnes in excess capacity.  Interesting.

So you're 100% certain that the mine will in no way endanger the groundwater in the area?

You consider Alan Jones part of the conspiracy as well?  Farmers in the area opposed to the mine are also part of the loonie left?

Considering how CSG companies have provided numerous guarantees and then been found to try and hide water contamination, or at best being very tardy in alerting the authorities, forgive me for being a bit sceptical.

Funny how a wind turbine within 3KM of a house is a site for sore eyes to the Govt, but a massive coal mine that close to the town of Breeza is good for humanity.

The coal mine is quite large.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I see at least two conflicts:-
> 
> *1. The rights of property owners to say how their properties are used
> *
> I don't know if the property owner has given his consent, but if he hasn't then its his land and if he says NO, then that should be end of story. I would have thought that only Commo's and Fabians would support compulsory seizure of land.
> 
> *2. Potential contamination of a common asset, ie the groundwater system*
> 
> This is a serious issue and unless there is some way it CAN'T happen, there is no reason to suppose it won't.




I believe the owner has consented and received monies in return.

I also believe a strict environmental study has been carried out.

So ask again....where is the conflict?


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> I also believe a strict environmental study has been carried out.




Strict in your eyes may not be strict enough if the powers that be want the mine to go ahead regardless of what any environmental study says.


----------



## Tisme

I take it the miners are the commercial arm of the Fabian Society? Commercial activities are not new for the socialists, I recall many a highrise building in Canberra and the capital cities were owned by the union movement, so ripping up the heartland of the N in LNP makes sense.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Lambie is making out that the agriculture land will be forfeited for a coal mine..
> 
> The coal mine is in territory not used and cannot be used for agriculture purposes....The mine will only be using 1% of the underground water.......
> 
> Where is the conflict?......The farmer is happy as he will receive heaps of dough.
> 
> A big beat up by the loonie left and  Barnby Joyce and now Tony Windsor wants to get into the act to enhance his bid for reentry into the political scene....Lets not forget Tony Windsor sold his farm to mining interests.




Let's say that China wanted to put a coal mine on a property and the landholder objects.

Currently governments can force the landholder to allow the mining company access to private property.

Do you support them being able to do this ?


----------



## IFocus

Katharine Murphy puts the week into context

Tony Abbott's pointless whims uncover those who refuse to minister to him



> While all eyes were on Bill Shorten at the trade union royal commission, Europe fretted and the Chinese market wobbled and Tony Abbott *and his increasingly fractious government *had a very odd week.






> Before Shorten met Dyson Heydon and Jeremy Stoljar on Wednesday and Thursday, *Abbott had been in a supermarket suggesting to reporters that his grocery code of conduct would have prevented the various global market uncertainties.*






> *Yes, I’m afraid he did. He obviously didn’t mean it because what he said was entirely ridiculous.* But strange persisted. By week’s end* the prime minister was telling the ABC, a broadcaster independent of government, that it needed to move the Q&A program *to the news and current affairs division or his ministers would continue to boycott the program.




Oh dear Abbotts a liar who would have thought



> *what was being badged rather lamely by the prime minister’s office as a $4bn spend for the bush was actually a $1bn spend.*





> To compound indignity one, the prime minister then declined to let Joyce go on Q&A to sell it. (*Nobody watches Aunty in the bush, right?* Why would it be sensible to flog your wares there?)




But then there is more



> Turnbull’s intervention on national security at the Sydney Institute on Tuesday night could not have been more elegant, more reasonable, more forensic, or more devastating.




Cut to the chase and you get



> *And there was Abbott, in the middle, with his grocery code, and his silly finger jab at the ABC, while the world around us wobbles.*




http://www.theguardian.com/australia...inister-to-him


----------



## Ijustnewit

I would take any articles that Murphy writes and put them in the extreme left basket. You only have to follow a few articles or her twitter feed to see where she stands. Perhaps she would be better off on the ABC.


----------



## sydboy007

Ijustnewit said:


> I would take any articles that Murphy writes and put them in the extreme left basket. You only have to follow a few articles or her twitter feed to see where she stands. Perhaps she would be better off on the ABC.




I see you didn't actually put the effort in to discredit what she said.

Was anything she said factually incorrect?


----------



## sydboy007

seems the Abbott Govt has decided to not bother with the fig leaf on climate change any more.

Pro coal in prim ag land.  Tick

Against wind farms and wants to block the CEFC from helping to fund any new wind farms.  Tick

Now my understanding is wind energy is still the cheapest non fossil fuel source of energy we have.  We had to get rid of the carbon trading scheme because it was too expensive.

So why would the Govt actively discourage the cheapest source of renewable energy and push the CEFC to increase investments in solar?  Doesn't that then make the RET more expensive and mean that there wont be any savings from the reduction of the RET?

Some on this forum have argued that the farmers who are selling out to Shenua for a massive coal mine have the right, but then doesn't a farmer with marginal land have the right to get a reliable income from wind turbines on their property?  I'd be pretty confident in saying some wind turbines are going to have less of an impact on the surrounding community than a coal mine.  Plenty of infra-sound generated from the heavy machinery used in a mine too.

We'll be behind the proverbial economic eight ball when the USA and China start to use carbon as a trade weapon.


----------



## Smurf1976

Liberals are there to benefit big business, that's how it works and has done for many years now.

Coal mines are a bigger business than an individual farm, be it an agricultural farm or a wind farm. Hence coal is more important.


----------



## SirRumpole

Smurf1976 said:


> Liberals are there to benefit big business, that's how it works and has done for many years now.
> 
> Coal mines are a bigger business than an individual farm, be it an agricultural farm or a wind farm. Hence coal is more important.




The amount that coal companies are being advantaged makes Shorten's $40k "memory slip" look positively trivial. 

The real bribery taking place is by big business to the Liberal Party. Obviously Holden, Ford and Toyota didn't pay enough.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> The amount that coal companies are being advantaged makes Shorten's $40k "memory slip" look positively trivial.
> 
> The real bribery taking place is by big business to the Liberal Party. Obviously Holden, Ford and Toyota didn't pay enough.




Oh come on Rumpy, Gillard paid the overseas car manufacturers $millions of dollars to stay until 2022 but they have decided to pull out sooner......You also know but won't admit it that the cost factor and lower production made it inevitable to pull out of Australia....Did you really believe the tax payer should subsidize this industry for ever and a day to prop up the corrupt unions.....Semi Skilled labour were being paid $80,000 per year for repetition work.

You seem to talk about big business should not operate in Australia....You talk about the coal industry which employes thousands of jobs.

Shortens $40,000 memory loss????????That is debatable as Bob Hogg commented....Shorten was hoping no one would find out.

The $80 million spent on the RC into union corruption is trivial in comparison to the $11 billion + wasted by the Green/Labor socialists on open borders.


----------



## IFocus

Ijustnewit said:


> I would take any articles that Murphy writes and put them in the extreme left basket. You only have to follow a few articles or her twitter feed to see where she stands. Perhaps she would be better off on the ABC.




Murphy is left but not extreme IMHO, disagree about the ABC as its about broadcasting to the general community which is always going to be more socially biased rather than conservative plus the conservatives have joined the US Republicans in letting the extreme right to take power so the whole political spectrum has moved right.

A good measure is look at the UK conservatives I would suggest further left than Aus Labor in many areas.


----------



## Macquack

noco said:


> The $80 million spent on the RC into union corruption is trivial in comparison to the $11 billion + wasted by the Green/Labor socialists on open borders.




What is the relevance of this comparison, except to show your biased view.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Shortens $40,000 memory loss????????That is debatable as Bob Hogg commented....Shorten was hoping no one would find out.




Are you as scathing of the multitude of Abbott memory losses.  Whether over his hanson slush fund, billing tax payers for his book signing tours, or forgetting about his mortgage of $710K, which many on the Liberal side said was "simple mistake", he's certainly a bit befuddled at times when it suits him.

I know, when you've been earning at a ministerial rate for so long these trifling sums are easy to forget.

Then Abbott was off at taxpayers expense back in March for a Liberal donor's birthday bash.  said donor provided $750K in 2013-14

Liberals are no cleaner and have their snouts very deeply in the trough.  To try and claim otherwise, there's just too much evidence to show it's true.  Don Randall was a prime example.


----------



## noco

Macquack said:


> What is the relevance of this comparison, except to show your biased view.




The insinuation that RC into union corruption is a waste of money.........And you are trying to tell me the Green/Labor socialist party's expenditure of $11 billion + is for a good cause or was it a waste of money?


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> The insinuation that RC into union corruption is a waste of money.........And you are trying to tell me the Green/Labor socialist party's expenditure of $11 billion + is for a good cause or was it a waste of money?




The spending of this money insulated Australia from the GFC no matter how much you like to pretend that it never happened.

Trying to justify the RC expense by saying its trivial compared to something else is just a diversionary tactic. Just what good will come out of it for the country ? It's a pointless political exercise.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> The insinuation that RC into union corruption is a waste of money.........And you are trying to tell me the Green/Labor socialist party's expenditure of $11 billion + is for a good cause or was it a waste of money?




Spending under the Abbott government is now estimated at 25.9 per cent of GDP, higher than in the last years of Labor, and 2.8 percentage points of GDP higher (about $40 billion-$50 billion) than when the Howard government lost office in 2007-08.

The budget papers show that, measured as a percentage of GDP, spending under the two budget years of the Abbott government - both 25.9 per cent - was exceeded by Labor in only one year: 26 per cent in 2009-10, the year following the GFC spending.

But we've got a budget emergency and there's nothing to worry about an extra $100B in debt, and counting


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> The spending of this money insulated Australia from the GFC no matter how much you like to pretend that it never happened.
> 
> Trying to justify the RC expense by saying its trivial compared to something else is just a diversionary tactic. Just what good will come out of it for the country ? It's a pointless political exercise.




Are you trying to tell me spending $11 billion + on illegal immigrants insulated Australia from the GFC?

Well, you must admit the RC has opened up a can of worms in the union movement....It has exposed the rorting, the intimidation, extortion, the bullying and how the workers were duded out $millions pay to strengthen Shortens personal advance...Shorten the workers friend??????????


----------



## trainspotter

sydboy007 said:


> Spending under the Abbott government is now estimated at 25.9 per cent of GDP, higher than in the last years of Labor, and 2.8 percentage points of GDP higher (about $40 billion-$50 billion) than when the Howard government lost office in 2007-08.
> 
> The budget papers show that, measured as a percentage of GDP, spending under the two budget years of the Abbott government - both 25.9 per cent - was exceeded by Labor in only one year: 26 per cent in 2009-10, the year following the GFC spending.
> 
> But we've got a budget emergency and there's nothing to worry about an extra $100B in debt, and counting




Shorten memory must have a shooooort memory ,,,,,

When John Howard left office, the nation had a gross debt of $58 billion and a net position of $44 billion in the *black.*


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> Are you trying to tell me spending $11 billion + on illegal immigrants insulated Australia from the GFC?




Wasn't the spend a net zero, by diverting funds from the foreign aid budget?


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Spending under the Abbott government is now estimated at 25.9 per cent of GDP, higher than in the last years of Labor, and 2.8 percentage points of GDP higher (about $40 billion-$50 billion) than when the Howard government lost office in 2007-08.
> 
> The budget papers show that, measured as a percentage of GDP, spending under the two budget years of the Abbott government - both 25.9 per cent - was exceeded by Labor in only one year: 26 per cent in 2009-10, the year following the GFC spending.
> 
> But we've got a budget emergency and there's nothing to worry about an extra $100B in debt, and counting




Well with GDP falling and spending cuts not allowed, that's a no brainer.

The only good thing that is going to happen, is a huge living standard shock, for everyone.IMO

Which, to be completely honest, we need.

Currently everyone thinks they are doing it hard, they are in for a shock.IMO

SE Asian Countries are industrialising and building a tertiary industrial base, this will underpin their standard of living growth.

The flip side of this, our underpinning economy is becoming more primary and secondary industry, which sooner or later will be reflected in our standard of living.

The U.K went through this in the 60's and 70's, their saving grace was a small country with a large population, we don't have that luxury.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Well with GDP falling and spending cuts not allowed, that's a no brainer.
> 
> The only good thing that is going to happen, is a huge living standard shock, for everyone.IMO
> 
> Which, to be completely honest, we need.
> 
> Currently everyone thinks they are doing it hard, they are in for a shock.IMO
> 
> SE Asian Countries are industrialising and building a tertiary industrial base, this will underpin their standard of living growth.
> 
> The flip side of this, our underpinning economy is becoming more primary and secondary industry, which sooner or later will be reflected in our standard of living.
> 
> The U.K went through this in the 60's and 70's, their saving grace was a small country with a large population, we don't have that luxury.




* Australian GDP is still growing - 2.3% on the latest figures.  GDP per capita isn't so flash and hasn't been for over a decade.

* Income growth has been falling for an extended period - at lowest level in a very long time.

* Abbott made $16B in new spending commitments in the current budget.  This was offset by savings so that the budget deficit improves by $1.6B over 5 years.  Not much deficit busting effort there me thinks.

* Looking at close to $18B in spending cuts so I don't think you can claim that no spending cuts have been allowed.

* Yup, we're turning into a banana republic faster than I thought possible.  I wonder how long before we get kids like this pinoy boy in Australia

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...of-him-studying-on-the-street-goes-viral.html



> "He is a very studious and determined boy... he would insist on going to school even without his lunch money because I have no money to give," Ms Espinosa said.
> 
> "He always tells me: 'Mama, I don't want to stay poor. I want to reach my dreams'."


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> * Australian GDP is still growing - 2.3% on the latest figures.  GDP per capita isn't so flash and hasn't been for over a decade.
> 
> * Income growth has been falling for an extended period - at lowest level in a very long time.
> 
> * Abbott made $16B in new spending commitments in the current budget.  This was offset by savings so that the budget deficit improves by $1.6B over 5 years.  Not much deficit busting effort there me thinks.
> 
> * Looking at close to $18B in spending cuts so I don't think you can claim that no spending cuts have been allowed.
> 
> * Yup, we're turning into a banana republic faster than I thought possible.  I wonder how long before we get kids like this pinoy boy in Australia
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...of-him-studying-on-the-street-goes-viral.html




I really can't be bothered getting down to finger pointing, I think it is way past that.

Pulling up a load of stats to support argument, doesn't help, when the the game is lost.

In Perth , from my personal observations, the Aussies are getting pushed out into the outer suburbs, and I don't think Labor or Liberal can stop it.

Believe it or not, I think the welfare system accelerates it, because Aussies don't work as a family unit like Asians and Indians do. Their strong family unit model works extremely well, by maximising income and spreading the burden of outgoings.

We, being of the belief you have to paddle your own canoe, tend to have a segregated family unit, this is much harder to support financially.

Anyway like I said, keeping the argument at a political party level, will end up with the same outcome.IMO

There needs to be a massive shift, in what is realistically achievable and affordable, neither side of politics is accepting that.

Untill they all get over their self interests, and face reality, nothing is going to stop the spiral.

Just read your post, gdp growth, spending cuts, wages falling and its still going backwards.


----------



## luutzu

sptrawler said:


> I really can't be bothered getting down to finger pointing, I think it is way past that.
> 
> Pulling up a load of stats to support argument, doesn't help, when the the game is lost.
> 
> In Perth , from my personal observations, the Aussies are getting pushed out into the outer suburbs, and I don't think Labor or Liberal can stop it.
> 
> Believe it or not, I think the welfare system accelerates it, because Aussies don't work as a family unit like Asians and Indians do. Their strong family unit model works extremely well, by maximising income and spreading the burden of outgoings.
> 
> We, being of the belief you have to paddle your own canoe, tend to have a segregated family unit, this is much harder to support financially.
> 
> Anyway like I said, keeping the argument at a political party level, will end up with the same outcome.IMO
> 
> There needs to be a massive shift, in what is realistically achievable and affordable, neither side of politics is accepting that.
> 
> Untill they all get over their self interests, and face reality, nothing is going to stop the spiral.
> 
> Just read your post, gdp growth, spending cuts, wages falling and its still going backwards.




If it's family structure like you're saying, how then does the gov't change that or could be at fault? Or how is that the Asian's fault anyway?

i thought Jewish and Italian and Arabs also have closed-knit family structure. Yea, Caucasians are stuffed 

Seriously though, there's good and bad in both but I find that most Asian kids would want to move out and be independent like their caucasian friends... just it's a bit tougher on the parents to adjust to it; and most couldn't nowadays because they, like most kids, just don't have the money.


----------



## Tisme

luutzu said:


> If it's family structure like you're saying, how then does the gov't change that or could be at fault? Or how is that the Asian's fault anyway?
> 
> i thought Jewish and Italian and Arabs also have closed-knit family structure. Yea, Caucasians are stuffed
> 
> Seriously though, there's good and bad in both but I find that most Asian kids would want to move out and be independent like their caucasian friends... just it's a bit tougher on the parents to adjust to it; and most couldn't nowadays because they, like most kids, just don't have the money.




Collectivism versus individualism.

About the only things we Australians consider worth banding together for is sport, parties and politics ... all of them pretty useless pursuits (in terms of wealth creation).


----------



## Tisme

Hopefully another QANDA episode without an LNP sook.

Be interesting if old brand Liberal Hewson has a few words about the Abbott clan and the psychosis that has paralysed it from speaking to the people, on the people's tv station.


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> Hopefully another QANDA episode without an LNP sook.
> 
> Be interesting if old brand Liberal Hewson has a few words about the Abbott clan and the psychosis that has paralysed it from speaking to the people, on the people's tv station.





Tony Jones will be lost tonight without be able to bung on a "GOTCHA" act....He will still stack his audience with 100% lefties  as he normally does.

Tony Jones can stick his show where the Sun don't shine.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Tony Jones will be lost tonight without be able to bung on a "GOTCHA" act....He will still stack his audience with 100% lefties  as he normally does.




Don't watch it then


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> Tony Jones will be lost tonight without be able to bung on a "GOTCHA" act....He will still stack his audience with 100% lefties  as he normally does.
> 
> Tony Jones can stick his show where the Sun don't shine.




The only way a leftie can get in is by professing to be a Liberal..... blue bloods don't like pleb crowds so there's always plenty of seats in their stalls.


----------



## dutchie

Tisme said:


> Hopefully another QANDA episode without an LNP sook.
> 
> Be interesting if old brand Liberal Hewson has a few words about the Abbott clan and the psychosis that has paralysed it from speaking to the people, on the people's tv station.




It will be as boring as watching paint dry without someone to mock and deride.


----------



## sydboy007

Seems like the grocery industry code of conduct has failed to protect the economy yet again.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-...ted-by-50000-permits-for-q3-indonesia/6614826



> Australia’s northern cattle industry has been told the Indonesian Government will be issuing just 50,000 cattle import permits for the current third quarter (Q3).
> 
> The permits are still yet to be released, but news of the low allocation started to flow through on Friday evening, with one cattle exporter telling ABC Rural the result was “absolutely devastating” and would cause a “huge shipping headache”.
> 
> The allocation for the July to September quarter is well down on the 200,000 head which exporters and importers had been lobbying for, and is well off the 250,000 permits allocated the quarter before.
> 
> Tracey Hayes, from the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association, said the low allocation had caught the industry by surprise.
> 
> “It was predicted to be quite a bit higher. Around 200,000 permits [for Q3] was the number we were expecting. So it has been surprising to hear reports of 50,000,” she said.




Note to Abbott.  You can't just pay the smugglers, you have to pay off the various officials back in Indonesia as well.  Hopefully an orange boat filled with pineapples will sort things out and get the beef flowing again.


----------



## IFocus

trainspotter said:


> Shorten memory must have a shooooort memory ,,,,,
> 
> When John Howard left office, the nation had a gross debt of $58 billion and a net position of $44 billion in the *black.*




Rivers of revenue gold and sold off 70 bill + of assets..............yep economic genus.


----------



## luutzu

Tisme said:


> Collectivism versus individualism.
> 
> About the only things we Australians consider worth banding together for is sport, parties and politics ... all of them pretty useless pursuits (in terms of wealth creation).




Yea, for a group that aren't much good you guys sure did a number on the world's other civilisations 

Not only does Caucasians dominate and beat every other empires on every measure - doing it for the past 500 years and still going; whinging and playing the victim card is also the game they're winning too.

You have got to give some people a chance man - it's call good sportsmanship. I mean, even the Aborigines are being made to feel like they're gaming the system and having it too good.


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> Rivers of revenue gold and sold off 70 bill + of assets..............yep economic genus.




Probably about as smart, as Rudd throwing hands full of cash out the window, midway through a resources boom.

Neither party has shown it has a monopoly on intelligence, more like a mutual desire to stay in office, at any cost.


----------



## trainspotter

IFocus said:


> Rivers of revenue gold and sold off 70 bill + of assets..............yep economic genus.




Simple Phillips Curve Economics old **** ...



> The Phillips curve represents the relationship between the rate of inflation and the unemployment rate. Although he had precursors, A. W. H. Phillips’s study of wage inflation and unemployment in the United Kingdom from 1861 to 1957 is a milestone in the development of macroeconomics. Phillips found a consistent inverse relationship: when unemployment was high, wages increased slowly; when unemployment was low, wages rose rapidly.




http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PhillipsCurve.html

http://insidestory.org.au/the-howard-impact



> The process of *averaging the unemployment rates* within each leader’s term flatters Whitlam (the long-term deterioration began towards the end of his watch) and maligns Hawke, who made rapid progress in reducing the 10 per cent unemployment rate inherited from Fraser, but then presided over his own recession, which caused the rate to reach a new cyclical peak of 11 per cent early in Keating’s term. *The improvement under Howard was considerably better than in the selected countries as a whole.*




Jobs, jobs, jobs ... Creates stimulus.

When will TA get a grip on this simple thesis?


----------



## sydboy007

trainspotter said:


> Simple Phillips Curve Economics old **** ...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PhillipsCurve.html
> 
> http://insidestory.org.au/the-howard-impact
> 
> 
> 
> Jobs, jobs, jobs ... Creates stimulus.
> 
> When will TA get a grip on this simple thesis?




DEBT BBBAAADDDDDDDD

Until Abbott can get around that lie there's no money for infrastructure investment.

IA has a few decently large projects on it's books that could be productivity enhancing and self liquidating over time.

I just don't think the public will accept such a u turn on debt from Abbott.  Then again throw enough pineapples at the voters and they seem to be a forgiving bunch.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Seems like the grocery industry code of conduct has failed to protect the economy yet again.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-...ted-by-50000-permits-for-q3-indonesia/6614826
> 
> 
> 
> Note to Abbott.  You can't just pay the smugglers, you have to pay off the various officials back in Indonesia as well.  Hopefully an orange boat filled with pineapples will sort things out and get the beef flowing again.




Well Indonesia did say they were going to reduce their dependence on Australian beef, after the embargo was put on a few years back.

It may not happen overnight, but it will happen.


----------



## Knobby22

sptrawler said:


> Well Indonesia did say they were going to reduce their dependence on Australian beef, after the embargo was put on a few years back.
> 
> It may not happen overnight, but it will happen.




If we are stupid enough (and we are) to keep having infractions with our closest large neighbor then is it any wonder they prefer to get their beef from the USA and NZ? 
Under Labor we have cut off their cattle flow, spied on their Prime Minister and his wife, the famous Abbott insult, the paying of smugglers to return to Indonesia etc. etc. We are so dumb.


----------



## trainspotter

Nothing will prepare you for THIS ....


----------



## sydboy007

trainspotter said:


> Nothing will prepare you for THIS ....
> 
> View attachment 63442




I posted about this days ago

No one cared.

We'll be a Chinese client state in short order.  The only jobs left for us will be sweeping the streets and clipping the toe nails of the wealth colonists.

But hey, we're open for business, just as long as it's a pollution industry.  Anything green tech will receive only Govt obstructionism.

You just need 15% of Chinese investment in a project of $150M or more to get coverage via the FTA.  I can see a lot of small stakes in projects by the chinese to broaden their reach and limit opposition, while companies from other countries will likely love the idea of flooding the market with 457 visa holders from China to supplant less compliant local workers.


----------



## SirRumpole

trainspotter said:


> Nothing will prepare you for THIS ....
> 
> View attachment 63442




Yeah, great , so not only do we have to have their dodgy materials in our homes, offices and factories, we have to have their dodgy tradesman as well. Sheesh ! and for what ?


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> Yeah, great , so not only do we have to have their dodgy materials in our homes, offices and factories, we have to have their dodgy tradesman as well. Sheesh ! and for what ?




Photo op for Abbott and Bishop signing our future way of life away.

Sadly I can see Labor soap boxing for a day then rubber stamping this sellout, just as when we finally see how badly bent over we are with the TPP they will wave that through as well.


----------



## SirRumpole

This is an interesting perspective on whose opinions are really influential at the top level of this government.

It's not the voter's, that's for sure

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-14/coal-mine-debate-barnaby-joyce-leadership/6619210


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> This is an interesting perspective on whose opinions are really influential at the top level of this government.
> 
> It's not the voter's, that's for sure
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-14/coal-mine-debate-barnaby-joyce-leadership/6619210




Why? what do the voters want.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> Why? what do the voters want.




Not Chinese coal mines springing up everywhere, or substandard Chinese materials in our buildings constructed by substandard Chinese workers.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Not Chinese coal mines springing up everywhere, or substandard Chinese materials in our buildings constructed by substandard Chinese workers.




Maybe we will soon have to choose between the Chinese and the Fabians...Not much difference really.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> Not Chinese coal mines springing up everywhere, or substandard Chinese materials in our buildings constructed by substandard Chinese workers.




So you don't want mines, that employ people and you don't want Chinese gear and you don't want Chinese workers.

Well you had better get used to it.IMO

When our companies go broke, from high costs, who is going to buy them out?

When our mines go broke, who will buy them out?

When our farmers can't make enough money, selling their produce, who will buy them out?

The next question, will the new owners employ Australians, attitude and all.lol

When we don't make enough money, to support our welfare system, who pays the rates on the pensioners houses?

If you think Labor have the answers, best of luck with that.

I think they have less of a clue than Liberal, having said that, I don't think either have any idea.

The down side of a global economy, is, you have to compete and be competitive.

Just saying you are fabulous, and thinking you deserve better money than other people, doesn't make it so.lol

What if they are better workers than you, and worse still, what if they are better at their job than you.lol


----------



## Smurf1976

trainspotter said:


> Nothing will prepare you for THIS ....




It's going way beyond foreign investment into Australian industry. Now we have Australian workers effectively pushed aside in their own country and replaced by those who lack the skills to do the job properly in the first place.

It will end with an inevitable consequence. Someone dies. Literally. Probably quite a few deaths actually if we're going to let shoddy workmanship become the norm.


----------



## noco

Smurf1976 said:


> It's going way beyond foreign investment into Australian industry. Now we have Australian workers effectively pushed aside in their own country and replaced by those who lack the skills to do the job properly in the first place.
> 
> It will end with an inevitable consequence. Someone dies. Literally. Probably quite a few deaths actually if we're going to let shoddy workmanship become the norm.




What is a life worth in China......If they lose one or two there are millions waiting to take their place.


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> It's going way beyond foreign investment into Australian industry. Now we have Australian workers effectively pushed aside in their own country and replaced by those who lack the skills to do the job properly in the first place.
> 
> It will end with an inevitable consequence. Someone dies. Literally. Probably quite a few deaths actually if we're going to let shoddy workmanship become the norm.




That's a pretty far reaching statement smurph, I don't disagree with the sentiment, but do you have any facts on the Chinese skill set.

We don't seem to have any trouble, buying and using household equipment sourced from there, actually most of our gear is from there.

Maybe the penny is dropping, we aren't much different to the U.K after all.

The U.K had all sorts of social unrest and job displacement, when their economy was resetting, many thought it would never happen.

Just google Chinese hv transmission line workers, then click on images.

They have plenty of first world infrastructure, without the red tape.lol

The problem is, everyone is so concerned at keeping the status quo, they aren't thinking about the fact it isn't going to stay the same.


----------



## Smurf1976

sptrawler said:


> That's a pretty far reaching statement smurph, I don't disagree with the sentiment, but do you have any facts on the Chinese skill set.




The agreement specifically removes the requirement to prove competency (skills assessment) in selected trades, including electrical and mechanical.

The result of that seems pretty clear to me, in that the effective change is to allow such work to be performed by persons not assessed as being competent in Australia. Given the different electrical standards between the two countries, it's almost certain that some work will be performed which comes nowhere close to meeting the relevant Australian standards.

Suffice to say that I'm aware of one recent incident where a Chinese pre-assembled installation has been completely stripped and rewired before being connected in Australia. Amongst other issues, the use of green coloured conductor as an Active (415V) is something that would give any Australian electrician cause for concern.

I have nothing against China per se, but their technical standards differ from ours and it is pure lunacy to allow differing standards to be used on installations in the same country (Australia) depending on who did the job and who was paying for it. Chinese sparky does the job with black and green used for Active conductors. Australian sparky comes along some years later doing maintenance and connects the wiring according to what the law says should be done in this country. Then things get real interesting once someone turns the power back on. Even more interesting once the coroner gets involved. 

It's akin to saying that we'll allow people to drive on either the right or left hand side of the road depending on their origin and what they're used to in another country. Either left or right is fine if everyone does it but having both used interchangeably would lead to disaster for sure. Same if we have conflicting standards for electrical and other work, it's sure to end badly.

Regardless of what standards we have, they need to be consistent in the interests of safety for all concerned.


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> The agreement specifically removes the requirement to prove competency (skills assessment) in selected trades, including electrical and mechanical.
> 
> The result of that seems pretty clear to me, in that the effective change is to allow such work to be performed by persons not assessed as being competent in Australia. Given the different electrical standards between the two countries, it's almost certain that some work will be performed which comes nowhere close to meeting the relevant Australian standards.
> 
> Suffice to say that I'm aware of one recent incident where a Chinese pre-assembled installation has been completely stripped and rewired before being connected in Australia. Amongst other issues, the use of green coloured conductor as an Active (415V) is something that would give any Australian electrician cause for concern.
> 
> I have nothing against China per se, but their technical standards differ from ours and it is pure lunacy to allow differing standards to be used on installations in the same country (Australia) depending on who did the job and who was paying for it. Chinese sparky does the job with black and green used for Active conductors. Australian sparky comes along some years later doing maintenance and connects the wiring according to what the law says should be done in this country. Then things get real interesting once someone turns the power back on. Even more interesting once the coroner gets involved.
> 
> It's akin to saying that we'll allow people to drive on either the right or left hand side of the road depending on their origin and what they're used to in another country. Either left or right is fine if everyone does it but having both used interchangeably would lead to disaster for sure. Same if we have conflicting standards for electrical and other work, it's sure to end badly.
> 
> Regardless of what standards we have, they need to be consistent in the interests of safety for all concerned.




The problem I see, is the Australian sparky that comes along some years later, will probably be Chinese.

We buy all our electrical appliances from China.

Most of our viable industries will be bought out by China.

You sound a bit like the U.K motor bike industry, they said Japan had stuffed up by putting the gear lever on the left hand side.

Why are all our Iron ore companies struggling with prices at $50/tonne? 
When Citic Pacific (Sino Steel) is still cruising along at $100/tonne production cost? 

Doesn't bode well for our mining companies, competing against that bankroll.lol

Just shows what you are up against, in a free!!! market.


----------



## Caveman

sptrawler said:


> Why are all our Iron ore companies struggling with prices at $50/tonne?
> When Citic Pacific (Sino Steel) is still cruising along at $100/tonne production cost?



state subsidy?


----------



## sptrawler

Smurph, another problem with electrical, it won't be long before houses are wired for low voltage.IMO

With the advancements in electronics, the only household appliances that still require 250v are the fridge and the A/C, everything else could run on 12/24v.

That wouldn't require a licensed electrician.

Which would then limit their prospects to industry.

Maybe the world is further ahead than we think, maybe we aren't at the cutting edge of where things are going, maybe we're just plebs on a forum.


----------



## sptrawler

Caveman said:


> state subsidy?




What W.A   lol,lol,lol

It is obvious, that the penny will never drop, trade up to the latest SS ute caveman.


----------



## Caveman

sptrawler said:


> What W.A   lol,lol,lol
> 
> It is obvious, that the penny will never drop, trade up to the latest SS ute caveman.



I dont know what the latest ss ute has got to go with it (which i dont own)


----------



## luutzu

What's with the Chinese bashing?

Free Trade agreements tend to always hit the manufacturing sector and trades so I take your point that it'll be bad for Australian in those fields. But we should give some credit to the gov't - they're actually much smarter and much more devious than we give them credit for.

While safety and standards are important, obviously... there will be on the job training and inspectors so I wouldn't worry too much. Heck, even I could wire a house - just not the mains - and it's still standing. Even did 2-way switches because joining red to red and black to black just isn't that much fun.


----------



## Caveman

sptrawler said:


> So you don't want mines, that employ people and you don't want Chinese gear and you don't want Chinese workers.
> 
> Well you had better get used to it.IMO
> 
> When our companies go broke, from high costs, who is going to buy them out?
> 
> When our mines go broke, who will buy them out?
> 
> When our farmers can't make enough money, selling their produce, who will buy them out?
> 
> The next question, will the new owners employ Australians, attitude and all.lol
> 
> When we don't make enough money, to support our welfare system, who pays the rates on the pensioners houses?
> 
> If you think Labor have the answers, best of luck with that.
> 
> I think they have less of a clue than Liberal, having said that, I don't think either have any idea.
> 
> The down side of a global economy, is, you have to compete and be competitive.
> 
> Just saying you are fabulous, and thinking you deserve better money than other people, doesn't make it so.lol
> 
> What if they are better workers than you, and worse still, what if they are better at their job than you.lol



Well I`d like to ask if their work practices and business models are so superior then why do they have to come here to make money.


----------



## sptrawler

Caveman said:


> I dont know what the latest ss ute has got to go with it (which i dont own)




Well about as much as state subsidy has to do with it.

The only subsidy that is keeping Citic afloat is Chinese Government subsidy, if your alluding to that, be more specific.

This is a political thread.


----------



## sptrawler

Caveman said:


> Well I`d like to ask if their work practices and business models are so superior then why do they have to come here to make money.




Well it might be because we have the raw`materials, the arable land, the terrific climate and a small population of fat ar$ed lazy people.

But I may be wrong.


----------



## sptrawler

luutzu said:


> What's with the Chinese bashing?
> 
> Free Trade agreements tend to always hit the manufacturing sector and trades so I take your point that it'll be bad for Australian in those fields. But we should give some credit to the gov't - they're actually much smarter and much more devious than we give them credit for.
> 
> While safety and standards are important, obviously... there will be on the job training and inspectors so I wouldn't worry too much. Heck, even I could wire a house - just not the mains - and it's still standing. Even did 2-way switches because joining red to red and black to black just isn't that much fun.




What about the white switch wire? dick, that's why you still need an aussie to check your work.lol

See that is what I'm talking about, they're always pumping you for info. lol,lol,lol


----------



## Caveman

sptrawler said:


> Well it might be because we have the raw`materials, the arable land, the terrific climate and a small population of fat ar$ed lazy people.
> 
> But I may be wrong.



Well I think you might be wrong.
Other countries do have all of the above except perhaps the small population.
You seem keen to sell out Australia?


----------



## luutzu

sptrawler said:


> What about the white switch wire? dick, that's why you still need an aussie to check your work.lol
> 
> See that is what I'm talking about, they're always pumping you for info. lol,lol,lol




What white switch wire? haha. was referring to the power circuits, and yes, i missed the earth cable in the description 

With the two ways, I actually use a spare wire in the three-wire cable as a switch. See, saves money... and yes Smurf is right, just don't assume the colours are what they're supposed to be at my house.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Maybe we will soon have to choose between the Chinese and the Fabians...Not much difference really.




I'd take a Fabian over the Chinese politburo and secret police.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> What is a life worth in China......If they lose one or two there are millions waiting to take their place.




That's a disgusting attitude.

You ignore that it could be local lives lost due to shoddy electrical wiring or substandard building work.

Interesting you blame Labor for the deaths of roof bat installers, even though it was a state regulated industry, but in this instance you don't give a toss.


----------



## Tisme

luutzu said:


> What's with the Chinese bashing?
> 
> Free Trade agreements tend to always hit the manufacturing sector and trades so I take your point that it'll be bad for Australian in those fields. But we should give some credit to the gov't - they're actually much smarter and much more devious than we give them credit for.
> 
> While safety and standards are important, obviously... there will be on the job training and inspectors so I wouldn't worry too much. Heck, even I could wire a house - just not the mains - and it's still standing. Even did 2-way switches because joining red to red and black to black just isn't that much fun.




Two wire sparks are a dime a dozen, but real electrical fitting is a little more complex than that.

Repair shops don't necessarily employ electrical fitters/mechanics/installers, but they must be supervised by a qualified lecky.

There will be a lot of head shaking amongst the younger sparks, who have had to go through capstone testing to ply their trade. when they see some lego technician from china playing around with hidden death.


----------



## luutzu

Tisme said:


> Two wire sparks are a dime a dozen, but real electrical fitting is a little more complex than that.
> 
> Repair shops don't necessarily employ electrical fitters/mechanics/installers, but they must be supervised by a qualified lecky.
> 
> There will be a lot of head shaking amongst the younger sparks, who have had to go through capstone testing to ply their trade. when they see some lego technician from china playing around with hidden death.




Yup. Have a friend who apprenticed electrical works years back. Got an uncle who's a properly licensed sparky A/C guy too. Learnt why you shouldn't steal light power from the power circuit too, haha. Safety and stuff. Don't people just switch off all the circuits when they want to fix any wiring?

But I'm pretty sure the Chinese sparky won't be running the design or lead any major installation.
There will be inductions and inspection, and if their work don't pass those they won't be working any site - free trade or not.

But it's going to be tough on Australian tradies.

I've seen teams of them working as bricklayers and gyprockers. Two team of them completely finished gyprocking a two storey house in two days - and the quality and price was incredible. Then there's a team that finished the brick fence in literally a couple of hours - after their day job or something.

Saw a headline on Fortune where American costs of manufacturing are now on par with Chinese costs - and the Chinese aren't paid that much higher either.

Free Trade for you. Good for executives and shareholders, not so good for most every body else.


----------



## nioka

luutzu said:


> What's with the Chinese bashing?
> 
> Free Trade agreements tend to always hit the manufacturing sector and trades so I take your point that it'll be bad for Australian in those fields. But we should give some credit to the gov't - they're actually much smarter and much more devious than we give them credit for.
> 
> While safety and standards are important, obviously... there will be on the job training and inspectors so I wouldn't worry too much. Heck, even I could wire a house - just not the mains - and it's still standing. Even did 2-way switches because joining red to red and black to black just isn't that much fun.




 Boy o boy, you have just shown how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Were you the previous owner of my current home. I had the wiring checked out by an electrician after purchase. He found that the spar of all things was not connected through the earth leakage safety switch. Some power points were connected to a light circuit with no earths. I appears that the original wiring was right but there had been additions made by someone else. 

I'll bet he thought "Heck, even I could wire a house - just not the mains - and it's still standing" and yes it was still standing but a standing time bomb.

Another time I was renting a holiday home on the Gold Coast. Some of the power points weren't working so I went to check the fuses. One had fused. Another had obviously fused and had been "fixed" with a 2inch nail. No chance it would fuse again. Just another standing time bomb.


----------



## trainspotter

Ermmm do you guys realise that the trades in question will be operating on minesites under controlled conditions instead of having a 457 Visa as per Gina Rineharts wishes?


----------



## luutzu

nioka said:


> Boy o boy, you have just shown how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Were you the previous owner of my current home. I had the wiring checked out by an electrician after purchase. He found that the spar of all things was not connected through the earth leakage safety switch. Some power points were connected to a light circuit with no earths. I appears that the original wiring was right but there had been additions made by someone else.
> 
> I'll bet he thought "Heck, even I could wire a house - just not the mains - and it's still standing" and yes it was still standing but a standing time bomb.
> 
> Another time I was renting a holiday home on the Gold Coast. Some of the power points weren't working so I went to check the fuses. One had fused. Another had obviously fused and had been "fixed" with a 2inch nail. No chance it would fuse again. Just another standing time bomb.




No that can't be me - I'd only run the light to the power, not the power to the light circuit. Not that silly


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> That's a disgusting attitude.
> 
> You ignore that it could be local lives lost due to shoddy electrical wiring or substandard building work.
> 
> Interesting you blame Labor for the deaths of roof bat installers, even though it was a state regulated industry, but in this instance you don't give a toss.




As you will note, China executes thousands every  year.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ry-year-but-no-one-seems-quite-sure-how-many/


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> As you will note, China executes thousands every  year.




Yes we know that, but you seem to want them to be able to import executions via shoddy materials and workmanship.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> As you will note, China executes thousands every  year.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ry-year-but-no-one-seems-quite-sure-how-many/




And how is that in any way relevant to letting what could possibly be poorly trained tradies who may or may not have any idea about how to do work to Australian standards?

I know the Govt is arguing we shouldn't do things because they don't do it in Asia, but I'm quite happy we don't shoot dissidents, we have a reasonable right to free speech, heck we can sell our shares when we want and the Govt can't shut down half the stock market.  I don't see the need to import labour from a country that has a lackadaisical attitude to safety and human life.

Will you hold Abbott accountable for every death that occurs?

What other country would allow foreigners to do the work of locals?  What other country thinks it's a smart idea to bring in labour from overseas when various Govt departments have shown the skills crisis is no more and companies are not having any issues hiring appropriately qualified locals?

I fear the sheeple wont care till we're the underclass in our own country, and by then it'll be too late.


----------



## sydboy007

feel free to pre order now

use pyne as the discount code for free shipping

https://www.mup.com.au/items/159574



> Why do seemingly intelligent men and women leave their families to spend more than half the year travelling to Canberra, and spending night after night at electorate and campaign events? Surely there are easier ways to earn a living.
> 
> A Letter to My Children is Christopher Pyne's honest account of how a belief in the power of public service, inspired by his crusading ophthalmologist father, led him to pursue a career in politics, driven by the ambition of leaving a legacy for the next generation.




Call me old fashioned, but I'd prefer a fireside chat with my dad over a letter.  Possibly my lowly blue collar upbringing.  Stamps were a luxury.

I plan to read it after I finish Cory Bernardi's bold vision for a stronger nation

http://www.amazon.com/The-Conservative-Revolution-Cory-Bernardi/dp/1922168963



> Bernardi's work courageously (in brave words heroically written on fearless paper) promotes the conservative cause and sets out a path to a better Australia through a commitment to faith, family, flag, freedom and free enterprise. Because A) alliteration is good and B) any right-thinking person knows how much better things were when those values held even more sway than they do now. Unless you were poor. Or an atheist. Or had a decent education withheld from you. Or didn’t know the right people. Or had the wrong surname. Or wanted to marry the wrong person. Or had dreams above your station. Or were unlucky enough to be anything other than an inexplicably angry rich, white male.
> 
> This volume reminds us that conservative principles - not the populist whims of the left - generate enduring stability, success and strength. For a small few. Meanwhile, why won’t the rest of the population (which is where the word populist comes from Cory) just go away?
> 
> That is why we need a conservative revolution. Because even though Cory and his friends are among the most fortunate people on a planet of 7 billion, they are still not as empowered and wealthy as they’d prefer.”


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> And how is that in any way relevant to letting what could possibly be poorly trained tradies who may or may not have any idea about how to do work to Australian standards?
> 
> I know the Govt is arguing we shouldn't do things because they don't do it in Asia, but I'm quite happy we don't shoot dissidents, we have a reasonable right to free speech, heck we can sell our shares when we want and the Govt can't shut down half the stock market.  I don't see the need to import labour from a country that has a lackadaisical attitude to safety and human life.
> 
> Will you hold Abbott accountable for every death that occurs?
> 
> What other country would allow foreigners to do the work of locals?  What other country thinks it's a smart idea to bring in labour from overseas when various Govt departments have shown the skills crisis is no more and companies are not having any issues hiring appropriately qualified locals?
> 
> I fear the sheeple wont care till we're the underclass in our own country, and by then it'll be too late.




What about all the 1250 deaths of men women and children at sea under Rudd/Gillard...Have you held them accountable?


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> What about all the 1250 deaths of men women and children at sea under Rudd/Gillard...Have you held them accountable?




They lost the last election didn't they ?

Abbott and co should lose the next one for selling this country out.


----------



## Tisme

sydboy007 said:


> Will you hold Abbott accountable for every death that occurs?
> 
> .




No way, anything to do with electrocutions is Rudd's fault


----------



## explod

Tisme said:


> No way, anything to do with electrocutions is Rudd's fault




Yeh,  a job they did on our house the contractor was nowhere to be seen,  they had 18 year old apprentices in the roof.  The industry itself was the problem.


----------



## Macquack

noco said:


> What about all the 1250 deaths of men women and children at sea under Rudd/Gillard...Have you held them accountable?




Usual piss poor mud raking. You might care to tell us how many refugees perished under Howard's reign?

What do you do Noco, when you are not bagging the Labor party. No prizes for guessing the answer.


----------



## noco

Macquack said:


> Usual piss poor mud raking. You might care to tell us how many refugees perished under Howard's reign?
> 
> What do you do Noco, when you are not bagging the Labor party. No prizes for guessing the answer.




You are so accustomed to dishing it out but unfortunately you can't take it back.....Shame on you.


----------



## trainspotter

Macquack said:


> Usual piss poor mud raking. You might care to tell us how many refugees perished under Howard's reign?
> 
> What do you do Noco, when you are not bagging the Labor party. No prizes for guessing the answer.




363 between 2000 - 2007 - drowned at sea - 22 suicides in detention centres - Libs

877 between 2008 - 20013  - drowned at sea - 15 suicides in detention centres - Labs

The rubbery figures are contentious as they are "presumed" dead as there are no actual figures on the manifest of people on the boats *wink*


----------



## pixel

explod said:


> Yeh,  a job they did on our house the contractor was nowhere to be seen,  they had 18 year old apprentices in the roof. * The industry itself was the problem*.




At last!!! One voice of reason, spelling out the root of the problem.
It's far too easy to blame "the Government" and start a witch hunt because "they should've known".

If a tradesman does a shoddy job in my house, I demand he fixes it; if he can't, pass the claim on to his Insurer. But instead, we're far too easily inclined to turn a blind eye; too "understanding" that the small business owner wants to get in on the gravy train of Government-subsidised insulation, even though he doesn't have the know-how, staff, or time to do a proper job.
Successive governments of both persuasions are to blame for the "dumbing-down" of the population while perpetuating the myth of everyone being clever enough to perform any task unsupervised.


----------



## Smurf1976

luutzu said:


> What's with the Chinese bashing?




I'd be saying the exact same thing if it were any other country.



> While safety and standards are important, obviously... there will be on the job training and inspectors




That there is no requirement to be assessed for competency is the issue here. If such a requirement existed then I wouldn't have an issue with it.

If we have formal standards saying how something shall be done in a technical sense, and there are safety consequences if varying practices are used interchangeably, then it seems reasonable to me that anyone performing such work ought to be required to prove that they at least understand what those requirements are.


----------



## luutzu

sydboy007 said:


> feel free to pre order now
> 
> use pyne as the discount code for free shipping
> 
> https://www.mup.com.au/items/159574
> 
> 
> 
> Call me old fashioned, but I'd prefer a fireside chat with my dad over a letter.  Possibly my lowly blue collar upbringing.  Stamps were a luxury.
> 
> I plan to read it after I finish Cory Bernardi's bold vision for a stronger nation
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/The-Conservative-Revolution-Cory-Bernardi/dp/1922168963




Maybe it'll beat Bishop's upcoming title: "How to make do with $88,000 a fortnight across Europe".

No wonder some high priced lawyers would leave private practice for a few years sting in Canberra. To save the world and increase business for the partners back home.


----------



## luutzu

Smurf1976 said:


> I'd be saying the exact same thing if it were any other country.
> 
> 
> 
> That there is no requirement to be assessed for competency is the issue here. If such a requirement existed then I wouldn't have an issue with it.
> 
> If we have formal standards saying how something shall be done in a technical sense, and there are safety consequences if varying practices are used interchangeably, then it seems reasonable to me that anyone performing such work ought to be required to prove that they at least understand what those requirements are.




I agree with you Smurf. Don't take me literally. I do try to be funny some of the time.


----------



## dutchie

What an abuse of entitlement.

Bronwyn Bishop on the taxpayers teat:

1. Helicopter charter for 100km trip - $5,227.27.

2. $88,084 for a 16-day trip to Italy, Belgium, Austria and Switzerland

3. $42,805 for a 12-day trip to Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam, Laos and South Korea.

What part of obscene does she not understand.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...avel-and-flights/story-fn59niix-1227442737187

Sadly and unfortunately she is not on her own in abusing the Australian taxpayer.

This sort of entitlement abuse has to stop from *all* politicians.


----------



## basilio

So at what stage does the PM decide that the Speaker of the House (Bronwyn Bishop) has trashed the last vestiges of respect for his government and needs to go ?

*I thought that the Speaker of the House hiring a chopper for $5000 on the public purse to make a grand entrance to a Liberal Party Fund raiser  was a perfect 10*. Go Tones!! Show us what your made of..

____________________________________________________________________________________

Of course the most interesting part of this story will unfold when Parliament returns and The ALP, Greens, Independents  etc take it in turns to toast Bronwyn Bishop and Tony Abbott..


----------



## nioka

Rumour has it that Hockey has called on Gina Rinehart for help with the budget. Failing a donation through a mining tax as a first choice, he has called on her for advice on how to avoid sharing the money with dependants. After seeing the ABC program and hearing her say "if they don't work for it they shouldn't have it" (referring to her OWN family) he decided to push that point further and ask how easy it is to implement.

Another rumour is that she replied; "Sack most Canberra staff and get some Chinese workers on the job".

Just rumours but logical isn't it?.


----------



## basilio

Latest on Bronnwyn Bishops $5000 publicly finaced lift to a Liberal party fund raiser.

"I vow to pay it  back" she says.  

And that is supposed to be it ?  No other consequence ? No other penalty financial or otherwise of any sort ? 

Just plain wrong. This has Moral Hazard all over it..


----------



## SirRumpole

basilio said:


> Latest on Bronnwyn Bishops $5000 publicly finaced lift to a Liberal party fund raiser.
> 
> "I vow to pay it  back" she says.
> 
> And that is supposed to be it ?  No other consequence ? No other penalty financial or otherwise of any sort ?
> 
> Just plain wrong. This has Moral Hazard all over it..




Yes, it's all very fine as long as you don't get caught...

$5,000 seems an awful lot for a one hour trip, even by chopper. Does it really cost that much to keep them in the air ?


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, it's all very fine as long as you don't get caught...
> 
> $5,000 seems an awful lot for a one hour trip, even by chopper. Does it really cost that much to keep them in the air ?




A Labor MP was named today for chartering flights between Launceston and Hobart costing $24,000...Why didn't she take a commercial flight between these two cities and will she pay the difference?..Yes it is OK if you don't get caught.

I am sure there would regular flights between these two cities.


----------



## luutzu

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, it's all very fine as long as you don't get caught...
> 
> $5,000 seems an awful lot for a one hour trip, even by chopper. Does it really cost that much to keep them in the air ?




It's very hard to imagine how anyone who spend other people's money like that could seriously represent the interests of the common people, or any people.

$88,000 for 15 days across Europe... Do we also pay for the shopping as well? And I'm guessing it's not the $200/night budget hotel she stayed at.


----------



## Macquack

luutzu said:


> It's very hard to imagine how anyone who spend other people's money like that could seriously represent the interests of the common people, or any people.
> 
> $88,000 for 15 days across Europe... Do we also pay for the shopping as well? And I'm guessing it's not the $200/night budget hotel she stayed at.




They like to call people from the northern beaches of Sydney "silvertails". Bronwyn Bigshot fits the bill perfectly.

I did not realise Bronnie was 72 years of age.

With 28 years of "service" in Federal parliament, maybe it is time to move over and give someone else a job.


----------



## drsmith

If there's a positive from Bronnie's $5k chopper joyride its that it will make it that much harder for the government to implement that tax on bank deposits.


----------



## drsmith

trainspotter said:


> 363 between 2000 - 2007 - drowned at sea - 22 suicides in detention centres - Libs
> 
> 877 between 2008 - 20013  - drowned at sea - 15 suicides in detention centres - Labs
> 
> The rubbery figures are contentious as they are "presumed" dead as there are no actual figures on the manifest of people on the boats *wink*



Doing a quick count from the link below I counted 1184 deaths at sea from when Labor took office in 2007. That includes recoveries and those never found from reported numbers on board.

http://artsonline.monash.edu.au/the...blications/australian-border-deaths-database/

The actual number is likely greater and perhaps much greater. We have no idea how many boat sinkings went unreported.


----------



## pixel

drsmith said:


> If there's a positive from Bronnie's $5k chopper joyride its that it will make it that much harder for the government to implement that tax on bank deposits.




How do you figure that?


----------



## drsmith

pixel said:


> How do you figure that?



Wiser heads than Bronwyn Bishop and Labor.

That's the hope.


----------



## dutchie

I think Bronwyn Bishop has to go. 
If she thinks that spending $5000 on a helicopter ride is OK because it is "within the rules" then she has obviously been in Canberra too long.
She must at least step down from being Speaker as she has no integrity.

I'm sure there are similar and worse cases of financial abuse by politicians and I would like to see massive changes in perks, travel allowances, superannuation entitlements etc. , that our politicians currently enjoy. 

Its a rip off!


----------



## pixel

dutchie said:


> I think Bronwyn Bishop has to go.
> If she thinks that spending $5000 on a helicopter ride is OK because it is "within the rules" then she has obviously been in Canberra too long.
> She must at least step down from being Speaker as she has no integrity.
> 
> I'm sure there are similar and worse cases of financial abuse by politicians and I would like to see massive changes in perks, travel allowances, superannuation entitlements etc. , that our politicians currently enjoy.
> 
> Its a rip off!




What we need is a Royal Commission into Perks Abuse, not one-sided witch hunts by whoever is in power against whomever having been before them.
And we desperately need to stand up against suppression of debates. If Politics and Ideologies can't be debated freely, if questioners are threatened with persecution in the name of "National Security", we have lost the basis of Democracy. Witch Hunts, Media Control, and Persecution of inconvenient Critics are the first steps towards Dictatorship,


----------



## luutzu

Macquack said:


> They like to call people from the northern beaches of Sydney "silvertails". Bronwyn Bigshot fits the bill perfectly.
> 
> I did not realise Bronnie was 72 years of age.
> 
> With 28 years of "service" in Federal parliament, maybe it is time to move over and give someone else a job.




It seems that for some people, "good service" is not good enough a reward in itself. I bet if she's ask, she'll say that money doesn't really matter to her - for obvious reasons. 


I thought she retired years ago? But guess with pays and perks like that for just saying "order! order! You can speak now"... it beats advising weekend warriors at Bunnings for a lowsy couple grands a month.


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> If there's a positive from Bronnie's $5k chopper joyride its that it will make it that much harder for the government to implement that tax on bank deposits.




spin, spin....


----------



## orr

There's a big few positives to this. 
Joe Public doesn't see his low income SuperAnnuation co-contribution disappearing just after the next election, nor the low income school-kids bonus $422 for primary $842 for high school, last payment July 2016... And then there's the cuts to the pension totalling $2.4 billion. All only becoming obvious after the next election.  
Then there's the pie in the sky GDP and income projections of Hockeys last budget.
But Joe Public can see Bishop for what she is and the Government that extolls her born to rule tory ethos.


----------



## banco

It's hard to see the legal distinction between what Slipper was prosecuted for and what dear old Bronwyn did.  Admittedly Slipper's guilty verdict was overturned on appeal but that was partly because the prosecution didn't call witnesses that they should have called.


----------



## explod

Was thinking of starting a new thread for Bishop,  but so corrupt i could not be bothered.  She's a goner.   Poor ole Rabbit must be feeling a bit lonely.  

Notice my ole Pal noco eased his postings.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Was thinking of starting a new thread for Bishop,  but so corrupt i could not be bothered.  She's a goner.   Poor ole Rabbit must be feeling a bit lonely.
> 
> Notice my ole Pal noco eased his postings.




Bronwyn Bishop used the chopper organized by her staff an she has not only paid back the $5 grand but has reprimanded her staff....I cretainly do not condone what took place....It should never have happened.

How come you don't talk about that Tasmanian MP who used $24,000 on chartered flights from Hobart to Launceston..Are your mob going to refer her to the AFP or will she pay back the difference between chartered flights and commercial flights.

Stop being so hypocritical...Show a bit of balance for once.


----------



## luutzu

noco said:


> Bronwyn Bishop used the chopper organized by her staff an she has not only paid back the $5 grand but has reprimanded her staff....I cretainly do not condone what took place....It should never have happened.
> 
> How come you don't talk about that Tasmanian MP who used $24,000 on chartered flights from Hobart to Launceston..Are your mob going to refer her to the AFP or will she pay back the difference between chartered flights and commercial flights.
> 
> Stop being so hypocritical...Show a bit of balance for once.




Reprimand her staff?

I guess she didn't get the mate's rate.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Bronwyn Bishop used the chopper organized by her staff an she has not only paid back the $5 grand but has reprimanded her staff....I cretainly do not condone what took place....It should never have happened.
> 
> How come you don't talk about that Tasmanian MP who used $24,000 on chartered flights from Hobart to Launceston..Are your mob going to refer her to the AFP or will she pay back the difference between chartered flights and commercial flights.
> 
> Stop being so hypocritical...Show a bit of balance for once.




Ballance,  what about the 80 grand on her overseas trips.  

 Why does a speaker have to go overseas anyway. 

And answer the questions. 

Oh,  and an old one,  eight times now,  where under the libs are the jobs coming from?


----------



## luutzu

explod said:


> Ballance,  what about the 80 grand on her overseas trips.
> 
> Why does a speaker have to go overseas anyway.
> 
> And answer the questions.
> 
> Oh,  and an old one,  eight times now,  where under the libs are the jobs coming from?




Why does the speaker of the house need two staffers anyway? One to make coffee and carry the suitcase, so fair enough... two?

$300k in travel and allowances for simply telling Labor MPs to sit down and let the Liberal speak?

I'm beginning to have a big sense of duty to my fellow Australians and may make sacrifices for public service.


----------



## banco

noco said:


> Bronwyn Bishop used the chopper organized by her staff an she has not only paid back the $5 grand but has reprimanded her staff....I cretainly do not condone what took place....It should never have happened.
> 
> How come you don't talk about that Tasmanian MP who used $24,000 on chartered flights from Hobart to Launceston..Are your mob going to refer her to the AFP or will she pay back the difference between chartered flights and commercial flights.
> 
> Stop being so hypocritical...Show a bit of balance for once.




MP's are ultimately legally responsible for their own travel and the difference between the Tasmanian MP (as bad as it is) is that they were at least on official travel unlike bronwyn bishop. Bishop would have had to ultimately sign the form saying it was official business.


----------



## Macquack

luutzu said:


> I'm beginning to have a big sense of duty to my fellow Australians and may make sacrifices for *public service*.




It is about time they dropped the word "service" and "servant", they are being paid a bloody lot of money and they all need a good "serve".


----------



## explod

Macquack said:


> It is about time they dropped the word "service" and "servant", they are being paid a bloody lot of money and they all need a good "serve".




Yes how about rounding up our great resourses and putting our people into working them.  It would mean jobs.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Ballance,  what about the 80 grand on her overseas trips.
> 
> Why does a speaker have to go overseas anyway.
> 
> And answer the questions.
> 
> Oh,  and an old one,  eight times now,  where under the libs are the jobs coming from?




Labor is destroying jobs in Queensland.

The jobs are coming from the incentive given to small business...Haven't you been reading the news or are to busy listening to the left wing ABC propaganda?

BTW...I have told you 8 times, governments don't create jobs ...only in the public service which is generally overloaded when Labor is in office.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Labor is destroying jobs in Queensland.
> 
> The jobs are coming from the incentive given to small business...Haven't you been reading the news or are to busy listening to the left wing ABC propaganda?
> 
> BTW...I have told you 8 times, governments don't create jobs ...only in the public service which is generally overloaded when Labor is in office.




Well they need to.  Private enterprise will not,  they are only interested in the reduction of wages and profits. 

We need to go back to a socialist system and have the workers,  who produce tangible value,  create food and services away from private enterprise who are only interested in profits. 

Did you know that nearly 20% of our efforts are at the desks of the finance industry.  Another large percentage on residential developement.   As just after WW2  we need to return to primary industry.  Thatcherism is taking the  world to unproductive oblivion.  Soon,  making money sitting on your ourt will mean ourt.   As the costs on supermarket shelves are out of reach for basic workers it will be every person for himself.   Greece are just entering that phase now.  The bank teller machines will jamm.


----------



## luutzu

Macquack said:


> It is about time they dropped the word "service" and "servant", they are being paid a bloody lot of money and they all need a good "serve".




Are you demanding truth in advertising? Do you work for the ABC or in any way associated with them leftist lynch mob? 


To be fair, they do serve people though - just not people like you and I.

Which makes sense because there's never been a case where the servant is better paid or richer than the master. The ratio of wealth and income from servant to master must at least be at least 1:100. If it's 1:10 it'll be boss and employee; if 1:1 it's mates; if 1:1.5 it'll be envy... 


Saw some clips on American politics where the Koch Brothers is rumoured to have set aside about $200million to back any promising Republican. And a bunch of presidential hopeful are lining and pitching their credentials to them - how they've destroyed the teachers' and workers' union, how they took on obstructionist environmentalists and won... 

And Clinton is bashing CEOs and bankers, the same people who paid her husband around $20 million last year or so for speeches.


----------



## luutzu

explod said:


> Yes how about rounding up our great resourses and putting our people into working them.  It would mean jobs.




I thought that cutting the carbon tax and the mining tax would increase jobs. Opps.

Can gov't be sue for economic mismanagement?

If any person make policies like they do, they'd be sued for malpractice or collusion. 

I mean... you can take the money directly into your pocket and use that money as you please to create jobs and make investment. But no, you let other people keep the money and hope and pray that they will not fire people and keep creating jobs.

Then with low to zero cost of borrowing, instead of borrowing to invest and create jobs you figured it's best to cut spending and make it tougher on those without jobs and impossible for those seeking jobs - not to mention missing out on the end product those jobs could get done.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Labor is destroying jobs in Queensland.
> 
> The jobs are coming from the incentive given to small business...Haven't you been reading the news or are to busy listening to the left wing ABC propaganda?
> 
> BTW...I have told you 8 times, governments don't create jobs ...only in the public service which is generally overloaded when Labor is in office.




Incentives to small business are useless unless the consumer is ready, willing and able to spend money.

There may be a bounce in business confidence due to the tax incentives, but it will be a dead cat bounce because consumer confidence is low due to the ramping up of talk about increasing the GST and the outlook with the Chinese economy.

If the government want to increase consumer confidence then they need to offer some tax cuts to consumers and offset it with changes to negative gearing ($5 billion pa), super tax entitlements for the rich ($35 billion pa) and by strong action on company tax avoidance which Hockey has now bottled out of.

This government's priorities are seriously wrong.


----------



## Smurf1976

explod said:


> Did you know that nearly 20% of our efforts are at the desks of the finance industry.




Application of science, technology, engineering and manufacturing plus natural resources (not just minerals but also agriculture, renewable energy etc) create real economic wealth whilst the service industries (retail, tourism etc) allow us to enjoy the benefits of that wealth.

Finance does not of itself create wealth, at best it enables other activities to create wealth. The sooner everyone realises that point the better off we'll all be. Money shuffling doesn't create wealth in the same way as the public service does not create wealth. It just transfers it and consumes some in the process. That said, the public service does provide some worthwhile outputs - few would want to live without law enforcement, emergency services or public infrastructure, whilst the same cannot be said of much of the financial industry.

There's a proper role for finance certainly, it is necessary to enable real wealth creation and functioning of the economy, but something is seriously wrong that it has become so large relative to everything else to the point that it now attracts many of the brightest individuals away from the real wealth creating activities that they'd otherwise pursue.


----------



## luutzu

Smurf1976 said:


> Application of science, technology, engineering and manufacturing plus natural resources (not just minerals but also agriculture, renewable energy etc) create real economic wealth whilst the service industries (retail, tourism etc) allow us to enjoy the benefits of that wealth.
> 
> Finance does not of itself create wealth, at best it enables other activities to create wealth. The sooner everyone realises that point the better off we'll all be. Money shuffling doesn't create wealth in the same way as the public service does not create wealth. It just transfers it and consumes some in the process. That said, the public service does provide some worthwhile outputs - few would want to live without law enforcement, emergency services or public infrastructure, whilst the same cannot be said of much of the financial industry.
> 
> There's a proper role for finance certainly, it is necessary to enable real wealth creation and functioning of the economy, but something is seriously wrong that it has become so large relative to everything else to the point that it now attracts many of the brightest individuals away from the real wealth creating activities that they'd otherwise pursue.




Yup.

Saw an interesting interview recently where this economist was saying that since the GFC, about 90% of the capital of the American Fortune 500 were spent on share buybacks and dividends. Of that 90%, some 40% are paid as dividend (which in some limited way does mean cash in the bank for shareholders) but the 60% that's used in share buyback... well that just does nothing really but inflate the per share earnings and the share price.

So of the money that they have, these corporations spent 10% investing in real job, in R&D and actual product - the 90% are mere financial games that does not really create anything, not even wealth for shareholders in the longterm since - if taken as a whole - no new product or innovation, and no investment in jobs will mean no increase in demand and so the share price won't remain high because there's no increase in sales etc.

Maybe they're hoping that gov't will pick up the slag in investment and actual job creation.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Well they need to.  Private enterprise will not,  they are only interested in the reduction of wages and profits.
> 
> We need to go back to a socialist system and have the workers,  who produce tangible value,  create food and services away from private enterprise who are only interested in profits.
> 
> Did you know that nearly 20% of our efforts are at the desks of the finance industry.  Another large percentage on residential developement.   As just after WW2  we need to return to primary industry.  Thatcherism is taking the  world to unproductive oblivion.  Soon,  making money sitting on your ourt will mean ourt.   As the costs on supermarket shelves are out of reach for basic workers it will be every person for himself.   Greece are just entering that phase now.  The bank teller machines will jamm.




Socilaism?

You say we should go back to a socialist system.

There are many models of socialism....Which on do you prefer.

Planned Economy

Self managed economy

State Directed Economy.
Market Socialism

Marxism.

Evolutionary and Institutional Economics.

Utopian Socialism

Revolutionary Socialism 

Reformism.

Anarchism

Libertarian Socialism

Democratic Socialism

Religious Socialism

Social Democracy 

Syndicalism.



Criticism
Main article: Criticisms of socialism

Socialism has been critiqued from numerous different perspectives. Because there are many models of socialism, most critiques are only focused on a specific type of socialism.[citation needed]

Economic liberals and right libertarians view private ownership of the means of production and the market exchange as natural entities or moral rights which are central to their conceptions of freedom and liberty, and view the economic dynamics of capitalism as immutable and absolute. Therefore, they perceive public ownership of the means of production, cooperatives and economic planning as infringements upon liberty.[419][420]

According to the Austrian school economist Ludwig von Mises, an economic system that does not use money, financial calculation and market pricing will be unable to effectively value capital goods and coordinate production, and therefore these types of socialism are impossible because they lack the necessary information to perform economic calculation in the first place.[421][422] Another central argument leveled against socialist systems based on economic planning is based on the use of dispersed knowledge. State socialism is unfeasible in this view because information cannot be aggregated by a central body and effectively used to formulate a plan for an entire economy, because doing so would result in distorted or absent price signals.[423]

Many economic criticisms of socialism focus on the experiences of Soviet-type planned economies. It is argued[by whom?] that a lack of budget constraints in enterprises operating in a planned economy reduces incentives for enterprises to act on information efficiently, thereby reducing overall welfare for society.[424]

Economists such as Joseph Stiglitz, Mancur Olson and others not specifically advancing anti-socialists positions have shown that prevailing economic models upon which democratic or market socialism might be based have logical flaws or unworkable presuppositions.[425][426] In particular equilibria models based on neoclassical economics with the goal of achieving a distribution which is Pareto efficient have been shown to have such problems.[427]

In light of these criticisms, historians such as Howard Zinn retort:

    Let's talk about socialism. I think it's very important to bring back the idea of socialism into the national discussion to where it was at the turn of the [last] century before the Soviet Union gave it a bad name. Socialism had a good name in this country. Socialism had Eugene Debs. It had Clarence Darrow. It had Mother Jones. It had Emma Goldman. It had several million people reading socialist newspapers around the country. Socialism basically said, hey, let's have a kinder, gentler society. Let's share things. Let's have an economic system that produces things not because they're profitable for some corporation, but produces things that people need. People should not be retreating from the word socialism because you have to go beyond capitalism.[428]


----------



## SirRumpole

> There's a proper role for finance certainly, it is necessary to enable real wealth creation and functioning of the economy, but something is seriously wrong that it has become so large relative to everything else to the point that it now attracts many of the brightest individuals away from the real wealth creating activities that they'd otherwise pursue.




Indeed so.

No doubt this is the wrong forum to put such a radical idea, but what contribution does trading little bits of paper on the Stock Market contribute to the production of goods and services ?

If you were going to raise money to pay off the deficit without affecting the general economy I would say that a tax on share transfers would be a good place to start.

Better than raising the GST for everyone.


----------



## wayneL

Plod can you show me a single successful socialist economy?

....and not the furphy that Sweden Is socialist please.


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> Plod can you show me a single successful socialist economy?
> 
> ....and not the furphy that Sweden Is socialist please.




What we used to have under Menzies,  Whitlam in particular,  Fraser,  Hawk and Keating.  We have just drifted too far right under the Thatcherism idea. 

And what's wrong with Sweden?   Then we have Norway and Denmark. 

Noco mentioned Von Miser's,  a very wise fellow,  loved his works on money and fair exchange.  Austrian economics a great model.  Even Keans admitted that and that his own model could not stop an eventual implosion. 

We are supposed to be talking about our Guvmint.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> What we used to have under Menzies,  Whitlam in particular,  Fraser,  Hawk and Keating.  We have just drifted too far right under the Thatcherism idea.
> 
> And what's wrong with Sweden?   Then we have Norway and Denmark.
> 
> Noco mentioned Von Miser's,  a very wise fellow,  loved his works on money and fair exchange.  Austrian economics a great model.  Even Keans admitted that and that his own model could not stop an eventual implosion.
> 
> We are supposed to be talking about our Guvmint.




So Plod, which model would you select and how will that work in with the West Minster system?

Will we have to convert to  a republic by referendum first and how do you think that would work out?

Will we be able to vote in a democratic way or would the head Honcho of  Republic become a dictator.

Would a  Socialist Government take central control of the banks, manufacturing, mining, agriculture?

We already know they have taken control of the tax payer funded ABC.

What will happen to the current foreign investments...Particularly the Chinese investments.

What will happen to small business, super markets and farmers......How will they be affected?


----------



## explod

noco said:


> So Plod, which model would you select and how will that work in with the West Minster system?
> 
> Will we have to convert to  a republic by referendum first and how do you think that would work out?
> 
> Will we be able to vote in a democratic way or would the head Honcho of  Republic become a dictator.
> 
> Would a  Socialist Government take central control of the banks, manufacturing, mining, agriculture?
> 
> We already know they have taken control of the tax payer funded ABC.
> 
> What will happen to the current foreign investments...Particularly the Chinese investments.
> 
> What will happen to small business, super markets and farmers......How will they be affected?




Go back and read the first para of my last post. 

Do you take anything in champ? 

My socialism is just a fair go for all citizens and no overseas interests profiting at our expense.

And back to Government owned banks as we had in Menzies time.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Go back and read the first para of my last post.
> 
> Do you take anything in champ?
> 
> My socialism is just a fair go for all citizens and no overseas interests profiting at our expense.
> 
> And back to Government owned banks as we had in Menzies time.




We are on the wrong thread so I am switching comments to Communism: It is not dead and biried.


----------



## Smurf1976

explod said:


> We have just drifted too far right under the Thatcherism idea.



+1

Labor today is further to the right than the Liberals were a generation ago, the whole political paradigm has moved in that direction at least so far as parties realistically capable of forming majority government (or the dominant partner in any coalition) are concerned. 

There's a proper place for finance and there's a proper place for capitalism. But we live in a society, not an economy, and there's a need for balance.

Something's seriously wrong when as a country we've had a lot of growth in GDP and yet we're apparently struggling to afford health, education, infrastructure and welfare for those who genuinely need it. Things that we had no real trouble affording in the past when we were supposedly poorer overall and yet they're increasingly unaffordable today. That's not what I call progress from a broad perspective.

Management of businesses has a lot to do with it as does politics. Slowly but surely the engineers, scientists, entrepreneurs and other "doers" have been removed and replaced by those with a background in finance or at best law. We've gone from being a leader to a follower in anything scientific or technical with managers hiding behind the mantra of "risk". In the past we pioneered or at least were right up front with everything from power generation to medical procedures but such things are inevitably seen as too risky today, the current crop of "leaders" preferring to simply buy something off the shelf from overseas long after others have developed and gained the majority benefits from it. In less than half a century we've gone from leaders to followers in practically everything.

The NBN is a classic case in point. One party wants to send us broke to build it, the other wants to go broke half building it. Neither would likely contemplate just letting the "doers" get on and build it without handing money under the table to the rent seekers. Had that thinking persisted in the past, we'd never have built everything from the power grid through to public transport through to the copper phone network. Waiting until we're behind practically everyone, then paying unnecessarily high costs when we finally act, is stifling our nation's productivity far more than anything else.


----------



## wayneL

What we have is not thatcherism. Its corporate socialism


----------



## banco

Time for that demented old bat to go.  At least Slipper was a good speaker when he was sitting in the chair.


----------



## Logique

explod said:


> Was thinking of starting a new thread for Bishop,  but so corrupt i could not be bothered.  She's a goner.   Poor ole Rabbit must be feeling a bit lonely.
> Notice my ole Pal noco eased his postings.



Let's not be gratuitous, but censure of the Speaker is warranted.

The more you read, the more arrogant and self-entitled the Speaker looks. Not just the recent European trip, but earlier jaunts last year. It's not as if she's on minimum wage! What is it $350k and additional for expenses? And parliamentary super on retirement.

In my view her position is now untenable. She should do the right thing and resign.


----------



## Tisme

*Re: The Abbott Government -"Don't You Know Who I am" Bishop*



Logique said:


> Let's not be gratuitous, but censure of the Speaker is warranted.
> 
> The more you read, the more arrogant and self-entitled the Speaker looks. Not just the recent European trip, but earlier jaunts last year. It's not as if she's on minimum wage! What is it $350k and additional for expenses? And parliamentary super on retirement.
> 
> In my view her position is now untenable. She should do the right thing and resign.




No contrition, no acceptance of wrong doing, no finguck idea........ ,but to blame it on Bill Shorten and you dummkopfs can all achtung schnell. Party leader Andrew Bolt will no doubt blame it on union corruption and two IC Tony Abbott will blame it on the windmills.

What a wonderful  and decent person John Hewson is, as an icon of  the now defunct Liberal Party and last of its dinosaurs, talking to ABC this morning. He must be feeling like Malcolm Fraser did in his later years, with thought bubbles akin to "what the hell happened to the party I was once leader of ". 

Disgraceful behaviour and dishonest to all but the unthinking party faithful.

Of course with both majors full of lame duck civil servant politicians nothing will happen to turn around the decline of public faith and increasing ambivalence in parliament, let alone trying to figure out what they actually stand for.


----------



## Logique

Even the Sydney Daily Teleg agrees. Her retaliatory sniping at the Treasurer was underhanded and distasteful.



> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...ssible-situation/story-fni0cx12-1227448332803
> 
> Big-spending Bronwyn puts Abbott in an impossible situation
> SIMON BENSON THE DAILY TELEGRAPH JULY 20, 2015
> 
> Bronwyn Bishop should know that she has no other choice than to resign as Speaker of the Parliament.
> 
> And Prime Minister Tony Abbott should know this too....TAXPAYERS COP $800,000 BILL FOR BRONWYN BISHOP’S 2014 EXPENSES.....Her petty retaliatory attack on Hockey showed even less regard for the impossible situation now confronting the PM...


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> What we have is not thatcherism. Its corporate socialism




Exactly. The rent seekers are in control.
We need Thatcher. ....Instead we have Bishop and her lovechild.


----------



## noco

banco said:


> Time for that demented old bat to go.  At least Slipper was a good speaker when he was sitting in the chair.




So why didn't Gillard ask Craig Thomson to go?......you know that  bloke who ripped off money from the poor health workers union to satisfy his sexual urge.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> So why didn't Gillard ask Craig Thomson to go?......you know that  bloke who ripped off money from the poor health workers union to satisfy his sexual urge.




She did. He was suspended from the Labor party.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> She did. He was suspended from the Labor party.




Yes, suspended from the Labor Party but not from parliament and further more Gillard continued to accept his vote....You just cannot discount that one my friend....So suspending him from the Labor party was just a token of which she had no choice just to make herself look good.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Yes, suspended from the Labor Party but not from parliament and further more Gillard continued to accept his vote....You just cannot discount that one my friend....So suspending him from the Labor party was just a token of which she had no choice just to make herself look good.




Gillard had no power to throw him out of Parliament, that is the voter's job. As for accepting someone's vote I'm sure that any Party would take any votes they can get.


----------



## dutchie

I know Bronwyn and Tony are friends but if he has any political and moral nous he will ask/demand that she step down from her role as speaker. 

It will be hard to do but if he does not it will come back to bite him over and over.


----------



## Tisme

There was another speaker who was a Liberal polly, endorsed by them since 1993....what was his name ....it was um... Peter...yes that's it Peter Slipper the LIBERAL candidate who won the seat for the LIBERAL PARTY for twenty (20) years and a good friend of Tony ...Tony ..that's it Tony Abbott.


Then of course there was that public servant who was mates with um, what's his name Malcolm Turnbull. Something about utes and billboards and some bloke whose name was Kevin Bond or something.

Who was that PM who had to sack a load of his cabinet for making the sate of Denmark smell rotten. Dogs trying to savage children on jetties, etc ...probably the same kids who were thrown overboard in the end.

Honesty, probity, fiduciary, fair go and fingers in the cookie jar are demonstrably the pillars of the millenium LIBERAL PARTY.


----------



## Knobby22

noco said:


> Yes, suspended from the Labor Party but not from parliament and further more Gillard continued to accept his vote....You just cannot discount that one my friend....So suspending him from the Labor party was just a token of which she had no choice just to make herself look good.




They don't need to suspend Bronwyn from the Liberal party but as Speaker of the House as she is the person who is supposed to uphold values, she should definitely resign. She won't though. She appears so corrupt for that European trip. No respect at all for taxpayers money. 350K and a fantastic pension and yet she treats us as mugs.


----------



## wayneL

I hope she resigns. That speech affectation of hers is too much to bear.


----------



## wayneL

I do love her prodigious use of 94a though.


----------



## banco

noco said:


> Yes, suspended from the Labor Party but not from parliament and further more Gillard continued to accept his vote....You just cannot discount that one my friend....So suspending him from the Labor party was just a token of which she had no choice just to make herself look good.




So you think Bishop should be suspended from the party? (I'll leave to one side hoow can you not accept someone's vote).


----------



## SirRumpole

I think Bishop should be suspended from Q&A


----------



## sydboy007

So, with an extra $100B on the Govt tab, it seems the budget emergency is just a distant memory of the pre election years.

No to any reform around superannuation taxation expenditures, even though the entire industry is calling for reform.

No to sorting out the tax distortions that surround housing, and to a lesser degree other areas of the economy.

Calling to be the infrastructure Govt but blocking clean energy investments.

Undermining local workers by providing the Chinese with expedited 457 visas, along with removing the need to prove workers are appropriately skilled when brought in on any decent sized project.

A budget which is forecasting a result based on hope, we now have talk of tax cuts.  Sheesh.  How will you fund them Joe, when you can't pay you bills at present?

Now, if the Govt was proposing to fund income taxes via better targeting super tax concessions, reigning in the NG and CGT tax distortions, helping the states migrate from inefficient SDs to raising revenue via broadly based land taxes and an broadening of the GST, we might be on a winner.

Without meaningful reform Joe, how will you pay for you latest thought buble?  Isn't the problem of brackt creep and further over reliance on income and corporate taxes brought about by all of the reform blocking your Govt has done so far?

I suppose we'll just have to wait and see that superior economic management you supposedly have in your DNA from being a Liberal.


----------



## drsmith

banco said:


> spin, spin....



The post to which you refer was actually an underlying criticism of the government on two fronts which I didn't think was that subtle.

What the government needs to do now is somehow find a way to relieve their saddlebags of Speaker Queen Bish and her response over the weekend only reinforces that view.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> I think Bishop should be suspended from Q&A




Or give her the chair.


----------



## wayneL

I don't know what you're all whinging about:



> Washington, D.C., – For the sixth time in as many summers, the Obama family will vacation in Martha’s Vineyard this August. With this trip the first family will exceed $100 million in taxpayer dollars spent on vacation travel expenses, an unprecedented amount for any US President in history.
> 
> Be it another unnecessary family vacation, golf outing, or fundraising trip, no other president has mocked the American taxpayer to such extremes. Watchdog groups through the Freedom of Information Act, (FOIA), have obtained records detailing the first family’s travel expenses, and one look at these records show why the Obama Administration fought so hard to keep them sealed.





http://conservativefrontline.com/obama-family-vacations-surpass-100-million/


----------



## luutzu

wayneL said:


> I don't know what you're all whinging about:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://conservativefrontline.com/obama-family-vacations-surpass-100-million/




Two wrong will make a right.


The right wingers also claim that Obama, whenever he goes overseas, costs $1 billion dollars.

The costs include not just Air Force One, but also a couple Hercules, secret service, emergency crew in case, and all the staff and senior diplomat etc. etc.


----------



## SirRumpole

luutzu said:


> Two wrong will make a right.
> 
> 
> The right wingers also claim that Obama, whenever he goes overseas, costs $1 billion dollars.
> 
> The costs include not just Air Force One, but also a couple Hercules, secret service, emergency crew in case, and all the staff and senior diplomat etc. etc.




So how much did other Presidents spend ?

It's basically a national event when the Pres goes anywhere, with all the security they insist on. He's probably entitled to a holiday sometime.


----------



## luutzu

SirRumpole said:


> So how much did other Presidents spend ?
> 
> It's basically a national event when the Pres goes anywhere, with all the security they insist on. He's probably entitled to a holiday sometime.




Probably the same. But that wouldn't make your case if your case is Obama is wasteful.


----------



## trainspotter

Peter Slipper Cabcharge =$900 - Disgraced and lost his job http://www.humanheadline.com.au/hinch-says/call-to-order

The Queen Bish Helicopter = $5227 - put on probation http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-20/pm-says-bishop-has-copped-a-justifiable-hiding/6632986

Comparison anyone? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-...nt-treatment-to-slipper-labor-mp-says/6630658


----------



## Knobby22

wayneL said:


> I don't know what you're all whinging about:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://conservativefrontline.com/obama-family-vacations-surpass-100-million/




Wow. How much of the money goes however to making sure some nutter doesn't murder his family?


----------



## Knobby22

trainspotter said:


> Peter Slipper Cabcharge =$900 - Disgraced and lost his job http://www.humanheadline.com.au/hinch-says/call-to-order
> 
> The Queen Bish Helicopter = $5227 - put on probation http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-20/pm-says-bishop-has-copped-a-justifiable-hiding/6632986
> 
> Comparison anyone? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-...nt-treatment-to-slipper-labor-mp-says/6630658




According to the Herald Sun front age headline "Oops I did it again" she repeated the exercise in NSW a week later.

http://www.pressreader.com/australia/herald-sun/20150720/281479275102592/TextView


----------



## Tisme

Anyone remember Riverside, kerosene and Bishop?


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> Anyone remember Riverside, kerosene and Bishop?




Nope. Do tell.


----------



## orr

Tisme said:


> Anyone remember Riverside, kerosene and Bishop?




All to well.
No small irony that the Jet-A those helicopters run on is Kero. Ahh queen queen kerosene. 
And a spoon full of sugar helps the kerosene  go down. Relax you're bathing in it.


----------



## SirRumpole

SirRumpole said:


> Nope. Do tell.




OK, looked it up.

Pretty disgusting.


----------



## sptrawler

Well it looks as though the government, may have an answer, for the situation Indonesia have left the our cattle industry in.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/28929808/producers-cheer-china-cattle-deal/

If the government pulls it off, Indonesia may have shot itself in the foot.IMO


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> Well it looks as though the government, may have an answer, for the situation Indonesia have left the our cattle industry in.
> 
> https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/28929808/producers-cheer-china-cattle-deal/
> 
> If the government pulls it off, Indonesia may have shot itself in the foot.IMO




Fingers crossed


----------



## sptrawler

trainspotter said:


> Peter Slipper Cabcharge =$900 - Disgraced and lost his job http://www.humanheadline.com.au/hinch-says/call-to-order
> 
> The Queen Bish Helicopter = $5227 - put on probation http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-20/pm-says-bishop-has-copped-a-justifiable-hiding/6632986
> 
> Comparison anyone? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-...nt-treatment-to-slipper-labor-mp-says/6630658




I don't know about you, trainspotter, but every time I try to jar my missus about spending, I end up getting b!tch slapped all over the house.
Just looking at Bronwyn scares me, she looks like she could slap a cage fighter.


----------



## noco

Politicians from both sides should be brought into line with their expenses.

I have just read in the Courier Mail some interesting facts from Alan Jones, WHO, I BELIEVE WAS ON Q&A last might dishing out some facts of Labor Ministers and their speaker's expenses from 2008 to 2013 on junkets around the world. 


http://www.couriermail.com.au/enter...ut-mine-proposal/story-fnihmoiz-1227450017726

“*Now I know (Labor MP) Tony Burke was quite critical of this today. And I was looking at figures today and at Tony Burke’s charter expenditure.

“A total expenditure between 2008 and 2013 of $316,000. Now in many instances they weren’t accounted for. I think the public are really tired of (them) dipping into taxpayers’ money and saying we can all be treated like potentates. The notion for example of going from Tullamarine to Geelong in a helicopter is just bloody ridiculous.”*

*“The wider issue is a very simple one,” Jones told Q&A host Tony Jones. “How much does it cost to keep these people going? I am looking at figures here which are just staggering. One speaker went to Ethiopia and Switzerland for one month for $114,000. I mean this is the price of a house for many people in remote areas of Australia.

“But between July and December, (former Labor MP) Harry Jenkins, $120,363. I mean, this is a gravy train that is basically out of control.”*


----------



## SirRumpole




----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> View attachment 63523




Now, that is funny.


----------



## trainspotter

*Bishop* (chess) - The bishop has no restrictions in distance for each move, but is limited to diagonal movement. Bishops, like all other pieces except the knight, cannot jump over other pieces. A bishop captures by occupying the square on which an enemy piece sits.

*Bishop* (press) - The Bishop is now restricted from using helicopters and has been placed on the short bus, but is now totally limited from any movements and has to ask the PM to release her bowels. Bishop, like all other parliamentarians except the Abbott, cannot jump on a tax payer junket until it has been scrutinised by the press. The Bishop captured the Speaker role by occupying the front bench for too long under Howard.


----------



## basilio

Re Bronwyn Bishop and her penchant for rolling in the pig swill of public monies.

Thee is an excellent article The Guardian which takes us back to Bronwyns earlier political days/ Did you know for instance that it was Bronwyn  Bishop who jumped into the Parliamentary Estimate Committee on a mission from God


> After being dumped from John Hewson’s shadow ministry in 1990 she poured her considerable energy into becoming – as Sydney Morning Herald columnist Alan Ramsey said at the time – “the Arnold Schwarzenegger of the estimates committee system”.
> 
> Everything from government waste and public service indolence came under her pitiless interrogation. In September 1991 she savaged a parliamentary library project officer on her upcoming trip to China which was being paid for by both the library and the Chinese government.
> 
> One senior Liberal party staffer told me that “it was one of the most obscene displays [they had] ever seen”.




But she has always been a notorious grafter and user of the public purse.



> That same week Bishop was forced to release details of her own travel costs, which – for a backbencher – were simply staggering: $93,456 spent on airfares and car hire from July 1992 to June 1993.
> 
> And that was before allegations from ex-staffer Ellis Glover were made to this writer that shortly after entering the Senate in 1987 she had hired a helicopter – at tax payer’s expense – to get from a fete to a dog show, so as not to be late for the opening.




What is really pathetic is that despite  Bronwyn profligate abuse of public funds over her Parliamentary history Tony Abbott has decided that he will just put her on probation for the chopper scandal. 

I'm waiting to see what comes out in Parliament from Labour when they bring up their No-Confidence motion.  If they have any testes they will read into Hansard every detail of Bronwyns  inflated claims on the public purse.

http://www.theguardian.com/australi...ed-the-kind-of-scrutiny-she-applies-to-others


----------



## Tisme

sydboy007 said:


> So, with an extra $100B on the Govt tab, it seems the budget emergency is just a distant memory of the pre election years.
> .




Where do you get that notion from? Of course they are taking it seriously just look at the true state of the nation.... no way debt has increased under Abbott (it's Labor's Debt):



http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...Library/FlagPost/2015/April/gov-debt-position


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Well it looks as though the government, may have an answer, for the situation Indonesia have left the our cattle industry in.
> 
> https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/28929808/producers-cheer-china-cattle-deal/
> 
> If the government pulls it off, Indonesia may have shot itself in the foot.IMO




Just in Bali now. At a restaurant local steak was about $5. Same cut from NZ was about $7 and the Aussie cut $13.  No idea what local supply is like, but it wouldn't surprise me if other suppliers could offer to make up any short fall cheaper than Australia.


----------



## noco

basilio said:


> Re Bronwyn Bishop and her penchant for rolling in the pig swill of public monies.
> 
> Thee is an excellent article The Guardian which takes us back to Bronwyns earlier political days/ Did you know for instance that it was Bronwyn  Bishop who jumped into the Parliamentary Estimate Committee on a mission from God
> 
> 
> But she has always been a notorious grafter and user of the public purse.
> 
> 
> 
> What is really pathetic is that despite  Bronwyn profligate abuse of public funds over her Parliamentary history Tony Abbott has decided that he will just put her on probation for the chopper scandal.
> 
> I'm waiting to see what comes out in Parliament from Labour when they bring up their No-Confidence motion.  If they have any testes they will read into Hansard every detail of Bronwyns  inflated claims on the public purse.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/australi...ed-the-kind-of-scrutiny-she-applies-to-others




Is Bill Shorten and his cronies any better?

Will Tony Burke query the Labor MP in Tasmania for her 8 X $3000 charter flights between Hobart and Launceston?


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...s-under-scrutiny/story-fn59niix-1227449799091

Some comments from readers.

*j-Cherna
4 hours ago

Rorts on both sides being exposed but one keeps ducking under the radar:  I'd genuinely like to know the purpose of  Labor Senator, Helen Polley's expenses, who was not not a minister, had no portfolio responsibilities at the time, but managed to clock up $26,000+ in 8 charter flights between Hobart and Launceston at $3,000+ per trip (160 Km between cities).

Will Tony Burke be reporting Senator Polley to the AFP? If not, his current moves against Bishop confirm to be a witch-hunt

Open a can of worms and one is no better than the other.

Time to move on.
FlagShare
3MikeianPeterLikeReply
Ross
Ross
5 hours ago

It is amazing how the media is all over Bronwyn Bishop over a $5000 fee for a helicopter ride. Where was all this consternation when Labor was mismanaging our economy and wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on failed programs. Even Tony Burke made erroneous claims on expenses, and from the media, absolutely nothing. Now Shorten's expenses are being questioned. The hypocrisy of this matter over choppergate has been kept alive for too long now. It's only a Labor tactic to take our eyes off Shorten's shortcomings.*


----------



## drsmith

WA federal Liberal member for Canning Don Randall has this afternoon been found dead at Boddington.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-21/mp-donrandall-found-dead/6638170


----------



## orr

drsmith said:


> WA federal Liberal member for Canning Don Randall has this afternoon been found dead at Boddington.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-21/mp-donrandall-found-dead/6638170





I've just come over 'all Alan Jones'.... my first thought was he must have died of shame....


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Just in Bali now. At a restaurant local steak was about $5. Same cut from NZ was about $7 and the Aussie cut $13.  No idea what local supply is like, but it wouldn't surprise me if other suppliers could offer to make up any short fall cheaper than Australia.




So basically all we have done, is price ourselves out of another product.


----------



## trainspotter

sydboy007 said:


> Just in Bali now. At a restaurant local steak was about $5. Same cut from NZ was about $7 and the Aussie cut $13.  No idea what local supply is like, but it wouldn't surprise me if other suppliers could offer to make up any short fall cheaper than Australia.




Sapi makan Enak! Beef is beef but in NZ it tastes like lamb. Local supply is about 6 months then the Brahman's come in from Brazil. Longhorn cattle from Mexico are good to chow down on as well.

Sabre rattling Indonesia at it's finest. They know in 20 years they will be the powerhouse economy. Open for trade and once they give up the love of the motorcycle the car manufacturers will move in for the cheap labour.

Go to kakoya sanur for the best Japanese fusion food in Bali. Have a Bintang at Ku De Ta with Johnny Depp and then get a ride home with Steve McQueen http://www.tripadvisor.com/Location...31-i111205075-Adi_Dharma_Hotel-Kuta_Bali.html


----------



## trainspotter

Has anyone asked if she has paid the $5,227 back as an error of judgement? 

Trainwreck of an interview when she was asked to apologise. Haruuuumph !

Courier Mail thinks so ... http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...r-charter-flight/story-fntuy59x-1227449338196



> Sorry Bronwyn, the best form of apology is not as simple as paying it back. It’s quitting. Time’s up. The public see this as unacceptable even if you and your Liberal mates don’t.
> 
> Along with Joe Hockey’s gaffes about “poor people don’t drive’’ and “get a good job’’ advice for the first time home buyers, your government is looking like it is above all this, that you’ve lost touch.




Slanderous IMO !


----------



## Tisme

So now we have cracked the egg by giving the govt access to meta data, Brandis wants the rest and the ISPs are finally putting up a fight. Meanwhile the mouse that won't raw, Turnbull, is using words instead of action in opposing the idea.

How many ways do we have to be betrayed with promises that "it's only" and "it will never", before we wake up to ourselves that power truly does corrupt.


----------



## Tisme

Copters


----------



## banco

Looks like Joe Hockey will be out $400 grand from his defamation trial.  Lucky he married well.


----------



## sptrawler

banco said:


> Looks like Joe Hockey will be out $400 grand from his defamation trial.  Lucky he married well.




It serves him right, Fairfax are biased and derogatory of Abbott and Hockey. However it is up to them, to prove Fairfax wrong, at the election.

If every politician that gets paid out on, takes the media to court, it will be a revolving door.


----------



## SirRumpole

banco said:


> Looks like Joe Hockey will be out $400 grand from his defamation trial.  Lucky he married well.




I wonder if he can negative gear his legal expenses from his compo payout ?


----------



## DaveDaGr8

SirRumpole said:


> I wonder if he can negative gear his legal expenses from his compo payout ?




wow ... 400K because someone called him names. I hope no one tweets what i've said about him, i'd be up for Billions.

Maybe instead of increasing the GST we could have a Tony and Joe swear jar. We'll have the budget set right by christmas


----------



## sptrawler

I don't know about everyone else, but I find this announcement very sad.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/a/28990513/wa-wins-lion-s-share-of-browse-field/

That's what we get for our gas, removed and loaded offshore, no onshore infrastructure, no onshore jobs, no value adding industry.

Sold out as usual.

Third world mentality, with first world living standard, soon to be challenged.IMO

My rant for today.


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> I don't know about everyone else, but I find this announcement very sad.
> 
> https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/a/28990513/wa-wins-lion-s-share-of-browse-field/
> 
> That's what we get for our gas, removed and loaded offshore, no onshore infrastructure, no onshore jobs, no value adding industry.
> 
> Sold out as usual.
> 
> Third world mentality, with first world living standard, soon to be challenged.IMO
> 
> My rant for today.




I remember when Mt Newman Mining Coy started up and the work awarded Readymix, Bellbros, Comeng, Rocla, etc. I think the company even developed a new way of profiling rail and wheel which is now standard practice for rolling stock around the world.

Back then we had full employment and the skillsets of the trades was world class because WA had facilities like the Midland Workshops to provide complete apprentice training (far superior than any other nursery) and many of their older workers were migrants from Europe who had been part of the precision war machine.

Also back then Western Australians had a voice and demanded lifestyle, leisure and work conditions. In return they wore the pride of being part of the best place on earth (then).


----------



## Tisme

Beats me why failed Liberals would keep complaining about the current govt. Fraser, Hewson, Kennett, Costello, even Howard on occasion ... they need to get with the program

http://www.smh.com.au/national/jeff...-leaderless-for-a-decade-20150722-giih11.html


----------



## Smurf1976

sptrawler said:


> That's what we get for our gas, removed and loaded offshore, no onshore infrastructure, no onshore jobs, no value adding industry.




Meanwhile WA industry, what remains of it, is paying top $ for gas and the state has gone back to coal for about half the electricity supply in the south-west interconnected system (which includes Perth).


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> I don't know about everyone else, but I find this announcement very sad.
> 
> https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/a/28990513/wa-wins-lion-s-share-of-browse-field/
> 
> That's what we get for our gas, removed and loaded offshore, no onshore infrastructure, no onshore jobs, no value adding industry.
> 
> Sold out as usual.
> 
> Third world mentality, with first world living standard, soon to be challenged.IMO
> 
> My rant for today.




Gas is in a glut.  Russia will be piping that much to China there wont be enough growth in LNG demand to counteract the massive supply coming online.

Woodside is going to have to start some BHP esq write downs on it's gas assets.  There wont be any FLNG inside a decade.  LNG has dropped from around $14 a tonne a year ago to under $8 and I'd not be putting any of my money on betting that things will improve any time soon.  Just wait till the rock solid contracts with the Chinese are renegotiated ala iron ore.  The income hit is going to be massive.  We'll be shipping iron ore coal and gas for cost price at best, with the capital costs written off.

The fact we have no reservation policy is mind blowing.  We're happy to ship it off rather than use it to increase the value of the gas multiple times.  We're pushing the fertiliser and explosives industries off shore because of the idiotic idea of the free market when there is no such thing these days.  Manufacturing on the east coast will be affected as well.

We truly borked


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> The fact we have no reservation policy is mind blowing.  We're happy to ship it off rather than use it to increase the value of the gas multiple times.  We're pushing the fertiliser and explosives industries off shore because of the idiotic idea of the free market when there is no such thing these days.  Manufacturing on the east coast will be affected as well.
> 
> We truly borked




Absolutely right.

How many companies exporting gas out of Australia ? Less than 10 probably. How many businesses are gas consumers ? Thousands. 

Why are we giving a commercial advantage to a few companies, while increasing the costs for thousands of local businesses not to mention consumers ?

We really are being ruled by a few large corporate donors to politicians.


----------



## luutzu

SirRumpole said:


> Absolutely right.
> 
> How many companies exporting gas out of Australia ? Less than 10 probably. How many businesses are gas consumers ? Thousands.
> 
> Why are we giving a commercial advantage to a few companies, while increasing the costs for thousands of local businesses not to mention consumers ?
> 
> We really are being ruled by a few large corporate donors to politicians.




Santos is lobbying to get approval for a massive CSG project in Narimbri [?] - North West NSW. The gov't seems to be onboard but don't think approval is given yet. There's still some community objection and concerns about the environment.

Well. The project could supply 50% of NSW needs... and since a bunch of established projects supplies are going overseas; reducing supply to the domestic market... best solution seems to not object to new projects or pay 30 to 50% increase in prices.

Man, you got to admire how these guys will get what they want.

and btw, i own a fair bit of Santos so yea... Let's not be too critical, haha


----------



## dutchie

luutzu said:


> and btw, i own a fair bit of Santos so yea... Let's not be too critical, haha




and that's the bottom line ....(of your post)


----------



## luutzu

dutchie said:


> and that's the bottom line ....(of your post)




Give me some credit, I'm a bit more complicated than that.


----------



## sydboy007

luutzu said:


> Santos is lobbying to get approval for a massive CSG project in Narimbri [?] - North West NSW. The gov't seems to be onboard but don't think approval is given yet. There's still some community objection and concerns about the environment.
> 
> Well. The project could supply 50% of NSW needs... and since a bunch of established projects supplies are going overseas; reducing supply to the domestic market... best solution seems to not object to new projects or pay 30 to 50% increase in prices.
> 
> Man, you got to admire how these guys will get what they want.
> 
> and btw, i own a fair bit of Santos so yea... Let's not be too critical, haha




The thing Ihate about the argument of we hve to do CSG to lower domestic gas prices is that unless the gas is reserved for the domestic market it will have a negligible affect as it will be sold on the international market unless locals are will to pay the asian market price.

Our best hope is the Chinese build the pipelines from Russia on time, USA fracking companies keep cutting costs, QATAR ramps up demand and the gas glut forces further falls in prices so we end up paying maybe $6 AUD mmBtu - roughly USA domestic prices.  Current LNG spot prices now down to $7.36 USD mmBtu.  I'm not sure what the whole LNG process adds to the cost base, but would think we need another $1.50-2.00 in spot prices to stop further loss of manufacturing.

How this issue is swept under the carpet is beyond me.  Prob have to wait for further residential bill shock before it's on the political agenda, but by then it will be too late.  To think it's OUR gas, yet we've lost the right to use it without paying top $$$$.


----------



## Smurf1976

It's not just businesses which use gas which are affected by rising prices. 

Gas is, or more correctly has been until now, the second largest source of electricity in Australia. As gas prices go up, so too will electricity prices and overall it affects practically everyone. There aren't too many businesses which use zero electricity in their operations and also don't use gas. Farms in areas off the grid perhaps, but that's about it.


----------



## banco

What a scumbag Bronwyn Bishop is:

Clayton Long was preparing the business class cabin for take-off when rumour began to spread. Something was wrong; a passenger was causing a stir at the gate.

It was the year 2000, or thereabouts. Long was a Qantas flight attendant for 27 years, so it's not surprising he can't remember the precise date of this particular Perth to Sydney flight. But he's adamant he remembers how it unfolded.

"We were told that the plane was going to be delayed," Long says. "We weren't told the exact reason at the time. It stretched out a little bit. Then we were told it was Bronwyn Bishop causing the problem."

The way Long tells it, the delay stretched on for 10 minutes and then 20. Everyone else was on the plane and wanted to know: what the hell was going on?

"It was because she didn't get the seat that she prefers. She likes the front row of business class," Long says. "But business class was full with the exception of two seats. She was given the seat with no one next to her but she still wasn't happy."

After half an hour or so Bishop was finally coaxed on board, Long says. If she didn't take her assigned seat the plane would leave without her.

"She made her displeasure very clear when she got on to the aircraft," Long says.

Long was the senior attendant and his underlings were visibly scared of this formidable woman. He decided he'd give Bishop, then a Howard government minister, the best personal service he could in an effort to smooth things over.

It didn't go well.

"She wouldn't take anything. She was like a spoilt child," he says. "I just thought it was incredible. She's paid by the Australian taxpayer. To even get into her mind that she's entitled to a particular seat just floors me."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...as-changed-20150725-gijfcv.html#ixzz3gyP1QWut


----------



## drsmith

banco said:


> "She wouldn't take anything. She was like a spoilt child," he says. "I just thought it was incredible. She's paid by the Australian taxpayer. To even get into her mind that she's entitled to a particular seat just floors me."



Labor in the lead up to the 2007 election missed an opportunity here. 

With Bronnie on their side leading the party instead of Kev, they could have had the added bonus of a legitimate first female PM and from the outset.


----------



## luutzu

banco said:


> What a scumbag Bronwyn Bishop is:
> 
> Clayton Long was preparing the business class cabin for take-off when rumour began to spread. Something was wrong; a passenger was causing a stir at the gate.
> 
> It was the year 2000, or thereabouts. Long was a Qantas flight attendant for 27 years, so it's not surprising he can't remember the precise date of this particular Perth to Sydney flight. But he's adamant he remembers how it unfolded.
> 
> "We were told that the plane was going to be delayed," Long says. "We weren't told the exact reason at the time. It stretched out a little bit. Then we were told it was Bronwyn Bishop causing the problem."
> 
> The way Long tells it, the delay stretched on for 10 minutes and then 20. Everyone else was on the plane and wanted to know: what the hell was going on?
> 
> "It was because she didn't get the seat that she prefers. She likes the front row of business class," Long says. "But business class was full with the exception of two seats. She was given the seat with no one next to her but she still wasn't happy."
> 
> After half an hour or so Bishop was finally coaxed on board, Long says. If she didn't take her assigned seat the plane would leave without her.
> 
> "She made her displeasure very clear when she got on to the aircraft," Long says.
> 
> Long was the senior attendant and his underlings were visibly scared of this formidable woman. He decided he'd give Bishop, then a Howard government minister, the best personal service he could in an effort to smooth things over.
> 
> It didn't go well.
> 
> "She wouldn't take anything. She was like a spoilt child," he says. "I just thought it was incredible. She's paid by the Australian taxpayer. To even get into her mind that she's entitled to a particular seat just floors me."
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...as-changed-20150725-gijfcv.html#ixzz3gyP1QWut





Reminds me of that South Korean airline executive whose daddy was the Chairman. She goes nuts when a host gave her a bag of nuts instead of serving it on a plate. She fired the guy, forced the plane to taxi back to the gate so that crew member can be kicked off the plane.

Maybe Labor should "try" to get Bronwyn fired but let her stay around for election season.


----------



## Tisme

I wonder how this is going for the author:

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/media/pressrel/GMSV6/upload_binary/gmsv60.pdf;fileType=application/pdf#search=%22coalition%20climate%20change%20abbott%22


----------



## Tisme

Yep....hmmm 

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/snow-business-as-prime-minister-tony-abbott-hits-the-slopes-with-peta-credlin-and-daughter-frances/story-fni0cx12-1227457675980


----------



## sydboy007

Sounds like we're going to be well and truly bent over on the TPP

Robb says



> “It could be done this week,” said Trade Minister Andrew Robb last night, as he prepared to depart for what he hopes will be one final round of talks in Maui, Hawaii.
> 
> “There’s no guarantees but the whole mood has shifted”, he said, referring to a last-minute US Congress decision to give the White House autonomous negotiating powers.
> 
> “We’re close enough, we’re down to the really difficult ones – like sugar.”
> 
> Aside from Australia’s long-suffering sugar farmers, who have missed out in previous trade deals, Mr Robb said divisions remain over a US proposal to extend intellectual property protections for “biologics”, which would increase the price of medicines.




We have a number of promises from the Govt as released in the DFAT fact sheet  - https://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/tpp/resources/Pages/myths-versus-realities.aspx



> Third myth: the TPP will result in higher prices for medicines in Australia
> 
> Reality: no
> 
> The Government has stated clearly that it will not accept an outcome in the TPP which adversely affects the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme or our health system more generally, or an outcome that increases the price of medicines for Australians.




If not OK then why did Howard allow this to occur in the AUS-US FTA?



> Fourth myth: the TPP Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions will allow foreign companies to sue the Australian government if a foreign company makes a loss on its investments in Australia
> 
> Reality: no
> 
> ISDS provisions provide an opportunity for investors, including Australian investors, to protect their investments overseas against expropriation and to ensure that they are afforded a certain minimum standard of treatment, and treated in a non-discriminatory manner. ISDS does not protect an investor from a mere loss of profits and does not prevent a Government from changing its policies or regulating in the public interest. Modern ISDS mechanisms incorporate explicit safeguards to re-affirm the right of governments to take decisions in the public interest, including in the areas of health and the environment, and reduce the chances that foreign investors bring frivolous claims.




So absolutely no repeats of the issues we're facing due to the AUS-HK FTA?  We're not going to be faced with policy via Global corporation rent seeking?



> Sixth myth: the TPP will require changes to Australia’s intellectual property arrangements, including our copyright and enforcement regimes
> 
> Reality: no
> 
> The Government is negotiating intellectual property provisions in the TPP within the framework of Australia’s existing laws and policies and does not support any proposals that would require changes to Australia’s current intellectual property arrangements, including our copyright and enforcement regimes.




If we're not royally fraked over the above issues, and more, I'll truly believe i saw a flying pig on the weekend.


----------



## luutzu

sydboy007 said:


> ...
> 
> If we're not royally fraked over the above issues, and more, I'll truly believe i saw a flying pig on the weekend.




Did Bronwyn went to another fundraiser?


Incredible that this TPP and its cousins, both across the Pacific and also the Atlantic, are being discussed and negotiated and we the people knew nothing about it except from a few leaks. And the leaks are only discussed in alternative media while the mainstream media gawk over prince George and the Kadashians.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> Sounds like we're going to be well and truly bent over on the TPP




Problem is its all being done out of public scrutiny.

It's something that needs a Parliamentary vote not an executive decision.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> Problem is its all being done out of public scrutiny.
> 
> It's something that needs a Parliamentary vote not an executive decision.




What have got that could possibly be competitive given our diminutive size and consumer mentality. Free trade wot?


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> What have got that could possibly be competitive given our diminutive size and consumer mentality. Free trade wot?




Exactly. What are we going to export to China that they don't already have in return for the stuff they send here ?

It's a one sided agreement that will benefit very few in this country.


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> Problem is its all being done out of public scrutiny.
> 
> It's something that needs a Parliamentary vote not an executive decision.




You mean the open and transparent government we were promised?

OOOHHH.  Another non core pre election throw away.

The fact that the deal has been so hush hush is so wrong.  If this is for the good of the country then surely we the people of said country deserve to know what our self sacrificing pollies have been beavering away on to make our lives better /sarc.


----------



## SirRumpole

Does anyone have a problem with this ?

I don't



> Treasurer Joe Hockey flags removal of GST threshold for all overseas online purchases
> By political reporter Anna Henderson
> 
> 
> Federal Treasurer Joe Hockey says the Government is considering imposing the Goods and Services Tax (GST) on all overseas online purchases.
> 
> Internet shoppers have enjoyed tax exempt status for purchases less than $1,000.
> 
> The Government has been pushing for the GST threshold to be dramatically lowered to $20, arguing that would bring Australia in line with the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States.
> 
> Now Mr Hockey has said the threshold could be removed completely.
> 
> "It may well go to zero as well," he said.
> 
> "We are currently discussing the matter.
> Take our GST quiz
> How well do you know the 'never, ever' consumption tax you pay every day?
> 
> "It is something that the state treasurers and myself have been working on for more than 12 months."
> 
> Assistant Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said last week that Australia was currently "an outlier" by exempting such expensive imports from consumption taxes.
> 
> "In the UK they apply the GST to goods and services bought overseas online from 15 pounds; in Canada the threshold is 20 Canadian dollars; in the US they apply their GST or VAT equivalent to all goods bought online from overseas," Mr Frydenberg said.
> 
> "So at $1,000, the Australian threshold has really been out of sync with the rest of the world."
> 
> Shadow treasurer Chris Bowen said Labor was willing to work with the Government on reducing the GST threshold and had requested a briefing on the latest advice.
> 
> "This is a critical issue for Australian small businesses competing with overseas-based online retailers," Mr Bowen said.
> 
> "It's unfair and puts Australian businesses at a competitive disadvantage."
> 
> more at
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-27/gst-online-shoppers-could-lose-exemption-joe-hockey/6650222


----------



## luutzu

sydboy007 said:


> You mean the open and transparent government we were promised?
> 
> OOOHHH.  Another non core pre election throw away.
> 
> The fact that the deal has been so hush hush is so wrong.  If this is for the good of the country then surely we the people of said country deserve to know what our self sacrificing pollies have been beavering away on to make our lives better /sarc.




Imagine a politician who's doing something that benefits everyone in the country, and at the same time want to keep that good deed a secret.

If it's good for us, you can bet it's all over the news... Abbott might even lift that ban on the ABC


----------



## boofhead

Why aren't they concerned about the cost of administering GST on such low cost overseas purchases being greater than the revenue? Isn't that some kind of regulartory burden?


----------



## overhang

boofhead said:


> Why aren't they concerned about the cost of administering GST on such low cost overseas purchases being greater than the revenue? Isn't that some kind of regulartory burden?




Yes the sums have already been ran and it's completely uneconomical to do so.  From the same man who sues for 200k but is required to pay 600k in legal fees is this really a surprise that he might consider this. 




> A 2011 Productivity Commission inquiry into the retail industry found strong grounds for the $1000 to be lowered significantly - arguing that goods sourced from overseas should face the same tax regime as those bought locally.
> 
> However, it found that removing the threshold completely would cost more than $2 billion to businesses, consumers and government while only generating revenue of around $600 million annually.
> 
> It therefore recommended against lowering the $1000 threshold until it was cost-effective to do so.


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> Does anyone have a problem with this ?
> 
> I don't




IIRC that around a $500 threshold the revenue gain was minimal and $300 was break even. 

I'd like to know what technology will lower the breakeven threshold that the government keeps harping on about.

Even with GST people will still buy from overseas when it's half the price of buying locally.

Funny how a government that maks so much noise aboutthe cutting red tape is gumming up the Telco industry with uncosted data retention regulation and now a gst proposal that will cost hundreds of millions in lost revenue.


----------



## Tisme

sydboy007 said:


> IIRC that around a $500 threshold the revenue gain was minimal and $300 was break even.
> 
> I'd like to know what technology will lower the breakeven threshold that the government keeps harping on about.
> 
> Even with GST people will still buy from overseas when it's half the price of buying locally.
> 
> Funny how a government that maks so much noise aboutthe cutting red tape is gumming up the Telco industry with uncosted data retention regulation and now a gst proposal that will cost hundreds of millions in lost revenue.




Yes most of the gear I buy has a declared value of only a couple of quid. If it's secondhand, which much of it is(from OEM or otherwise) there is no GST.


----------



## Tisme

So Bronwyn Bishop was doing "secret women's business" nine years ago in the area, the day before going to Sophie's wedding. Chartering a plane makes perfect sense.

10 to one she eventually explains away her largess as amaxophobia


----------



## sydboy007

Seems the NZ Govt is giving a bit more honesty to the voters than what we're getting here.

http://www.interest.co.nz/property/...less-it-allows-future-governments-ban-foreign



> Key told reporters the TPP could extend the patents on medications, preventing Pharmac [equivalent to Medicare] from quickly using generic versions, but that these costs would be more than offset by gains through increased market access.
> 
> “Patents will run for a little bit longer and that means the government will have to pay for the original drug as opposed to the generic for a little bit longer,” Key said.




Now lets remember what Robb has stated on many occassions



> “As I have made clear repeatedly, the government will not support outcomes that would increase the prices of medicines for Australians or adversely affect our health system more generally; end of story,” he said. “Nor would we accept outcomes that undermine our ability to regulate or legislate in the public interest in areas such as health,” Mr Robb said.




It's looking like biologics might increase from the current 5 year period in AUstralia to 7 years - lower than the 12 year gambit claim from US negotiators.



> *Only about 64 biologic medicines are currently included in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme but they include five of the 10 most expensive. Biologics accounted for one quarter, or $2.3 billion, of the cost of the PBS in 2013-14.
> *
> Single injections can cost thousands of dollars.
> 
> “Why would our government agree to any extension on data monopolies when even one year’s delay for some of these drugs can cost hundreds of millions of dollars to the PBS,” said Dr Patricia Ranald, convener of a fair trade network called AFTINET.




So I'm wondering how increasing the cost of one of the most expensive items of budget is in the interest of Australians, especially as the PBS is only going to increase in costs due to the aging population.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> IIRC that around a $500 threshold the revenue gain was minimal and $300 was break even.
> 
> I'd like to know what technology will lower the breakeven threshold that the government keeps harping on about.
> 
> Even with GST people will still buy from overseas when it's half the price of buying locally.
> 
> Funny how a government that maks so much noise aboutthe cutting red tape is gumming up the Telco industry with uncosted data retention regulation and now a gst proposal that will cost hundreds of millions in lost revenue.




I suppose it may be driven, by the constant complaints of retailers, that the current system is unfair?

Whether it resolves the problem of the consumer chasing the lowest price possible? I doubt it, it didn't work for the Australian car industry.

However the retailers do have the right, to demand imports or online purchases attract the same tax impost.

The Government can't win, if it does the fair thing, it is wrong. If it does nothing, it is wrong. 

It seems only Labor can sit on their hands, do nothing for six years, and get away with it.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> I suppose it may be driven, by the constant complaints of retailers, that the current system is unfair?
> 
> Whether it resolves the problem of the consumer chasing the lowest price possible? I doubt it, it didn't work for the Australian car industry.
> 
> However the retailers do have the right, to demand imports or online purchases attract the same tax impost.
> 
> The Government can't win, if it does the fair thing, it is wrong. If it does nothing, it is wrong.
> 
> It seems only Labor can sit on their hands, do nothing for six years, and get away with it.




Better to do nothing that come up with a solution that will costs hundreds of millions extra to run than the income generated.  I suppose that's what you get from a party so heavily into NG.  Positive cash flow doesn't factor into their decision making process.

Basically it's an extra tax on anyone buying from overseas, or all of us, depending on how the Govt decides to fund the costs.

Possibly an easier way to achieve a levelling of the field would be to use the merchant category code for FOREX transactions and exclude travel related sectors and add a 10% tax on top of most of merchants.  Should be relatively easy to achieve.  The banks and credit card companies may not like it.  Certainly a way cheaper than what the Govt is currently proposing.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Better to do nothing that come up with a solution that will costs hundreds of millions extra to run than the income generated.  I suppose that's what you get from a party so heavily into NG.  Positive cash flow doesn't factor into their decision making process.
> 
> Basically it's an extra tax on anyone buying from overseas, or all of us, depending on how the Govt decides to fund the costs.
> 
> Possibly an easier way to achieve a levelling of the field would be to use the merchant category code for FOREX transactions and exclude travel related sectors and add a 10% tax on top of most of merchants.  Should be relatively easy to achieve.  The banks and credit card companies may not like it.  Certainly a way cheaper than what the Govt is currently proposing.




I think it is just a gesture, to try and make it look like they are doing something, when in actual fact nothing can be done about it.

But that is the way politics are these days, media driven sensationalist  rubbish, to feed the chooks.:1zhelp:


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> I think it is just a gesture, to try and make it look like they are doing something, when in actual fact nothing can be done about it.
> 
> But that is the way politics are these days, media driven sensationalist  rubbish, to feed the chooks.:1zhelp:




Which is fine when it's empty gestures that do no harm.

But when those gestures are like the data retention tax or the proposed mail gst collection tax, it does real harm to the economy.  We're already saddled with some of the highest rents in the world.  How much more uncompetitive does Abbott want to make the economy?

Might be better to stop pretending the Govt is hear to solve every little problem and start making voters and business stand on their own two feet.


----------



## Logique

Tisme said:


> So Bronwyn Bishop was doing "secret women's business" nine years ago in the area, the day before going to Sophie's wedding. Chartering a plane makes perfect sense.
> 10 to one she eventually explains away her largess as _amaxophobia_



I have a bit of that myself...but in all seriousness, she must go. The helo to Geelong turns out to be the tip of the iceberg, and that's the real issue.

You don't place the PM and Manager of Opposition Business in the embarrassing position of having to sack you.  She's been around long enough to know that.


----------



## sptrawler

Well everyone rants on about how much sway Murdoch has, on the political psyche of Australians, maybe this article highlights the problem.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-...spapers-most-influence-public-opinion/6653778

Wow, I would never have guessed that.


----------



## banco

Logique said:


> I have a bit of that myself...but in all seriousness, she must go. The helo to Geelong turns out to be the tip of the iceberg, and that's the real issue.
> 
> You don't place the PM and Manager of Opposition Business in the embarrassing position of having to sack you.  She's been around long enough to know that.




I hope the old slag lasts at least until the next sitting of parliament just for the entertainment factor.


----------



## Smurf1976

sydboy007 said:


> How much more uncompetitive does Abbott want to make the economy?




That depends on who is asking the question.

If it's big business then there's no problem. "Charge as much as you like, no need to worry about being competitive".

If a union's involved then it's "oh no, sorry but you don't understand. We have to be competitive you see...".

I used to believe all the stuff about being competitive and so on. As I got older, I realised that whilst the underlying point may well be true, in practice the argument is just used as a convenient justification for whatever governments want to do.


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> That depends on who is asking the question.
> 
> If it's big business then there's no problem. "Charge as much as you like, no need to worry about being competitive".
> 
> If a union's involved then it's "oh no, sorry but you don't understand. We have to be competitive you see...".
> 
> I used to believe all the stuff about being competitive and so on. As I got older, I realised that whilst the underlying point may well be true, in practice the argument is just used as a convenient justification for whatever governments want to do.




But as long as we are focussing on same sex marriage, politicians abusing the system, climate change and racial discrimination, who cares about the economy.
The other issues sell more papers.lol

Well that is untill we are well and truly in the manure.


----------



## SirRumpole

> Hence, I thought it would be worth investigating how much influence Alan Jones does (or does not) have.
> 
> It is estimated his radio audience numbers about 150,000 listeners daily.




150,000 is a pittance compared to the voting population of the country, even in Sydney.

If he can't do better than that it beats me why he is considered so "influential" .


----------



## banco

SirRumpole said:


> 150,000 is a pittance compared to the voting population of the country, even in Sydney.
> 
> If he can't do better than that it beats me why he is considered so "influential" .




Its roughly 3 times that.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> 150,000 is a pittance compared to the voting population of the country, even in Sydney.
> 
> If he can't do better than that it beats me why he is considered so "influential" .




Because the media say he is, that makes it so, as with everything else they espouse.


----------



## IFocus

sptrawler said:


> But as long as we are focussing on same sex marriage, politicians abusing the system, climate change and racial discrimination, who cares about the economy.
> The other issues sell more papers.lol
> 
> Well that is untill we are well and truly in the manure.




That is because the Abbott government doesn't have any economic policy's ......seriously.


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> That is because the Abbott government doesn't have any economic policy's ......seriously.




Well IFocus, if you class the Abbott government as having no economic policy. 
You must consider Labor as an economic wasteland, bereft of any semblance of hope.
Unless you want to marry your boyfriend.


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> That is because the Abbott government doesn't have any economic policy's ......seriously.




Your points of issue with the Abbott government are reducing, probably because Labor have adopted Abbott's immigration policy.

Only a matter of time, and Shorten will be asking Tony if he can sit in, on cabinet meetings.

He obviously learnt nothing, from when Labor were in government.


----------



## Smurf1976

SirRumpole said:


> If he can't do better than that it beats me why he is considered so "influential".




Regardless of the actual numbers, he's still got more people listening than most other talk / opinion radio shows and that makes it significant. It might only be a relatively small share of the radio audience, but it's bigger once you consider that most radio stations are based on music or other entertainment rather than opinion on political matters.

Same concept with anything really. Regardless of the actual numbers, if you're bigger than everyone else or at least in the top tier within your sector of the market then that's significant.


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> Regardless of the actual numbers, he's still got more people listening than most other talk / opinion radio shows and that makes it significant. It might only be a relatively small share of the radio audience, but it's bigger once you consider that most radio stations are based on music or other entertainment rather than opinion on political matters.
> 
> Same concept with anything really. Regardless of the actual numbers, if you're bigger than everyone else or at least in the top tier within your sector of the market then that's significant.




Spot on smurph, that's why the SMH and the AGE has so much sway, they cover the Sydney, Melbourne masses.
Also the Australian is physically too big and cumbersome to read.


----------



## banco

sptrawler said:


> Spot on smurph, that's why the SMH and the AGE has so much sway, they cover the Sydney, Melbourne masses.
> Also the Australian is physically too big and cumbersome to read.




I think you'll find the Sydney "masses" read the daily telegraph.


----------



## sptrawler

banco said:


> I think you'll find the Sydney "masses" read the daily telegraph.




Well they may read it, but apparently they don't believe, what they read.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-...spapers-most-influence-public-opinion/6653778

So they obviously, must have a great comic section.


----------



## SirRumpole

A couple of years old, but this poll shows that few people actually trust what they hear
 on commercial radio talk back, so if 'influence' = audience size * trust factor, then commercial talkback and the ABC probably rate about equal


https://www.radioinfo.com.au/news/public-trust-commercial-radio-all-time-low-does-anybody-care


----------



## sydboy007

Seems the Govt lacks the ability to trust in science



> The Abbott government is being urged to strip billions more from subsidies to wind farms in the final report of a Senate committee that has already pushed renewable *energy investment to favour solar.
> 
> In its recommendations, the committee says renewable energy subsidies for new wind farms should be limited to five years from more than 20.
> 
> It also wants the issue of renewable energy certificates restricted to projects in states that adopt federal regulations on infrasound and low frequency noise.




Going on a couple of decades into the potential health affects of wind farms and so far not a single credible finding that there is actually any negative health impact.  Even if they did cause issues, that would have to be balanced against the large number of health issues caused by burning coal for power, though that argument never seems to enter the debate.

Would be so much easier to set a target, with penalties for going over it, and let the free market determine the cheapest way forward, be it increased renewable energy production or via reductions in consumption through improved energy efficiency.  Instead we have a supposedly free market liberal Govt acting like a centrally planned politburo.


----------



## Logique

Could this get any worse.

_'We'_ must all tighten our belts our political masters tell us. More likely they mean '_you_'. So they shouldn't hold their breath waiting for support on that GST thing.



> http://www.smh.com.au/comment/tony-...government-20150731-giozsj.html#ixzz3hVXrAl3N
> 
> ..As a junior minister in the Howard government, for instance, she spent $140,000 of taxpayers' funds over four years from 1998 to 2001 on chartering aircraft.
> 
> That's over and above all the regular commercial flights and RAAF VIP flights she took. And it was seven times the sum spent by two equivalent Liberal ministers at the time, Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey..


----------



## sydboy007

Logique said:


> Could this get any worse.
> 
> _'We'_ must all tighten our belts our political masters tell us. More likely they mean '_you_'. So they shouldn't hold their breath waiting for support on that GST thing.




Politicans perks are a $500M a year extravagance.

It would be interestign to see how my items in the budget come out less.

But we're told there's no money for programs that actually generate a positive economic and social return.

No wonder we've got a third world economy propping up a first world lifestyle.


----------



## sydboy007

well worth a read.  sorta sums up the view  I have of how unions and corporations work together to supress competition for their own betterment.  If it's cheaper for a company to help a union cruel the competition that actually become more efficient, well that's where we seem to be.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...ional-affairs/corporate-challenge-tony-abbott



> All unions in the private sector space now provide a service to corporations. That service is the supply of a competitive advantage against other businesses. Yes, the main business of modern unionism is the provision of competition reduction or neutralisation across the Australian economy. It’s about providing advantage to some businesses over others. Favoured corporations pay unions, any union, for this service.
> 
> This happens in several forms. In construction, unions do deals with some top-tier firms that force subcontractors onto union industrial agreements. Unions harass the subcontractors suppressing their competitiveness. They organise price fixing. This limits subcontractors’ capacity to become competitors to the top-tier firms. Construction unions are paid handsomely for this by the top-tier corporates.
> 
> Shorten’s admissions to removing penalty rates for some cleaning companies but not others is another example. Shorten’s union was paid for this by the cleaning company. The giant transport company admitted to paying the Transport Workers Union for the TWU to harass Toll’s competitors. The examples are rolling out in the Royal Commission. Unions collude with some corporates to give those corporates competitive advantage. It’s the new union money stream.






> *For Abbott and the Coalition parties, there’s a dilemma. Corporations don’t necessarily like an open, free and competitive market. Corporations don’t necessarily find common cause with conservative, free-market political parties. Where then do Abbott and his team find partners in common cause?*




Another corollary to this is how BHP was able to shop around to get a a ground water consultant to generate a report to allow them longwall mine within special areas of Wollongong's Water catchment.

How do you get approval to do something before you actually provide all the approporiate information on what you're going to do and how you'll do it?

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/w...t-groundwater-assessment-20150729-gimxxw.html



> The Dendrobium mine, located within the Metropolitan Special Areas west of Wollongong, won approval in February 2013 by the Department of Planning and Environment for five of 10 longwall extractions being proposed for Area 3B.
> 
> BHP did not submit a completed groundwater impact study until March 2014, some 13 months later, which gave it a tick of approval. WaterNSW, the catchment authority, said it did not receive that report until October 2014.






> "The Area 3B approval demonstrates the problems of allowing mining companies to select, fund and reject consultants at will" said Dr Turner. "It also demonstrates the problem of mining companies being allowed to decide what material is made available to the government and what is not."




I fear the NSW Liberals wont be happy till just about every major water resource is under threat from mining.


----------



## Logique

sydboy007 said:


> Politicans perks are a $500M a year extravagance.
> It would be interesting to see how my items in the budget come out less.
> But we're told there's no money for programs that actually generate a positive economic and social return.
> No wonder we've got a third world economy propping up a first world lifestyle.



Cheers Syd, good observations.

Also: 


> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...restraint_and_defend_bishop_at_the_same_time/
> *The Government can’t preach restraint and defend Bishop at the same time*
> 
> ...The Government’s problem, though, is preaching economic restraint and responsible budgeting when at the same time it’s trying to defend Bishop’s expenses. You really cannot do both at the same time.


----------



## explod

To recent posts.   Its sad the self interest has taken us so far from representing the needs of all peaople. 

The current Government is an absolute joke,  and they do not even have the backgound or brains to realise they have done wrong. 

And the oposition,  well,  bring on a revolution.


----------



## Smurf1976

Both major parties have lost the plot and become far too extreme and niche focused so far as I'm concerned.

What amazes me about the current government is just how brazen they are. It's one thing to be a thief operating discreetly, it's another thing entirely to be doing it in plain view of everyone and seemingly getting away with it. Truly amazing.

Of the two major parties,  I suspect that Labor is more capable of reinventing itself as a mainstream representative party and in due course will get there. They've got a lot of work to do, but I think they're more likely to achieve it than the Coalition, "LNP", or whatever they trying to call themselves this week (never heard the term "LNP" until recently and I've been paying attention to politics for quite a long time, it was always "Coalition" or "Liberal", so I take it as an attempt at re-branding. Maybe hoping to be confused with the ALP?).


----------



## explod

Smurf1976 said:


> Both major parties have lost the plot and become far too extreme and niche focused so far as I'm concerned.
> 
> What amazes me about the current government is just how brazen they are. It's one thing to be a thief operating discreetly, it's another thing entirely to be doing it in plain view of everyone and seemingly getting away with it. Truly amazing.
> 
> Of the two major parties,  I suspect that Labor is more capable of reinventing itself as a mainstream representative party and in due course will get there. They've got a lot of work to do, but I think they're more likely to achieve it than the Coalition, "LNP", or whatever they trying to call themselves this week (never heard the term "LNP" until recently and I've been paying attention to politics for quite a long time, it was always "Coalition" or "Liberal", so I take it as an attempt at re-branding. Maybe hoping to be confused with the ALP?).




Sorry to say it but Shorten is a populist opportunist too. 

We are in times where there is no rudder and the press give no clue of that situation to the populace. 

Just party while you can and stand back from the tumbling. 

Will pour another red.


----------



## Smurf1976

explod said:


> Sorry to say it but Shorten is a populist opportunist too.




No argument there.

My comment about Labor possibly reinventing itself in due course should not be taken to mean "with the present leadership" as that's unlikely to be the case. But I do think the "mates in the unions" party has got a better chance of changing direction at some point than the "special mates in big business" party has.


----------



## wayneL

Smurf1976 said:


> No argument there.
> 
> My comment about Labor possibly reinventing itself in due course should not be taken to mean "with the present leadership" as that's unlikely to be the case. But I do think the "mates in the unions" party has got a better chance of changing direction at some point than the "special mates in big business" party has.




I'm invoking The Castlesque refrain:

"You're Dreamin'"


----------



## explod

wayneL said:


> I'm invoking The Castlesque refrain:
> 
> "You're Dreamin'"




Maybe,  but the restlesness growing and the voices in the street may see a revolution for integrity and a fair go for the average.

Water levels itself.  The current obliviousness to the hard times now hitting families will govern direction sooner than most think.


----------



## sydboy007

It's amazing how the politicians have left the barn door open so they can gain access to the trough so easily

http://www.theguardian.com/australi...nses-legitimate-a-when-the-politician-says-so



> And when Greg Miles, who had at the time been assistant secretary of the ministerial and parliamentary services division of the Department of Finance for eight years, gave evidence in the Slipper appeal hearing, the following exchange occurred (as recorded in the judgment);
> 
> “There is no definition of parliament business in the legislation, is there?”
> 
> Miles: “No there is not.”
> 
> “Or any other document?:
> 
> Miles: “No.”
> 
> “And it’s not defined in the senators and members handbook, is it?”
> 
> Miles: “No.”
> 
> “And it’s in fact left to members to determine whether or not they are travelling on parliamentary business, isn’t it?”
> 
> Miles: “That’s correct.”
> 
> “So essentially, members are required to self assess whether or not travel is on parliamentary business?”
> 
> Miles: “That’s correct.”


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> It's amazing how the politicians have left the barn door open so they can gain access to the trough so easily
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/australi...nses-legitimate-a-when-the-politician-says-so




In that case, I wonder why Slipper ended up in court over an essentially non existent offence ?


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> In that case, I wonder why Slipper ended up in court over an essentially non existent offence ?




His appeal was successful and charges were dropped, because it is in fact not possible to legally define what is parliamentary business.

Technically all Bronny, and the other wedding chargers, were guilty of was not passing the sniff test, but it's very very doubtful they broke the law.

Hopefully Abbott leaves the festering to continue long enough that he is either forced, or Labor decides to force, meaningful reform through and cut back on the $500M lavished on the federal politicians.

It's outrageous a tax payer can be audited back over 5 years and hounded by the ATO to pay their fair share, but politicians have designed a system to allow them to suckle from the public teat to do their best at keeping their flabby butt on the so softly padded bench in parliament, with little to no oversight.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> His appeal was successful and charges were dropped, because it is in fact not possible to legally define what is parliamentary business.




If that's the case, then maybe Slipper has an argument for malicious prosecution.


----------



## orr

Is there someone with a less jaundice view on this ghastly witch that could give me the positives that B. Bishop would have been able to add to the upcoming conference of parliamentary speakers in N/York, that  now, she will no longer be attending. The egotistically maniacally partisan behaviour in the role as speaker of the house of this deluded harridan, is more to the flavour of African despots, than anything equating to reasonable democracy...

Of course as caveat, she is Representative  the North Shore of Sydney.

I'm with Clive on this one... Cathy McGowen for speaker.


----------



## SirRumpole

orr said:


> Is there someone with a less jaundice view on this ghastly witch that could give me the positives that B. Bishop would have been able to add to the upcoming conference of parliamentary speakers in N/York, that  now, she will no longer be attending. The egotistically maniacally partisan behaviour in the role as speaker of the house of this deluded harridan, is more to the flavour of African despots, than anything equating to reasonable democracy...
> 
> Of course as caveat, she is Representative  the North Shore of Sydney.
> 
> I'm with Clive on this one... Cathy McGowen for speaker.




Clive suggested Bruce Scott on Insiders this morning.


----------



## SirRumpole

Bishop resigns.

About time.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-02/bronwyn-bishop-resigns-as-speaker-abbott/6666172


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> Bishop resigns.
> 
> About time.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-02/bronwyn-bishop-resigns-as-speaker-abbott/6666172






> "This has obviously been a very difficult day for Bronwyn Bishop…I think we should respect the fact that it's been a very difficult day for her,"




It's her own fault.  I'm sure if Abbott was talking about say a single parent or someone on newstart he wouldn't be showing anywhere near as much sympathy



> "I have not taken this decision lightly, however it is because of my love and respect for the institution of the Parliament and the Australian people that I have resigned as Speaker," she said.




No Mrs Bishop.  If you'd had respect for the Australian people you wouldn't have claimed travel allowances as the chair of a parliamentary committee on 15 separate occasions for times and places when records indicate the committee was not conducting hearings.  Once is an incident; twice is a trend; thrice is a tradition...I have no idea what 15 times would be.  Possibly just an attitude of entitlement?



> "I think we should also be grateful that something has been done here that will resolve this vexed question of entitlements, as far is humanly possible once and for all," he said.




Seriously, you thing waiting for a crisis like Bronny Gate is the best way to see reform of a broken system?  Hmmm, certainly reflects how your managing the economic slow down.



> "Without wanting to underplay the significance of some of the errors of judgement which she herself has conceded and apologised for, I think she's certainly done the right thing," he said.




It took over 2 weeks for an apology, and well if it takes 2 weeks for you to apologise I think most would agree it's not particularly sincere.  The right thing mind you, would have been to not make bogus claims, but that seems to get back to the general sense of entitlement eh.



> "What has become apparent is that the problem is not any particular individual, the problem is the entitlements system more generally
> 
> "We have a situation where spending is arguably inside the rules but plainly outside community expectations."




Surely after the Slipper witch hunt, and his successful appeal due to their being no legally enforceable definition of what committee business is, you'd have decided then was the time to start looking into some serious reform?  You can't break the rules if there are no rules.  But you chose to keep the current system because you like the $500M in cash that lines your parliamentary pockets.

Does Abbott just not get it, or is he too afraid to show that he does


----------



## banco

I'm disappointed. I wanted her to survive until at least the first week of sittings for the entertainment value.  

Oh well, good riddance.  She was a disgraceful speaker and a disgraceful MP.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> Does Abbott just not get it, or is he too afraid to show that he does




The degree of hypocrisy and denial that Abbott shows is mind boggling.

Did not Abbott himself have to repay money that he claimed for promoting his book ? Claiming that on expenses is as much fraud as was Bishop's helicopter ride. How that man can go barefaced in public with those types of rotting fish hanging over him is beyond me.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> The degree of hypocrisy and denial that Abbott shows is mind boggling.
> 
> Did not Abbott himself have to repay money that he claimed for promoting his book ? Claiming that on expenses is as much fraud as was Bishop's helicopter ride. How that man can go barefaced in public with those types of rotting fish hanging over him is beyond me.




From memory, didn't Rudd have a bit of a name, for air travel?

Or is it, you think, that miss use of taxpayers funds will be confined to the Coalition?

That would be novel, to think Labor, don't have their noses in the trough.lol

It would appear to me, you as Labor do, shoot from the hip. I would think all sides of politics, will shy away from an investigation into miss use of funds.

I don't think for one minute, that it isn't a common practice and seen as a perk of office.IMO

The only thing I find mind boggling, is your bias.lol


----------



## Smurf1976

banco said:


> Oh well, good riddance.  She was a disgraceful speaker and a disgraceful MP.




Best remembered for kerosene and helicopters.

Oh wait, there's a trend there too. Choppers run on kero don't they?


----------



## wayneL

Damn! Question time will be boring now. Who else could invoke 94a with such aplomb?


----------



## sptrawler

Interesting article, maybe someone at last, reflects on whether the abuse is justified.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/29160736/ruby-rose-apologises-to-tony-abbott/


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> From memory, didn't Rudd have a bit of a name, for air travel?




The Libs had every opportunity to have a go at him and they didn't.



> Or is it, you think, that miss use of taxpayers funds will be confined to the Coalition?




Both sides do it, but its about time it was stopped



> That would be novel, to think Labor, don't have their noses in the trough.lol




See above



> It would appear to me, you as Labor do, shoot from the hip. I would think all sides of politics, will shy away from an investigation into miss use of funds.




Who was shooting from the hip over Slipper ?



> I don't think for one minute, that it isn't a common practice and seen as a perk of office.IMO
> 
> The only thing I find mind boggling, is your bias.lol




And you're not of course ? LOL !!!


----------



## Wysiwyg

wayneL said:


> Damn! Question time will be boring now. Who else could invoke 94a with such aplomb?




She reminded me of those holier than thou types that use bidets. You know, 'cause their **** don't stink. Looked like a bit of a troll in the end. :frown: Wouldn't hesitate to give her a good back answer.


----------



## Logique

Social media can be cruel, but at times perversely amusing. Others at the link, including _Put Your Wallets Out_.

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/...-bronwyn-bishop-in-style-20150802-gipx32.html
Social media sends off Bronwyn Bishop in style - August 3, 2015


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> In that case, I wonder why Slipper ended up in court over an essentially non existent offence ?




The general reason criminals target other criminals ... they don't like those that rat on them


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> From memory, didn't Rudd have a bit of a name, for air travel?





But Rudd isn't the PM, Labor are not the govt and the Libs are being paid to run the show. Accountability isn't predicated on the misbehaviour of the enemy.


----------



## Tisme

wayneL said:


> Damn! Question time will be boring now. Who else could invoke 94a with such aplomb?




I'm wondering what the Finance Dept have found that was compelling enough for Tony to pull the pin. 

I'm hoping a whole lot of the parliament have the jitters and wanting the bad man to go away. I still smirk at the LNP polly up here who loaded his wine glass with his privates and sent the subsequent pic to an angry GF ... who sent it on to social media ... the guy was plonkers 

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...-of-parliamentary-career-20141127-11vmo4.html


----------



## trainspotter

Smurf1976 said:


> Best remembered for kerosene and helicopters.
> 
> Oh wait, there's a trend there too. Choppers run on kero don't they?




You have been busy creating memes Tisme?


----------



## pixel

banco said:


> I'm disappointed. I wanted her to survive until at least the first week of sittings for the entertainment value.
> 
> Oh well, good riddance.  She was a disgraceful speaker and a disgraceful MP.




She remains a disgraceful MP. She only resigned as Speaker.
And the Speaker designate, Phil Ruddock, makes me wonder: Careful what you wish for


----------



## Tisme

trainspotter said:


> You have been busy creating memes Tisme?
> 
> View attachment 63701




I have a feeling the post wasn't meant for me, but yes I do some creative stuff on occasion.


----------



## sydboy007

pixel said:


> She remains a disgraceful MP. She only resigned as Speaker.
> And the Speaker designate, Phil Ruddock, makes me wonder: Careful what you wish for




i just feel like we're going from bride of Davros to Davros himself as speaker.


----------



## explod

sydboy007 said:


> i just feel like we're going from bride of Davros to Davros himself as speaker.




The whole show is a joke. 

Noco is very sileng ATM too I notice.  Busy lobbying for a new speaker i suppose. 

There is no productivity any more.  Just the footy,  the TV,  computer games,  online trading and one could expand. 

My Brother and I are developing a recycled timber shed and the people are just so exited,  they can make something for themselves.  It has been a revolationary experience. 

Bring back self sufficient communities.  The pollies!!!  they would not have a blo dy clue.


----------



## banco

pixel said:


> She remains a disgraceful MP. She only resigned as Speaker.
> And the Speaker designate, Phil Ruddock, makes me wonder: Careful what you wish for




I think Ruddock would actually make a very good speaker. He was a good Attorney-General.  Bronwyn has been a failure at everything.  Only reason she was speaker is because Abbott knew she'd stuff everything up again if she was given a portfolio.


----------



## trainspotter

Tisme said:


> Copters
> 
> View attachment 63534
> View attachment 63535
> View attachment 63536




Not you Tisme?



> I have a feeling the post wasn't meant for me, but yes I do some creative stuff on occasion.




Post #6993 I believe?


----------



## trainspotter

banco said:


> I think Ruddock would actually make a very good speaker. He was a good Attorney-General.  Bronwyn has been a failure at everything.  Only reason she was speaker is because Abbott knew she'd stuff everything up again if she was given a portfolio.




Can't get the numbers me old chum


----------



## noco

explod said:


> The whole show is a joke.
> 
> Noco is very sileng ATM too I notice.  Busy lobbying for a new speaker i suppose.
> 
> There is no productivity any more.  Just the footy,  the TV,  computer games,  online trading and one could expand.
> 
> My Brother and I are developing a recycled timber shed and the people are just so exited,  they can make something for themselves.  It has been a revolationary experience.
> 
> Bring back self sufficient communities.  The pollies!!!  they would not have a blo dy clue.




Noco, has been to the pearly gates chatting with St. Peter......nearly did not make it plod.... St Peter sent me back down for a while.


----------



## trainspotter

noco said:


> Noco, has been to the pearly gates chatting with St. Peter......nearly did not make it plod.... St Peter sent me back down for a while.




You all good ????


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Noco, has been to the pearly gates chatting with St. Peter......nearly did not make it plod.... St Peter sent me back down for a while.




Maybe St Peter is a Fabian and didn't want you around ?


Hope you are on the mend.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe St Peter is a Fabian and didn't want you around ?
> 
> 
> Hope you are on the mend.





Yes...on the mend thanks Rumpy.

St Peter sends the Fabians the other way.....He said there is no place for the deceased Fabians in heaven....


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Noco, has been to the pearly gates chatting with St. Peter......nearly did not make it plod.... St Peter sent me back down for a while.




Sorry to hear that ole Pal and pleased you are back with us and on the mend.


----------



## noco

explod said:


> Sorry to hear that ole Pal and pleased you are back with us and on the mend.




Thanks Plod...The old ticker is starting to wear out.

I am back to annoy the $hit out of you.


----------



## sydboy007

So this is how Abbott thinks is a wise way to spend my money.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-to-have-800000-in-public-funds-for-marketing



> BjÃ¸rn Lomborg’s “consensus centre” was to spend up to $800,000 of its $4m in government funding on promotion and marketing and up to $2m on high-profile “events” under the controversial and now-abandoned agreement with the University of Western Australia (UWA).
> …
> But documents obtained by Guardian Australia after a freedom of information request reveal the agreement between the Abbott government and UWA budgeted for Lomborg to spend between 20% and 50% of the grant on “event costs” and between 10% and 20% on “promotion and marketing”. *The budget leaves half, or less (between 20% and 50%) to be spent on “staff and professional fees”*.




Appears Abbott was more about buying / promoting consensus than actually producing research that would lead to it.

At least the budget crisis is over /sarc


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> Thanks Plod...The old ticker is starting to wear out.
> 
> I am back to annoy the $hit out of you.




You think you might be being punished .... Jesus was the ultimate socialist. 

Get well old fella, we can't have you in the miseries.


----------



## Tisme

Captain's Pick


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> Captain's Pick
> 
> View attachment 63731




Obviously the crew have indicated that they don't trust the Captain anymore and he can't be left alone to decide the speakership.

Says it all really.


----------



## Tisme

So now the Abbott crowd are attacking non govt MPs for travel rorting, that isn't travelling rorting afterall.

The tit for tat immaturity of those that are supposed to be governing is frightening. Blind Freddy knows that Bronwyn was treating taxpayer money as a milch cow for extravagance... 

I'm still waiting for this govt to start being accountable for it's behaviour and activities.....Bill must be getting fed up being the dowager Queen.


----------



## qldfrog

noco said:


> Thanks Plod...The old ticker is starting to wear out.
> 
> I am back to annoy the $hit out of you.



finding hard to ever agree with you Noco, but not a reason to give up 
hope you are OK and please keep being the right wing voice here; with the perf of the current government, it is getting harder to find supporters...not that I would give much credit to the fabians either
Prompt recovery and all the best


----------



## noco

qldfrog said:


> finding hard to ever agree with you Noco, but not a reason to give up
> hope you are OK and please keep being the right wing voice here; with the perf of the current government, it is getting harder to find supporters...not that I would give much credit to the fabians either
> Prompt recovery and all the best




Thanks qldfrog.


----------



## sptrawler

Not much mention about Albanese and Burke miss using tax payers funds, what a trip to the Melbourne Cup and taking the family to Ayers Rock is o.k. 

Sounds like a case of misogyny to me. 

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2015/08/05/questions-over-tony-burke-s-uluru-trip.html

All of a sudden it isn't about taking the pi$$, it's ok to take the pi$$, if your Labor and male.lol


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> Not much mention about Albanese and Burke miss using tax payers funds, what a trip to the Melbourne Cup and taking the family to Ayers Rock is o.k.
> 
> Sounds like a case of misogyny to me.
> 
> http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2015/08/05/questions-over-tony-burke-s-uluru-trip.html
> 
> All of a sudden it isn't about taking the pi$$, it's ok to take the pi$$, if your Labor and male.lol




It's been nothing but Burke since the news day service began


----------



## sptrawler

Tisme said:


> It's been nothing but Burke since the news day service began




I was talking about you guys, cat got your tongues.

You were outraged at Abbott going to a wedding, Bishop going from Geelong to Melbourne in a helicopter, you must be really out of shape with Burke taking the missus and kids business class.


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> I was talking about you guys, cat got your tongues.
> 
> You were outraged at Abbott going to a wedding, Bishop going from Geelong to Melbourne in a helicopter, you must be really out of shape with Burke taking the missus and kids business class.




Tony is soo boring, whereas Bronwyn painted a target on her forehead the day she kicked her Labor victim out for 54its and giggles. ....... karma


----------



## IFocus

qldfrog said:


> finding hard to ever agree with you Noco, but not a reason to give up
> hope you are OK and please keep being the right wing voice here; with the perf of the current government, it is getting harder to find supporters...not that I would give much credit to the fabians either
> Prompt recovery and all the best





+ 1.................all the best Noco


----------



## sptrawler

Tisme said:


> Tony is soo boring, whereas Bronwyn painted a target on her forehead the day she kicked her Labor victim out for 54its and giggles. ....... karma




Like I said, " It smacks of misogyny, by the anti misogyny party". 

It typifies what pi$$es me off about Labor, and why I have lost all respect for them.

They rant and rave about morals and principals, yet display none themselves.

They accuse people of being immoral and abuse them, yet know they are no better themselves.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...ee-justin-bieber/story-fni0cx12-1227470293817

I've no time for them, they have less credibility than Hockey, who has very little. 
When I heard he rents a house in Canberra, from his missus, I thought "jeez the hide of them is unbelievable".


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> + 1.................all the best Noco




Thanks IFocus for your very kind thoughts.......Am back on the bowling green again.


----------



## sptrawler

Great to see you up and firing noco, what do you think about Tony Burke taking the wife and kids business class to Ayers Rock, at taxpayers expense?

Apparently, he may have taken them on another taxpayers trip, to a Robbie Williams concert.

Nothing like the pot calling the kettle grimey ar$e is there.lol,lol

Losers and Labor, have more in common, than first letters.

That moron stood up in parliament, with a P plate sign for Bronwyn, he should have an L plate stapled on his forehead.
That's L for loser, not for learner, what an absolute dick.


----------



## SirRumpole

Everyone else has to pay for their own family holiday, I don't see why politicians shouldn't as well. It'a not as if they get paid peanuts.

Burke's career may suffer for this in the future, just as Bishop's career has suffered now.

If he's had to pay back money 15 times, on the face of it it looks as if he's made 15 false declarations. Not a good look.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> Everyone else has to pay for their own family holiday, I don't see why politicians shouldn't as well. It'a not as if they get paid peanuts.
> 
> Burke's career may suffer for this in the future, just as Bishop's career has suffered now.
> 
> If he's had to pay back money 15 times, on the face of it it looks as if he's made 15 false declarations. Not a good look.





Everyone else except* Christopher Pyne* who 1st classes his family to Canberra.


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> Great to see you up and firing noco, what do you think about Tony Burke taking the wife and kids business class to Ayers Rock, at taxpayers expense?
> 
> Apparently, he may have taken them on another taxpayers trip, to a Robbie Williams concert.
> 
> Nothing like the pot calling the kettle grimey ar$e is there.lol,lol
> 
> Losers and Labor, have more in common, than first letters.
> 
> That moron stood up in parliament, with a P plate sign for Bronwyn, he should have an L plate stapled on his forehead.
> That's L for loser, not for learner, what an absolute dick.




Thank SP for your kind thoughts.....I feel like a new born baby now......No hair.....No teeth and I just wet my pants...LOL

Am beginning to think both sides of  political parties are tarred with the one brush.....Take what they can while they can.

I once had a young sales rep who traveled away from home...When he presented his expenses for the week many evening meals included oysters, lobster and mud crabs.......I asked him "do you live like that at home?"...He said ....Turn it up , I could not afford that sort of food every night. 

So it is OK to live the high life so long as someone else is paying for it.


----------



## Logique

Has a bit of a track record does Tony Burke. Not averse to his lurks and perks. 

If I was him, I wouldn't be pointing the finger at anyone else. Remember this?



> *Labor mates snowed under by Eddie Obeid's generosity* - February 6, 2013
> 
> Linton Besser, Kate McClymont, Sean Nicholls
> 
> SMH: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/labor-mat...-generosity-20130205-2dwm0.html#ixzz3hz5IB7tq
> 
> ...Three of Labor's most senior politicians - the federal Environment Minister, *Tony Burke*, Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, and the NSW Opposition Leader, John Robertson - have been dragged into a corruption probe after admitting they accepted lavish ski trips from the ALP powerbroker Eddie Obeid...
> 
> ....*Mr Burke* and Mr Conroy said the Obeid family was not present during their stays. Both stated that although they had accepted Mr Obeid's generosity in a personal capacity, they believed it was in the public interest to clarify the matter....


----------



## Knobby22

Poor Bronny will lose her seat soon and will have to get by on a relative pittance with only 10 domestic plane trips allowed and a tragically limiting tax free pension of 255K per year. 
I feel for her as after all she has done for the country. I am sure she believes she deserves better.


----------



## overhang

noco said:


> Noco, has been to the pearly gates chatting with St. Peter......nearly did not make it plod.... St Peter sent me back down for a while.




Good to hear you're back on the mend Noco, look after that heart.



On the community expectations that both parties seem to be hammering home, just stop putting the wool over our eyes.  Tax payers shouldn't be paying you to attend party fundraisers which is easily exploitable by arranging a "meeting" with the local member etc so that the trip is classified as political, nor should we pay you to attend a colleagues wedding.


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> Poor Bronny will lose her seat soon and will have to get by on a relative pittance with only 10 domestic plane trips allowed and a tragically limiting tax free pension of 255K per year.
> I feel for her as after all she has done for the country. I am sure she believes she deserves better.




255k is not a lot to live on these days in Oz.

I mean, look at the price of a decent chopper.


----------



## Tisme

Life's tuff for some


----------



## Tisme

Anyone seeing a theme emerge?


----------



## noco

overhang said:


> Good to hear you're back on the mend Noco, look after that heart.
> 
> 
> 
> On the community expectations that both parties seem to be hammering home, just stop putting the wool over our eyes.  Tax payers shouldn't be paying you to attend party fundraisers which is easily exploitable by arranging a "meeting" with the local member etc so that the trip is classified as political, nor should we pay you to attend a colleagues wedding.




Thanks overhang.....Lucky I have a good GP who diagnosed my problem in time.

N.B. to all ASF members, don't put off seeing your GP should you have chest pain, short of breath or feeling lethargic ...I was short of breath for a few weeks...no chest pain....nearly left it too late.


----------



## Knobby22

Newspoll was meant to be published this week based on last weeks polling.

It hasn't happened and the rumour is the polling was so bad that Newscorp didn't want to release it, told the Prime Minister who promptly got rid of Bronwyn and arranged the trip to Adelaide to improve his standing. Anyone else heard this?


----------



## noco

Knobby22 said:


> Newspoll was meant to be published this week based on last weeks polling.
> 
> It hasn't happened and the rumour is the polling was so bad that Newscorp didn't want to release it, told the Prime Minister who promptly got rid of Bronwyn and arranged the trip to Adelaide to improve his standing. Anyone else heard this?




No.....don't believe a word of it......its a leak out of the Labor Party shadow cabinet meeting.


----------



## sydboy007

Me thinks an even bigger version of stormify.

http://investor.genworth.com.au/For...nYy0Cz3sNm05J0fw/file/1Q2015-Presentation.pdf

Genworth Mortgage Insurance Australia has urged the Abbott government to adopt the recommendations of the Financial System Inquiry, after reaffirming its full-year growth target and flagging a special dividend for shareholders as part of its interim results.

*In the six months to June 30, Genworth (GMA) delivered a net profit of $113.05 million, a 25 per cent decrease on its pro-forma results in the previous corresponding period, due largely to higher losses in parts of Queensland and Western Australia as the economy continues to transition away from resources sector-led growth.*

…The mortgage insurer will pay an interim dividend of 12c per share on September 4, with a special dividend of 18.5c per share also to be paid on the same date.

Why is Genworth being permitted to issue a special dividend at this point in the cycle? *According to its March accounts it carried $316 billion dollars in insurance in force yet it only carries $2.738 in regulatory capital, a shocking leverage ratio of 115.4.*

How APRA could allow the special dividend is beyond me.  Rising bad debts, falling profit, 115 times gearing, yet has excess capital to return to shareholders.  Expect a bailout in a year or two once the WA and QLD economies start to take as unemployment bites and the historically low mortgage arrears climbs.

The Govt will stand there yet again saying who-cudda-known.


----------



## drsmith

WTF does Genworth have to do with the federal government ?

It's a publically listed company.

http://www.asx.com.au/asx/research/company.do#!/GMA


----------



## Macquack

Tisme said:


> Life's tuff for some
> 
> View attachment 63745




Hockey has never paid for a thing in his entire life. He is a classic "free loader".



> "Everyone in Australia must do the heavy lifting"- Joe Hockey



 .

In his case, getting off his fat ar*e must qualify as "heavy lifting". On ya, Joe.


----------



## sydboy007

Abbott on 3AW

"Do I think it's wrong for a member of Parliament to go to a fundraiser and maybe use a Comcar to do it? Not necessarily.

"Should you use a helicopter to get there? Well plainly that's outside community expectations."

I don't see why tax payers should fund a politician to attend a fund raiser.  I have no issue in providing funds for them to listen to community concerns, but then they already have electoral offices paid for by tax payers, so unless you have a ministry position and are doing formally recognised public consultation, then no I don't think I should have to pay for a union conference or subsidise running VIP functions for exclusive access to politicians.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> WTF does Genworth have to do with the federal government ?
> 
> It's a publically listed company.
> 
> http://www.asx.com.au/asx/research/company.do#!/GMA




GMA is regulated by APRA.  Last I heard APRA is the FEDERAL regulator.

In what universe is it sane to allow a company that's geared at 115 times, with falling profits due to increasing bad debts that it insures the banks against shift more capital out when the likelihood of increased insurance payouts in the future is all but inevitable?


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> GMA is regulated by APRA.  Last I heard APRA is the FEDERAL regulator.



Are you going to post about banks, credit unions, building societies, general insurance and reinsurance companies, life insurance, private health insurance, friendly societies and most members of the superannuation industry in this thread ?

http://www.apra.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx

There's a dedicated thread for GMA on this forum.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28347&highlight=genworth


----------



## luutzu

sydboy007 said:


> Abbott on 3AW
> 
> "Do I think it's wrong for a member of Parliament to go to a fundraiser and maybe use a Comcar to do it? Not necessarily.
> 
> "Should you use a helicopter to get there? Well plainly that's outside community expectations."
> 
> I don't see why tax payers should fund a politician to attend a fund raiser.  I have no issue in providing funds for them to listen to community concerns, but then they already have electoral offices paid for by tax payers, so unless you have a ministry position and are doing formally recognised public consultation, then no I don't think I should have to pay for a union conference or subsidise running VIP functions for exclusive access to politicians.




That's leadership for you. We think it's "not necessarily" wrong, just the people don't agree so... you know, let's just say it looks bad then.

I heard Bronwyn is retiring with $225k p.a. pension?
All this time I thought only the PM get that kind of lifetime pension... because he's the PM and there's only a few of them at any one time... that and national service at the highest level and all that.

So does all MPs get this? Only after a few terms or one term's enough?

Don't tell me the taxpayers also pay for their lunches too. 

And these are the same people who's cracking down on welfare slackers and single mothers.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> Abbott on 3AW
> 
> I don't see why tax payers should fund a politician to attend a fund raiser.  I have no issue in providing funds for them to listen to community concerns, but then they already have electoral offices paid for by tax payers, so unless you have a ministry position and are doing formally recognised public consultation, then no I don't think I should have to pay for a union conference or subsidise running VIP functions for exclusive access to politicians.




I agree , but the rules are so blurred that almost anything can be justified if they play their cards right. eg if they stop off at a fete and give out prizes in the lucky dip on the way to the fundraiser, is that 'official duties' ?

Probably better to give them an allowance as a proportion of their salary and the size of their electorate, and if they spend more than that, tough luck. Under the present system, the rorts will continue indefinitely.


----------



## Macquack

SirRumpole said:


> Probably better to give them an allowance as a proportion of their salary and the size of their electorate, and if they spend more than that, tough luck. Under the present system, the rorts will continue indefinitely.




I agree with your solution. Alternatively, give them sweet FA.


----------



## noco

Macquack said:


> I agree with your solution. Alternatively, give them sweet FA.




Then you would have no politicians to ruin the country, I mean run the country.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> Are you going to post about banks, credit unions, building societies, general insurance and reinsurance companies, life insurance, private health insurance, friendly societies and most members of the superannuation industry in this thread ?
> 
> http://www.apra.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx
> 
> There's a dedicated thread for GMA on this forum.
> 
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28347&highlight=genworth




Hockey was demanding Swan take a far more active role as Treasurer.  Can't sit in your office all day expecting results, or words to that effect.

Just holding Hockey to the standards he was demanding when in opposition.


----------



## Logique

The arrogant self-entitlement of Christopher Pyne on ABC Radio today will take your breath away. 

Paraphrasing, "I flew my kids over in Business Class in 2013 (cost to taxpayers $7,000) because that's the procedure, they were coming over to be part of my job..".  

No problem however with making teenagers wait 6 months to get the dole. 



> *Canberra has become a parallel moral universe*
> 
> OPINION - By Michael Bradley - The Drum - Posted Thu 6 August 2015
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-06/bradley-canberra-has-become-a-parallel-moral-universe/6676000
> 
> While the MP entitlements rules are generous, they aren't nearly so vague as is being made out. Therefore, we need to make rorting politicians aware of the consequences of their actions, writes Michael Bradley.
> 
> The virus hunting down politicians over rorting of their entitlements is out of containment and threatening to consume Canberra...


----------



## sptrawler

Logique said:


> The arrogant self-entitlement of Christopher Pyne on ABC Radio today will take your breath away.
> 
> Paraphrasing, "I flew my kids over in Business Class in 2013 (cost to taxpayers $7,000) because that's the procedure, they were coming over to be part of my job..".
> 
> No problem however with making teenagers wait 6 months to get the dole.




Yes, and more is surfacing about Burke and his indulgences.

Like I said earlier, it is starting to look more and more like a misogyny driven witch hunt by Labor, on Bronwyn Bishop.

They are starting to look more and more like a bunch of losers, that includes both sides, buy Labor take the cake for starting it.

It just highlights how dumb they are, when you have the picture of Burke with the "P" plate, then hear of his indiscretions.


----------



## SirRumpole

Christopher Pyne said:
			
		

> they were coming over to be part of my job..".




I think the Pyne cone needs to explain that in a bit more detail. What services to the Australian taxpayer were they providing ?


----------



## IFocus

Clearly there are politicians on both sides that over reach with the expenses and clearly Bronwyn  was the leader of the pack by a very long way.

Burke made the point that his claims although were within the rules were outside the community expectations interesting Pyne's arrogance reflects the Liberals born to rule and screw the workers attitude.


----------



## IFocus

Surprised at no mention of the $80 bil + ship building pork barrel.

Did anyone one else have trouble not throwing up listening to Abbotts comments about his government doing good work making these promises?


----------



## Tisme

IFocus said:


> Surprised at no mention of the $80 bil + ship building pork barrel.
> 
> Did anyone one else have trouble not throwing up listening to Abbotts comments about his government doing good work making these promises?





That's $40bn per seat for the prospective losses to Nick's new party.....including Chris'


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> Clearly there are politicians on both sides that over reach with the expenses and clearly Bronwyn  was the leader of the pack by a very long way.
> 
> Burke made the point that his claims although were within the rules were outside the community expectations interesting Pyne's arrogance reflects the Liberals born to rule and screw the workers attitude.



What's clear about this is that it's not party specific.

It's a broad problem of cultural excess within the political class but reflects worse on the conservative side of politics due to the obvious inconsistency with fiscal prudence.


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> What's clear about this is that it's not party specific.
> 
> It's a broad problem of cultural excess within the political class but reflects worse on the conservative side of politics due to the obvious inconsistency with fiscal prudence.




Agree, how any one thinking flying your wife and kids business class any where for any reason at the tax payers expense is reasonable is seriously out of touch.


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> Agree, how any one thinking flying your wife and kids business class any where for any reason at the tax payers expense is reasonable is seriously out of touch.



Partisan criticism is a waste of time on this issue when both sides so obviously show such strong underlying bipartisan support for rorting the current system.


----------



## SirRumpole

drsmith said:


> Partisan criticism is a waste of time on this issue when both sides so obviously show such strong underlying bipartisan support for rorting the current system.




That's true, but once the Libs made such a fuss over Slipper and $900, you wouldn't expect Bronwyn to be let off with $5,000 would you ?


----------



## sydboy007

IFocus said:


> Surprised at no mention of the $80 bil + ship building pork barrel.
> 
> Did anyone one else have trouble not throwing up listening to Abbotts comments about his government doing good work making these promises?




Further support for the car industry may have turned out cheaper.

Funny how the free market philosophy is dumped as soon as it seems they might lose the treasury benches.

The fact they have that fear with a 35 seat majority and an inchoate opposition leader doesn't bode well for much happening till the next election, maybe not even then if one of the Laberals don't have a a strong majority and need to horse trade with minor parties.

Does Abbott pull the trigger before the end of the year, or does he take his chances with a devastatingly bad MYEFO that will leave the budget bare of any ability to buy votes?  Possibly now is the time to start being honest with the punters?  Less ideology and a bit more pragmatism.  Not sure if that will go down too well in voter land unless Abbott can somehow get people to believe he's a conviction politician, and he's shown little of that over the years.


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> Surprised at no mention of the $80 bil + ship building pork barrel.
> 
> Did anyone one else have trouble not throwing up listening to Abbotts comments about his government doing good work making these promises?




It is so difficult to win with you lefties.

On the one hand you criticize Abbott for not doing enough for workers in the ship building industry and in the next breath when he does something to make the unions happy in South Australia, you brand him of pork barreling.

Gillard gave the over seas corporate car industry ( not local companies) enough taxpayers money to keep manufacturing cars until 2020, so why are they pulling out so much earlier (2017)?.....It was supposed to keep the small local part suppliers in operation until they could diversify into other products.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> It is so difficult to win with you lefties.
> 
> On the one hand you criticize Abbott for not doing enough for workers in the ship building industry and in the next breath when he does something to make the unions happy in South Australia, you brand him of pork barreling.
> 
> Gillard gave the over seas corporate car industry ( not local companies) enough taxpayers money to keep manufacturing cars until 2020, so why are they pulling out so much earlier (2017)?.....It was supposed to keep the small local part suppliers in operation until they could diversify into other products.




RBA lead the Govt to drink the coolaid on the never ending resource boom.  The AUD was going to be perpetually high, rivers of revenue were going to flow endlessly.

An artificially high AUD, due in part to the over investment of the resource industry massacred local manufacturing.  Maybe not letting 3 LNG trains to be developed at the same time in QLD might have helped.  Maybe not allowing the massive mine expansions to go on concurrently would have been good policy, and saved shareholders from the large writedowns they're facing.

Over investment in the electricity networks, along with the lack of a gas reservation policy for domestic users, has meant local industry faces higher energy costs than most of our competitors.  You don't get to be so up the effluent creek without a paddle like we are without years and years of poor policy decisions.

Lack of vision by the laberals for over a decade has lead us to the situation where we'll be in the company of NZ as the only rich countries without a local car manufacturing industry.

I'm not sure why we can't afford to invest in rail when there's plenty of funds for the military.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> RBA lead the Govt to drink the coolaid on the never ending resource boom.  The AUD was going to be perpetually high, rivers of revenue were going to flow endlessly.
> 
> An artificially high AUD, due in part to the over investment of the resource industry massacred local manufacturing.  Maybe not letting 3 LNG trains to be developed at the same time in QLD might have helped.  Maybe not allowing the massive mine expansions to go on concurrently would have been good policy, and saved shareholders from the large writedowns they're facing.
> 
> Over investment in the electricity networks, along with the lack of a gas reservation policy for domestic users, has meant local industry faces higher energy costs than most of our competitors.  You don't get to be so up the effluent creek without a paddle like we are without years and years of poor policy decisions.
> 
> Lack of vision by the laberals for over a decade has lead us to the situation where we'll be in the company of NZ as the only rich countries without a local car manufacturing industry.
> 
> I'm not sure why we can't afford to invest in rail when there's plenty of funds for the military.




Ha...things went from good to bad 2007/2013...Rudd/Gillard/Rudd.

The manufacturing industry was massacred years ago by the corrupt unions.....Don't blame the Liberals.


----------



## IFocus

noco said:


> It is so difficult to win with you lefties.
> 
> On the one hand you criticize Abbott for not doing enough for workers in the ship building industry and in the next breath when he does something to make the unions happy in South Australia, you brand him of pork barreling.
> 
> Gillard gave the over seas corporate car industry ( not local companies) enough taxpayers money to keep manufacturing cars until 2020, so why are they pulling out so much earlier (2017)?.....It was supposed to keep the small local part suppliers in operation until they could diversify into other products.





No believes its about jobs but trying to up the polls anyone that believes Abbott will deliver is a mug.......IMHO


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> No believes its about jobs but trying to up the polls anyone that believes Abbott will deliver is a mug.......IMHO




So Shorten wasn't after votes with his dramatic speech to the unions about building over priced subs in Australia?


----------



## Tisme

IFocus said:


> No believes its about jobs but trying to up the polls anyone that believes Abbott will deliver is a mug.......IMHO




No one believes the hachneyed "unions at fault" excuse either. We were one of the richest if not the richest per capita countries with unions of trade workers in the mix starting almost 20 years before we decided we might be able to govern ourselves and make our own fortunes and own mistakes.

Those unions are men and women, not some kind of deity that exists to be the punching bag of wannabe blue bloods and failed businessmen. Successful companies embrace their workforce and include them in the growth strategies and rewards systems..... doomed to fail businesses do battle and invariably their otherwise loyal employees wreak damage on the brand.

Newscorp and it's subsidiary, the LNP, should at least have the guts to to change "unions" to "Australian men and women workers"  when they headline the usual blame game for weak management of the country..... no matter which party is wrecking the place at the time.


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> No one believes the hachneyed "unions at fault" excuse either. We were one of the richest if not the richest per capita countries with unions of trade workers in the mix starting almost 20 years before we decided we might be able to govern ourselves and make our own fortunes and own mistakes.
> 
> Those unions are men and women, not some kind of deity that exists to be the punching bag of wannabe blue bloods and failed businessmen. Successful companies embrace their workforce and include them in the growth strategies and rewards systems..... doomed to fail businesses do battle and invariably their otherwise loyal employees wreak damage on the brand.
> 
> Newscorp and it's subsidiary, the LNP, should at least have the guts to to change "unions" to "Australian men and women workers"  when they headline the usual blame game for weak management of the country..... no matter which party is wrecking the place at the time.




I agree with that, but there no doubt that an organised mass of people provides opportunities for thuggery, extortion and self gratification of those in charge of the unions, and we have certainly seen this manifested in the past in terms of airline strikes, petrol strikes, train strikes, green bans and the like.

That we have had 30+ years of relative industrial peace owes a lot to the likes of the Hawke/Keating reforms and moderate union leaders like Shorten, (even though vestiges of thuggery still remain in the Labor party's factional system) than it does to any "reforms" like Workchoices made by the Conservatives.

 People like Crean, Rudd, Latham & co have fought to reduce this influence and make the Labor party more representative. They still have a way to go, but they have made advances.


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> No one believes the hachneyed "unions at fault" excuse either. We were one of the richest if not the richest per capita countries with unions of trade workers in the mix starting almost 20 years before we decided we might be able to govern ourselves and make our own fortunes and own mistakes.
> 
> Those unions are men and women, not some kind of deity that exists to be the punching bag of wannabe blue bloods and failed businessmen. Successful companies embrace their workforce and include them in the growth strategies and rewards systems..... doomed to fail businesses do battle and invariably their otherwise loyal employees wreak damage on the brand.
> 
> Newscorp and it's subsidiary, the LNP, should at least have the guts to to change "unions" to "Australian men and women workers"  when they headline the usual blame game for weak management of the country..... no matter which party is wrecking the place at the time.




You seem to overlook the fact we are living in the 21 st century and the work place has had some dramatic changes from the last century when we never had it so good.......Mining and manufacturing were thriving and the demand for higher wages, particularly in mining, was easy to get, however those days are now gone with the poor prices for coal and iron ore most companies have had to curtail their operations......But it seems many from from the left and the corrupt unions are incessant in blaming the Abbott government.

Successful companies embrace selective workers in their growth strategies and avoid the loafing union hacks whose sole intent is on how much they can get out of their boss for as little work as possible.....conscientious employees are rewarded for their efforts and productivity results.....Believe me...I have been on both sides.

Then we have to put up with the rot from the Greens who have sabotaged the the largest coal mining project in Queensland because they say it with disrupt the life of a skink and an ornamental  rare snake.......Coal which was destined for India for power plants  where some 300,000,000 are still without electricity....Up to 10,000 jobs have been lost due to the Greens stupidity....Queensland's unemployment has now reached 6.7%.

*I often repeat John F. Kennedy...."Think what you can do for your country and not what your country can do for you"......The problem with many in this country of ours, we are too greedy and want everything for nothing.*


----------



## Smurf1976

Part of the issue here is that at the local level, much of Australia is basically a Third World economy and has been for years.

WA - Dig it up and ship it out. Classic Third World stuff.

Qld - Same as WA with the addition of tourism. Again that's Third World stuff.

NT - Again, not much more than natural resource exploitation one way or another.

Tas - Mixed in terms of actual activity but government policy has, with the exception of a brief period early this decade, focused heavily on natural resource extraction - that's Third World stuff.

SA - Was a developed economy as such but has fallen in a heap due to the impacts of events in other states plus lack of scale locally. 

Which leaves NSW and Vic as the only states that could really be considered as "advanced economies" in terms of actual activity and are managing to do it with enough scale to be useful. I didn't mention ACT since it's a government city in terms of economics and probably always will be. Necessary yes, but it will never likely become a net income earner for Australia.

We have a lot of issues in WA and Qld especially as the mining boom winds down. But that was always inevitable and there's no point blaming unions, environmentalists or anyone else for that outcome, it never could have lasted and so it didn't. The question isn't why has mining investment fallen in a heap? The question is how did we end up with such high reliance upon it in the first place? Economically at least, WA is up there with the likes of Saudi Arabia in terms of a total lack of economic sustainability. Once the iron or oil is gone, that's it, game over. Completely unsustainable and the proverbial blind Freddy could see what's going to happen in the long term. 

It's a fairly safe bet that 35 years from now, coal mining in Qld will be an irrelevant activity economically and LNG will be at the end of the line too. Iron ore in WA will be well on the way to being stuffed by then too. Better start planning now for what's inevitable. 

PS - no offence intended to anyone living in any particular state. I'm just calling it as I see it - digging stuff up or cutting it down and loading it onto ships with little if any processing is classic Third World stuff. We can't expect to sustain a high standard of living with that approach.


----------



## noco

Smurf1976 said:


> Part of the issue here is that at the local level, much of Australia is basically a Third World economy and has been for years.
> 
> WA - Dig it up and ship it out. Classic Third World stuff.
> 
> Qld - Same as WA with the addition of tourism. Again that's Third World stuff.
> 
> NT - Again, not much more than natural resource exploitation one way or another.
> 
> Tas - Mixed in terms of actual activity but government policy has, with the exception of a brief period early this decade, focused heavily on natural resource extraction - that's Third World stuff.
> 
> SA - Was a developed economy as such but has fallen in a heap due to the impacts of events in other states plus lack of scale locally.
> 
> Which leaves NSW and Vic as the only states that could really be considered as "advanced economies" in terms of actual activity and are managing to do it with enough scale to be useful. I didn't mention ACT since it's a government city in terms of economics and probably always will be. Necessary yes, but it will never likely become a net income earner for Australia.
> 
> We have a lot of issues in WA and Qld especially as the mining boom winds down. But that was always inevitable and there's no point blaming unions, environmentalists or anyone else for that outcome, it never could have lasted and so it didn't. The question isn't why has mining investment fallen in a heap? The question is how did we end up with such high reliance upon it in the first place? Economically at least, WA is up there with the likes of Saudi Arabia in terms of a total lack of economic sustainability. Once the iron or oil is gone, that's it, game over. Completely unsustainable and the proverbial blind Freddy could see what's going to happen in the long term.
> 
> It's a fairly safe bet that 35 years from now, coal mining in Qld will be an irrelevant activity economically and LNG will be at the end of the line too. Iron ore in WA will be well on the way to being stuffed by then too. Better start planning now for what's inevitable.
> 
> PS - no offence intended to anyone living in any particular state. I'm just calling it as I see it - digging stuff up or cutting it down and loading it onto ships with little if any processing is classic Third World stuff. We can't expect to sustain a high standard of living with that approach.




Smurf, I think you are looking a little bit on the negative side in regard to mining.....During my life time I have observed the ups and downs in the mining industry going back to the 1960's when commodity prices hit an all time low and in particular copper, lead, zinc and sliver hence the reason Mt Isa mines organized a 9 months strike and they paid Pat Mackie $60,000 to instigate it......The mine was not viable during that period but then prices for metals began to rise and the company negotiated with the unions to return to work. 

Prices for coal and iron ore will rise again and it is anticipated it will happen in 2016.....there has been a slow down in demand and that is a correction we have to live with.......India need lots of coal to fire up cheap electricity for 300,000,000 people without power and the set back to the Adani coal mine in Queensland will, I am sure, will be overcome....Coal is still the cheaper source of electricity and will be in demand for many decades to come.

You commented on the Northern part of Australia as some what being in the doldrums but you have overlooked how viable the cattle industry has been and is now increasing with the latest agreement with China.....The redevelopment of agriculture in the northern part of Australia is a must but will require more dams for water. storage.

We have to look away from doom and gloom and be some what more optimistic for our future but there also has to be bi-partisan support from both sides of politics with the national interest always in mind and that has somewhat been lacking......Political point scoring has to stop.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Political point scoring has to stop.




Yes, but it won't, you and I know that. 

Government is the big game and both sides want it, and need it for their continued survival. People won't vote for a compliant Opposition that is just a pushover for the Government. That's why Tony Abbott made it his job to oppose everything. 

Shorten is more concilliatory, but there has to be points of difference to distinguish one Party from the other, otherwise no one would want to be a politician if they spend their lives on the Opposition benches.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, but it won't, you and I know that.
> 
> Government is the big game and both sides want it, and need it for their continued survival. People won't vote for a compliant Opposition that is just a pushover for the Government. That's why Tony Abbott made it his job to oppose everything.
> 
> Shorten is more concilliatory, but there has to be points of difference to distinguish one Party from the other, otherwise no one would want to be a politician if they spend their lives on the Opposition benches.




I think the difference here is that Abbott was opposing and trying to curtail Labor's extravaganza spending while Labor is opposing Abbott's savings as in Labor's own commitment to save $6 billion which Labor now opposes.

In this case who has the national interest at heart?


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> I think the difference here is that Abbott was opposing and trying to curtail Labor's extravaganza spending while Labor is opposing Abbott's savings as in Labor's own commitment to save $6 billion which Labor now opposes.
> 
> In this case who has the national interest at heart?




The old "extravagant spending" argument again. It's been pointed out numerous times here that Labor governments have been far more restrained in spending over the years than past Coalition governments especially Howard, who even his own Treasurer thought was a spendthrift.


----------



## So_Cynical

All in all considering that the Noalition haven't really done anything other than stop and or slow down things, NBN, Boats, Funding for almost everything except the deficit etc...why are they doing so badly?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Australian_election_polling_-_two_party_preferred.png

Sure the rorts thing is a negative and the many blunders of Tony - but no game changers or major stuff ups...and yet they are way behind on the 2 party prefered and have been for 20 months and continue to trend lower.
~


----------



## SirRumpole

So_Cynical said:


> All in all considering that the Noalition haven't really done anything other than stop and or slow down things, NBN, Boats, Funding for almost everything except the deficit etc...why are they doing so badly?
> 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Australian_election_polling_-_two_party_preferred.png
> 
> Sure the rorts thing is a negative and the many blunders of Tony - but no game changers or major stuff ups...and yet they are way behind on the 2 party prefered and have been for 20 months and continue to trend lower.
> ~




No major blunders or stuff-ups ?

Like "no changes to health" followed by a $7 co payment ?

"no changes to education" followed by a pullout over Gonski and increases in uni fees ?

"no changes to pensions" followed by changing the indexation arrangements and increasing the retirement age ?

Abbott is polling badly because the public simply don't trust him or his Treasurer who is being seen as the ultimate hypocrite over his "end to entitlements" guff, and they are worried about what they will do IF they get back again.

It's not rocket science, if you lie to the public your political stocks plummet.


----------



## sptrawler

Abbott's polling badly, because he's Abbott, the media hate him with a passion.

It will be interesting, come election time, whether the silent majority prefer Abbott or Shorten.


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> Abbott's polling badly, because he's Abbott, the media hate him with a passion.
> 
> It will be interesting, come election time, whether the silent majority prefer Abbott or Shorten.




It depends on whether Shorten survives the next grilling at the RC into union corruption.

IMHO I would like to see a change in leadership from Abbott to Morrison before Xmas 2015....I don't think Abbott can climb out of the hole the left wing ABC media have put him in.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> I don't think Abbott can climb out of the hole the left wing ABC media have put him in.




Ho ho ho .

Is the ABC more influential than Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt ?

Surely not.


----------



## sptrawler

noco said:


> It depends on whether Shorten survives the next grilling at the RC into union corruption.
> 
> IMHO I would like to see a change in leadership from Abbott to Morrison before Xmas 2015....I don't think Abbott can climb out of the hole the left wing ABC media have put him in.




I think that is spot on noco, it isn't just the ABC, it has become a media sport. They all abuse Abbott and Abbott is reluctant to front them, I think Morrison would make more of a fist of it.

Abbott being non combatant with the media, gives them free reign, to project whatever they like. It's easy journalism.

Also Morrison is more polarising than Abbott, it's black and white, where Abbott and Shorten, try to paint everything beige.

Australia is sliding backwards into the whirlpool, towards the S bend, they need someone to stand up and grow a pair.

Neither party is showing any signs of doing so.IMO


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Ho ho ho .
> 
> Is the ABC more influential than Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt ?
> 
> Surely not.




The difference with your argument is all the other programs the left controlled ABC has like Insiders, QandA, Media Watch, 7.30 report, Lateline, teh Drum  and Virginia Tripioli  on the ABC breakfast show....They are all anti Abbott....There is an imbalance as to what you are referring.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> The difference with your argument is all the other programs the left controlled ABC has like Insiders, QandA, Media Watch, 7.30 report, Lateline, teh Drum  and Virginia Tripioli  on the ABC breakfast show....They are all anti Abbott....There is an imbalance as to what you are referring.




Amazing how you can make such a sweeping statement. As far as the Breakfast Show goes there is more trivia and idle chit chat than any serious political commentary. As for the others, whoever is in government gets the coals raked over them by all the media, it comes with the territory and if they can't take the heat...


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Amazing how you can make such a sweeping statement. As far as the Breakfast Show goes there is more trivia and idle chit chat than any serious political commentary. As for the others, whoever is in government gets the coals raked over them by all the media, it comes with the territory and if they can't take the heat...




So are you trying to tell me the Green/Labor left wing democratic socialists do not control the ABC and all their associate programs with their socialistic propaganda?

It has been reported that some 41% of the ABC staff are Greenies, some 32% are left wing Labor and 14% Liberal..

http://australiafirstparty.net/abc-bias-watch-editorial-cues-directed-by-australian-labor-party/

 ABC Bias Watch: editorial cues directed by Australian Labor Party
May 4, 2015

The Australian taxpayers’ national broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (your ABC), costs a billion dollars a year to run.   The corporatised organisation runs out of a centralised monolithic building in inner Sydney’s Ultimo. It’s public servant management and staff receive perks so generous they can go on leave as often as parliamentarians – about a quarter of the year.

Full time ABC employees work an average 76 hours per fortnight, providing for a minimum four free days per fortnight.  More than $214m of the $453m national wage bill is spent at Ultimo in inner Sydney. THE ABC is paying eight broadcasters more than $250,000 a year, with Q&A and Lateline host Tony Jones leading the pack on an annual salary of more than $350,000. * Employees receive superannuation contributions at the rate of 15.4%, well in excess of the 9% government guarantee to ordinary Australian workers.*

ABC Relies on Big Government

Since public servants rely on the big government socialist Labor Party for artificial life support and to maintain a Canberra-like lifestyle, ‘Aunty’ has always leaned toward Labor and away from the conservatives.  So the ABC aims to please the gatekeepers of the pay-checks.

Every time the conservatives return to power in Canberra to sort out Labor overspending and debts, they have cut the ABC budget and jobs have gone.  In the end could anyone imagine a publicly funded broadcaster, which is paid by the government, being biased in favour of a small government?

So guided by instinctive self-preservation, the ABC has become full of feral lefties. Under MD Russell Balding’s direction and then Gillard-appointed replacement MD Mark Scott, the ABC has become a Department of Labor Party Propaganda akin to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’.

Scott has previously said that his method to secure additional funding for the ABC was to convincing the government the national broadcaster was working in its interests.  “I think you’ve got to couch the arguments in terms of what we are in a unique position to deliver that is in the interests of government of the day.” he said.

The only time the ABC was almost brought into line was under Jonathan Shier in 2000 addressing left-wing bias in ABC programming and editorial scripting.   PM Tony Abbott is too feeble to touch the ABC untouchables.  He is a fool for being so feeble and deserves all the flack the lefties throw at him and his conservative government on a daily basis from multiple ABC media channels.

ABC Feral Lefties

Take last week.  News Limited’s, Piers Akerman has revealed yet another classic case of ABC bias driven directly from the Labor Party:

“In a bizarre form of tag-team interrogation, four senior ABC interviewers attempted to trap Environment Minister Greg Hunt on the Abbott government’s emission reduction fund (ERF) in a series of interviews over five days.

Whether it was coincidence or through some sort of group-think within the political secretariat of the nation’s monolithic taxpayer-funded broadcaster, the effort lent credibility to the view that the ABC is the ALP’s propaganda arm. In terms of achieving a “gotcha” moment, it failed on every count.

Melbourne ABC 774’s Rafael Epstein was the first to bat just over a week ago, on April 23.This is how he began: “Just trying to make it understandable for both myself and everyone else, am I right in saying that you’ve purchased a fifth of the emissions you need to purchase using a quarter of your money? Is that roughly right?

Hunt’s response was simple: “No, it’s completely false.”

And so it went.

The facts about the ERF, Hunt said, were simple. The Abbott government had abolished the carbon tax and electricity prices dropped.

The government then passed the ERF and the Labor Party and many of their fellow critics insisted that there would be no demand under the fund. The fund is an incentive based payment through an auction process — a market-based mechanism — to find the cheapest emissions reduction project in the country; directly cleaning things up.

The first auction was conducted by the Clean Energy Regulator which announced that 47 million tonnes of emissions reductions projects had been awarded.

That’s four times the total volume of emissions reduction which occurred under the entire period of Labor’s failed carbon tax.

The price per tonne was $13.95, or less than one-ninetieth, or about 1.1 per cent of the average price of emissions reductions of $1,300 under the carbon tax.

Hunt said Epstein had begun his interview with points from the Labor Party’s presentation, which Epstein passionately denied.

He then pointed out that Epstein’s assumptions generally were wrong.

Next to engage the minister was the 7.30 Report’s Leigh Sales that evening. She should have done more homework.

“Minister,” she began, “with this first auction today you’ve spent about 25 per cent of your budget to reach about 15 per cent of your goal. Doesn’t that demonstrate that your policy’s not going to be enough to meet Australia’s emission reduction targets?

Hunt’s whacked that claim out of the ground, saying: “No, with respect, the presumptions in your question are quite wrong.”

He then gave the figures he had smashed Epstein with earlier in the day.

Sales was on the backfoot and spluttering “but…” before she managed to make another claim: “Minister, if you can address my point, at $13.95 per tonne, the amount set today, given that you have $2.55 billion to spend, you will fall short of Australia’s targets by about 57 million tonnes.”

Hunt responded: “No, that’s false.” Not going to let go, as wrong as she was, Sales came back with: “Minister, with this – with this policy — let’s talk about the current policy. Let’s talk about the current policy. With this policy, taxpayers are paying polluters not to pollute.” She was wrong again, as Hunt replied: “Well that’s false.” Undeterred, Sales tried a different tack, asking the minister to submit the figures to an independent audit so that “we can see firstly if the promised abatement happens, and secondly, if it’s value for money?”

Unfortunately, as Hunt pointed out, such an audit has already been conducted. Deloitte signed off on the first round of audit.

Floundering, Sales protested: Is it going to keep happening? Because we need to know if people are delivering what they’re promising that they’re going to be delivering for this money. The answer, Hunt said, is of course. The independent probity audit had been present throughout the whole process at his request.

Even the Labor-aligned Climate Institute has admitted the process has produced fine examples of emissions reduction but that is not the point for the ABC’s political warriors who failed to pursue Labor when it launched its disastrous policies of pink batts, green loans, cash for clunkers and the carbon tax experiment which failed to reduce emissions, but cost Australians $15 billion.

Sales failed, she needed constant correction and her analysis was fundamentally wrong. Not that she was alone in that, as the next of the ABC’s interrogators, Radio National’s Ellen Fanning, found on April 24 and ABC’s 702 presenter Linda Mottram discovered just a few days ago on April 28.

ABC BiasRed and Black anarchy attire at your ABC, delivering ‘Labor Gotchas’

Of the four presenters, Mottram was most persistent in parroting Labor lines, as Hunt noted in his pithy replies, over her protestations.

She began with the proposition that “the other big issue for you in the past week or so has been the first option paying firms not to pollute…”

Not a good place to start at all, according to Hunt,who said: “No that’s the ALP’s language and of course that is deeply politically loaded and…”

He was interrupted by Mottram who asked: “But it’s true isn’t it?”

And again, Hunt was able to inform yet another ABC star: “No it’s false.”

In between interruptions from Mottram, Hunt managed to state the obvious: “The ABC uses… ALP’s language… they don’t use unloaded… language.” It’s the ALP’s language that the ABC uses all the time, Hunt said, the national broadcaster never uses the language of the conservatives.

As for the substance of the interview, Hunt said Mottram “couldn’t be more wrong. Couldn’t be more wrong.”

As one would expect of an organisation which follows an ABC script.

Dead Parrot


----------



## banco

SirRumpole said:


> Amazing how you can make such a sweeping statement. As far as the Breakfast Show goes there is more trivia and idle chit chat than any serious political commentary. As for the others, whoever is in government gets the coals raked over them by all the media, it comes with the territory and if they can't take the heat...




This is one thing I agree with Noco about.  The ABC does have a strong leftwing bias.  Yes they attack all stripes of government but nearly always from the left ie their big fights with Hawke and Keating were over Iraq and East Timor respectively. 

PS welcome back Noco. Glad you are well.


----------



## SirRumpole

banco said:


> This is one thing I agree with Noco about.  The ABC does have a strong leftwing bias.  Yes they attack all stripes of government but nearly always from the left ie their big fights with Hawke and Keating were over Iraq and East Timor respectively.
> 
> PS welcome back Noco. Glad you are well.




The ABC has consistently come out ahead of commercial networks in "who do you trust" polls, and no wonder when we have a doyen of the Right Alan Jones exaggerating the cost of wind power by 10 times. If people like him can't get his facts straight, no wonder people trust the ABC more.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> You seem to overlook the fact we are living in the 21 st century and the work place has had some dramatic changes from the last century when we never had it so good.......Mining and manufacturing were thriving and the demand for higher wages, particularly in mining, was easy to get, however those days are now gone with the poor prices for coal and iron ore most companies have had to curtail their operations......But it seems many from from the left and the corrupt unions are incessant in blaming the Abbott government.




Funny how you aren't willing to recognise the fall in revenue during the Labor years as the main reason for the deficits.

So, what is your explanation for why productivity was lower under workchoices than the IR system pre and post work choices?







noco said:


> Successful companies embrace selective workers in their growth strategies and avoid the loafing union hacks whose sole intent is on how much they can get out of their boss for as little work as possible.....conscientious employees are rewarded for their efforts and productivity results.....Believe me...I have been on both sides.



I don't know if companies always reward their best employees.  In my current job I've had pay rises ranging from 0% to 5% over a 4 year period, yet my review has always had me as the 1st or 2nd best performing worker in my team.  The company has produced a record profit in each of those years, so the crappy pay rises wasn't due to a lack of funds.



noco said:


> Then we have to put up with the rot from the Greens who have sabotaged the the largest coal mining project in Queensland because they say it with disrupt the life of a skink and an ornamental  rare snake.......Coal which was destined for India for power plants  where some 300,000,000 are still without electricity....Up to 10,000 jobs have been lost due to the Greens stupidity....Queensland's unemployment has now reached 6.7%.



As for the greens sabotaging the Carmichael coal mine, if we don't follow the rule of law, then by definition we are lawless and that's what you get in a failed state.  Why do you support a coal mine that needs $100 or more per tonne of coal to break even?  Why not buy a near bankrupt coal mine or company?  Could step n to buy the bankrupt Alpha Natural Resources (4th largest coal producer in the USA), or possibly Patriot Coal in the USA.  Maybe Peabody Energy as their shares have dropped (plummeted) from $16 to just $0.99 or how about Arch as their shares dropped from $33 to $1 as well.  The world is awash with coal.  Why build an expensive new mine when you could buy brownfield sites for mere cents in the $?  Maybe it's just your latent communism where you like a big lick of Govt subsidy to help things along?

The Norwegians are divesting from coal.  Standford University is divesting from coal.  CBA has walked away from financing the uneconomic Adani project.  Coal will be around for a while yet, but it's economic importance is fast falling by the wayside.



noco said:


> *I often repeat John F. Kennedy...."Think what you can do for your country and not what your country can do for you"......The problem with many in this country of ours, we are too greedy and want everything for nothing.*




I'm so glad you're out supporting the poorly paid CEOs in Australia on 100 times the average wage, some even more.  It's a poor showing when in say the USA they could be on 300 times the average wage.  No wonder they need to cut Sunday shift loadings, though I'm not sure how that'll improve productivity.


----------



## noco

banco said:


> This is one thing I agree with Noco about.  The ABC does have a strong leftwing bias.  Yes they attack all stripes of government but nearly always from the left ie their big fights with Hawke and Keating were over Iraq and East Timor respectively.
> 
> PS welcome back Noco. Glad you are well.




Thanks for your kind thoughts banco.....Two weeks after my procedure I feel like a new man.....a lot more energy and a lot less being lethargic.

I repeat my earlier advice to all ASF members, don't delay being checked out if you become out of breath or suffer even the mildest of chest pain......I became out of breath for some weeks before and nearly left it too late....Another 4 days and I was goooooooone.


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> The ABC has consistently come out ahead of commercial networks in "who do you trust" polls, and no wonder when we have a doyen of the Right Alan Jones exaggerating the cost of wind power by 10 times. If people like him can't get his facts straight, no wonder people trust the ABC more.




Makes Abbott's claims of the pensioner's electricity bill doubling from the carbon tax pale into comparison.  Then again, I'd not want someone who thinks a 10% increase = 2 times to run the local chook raffle, let alone the Australian economy.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> The ABC has consistently come out ahead of commercial networks in "who do you trust" polls, and no wonder when we have a doyen of the Right Alan Jones exaggerating the cost of wind power by 10 times. If people like him can't get his facts straight, no wonder people trust the ABC more.




It's a bit like who do you trust to give you healthy food?

McDonalds, Hungry Jacks, KFC, or the school canteen?

Most will say the school canteen, doesn't mean it is correct. Just a perception, that plays to those who feel it is right, because it should be.

That is the problem, with people who can't think outside of the box, "it is true, because we are told it is true, and we expect it to be true". Positive reinforcement at its best.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Funny how you aren't willing to recognise the fall in revenue during the Labor years as the main reason for the deficits.
> 
> So, what is your explanation for why productivity was lower under workchoices than the IR system pre and post work choices?
> 
> View attachment 63777
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if companies always reward their best employees.  In my current job I've had pay rises ranging from 0% to 5% over a 4 year period, yet my review has always had me as the 1st or 2nd best performing worker in my team.  The company has produced a record profit in each of those years, so the crappy pay rises wasn't due to a lack of funds.
> 
> 
> As for the greens sabotaging the Carmichael coal mine, if we don't follow the rule of law, then by definition we are lawless and that's what you get in a failed state.  Why do you support a coal mine that needs $100 or more per tonne of coal to break even?  Why not buy a near bankrupt coal mine or company?  Could step n to buy the bankrupt Alpha Natural Resources (4th largest coal producer in the USA), or possibly Patriot Coal in the USA.  Maybe Peabody Energy as their shares have dropped (plummeted) from $16 to just $0.99 or how about Arch as their shares dropped from $33 to $1 as well.  The world is awash with coal.  Why build an expensive new mine when you could buy brownfield sites for mere cents in the $?  Maybe it's just your latent communism where you like a big lick of Govt subsidy to help things along?
> 
> The Norwegians are divesting from coal.  Standford University is divesting from coal.  CBA has walked away from financing the uneconomic Adani project.  Coal will be around for a while yet, but it's economic importance is fast falling by the wayside.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm so glad you're out supporting the poorly paid CEOs in Australia on 100 times the average wage, some even more.  It's a poor showing when in say the USA they could be on 300 times the average wage.  No wonder they need to cut Sunday shift loadings, though I'm not sure how that'll improve productivity.




labor's revenue increased from 2007 to 2013....It went from $272.633 billion to $367.041 billion

http://www.treasury.gov.au/Policy-T...Guide-to-the-Australian-Tax-System/Appendix-C

Appendix C: Revenue and receipts history and forecasts

Table C1: Australian Government (cash) receipts
  	2003-04
$m 	2004-05
$m 	2005-06
$m 	2006-07
$m 	2007-08
$m 	2008-09
$m 	2009-10
$m 	2010-11
$m 	2011-12
$m 	2012-13(e)
$m 	2013-14(e)
$m 	2014-15(p)
$m 	2015-16(p)
$m
Income taxation 										  	  	  	 
Individuals and other withholding 										  	  	  	 
Income tax withholding 	89,638 	97,304 	103,120 	107,119 	113,982 	115,899 	118,532 	129,654 	142,770 	151,300 	163,900 	174,800 	185,600
Other individuals 	19,935 	22,554 	24,895 	25,797 	29,525 	30,030 	25,928 	27,795 	31,141 	35,000 	37,300 	41,000 	44,700
less: Refunds 	12,325 	13,734 	15,244 	17,145 	19,601 	23,569 	24,390 	24,711 	25,537 	26,500 	26,700 	28,800 	30,700
Total individuals and other withholding 	97,247 	106,123 	112,770 	115,770 	123,906 	122,361 	120,070 	132,739 	148,373 	159,800 	174,500 	187,000 	199,600
Fringe benefits tax 	3,590 	3,703 	4,049 	3,761 	3,856 	3,399 	3,504 	3,303 	3,731 	3,970 	4,450 	4,920 	5,130
Superannuation funds 	5,551 	6,248 	6,368 	8,211 	12,054 	9,217 	6,099 	6,519 	7,562 	8,050 	9,050 	11,010 	12,950
Company tax 	36,101 	40,404 	48,960 	57,100 	61,700 	60,391 	52,209 	56,262 	66,584 	71,170 	78,680 	78,540 	81,580
Resource rent taxes(a) 	1,168 	1,459 	1,917 	1,510 	1,686 	2,184 	1,251 	806 	1,463 	5,400 	6,400 	5,630 	6,620
Income taxation receipts 	143,658 	157,937 	174,063 	186,353 	203,202 	197,552 	183,132 	199,628 	227,714 	248,390 	273,080 	287,100 	305,880
Sales taxes 										  	  	  	 
Goods and services tax 	33,069 	35,184 	37,342 	39,614 	42,424 	41,335 	43,967 	46,083 	45,861 	48,432 	51,189 	53,900 	56,611
Wine equalisation tax 	704 	682 	656 	650 	665 	693 	733 	722 	708 	710 	720 	760 	810
Luxury car tax 	335 	298 	322 	364 	452 	393 	472 	483 	435 	450 	460 	480 	520
Other sales taxes(b) 	-48 	-10 	-16 	-6 	0 	-1 	0 	0 	0 	0 	0 	0 	0
Total sales taxes 	34,060 	36,154 	38,304 	40,621 	43,541 	42,420 	45,173 	47,288 	47,004 	49,592 	52,369 	55,140 	57,941
Excise duty 										  	  	  	 
    Fuel excise 	13,540 	14,276 	13,992 	14,663 	15,252 	15,637 	15,675 	16,267 	16,978 	17,950 	18,670 	18,800 	19,260
Other excise 	7,539 	7,612 	7,822 	8,086 	8,474 	8,736 	8,764 	9,490 	8,567 	8,520 	8,310 	8,360 	8,690
Total excise duty 	21,079 	21,888 	21,814 	22,749 	23,727 	24,373 	24,439 	25,756 	25,545 	26,470 	26,980 	27,160 	27,950
Customs duty 	5,038 	5,012 	4,488 	5,063 	5,561 	5,814 	5,341 	5,429 	6,996 	7,800 	9,000 	9,130 	9,570
Excise and customs receipts 	26,117 	26,900 	26,302 	27,812 	29,288 	30,186 	29,780 	31,185 	32,541 	34,270 	35,980 	36,290 	37,520
Carbon pricing mechanism 										4,020 	6,640 	7,340 	6,750
Other indirect taxation 										  	  	  	 
Agricultural levies 	603 	584 	610 	608 	611 	620 	395 	445 	421 	440 	436 	443 	449
Other taxes 	1,655 	1,740 	1,936 	1,999 	1,734 	1,848 	2,494 	2,292 	2,263 	2,497 	2,888 	2,923 	2,999
Total other indirect taxation receipts 	2,258 	2,324 	2,546 	2,607 	2,345 	2,468 	2,888 	2,738 	2,684 	2,937 	3,324 	3,366 	3,447
Indirect taxation receipts 	62,435 	65,377 	67,152 	71,039 	75,174 	75,075 	77,841 	81,211 	82,229 	90,819 	98,313 	102,136 	105,658
Taxation receipts 	206,092 	223,314 	241,215 	257,392 	278,376 	272,627 	260,973 	280,839 	309,943 	339,209 	371,393 	389,236 	411,538
Interest received 	1,056 	1,400 	2,325 	3,731 	4,769 	5,166 	4,025 	4,943 	4,267 	4,390 	4,486 	4,414 	4,756
Dividends and other 	10,627 	11,271 	12,403 	11,514 	11,772 	14,806 	19,665 	16,242 	15,665 	23,442 	16,715 	16,393 	18,330
Non-taxation receipts 	11,683 	12,670 	14,728 	15,245 	16,540 	19,973 	23,689 	21,185 	19,931 	27,832 	21,201 	20,806 	23,086
Total receipts 	217,776 	235,985 	255,943 	272,637 	294,917 	292,600 	284,662 	302,024 	329,874 	367,041 	392,595 	


If you consider your self 1 st or 2nd best and your company does not recognize your worth then it must be your self assessment...If you believe you are worth more, then negotiate with your boss for more remuneration or seek other employment which may recognize your valued experience....But do your homework first.

With regards to your comments on the coal industry, you may be living too much in the present time and not thinking ahead when coal prices will begin to increase in 2016 with the high demand from India who find coal fired power stations are by far the cheapest to run and with modern anti pollution equipment CO2 emissions are almost zero......I repeat again, India has 300,000,000 people living without power, so coal will be around for decades to come...We have enough coal to last another 300 years, so why not sell it when you can.....40 or 50 years from now we may eventually see the merits in nuclear power which is now favored by the South Australian Labor premier....Bob Hake is even promoting the use of nuclear power and and the deep earth storage of of spent rods.

Even the Queensland state Labor Government wants the Adani project to proceed as they need the royalties to prop up their failing government with 6.7% unemployment.


----------



## banco

SirRumpole said:


> The ABC has consistently come out ahead of commercial networks in "who do you trust" polls, and no wonder when we have a doyen of the Right Alan Jones exaggerating the cost of wind power by 10 times. If people like him can't get his facts straight, no wonder people trust the ABC more.




ABC doesn't often get facts wrong and just talk **** like say Alan Jones.  It's the stories they run and what they focus on that portrays their bias.  For example I think on no other issue is their stance so clear as on asylum seekers.  If any international organization prints something critical of Australia's treatment of asylum seekers it will be a headline on the ABC for sure. On gay marriage they'll run soft pieces with families with "two dads" or "two mums" (although that blew up in their face when one of the "two dad" families they profiled turned out to be child molesters).


----------



## SirRumpole

banco said:


> ABC doesn't often get facts wrong and just talk **** like say Alan Jones.  It's the stories they run and what they focus on that portrays their bias.  For example I think on no other issue is their stance so clear as on asylum seekers.  If any international organization prints something critical of Australia's treatment of asylum seekers it will be a headline on the ABC for sure. On gay marriage they'll run soft pieces with families with "two dads" or "two mums" (although that blew up in their face when one of the "two dad" families they profiled turned out to be child molesters).




The ABC certainly got it wrong with those two child molesters, however I say that its part of their brief to try and cover all angles of a story, not just be a government mouthpiece. When the asylum boats were coming under Rudd/Gillard there was daily coverage, no trying to cover it up or hide behind "on water matters", the Labor government's failure was reported by the ABC as much as by other media. So, you want the ABC to cover up the Coalitions mistakes ? That's not their job.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> The ABC certainly got it wrong with those two child molesters, however I say that its part of their brief to try and cover all angles of a story, not just be a government mouthpiece. When the asylum boats were coming under Rudd/Gillard there was daily coverage, no trying to cover it up or hide behind "on water matters", the Labor government's failure was reported by the ABC as much as by other media. So, you want the ABC to cover up the Coalitions mistakes ? That's not their job.




You probably need to re visit the ABC's coverage of the asylum seekers issue, most was focused on Abbotts inhumane refusal to agree with it.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> I agree with that, but there no doubt that an organised mass of people provides opportunities for thuggery, extortion and self gratification of those in charge of the unions, and we have certainly seen this manifested in the past in terms of airline strikes, petrol strikes, train strikes, green bans and the like.
> 
> That we have had 30+ years of relative industrial peace owes a lot to the likes of the Hawke/Keating reforms and moderate union leaders like Shorten, (even though vestiges of thuggery still remain in the Labor party's factional system) than it does to any "reforms" like Workchoices made by the Conservatives.
> 
> People like Crean, Rudd, Latham & co have fought to reduce this influence and make the Labor party more representative. They still have a way to go, but they have made advances.




Too right, I have had the displeasure of having to deal with the smugs sons of biarches who  run the local branches. None of them seem to have OK cards when I challenge them on the jobs and they don't seem to be short of a quid either.

My point allegory is that just because Adam Goodes is a sook, doesn't mean the hole team is a sook too.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> Prices for coal and iron ore will rise again and it is anticipated it will happen in 2016......




That's not borne out by the commentary of those that have a good track record with commodity pricing ball gazing. The tip is that the sale price for iron ore will drop to pre good times  $20/ton

Predictably there are plenty of brokers out there talking up 2016 as the return to prosperity, especially with the Fed election campaign in focus.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> Thanks for your kind thoughts banco.....Two weeks after my procedure I feel like a new man.....a lot more energy and a lot less being lethargic.
> 
> I repeat my earlier advice to all ASF members, don't delay being checked out if you become out of breath or suffer even the mildest of chest pain......I became out of breath for some weeks before and nearly left it too late....Another 4 days and I was goooooooone.





I hope you recover well Noco. It must be a shocked you to think the ticker was malfunctioning.

Besides we can't have the champion of the Bourgeoisie out of action with the Proletariat constantly trying to destroy the system.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> The ABC has consistently come out ahead of commercial networks in "who do you trust" polls, and no wonder when we have a doyen of the Right Alan Jones exaggerating the cost of wind power by 10 times. If people like him can't get his facts straight, no wonder people trust the ABC more.




Now if we can just get rid of Virginia and her dogmatic know everything persona.

What does moving QANDA to the news division set out to achieve? And why is it a game changer for Abbott and his servile ministers?


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> Now if we can just get rid of Virginia and her dogmatic know everything persona.




Yes, she can be annoying at times.



> What does moving QANDA to the news division set out to achieve? And why is it a game changer for Abbott and his servile ministers?




The ABC were considering doing this anyway. It's a cheap tactic by Abbott to make it appear that the ABC is bending to his will. He knows that he can't do much else against the ABC because there will be a public backlash.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> labor's revenue increased from 2007 to 2013....It went from $272.633 billion to $367.041 billion
> 
> http://www.treasury.gov.au/Policy-T...Guide-to-the-Australian-Tax-System/Appendix-C
> 
> If you consider your self 1 st or 2nd best and your company does not recognize your worth then it must be your self assessment...If you believe you are worth more, then negotiate with your boss for more remuneration or seek other employment which may recognize your valued experience....But do your homework first.
> 
> With regards to your comments on the coal industry, you may be living too much in the present time and not thinking ahead when coal prices will begin to increase in 2016 with the high demand from India who find coal fired power stations are by far the cheapest to run and with modern anti pollution equipment CO2 emissions are almost zero......I repeat again, India has 300,000,000 people living without power, so coal will be around for decades to come...We have enough coal to last another 300 years, so why not sell it when you can.....40 or 50 years from now we may eventually see the merits in nuclear power which is now favored by the South Australian Labor premier....Bob Hake is even promoting the use of nuclear power and and the deep earth storage of of spent rods.
> 
> Even the Queensland state Labor Government wants the Adani project to proceed as they need the royalties to prop up their failing government with 6.7% unemployment.




* Then by your treasury statistics one has to wonder why the deficit is ballooning with record revenue under Abbott?

* My company has a performance review system where you rate yourself and then your manager rates you.  The only time my manager has disagreed with my self assessment is when he provides me a higher ranking.  The point I'm making is that companies do not always reward those who put in the extra effort.  CEOs in general do not deserve their obscene pay levels.  Citibank recently tested 60 large Australian companies to see if CEO pay and ROI was correlated - it wasn't.  Less than half had a positive ROIC-WACC, and only 13 out of 60 had a positive TSR.  So if productivity is good for the prols, surely it should be equally applied to the bourgeoisie?

* If you believe coal is going to be such a good investment have you increased you personal asset allocation towards it?  As for the QLD Govt wanting Adanai to build their coal mine, well no Govt is ever going to block investment unless they really have to, but its good they're not following the Liberal game of socialising the losses via subsidised infrastructure as Newman wanted to.

* Nuclear power will never be a viable alternative without a carbon price.  In the UK they have had to guarantee a wholesale price close to 4 times the average charged in Australia (92.5 pounds/MW vs ~$50) to get the Port Hinkely nuclear reactor built.  It's a higher level of subsidy than solar or wind require.  Reactors being build in other parts of Europe are near double their original budget and many years behind schedule.  The beauty of wind and solar is they can provide new capacity relatively quickly.


----------



## sydboy007

I'm waiting for a 12 flag conference from Tony to explain why his predictions of an Olympic Dam renaissance have turned out to be so wrong.

Wasn't it just the carbon and resource taxes that were stopping BHP was going ahead?


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> That's not borne out by the commentary of those that have a good track record with commodity pricing ball gazing. The tip is that the sale price for iron ore will drop to pre good times  $20/ton
> 
> Predictably there are plenty of brokers out there talking up 2016 as the return to prosperity, especially with the Fed election campaign in focus.




I guess we will have to wait and see who right and who is wrong...Time will tell and there is another 16 months to go.


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> I hope you recover well Noco. It must be a shocked you to think the ticker was malfunctioning.
> 
> Besides we can't have the champion of the Bourgeoisie out of action with the Proletariat constantly trying to destroy the system.




Tisme...thanks for your kind thoughts and your snide remarks....I guess one sort of counteracts the other.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> I guess we will have to wait and see who right and who is wrong...Time will tell and there is another 16 months to go.




It ain't pretty in coal land.  Unless India really does ramp up demand there's no turning around the continuing falls in consumption.  The Chinese Govt knows it has to cut consumption to start getting pollution under control.





Probably easier to burn your money than invest in coal.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> Tisme...thanks for your kind thoughts and your snide remarks....I guess one sort of counteracts the other.




Well it wasn't meant to be snide, but take it as you may.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> I guess we will have to wait and see who right and who is wrong...Time will tell and there is another 16 months to go.




There was quite a detailed discussion about this issue on the ABC the other week. The oracle involved had accurately predicted the price tracking for the last decade and was expecting downward trending


----------



## Tisme

sydboy007 said:


> I'm waiting for a 12 flag conference from Tony to explain why his predictions of an Olympic Dam renaissance have turned out to be so wrong.
> 
> Wasn't it just the carbon and resource taxes that were stopping BHP was going ahead?




That was before the aftershock of the GFC that didn't happen here and Labor spent Howard's magic pudding.


----------



## noco

I think it is time for Abbott to go...If he does not consider his position, then others may decide it for him......He must now seriously think of the consequences to the his party and Australia in general for time has run out....

It is no good being a well educated good bloke if he cannot sell his policies and the biased Labor media is not helping him. 

Scott Morrison is the man who must become the Liberal Party leader before Xmas....Morrison has proved himself to be efficient, he has the expertise to handle the media and can handle any roll  he has to play.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...478032851?sv=6e4870464326eb41e1aedd1f395ef06c


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> I think it is time for Abbott to go...If he does not consider his position, then others may decide it for him......He must now seriously think of the consequences to the his party and Australia in general for time has run out....
> 
> It is no good being a well educated good bloke if he cannot sell his policies and the biased Labor media is not helping him.
> 
> Scott Morrison is the man who must become the Liberal Party leader before Xmas....Morrison has proved himself to be efficient, he has the expertise to handle the media and can handle any roll  he has to play.
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...478032851?sv=6e4870464326eb41e1aedd1f395ef06c




They are all tarred with the same brush as far as I'm concerned. Whoever takes over will need to provide not just a new face but a more digestible policy set than what they have come up with so far. 

Policies are generally the result of Cabinet decisions and all the current Cabinet have to take responsibility for the mess they are in.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> They are all tarred with the same brush as far as I'm concerned. Whoever takes over will need to provide not just a new face but a more digestible policy set than what they have come up with so far.
> 
> Policies are generally the result of Cabinet decisions and all the current Cabinet have to take responsibility for the mess they are in.




When did the mess start and who by?...You whistle and I will point.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> When did the mess start and who by?...You whistle and I will point.




When does the Abbott government have to finally start owning things?  2 years on and you still blame labor.

Tens of millions spent on various enquiries and each time the govt had stepped back and basically said this is a report for the government, not by the government.  

What meaningful reform has Abbott proposed for the next 12 months? Can't change CGT, NG, super. I'm sure there's more captain picks blocking possible reform as well.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> When does the Abbott government have to finally start owning things?  2 years on and you still blame labor.
> 
> Tens of millions spent on various enquiries and each time the govt had stepped back and basically said this is a report for the government, not by the government.
> 
> What meaningful reform has Abbott proposed for the next 12 months? Can't change CGT, NG, super. *I'm sure there's more captain picks blocking possible reform as well.*



*

*

Yes, THE GREEN/lLABOR SOCIALISTS.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> When did the mess start and who by?...You whistle and I will point.




Hockey had a lot to do with it with his hypocrisy and ill thought out Budget, Pyne with his education fiasco, Kevin Andrews who couldn't handle Health, that dill who I can't even remember his name who said that we couldn't build canoes here. 

And if Morrison did such a good job in border protection, why was he moved ?


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Hockey had a lot to do with it with his hypocrisy and ill thought out Budget, Pyne with his education fiasco, Kevin Andrews who couldn't handle Health, that dill who I can't even remember his name who said that we couldn't build canoes here.
> 
> And if Morrison did such a good job in border protection, why was he moved ?




Morrison had completed his job and was moved to a more important portfolio of social security.

Andrews did not have health...Peter Dutton was health minister at the time and was then transferred to Immigration...

Don't forget, Labor had 3 Immigration Ministers during the Rudd/Gillard debacle on border protection....Burke, Bowen and and that other ex union hack. 

And that dill of a shadow treasurer,Chris Bowen did  not know the taxation threshold of $18,000 which the Labor set and that dill of a Premier in Queensland Palszczuk did not know what the GST % was.

Under the Green/Labor socialists we could not build a sub...overpriced....behind on schedule ......they did not work....had to spend millions on modifications... 

And that dill Shoirten was asked about some legislation on IR and he was waiting to see the details before commenting, something which Labor had already approved.


----------



## noco

noco said:


> Morrison had completed his job and was moved to a more important portfolio of social security.
> 
> Andrews did not have health...Peter Dutton was health minister at the time and was then transferred to Immigration...
> 
> Don't forget, Labor had 3 Immigration Ministers during the Rudd/Gillard debacle on border protection....Burke, Bowen and and *that other ex union hack.
> *
> And that dill of a shadow treasurer,Chris Bowen did  not know the taxation threshold of $18,000 which the Labor set and that dill of a Premier in Queensland Palszczuk did not know what the GST % was.
> 
> Under the Green/Labor socialists we could not build a sub...overpriced....behind on schedule ......they did not work....had to spend millions on modifications...
> 
> And that dill Shoirten was asked about some legislation on IR and he was waiting to see the details before commenting, something which Labor had already approved.




Brendon O'connor was the other Labor Party immigration Minister.....I am not sure which one was the worst.


----------



## sydboy007

My gosh.  More deals witht eh grubby greens / sarc

http://www.adambandt.com/150811



> Greens Treasury spokesperson Adam Bandt MP today welcomed reports that Treasurer Joe Hockey is supporting the Greens’ model for the bank deposit levy and said that the Greens would support passing a well-crafted levy through the Parliament in the next sitting fortnight.
> 
> “I’m pleased to hear reports that the Treasurer has listened to the Greens’ call to apply a bank deposit levy only to the Big 4 Banks,” Mr Bandt said.
> 
> “We’ve been concerned that the proposals from the previous Labor government and now this government to apply an ‘across the board’ levy to all banks would just be passed on to consumers.”
> 
> “For some time, the Greens have called for a levy to apply to the Big 4 Banks only, to raise revenue without the cost being passed on to consumers.”
> 
> “If the Big 4 Banks do try to pass this onto consumers, a consumer can just walk down the road to a smaller bank.”
> 
> *“The Big 4 Banks are making world-leading record profits off the back of implicit help from the taxpayer. They have an advantage compared to their smaller rivals as they’re able to borrow money at a cheap rate because everyone knows that the government will step in if they get into trouble.”*




Maybe the Abbott Govt can only do something when pushed and shoved by anohter political party?


----------



## Tisme

Whispers from Canberra are that the Abbott faction is out to eliminate the threat of the alternative leader in waiting and using the gay marriage issue to do it. I doubt the now ghostly Malcolm has the chutzpah to pop his head up.


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> Whispers from Canberra are that the Abbott faction is out to eliminate the threat of the alternative leader in waiting and using the gay marriage issue to do it. I doubt the now ghostly Malcolm has the chutzpah to pop his head up.




Yes, but Abbott needed the blockhead Nationals to do it.

I doubt if that strengthens his support in the Liberal party room.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, but Abbott needed the blockhead Nationals to do it.
> 
> I doubt if that strengthens his support in the Liberal party room.




Both of them look like they are locked in a race to see who can look the most venerable and crusty by years end. They are both rapidly display signs of premature aging, and I don't think "Just for Men" is going to cut it anymore.


----------



## Knobby22

Is this a disastrous weeks for the Libs or what? As usual it is the PMs decisions - biased judges, (like the Speaker), global warming decisions, poor handling of gay marriage issue, no direction on the economy. Surely the MPs can see the writing on the wall!! If they go the next election with this guy with the capabilities of a student union politician in charge this will be the biggest drubbing in history.


----------



## Tisme

Knobby22 said:


> Is this a disastrous weeks for the Libs or what? As usual it is the PMs decisions - biased judges, (like the Speaker), global warming decisions, poor handling of gay marriage issue, no direction on the economy. Surely the MPs can see the writing on the wall!! If they go the next election with this guy with the capabilities of a student union politician in charge this will be the biggest drubbing in history.




Yeah even the cynical Canberra press are crystal balling dead men walking. This govt will hardly be remembered for much anything really.


----------



## IFocus

Knobby22 said:


> Is this a disastrous weeks for the Libs or what? As usual it is the PMs decisions - biased judges, (like the Speaker), global warming decisions, poor handling of gay marriage issue, no direction on the economy. Surely the MPs can see the writing on the wall!! If they go the next election with this guy with the capabilities of a student union politician in charge this will be the biggest drubbing in history.




Absolute shocker Liberals inviting a sitting RC commissioner to a fund raiser (politically negates its intended purpose), Hard right tearing each other apart to protect Abbott's leadership from Morrison, moderates have had enough of branch stacking real and in the party room, Hockey is still treasurer.

Best gauge how bad its been is Shorten has been invisible.


----------



## IFocus

Nice summery from Barry Cassidy


Coalition is losing its advantage across the board



> From the Dyson Heydon game changer, to same-sex marriage and economic and national security policy - the Coalition is losing the edge on a number of key issues that will decide the next election, writes Barrie Cassidy.
> 
> The Abbott Government should be less concerned about declining opinion polls and more concerned about losing the edge on the key issues that will decide the next election.
> 
> As each day goes by the Coalition is losing its political advantage across the board





Bunch of absolute losers 




> It's easy to identify what the Government has torn down; a lot harder to identify what it plans to build.
> 
> Similarly, there is a long list of initiatives it will not take - like GST reform without the states, modest industrial relations reforms as recommended by the Productivity Commission, changes around superannuation - but few pointers to a positive legislative agenda.
> 
> In a recent article in the Fairfax media, associate professor of political science at the University of Melbourne, Sally Young, raised the question as to whether the Abbott Government was the worst ever; that is, in terms of effectiveness.
> 
> She conceded her approach values quantity over quality and doesn't measure how important the legislation was or its impact.
> 
> *However, based on legislation passed, the Abbott Government is the least efficient in 44 years*.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-...losing-its-advantage-across-the-board/6695110


----------



## IFocus

Add to the woes the Liberal Daily has had enough of sheer stupidity or personal survival interests.

Barry Cassidy again 

Is this Abbott's swan song?




> And it now seems likely that the Coalition cannot rely on News Corp - and particularly The Australian - for a free ride. That newspaper seems just as intent on fair and balanced coverage as any other.
> 
> In an editorial on Tuesday, the paper wrote of Abbott's long list of mistakes and said:
> 
> The common thread is lousy judgment, a poor sense of political priorities, inept messaging via the media, and a tin ear for the concerns and the reactions of the electorate...
> 
> Back in November last year we said the Abbott administration was doomed without a narrative and remarked that 'the prime minister is losing the battle to define core issues and to explain to voters what he is doing and why. Mr Abbott's approach to messaging is a shambles of conception, strategy and execution. Too often the Abbott government maddeningly vacates the media space.'
> 
> The editorial continued:
> 
> Mr Abbott and his office under Peta Credlin's leadership must take responsibility...
> 
> As it approaches yet another political reset as a triumph of hope over experience, the PMO appears afflicted by its old bunker mentality...
> 
> Similarly, personal mistrust has stood in the way of Mr Abbott making better frontbench use of Malcolm Turnbull's undeniable talents. Loyalty is an admirable quality but if it trumps administrative merit and the national interest - why is the underwhelming Mr Hockey still treasurer? - Mr Abbott begins to look like just another political hack.






http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-...losing-its-advantage-across-the-board/6695110


----------



## IFocus

Given Abbott's and his office behavior he has likely trashed the Liberal brand beyond Labors wildest dreams 

Rudd and Gillard are largely responsible for Abbott being PM..........Abbott will solely be responsible for Shorten being PM.


----------



## orr

Tisme said:


> This govt will hardly be remembered for much anything really.




I demur; This government sets a new low point from all future Governments will be compared.

Anybody else keeping an ear to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission?.... A thread worth starting? We could all be assured of the current science Minister useful input.

http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/#fndtn-external-commission-visits


----------



## SirRumpole

Tony Abbott's leadership faces new dangers as Fairfax-Ipsos poll predicts Coalition wipeout

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...edicts-coalition-wipeout-20150816-gj01ip.html


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Tony Abbott's leadership faces new dangers as Fairfax-Ipsos poll predicts Coalition wipeout
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...edicts-coalition-wipeout-20150816-gj01ip.html




Rumpy, I would not get too cocky about an Abbott wipe out until after the RC into union corruption is handed down at the end of the year.

We may well see a different poll.

Abbott is a fighter and a survivor irrespective of the fact that I believe Morrison would do better as a leader.

Morrison has the charisma to handle the media and that is what is needed.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Rumpy, I would not get too cocky about an Abbott wipe out until after the RC into union corruption is handed down at the end of the year.




I don't think it will matter now that the Commissioner has been shown to have the appearance of bias (if not the actuality). People will take the RC as a political witch hunt and will ignore it.


----------



## wayneL

orr said:


> I demur; This government sets a new low point from all future Governments will be compared.




On a seemingly conscious effort to put the plebeians offside I would agree, vis a vis perceptions of being out of touch.

On actual policy? Mate, you have got to be joking. Does your memory not extend back a mere ~3-7 years?


----------



## moXJO

SirRumpole said:


> Tony Abbott's leadership faces new dangers as Fairfax-Ipsos poll predicts Coalition wipeout




A long way to election day just yet. And even then, fairfax poll has labor winning the last election. Anything that comes out of that paper is generally leftist trash lately.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I don't think it will matter now that the Commissioner has been shown to have the appearance of bias (if not the actuality). People will take the RC as a political witch hunt and will ignore it.




Which people are you talking about?

I only see the Green/Labor left wing socialist and the unions seeing it as a witch hunt.

When will you get it that the RC is about the union corruption and not the Labor Party.

The RC has already found so much evidence of union corruption, intimidation and bullying.

What are you afraid of?

Is it the fear that an ex union leader who now your fearless leader may get caught in the net.

If Shorten has done nothing wrong, then he has nothing to fear.

Get over it.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> If Shorten has done nothing wrong, then he has nothing to fear.




Ha ha ha.

If Abbott was the subject of a Royal Commission led by a sympathiser of the Labor Party you would be crying foul and issuing accusations of bias.

Now it's the Libs turn to cop the flak, so get over that.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Ha ha ha.
> 
> If Abbott was the subject of a Royal Commission led by a sympathiser of the Labor Party you would be crying foul and issuing accusations of bias.
> 
> Now it's the Libs turn to cop the flak, so get over that.




What the hell are you talking about?......Your post does not make any sense....It all seems purely hypothetical.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> What the hell are you talking about?......Your post does not make any sense....It all seems purely hypothetical.




I understand my post may not make sense to you, that's the pity of it.

The RC has been tainted by the perception of bias, and whatever conclusions it comes up with will be tainted.

Fair enough if it only investigated current union activities, but when it dragged up Gillard and Shorten who were long out of day to day union affairs (and found very little against them), were times when it marked itself as a political witch hunt.

 I doubt if it will have much effect on the rusted ons of either Party, and I doubt it will have much effect on the swinging voters either, as it no longer passes the sniff test of impartiality.


----------



## Tink

moXJO said:


> A long way to election day just yet. And even then, fairfax poll has labor winning the last election. Anything that comes out of that paper is generally leftist trash lately.




+1

They are like a pack of hyenas.

Agree with your post too, noco, regarding Abbott and Morrison.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> Tony Abbott's leadership faces new dangers as Fairfax-Ipsos poll predicts Coalition wipeout
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...edicts-coalition-wipeout-20150816-gj01ip.html




That's great news for the coalition, it will mean Shorten will hold his position as leader of the opposition.


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> That's great news for the coalition, it will mean Shorten will hold his position as leader of the opposition.




Tony will just keep having commissions of inquiry until he can find a smoking gun or even a child overboard. The Oz public lap that stuff up and vote obsequiously to the person with the least amount of stench.


----------



## McLovin

> The common thread is lousy judgment, a poor sense of political priorities, inept messaging via the media, and a tin ear for the concerns and the reactions of the electorate...




Isn't that the truth. At least Gillard was being white anted. Abbott does it all himself. He is hopeless. How did he ever make it as a politician? Or as one very senior media exec said to me the other day "his background doesn't lend itself to forming consensus views".


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I understand my post may not make sense to you, that's the pity of it.
> 
> The RC has been tainted by the perception of bias, and whatever conclusions it comes up with will be tainted.
> 
> Fair enough if it only investigated current union activities, but when it dragged up Gillard and Shorten who were long out of day to day union affairs (and found very little against them), were times when it marked itself as a political witch hunt.
> 
> I doubt if it will have much effect on the rusted ons of either Party, and I doubt it will have much effect on the swinging voters either, as it no longer passes the sniff test of impartiality.




The perception of bias is only being flaunted by the Green/Labor left wing socialists because of what they fear most of all.

Maybe your comrade Gillard is not yet off the hook.....I believe that one may be ongoing when they bring back Wilson and Blewitt........It is not over until the fat lady sings.


----------



## Knobby22

McLovin said:


> Isn't that the truth. At least Gillard was being white anted. Abbott does it all himself. He is hopeless. How did he ever make it as a politician? Or as one very senior media exec said to me the other day "his background doesn't lend itself to forming consensus views".




And despite calling Fairfax leftist etc. the truth is they aren't going to win the next election with Tony in charge. Minds within the Liberal party need to be concentrated.


----------



## McLovin

Knobby22 said:


> And despite calling Fairfax leftist etc. the truth is they aren't going to win the next election with Tony in charge. Minds within the Liberal party need to be concentrated.




Every poll puts them behind. Newspoll, Nielson, Roy Morgan, Fairfax, Reachtel.  

The AFR has a poll of polls interactive graphic

http://www.afr.com/data/polling.aspx?type=pops&dimensions=wide


----------



## overhang

noco said:


> The perception of bias is only being flaunted by the Green/Labor left wing socialists because of what they fear most of all.
> 
> Maybe your comrade Gillard is not yet off the hook.....I believe that one may be ongoing when they bring back Wilson and Blewitt........It is not over until the fat lady sings.




I think most people were highly speculative of the motivations to hold the royal commission.  Abbott has set a new precedent for dragging former government ministers into RCs.  First we had the pink bat RC and not to downplay the deaths of 3 men but really how many lost their lives due to the invasion of Iraq which was all based on botched intel which has cost us a hell of a lot more than the pink batts and has now contributed into destabilizing the region that has given birth to ISIS.  

Considering the cost of the RC is something like 80 million then really we need to see recommendations that will result in at least 80 million in productivity increases to consider this RC worthwhile.  

And now we have Abbott willing to waste another 60-100 million on a plebiscite that he has already ruled out running the same time as the election which would save a lot of tax payer dollars.  My bet is he will make it compulsory even though that isn't required for a plebiscite which again will raise costs as people are more likely to vote no if they're dragged to the polls unwillingly.

There is only so much more people will take of the national security fear mongering so Abbott can create his orwellian society that provides a short term boost in polls.  They seem incapable of some meaningful tax reform, we had Joe Hockey only last week flagging tax cuts for the rich, what happened to this budget emergency?


----------



## wayneL

I don't think it's right to term the Abbot version of unreality ad Orwellian, though I do agree about scaremongering.... continuation of the Howard years there. 

Dystopic Orwellianism is the the exclusive proclivity of the Labor/Green Axis.


----------



## sydboy007

wayneL said:


> I don't think it's right to term the Abbot version of unreality ad Orwellian, though I do agree about scaremongering.... continuation of the Howard years there.
> 
> Dystopic Orwellianism is the the exclusive proclivity of the Labor/Green Axis.




The useless data retention laws are Orwellian in nature.

Already had bracket creep with the addition of extra organisations that can access the data.

If they get in for another term you can bet that'll want to increase the level of data recorded. 

Funny how that were so dead set against this stuff in opposition but now it's a national security emergency since the budget emergency is no more.

Close to $1B in CAPEX & OPEX over the first 3 to 4 years. massive amounts of storage required that has to be maintained securely.

They introduced the legislation admitting they had no idea on how much it would cost to set up and run.  In the real world you'd be laughed at for such an I'll conceived idea.

So we've basically added yet more red tape and more costs to run the country. Just how does that benefit us?


----------



## Tisme

Well it seems the six months is up and not only the back bench, but also the cabinet has had enough of the mkII Tony Abbott who is really just Abbott mkI loose cannon afterall.

The only things stopping a spill is timing and the expected retaliation from Tony and his boss Peta, ... Tony's must needs is to always outdo Labor, especially Kevin Rudd so he would have to take down half the front bench FTW.

At least Billy McMahon had a hot mama to look at while he steered a directionless ship.


Where's my popcorn..


----------



## Tisme

sydboy007 said:


> The useless data retention laws are Orwellian in nature.
> 
> Already had bracket creep with the addition of extra organisations that can access the data.
> 
> If they get in for another term you can bet that'll want to increase the level of data recorded.
> 
> Funny how that were so dead set against this stuff in opposition but now it's a national security emergency since the budget emergency is no more.
> 
> Close to $1B in CAPEX & OPEX over the first 3 to 4 years. massive amounts of storage required that has to be maintained securely.
> 
> They introduced the legislation admitting they had no idea on how much it would cost to set up and run.  In the real world you'd be laughed at for such an I'll conceived idea.
> 
> So we've basically added yet more red tape and more costs to run the country. Just how does that benefit us?




Yes I suspect the legislation was really to cover the already doin' it practice, so they could move to the next level under the guise of an expeditionary force. One step outside the law is exponentially less criminal than two steps.


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> Yes I suspect the legislation was really to cover the already doin' it practice, so they could move to the next level under the guise of an expeditionary force. One step outside the law is exponentially less criminal than two steps.




Judging by their performance on Royal Commissions, they would probably use the laws to collect embarrassing info on their political opponents.


----------



## McLovin

overhang said:


> And now we have Abbott willing to waste another 60-100 million on a plebiscite that he has already ruled out running the same time as the election which would save a lot of tax payer dollars.




This really grinds my gears. The plebiscite question aside, to throw $100m+ on a question that could just as easily be answered at the same time as people vote is totally unnecessary waste of money. What budget emergency?


----------



## noco

overhang said:


> I think most people were highly speculative of the motivations to hold the royal commission.  Abbott has set a new precedent for dragging former government ministers into RCs.  First we had the pink bat RC and not to downplay the deaths of 3 men but really how many lost their lives due to the invasion of Iraq which was all based on botched intel which has cost us a hell of a lot more than the pink batts and has now contributed into destabilizing the region that has given birth to ISIS.
> 
> Considering the cost of the RC is something like 80 million then really we need to see recommendations that will result in at least 80 million in productivity increases to consider this RC worthwhile.
> 
> And now we have Abbott willing to waste another 60-100 million on a plebiscite that he has already ruled out running the same time as the election which would save a lot of tax payer dollars.  My bet is he will make it compulsory even though that isn't required for a plebiscite which again will raise costs as people are more likely to vote no if they're dragged to the polls unwillingly.
> 
> There is only so much more people will take of the national security fear mongering so Abbott can create his orwellian society that provides a short term boost in polls.  They seem incapable of some meaningful tax reform, we had Joe Hockey only last week flagging tax cuts for the rich, what happened to this budget emergency?





Are you saying the Green/Labor coalition would not have jumped at a similar opportunity?

Get real.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> Judging by their performance on Royal Commissions, they would probably use the laws to collect embarrassing info on their political opponents.




they keep having them to root out evil doing by the ALP. Even the Curtin House fiasco (twice wasn't enough for the Libs). They set up one in 2003 using the construction industry as the avenue to attack Labor, then the  home insulation commission to attack Gillard and Rudd, and now the one into trade unions to attack Bill Shorten.

Looking at the list is seems the Lab govts set up commissions to get to the root of problems that are non political and of a social impact import.


----------



## Tisme

Inquiring minds wanted to know and the ABC listened:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-...ctricity-prices-carbon-tax-fact-check/6668552


----------



## sptrawler

It cracks me up, how it is still all about Tony, amazing that he doesn't implode like Gillard did.

He has certainly copped 10 times more abuse, in the media, than she ever did.IMO

Obviously shows, he has character.


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> It cracks me up, how it is still all about Tony, amazing that he doesn't implode like Gillard did.
> 
> He has certainly copped 10 times more abuse, in the media, than she ever did.IMO
> 
> Obviously shows, he has character.




SP....The Fabians are working overtime...The ABC may have even brought some help from Russia on 457 visas.


----------



## sptrawler

noco said:


> SP....The Fabians are working overtime...The ABC may have even brought some help from Russia on 457 visas.




The front page of the SMH every day, Abbott delaying issue, next day Abbott brings forward the same issue. 

It is hilarious, reporters whipping Tisme, Sir Rumpole and Ifocus into a frenzy, first one way then the other.

Fairfax has Laborites chasing their tails, like rabid dogs , 

They really need to back off a bit, or they will have the support base, peaking too early. lol,lol,lol


----------



## banco

McLovin said:


> Every poll puts them behind. Newspoll, Nielson, Roy Morgan, Fairfax, Reachtel.
> 
> The AFR has a poll of polls interactive graphic
> 
> http://www.afr.com/data/polling.aspx?type=pops&dimensions=wide




BUT THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS.


----------



## sptrawler

banco said:


> BUT THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS.




Also got rid of the Rudd, Gillard, loony tunes merry go round, merry go round, merry go round.


----------



## noco

banco said:


> BUT THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS. THEY STOPPED THE BOATS.




And just as well otherwise we would have been another $11 billion down the drain..


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> The front page of the SMH every day, Abbott delaying issue, next day Abbott brings forward the same issue.
> 
> It is hilarious, reporters whipping Tisme, Sir Rumpole and Ifocus into a frenzy, first one way then the other.
> 
> Fairfax has Laborites chasing their tails, like rabid dogs ,
> 
> They really need to back off a bit, or they will have the support base, peaking too early. lol,lol,lol




You forgot Syd boy.....Haven't seen anything like for a long time....They are like flies around a honey pot.

ROFL


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> It cracks me up, how it is still all about Tony, amazing that he doesn't implode like Gillard did.
> 
> He has certainly copped 10 times more abuse, in the media, than she ever did.IMO
> 
> Obviously shows, he has character.




So, in your opinion, Tony Abbott will still be PM at the next election ?


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> So, in your opinion, Tony Abbott will still be PM at the next election ?




IMO he probably has a better chance than Shorten, Shorten is too beige and carrying too much baggage.

He is focusing too much on non essential issues, which plays to the Fairfax media, but isn't what is really worrying mainstream Australians.

I know the media beat up the anti Abbott story, but I think the majority of Australia think for themselves.

Well you would hope so, with the amount of money, we pour into education.

There really would be no sense in swapping out Abbott for anyone else, there wouldn't be enough time to bed it down, also Labor would have that covered.

People will have to chose their future, on who they think will reduce spending, Labor or the Coalition.

Because the reality is, unless we reduce spending we won't be able to pay welfare, pretty simple really.

Also you can't just find another person to tax, to pay for it, because you eventually run out of them.

Time will tell,


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> The front page of the SMH every day, Abbott delaying issue, next day Abbott brings forward the same issue.
> 
> It is hilarious, reporters whipping Tisme, Sir Rumpole and Ifocus into a frenzy, first one way then the other.
> 
> Fairfax has Laborites chasing their tails, like rabid dogs ,
> 
> They really need to back off a bit, or they will have the support base, peaking too early. lol,lol,lol




I'd like to get in a frenzy, but it just ain't happening. Abbott is PM and he is the man in the driver's seat. This country is our collective country and we deserve good government. Unfortunately you haven't seen me go Rudd and Gillard because they were gone by the time I joined here.

I have no interest in binary partisan politics, I just know it's no good blaming someone who doesn't have the power nor the responsibility to do the job at hand.

The sooner people like yourself realise your blind faith in a broken govt is causing the rest of us pain the sooner you should realise we are worthy of better representation, no matter the political colours. Blaming Ifocus, Rumpole and me for the govt's failure is just as fatuous as blaming Bill Shorten for Tony Abbott's overt stupidity and it does not make you seem like anything but a slave to, probably, your parents political leanings.

You need to learn how to dog whistle before you try it in public.


----------



## sptrawler

Tisme said:


> I'd like to get in a frenzy, but it just ain't happening. Abbott is PM and he is the man in the driver's seat. This country is our collective country and we deserve good government. Unfortunately you haven't seen me go Rudd and Gillard because they were gone by the time I joined here.
> 
> I have no interest in binary partisan politics, I just know it's no good blaming someone who doesn't have the power nor the responsibility to do the job at hand.
> 
> The sooner people like yourself realise your blind faith in a broken govt is causing the rest of us pain the sooner you should realise we are worthy of better representation, no matter the political colours. Blaming Ifocus, Rumpole and me for the govt's failure is just as fatuous as blaming Bill Shorten for Tony Abbott's overt stupidity and it does not make you seem like anything but a slave to, probably, your parents political leanings.
> 
> You need to learn how to dog whistle before you try it in public.




It is somewhat unfortunate you didn't join the discussion earlier, then your posts wouldn't be as far out of step.

Our first criticism of Abbott, on attaining office, was his failure to call a re election when he didn't have an absolute majority.

He said he would, he didn't and has been on the back foot ever since. 

He therefore has to be judged on the outcome of his decision, and on that count hasn't done too badly, when compared to the outcomes of the previous government.

i see in the papers today Indonesia need more cattle than they asked for, it wasn't long ago everyone was bagging Tony for Indonesia cancelling orders.
It may be a headline grabber, but for thinking Australians, it just highlights how shallow the media is.

With regard the boat people, Labor has now adopted the policy, which Abbott copped years of slurs over.

With regard welfare, how will Bill pay for it? That is the elephant in the room, someone has to pay for it and I don't think it will be Labors 50,000 boat people.

Also your intellectual replies, somewhat contradict the garbage you speak, unless you are an ex public servant. Then it makes sense.lol


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> People will have to chose their future, on who they think will reduce spending, Labor or the Coalition.




I don't really think that spending reductions will figure in most people's minds if it's going to affect them personally. 

Any Party that goes into an election saying that they will reduce spending on health or education or roads or public transport is going to have a hard time. In fact polls have shown that people would be prepared to pay a bit more tax if the standard of services was improved. 

Both Parties are running tax scares. Labor with the GST, LNP with the Carbon Tax Mk2. The GST scare is more believable as a Liberal Premier is promoting it. 

If the tax burden is not shared more equitably than it is now, it will go hardest on those who want the rich to pay less via super tax concessions and negative gearing, and the poor pay more via increased GST, Medicare levies and the like.


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> Also your intellectual replies, somewhat contradict the garbage you speak, unless you are an ex public servant. Then it makes sense.lol




 That's the spirit.

I must admit I did spend time in a state govt dept fresh out of school ... I never want to do that again = 3.5 years of mundane madness and servitude to unproductive policy, to be exact.

I'm a critic of just about every PM that has graced our country since and including Menzies. The highlight for me was a bloke who caused so much heartache for my business, but offset that with so much entertainment = Paul Keating, I wanted him gone, but wanted him to stick around; self inflicted sadomasochism. 

I just don't see the reason for constantly deferring to an opposition leader for Govt policy bungles and ineptitude. It's the PM and his cabinet who are driving the bus, they are accountable; the opposition is merely the neutered alternative govt.

I have pi$$ed off more Labor tragics than I have LNP drones....and continue to do so on forums stacked with rsuted on Labor hacks.

Think of my stands:

anti gay marriage communion;
pro child protection;
pro free enterprise;
pro philanthropy;
pro wealth creation;
pro community service;
pro charities;
anti public service largesse;
pro social security;
pro pensions;
pro infrastucture;
anti militant unionism;
anti boys clubs;
anti communist;
anti enforced politeness (PC);
anti political skyfairy factories, e,g Catholicism; Judaism, Islamism, ; 
anti drone obedience to corporate political parties (LNP, ALP, Greens);
pro Monarchy;
anti Newscorp;
anti poor govt;
pro Rumpole, Tink, Ifocus, Wayne, sptrawler, Noco, Value Collector, sydboy007, and every other member; (other than those who argue against the welfare and innocence of the child).

What part of that snapshot pigeon holes me into the grip of party politics? I didn't vote for Tony nor did you. I care that a party that is supposedly made up of some intelligence has a moron at its helm and every other moron in the country is drawn like toads to a butterfly convention to defend the de4d$4it.


----------



## Knobby22

Discomforting Article by Hugh White, Professor of Strategic Studies at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre ANU.

The most relevant paragraphs are.

*The government's recently-announced decisions on naval shipbuilding in South Australia put it on track to make all of these mistakes at once. It has decided to build ships in Australia which we could buy much more cheaply overseas. It has decided to manage this in a way that almost guarantees the same screw-ups that have plagued the ill-fated Air Warfare Destroyer project. And most of the money will be spent on big and complex warships which are irrelevant to Australia's key operational priorities and would be fatally vulnerable in the kind of high-intensity conflict for which they are designed.

It would not be hard for ministers to see these mistakes and avoid them, if they were really serious about making sure that Australia gets the most strategically cost-effective military capabilities as cheaply as possible. But there seems little doubt that such considerations hardly impinged on these decisions. Their aim was to announce big projects delivering lots of jobs and hence lots of votes in marginal seats in South Australia.*


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/na...tes-not-borders-20150816-gj0fjh#ixzz3j7QqFW2a 
Follow us: @theage on Twitter | theageAustralia on Facebook


----------



## overhang

wayneL said:


> I don't think it's right to term the Abbot version of unreality ad Orwellian, though I do agree about scaremongering.... continuation of the Howard years there.
> 
> Dystopic Orwellianism is the the exclusive proclivity of the Labor/Green Axis.




Traditionally you're correct but the data retention laws, the secrecy behind the 'operation sovereign borders' that may include making payments to people smugglers and the tough whistle blower laws on those that speak out against abuse in our detention centers all point to an Orwellian approach.


----------



## overhang

noco said:


> Are you saying the Green/Labor coalition would not have jumped at a similar opportunity?
> 
> Get real.




By that question you're conceding that the royal commissions have been political.  As to weather Labor would with a similar opportunity well they didn't with the Iraq war so I don't see why they would have over 3 deaths due to pink batts.   But Tony has set a new precedent that going after the former government by forcing them to turn over cabinet documents is now what is done to win some political point scoring. It's actually incredible when you think about it, he has spent well over 100 million attempting to discredit the Labor party with his witch hunts but yet is still behind in the polls which is a good indication that he has done an appalling job at governing the country.


----------



## nioka

Tisme said:


> That's the spirit.
> 
> I must admit I did spend time in a state govt dept fresh out of school ... I never want to do that again = 3.5 years of mundane madness and servitude to unproductive policy, to be exact.
> 
> I'm a critic of just about every PM that has graced our country since and including Menzies. The highlight for me was a bloke who caused so much heartache for my business, but offset that with so much entertainment = Paul Keating, I wanted him gone, but wanted him to stick around; self inflicted sadomasochism.
> 
> I just don't see the reason for constantly deferring to an opposition leader for Govt policy bungles and ineptitude. It's the PM and his cabinet who are driving the bus, they are accountable; the opposition is merely the neutered alternative govt.
> 
> I have pi$$ed off more Labor tragics than I have LNP drones....and continue to do so on forums stacked with rsuted on Labor hacks.
> 
> Think of my stands:
> 
> anti gay marriage communion;
> pro child protection;
> pro free enterprise;
> pro philanthropy;
> pro wealth creation;
> pro community service;
> pro charities;
> anti public service largesse;
> pro social security;
> pro pensions;
> pro infrastucture;
> anti militant unionism;
> anti boys clubs;
> anti communist;
> anti enforced politeness (PC);
> anti political skyfairy factories, e,g Catholicism; Judaism, Islamism, ;
> anti drone obedience to corporate political parties (LNP, ALP, Greens);
> pro Monarchy;
> anti Newscorp;
> anti poor govt;
> pro Rumpole, Tink, Ifocus, Wayne, sptrawler, Noco, Value Collector, sydboy007, and every other member; (other than those who argue against the welfare and innocence of the child).
> 
> What part of that snapshot pigeon holes me into the grip of party politics? I didn't vote for Tony nor did you. I care that a party that is supposedly made up of some intelligence has a moron at its helm and every other moron in the country is drawn like toads to a butterfly convention to defend the de4d$4it.




Interesting and odd that I often disagree with a lot of your posts but my "stands are 100% in line with yours. I agree with you also on your description of you know who.


----------



## sydboy007

I suppose you can only admit the Govt is at least consistently inconsistent

http://www.theguardian.com/australi...green-saboteurs-is-laurel-and-hardy-slapstick



> The Coalition’s ‘war on environmental vigilantes and saboteurs’ isn’t consistent: it’s waged against anti-coal activists but in support of anti-windfarm activists.
> 
> When an environment group successfully uses 16 year-old national environmental laws to delay a project, the Abbott government tries to change the law to prevent them from ever doing it again.
> 
> But if an anti-windfarm group can’t find a way to use existing laws and regulations to stop or delay a project, the Abbott government tries to change laws and processes to make it easier for them to succeed.
> 
> The first is called green “vigilantism” and “sabotage” and the second is, according to environment minister Greg Hunt, a reasonable response because “many people have a sense of deep anxiety, and they have a right to complain.”
> 
> *The government calls regulations that stop fossil fuel or mining projects “green tape”, but a wind commissioner and yet another scientific committee to look at unsubstantiated health complaints regarding wind turbines is apparently no kind of “tape” at all.*




Now, wasn't it a Howard Govt minister that blocked the bald hills wind farm from being developed due to concern over the orange bellied parrott?  Why is that a legal due process, but the finding for the Adani coal line is some how green lawfare that must be stopped.


----------



## Logique

Crackerjack article by Miranda Devine. My bolds.  I'd have been happy for the Coalition to dissolve both houses much earlier in the piece.

Consider this, Fairfax blogger Clementine Ford called Miranda a "F--king C---" in her blog, and yet still has a job. Outrageous hypocrisy.  Miranda is worth ten of you, potty-mouthed Clemmy.



> *Only a double dissolution election can save the PM*
> Miranda Devine - Wednesday, August 19, 2015
> http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg..._double_dissolution_election_can_save_the_pm/
> 
> ..*Labor and the unions want to destroy the royal commission because it is forensically exposing their criminal extortion racket*. And, with Bill Shorten due to be recalled over allegations of hundreds of thousands of dollars of employer donations and kickbacks when he was AWU leader, they face an existential emergency.
> 
> Heydon could have picked his nose and they would have turned it into an outrage. *His real crime is that he’s doing his job too well*...


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> I suppose you can only admit the Govt is at least consistently inconsistent
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/australi...green-saboteurs-is-laurel-and-hardy-slapstick
> 
> 
> 
> Now, wasn't it a Howard Govt minister that blocked the bald hills wind farm from being developed due to concern over the orange bellied parrott?  Why is that a legal due process, but the finding for the Adani coal line is some how green lawfare that must be stopped.




More continuing hypocrisy by an increasingly hypocritical government.

Only people with a "direct interest" in a mining proposal will be able to take legal action to stop it. What if those people have been bought off and the mine ruins the land for people who may have been interested in moving there because of it's environmental purity ? 

The environment belongs to everyone in the country, not just people who happen to be living in the area at the time.


----------



## Tisme

Logique said:


> Crackerjack article by Miranda Devine. My bolds.  I'd have been happy for the Coalition to dissolve both houses much earlier in the piece.
> 
> Consider this, Fairfax blogger Clementine Ford called Miranda a "F--king C---" in her blog, and yet still has a job. Outrageous hypocrisy.  Miranda is worth ten of you, potty-mouthed Clemmy.




I noticed Miranda slipped this into her article:




> Stop running a protection racket on a protection racket, stop smearing a High Court judge and … give the honest workers and honest unionists of this country a fair go.”




It's the same signature line Bishop was using in parliament yesterday....the differentiation of unionists versus workers and the honest ones in both camps. 

This is a departure from the ubiquitous demonisation of unionists by LNP (an ingrained policy plank), but of course blaming high costs of anything on the cost of labour ..... nothing to do with their own extraordinary wages and salaries for pushing pens.


----------



## sydboy007

Tisme said:


> This is a departure from the ubiquitous demonisation of unionists by LNP (an ingrained policy plank), but of course blaming high costs of anything on the cost of labour ..... nothing to do with their own extraordinary wages and salaries for pushing pens.




Never a mention of the sky high CEO pay, nor the linkage to CEO pay and an inverse relationship to company performance.

No understanding of the issues surrounding us beating even Italy in tax expenditures, or the high cost of corporate tax and stamp duties have on the economy.  No will to move the tax system to far more efficient taxes, mitigating any negative impact on lower income groups via the transfer system.

Instead we have the Govt against tax reform on most things where just about everyone else, including industry groups, is calling for meaningful reform.  But it's Labor and the unions fault.  Hopefully they realise people don't believe that lie anymore and are starting to wake up to the fact the Govt reform cupboard is bare.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Never a mention of the sky high CEO pay, nor the linkage to CEO pay and an inverse relationship to company performance.
> 
> No understanding of the issues surrounding us beating even Italy in tax expenditures, or the high cost of corporate tax and stamp duties have on the economy.  No will to move the tax system to far more efficient taxes, mitigating any negative impact on lower income groups via the transfer system.
> 
> Instead we have the Govt against tax reform on most things where just about everyone else, including industry groups, is calling for meaningful reform.  But it's Labor and the unions fault.  Hopefully they realise people don't believe that lie anymore and are starting to wake up to the fact the Govt reform cupboard is bare.




Wasn't it only six months or so ago, you were bagging Hockey for not chasing multinationals tax avoidance?

Now we read he is going to chase them, maybe you could congratulate him, your beloved Labor did sod all about it, when in office.

https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/hockey-table-tax-avoidance-bill-003316487.html


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> Wasn't it only six months or so ago, you were bagging Hockey for not chasing multinationals tax avoidance?
> 
> Now we read he is going to chase them, maybe you could congratulate him, your beloved Labor did sod all about it, when in office.
> 
> https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/hockey-table-tax-avoidance-bill-003316487.html




Lets hope the government has the guts to reveal by how much these measures have increased the corporate tax take. 

At the moment I suspect it's more for show than dough, but if the measures do work then that's a tick for the LNP.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Wasn't it only six months or so ago, you were bagging Hockey for not chasing multinationals tax avoidance?
> 
> Now we read he is going to chase them, maybe you could congratulate him, your beloved Labor did sod all about it, when in office.
> 
> https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/hockey-table-tax-avoidance-bill-003316487.html




So far all hockey seems to be doing is following what labor proposed in showing publicly what these companies are paying and hoping they'll be ashamed into paying more.

Is hockey actually proposing any changes that will make off shoring profits harder?


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> So far all hockey seems to be doing is following what labor proposed in showing publicly what these companies are paying and hoping they'll be ashamed into paying more.
> 
> Is hockey actually proposing any changes that will make off shoring profits harder?




Like I said, Labor six years, sod all. 
Let's see if Hockey is any better, time will tell.


----------



## Tisme

Operation Hummingbird is playing out ..... in the Liberal ranks


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Like I said, Labor six years, sod all.
> Let's see if Hockey is any better, time will tell.




Could also say Howard Govt 11 years and did sod all as well.  Not like this issue has just suddenly happened in the last few years.


----------



## orr

The Canning By election? What are the bookies saying?? Who's standing?? Even money on a 20% swing against the Lib(/Nat coalition, you've got to see them as one, since  the invite to the cabinet room vote on marriage equality)?? .. Probably a little less ..... but not much.
If you think the back benches are 'upity' now, just wait till the 20th of Sept..........
Is that a bucket of prawn heads in the sun? or is it the Abbott priministership.....


----------



## drsmith

orr said:


> The Canning By election? What are the bookies saying??



Sportsbet odds presently have the Libs in by a nose.

Similar for the next federal election but with a slightly longer snout.


----------



## Tisme

I can see why he wouldn't think the invitation was simply a non political event:






I see Dyson Heydon has been found out criticising the "Rudd Govt", not the 'Commonwealth Govt', but the "Rudd Govt" and it's on video 

 smoking gun #1:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...bstantive-in-2013-speech-20150819-gj2d2g.html

I also note he has been good to his Catholic benefactors:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ms-of-new-racism/story-fn59niix-1226881416273

And SMH:

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/no-ev...dice-against-catholicism-20140901-10b8q0.html


----------



## Logique

Heydon's record is spotless Tisme, and this is just Labor and the Unions figuratively 'shooting' the messenger. 

Grubby of them, but not unexpected.  They're desperate for any kind of political distraction, especially now that same sex marriage is dissipating.

Waleed has unwittingly helped out. Steve Price should have known a contrary opinion wasn't required.  



> Waleed Aly shuts down Steve Price on The Project over 'greenies' - August 20, 2015
> 
> Sydney Morning Herald: http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment...r-greenies-20150819-gj36bq.html#ixzz3jJPiH3jy
> Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook
> 
> ..."Hang on Waleed ... you've got a job why shouldn't the people who are going to work on those mines have a job?," Price said to Aly who said he wasn't opposed to jobs. "Go and build a few windmills then."
> 
> After Price suggested that – presumably - Aly should tell foreign investors that there is no "sovereign risk" when "they come to this country to do things", Aly ended the interview with a brisk "I'm not going to tell them that Steve because that's not what I'm arguing. I've heard your argument, thank you very much for joining us tonight"...


----------



## Logique

No problem if it's a Labor function. And as we know Gillian Triggs is utterly impartial.



> But it’s fine if judges speak at Labor events, of course - 18 August 2015
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ne_if_judges_speak_at_labor_events_of_course/


----------



## overhang

Logique said:


> No problem if it's a Labor function. And as we know Gillian Triggs is utterly impartial.




Is that a Labor party fundraiser?


----------



## Logique

overhang said:


> Is that a Labor party fundraiser?



Not that it's relevant, but do you call $80/head fund raising, it's cost recovery at best.


----------



## Knobby22

It sucks really.
Lawyers are in control of both parties, within and without.


----------



## sydboy007

I wonder if ABbott and Hockey could be bothered reading

http://www.acoss.org.au/media-releases/?media_release=acoss-puts-everything-on-table



> Instead of opening a discussion with the community on how the budget problem could be solved, the government doggedly pursued a single solution: cutting social programs. For these reasons, the 2014 budget was rightly rejected.
> 
> *In 2015, the government’s tax reform process started well. Launching the process with ACOSS, the Treasurer assured us that “everything was on the table”. But within weeks the government ruled out one option after another…*
> 
> As long as the tax debate is framed by simple slogans such as “lower taxes” we won’t progress tax reform. The reality is that, as the population ages – and our reasonable expectations of the healthcare system increase – governments will need more revenue to provide this and other essential services.
> 
> The alternative is that we pay for those services directly through user charges. If that’s what the government thinks should happen, let’s have that discussion…
> 
> Some believe the answer is to increase the GST. Yes, let’s have the debate. [But] raising the GST is not as simple as it seems…
> 
> ACOSS accepts that all options should be considered to strengthen our revenue base. But we should explore first more equitable ones than raising the GST, such as restoring the personal income tax system for people older than 65. Less than one in five older people pay any income tax, because of their higher tax-free threshold and the sheltering of income from tax through superannuation…
> 
> Rather than increasing tax rates, start by closing tax shelters. Start by replacing inefficient taxes like stamp duties with efficient ones like land taxes. Start by treating investment income consistently. In this way, governments can raise more revenue, and do so more fairly and efficiently…




Forget some of the captain's picks on blocking tax reform and start a genuine dialogue with the community.  Either that or your flabby butts may not be on the treasury benches at the end of 2016


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> I wonder if ABbott and Hockey could be bothered reading
> 
> http://www.acoss.org.au/media-releases/?media_release=acoss-puts-everything-on-table
> 
> 
> 
> Forget some of the captain's picks on blocking tax reform and start a genuine dialogue with the community.  Either that or your flabby butts may not be on the treasury benches at the end of 2016




Are there any alternatives blocking what the Government want to do?

Oh yes and we all well aware where the problem lays.....we call it a bloody minded obstructive senate.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Are there any alternatives blocking what the Government want to do?
> 
> Oh yes and we all well aware where the problem lays.....we call it a bloody minded obstructive senate.




What meaningful tax reform is currently blocked in the senate?

Negative - nope Abbott ruled it out

Superannuation tax expenditures - nope Abbott ruled it out

GST reform - not really interested as he's hiding behind it's a state tax when the Federal Govt enacts the legislation for it and collects the revenue.

Basically Abbott has blocked reform on all tax expenditures.


----------



## Tisme

Logique said:


> Heydon's record is spotless Tisme, .




That's not what I'm trying to point out.......

suppose you rec'd an invitation to attend a dinner that featured, say, Mickey Mouse.... you would presume that Mickey Mouse had agreed to feature prior to someone spending pots of money and marketing on invites, booking seats, meals etc,? 

I think Mickey Mouse would have a please explain to Walt how he didn't know he was to appear?


----------



## IFocus

Logique said:


> No problem if it's a Labor function. And as we know Gillian Triggs is utterly impartial.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 63916
> 
> View attachment 63917




Is Triggs parading former and current Liberal leaders through public inquiries?


----------



## Tisme

I guess all you true blue Aussies will be out there rallying against the FTA: ?

You Perth guys can meet at Solidarity Park opposite Parliament House 11.30am 25th August


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> I guess all you true blue Aussies will be out there rallying against the FTA: ?
> 
> You Perth guys can meet at Solidarity Park opposite Parliament House 11.30am 25th August
> 
> View attachment 63930





More Fabian propaganda though the ACTU with their lies and deceit.

China is a communist country.....the ACTU should be proud to be working with their comrades.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> More Fabian propaganda though the ACTU with their lies and deceit.
> 
> China is a communist country.....the ACTU should be proud to be working with their comrades.




You're certainly proud of what dear leader Abbott and comrade Robb have signed us up for.


----------



## drsmith

I don't know if Tony Abbott's medication's been changed but the opposition was slaughtered in QT today which is a far cry from the government's present public image.


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> I don't know if Tony Abbott's medication's been changed but the opposition was slaughtered in QT today which is a far cry from the government's present public image.




Its a far cry from their performance as a government.


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> Its a far cry from their performance as a government.




Unlike Labors stirling performance.


----------



## galumay

Scathing critique from Waleed Aly today in the SMH, it really shows how completely lost this 'government' is. 

Abbott's love of using schoolyard bully boy tactics in abusing what he sees as his opponents in the wider world will be his entire undoing. The sad thing is the damage he has done to the public perception of our political system with his wrecking ball approach - that will last long after he is gone.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/abbot...war-on-environmentalists-20150819-gj3a1p.html

The stupidity is he is alienating a lot of the conservative heartland with his gutter politics.


----------



## wayneL

galumay said:


> Scathing critique from Waleed Aly today in the SMH, it really shows how completely lost this 'government' is.
> 
> Abbott's love of using schoolyard bully boy tactics in abusing what he sees as his opponents in the wider world will be his entire undoing. The sad thing is the damage he has done to the public perception of our political system with his wrecking ball approach - that will last long after he is gone.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/comment/abbot...war-on-environmentalists-20150819-gj3a1p.html
> 
> The stupidity is he is alienating a lot of the conservative heartland with his gutter politics.




It's curious that Waleed, (a noted and biased leftist) criticizes tactics created and honed by the left. What a hypocrite.


----------



## Logique

It's the attack on their power base that really upsets the unions, and drives them to their current mendacity.



> ..."This is what Professor, the honourable *Bob Carr* said yesterday, '*There will be more jobs and higher wages in Australia if the China free trade agreement goes ahead*'," he quoted the former Labor state and federal politician as saying...
> 
> SMH, 21 August 2015: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-agreement-20150820-gj3yvo.html#ixzz3jOeBZrpv


----------



## Tisme

sydboy007 said:


> You're certainly proud of what dear leader Abbott and comrade Robb have signed us up for.




I'm wondering what the difference is between bringing in thousands of itinerant semi skilleds from China compared to allowing boat loads of religious, unskilled, social welfares into Australia? Or should be ban the lot of them?

It just seems hypocritical of the largely atheist labour movement to parade it's social conscience rolleyes credentials about skyfairy lovin', asylum seekers and wot not, then get upset that a bunch of self funded, brainwashed commo human drones might become a wrecking ball to wages and conditions..... get 'em drunk, take 'em to a footy match, assimilate them and the conditions will be retained..... and no Astrolord with a bunch of rules to get in the way.


----------



## IFocus

wayneL said:


> It's curious that Waleed, (a noted and biased leftist) criticizes tactics created and honed by the left. What a hypocrite.




No previous Australian PM (including extreme right winger power nut Frasier) has ever trashed Parliament convention so badly, achieved so little in policy terms.

Had such a distinct lack of a vision other than three worded slogans repeated constantly in line with Goebbels protocol.

Waleed is not a hypocrite he calling out the bleeding obvious.

This mob are a really really bad government.

Interesting some one told me Steve Prices wife is on Greg Hunts staff I haven't had the chance to find out if thats true or more nasty leftest tactics.


----------



## wayneL

You lost me at "extreme right wing power nut Fraser" ifocus.

Anyone who believes Fraser was extreme right wing is not thinking rationally.


----------



## Logique

Malcolm Fraser drifted ever further to the Left as time went on.



> Shortly after Tony Abbott won the 2009 Liberal Party leadership spill, Fraser ended his Liberal Party membership, stating the party was "no longer a liberal party but a conservative party".
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Fraser


----------



## sydboy007

Tisme said:


> I'm wondering what the difference is between bringing in thousands of itinerant semi skilleds from China compared to allowing boat loads of religious, unskilled, social welfares into Australia? Or should be ban the lot of them?
> 
> It just seems hypocritical of the largely atheist labour movement to parade it's social conscience rolleyes credentials about skyfairy lovin', asylum seekers and wot not, then get upset that a bunch of self funded, brainwashed commo human drones might become a wrecking ball to wages and conditions..... get 'em drunk, take 'em to a footy match, assimilate them and the conditions will be retained..... and no Astrolord with a bunch of rules to get in the way.




Think you'll find the Liberals are more religious than the Labor movement.

Howard was proud for being a Big Australia PM, but I don't remember any leadership over thelast decade or more actually having an honest discussion with us as to is high population growth good for us, and how are we going to afford it.  I'd argue much of the $45B spent on the east coast electricity infrastructure was to cope with pop demand.  DeSal plants in Syd and Mel also mostly due to pop growth.  Road and rail at breaking points in most cities.

I'd prefer to shut our borders for a few years until someone comes up with a way to pay for the population growth that doesn't cost those already here the quality of life they currently enjoy.


----------



## sydboy007

Logique said:


> Malcolm Fraser drifted ever further to the Left as time went on.




He's probably right

I'd be inclined to vote for the UK torries or NZ National party.  They just seem more liberal than the aussie version.

Would a truly Liberal party bring in the stoopid data retention laws.  They didn't even bother to cost the policy before rail roading it through parliament.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Think you'll find the Liberals are more religious than the Labor movement.
> 
> Howard was proud for being a Big Australia PM, but I don't remember any leadership over thelast decade or more actually having an honest discussion with us as to is high population growth good for us, and how are we going to afford it.  I'd argue much of the $45B spent on the east coast electricity infrastructure was to cope with pop demand.  DeSal plants in Syd and Mel also mostly due to pop growth.  Road and rail at breaking points in most cities.
> 
> I'd prefer to shut our borders for a few years until someone comes up with a way to pay for the population growth that doesn't cost those already here the quality of life they currently enjoy.




Amen to that, 

The other problem with rampant population growth is, it isn't reversible, if there are negative outcomes.

Imo Australia is getting way ahead of itself.


----------



## SirRumpole

> I'd prefer to shut our borders for a few years until someone comes up with a way to pay for the population growth that doesn't cost those already here the quality of life they currently enjoy.




Nods in agreement.


----------



## overhang

Logique said:


> Not that it's relevant, but do you call $80/head fund raising, it's cost recovery at best.




Yes I do, knowing how these fundraisers work it's once you get there and you have people approach you asking if you'd like to donate or each guest is given an envelope with details on how to donate.


----------



## IFocus

wayneL said:


> You lost me at "extreme right wing power nut Fraser" ifocus.
> 
> Anyone who believes Fraser was extreme right wing is not thinking rationally.




Most are clouded by Frasers later road to Damascus move.

He was in the day far more ruthless and aggressive than Abbott would ever hope to be as he seized power  used a drunk to throw out Gough Whitlam fro  government.

"Life wasn't meant to be easy"

Could you ever image any of the current bunch freeloaders having the arrogance to say that?


----------



## Macquack

IFocus said:


> "Life wasn't meant to be easy"
> 
> Could you ever image any of the current bunch freeloaders having the arrogance to say that?




Chief freeloader Joe (I have never paid for a tank of fuel in my life) Hockey fits the bill.


----------



## explod

IFocus said:


> Most are clouded by Frasers later road to Damascus move.
> 
> He was in the day far more ruthless and aggressive than Abbott would ever hope to be as he seized power  used a drunk to throw out Gough Whitlam fro  government.
> 
> "Life wasn't meant to be easy"
> 
> Could you ever image any of the current bunch freeloaders having the arrogance to say that?




But with the electorate he was honest supportive and fair.  Today that sort of Government for the people would be regarded as fabien or communist.   Just no comparison.


----------



## IFocus

Macquack said:


> Chief freeloader Joe (I have never paid for a tank of fuel in my life) Hockey fits the bill.




 there is always exceptions.


----------



## IFocus

sydboy007 said:


> I'd be inclined to vote for the UK torries or NZ National party.  They just seem more liberal than the aussie version.




NZ and UK conservative parties actually seem to govern for the county in a controlled manner.

This is thing most conservatives here seem to miss that we have a unique bunch of US style of Republican right wing nutters obsessed with power but no vision for Australia pass regressive draconian laws and class wars on behalf of their sponsors desperate to control the party numbers while leading them to a election cliff.

Its really been a bizarre period in Australian politics like no other with Abbott a caricature for some dimwit that must repeat ad infinitum every liar three worded slogan repeatedly that now no one believes.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> Nods in agreement.




So use lotsa 417's and send them home when tenure is up? Works for me ... does that make a bigot ... I can live with that.


----------



## Tisme

IFocus said:


> Its really been a bizarre period in Australian politics like no other with Abbott a caricature for some dimwit that must repeat ad infinitum every liar three worded slogan repeatedly that now no one believes.




You're just suffering what the rest of the thinking population are feeling ... insulted that we are being constantly lied too, indignant that we have been sold a pup, frustrated at the talent available, perplexed how a gang of school kids with NFI got into govt. {imogee = head shaking and sigh}


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> So use lotsa 417's and send them home when tenure is up? Works for me ... does that make a bigot ... I can live with that.




Unemployment is increasing, I don't think that there are signs that there is a labour shortage. More emphasis and money invested in trades training wouldn't go astray in the long term.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> Unemployment is increasing, I don't think that there are signs that there is a labour shortage. More emphasis and money invested in trades training wouldn't go astray in the long term.




That's not going to happen. The days of the factory and workshop system are gone and with it the nurseries for (exemplary) trade training.

The tradies today are quite different to those of the old and many have merely lego skill sets where they just piece together knock down kits or do repetitive tasks, rather than broad based fabrication, assembly and commissioning.

I watch the Korean guys on construction sites, for instance sheeting walls and ceilings, and they work much faster, are polite, very neat and many are actually union ticketed.... a far cry from the noticeable few bedraggled locals who come to site looking and smelling like they drank the Castlemaine Brewery dry the night before, have remnants of the poached egg from yesterday's breakfasts on their collar, can't talk without f bombs, and don't have a union ticket. 

Who wants to be a tradie when you can earn lots more for a 38 hour week, have weekends off, holidays off, etc for just moving forms and sheets around offices to make the super numerated boss' work load light.


----------



## SirRumpole

> Who wants to be a tradie when you can earn lots more for a 38 hour week, have weekends off, holidays off, etc for just moving forms and sheets around offices to make the super numerated boss' work load light.




Well I guess that's fine IF our youth are really more into IT and professions than being a tradies, then that means we have a better educated and skilled, and therefore more highly paid (and more highly taxed) workforce, and providing that the work of the 417's is up to an acceptable standard then I don't see anything wrong with a "work now see you later" type approach to "guest workers".

But youth unemployment is high everywhere in the country and I just wonder where the jobs are coming from to take up the slack.


----------



## banco

sptrawler said:


> Amen to that,
> 
> The other problem with rampant population growth is, it isn't reversible, if there are negative outcomes.
> 
> Imo Australia is getting way ahead of itself.




Agree with this.  Australia can't keep on taking in 200,000 plus ad infinitum.

Meanwhile Abbott and Shorten are both hoping the coalition wins in canning.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> But youth unemployment is high everywhere in the country and I just wonder where the jobs are coming from to take up the slack.




Geelong, Fishermans Bend, Elizabeth?


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> Geelong, Fishermans Bend, Elizabeth?




Probably not.


----------



## orr

SirRumpole said:


> But youth unemployment is high everywhere in the country and I just wonder where the jobs are coming from to take up the slack.




Stand up comedy!!!  you just start with the name of tis thread....... I've been using it for weeks never fails to get a laugh.


----------



## Smurf1976

This thread title is increasingly becoming a misnomer unfortunately.

"The Abbott Government"

Can't argue with "The" and "Abbott" since there most certainly is an Abbott. Trouble is, they're not doing too much governing these days.

If I want to see a circus then I'll see a real one next time it's in town. Not sure what a ticket to the show costs, but I dare say it's a fair bit less than what taxpayers are paying to keep this mob supplied with cigars and helicopters.


----------



## qldfrog

SirRumpole said:


> Well I guess that's fine IF our youth are really more into IT and professions



IT and profession are 457's first target:
10y experience IT guru for 60k competing against locals who were last paid that much 20y ago;
your kids with IT and professions have not a chance to ever find their first job in nowadays Australia


----------



## Logique

IFocus said:


> ...bizarre period in Australian politics like no other with Abbott a caricature for some dimwit that must repeat ad infinitum every liar three worded slogan repeatedly that now no one believes.



Come on IF. 

You mean three worded slogans like "Moving Forward Australia" and "Price on Carbon", or the classic "We Are Us". All equally inane.

Liar worded? Would this qualify:  "There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead."


----------



## SirRumpole

The Liberal candidate for Canning looks like an impressive fellow, but I can't help feeling he will be representing the Defence Forces rather than his electorate.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> The Liberal candidate for Canning looks like an impressive fellow, but I can't help feeling he will be representing the Defence Forces rather than his electorate.




Yes and some of the useless Labor Party have already tried to drag him into some event that happened a couple of years ago by one SAS soldier in Afghanistan, whom I believe that one particular soldier is still under investigation.

The candidate for Canning who was a Captain in the SAS and has a clean record as an ADF personal.

How low can the Labor Party go...more dirty tactics by the Labor Party.


----------



## noco

noco said:


> Yes and some of the useless Labor Party have already tried to drag him into some event that happened a couple of years ago by one SAS soldier in Afghanistan, whom I believe that one particular soldier is still under investigation.
> 
> The candidate for Canning who was a Captain in the SAS and has a clean record as an ADF personal.
> 
> How low can the Labor Party go...more dirty tactics by the Labor Party.




How low can the AGE go to discredit Andrew Hastie and the Abbott Government......Rumpy this what I mean about the lies the left wing Age and the Green/Labor dominated ABC broadcast...It is so blatant and dishonest...It is just another distortion of the truth to persuade voters to vote Labor. 

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/.../the_age_vs_captain_andrew_hastie_you_decide/

*You judge who gets your respect.

Andrew Hastie, until last week a captain in the SAS, is the Liberal candidate for the seat of Canning in next month’s by-election.

More about him in today’s The Bolt Report and in my column on Monday.

UPDATE

The Sydney Morning Herald should shrivel with shame:

    image

To be clear: Hastie was in a helicopter when the incident occurred. He reported it. He was cleared. The corporal responsible was following guidelines issues by investigators to establish identity of slain Talibani back at headquarters.

This reporting is utterly shameful. WA Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds, who became a brigadier in the Army Reserve, gets it said:

    image

(Thanks to reader Peter of Bellevue Hill.)
*
Do read the whole link and the comments that go with it.


----------



## dutchie

Smurf1976 said:


> If I want to see a circus then I'll see a real one next time it's in town.




There was no worse circus than the one that lasted six years, they even had to change the ring master a few times (Rudd Gillard Rudd).

Now *that* was a circus! 

Australia will have to make sure that circus is never allowed in town again!

Note: the problem was that they had too many clowns performing.


----------



## noco

noco said:


> How low can the AGE go to discredit Andrew Hastie and the Abbott Government......Rumpy this what I mean about the lies the left wing Age and the Green/Labor dominated ABC broadcast...It is so blatant and dishonest...It is just another distortion of the truth to persuade voters to vote Labor.
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/.../the_age_vs_captain_andrew_hastie_you_decide/
> 
> *You judge who gets your respect.
> 
> Andrew Hastie, until last week a captain in the SAS, is the Liberal candidate for the seat of Canning in next month’s by-election.
> 
> More about him in today’s The Bolt Report and in my column on Monday.
> 
> UPDATE
> 
> The Sydney Morning Herald should shrivel with shame:
> 
> image
> 
> To be clear: Hastie was in a helicopter when the incident occurred. He reported it. He was cleared. The corporal responsible was following guidelines issues by investigators to establish identity of slain Talibani back at headquarters.
> 
> This reporting is utterly shameful. WA Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds, who became a brigadier in the Army Reserve, gets it said:
> 
> image
> 
> (Thanks to reader Peter of Bellevue Hill.)
> *
> Do read the whole link and the comments that go with it.




Read the headline from the Age Newspaper......How distorted that head is...Shame on them for trying to bring Andrew Hastie in to disrepute.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/..._front_page_smear_of_a_soldier_and_a_liberal/


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> Most are clouded by Frasers later road to Damascus move.
> 
> He was in the day far more ruthless and aggressive than Abbott would ever hope to be as he seized power  used a drunk to throw out Gough Whitlam fro  government.
> 
> "Life wasn't meant to be easy"
> 
> Could you ever image any of the current bunch freeloaders having the arrogance to say that?




Wonders never cease. 
I agree with you IFocus, Fraser IMO was the nastiest, most ruthless, uncompassionate P.M I've seen.

The experts recommended price and wage control, Fraser opted for wage control.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> Wonders never cease.
> I agree with you IFocus, Fraser IMO was the nastiest, most ruthless, uncompassionate P.M I've seen.
> 
> .




I certainly thought that at the time. Maybe he had a hidden side, or just got soft in his old age.


----------



## noco

More sick jokes about Andrew Hastie  by Labor in Western Australia....They must be mentally deranged to venture into such disgusting propaganda full of lies and deceit.  


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...495016027?sv=1e573e3b6df97f54a9e9e53ffe444e2b

*Mr West, the state opposition agriculture spokesman, re-tweeted: “A chopper with Bronny in comes in to land & here’s Hastie’s chopper, to chop off your hand! #Canning u believe this?*


----------



## SirRumpole

dutchie said:


> There was no worse circus than the one that lasted six years, they even had to change the ring master a few times (Rudd Gillard Rudd).
> 
> Now *that* was a circus!
> 
> Australia will have to make sure that circus is never allowed in town again!
> 
> Note: the problem was that they had too many clowns performing.




Plenty of clowns in this government.

Abbott, Hockey , Dutton, Joyce, Andrews, Bishop (B), great fodder for laughs all of them.


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> Wonders never cease.
> I agree with you IFocus, Fraser IMO was the nastiest, most ruthless, uncompassionate P.M I've seen.
> 
> The experts recommended price and wage control, Fraser opted for wage control.




I think he may well have had his Damascus moment later in life, but at the time he opened the gate to hate and loathing. It cemented the belief among many that "born to rule" was not just sarcastic quip, but a serious contender for truism. 

To me, Malcolm's smug arrogance was personified as a facial expression and received accent that he probably couldn't help having, coming from an old school style pastoralist heritage and best of private schooling. Reminded me of my great Aunts at the time who also had that accent when out in public.... "how now brown cow". 

Gough saved his rep in his later years ... labor people can't help but forgive.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> Plenty of clowns in this government.
> 
> Abbott, Hockey , Dutton, Joyce, Andrews, Bishop (B), great fodder for laughs all of them.




Who's the ringmaster?


----------



## Tisme

For crying out loud, more Fabian lies with the ABC. Malcolm should be doing something about this out of control waste of taxpayer monies that has a secret agenda to tell the fricken truth and hurt our political feelings.

Look at this fool, trying to convince us that the Metadata laws (that are only there so the govt can do nothing with it) are in fact some intrusion of privacy:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-24/metadata-what-you-found-will-ockenden/6703626


It's patently bias because they ran a similar story in February and two times is media hysteria isn't it?

http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2015/02/19/4183553.htm


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> Who's the ringmaster?




MT sitting smugly in the background, waiting, waiting and (shock, horror) leaking ?


----------



## Tisme

I don't know about 'Empty', he's a player too right, but someone with brains and access to Tony must be mentoring him.

I was just thinking of the Canberra nicknames some of the pollies have and having a chuckle on reflection:

Pizza Boy (Hockey's limited business acumen)
Wytha  (Kelly 'O Dwyer "why the long face")
Baryard Voice (no clues req'd)
Turdball (ditto)
Abbo (see title of thread)



the greens and labs have boring nics.


----------



## sydboy007

Just WOW.  We're constantly told there's too much Govt support going to renewable energy, but then it's somehow right to thought bubble investing into building a new coal mine that would be losing $50+ a tonne at current prices.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...sidered-for-rail-funding-20150824-gj6ci9.html



> "One of the things they are looking at is how we can ensure that the railway line remains financially viable. I can't give away too many details, but we are working away at that," Mr Hockey told ABC radio on Monday.
> 
> Fairfax Media understands the government is considering whether the project could be assessed for a loan from a $5 billion northern Australia infrastructure scheme announced in this year's budget.




Just explain to me how investing in a rail line to a coal mine that wont make money is sensible policy, but declining to help fund a rail line to Badgerys Creek airport is....????


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Just explain to me how investing in a rail line to a coal mine that wont make money is sensible policy, but declining to help fund a rail line to Badgerys Creek airport is....????




Maybe you could actually do some of your serious research, and answer your own question.

I'm busy trying to keep myself off the pension, and trying to remain self funded.lol

By the way, Labors idea of taxing super incomes above $70k, would have been much better than dropping the assett test to $800k. The Liberal idea hurts much more.

But there you go another stupid super profits tax by Labor, dumb, dumb, dumb. But hey, it seems to attract the gullible.lol


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Just WOW.  We're constantly told there's too much Govt support going to renewable energy, but then it's somehow right to thought bubble investing into building a new coal mine that would be losing $50+ a tonne at current prices.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...sidered-for-rail-funding-20150824-gj6ci9.html
> 
> 
> 
> Just explain to me how investing in a rail line to a coal mine that wont make money is sensible policy, but declining to help fund a rail line to Badgerys Creek airport is....????




Syd, you are living in the present when you talk about the low price of coal today and how a rail line will suffice with low coal prices.

The price of minerals including coal will rise in the near future so companies have to plan ahead.

Are you suggesting we wait for the price of coal to rise and then start a mine and a rail line to get the coal to port?..It will take at least 2 years

There are experts with a lot more foresight than you and I and the Adani coal mine and the rail  line will take a couple of years to get off the ground....If we wait for the price of coal to rise we will miss the boat...India needs the coal to provide electricity to over 100,000,000 people.

You have to think ahead Syd boy.......Thank goodness the Labor Party and the unions are not in control.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Maybe you could actually do some of your serious research, and answer your own question.
> 
> I'm busy trying to keep myself off the pension, and trying to remain self funded.lol
> 
> By the way, Labors idea of taxing super incomes above $70k, would have been much better than dropping the assett test to $800k. The Liberal idea hurts much more.
> 
> But there you go another stupid super profits tax by Labor, dumb, dumb, dumb. But hey, it seems to attract the gullible.lol




Well unless you're forecasting coal prices to roughly double at a minimum, the Carmichael Coalmine would be a enormous white elephant.  Why make tax payers take on the risk?  India is doing it's best to limit coal imports as muc as possible, China the same, so exactly where is the demand going to come from to support the expansion of high cost supply by Adani?

Not sure wht you're moaning about Labor is though.  You say Labor's super policy would be better than the Liberal's but then go on to bag Labor about a super profits tax?


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Not sure wht you're moaning about Labor is though.  You say Labor's super policy would be better than the Liberal's but then go on to bag Labor about a super profits tax?





A super profits tax is stupid it has no fundamental reasoning, other than that service or commodity is in vogue, next year it could earn nothing.

If you re read my previous comment, I think I inferred Labor's idea was stupid, as usual.

The coalition idea was much more effective, which I thought you would warm to, but blinkers are a problem.


----------



## Macquack

Tisme said:


> I was just thinking of the Canberra nicknames some of the pollies have and having a chuckle on reflection:
> 
> *Pizza Boy (Hockey's limited business acumen)*




Where is my pizza Joe?
"Sorry I ate it."
"But if you get a good job that pays good money , you may be able to afford to buy another pizza."
"If pizzas were unaffordable, then nobody would be buy'in."


----------



## sptrawler

Macquack said:


> Where is my pizza Joe?
> "Sorry I ate it."
> "But if you get a good job that pays good money , you may be able to afford to buy another pizza."
> "If pizzas were unaffordable, then nobody would be buy'in."




The way we are heading, pizza's will become unaffordable, as they used to be.

How many times did you eat out when you were young? Not many is my guess, unlike today.

Domino's pizza, pizza hut, maccas, hungry jacks, chicken treat, charcoal chicken, subway, all doing fine.


----------



## Macquack

sptrawler said:


> Domino's pizza, pizza hut, maccas,* hungry jacks*, chicken treat, charcoal chicken, subway, all doing fine.




Went to Hungry Jacks the other day. Bought 2 hamburgers, 1 fries, 1 drink and now it costs over $20! 

I am becoming old, cranky and bloody hungry.


----------



## drsmith

The last time I ate Subway or Chicken Treat (some time ago in both cases), the digestive response wasn't, well, fine. 

Tip for HJ's.

Ask for a burger with no mayo.

The burgers are definitely better with no mayo.


----------



## drsmith

Macquack said:


> Went to Hungry Jacks the other day. Bought 2 hamburgers, 1 fries, 1 drink and now it costs over $20!
> 
> I am becoming old, cranky and bloody hungry.



With that sort of appetite, you should hang on to the vouchers.

Forget the drink by the way, unless you like drinking watered down battery acid but that's what I think of Coke in general. At my age, one has to consider one's dentistry.

The last time I ate HJ's, I noted the fries hadn't been murdered with salt to the usual extent.


----------



## Smurf1976

noco said:


> The price of minerals including coal will rise in the near future




The fundamentals of oil are massively stronger than coal and yet we've seen oil prices collapse from USD 147 down to USD 40 and still falling.

Oil - still very much in demand for transport fuels, doesn't have anywhere near the political move against it that coal does and it's a relatively limited resource in terms of what's in the ground with much of that in a few countries with various internal and external political difficulties.

Coal - a definite political move against it and there's heaps of the stuff in numerous countries. USA has heaps of it but closer to home there's plenty in Indonesia and even New Zealand. For that matter, every Australian state has mineable coal so there's no shortage of the stuff. There's no fundamental reason that I can see why it should be selling for much more than the cost of extraction in the long term.

Maybe coal prices will rise, maybe they won't, but it's not a sure thing in my view.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> A super profits tax is stupid it has no fundamental reasoning, other than that service or commodity is in vogue, next year it could earn nothing.
> 
> If you re read my previous comment, I think I inferred Labor's idea was stupid, as usual.
> 
> The coalition idea was much more effective, which I thought you would warm to, but blinkers are a problem.




You mean like Hockey's proposal for tax cuts for the rich at the next election.  Tax cuts while the deficit is still increasing.

No understanding that income taxes are so high because of the leakage due to the massive level of tax expenditures we have.  We even beat the Italians with how much revenue we willingly bleed.  Fix negative gearing, fix super tax breaks, fix profit shifting by companies and help the states move to raising revenue from a broadly based land tax (which treasury forecasts would cost only 90c to raise $1 of revenue compared to stamp duty that sucks out $1.70 to provide just $1 in revenue)


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> A super profits tax is stupid it has no fundamental reasoning, other than that service or commodity is in vogue, next year it could earn nothing.




That's right, but that's no reason to discard the idea completely.

Labor's mistake was to apply the revenue from the mining super profits tax to recurrent expenditure when they should have applied it to reducing debt.

 You get the tax when the conditions are right, but if the taxable item suffers a downturn then it doesn't affect your bottom line as much  if you don't have to make up recurrent expenditure from somewhere else.


----------



## noco

Macquack said:


> Went to Hungry Jacks the other day. Bought 2 hamburgers, 1 fries, 1 drink and now it costs over $20!
> 
> I am becoming old, cranky and bloody hungry.




You probably bought it on Sunday and had to pay extra for penalty rates....Stop whinging...blame the unions.


----------



## noco

drsmith said:


> With that sort of appetite, you should hang on to the vouchers.
> 
> Forget the drink by the way, unless you like drinking watered down battery acid but that's what I think of Coke in general. At my age, one has to consider one's dentistry.
> 
> The last time I ate HJ's, I noted the fries hadn't been murdered with salt to the usual extent.




Yeah, the ph of coke is 2.5....it is not good for the teeth but also the kidneys...Your kidneys can operate at 25% with the other 75% could be badly diseased without you knowing it.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> That's right, but that's no reason to discard the idea completely.
> 
> Labor's mistake was to apply the revenue from the mining super profits tax to recurrent expenditure when they should have applied it to reducing debt.
> 
> You get the tax when the conditions are right, but if the taxable item suffers a downturn then it doesn't affect your bottom line as much  if you don't have to make up recurrent expenditure from somewhere else.




I understood the "BIG" income from Swan's mining tax was to to fund the NDIS....but we all know what happened to that hare brain scheme......the funds did not eventuate like a lot of Labor ideas..


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> That's right, but that's no reason to discard the idea completely.
> 
> Labor's mistake was to apply the revenue from the mining super profits tax to recurrent expenditure when they should have applied it to reducing debt.
> 
> You get the tax when the conditions are right, but if the taxable item suffers a downturn then it doesn't affect your bottom line as much  if you don't have to make up recurrent expenditure from somewhere else.




I think Labor's big mistake in thinking was that here would be an exponential increase in productivity and thus revenues with large initial investment in social, educational and facilities spend. Australians aren't Asians and don't look 20 years out, they can't even look the standard corporate 5 years out.... they want it and they want it now. We are very susceptible to scaremongering and short term rewards.

If we had a working NBN, we might even have had an asset left to sell of for profit.


----------



## MrBurns

Turnbull HAS to make a move on Abbott NOW..........or soon anyway.

It's glaringly obvious that Abbott wont win the next election and Turnbull is a far better communicator and would do a far better job.

OR we get that Union hack Shorten running Australia and that's not even funny.


----------



## sails

MrBurns said:


> Turnbull HAS to make a move on Abbott NOW..........or soon anyway.
> 
> It's glaringly obvious that Abbott wont win the next election and Turnbull is a far better communicator and would do a far better job.
> 
> OR we get that Union hack Shorten running Australia and that's not even funny.




No point bringing back a failed leader. It didn't work out too well when labor switched back to Rudd. 

I would rather see a fresh start with either Scott Morrison or Julie Bishop rather than resorting to recycling - that's a labor thing! 

It's worrying that so many labor supporters are the ones behind Turnbull's popularity in the polls. Why would they want the best for their political opponent?  I suspect Turnbull could cost the libs some of their own support base. Turnbull doesn't come across as a good team player either.  

Morrison is a rising star, IMO


----------



## SirRumpole

sails said:


> It's worrying that so many labor supporters are the ones behind Turnbull's popularity in the polls. Why would they want the best for their political opponent?  I suspect Turnbull could cost the libs some of their own support base. Turnbull doesn't come across as a good team player either.




Maybe some current Labor supporters would actually vote Liberal if their leader wasn't as far Right as Abbott (and Morrison) are. 

Just because people currently support Labor doesn't mean they are rusted on Labor supporters. What people are looking for is some sort of rational and pragmatic approach to policy making rather than a boots and all stick it to your opponents approach. 

Would Liberal supporters vote Labor or Greens if Turnbull was Liberal leader ? It would be a choice between eating sh*t and eating humble pie, and I think they would go for the humble pie.


----------



## SirRumpole

Pauline Hanson gives Scott Morrison the "kiss of death".

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...t-morrison-20150825-gj704j.html#ixzz3jnDlxb3l


----------



## sails

SirRumpole said:


> Pauline Hanson gives Scott Morrison the "kiss of death".
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...t-morrison-20150825-gj704j.html#ixzz3jnDlxb3l




From the article you posted: 

"Mr Morrison, who originally associated with the moderates of the party, is now seen as the rising star of the Coalition's conservative wing and has been touted as a future leader." ​


----------



## Knobby22

Last week, Mr Morrison had lunch a private with Rupert Murdoch, a day after the media baron dined with Mr Abbott. He and his family also appeared in a profile piece in a recent edition of The Australian Women's Weekly.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...t-morrison-20150825-gj704j.html#ixzz3jnTUrBFs 
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

Yep, he's got Rupert's blessing.


----------



## sydboy007

Didn't Abbott tell us the grocery code of conduct was going to shield us from the vagaries of the market? 

My bunion is forecasting extra flags at future press conferences, along with the odd security scare.

I'm waiting for Abbott to follow Big Kev and wear a flag suit when be fonts the media.


----------



## Tisme

sydboy007 said:


> Didn't Abbott tell us the grocery code of conduct was going to shield us from the vagaries of the market?
> 
> My bunion is forecasting extra flags at future press conferences, along with the odd security scare.
> 
> I'm waiting for Abbott to follow Big Kev and wear a flag suit when be fonts the media.




yes the fish mongers and grocers were the solid underpinning of our robust economy.....oorah


----------



## MrBurns

I still think Malcolm would be best and a sure winner at the ballot box.


----------



## sydboy007

a steady increase in teh deficit, services being cut for locals, and a PM that's happy to increase spending to drop bombs, while cutting back funds to drop food supplies.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-join-syrian-air-strikes-20150825-gj7kfh.html



> Tony Abbott confirmed on Tuesday that "some weeks ago" US President Barack Obama had asked him to consider expanding RAAF strikes to Syria.
> 
> But senior government sources have told Fairfax Media that the driving force for the formal request received last week from the United States for the RAAF to join the air campaign in Syria came more from Canberra – and in particular the Prime Minister's office – than from Washington.




Why is the west doing most of the heavy lifting in this region.  Why is Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Kuwait that are faced with direct consequences from IS doing not much?

The Saudis have a military budget nearly 4 times Australia's and higher than the UK or France and even Russia, topped only by the USA and China last year.

IS has maybe 30,000 fighters.  Why can't the combined forces of the Muslim country armies in the region wipe them out?  Just combing the Saudi / Egypt / Turkey armies would provide over 1.1M active military personnel, let alone their para military forces and reservists that could be called up.

So why is Abbott spending my tax dollars on fighting a religious insurgency in a region where the countries most affected are doing practically p!$$ all about it?

IS is as much an idea as an organisation.  Military action in the end wont defeat them.  Only when the locals truly turn their backs on this monstrosity will it be defeated, and part of that process might be doing some of their own dirty work rather than relying on the infidels from the west to do it for them.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> a steady increase in teh deficit, services being cut for locals, and a PM that's happy to increase spending to drop bombs, while cutting back funds to drop food supplies.




Hockey has doubled the deficit, so if he inherited a "debt and deficit disaster", he has made it disastrously worse.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-06/has-the-government-doubled-the-budget-deficit/5423392



> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-join-syrian-air-strikes-20150825-gj7kfh.html
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the west doing most of the heavy lifting in this region.  Why is Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Kuwait that are faced with direct consequences from IS doing not much?
> 
> The Saudis have a military budget nearly 4 times Australia's and higher than the UK or France and even Russia, topped only by the USA and China last year.




Possibly the Saudis and the Turks have some sympathy with IS ? That's the only reason I can see why these countries are not more active. So why should we worry if surrounding countries are not ?

Obviously the US and therefore ourselves are worried again about access to oil, and if that is cut off then our economies will suffer badly.

If oil wasn't involved I think the West would sit back and say "ho hum, not our problem, let the region sort it out".


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> Hockey has doubled the deficit, so if he inherited a "debt and deficit disaster", he has made it disastrously worse.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-06/has-the-government-doubled-the-budget-deficit/5423392
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly the Saudis and the Turks have some sympathy with IS ? That's the only reason I can see why these countries are not more active. So why should we worry if surrounding countries are not ?
> 
> Obviously the US and therefore ourselves are worried again about access to oil, and if that is cut off then our economies will suffer badly.
> 
> If oil wasn't involved I think the West would sit back and say "ho hum, not our problem, let the region sort it out".




It's becoming increasingly clear that the US initially trained and supplied the seed of IS.

How many times do we have to waste treasure and blood on stupid wars in far flung corners of the world?

Khaki election here we come.


----------



## Logique

sails said:


> From the article you posted:
> 
> "Mr Morrison, who originally associated with the moderates of the party, is now seen as the rising star of the Coalition's conservative wing and has been touted as a future leader." ​



It'll never happen, but going to the next election with Morrison/Turnbull as PM/Treasurer would be the best bet in pure electoral terms.


----------



## SirRumpole

Logique said:


> It'll never happen, but going to the next election with Morrison/Turnbull as PM/Treasurer would be the best bet in pure electoral terms.




But MT's ego would get in the way, if he allowed an upstart to usurp his birthright to be PM.


----------



## Knobby22

SirRumpole said:


> But MT's ego would get in the way, if he allowed an upstart to usurp his birthright to be PM.




I think he has lost some hubris on the political battlefield.
I think you are spot on Logique. 
If anyone could give some vision and get the support of the right and the moderates and win the next election it would be Morrison. 

Unfortunately TA comes from the Bronwyn Bishop school of politics and if they do get him out of the Prime Minister's office there will be scrape marks all over the floor and door as they drag him out.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> But MT's ego would get in the way, if he allowed an upstart to usurp his birthright to be PM.




IMHO, Turnbull is a Labor stooge and a Liberal Party cabinet leaker.....He is nothing more than a slimy member of the Liberal Party who is out to destroy Abbott and the Liberal Party.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> IMHO, Turnbull is a Labor stooge and a Liberal Party cabinet leaker.....He is nothing more than a slimy member of the Liberal Party who is out to destroy Abbott and the Liberal Party.




So without any evidence you criticise MT as the cabinet leaker and then go on to do besmirch his character.  Could it not be one of the 30 odd percent who voted for the vacant chair during the spill motion in Feb?

In the next breath you'll be condemning the ABC, Fairfax et. al. for saying anything negative about Abbott or the Govt.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> IMHO, Turnbull is a Labor stooge and a Liberal Party cabinet leaker.....He is nothing more than a slimy member of the Liberal Party who is out to destroy Abbott and the Liberal Party.




Abbott is doing a darned good job of destroying himself. 

Now coming out that it was he who wanted to get Australia bombing Siria.   They stuffed Iraq,  The ruthless Saddam was the only one who could keep the tribes there from cutting each others throat. 

The mysterious weapons he was supposed to have were nought.   What he did control was oil and was withholding it from the west. End of story,  its "the money Ralph" 

Abbott and his planes on the front page and soldier memorials is all about creating fear.   But the people have had enough,  he is a goner.


----------



## Logique

I don't know how electors are meant to process the government's current twin propositions that

- raising GST to 15% may be necessary...but..

- tax rates should be reduced to prevent bracket creep

Make the vulnerable suffer, seems to be their standard response. Yet another free kick to Labor.


----------



## sptrawler

Logique said:


> I don't know how electors are meant to process the government's current twin propositions that
> 
> - raising GST to 15% may be necessary...but..
> 
> - tax rates should be reduced to prevent bracket creep
> 
> Make the vulnerable suffer, seems to be their standard response. Yet another free kick to Labor.





I agree with you Logique, it is going to be difficult to reconcile tax cuts for high income earners, and an increase in gst to pay for it.

Certainly are losing the plot.IMO


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> I agree with you Logique, it is going to be difficult to reconcile tax cuts for high income earners, and an increase in gst to pay for it.
> 
> Certainly are losing the plot.IMO




If even the staunch supporters of the Liberal party admit they have lost the plot, then I don't see much hope for them at the next election.

What a shame.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> So without any evidence you criticise MT as the cabinet leaker and then go on to do besmirch his character.  Could it not be one of the 30 odd percent who voted for the vacant chair during the spill motion in Feb?
> 
> In the next breath you'll be condemning the ABC, Fairfax et. al. for saying anything negative about Abbott or the Govt.




Turnbull applied to join the Labor Party before he joined the Liberal Party.

Turnbull is after Abbott's job and most likely revenge.

Turnbull is communications minister and is closely allied with the ABC.

Turnbull is more than happy to allow the ABC to discredit Abbott.

IMHO. Turnbull would have to be the # one suspect.

I believe, because you have jumped to Turnbull's defense, I am sure you would like to see Turnbull replace Abbott.....Turnbull is more to the left of politics and would have to be an asset for Labor....Labor would also relish Turnbull as Prime Miniter.


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> If even the staunch supporters of the Liberal party admit they have lost the plot, then I don't see much hope for them at the next election.
> 
> What a shame.




They need to keep just enough support to win the next election.  It will be the poisoned challice.

That said, with Hockey mouthing:



> “It’s in our DNA to want to deliver further tax cuts and we will in the run-up to the election”…
> 
> “The budget deficit is coming down and when I release the final budget numbers for the last 12 months, people will see actually we beat expectations”…




prepare for him to be eating humble pie wrapped in the proverbial sheet sandwich come time for the next budget.

Real per capita NDI has years further to fall in sympathy with the falling ToT (still some 30% above it's historical avg).

It would be easier to manage the coming slow down if they didn't have all the Abbott captain's picks of no changes to NG / CGT / Super taxation.  They're in an increasingly tight economic straight jacket and they can't quite work out why it's not as easy as when they were members of the Howard Govt.

Pay for tax cuts with reform on NG, remove CGT concessions, limit the level of super tax concessions and use some of that money to make the pension better for the majority, help the states move towards broadly based land taxes to fund the services they're responsible for, and then you'll find witht he removal of these distortions in the economy that you can reduce income and corporate taxation to make us more competitive.

Seems the Govt has a spine when they're sending others to fight a war, but they're p!$$ weak when they need to show even an ounce of ticker to tackle some true economic reform.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> If even the staunch supporters of the Liberal party admit they have lost the plot, then I don't see much hope for them at the next election.
> 
> What a shame.




Martin Ferguson thinks the same about the LUG party....(Labor, unions and the Greens.)


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> If even the staunch supporters of the Liberal party admit they have lost the plot, then I don't see much hope for them at the next election.
> 
> What a shame.




That is where you let yourself down, I'm not a staunch supporter of any party, I say it as I see it. 
Just because I don't align with what the newspapers or media have to say, doesn't  mean I am staunch Liberal.

I voted for the Coalition, on the back of two terms of poor Labor Government, 
I up to now haven't been overly impressed with the Coalition. 
With the exception of the border policy, there really hasn't been anything to write home about.

It doesn't necessarily follow then that I will vote for Liberal or Labor, at this point I would hope someone will stand up and show some leadership potential. 

All I see at the moment are, one side of politics wanting to reign in welfare, and the other side wanting to increase taxes to fund more welfare. 
Neither is a long term solution to a structural problem, but it is certainly polarising for the community, which isn't helpful.

Maybe the media can tell us who will improve things, they seem to know everything, and plenty parrot them.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> Maybe the media can tell us who will improve things, they seem to know everything, and plenty parrot them.




I'm sure Rupert will do just that.

Didn't he have lunch with Hockey the other day ?

Any coincidence that Hockey makes himself the Minister for the Republic while Abbott is out of town ?

As Jim Hacker once said "one day you are out of your office, the next day you are out of office".


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> I'm sure Rupert will do just that.
> 
> Didn't he have lunch with Hockey the other day ?
> 
> Any coincidence that Hockey makes himself the Minister for the Republic while Abbott is out of town ?
> 
> As Jim Hacker once said "one day you are out of your office, the next day you are out of office".




There you go. and you have the gall to call someone else, one eyed.

I think it has already been shown that Rupert has a fraction of the clout Fairfax has, and we all know who they hate.lol


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> There you go. and you have the gall to call someone else, one eyed.
> 
> I think it has already been shown that Rupert has a fraction of the clout Fairfax has, and we all know who they hate.lol




I would vote for a good Coalition government if one came along.

Howard was twice the leader Abbott is, even if he was shortsighted and visionless and a spendthrift.

Maybe Morrison does need a run so we can suss him out before we make another electoral blunder.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> I would vote for a good Coalition government if one came along.
> 
> Howard was twice the leader Abbott is, even if he was shortsighted and visionless and a spendthrift.
> 
> Maybe Morrison does need a run so we can suss him out before we make another electoral blunder.




That makes more sense to me.

I don't agree with the assumption, that because Abbott is performing badly, Shorten should be given a go.

The agenda is there to be taken, neither Abbott or Shorten have what it takes to drive the agenda, someone needs to stand up.
Give Australia some goals, visions, aspirations, something to strive for other than a certain slide in living standards.

Is there any wonder 'ice' is taking over, unemployed young people with nothing to do, is always a recipe for problems.

Maybe a period of national service may help, at least it gives people something to do, gives them life skills.

Nothing could soul destroying than inter generational unemployment, it must be terrible and difficult to break.


----------



## Logique

Logique said:


> ...Make the vulnerable suffer, seems to be their standard response...



Explaining what I mean by this in the quotation below. 

Noco - I understand your thoughts, but if you've been following the Royal Commission, do you really want this venal Opposition Leader to be the next PM?



> http://www.theguardian.com/australi...strous-first-budget-fell-apart-brick-by-brick
> *How the* [Hockey's first] *budget fell apart, in full*
> 
> Medicare co-payments plans – modified and sidelined before fin*ally being scrapped
> 
> The 2014-15 budget plan to introduce a $7 co-payment was dropped in December.  A plan to cut the rebate for some GP visits by $5 for adult non-concession patients but leave the option for doctors to recoup the $5 from patients was dumped.  A plan to slash the rebate for short consultations by $20 was also binned in January.  Now there is a full review of Medicare, in consultation with doctors and patient groups. Rebates remain frozen until 2018...


----------



## noco

Logique said:


> Explaining what I mean by this in the quotation below.
> 
> Noco - I understand your thoughts, but if you've been following the Royal Commission, do you really want this venal Opposition Leader to be the next PM?




Shorten would be the last bloke I would chose.....He is too under handed for my liking.


----------



## Tisme

noco said:


> Shorten would be the last bloke I would chose.....He is too under handed for my liking.




I think back biting, white anting, lying, two facing, cheating on the electorate, et cetera are not the sole and exclusive domain of Labor pollies Noco. Putting trust in any politician is like looking to an actor for social and moral guidance.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Shorten would be the last bloke I would chose.....He is too under handed for my liking.




But you were so enamoured with Chopper Bishop.  The least partisan speaker of the house ever, well according to Bolt and News Ltd.


----------



## Knobby22

sptrawler said:


> That makes more sense to me.
> 
> I don't agree with the assumption, that because Abbott is performing badly, Shorten should be given a go.
> 
> .




Please don't let it be an Abbott vs Shorten election.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> But you were so enamoured with Chopper Bishop.  The least partisan speaker of the house ever, well according to Bolt and News Ltd.




Syd, I do not know how you came to that conclusion......I had no time for what  Bishop did and she deserved all she got.

You seem to have a history of getting things wrong.


----------



## Tisme

Yeah well




> AFP to be investigated over its refusal to examine whether Bronwyn Bishop broke the law - Bevan Shields
> "The Australian Federal Police's refusal to examine whether Bronwyn Bishop broke any laws by chartering a taxpayer-funded helicopter to a Liberal Party fundraiser is under investigation.
> A loophole that allows federal politicians to secretly repay wrongly claimed entitlements without the public knowing will also be scrutinised by the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
> 
> Labor and members of the public asked the AFP to investigate Ms Bishop's helicopter ride in July at the height of the furore over the former speaker's lavish spending habits. Ms Bishop eventually resigned.
> But the AFP refused to investigate - citing the so-called 'Minchin Protocol' - and referred the complaints to the Department of Finance.
> a member of the public unhappy with the AFP's actions show there are grounds for an investigation into the AFP's general use of the Minchin Protocol, as well as its explanation for refusing to investigate Ms Bishop's spending.
> The Ombudsman's operations director, Anne-Maree Harrison, has been assigned the investigation."


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> Yeah well




I wouldn't give much for the Ombudsman's job now. He or she will probably be given the Triggs treatment by Abbott & Co.


----------



## sydboy007

I feel Abbott wants to turn the country into a police state, though he's doing a p!$$ poor effort.  Venal politics once again instead of actual policy.

Very expensive but innefectual data retention laws that can be avoided by anyone with a primary school understanding of how to avoid detection.

Then we have the para military looking border force.  When did Abbott receive a mandate to allow some quasi police force to sent out it's troops into a capital city and then interrogate anyone they feel like for no reason?  Seems that all are guilty until proven innocent.  Are we going to be required to carry our passport and birth certificate to ensure we're not locked up till some Govt offical decides we are citizens?

Hopefully the negative reaction to this has stopped a very dangerous can of worms from being opened.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> I feel Abbott wants to turn the country into a police state, though he's doing a p!$$ poor effort.  Venal politics once again instead of actual policy.
> 
> Very expensive but innefectual data retention laws that can be avoided by anyone with a primary school understanding of how to avoid detection.
> 
> Then we have the para military looking border force.  When did Abbott receive a mandate to allow some quasi police force to sent out it's troops into a capital city and then interrogate anyone they feel like for no reason?  Seems that all are guilty until proven innocent.  Are we going to be required to carry our passport and birth certificate to ensure we're not locked up till some Govt offical decides we are citizens?
> 
> Hopefully the negative reaction to this has stopped a very dangerous can of worms from being opened.
> 
> View attachment 64090




It's absurd that a government would think of doing something so intrusive as apparently picking people at random in the street and demanding to see their id. No doubt the idea of an ex cop like Dutton trying to turn the country into a police State. 

Abbott should sack this idiot now before the whole thing blows up in his face like so many things have done before.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> It's absurd that a government would think of doing something so intrusive as apparently picking people at random in the street and demanding to see their id. No doubt the idea of an ex cop like Dutton trying to turn the country into a police State.
> 
> Abbott should sack this idiot now before the whole thing blows up in his face like so many things have done before.





So Rumpy, you and Sydboy condone illegal immigrants roaming the streets at will and breaking the law with overstayed visas.....How many could be terrorists?......you would not know and probably do not care.......If you lived in a communist state I doubt you would get away with it.

Look, it is not that agree with the way the Victorian Government and the AFP went about their task as I am sure there are better ways of doing it.

From what I understand is when an overseas visitor enters the country on a study or work visa, they are normally nominated by a sponsor, so I do not see any reason why the authorities cannot go to their sponsor and seek their whereabouts....If the sponsor states they do not know, then they should be held accountable.....

If in the case of a holiday visa, sooner or later those who have broken the law will have to seek employment to live and this where employers could play a role.

Where there is a will there is a a way.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> So Rumpy, you and Sydboy condone illegal immigrants roaming the streets at will and breaking the law with overstayed visas.....How many could be terrorists?......you would not know and probably do not care.......If you lived in a communist state I doubt you would get away with it.
> 
> Look, it is not that agree with the way the Victorian Government and the AFP went about their task as I am sure there are better ways of doing it.
> 
> From what I understand is when an overseas visitor enters the country on a study or work visa, they are normally nominated by a sponsor, so I do not see any reason why the authorities cannot go to their sponsor and seek their whereabouts....If the sponsor states they do not know, then they should be held accountable.....
> 
> If in the case of a holiday visa, sooner or later those who have broken the law will have to seek employment to live and this where employers could play a role.
> 
> Where there is a will there is a a way.




Yes noco, ensuring that people who overstay their visa are deported is part of the immigration Departments job. 

It's not part of the Border Protection Force's job, and the way it was handled smacks of a political exercise, not a police exercise.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Yes noco, ensuring that people who overstay their visa are deported is part of the immigration Departments job.
> 
> It's not part of the Border Protection Force's job, and the way it was handled smacks of a political exercise, not a police exercise.




How do you claim it to be a political exercise?....What has politics got to do with it?...Wasn't the Victorian Labor government also involved?

I also believe the Border Protection Force embraced several agencies including the Immigration Department....It is a shame the LUG Party are more than happy to allow illegal immigrants and those who overstay on a visa  to break the rules and in particular the Labor Party's  comrade Sarah Hanson-Young.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> How do you claim it to be a political exercise?....What has politics got to do with it?...Wasn't the Victorian Labor government also involved?




I was a bungled effort by the Border Protection Force (Federal Minister Peter Dutton) to try and look tough by issuing such statements as



> Officers will be positioned at various locations around the city and will speak "*with any individual we cross paths with"*, ABF regional commander for Victoria and Tasmania Don Smith said in a statement.




my bolds
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-...eck-visas-on-the-streets-of-melbourne/6732086

So, you may have been wandering down Collins Street and if you looked a bit foreign may be asked for a visa and if you couldn't produce it, what then ?

As you yourself said, there are better ways of doing this sort of thing, so why did they pick that one, and then have to backflip when people complained ?


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> So Rumpy, you and Sydboy condone illegal immigrants roaming the streets at will and breaking the law with overstayed visas.....How many could be terrorists?......you would not know and probably do not care.......If you lived in a communist state I doubt you would get away with it.
> 
> Look, it is not that agree with the way the Victorian Government and the AFP went about their task as I am sure there are better ways of doing it.
> 
> From what I understand is when an overseas visitor enters the country on a study or work visa, they are normally nominated by a sponsor, so I do not see any reason why the authorities cannot go to their sponsor and seek their whereabouts....If the sponsor states they do not know, then they should be held accountable.....
> 
> If in the case of a holiday visa, sooner or later those who have broken the law will have to seek employment to live and this where employers could play a role.
> 
> Where there is a will there is a a way.




So you attack us as being easy for immigrants overstaying their visas, yet I've repeatedly said I'd like to see a large cut in immigration until we have an open and honest debate on how we fund the infrastructure required to house a new Perth worth of population every 3 to 4 years.

You then go on to say you don't actually support what the Govt had proposed, nor did you understand that it wasn't the AFP working with Victorian Police but a new quasi police force formed from the combination of Customs and Border staff.  So you accept the basis of my argument but still want to criticise.

You then go on to propose some more reasonable ideas, but remember that companies bringing in workers under 457 Visas have a very poor history of compliance, so possibly it would be good to start "small" by enforcing the rules with 457 visa workers and ensuring a very high rate of compliance, then using the lessons learned for other areas.  That way when the CHaFTA is signed we might have a chance of ensuring the Chinese companies don't import cheap labor by the A380 load.

The majority of Visa overstays have historically been from the UK and USA.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I was a bungled effort by the Border Protection Force (Federal Minister Peter Dutton) to try and look tough by issuing such statements as
> 
> 
> 
> my bolds
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-...eck-visas-on-the-streets-of-melbourne/6732086
> 
> So, you may have been wandering down Collins Street and if you looked a bit foreign may be asked for a visa and if you couldn't produce it, what then ?
> 
> As you yourself said, there are better ways of doing this sort of thing, so why did they pick that one, and then have to backflip when people complained ?




Rumpy, I do not know what you are carrying on about, I have already told you I disagree about the way they went about it....END OF STORY.....


----------



## awg

noco said:


> How do you claim it to be a political exercise?....What has politics got to do with it?...Wasn't the Victorian Labor government also involved?




 These guys even wear black shirts dont they?  What a strangely worded announcement..who could have possibly conceived such a half-baked implementation.

Apparently Dutton has to authorise such an operation, with Abbot away, seems like communications might have gone awry on this one ? 

Expect ABC Insiders will be all over it Sunday


----------



## IFocus

noco said:


> So Rumpy, you and Sydboy condone illegal immigrants roaming the streets at will and breaking the law with overstayed visas.....How many could be terrorists?......you would not know and probably do not care.......If you lived in a communist state I doubt you would get away with it.




The implications of the Border Force Nazi uniformed stooges marching down Australian cities main streets demanding ID and proof of Australian citizenship is at best chilling.

I believe they indeed have the legal right to do this.

The fact it was stopped due to protest is absolutely terrifying because if it was necessary then they would have proceeded regardless.

They haven't proceeded so we can safely assume it was a complete political stunt  (as was the formation) gone wrong with people waking up to the seriousness of a police authoritarian state run by a complete loser (Dutton)

How many flags will Abbott stand in front of to grandly announce what a great job Border Force is doing.


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> The implications of the Border Force Nazi uniformed stooges marching down Australian cities main streets demanding ID and proof of Australian citizenship is at best chilling.
> 
> I believe they indeed have the legal right to do this.
> 
> The fact it was stopped due to protest is absolutely terrifying because if it was necessary then they would have proceeded regardless.
> 
> They haven't proceeded so we can safely assume it was a complete political stunt  (as was the formation) gone wrong with people waking up to the seriousness of a police authoritarian state run by a complete loser (Dutton)
> 
> How many flags will Abbott stand in front of to grandly announce what a great job Border Force is doing.




Mate, you are as bad as Rumpy wanted to make a big deal with me over this incident.

Didn't you read my post where I stated I did not agree as to the way they went about it.

For Christ sake get over it,...You have got it wrong again.

My post # 7378 ...my bolds.

*Look, it is not that agree with the way the Victorian Government and the AFP went about their task as I am sure there are better ways of doing it.*


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Mate, you are as bad as Rumpy wanted to make a big deal with me over this incident.
> 
> Didn't you read my post where I stated I did not agree as to the way they went about it.
> 
> For Christ sake get over it,...You have got it wrong again.
> 
> My post # 7378 ...my bolds.
> 
> *Look, it is not that agree with the way the Victorian Government and the AFP went about their task as I am sure there are better ways of doing it.*




Then you asked why I thought it was a political exercise and I told you, after which you went off the deep end.


----------



## drsmith

awg said:


> Apparently Dutton has to authorise such an operation, with Abbot away, seems like communications might have gone awry on this one ?



That's where I'd lay the blame if there was government involvement.

He was shifted out of health and into what is now largely a caretaker portfolio for a reason.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Then you asked why I thought it was a political exercise and I told you, after which you went off the deep end.




How was it political?....Was it an attempt to embarrass the LUG party.....The only thing I can see what you are driving out is a brick wall.

Get over it.....I am, and I will not carry on with any more  such stupidity with you.


----------



## McLovin

If some noddy in a blackshirt approaches me on the street asking to see my papers I will tell him in no uncertain terms to get f*cked.

What is the Australian Border Force anyway and why are they wearing those ridiculous Stasiesque uniforms?

It's a ridiculous marketing exercise by the government. Give 'em new uniforms and a strong sounding name.


----------



## overhang

noco said:


> How was it political?....Was it an attempt to embarrass the LUG party.....The only thing I can see what you are driving out is a brick wall.
> 
> Get over it.....I am, and I will not carry on with any more  such stupidity with you.




Because the government has asked for weekly security PR that they can announce up until the election and what a way to do it, I know I'll feel a lot safer with that backpacker overstaying their working holiday now out of the country, thank you Mr Abbott. 


> A meeting of the National Security Committee of the cabinet has, however, recently asked for a list of national-security-related things that could be announced weekly between now and the election.



http://www.afr.com/opinion/columnis...hitlam-government-of-our-time-20150813-giy574

The Abbott government is trying to win the next election on a fear mongering national security campaign, he has contacted the US and begged them to make a formal request to Australia to join the bombing in Syria even though every military expert has said that Australia is not needed but yet Abbott is happy to put our tax pay dollars bombing a country so that he can win votes by claiming he is defeating the "death cult" when even the yanks have said they don't know how to fight IS.


----------



## SirRumpole

I wouldn't put it past this lot to plant a phony bomb somewhere then make a big noise about finding it and what a great job they are doing to protect our National Security.


----------



## McLovin

This is the slippery slope that started with the meta data collection. I remember on here a few posters said they didn't care because if you weren't doing anything wrong blah blah blah. Well now we have a government that has tested the water with having spot visa checks on the street to see what the reaction would be. Slippery slope. Give them an inch they're taking a mile.


----------



## sydboy007

McLovin said:


> This is the slippery slope that started with the meta data collection. I remember on here a few posters said they didn't care because if you weren't doing anything wrong blah blah blah. Well now we have a government that has tested the water with having spot visa checks on the street to see what the reaction would be. Slippery slope. Give them an inch they're taking a mile.




That was my feeling too.  A toe in the water to see what the public reaction would be.  If no stink they'd quickly roll it out all over the country and then we'd start to see real mission creep.

It's sad they think we need to be made into the very countries they say they are protecting us from.


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> The implications of the Border Force Nazi uniformed stooges marching down Australian cities main streets demanding ID and proof of Australian citizenship is at best chilling.
> 
> I believe they indeed have the legal right to do this.




Yes it is just like the CFMEU, BLF or the MUA  heavies, on a picket line.

Demanding proof of union membership.lol

We are a society of double standards. Our hypocrisy is beyond belief.

Not  that I agree with the behaviour of either party, just showing that we already accept that sort of behaviour.lol

We just find it more repulsive, when it isn't focused on our own.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> Yes it is just like the CFMEU, BLF or the MUA  heavies, on a picket line.
> 
> Demanding proof of union membership.lol
> 
> We are a society of double standards. Our hypocrisy is beyond belief.




So one excuses the other does it ?

The majority vote for dills like Dutton and we have every right to express our opinions on the actions of government.

And what makes you think people who criticise operation "Fortitude" don't have a similar opinion of union pickets ?


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> So one excuses the other does it ?
> 
> The majority vote for dills like Dutton and we have every right to express our opinions on the actions of government.
> 
> And what makes you think people who criticise operation "Fortitude" don't have a similar opinion of union pickets ?




Here you go again putting words in my mouth.

Did I say one excuses the other?

Did I say I agreed with one or the other?

Well Bill Shorten, doesn't have the same opinion.


----------



## IFocus

sptrawler said:


> Yes it is just like the CFMEU, BLF or the MUA  heavies, on a picket line.
> 
> .





Unions are a collective force for workers and their rights and improvements to condition pay etc.

Border Force is a paramilitary force that can lawfully kick your door in and arrest you for J walking or not having ID. 

tell me again what the likeness is?

BTW McLovin's point about telling them where to go would result in quite a serious offense.


----------



## luutzu

Since "border force" officers are being unleashed on us far away from the borders, does it mean the Abbott gov't has fail its sovereign border controls and are now chasing for illegals all over the country?


----------



## sptrawler

IFocus said:


> Unions are a collective force for workers and their rights and improvements to condition pay etc.



That's what they used to be, that's what they should be, then maybe they wouldn't have a problem with workers becoming disenfranchised with them.
Which has resulted in an ever decreasing membership.



IFocus said:


> Border Force is a paramilitary force that can lawfully kick your door in and arrest you for J walking or not having ID.
> tell me again what the likeness is?




That is a really emotional nonsensical statement, the fisheries department can do that already.

What your really saying is who gives a rats if people are overstaying their visas, taking our jobs, as long as they aren't catching maron out of season.

Your logic cracks me up/


----------



## McLovin

IFocus said:


> BTW McLovin's point about telling them where to go would result in quite a serious offense.




I'll wear the fine. I'll take it to court. I've got a mate who's a criminal barrister. He loves these sort of cases. 

Why on Earth have we created _another_ police force (that apparently doesn't even know its own powers)? The boats were stopped. So what exactly was the purpose of this except for a bit of security circle jerk?


----------



## sptrawler

McLovin said:


> I'll wear the fine. I'll take it to court. I've got a mate who's a criminal barrister. He loves these sort of cases.
> 
> Why on Earth have we created _another_ police force (that apparently doesn't even know its own powers)? The boats were stopped. So what exactly was the purpose of this except for a bit of security circle jerk?




Now that is a reasonable response.

All the other white noise, is typical anti Abbott tripe.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> So one excuses the other does it ?
> 
> The majority vote for dills like Dutton and we have every right to express our opinions on the actions of government.
> 
> And what makes you think people who criticise operation "Fortitude" don't have a similar opinion of union pickets ?




Check your facts Rumpy.

Dutton, Abbott and the government had nothing to do with it...They did not even know about it.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Check your facts Rumpy.
> 
> Dutton, Abbott and the government had nothing to do with it...They did not even know about it.




Where did you get that info ?

Dutton is the Minister, he is responsible for his Department. I suppose some underling could have had a bright idea without consulting Dutton, but usually bureaucrats act on what they think their Minister wants.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Where did you get that info ?
> 
> Dutton is the Minister, he is responsible for his Department. I suppose some underling could have had a bright idea without consulting Dutton, but usually bureaucrats act on what they think their Minister wants.





From Yahoo 7 news.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/29383435/pm-says-border-force-operation-a-mistake/


PM says Border Force operation a mistake

    AAP
    August 30, 2015, 3:31 am

Share

*Prime Minister Tony Abbott has distanced himself from the cancelled Australian Border Force operation, saying he had no prior knowledge of it.

Mr Abbott said the agency obviously made a mistake by issuing a poorly worded and over-the-top news release that outlined plans for random visa spot checks in Melbourne at the weekend.

Such operational releases are often issued by agencies at arm's length from ministers and the government, he said.

The prime minister reassured the public his government had no plans to stop people at random to check their visa details.

But Labor is demanding the government take responsibility for the affair.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has described the operation as one of the government's most "catastrophically silly" ideas.*

Of course the puppet of the LUG Party , barnacle Bill has jumped on the band wagon.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> From Yahoo 7 news.
> 
> https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/29383435/pm-says-border-force-operation-a-mistake/




So, when was the media release advising that Border Force were going to be working witht eh Vic Polic released?

I think it was last Wednesday, possibly earlier in the week.

How does the PM, let alone Dutton, not know about this on Friday?  iF it was al just a silly mistake, why did it take so long to be fixed?  From the sounds of it things only changed after the Vic Police told Border Force to get stuffed.

The media release was based on quotes from the The Victoria / Tasmania area commander for Border Force Don Smith.  It wasn't something a low level employee decided to add to a media release.  One would think that quotes from someone up that high in the Border Force command structure would be reliable, would have been signaled back through the chain of command to the minister and on to the PM before the media release was authorised.

If this didn't happen then Don Smith needs to reconsider whether he's up to the task he's been assigned.

This was dog whistle politics, to see how much support or opposition would occur.

Fortunately Border Force and the Govt have been put into their place.

Now if only we could get the Govt to reconsider their internet tax meta data laws we might see some real progress in protecting our civil liberties.


----------



## awg

As far as I am aware, one is not legally required to carry ID in Australia, except under some situations such as driving, flying etc. 

An example of a situation where no ID is carried may be just going for a walk.

If an officer has "reasonable cause", they can ask for you name, address and age, which you are obliged to supply

You are not required to answer any further questions

Traditionally, you risk being charged with offensive language and resist arrest if you are seen to be un-cooperative

I am unsure on whether it is legally permitted to pull out ones mobile phone and record in ALL situations.

In full public view, yes, however, in a one-on-one situation with only Police (or Border Force) present, I do not know whether it is illegal to record the interaction ?

I believe they will claim this to be the case...can anyone clarify?


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> So, when was the media release advising that Border Force were going to be working witht eh Vic Polic released?
> 
> I think it was last Wednesday, possibly earlier in the week.
> 
> How does the PM, let alone Dutton, not know about this on Friday?  iF it was al just a silly mistake, why did it take so long to be fixed?  From the sounds of it things only changed after the Vic Police told Border Force to get stuffed.
> 
> The media release was based on quotes from the The Victoria / Tasmania area commander for Border Force Don Smith.  It wasn't something a low level employee decided to add to a media release.  One would think that quotes from someone up that high in the Border Force command structure would be reliable, would have been signaled back through the chain of command to the minister and on to the PM before the media release was authorised.
> 
> If this didn't happen then Don Smith needs to reconsider whether he's up to the task he's been assigned.
> 
> This was dog whistle politics, to see how much support or opposition would occur.
> 
> Fortunately Border Force and the Govt have been put into their place.
> 
> Now if only we could get the Govt to reconsider their internet tax meta data laws we might see some real progress in protecting our civil liberties.




I guess you are entitled to your opinion be it right or wrong.


----------



## McLovin

awg said:


> As far as I am aware, one is not legally required to carry ID in Australia, except under some situations such as driving, flying etc.
> 
> An example of a situation where no ID is carried may be just going for a walk.
> 
> If an officer has "reasonable cause", they can ask for you name, address and age, which you are obliged to supply
> 
> You are not required to answer any further questions
> 
> Traditionally, you risk being charged with offensive language and resist arrest if you are seen to be un-cooperative
> 
> I am unsure on whether it is legally permitted to pull out ones mobile phone and record in ALL situations.
> 
> In full public view, yes, however, in a one-on-one situation with only Police (or Border Force) present, I do not know whether it is illegal to record the interaction ?
> 
> I believe they will claim this to be the case...can anyone clarify?




Here's the law on ID in NSW...



> Other circumstances when you have to give your name and address:
> - If you are suspected of committing an offence on a train or railway property
> 
> - If police suspect that you are under 18 and you are carrying or consuming alcohol in a public place— they may also require you to provide proof of age (if you are under 18 they may take your alcohol)
> 
> - If police suspect that you were at or near the scene of a serious offence and that you may have information that would assist them
> 
> -If police are trying to serve a fine default warrant
> 
> - If police have emergency public disorder powers and you are in a target area, and the police suspect that you have been or may become involved in a large-scale public disorder
> - If police suspect that an Apprehended Violence Order has been made against you they can request you to disclose your identity
> 
> - When the police give you a 'move on direction' if your identity is unknown to the police.




You can record any interaction you have with police until you are placed under arrest at which point you shut up until you have a lawyer. 

Using obscene language is not resisting arrest, unless they made it known they were placing you under arrest. Of course to place someone under arrest they need to make the person aware of the offence they have committed, and refusing to identify yourself is not an offence.


----------



## drsmith

drsmith said:


> That's where I'd lay the blame if there was government involvement.
> 
> He was shifted out of health and into what is now largely a caretaker portfolio for a reason.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-...e-received-border-force-press-release/6735584



> Peter Dutton's office received an advanced copy of the press release saying Australian Border Force officers would be cracking down on visa fraud but no-one read it, the Immigration Minister says.




Fairfax overreach,



> CORRECTION: An earlier version of this column incorrectly asserted that the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, was involved in the decision to launch a planned Border Force operation in Melbourne. Fairfax Media accepts unreservedly that Mr Abbott was not involved in this decision, and also accepts that Mr Abbott had no foreknowledge of the Border Force plan to stop and speak to people about their visa status.




http://www.smh.com.au/comment/borde...ls-the-leadership-vacuum-20150828-gja8cj.html


----------



## sptrawler

drsmith said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-...e-received-border-force-press-release/6735584
> 
> 
> 
> Fairfax overreach,
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/comment/borde...ls-the-leadership-vacuum-20150828-gja8cj.html





Faifax smear for days, get everyone wound up, then say oops we were wrong.

Sounds normal to me. 

They certainly have it in for Abbott.

It had all the laborites on here excited, must be a bit of a let down for them.
Not to worry there will be another load of tripe rolled out by Fairfax next week, to get them all revved up and frothing at the mouth. Chooks.IMO


----------



## banco

McLovin said:


> I'll wear the fine. I'll take it to court. I've got a mate who's a criminal barrister. He loves these sort of cases.
> 
> Why on Earth have we created _another_ police force (that apparently doesn't even know its own powers)? The boats were stopped. So what exactly was the purpose of this except for a bit of security circle jerk?




Abbott's reelection hinges on a security circle jerk.


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Faifax smear for days, get everyone wound up, then say oops we were wrong.
> 
> Sounds normal to me.
> 
> They certainly have it in for Abbott.
> 
> It had all the laborites on here excited, must be a bit of a let down for them.
> Not to worry there will be another load of tripe rolled out by Fairfax next week, to get them all revved up and frothing at the mouth. Chooks.IMO




So the question is have they put someone who's competent enough to run the Victoria and Tasmania offices of Border Force?  

Why did it take till Friday before the mistake was acknowledged and sorted out?  The press release was in the wild on Thursday.  If it had been knocked on the head fairly quickly I'd tend to believe the Govt story of someone being a bit silly and over reaching, but when it was left for over a day before finally being canned, it just makes me wonder if it was a test to see what the reaction would be to this kind of "policing"

I don't understand how Dutton can say the media release was poorly written when it was quoting a senior member of the Border Force and what they were expecting their officers to do over this weekend.  Exactly how has the public misinterpreted _"speaking with any individual we cross paths with"_?


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> Faifax smear for days, get everyone wound up, then say oops we were wrong.
> 
> Sounds normal to me.
> 
> They certainly have it in for Abbott.
> 
> It had all the laborites on here excited, must be a bit of a let down for them.
> Not to worry there will be another load of tripe rolled out by Fairfax next week, to get them all revved up and frothing at the mouth. Chooks.IMO




The LUG party got it wrong again...egg on face.


----------



## banco

sydboy007 said:


> So the question is have they put someone who's competent enough to run the Victoria and Tasmania offices of Border Force?
> 
> Why did it take till Friday before the mistake was acknowledged and sorted out?  The press release was in the wild on Thursday.  If it had been knocked on the head fairly quickly I'd tend to believe the Govt story of someone being a bit silly and over reaching, but when it was left for over a day before finally being canned, it just makes me wonder if it was a test to see what the reaction would be to this kind of "policing"
> 
> I don't understand how Dutton can say the media release was poorly written when it was quoting a senior member of the Border Force and what they were expecting their officers to do over this weekend.  Exactly how has the public misinterpreted _"speaking with any individual we cross paths with"_?
> 
> View attachment 64101




Read this on twitter: "It was only supposed to inspire fear and complicity. Not outrage and protest. We are sorry it was poorly worded".


----------



## SirRumpole

banco said:


> Read this on twitter: "It was only supposed to inspire fear and complicity. Not outrage and protest. We are sorry it was poorly worded".




Who said that ?


----------



## banco

SirRumpole said:


> Who said that ?




Some journalist being sarcastic,


----------



## McLovin

banco said:


> Abbott's reelection hinges on a security circle jerk.




No argument from me. Khaki is the new black.


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> So the question is have they put someone who's competent enough to run the Victoria and Tasmania offices of Border Force?




Actually I think the question is, why is everyone so quick to jump to conclusions, just because the media say something.

I find most reporting these days appalling, usually flawed and often inaccurate.

The media is so preoccupied with trying to get to press, accuracy and authenticity, is secondary.IMO

The story has to be at least three days old, before the facts, can be regarded as anywhere near accurate.IMO


----------



## noco

sptrawler said:


> Actually I think the question is, why is everyone so quick to jump to conclusions, just because the media say something.
> 
> I find most reporting these days appalling, usually flawed and often inaccurate.
> 
> The media is so preoccupied with trying to get to press, accuracy and authenticity, is secondary.IMO
> 
> The story has to be at least three days old, before the facts, can be regarded as anywhere near accurate.IMO




It all generally come from the Abbott haters....GOTCHA....GOTCHA...GOTCHA.

It is absolute b#ll $hit the way the modern media carry on....But there again that is the Fabians at work.

Criticize the government and discredit Abbott.

Control the media and you take control of those naive people out there who cannot think for themselves.


----------



## Smurf1976

All this fuss about people illegally entering Australia would make a lot more sense if we were actually trying to protect something.

With manufacturing all but dead, 457's displacing local workers, selling vast areas of the country to foreign interests and yet another "free" trade agreement there's not a lot left to protect against in the first place apart from actual real acts of terrorism. 

If the aim is to stop terrorists then checking visas on the streets of Melbourne seems an awfully inefficient way to go about it. If someone's not supposed to be here then they could simply choose to not carry any ID. So long as they're not driving, flying or in a pub then that ought not raise any real attention in itself. 

The whole concept of checking ID's on the street would only ever identify those who have nothing to hide. Anyone else would simply not carry any ID, right?

I see that Kevin Rudd has been on TV overseas as a guest news anchor. The future for Abbott and Co is more likely to be in comedy I expect.


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> All this fuss about people illegally entering Australia would make a lot more sense if we were actually trying to protect something.
> 
> With manufacturing all but dead, 457's displacing local workers, selling vast areas of the country to foreign interests and yet another "free" trade agreement there's not a lot left to protect against in the first place apart from actual real acts of terrorism.




Maybe you can tell me what company Australia owns smurph? 
I normally agree with you completely, but can you tell me where you are going to raise the money, to build the infrastructure to support our lifestyle?

Over here in the West I'm seeing improved process controls, decimating highly skilled process control jobs, it is pretty scary and I'm retired. But a lot of the younger guys, who were laid off 6 months ago are realising how scary it is.

I also realise any capital expenditure to install new industry, is going to be hard to raise with Australian IPO's.

How are we going to fund capital investment in Australia? Or do we just all say who gives a rats, we will just take the Tassie welfare option. It won't work.

IMO the only difference between Liberal and Labor is. one is going to tell you this will hurt, the other will say, this won't hurt.lol


----------



## luutzu

Smurf1976 said:


> All this fuss about people illegally entering Australia would make a lot more sense if we were actually trying to protect something.
> 
> With manufacturing all but dead, 457's displacing local workers, selling vast areas of the country to foreign interests and yet another "free" trade agreement there's not a lot left to protect against in the first place apart from actual real acts of terrorism.
> 
> If the aim is to stop terrorists then checking visas on the streets of Melbourne seems an awfully inefficient way to go about it. If someone's not supposed to be here then they could simply choose to not carry any ID. So long as they're not driving, flying or in a pub then that ought not raise any real attention in itself.
> 
> The whole concept of checking ID's on the street would only ever identify those who have nothing to hide. Anyone else would simply not carry any ID, right?
> 
> I see that Kevin Rudd has been on TV overseas as a guest news anchor. The future for Abbott and Co is more likely to be in comedy I expect.




It's not to check for IDs or Visa.. that's just an excuse.

It's to stop and check who you are, who you're with, what you're carrying.

It's a pedestrian version of a random breathe test.

There might be something in the Constitution about presumed innocence and private property, just cause and suspicion and freedom and stuff, so you can't just pull people over whenever you like if they're driving legally. So you introduce random breathe test...

Since you can't pull a person taking a walk for breathe testing, you check his "visa"... then while you're at it, crank up the metadata too.


----------



## luutzu

sptrawler said:


> Maybe you can tell me what company Australia owns smurph?
> I normally agree with you completely, but can you tell me where you are going to raise the money, to build the infrastructure to support our lifestyle?
> 
> Over here in the West I'm seeing improved process controls, decimating highly skilled process control jobs, it is pretty scary and I'm retired. But a lot of the younger guys, who were laid off 6 months ago are realising how scary it is.
> 
> I also realise any capital expenditure to install new industry, is going to be hard to raise with Australian IPO's.
> 
> How are we going to fund capital investment in Australia? Or do we just all say who gives a rats, we will just take the Tassie welfare option. It won't work.
> 
> IMO the only difference between Liberal and Labor is. one is going to tell you this will hurt, the other will say, this won't hurt.lol




I thought taxation usually do the job?

Apparently our gov't couldn't even name and shame big corp tax dodgers.


----------



## Smurf1976

sptrawler said:


> Maybe you can tell me what company Australia owns smurph?
> I normally agree with you completely, but can you tell me where you are going to raise the money, to build the infrastructure to support our lifestyle?




I follow the points you raise however I don't see how keeping illegal immigrants out will fix them, indeed being seen as anti-immigration may make things worse if it gets to the point of scaring foreigners with $ away.

This "Border Force" checking people on the street is the kind of thing you'd expect as a prank filmed for a TV comedy show, not something that a government would actually do. Amazing.


----------



## sptrawler

luutzu said:


> I thought taxation usually do the job?
> 
> Apparently our gov't couldn't even name and shame big corp tax dodgers.




Well taxation can't even pay the welfare bill, let alone anything else. 
Maybe we should just give a massive tax break, to everyone who wants to open a food outlet, would you like fries with that.

The government can't even name a shame welfare bludgers, what chance do they have of naming and shaming sophisticated tax dodging companies.:1zhelp:

Give me a break, FW's led by FW's

Maybe when all the chardonay socialists, are on the bones of their ar$e, we might get some sensible discussion.lol


----------



## luutzu

sptrawler said:


> Well taxation can't even pay the welfare bill, let alone anything else.
> Maybe we should just give a massive tax break, to everyone who wants to open a food outlet, would you like fries with that.
> 
> The government can't even name a shame welfare bludgers, what chance do they have of naming and shaming sophisticated tax dodging companies.:1zhelp:
> 
> Give me a break, FW's led by FW's
> 
> Maybe when all the chardonay socialists, are on the bones of their ar$e, we might get some sensible discussion.lol




If you tax people and corporations properly you will, and then some.

Not only are those with good tax advisors not paying much tax, most don't even pay the legal amount of tax! And they can get away with it.


Those on welfare are being shamed alright. There will always be those who abuse the system, but for the honest and needy.. why must they be shamed?

I would have thought the shame would be with those in power, with those whose job it is to create economic growth, create jobs so that people do not have to rely on handouts.

A bit rich to fail at your job, force your people onto unemployment lines.. .then make policies that shame them, make it harder for them to receive help.

Not only is that morally bankrupt, it's also bad public policy.

One, it's always easier to help people when they just got into a tough spot. Leaving them there and their situation will get much much worst. Getting worst will either destroy their chances to get out and contribute to society; may also lead them towards crime and other anti-social behaviour - all of which will costs the public much more.

Two, welfare provide a security net for the vulnerable and desperate in society. That not only help the poor, it demonstrate the kind of society we ought to be - to have compassion for each other. That tend to be a good thing.

To make it hard, make it shameful, to imply laziness etc. towards those who need some help... who will that hurt? The criminals, the bastards who will abuse the system... you think they will feel shame or feel bad taking a few extra bucks?

Shaming welfare recipients will only hurt the honest.


But mainly, social security is not just security for the welfare of the poor - it's to secure the wealth of the rich. You remove that pittance of a payment that's between poverty and starvation and soon a large portion of your population will be poor and desperate... when enough of them are in that situation, the state will fall and with it the ruling class will have to flee to their other homes overseas somewhere.

Might sound far-fetched but it's only some 70 years ago that most of map of the world was redrawn. Russian Czars were gone only a bit over 100 years ago, most of European Royalties either became rubber stamps or have their heads handed to them around the same time; China's last Emperor was still alive until the 1980s or something; Vietnam/IndoChina was under the French only some 60 years ago...

---

The problem we have, and it seem to be worldwide, is we have a bunch of politicians who fancy themselves leaders yet does not seem to have read or understand any history... not even those only a few generations ago.

They all tend to dress up to commemorate WW1 and 2, give speeches about freedom and sacrifice and evil Nazis... then head to the Ball or the Opera. You would think with the annual speeches they'd at least wonder what led to those wars and those evils... nope.

Instead of learning that economies fail when wealth is not equitably distributed; societies and gov't collapse when the masses starves and the aristocrats tell them to eat cake and live in their forbidden cities... they systematically removes the safeguards their forefathers were smart enough to put in place just in time to save their country.

Not smart to remove the few circuit breakers that stops periodic uprisings and revolutions while kicking up the wealth disparities that have always ruin economies. Not smart.

This time it's global, and there's plenty of nukes to make it even more exciting.

Going to have my imported beer now   What's wrong with VB? They used to be nice, now it's like cheap tea.


----------



## noco

I believe the government should bring in a flat tax rate of 25% for all and no deduction perks..That would apply to PAYG WORKERS, BUSINESS AND LARGE CORPORATIONS.

Lift the GST to 15% with compensation to pensioners by way of increased payments.

A very simple system without a lot of scrutiny by the Tax department........We would also meed about half the staff in the Taxation Department.


----------



## Tisme

sydboy007 said:


> pic
> 
> View attachment 64101




I don't know how old you are syd, but back in the day, I think it was mid seventies, the WA traffic cops were kitted out with kawasaki bikes, jack boots and an SS style uniform. The cops fell right into the role of judge, jury and executioner, with gusto.... the WESTERN AUSTRALIAN public were to be brought into line with Mr Court's/Liberal Party's idea of regimen and discipline.


----------



## Tisme

luutzu said:


> Going to have my imported beer now   What's wrong with VB? They used to be nice, now it's like cheap tea.




The few times I buy packaged beer, I have started up with Millers.


----------



## Tisme

If a minister doesn't bother reading emails and follow up emails that have a dire impact on society from intended actions, what other stuff is deemed of no consequence?

Guardian:



> _The “very, very badly worded” Australian Border Force press release that appeared to threaten random visa checks on the streets of Melbourne was twice sent to the office of the immigration minister, Peter Dutton Guardian Australia has been told.
> 
> It was also allegedly cleared at a high level in the border force’s Canberra headquarters.
> 
> After the release sparked a snap protest on Friday and forced the Victorian police operation to be abandoned, the border force commissioner, Roman Quaedvlieg, said it had been “cleared at a low level in the organisation”.
> 
> *But a spokesman for Dutton confirmed on Sunday it had been sent to his office on Wednesday as an attachment to a briefing note about the weekend operation. “It was not opened or read because it looked like a routine operation,” the spokesman said.
> 
> Sources later told Guardian Australia a shorter briefing note, again with the press release attached, was sent to Dutton’s office again on Thursday morning. Dutton’s spokesman was contacted for comment.
> *
> Quaedvlieg conceded on Friday the media release had been cleared by the Victorian and Tasmanian commander of the border force, Don Smith, who was quoted in the original release saying, “ABF officers will be positioned at various locations around the CBD speaking with any individual we cross paths with,” and, “You need to be aware of the conditions of your visa; if you commit visa fraud you should know it’s only a matter of time before you’re caught out.”
> 
> But according to former immigration department officials, including the former communications head Sandi Logan, who say they are informed by current officials close to the issue, the border force assistant secretary for communications and media, Mark Jeffries, also cleared it.
> 
> The border force was contacted for comment, but late Sunday referred all questions to the minister’s office.
> 
> The force and Victoria police continue to face questions about exactly what role was envisaged for the six ABF officers who were to be deployed in Operation Fortitude.
> 
> It is understood six border force officers were to be involved, at two separate locations, to undertake checks as requested by the Victorian police.
> 
> The opposition leader, Bill Shorten, described the saga as one of the government’s most “catastrophically silly” ideas on Saturday.
> 
> “It’s like a uniformed version of the Prince Philip decision,” he told reporters in Perth. “As more facts came to light yesterday, I don’t think there’s a single Victorian and indeed a single Australian whose jaw just didn’t hit the ground.”
> 
> 
> The Greens called for the powers of border force officers to be clarified. “It needs to be cleaned up; they’re not an arm of the military and they’re not a police force,” Senator Sarah Hanson-Young told the ABC, adding: “It’s not clear at all what they think their role is, what indeed the powers are.”
> 
> *The prime minister, Tony Abbott, said his department had no prior knowledge of the operation.*
> 
> He said nothing untoward had happened except the agency had issued a poorly worded press release, describing it as a mistake and “over the top”.
> 
> Analysis Stopped on the street by border force? Six things you need to know
> Following Australian border force’s announcement about conducting visa checks in Melbourne, here are six crucial facts about police and immigration officer powers
> 
> 
> “We would never stop people randomly on the street and demand their visa details,” he told reporters in Sydney on Saturday.
> 
> Such operational news releases were often issued under the authority of agency officials and not the government, Abbott said. “That all happens at arm’s length from ministers, at arm’s length from the executive government.”
> 
> The original release said the operation was to involve Metro Trains, Yarra Trams, the sheriff’s office, the Taxi Services Commission, the ABF and Victoria police. As it would have “a particular focus on people travelling to, from and around the CBD, the group of agencies will work tgether to support the best interests of Melburnians, targeting everything from antisocial behaviour to outstanding warrants”._


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> If a minister doesn't bother reading emails and follow up emails that have a dire impact on society from intended actions, what other stuff is deemed of no consequence?
> 
> Guardian:




"The government will not comment on on-street matters"


----------



## SirRumpole

Tony Abbott being urged to consider dumping Joe Hockey and calling a March election: cabinet ministers





> Cabinet ministers say Prime Minister Tony Abbott is being urged to dump Joe Hockey as Treasurer if the Canning byelection goes badly for the Liberal Party.
> 
> And an early federal election, to be held in March 2016, is also being considered at the highest levels of the Abbott government.
> The PM is being urged to dump Treasurer Joe Hockey.
> 
> The PM is being urged to dump Treasurer Joe Hockey. Photo: Andrew Meares
> 
> Fairfax Media has been told by two cabinet ministers that talks over axing Mr Hockey have been held, with a move to sacrifice the Treasurer designed to shore up Mr Abbott's own leadership and quell a potential backlash after the September 19 poll.
> Advertisement
> 
> Social Services Minister Scott Morrison, who is widely considered to be one of the government's star performers, would likely be elevated to the Treasury post and Mr Hockey would be offered another portfolio.
> 
> The Liberal Party  holds the seat of Canning with a margin of 11.8 per cent, but recent polling in the seat shows it is now on a knife edge, with swings to Labor of as much as 10 per cent forecast.
> 
> One cabinet minister familiar with the talks said a swing against the Coalition of more than six per cent - which would still see the Liberal Party's candidate Andrew Hastie win the seat -â‚¬“ would be bad news for the prime minister and more than 10 per cent would be "dire".
> 
> "They are considering dumping Hockey post-Canning and believe that will get them to Christmas," the minister said, with any move dependent on the result.
> 
> A second cabinet minister said  Mr Abbott was under "Å“enormous pressure" and  it was possible Mr Hockey would be "thrown to the wolves"â‚¬  to protect the prime minister's leadership.
> 
> Two weeks ago, Nervous Liberal MPs told Fairfax Media that if the Coalition lost the Canning byelection it would be "all over" for Mr Abbott.
> 
> The move on Mr Hockey would be designed to reset the Abbott government's economic messaging, direction and strategy, shore up the prime minister'â‚¬™s hold on the leadership just seven months after an extraordinary spill motion  and see the government through until Christmas.
> 
> Under the plan, parliament would then not return in February and instead a double dissolution election would be held in March.
> 
> A third cabinet minister approached by Fairfax Media about the prospect of Mr Hockey being dumped and a March poll being called said they "wouldn't write that off as a theory".
> 
> That minister said  a swing of less than six per cent against the Abbott government in Canning would be a good result.
> 
> And a fourth minister said  "if Canning goes badly, he [Mr Abbott] will have to do something dramatic, quickly" but played down the likelihood of Mr Hockey being dumped for Mr Morrison.
> 
> That minister said a March poll was "absolutely on the cards" and that Mr Abbott was expected to reshuffle his front bench by the end of the year.
> 
> This is not the first time there have been internal discussions about Mr Hockey's future, with Mr Abbott promising in May that the Treasurer would stay in his job until the next election no matter how his second budget was received.
> 
> A decision to dump Mr Hockey would be politically risky as, despite having endured a difficult 15 months since handing down his first budget, the Treasurer has a loyal band of supporters in the party room.
> 
> It would be welcomed, however, by some in Coalition ranks who in part blame the Treasurer for the government's current woes, including the fact that it has trailed in the polls since the May 2014 budget.
> 
> The leaking of confidential talks about the future of Mr Hockey and a possible early election could also stay the Prime Minister's hand and ensure the Treasurer remains.
> 
> Last week, Mr Hockey was again criticised by colleagues for being distracted from his day job after signing up to co-chair a parliamentary friendship group for an Australian Republic and for a speech that again flagged personal income tax which was short on detail.
> 
> The Abbott government has been hit by a rolling series of crises and missteps including most recently the resignation of former Speaker Bronwyn Bishop and questions over the future of trade union Royal Commissioner Dyson Heydon.
> 
> A spokesman for Mr Abbott said he had full confidence in his Treasurer and  "the Prime Minister is on the record as saying he expects the Government to run a full term".
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-ministers-20150830-gjaysw.html#ixzz3kLebcK00




Of course this is just another LUG-Fairfax-ABC-Lefty conspiracy


----------



## sydboy007

sptrawler said:


> Actually I think the question is, why is everyone so quick to jump to conclusions, just because the media say something.
> 
> I find most reporting these days appalling, usually flawed and often inaccurate.
> 
> The media is so preoccupied with trying to get to press, accuracy and authenticity, is secondary.IMO
> 
> The story has to be at least three days old, before the facts, can be regarded as anywhere near accurate.IMO




Part of my role at work is to raise outage notices which get seen on the web page of the 2 brands of ISP I support.

One of my KPIs is to manage this process in a timely manner ie get the notice up not too long after the outage starts and remove it not too long the outage is fixed.  It's not coket science, but keeps out customers properly informed of any issues.

Over 24 hours of community agitation from the media release just seems too long to have been due to the higher ups not knowing what was going on.  The fact it took till a decent protest had formed for the Friday 2pm scheduled media presentation till things were "clarified" makes me suspicious.  Call me crazy but I'm just sceptical of what ANY politician says these days.

The Govt is spending a few million each quarter on media monitoring alone, including twitter, so they had to know pretty quickly what was going on.  If not, they need to review their contracts because they're not getting much for their money.


----------



## Tisme

sydboy007 said:


> Part of my role at work is to raise outage notices which get seen on the web page of the 2 brands of ISP I support.
> 
> One of my KPIs is to manage this process in a timely manner ie get the notice up not too long after the outage starts and remove it not too long the outage is fixed.  It's not coket science, but keeps out customers properly informed of any issues.
> 
> Over 24 hours of community agitation from the media release just seems too long to have been due to the higher ups not knowing what was going on.  The fact it took till a decent protest had formed for the Friday 2pm scheduled media presentation till things were "clarified" makes me suspicious.  Call me crazy but I'm just sceptical of what ANY politician says these days.
> 
> The Govt is spending a few million each quarter on media monitoring alone, including twitter, so they had to know pretty quickly what was going on.  If not, they need to review their contracts because they're not getting much for their money.




Maybe Dutton is the sacrificial goat to shore up Abbott's voter base, not Hockey?


----------



## SirRumpole

A lot of food for thought here

Australia's treatment of asylum seekers was bound to lead to something like Border Force 

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-bound-to-lead-to-something-like-border-force


----------



## sptrawler

sydboy007 said:


> Part of my role at work is to raise outage notices which get seen on the web page of the 2 brands of ISP I support.
> 
> One of my KPIs is to manage this process in a timely manner ie get the notice up not too long after the outage starts and remove it not too long the outage is fixed.  It's not coket science, but keeps out customers properly informed of any issues.
> 
> Over 24 hours of community agitation from the media release just seems too long to have been due to the higher ups not knowing what was going on.  The fact it took till a decent protest had formed for the Friday 2pm scheduled media presentation till things were "clarified" makes me suspicious.  Call me crazy but I'm just sceptical of what ANY politician says these days.
> 
> The Govt is spending a few million each quarter on media monitoring alone, including twitter, so they had to know pretty quickly what was going on.  If not, they need to review their contracts because they're not getting much for their money.




I think the truth is the last thing we hear from any of them, that is why it is important people form their own opinions, not parrot what they are being fed by politicians and the media.
I agree with most of what you say, and your lateral thinking, it will only get better with age and experience. 
I seriously mean that, IMO your only failing( which probably isn't the right word) is your faith and belief that most people are nice. Time, experience and disappointments will smooth that out.
Keep posting, they are the high point of general chat.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> A lot of food for thought here
> 
> Australia's treatment of asylum seekers was bound to lead to something like Border Force
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-bound-to-lead-to-something-like-border-force




ROTFL.....

What else would expect from that Red Rag Guardian News Paper...They are more biased than the ABC and that Lenore Taylor is as far left as she can be and an Abbott hater....I listened to her on Insiders with Barry Cassidy on Sunday morning and she is making out it is all Abbott's fault. The whole thing a storm in a tea cup.

What a beef up by this woman.....Would not be surprised if she was a Fabian.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> ROTFL.....
> 
> What else would expect from that Red Rag Guardian News Paper...They are more biased than the ABC and that Lenore Taylor is as far left as she can be and an Abbott hater....I listened to her on Insiders with Barry Cassidy on Sunday morning and she is making out it is all Abbott's fault. The whole thing a storm in a tea cup.
> 
> Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.




Maybe I should have said "food for thought for those capable of it"


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe I should have said "food for thought for those capable of it"




There is no food for thought in that long drawn out report..

And you know as well I do, the Guardian News Paper is a communist paper...What else would you expect from them.

Did you really believe what you read?


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> There is no food for thought in that long drawn out report..
> 
> And you know as well I do, the Guardian News Paper is a communist paper...What else would you expect from them.
> 
> Did you really believe what you read?




Do you ever disagree with Andrew Bolt ?

If so, about what ?

What Lenore Taylor's article was saying is that because Border Protection in terms of "stopping the boats" was politically popular but essentially invisible, someone in government had the idea that it could be extended to uniformed people patrolling our streets essentially looking for those who may not conform to those peoples ideas of what an Australian should look like, without actually having done anything wrong.

That was a big miscalculation, and they paid a price for it.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Do you ever disagree with Andrew Bolt ?
> 
> If so, about what ?
> 
> What Lenore Taylor's article was saying is that because Border Protection in terms of "stopping the boats" was politically popular but essentially invisible, someone in government had the idea that it could be extended to uniformed people patrolling our streets essentially looking for those who may not conform to those peoples ideas of what an Australian should look like, without actually having done anything wrong.
> 
> That was a big miscalculation, and they paid a price for it.




It was never intended the way she makes out and that was confirmed by Abbott.

Some smart **** from the Border Force ( most likely a leftie) decided to give a media release in an attempt to embarrass the government.

Just like the lefties in the Bar association mates of Dreyfus tried hard to set up Deyson Heydon.

The LUGs will stop at nothing.

What has it to do with Andrew Bolt?.....At least he speaks the truth and on most occasions he is the messenger quoting some journo.


----------



## overhang

noco said:


> It was never intended the way she makes out and that was confirmed by Abbott.
> 
> Some smart **** from the Border Force ( most likely a leftie) decided to give a media release in an attempt to embarrass the government.
> 
> Just like the lefties in the Bar association mates of Dreyfus tried hard to set up Deyson Heydon.
> 
> The LUGs will stop at nothing.
> 
> What has it to do with Andrew Bolt?.....At least he speaks the truth and on most occasions he is the messenger quoting some journo.




So someone in Border Force is responsible for running Abbotts fascism campaign even though it was sent to Duttons office twice for approval?  This terrible concept would have probably never taken place if Abbott hadn't requested press releases concerning national security be made once a week until the election to drive home his fear mongering campaign because he cant win votes on the economic front.


----------



## noco

overhang said:


> So someone in Border Force is responsible for running Abbotts fascism campaign even though it was sent to Duttons office twice for approval?  This terrible concept would have probably never taken place if Abbott hadn't requested press releases concerning national security be made once a week until the election to drive home his fear mongering campaign because he cant win votes on the economic front.




Well, there is 41% Greenies and 32% Labor on the staff of the ABC so it would not surprise me who ever released that gag was a plant from the left....Fairfax is stacked with Greenies and Labor staff.

As I keep repeating, and I will do so until the cows come home, control the media and you control the naive with brainwashing propaganda.


----------



## overhang

noco said:


> Well, there is 41% Greenies and 32% Labor on the staff of the ABC so it would not surprise me who ever released that gag was a plant from the left....Fairfax is stacked with Greenies and Labor staff.
> 
> As I keep repeating, and I will do so until the cows come home, control the media and you control the naive with brainwashing propaganda.




Lets just say your tinfoil hat is correct and it was a fabian hidden in border force uniform even though border force was created by the Liberal goverment, but then we still have the complete incompetence of Duttons office to not read the 2 emails sent for approval.


----------



## sptrawler

overhang said:


> Lets just say your tinfoil hat is correct and it was a fabian hidden in border force uniform even though border force was created by the Liberal goverment, but then we still have the complete incompetence of Duttons office to not read the 2 emails sent for approval.




I think you really have more to worry about, than this.

And if you think I'm joking, you really have a problem.IMO


----------



## overhang

sptrawler said:


> I think you really have more to worry about, than this.
> 
> And if you think I'm joking, you really have a problem.IMO




Of course you don't comment on nocos theory of a ABC spy working for border force but yet think that I may have a problem for finding that Duttons office not reading the press releases is incompetence....

As I've already explained that this operation probably would have never taken place if the Abbott cabinet didn't request that security agency's provide the government with press releases they can release once a week up until the election.


----------



## sptrawler

overhang said:


> Of course you don't comment on nocos theory of a ABC spy working for border force but yet think that I may have a problem for finding that Duttons office not reading the press releases is incompetence....
> 
> As I've already explained that this operation probably would have never taken place if the Abbott cabinet didn't request that security agency's provide the government with press releases they can release once a week up until the election.




Christ, just re read what you have written, if that is the biggest problem in your life, good on you.


----------



## drsmith

The government has sensibly decided to abandon plans for a bank deposit tax.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> The government has sensibly decided to abandon plans for a bank deposit tax.




Why is it sensible?

The ratings agency say they explicitly give the big 4 banks a 2 notch increase in their ratings due to Govt backing.  This provides the TBTF banks a cost advantage over the credit unions and other ADIs.

I doubt removing the deposit guarantee would last too long as the next crisis will see it brought back, so it's not a viable long term solution for the benefit the gang of 4 get.

Possibly a better way forward would be something similar to the US FDIC.  Banks can offer accounts with or without protection and provide a variation in interest rates to suit.  Let the market decide, and stop the tax payers giving a guarantee for free that would have been worth I don't know how many tens of millions if it had been provided by the private sector.


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> The government has sensibly decided to abandon plans for a bank deposit tax.




I thought you were concerned about the deficit?

Looks like the banks shoved enough money into abbott's mouth (and other orifices) to get the policy changed.


----------



## drsmith

banco said:


> I thought you were concerned about the deficit?



A am and I remember who created it.

Borrow and tax is the Labor way and in keeping with that, the bank deposits tax was originally their idea.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> Why is it sensible?
> 
> The ratings agency say they explicitly give the big 4 banks a 2 notch increase in their ratings due to Govt backing.  This provides the TBTF banks a cost advantage over the credit unions and other ADIs.
> 
> I doubt removing the deposit guarantee would last too long as the next crisis will see it brought back, so it's not a viable long term solution for the benefit the gang of 4 get.
> 
> Possibly a better way forward would be something similar to the US FDIC.  Banks can offer accounts with or without protection and provide a variation in interest rates to suit.  Let the market decide, and stop the tax payers giving a guarantee for free that would have been worth I don't know how many tens of millions if it had been provided by the private sector.



It's sensible because going into the government revenue and budget balance line any other tax makes it a tax. 

A choice for consumers is another option but governments ultimately shouldn't be in the business of guaranteeing banks. Bank security is an issue for regulation, not government balance sheets.


----------



## noco

drsmith said:


> It's sensible because going into the government revenue and budget balance line any other tax makes it a tax.
> 
> A choice for consumers is another option but governments ultimately shouldn't be in the business of guaranteeing banks. Bank security is an issue for regulation, not government balance sheets.




Doc, make no mistake, if the LUGs get back in to power they will nationalize the banks as that will part of their (Fabian) ideology.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Doc, make no mistake, if the LUGs get back in to power they will nationalize the banks as that will part of their (Fabian) ideology.




They had 6 years under Rudd/Gillard and 13 years under Hawke/Keating to do it, so why didn't they ?

Who sold off the CBA ? Paul Keating.


----------



## basilio

You know I'm just waiting..

I'm just waiting for it.

The Honourable Peter Dutton, a Minister of the Crown no less, has announced that Fairfax and the ABC are jointly conducting a Jihad against the Rightful Government of Her Majestys Order.

The time must be nigh when these pernicious destroyers of "Law an Order" aresummararily imprisoned and disappeared never to be heard of again in the name of "Our Protection against the Infidel"

All it needs is for the stalwarts from ASF to grab their flaming torches  and pitchforks and storm the appropriate buildings.

Pick up our sheets at the door folks.


----------



## drsmith

noco said:


> Doc, make no mistake, if the LUGs get back in to power they will nationalize the banks as that will part of their (Fabian) ideology.



Labor wouldn't nationalise the banks, just the risk.


----------



## drsmith

basilio said:


> You know I'm just waiting..
> 
> I'm just waiting for it.
> 
> The Honourable Peter Dutton, a Minister of the Crown no less, has announced that Fairfax and the ABC are jointly conducting a Jihad against the Rightful Government of Her Majestys Order.
> 
> The time must be nigh when these pernicious destroyers of "Law an Order" aresummararily imprisoned and disappeared never to be heard of again in the name of "Our Protection against the Infidel"
> 
> All it needs is for the stalwarts from ASF to grab their flaming torches  and pitchforks and storm the appropriate buildings.
> 
> Pick up our sheets at the door folks.



Peter's a dill.

We all know that.


----------



## basilio

Quote Originally Posted by basilio View Post
You know I'm just waiting..

I'm just waiting for it.

The Honourable Peter Dutton, a Minister of the Crown no less, has announced that Fairfax and the ABC are jointly conducting a Jihad against the Rightful Government of Her Majestys Order.

The time must be nigh when these pernicious destroyers of "Law an Order" aresummararily imprisoned and disappeared never to be heard of again in the name of "Our Protection against the Infidel"

All it needs is for the stalwarts from ASF to grab their flaming torches and pitchforks and storm the appropriate buildings.

Pick up our sheets at the door folks.




drsmith said:


> Peter's a dill.
> 
> We all know that.




Yep.  Sounds reasonable to me.

So at what stage does "someone in Government" say "That really wasn't a sensible thing to say ?"
Back track a little? Look embarassed ? Bemused ? 

Recognise that painting Fairfax and The ABC as Jihadists because they are just doing their job as the Press is just wrong?

I feel as if I am watching a group of suited people coming out of an asalyum and just sprouting unbalanced rubbish - and we seem to be accepting it at face value ?


----------



## Macquack

noco said:


> Doc, make no mistake, if the LUGs get back in to power they will *nationalize the banks *as that will part of their (Fabian) ideology.




Will the "peoples bank" pay a decent rate of interest instead of the paltry <3 % now offered by those private custodians of the cookie jar? If so I am in.

Those thieving bastards pay a disgraceful 0.01% per annum on basic savings  (Comm Bank - Complete Access, Smart Access, Streamline, accounts). *I am sure many people confuse this figure with 1%*.

If you have $1 million in one of these accounts, they pay a whopping $100 interest for the whole f***ing year. How about a Royal Commission into the bloody banks?


----------



## drsmith

basilio said:


> Recognise that painting Fairfax and The ABC as Jihadists because they are just doing their job as the Press is just wrong?



Fairfax can be as biased as it likes. It's not publically funded.

The ABC on the other hand is publically funded.


----------



## trainspotter

Macquack said:


> Will the "peoples bank" pay a decent rate of interest instead of the paltry <3 % now offered by those private custodians of the cookie jar? If so I am in.
> 
> Those thieving bastards pay a disgraceful 0.01% per annum on basic savings  (Comm Bank - Complete Access, Smart Access, Streamline, accounts). *I am sure many people confuse this figure with 1%*.
> 
> If you have $1 million in one of these accounts, they pay a whopping $100 interest for the whole f***ing year. How about a Royal Commission into the bloody banks?




Who has one million rupiah in the bank account these days. I do .... who underwrote the BIG 4 BANKS when the GFC hit??? 



> ANALYSIS
> By Bouris and Joye
> Posted 7 Feb 2012, 12:38pm
> 
> Prior to the global financial crisis, Australia had a diverse and highly competitive financial system. The four major banks went head-to-head with the likes of *St. George, BankWest, Bendigo Bank, Aussie, Adelaide Bank, RAMS, Wizard, and Challenger.*
> 
> _Today every single one of these entities has disappeared as a genuinely independent concern, wholly or partly acquired by the majors (with competition concerns waived by the ACCC), or merged with one another.
> _
> Prior to the crisis, Australia's banks were not explicitly government-backed. And taxpayers had never guaranteed bank deposits before (or conceived of providing such guarantees for free as they currently do), nor had they ever guaranteed the banks' institutional debts.
> 
> The taxpayer-owned central bank, the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA), had also never lent to the banks on the much longer-dated and more flexible terms that it offered as the financial markets meltdown started to gather momentum, and continues to offer to this day.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-07/joye--/3815636

Written 3 and a 1/2 years ago  ... *shy*


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> Labor wouldn't nationalise the banks, just the risk.




Risk is already nationalised through deposit insurance the bank deposit tax would have somewhat defrayed the cost of that insurance but that would have upset Tony Abbott's golf buddies.


----------



## drsmith

banco said:


> Risk is already nationalised through deposit insurance the bank deposit tax would have somewhat defrayed the cost of that insurance but that would have upset Tony Abbott's golf buddies.



I refer to what I've already said,

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...27364&page=373&p=881280&viewfull=1#post881280


----------



## drsmith

Macquack said:


> Will the "peoples bank" pay a decent rate of interest instead of the paltry <3 % now offered by those private custodians of the cookie jar? If so I am in.
> 
> Those thieving bastards pay a disgraceful 0.01% per annum on basic savings  (Comm Bank - Complete Access, Smart Access, Streamline, accounts). *I am sure many people confuse this figure with 1%*.
> 
> If you have $1 million in one of these accounts, they pay a whopping $100 interest for the whole f***ing year. How about a Royal Commission into the bloody banks?



Regardless of the rate or account balance, imagine for a moment the banks itemising it on depositor's account statements as they did with former bank taxes such as FID and BAD.

It was a dumb idea in more ways than one.

With regard to present deposit rates, options exist to get more than 3% from the majors.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> A am and I remember who created it.
> 
> Borrow and tax is the Labor way and in keeping with that, the bank deposits tax was originally their idea.




But then Abbott has added over $100B of new borrowings in 2 years.  Is that also a borrow and tax way, because I was under the impression that surpluses were part of the Liberal DNA.

Pop over to http://aofm.gov.au/

Australian Government Securities on Issue*	$384,687m

I bet you that figure will not be going down any time soon.

When does it stop being Labor's fault?


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> Labor wouldn't nationalise the banks, just the risk.




The risk is ALREADY nationalised.

Free deposit guarantee provided by tax payers.

Free implicit Govt backing of the banks that is recognised by the ratings agencies and provides them with a two notch improvement in their ratings.

One would think that a Liberal party supporting the free market would be supportive of having explicit charges for this kind of support.

MT is arguing that the metro to rural subsidies should be explicit rather than hidden with NBNs pricing model.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> Peter's a dill.
> 
> We all know that.




Yet PM Abbott and Liberal party leader has appointed said dill, seen him right royally stuff up then rather than move him to the back bench where he belongs, gives said dill anohter ministerial position on which he's now stuffing up again.

Possibly if the Govt got it's own house in order the newspapers would be more focused on myley cyrus or the latest <insert word> gate from around the world.


----------



## skyQuake

Here's a blast from just over 2 years ago...


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> The risk is ALREADY nationalised.



Yes. By LABOR.

I can just imagine every pensioner's 6-monthly savings account statement with the itemised line "LABOR's bank deposit tax".


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> But then Abbott has added over $100B of new borrowings in 2 years.  Is that also a borrow and tax way, because I was under the impression that surpluses were part of the Liberal DNA.
> 
> Pop over to http://aofm.gov.au/
> 
> Australian Government Securities on Issue*	$384,687m
> 
> I bet you that figure will not be going down any time soon.
> 
> When does it stop being Labor's fault?



Labor left many legacies.

One was an attempt to fund and build a nationalised broadband network.
Another was outsourcing immigration to illegal people smuggling operations and another was budget deficits stretching well beyond its time in office.


----------



## SirRumpole

drsmith said:


> Labor left many legacies.
> 
> One was an attempt to fund and build a nationalised broadband network.




So why didn't Abbott/Turnbull ditch the NBN altogether if it was such a bad idea ?



> Another was outsourcing immigration to illegal people smuggling operations and another was budget deficits stretching well beyond its time in office.




A budget deficit which Hockey has now doubled.

And now he's talking about tax cuts. What deficit disaster ?


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> So why didn't Abbott/Turnbull ditch the NBN altogether if it was such a bad idea ?
> 
> 
> 
> A budget deficit which Hockey has now doubled.
> 
> And now he's talking about tax cuts. What deficit disaster ?




Because Abbott and the Liberal Party are honorable men who honor agreements made by the previous government not like the Labor state Government in Victoria who ripped up an agreement made by the Victorian previous government.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Because Abbott and the Liberal Party are honorable men who honor agreements made by the previous government not like the Labor state Government in Victoria who ripped up an agreement made by the Victorian previous government.




No they're not. The previous governments agreement was a FTTP NBN, now we get a cut down version that has huge technical problems and unconnected services

http://www.afr.com/technology/nbn-hits-roll-out-targets-but-fails-to-connect-services-20140605-jg00k


----------



## drsmith

SirRumpole said:


> No they're not. The previous governments agreement was a FTTP NBN, now we get a cut down version that has huge technical problems and unconnected services
> 
> http://www.afr.com/technology/nbn-hits-roll-out-targets-but-fails-to-connect-services-20140605-jg00k



Take a look at the date of the article and the timeframe of the issue,



> About 118,000 homes and businesses that should be connected to the national broadband network can’t use the service because of defective fibre connections.
> 
> The government-owned company building the network is set to pay *contractors tens of millions extra to fix the problems and resolve a two-year negotiation stalemate




For more background, listen to Simon Hackett's presentation from a year ago,

http://simonhackett.com/2014/09/06/rebooting-the-nbn/


----------



## noco

drsmith said:


> Take a look at the date of the article and the timeframe of the issue,
> 
> 
> 
> For more background, listen to Simon Hackett's presentation from a year ago,
> 
> http://simonhackett.com/2014/09/06/rebooting-the-nbn/




Good work Doc.

Some just don't do their home work.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> Yes. By LABOR.
> 
> I can just imagine every pensioner's 6-monthly savings account statement with the itemised line "LABOR's bank deposit tax".




Are you saying that the deposit guarantee by Labor was wrong?

You do remember it was done during the GFC, where smaller banks were starting to see a run on withdrawals.

Once Irish banks received sovereign backing it filtered very quickly throughout the world, where explicit schemes like the FDIC was not already in place.

Where Labor went wrong was in not charging for this valuable insurance.  They made quite a bit from the guaranteeing of the bank debt during the GFC.  Was that wrong as well?



drsmith said:


> Labor left many legacies.
> 
> One was an attempt to fund and build a nationalised broadband network.
> Another was outsourcing immigration to illegal people smuggling operations and another was budget deficits stretching well beyond its time in office.




So things like the freezing of fuel excise indexation, halving of CGT, tax free super, halving of the pension asset taper rate, stretch till now.  Just the freezing of fuel indexation was robbing the Govt of over $5B in revenue last year.  We're talking in the tens of billion in revenue lost on an annual basis, and over the last 15 years would have provided the kind of revenue required to make a decent dent in the infrastructure deficit we face. 

Tax cuts based on revenue from the largest resource boom in the world were unsustainable, and yes Labor were foolish for going along with Howard in providing further ones after the 2007 election.  The issues we face are not all legacies from the Labor Government.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Because Abbott and the Liberal Party are honorable men who honor agreements made by the previous government not like the Labor state Government in Victoria who ripped up an agreement made by the Victorian previous government.




Labor was very open in their opposition of the $1M per meter tunnel that the Victorian and Federal Liberals were unwilling to have vetted by IA as they knew the project didn't stack up economically.

Would you have supported federal Labor if they had copied the Victorian Liberals and signed NBN contracts for the entire project prior to the election?

Shoudl a Govt have the right, just before an election, to force through major spending on a project when the opposition is openly against it and the public is divided.  Shouldn't it be up to the people?


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> Take a look at the date of the article and the timeframe of the issue,
> 
> 
> 
> For more background, listen to Simon Hackett's presentation from a year ago,
> 
> http://simonhackett.com/2014/09/06/rebooting-the-nbn/




Only took the Liberals 2.5 months to break their NBN promise.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Because Abbott and the Liberal Party are honorable men who honor agreements made by the previous government not like the Labor state Government in Victoria who ripped up an agreement made by the Victorian previous government.




I simply don't believe that. I the Libs thought that the NBN was a white elephant they had a duty to oppose it at the election and promise to dump it. Instead they knew it was an essential piece of infrastructure that they didn't have the foresight to realise during the 11 years of Howard. Their "market economy" minds assumed that private enterprise would build it if the public wanted it.

That is a failure of their ideology. They are either giant hypocrites or stupendous wastrels as far as the NBN is concerned.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I simply don't believe that. I the Libs thought that the NBN was a white elephant they had a duty to oppose it at the election and promise to dump it. Instead they knew it was an essential piece of infrastructure that they didn't have the foresight to realise during the 11 years of Howard. Their "market economy" minds assumed that private enterprise would build it if the public wanted it.
> 
> That is a failure of their ideology. They are either giant hypocrites or stupendous wastrels as far as the NBN is concerned.




Yes and all done between Rudd and Conroy on the back of a napkin during an plane flight......No cost benefit  analysis was ever carried out....These two idiots had no idea what it was going to cost.


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> I simply don't believe that. I the Libs thought that the NBN was a white elephant they had a duty to oppose it at the election and promise to dump it. Instead they knew it was an essential piece of infrastructure that they didn't have the foresight to realise during the 11 years of Howard. Their "market economy" minds assumed that private enterprise would build it if the public wanted it.
> 
> That is a failure of their ideology. They are either giant hypocrites or stupendous wastrels as far as the NBN is concerned.




I laugh that MT still says it would be better if the private sector provided the infrastructure, but then allowing nbn to chase TPG for FTTB sites in the cities.

Surely if it's better that the private sector builds the infrastructure then NBN should be focusing on building the network where the private sector has no interest?

Say and act one way in opposition and then continue saying the same things but doing generally the opposite while in Govt seems to be the Abbot Govt way.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Yes and all done between Rudd and Conroy on the back of a napkin during an plane flight......No cost benefit  analysis was ever carried out....These two idiots had no idea what it was going to cost.




You do realise that MT forced NBN to start the change to the MTM model of the NBN before the CBA was released.

You do realise we were promised a minimum of 25Mbs nationally by the next election, a promise broken 2.5 months after the Abbott Govt was formed.

You do realise the fully costed nbn policy from the Abbott opposition has ballooned out to $56 from their original less than napkin idea of $29B

You do realise the Govt has taken over all responsibility of the copper network, including asbestos removal, while admitting they do not know what the quality of the copper or HFC networks is.  How can you sign an $11B deal for infrastructure but not actually know what you're getting in return?


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> You do realise that MT forced NBN to start the change to the MTM model of the NBN before the CBA was released.
> 
> You do realise we were promised a minimum of 25Mbs nationally by the next election, a promise broken 2.5 months after the Abbott Govt was formed.
> 
> You do realise the fully costed nbn policy from the Abbott opposition has ballooned out to $56 from their original less than napkin idea of $29B
> 
> You do realise the Govt has taken over all responsibility of the copper network, including asbestos removal, while admitting they do not know what the quality of the copper or HFC networks is.  How can you sign an $11B deal for infrastructure but not actually know what you're getting in return?




Perhaps you should go back and read Dr. Smiths link and notes where it was explained about the massive stuff ups by Labor which had to be fixed like the purchase by Conroy of faulty optic fibre cable. 

Post # 7475
*
About 118,000 homes and businesses that should be connected to the national broadband network can’t use the service because of defective fibre connections.

The government-owned company building the network is set to pay *contractors tens of millions extra to fix the problems and resolve a two-year negotiation stalemate 

Did you realize that?*


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Perhaps you should go back and read Dr. Smiths link and notes where it was explained about the massive stuff ups by Labor which had to be fixed like the purchase by Conroy of faulty optic fibre cable.
> 
> Post # 7475
> *
> About 118,000 homes and businesses that should be connected to the national broadband network can’t use the service because of defective fibre connections.
> 
> The government-owned company building the network is set to pay *contractors tens of millions extra to fix the problems and resolve a two-year negotiation stalemate
> 
> Did you realize that?*




I'm not saying there were no issues with how Labor managed the NBN rollout.  They over promised and under delivered.  But if you're critical of Labor for doing that, then you have to be equally scathing of the Abbott Govt as well.

You have to admit that the way the Abbott Govt has progressed with the NBN has been rather poor.  In 2 years of being in office the only paid for services are provided by the Labor NBN.  NBN has had to spend $1B just on being able to have the OSS to be able to cope with the complexity of FTTN / FTTB / HFC.  

Part of the reason of the slow down for activating customers in the trial node rollout areas is because NBN don't want to stress the OSS too much at the beginning, just in case it falls over.  The poor support staff there will definitely be living in interesting times for the rest of the year.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> I'm not saying there were no issues with how Labor managed the NBN rollout.  They over promised and under delivered.  But if you're critical of Labor for doing that, then you have to be equally scathing of the Abbott Govt as well.
> 
> You have to admit that the way the Abbott Govt has progressed with the NBN has been rather poor.  In 2 years of being in office the only paid for services are provided by the Labor NBN.  NBN has had to spend $1B just on being able to have the OSS to be able to cope with the complexity of FTTN / FTTB / HFC.
> 
> Part of the reason of the slow down for activating customers in the trial node rollout areas is because NBN don't want to stress the OSS too much at the beginning, just in case it falls over.  The poor support staff there will definitely be living in interesting times for the rest of the year.




I don't have to admit anything to you buddy.

The current government have had a hell of job fixing the LUG party's mess costing billions more......Labor's Conroy should have done the right thing in the first place but of course we all know how bloody inefficient Conroy was.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> I don't have to admit anything to you buddy.
> 
> The current government have had a hell of job fixing the LUG party's mess costing billions more......Labor's Conroy should have done the right thing in the first place but of course we all know how bloody inefficient Conroy was.




I'll bet you won't even admit that there would be no NBN at all if it wasn't for Rudd/Conroy.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> I don't have to admit anything to you buddy.
> 
> The current government have had a hell of job fixing the LUG party's mess costing billions more......Labor's Conroy should have done the right thing in the first place but of course we all know how bloody inefficient Conroy was.




So you are saying the Abbott Govt has handled the MTM rollout well?  12 months over what they said it would take to get an agreement with Telstra.  That's a good job in your book?  A near doubling in the cost of the rollout.  That's also a good outcome?  No paid for services on any if the mixed part of the network.  One again Noco gives the Abbott Govt a gold star.

National debt up $111B, and still counting.

Abbott straight jacketing their ability to balance the books.  No changes to NG / CGT.  No changes EVER to super.  Not willing to invest in infrastructure approved by IA, but willing to spend billions on infrastructure that generates a negative economic return.

Surviving a spill motion against an empty chair only because the front bench had to vote for him.

I can see why you rate the Abbott Govt so highly


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> So things like the freezing of fuel excise indexation, halving of CGT, tax free super, halving of the pension asset taper rate, stretch till now.  Just the freezing of fuel indexation was robbing the Govt of over $5B in revenue last year.  We're talking in the tens of billion in revenue lost on an annual basis, and over the last 15 years would have provided the kind of revenue required to make a decent dent in the infrastructure deficit we face.
> 
> Tax cuts based on revenue from the largest resource boom in the world were unsustainable, and yes Labor were foolish for going along with Howard in providing further ones after the 2007 election.  The issues we face are not all legacies from the Labor Government.




Sydney! :nono:

I refer to what you said earlier,



sydboy007 said:


> But then Abbott has added over $100B of new borrowings in 2 years.  Is that also a borrow and tax way, because I was under the impression that surpluses were part of the Liberal DNA.
> 
> Pop over to http://aofm.gov.au/
> 
> Australian Government Securities on Issue*	$384,687m
> 
> I bet you that figure will not be going down any time soon.
> 
> *When does it stop being Labor's fault?*




You don't want to hold Labor to account on fiscal management after 2 years while still complaining about the Howard government's after 8 ??

That's a double :nono: :nono:.

My bolds.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> Sydney! :nono:
> 
> I refer to what you said earlier,
> 
> 
> 
> You don't want to hold Labor to account on fiscal management after 2 years while still complaining about the Howard government's after 8 ??
> 
> That's a double :nono: :nono:.
> 
> My bolds.




Nope.

Just highlighting that some of the issues we face now had their genesis before the Labor Govt.

I have no issue with anyone criticising Labor for poor policy choices, but don't try to pretend that the Howard Govt were economic marvels.


----------



## Tisme

Do I hear the drums of recession? Surely not, this govt has economic credentials and knows how to negotiate our national products to the world, n'est-ce pas? 

We have everything we need now we are consolidating our: self sufficient manufacturing, value added processing, primary and allied engineering, valued workforce, state of the art communications, best in field education, low cost housing, great currency exchange rate, affordable quality food (esp. meat), welfare for the poor and needy and infrastructure for the future, have we ever seen so much govt build infrastucture, it's amazing.


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> Do I hear the drums of recession? Surely not, this govt has economic credentials and knows how to negotiate our national products to the world, n'est-ce pas?
> 
> We have everything we need now we are consolidating our: self sufficient manufacturing, value added processing, primary and allied engineering, valued workforce, state of the art communications, best in field education, low cost housing, great currency exchange rate, affordable quality food (esp. meat), welfare for the poor and needy and infrastructure for the future, have we ever seen so much govt build infrastucture, it's amazing.




Wow !

What country are you living in Tisme ? I want to move there !


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> Wow !
> 
> What country are you living in Tisme ? I want to move there !




Austnocolia


----------



## sydboy007

Tisme said:


> Do I hear the drums of recession? Surely not, this govt has economic credentials and knows how to negotiate our national products to the world, n'est-ce pas?
> 
> We have everything we need now we are consolidating our: self sufficient manufacturing, value added processing, primary and allied engineering, valued workforce, state of the art communications, best in field education, low cost housing, great currency exchange rate, affordable quality food (esp. meat), welfare for the poor and needy and infrastructure for the future, have we ever seen so much govt build infrastucture, it's amazing.




Sadly an AUD at 60 or even 50c US is unlikely to do much for us in the short to medium term except stoke inflation.

The RBA koolaid of the never ending resource boom was drunk with much gusto.  The strong masculine dollar that was our reward for being the lucky country decimated much of the tradeables sector.  The free income rise was used to make our housing the most expensive in the world.  Amazing how a country with so much usable land has somehow made it scarce.

Unfortunately we wont be like the germans during reunification where wage growth was low and they rebuilt their competitiveness and mittelstand.  We don't really have anything to grow, and besides picking up cheap arable land and shifting the profits off shore, why would any foreigners want to invest here?


----------



## SirRumpole

Looks like we could be heading to a GST election

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-...aking-very-powerful-point-abbott-says/6746500

Question:

If the Federal government is willing to forgo revenue via tax cuts anyway, why doesn't it just give more money to the States to run their services instead of upping the GST ?


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> Looks like we could be heading to a GST election
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-...aking-very-powerful-point-abbott-says/6746500
> 
> Question:
> 
> If the Federal government is willing to forgo revenue via tax cuts anyway, why doesn't it just give more money to the States to run their services instead of upping the GST ?




Abbot is the love child of Chopper Bishop and Non Core Howard, so me thinks he's trying to please his proverbial father.

Would be nice if there was an acknowledgement that it's cheaper for the Govt to build things and have them slowly pay off via the tax system, or minimal tolls, over the economic life of the asset.  Offer the super funds and general public ILBs with a 2 to 3% coupon + CPI and I bet you'd have so much money thrown at you to build infrastructure in this country, that the problem would be trying to find enough economically justifiable projects to soak up the $$$$

Take a long term view, bring back the knowledge of building things back into GOvt, and we might have a chance to build up our international competitiveness and ride the economic slump from the end of the mining construction boom.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> Abbot is the love child of Chopper Bishop and Non Core Howard, so me thinks he's trying to please his proverbial father.
> 
> Would be nice if there was an acknowledgement that it's cheaper for the Govt to build things and have them slowly pay off via the tax system, or minimal tolls, over the economic life of the asset.  Offer the super funds and general public ILBs with a 2 to 3% coupon + CPI and I bet you'd have so much money thrown at you to build infrastructure in this country, that the problem would be trying to find enough economically justifiable projects to soak up the $$$$
> 
> Take a long term view, bring back the knowledge of building things back into GOvt, and we might have a chance to build up our international competitiveness and ride the economic slump from the end of the mining construction boom.




Yes, all of that and what does OUR Future Fund invest in ? Why doesn't the government require 52% local ownership of agricultural investments over say $50 million. If these areas are so attractive to foreign investors, why not for our Future Fund ? Govt investment would be a guarantee of long term viability for foreign investors and more of the profits would stay here.


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, all of that and what does OUR Future Fund invest in ? Why doesn't the government require 52% local ownership of agricultural investments over say $50 million. If these areas are so attractive to foreign investors, why not for our Future Fund ? Govt investment would be a guarantee of long term viability for foreign investors and more of the profits would stay here.




Sadly we're short sighted.  We worry more about quarterly performance than the long term.

You see it with the continued funding cuts to the CSIRO.  I bet the equivalent of a tax cut as added funding to the CSIRO would pay off handsomely over the medium term.  Not going to happen.


----------



## sydboy007

great to see ideology trumps financial sense from the Govt.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...&utm_content=1562286&utm_campaign=kgb&modapt=



> For starters, recent research by Monica Tan and Marie-Ann Cam from the University of New South Wales found investment management fees and operating expenses rise with the number of independent trustees sitting on a fund’s board.
> 
> These higher fees and expenses are paid for out of members’ savings. That means having more independent directors could lead to lower after-fee returns.
> 
> *To meet the government’s proposed rules, industry funds would also have to find and appoint 64 new chairs and bring in 295 new directors. Industry Super estimates this churn would cost up to $168 million – a price that would also be passed directly on to fund members through higher fees.*
> 
> These costs might be worth paying if there was any evidence that super funds with more independent directors perform better overall. But in fact, the evidence points in the opposite direction.
> 
> Modelling by SuperRatings shows industry funds with employer/employee boards have outperformed retail funds by 1.66 per cent over the past decade. That’s why the average industry fund has delivered $16,000 more to their members in the last 10 years than the average retail equivalent.
> 
> *Of the top 10 best performing super funds for the past financial year, just two were retail funds. If we take a longer view and look at the top 10 funds over the last decade, not a single retail fund makes the list. Given this, it’s not surprising that the Assistant Treasurer recently switched his work superannuation from a retail fund to an industry fund.
> *
> So if having more independent directors on super fund boards doesn’t improve returns and may actually reduce them, why is the Abbott Government so fixed on making this change?




So why mess with a system that's working?


----------



## overhang

SirRumpole said:


> Looks like we could be heading to a GST election
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-...aking-very-powerful-point-abbott-says/6746500
> 
> Question:
> 
> If the Federal government is willing to forgo revenue via tax cuts anyway, why doesn't it just give more money to the States to run their services instead of upping the GST ?




Looking back and it all looks very similar to when Howard introduced the GST, Howard was on the ropes and behind in the polls before he introduced the GST and he instantly saw a large increase in the polls and obviously went on to win the 98 election.  Abbott's government is clearly in turmoil and this could give it the platform to turn the numbers around, I think Australians are quite willing to accept sensible tax reform. Of course raising the GST would be the easy way out and I'm not sure if the government would see the same result as Howard did in the polling.


----------



## Smurf1976

sydboy007 said:


> So why mess with a system that's working?




Because that's what Liberals do. Seen it before and it's just how they work.

Take something that is working well, find whatever reason to force changes of the "set up to fail" variety, then when failure inevitably occurs use that as the justification to hand it to big business to run.

Labor does dodgy deals with unions. Liberal does dodgy deals with business. That's just how they are and have been for a rather long time.


----------



## banco

SirRumpole said:


> Looks like we could be heading to a GST election
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-...aking-very-powerful-point-abbott-says/6746500
> 
> Question:
> 
> If the Federal government is willing to forgo revenue via tax cuts anyway, why doesn't it just give more money to the States to run their services instead of upping the GST ?




I really can't see Abbott going to the election with any big economic reforms.  He knows neither he nor Hockey is capable of selling them.


----------



## sydboy007

overhang said:


> Looking back and it all looks very similar to when Howard introduced the GST, Howard was on the ropes and behind in the polls before he introduced the GST and he instantly saw a large increase in the polls and obviously went on to win the 98 election.  Abbott's government is clearly in turmoil and this could give it the platform to turn the numbers around, I think Australians are quite willing to accept sensible tax reform. Of course raising the GST would be the easy way out and I'm not sure if the government would see the same result as Howard did in the polling.




When there's better things to reform like CGT and NG you'd be at yes minister levels of courage to try and shaft the people with a rise of the GST.  It amazes me Abbott has turned his back on an easy $10B if he just reformed CGT and NG.  Fix up the super tax concessions and you could easily fund an increase in the pension and pay off some of the debt.

Then tackle the massive level of fees (tax) on super funds.  $23B is an awful lot of money to pay for not much.


----------



## sydboy007

Abbott V Abbott

[video=youtube_share;q99VsIec2gg]http://youtu.be/q99VsIec2gg[/video]


----------



## Tisme

sydboy007 said:


> Abbott V Abbott
> 
> [video=youtube_share;q99VsIec2gg]http://youtu.be/q99VsIec2gg[/video]




They have an uncanny likeness... are they twins?


----------



## Logique

Good suggestion Mr Murdoch, but it comes 18 months too late, have you seen the opinion polls.



> Rupert Murdoch calls for snap election in 'almost ungovernable' Australia
> September 4, 2015
> 
> Sydney Morning Herald: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-australia-20150903-gjes1x.html#ixzz3kjARmsUr


----------



## sydboy007

sometimes satire is required to break through the noise

[video=youtube_share;L6SzRFA-Ei8]http://youtu.be/L6SzRFA-Ei8[/video]


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> sometimes satire is required to break through the noise
> 
> [video=youtube_share;L6SzRFA-Ei8]http://youtu.be/L6SzRFA-Ei8[/video]




Absolutely brilliant


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> Nope.
> 
> Just highlighting that some of the issues we face now had their genesis before the Labor Govt.
> 
> I have no issue with anyone criticising Labor for poor policy choices, but don't try to pretend that the Howard Govt were economic marvels.



Syd,

You can't deny what you said,

*"When does it stop being Labor's fault?"*

They're your words published on this forum. You can't deny them.



sydboy007 said:


> But then Abbott has added over $100B of new borrowings in 2 years.  Is that also a borrow and tax way, because I was under the impression that surpluses were part of the Liberal DNA.
> 
> Pop over to http://aofm.gov.au/
> 
> Australian Government Securities on Issue*	$384,687m
> 
> I bet you that figure will not be going down any time soon.
> 
> *When does it stop being Labor's fault?*




In my response, I didn't discuss the Howard's Government's economic record.



drsmith said:


> You don't want to hold Labor to account on fiscal management after 2 years while still complaining about the Howard government's after 8 ??




It was a criticism of your good self for wanting to let Labor off the hook after 2-years while still complaining about the Howard Government after 8. Nothing more and nothing less.

My bolds, again.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> Syd,
> 
> You can't deny what you said,
> 
> *"When does it stop being Labor's fault?"*
> 
> They're your words published on this forum. You can't deny them.
> 
> 
> 
> In my response, I didn't discuss the Howard's Government's economic record.
> 
> 
> 
> It was a criticism of your good self for wanting to let Labor off the hook after 2-years while still complaining about the Howard Government after 8. Nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> My bolds, again.




I was responding to your comment



drsmith said:


> A am and I remember who created it.
> 
> Borrow and tax is the Labor way and in keeping with that, the bank deposits tax was originally their idea.




$111B over 2 years is a lot of borrowing and spending in my book.

But don’t trust me on saying the policies of the Howard Govt are still having an impact now.  Your dear Leader Tony agrees with me.

So far he’s had to revoke the Howard era:

* Fuel indexation freeze
* Pension assets taper rate reduction

The tax white paper calls for the removal of the Howard CGT concession as well, but that's been nuked by Abbott.

As I’ve repeatedly said, much of the criticism of the Labor Govt is warranted, but this idea that everything wrong with the economy is their fault is blatantly false.

The seeds of the revenue crisis we face started with many poor policy decisions by Howard, some furthered by Labor like the unaffordable tax cuts as they went on a bidding war with Howard.  Labor didn't force Abbott to give up the carbon tax revenue but leave the tax cuts and welfare payment increases in place.  Labor didn't force the Abbott Govt to give the RBA over $8B that it never requested.

So the questions stands Dr Smith, when does the Abbott Govt take responsibility for the economic outcomes that are occurring under their Govt?  If you argue it’s reasonable to blame Labor for the entire deficit that occurred under their Govt, which seems unfair when they faced the largest economic decline the world has faced in a couple of generations, then it has to be reasonable to blame Abbott for the $111B of debt increase under his Govt.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> I was responding to your comment.



That's not what you quoted. Go back and check for yourself. You quoted what I indicated above.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...27364&page=375&p=881514&viewfull=1#post881514


----------



## noco

Logique said:


> Good suggestion Mr Murdoch, but it comes 18 months too late, have you seen the opinion polls.




I don't think it will happen this side of Xmas 2015....maybe March 2016 with a DD could be possible.

The TURC may turn the tide after the Commissioner hands down his report before Xmas...

I also think Shorten may get a back lash for siding with the corrupt CFMEU over the CHAFTA.

It will be an interesting 6 months ahead.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> That's not what you quoted. Go back and check for yourself. You quoted what I indicated above.
> 
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...27364&page=375&p=881514&viewfull=1#post881514




lets get the full flow of how I see the conversation progressed



sydboy007 said:


> But then Abbott has added over $100B of new borrowings in 2 years.  Is that also a borrow and tax way, because I was under the impression that surpluses were part of the Liberal DNA.
> 
> Pop over to http://aofm.gov.au/
> 
> Australian Government Securities on Issue*	$384,687m
> 
> I bet you that figure will not be going down any time soon.
> 
> When does it stop being Labor's fault?




to which you replied



drsmith said:


> Labor left many legacies.
> 
> One was an attempt to fund and build a nationalised broadband network.
> Another was outsourcing immigration to illegal people smuggling operations and another was budget deficits stretching well beyond its time in office.




to which I replied



> So things like the freezing of fuel excise indexation, halving of CGT, tax free super, halving of the pension asset taper rate, stretch till now. Just the freezing of fuel indexation was robbing the Govt of over $5B in revenue last year. We're talking in the tens of billion in revenue lost on an annual basis, and over the last 15 years would have provided the kind of revenue required to make a decent dent in the infrastructure deficit we face.
> 
> Tax cuts based on revenue from the largest resource boom in the world were unsustainable, and yes Labor were foolish for going along with Howard in providing further ones after the 2007 election. The issues we face are not all legacies from the Labor Government.




to which you replied



> Sydney!
> 
> I refer to what you said earlier,
> 
> You don't want to hold Labor to account on fiscal management after 2 years while still complaining about the Howard government's after 8 ??
> 
> That's a double  .
> 
> My bolds.




So how is it double standards when I blame Howard / labor / Abbott for the fiscal mess we're in?

You're the one who claimed that it's solely Labor Govts that tax and spend.  I've shown that the Abbot Govt has continued to tax and spend.  Howard was the biggest tax and spender of them all.  The stats agree.  the IMF agrees.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> The government has sensibly decided to abandon plans for a bank deposit tax.




http://www.afr.com/markets/equity-m...sion-to-drop-bank-tax-bizarre-20150902-gjdrzv



> So let me get this straight. After the four peak government agencies that oversee Australia’s financial system recommended taxpayers should receive a proper fee for the free default insurance they provide for $750 billion of bank deposits, Tony Abbott rolled his Treasurer’s correct call on the matter because he doesn’t want another “Labor tax”?..
> 
> The truth is that the policy principle of not giving away public insurance to banks for free has been embraced by pretty much every developed economy in the world, and was explicitly advocated in writing by the Council of Financial Regulators…
> 
> *Contrary to Abbott’s misleading claims, this is neither a tax nor a Labor proposal. We are talking about a premium for free deposit insurance that was advised by our best bureaucrats because it minimises the “moral hazards” that arise when you give bankers a “heads we win, tails taxpayers lose” incentive structure.*
> 
> http://www.adambandt.com/150811
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “I’m pleased to hear reports that the Treasurer has listened to the Greens’ call to apply a bank deposit levy only to the Big 4 Banks,” Mr Bandt said.
> 
> “We’ve been concerned that the proposals from the previous Labor government and now this government to apply an ‘across the board’ levy to all banks would just be passed on to consumers.”
> 
> “For some time, the Greens have called for a levy to apply to the Big 4 Banks only, to raise revenue without the cost being passed on to consumers.”
> 
> “If the Big 4 Banks do try to pass this onto consumers, a consumer can just walk down the road to a smaller bank.”
> 
> *“The Big 4 Banks are making world-leading record profits off the back of implicit help from the taxpayer. They have an advantage compared to their smaller rivals as they’re able to borrow money at a cheap rate because everyone knows that the government will step in if they get into trouble.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Liberal Party is meant to reflexively support policies that remove or minimise public subsidies of private companies and here we have Abbott giving a free kick to the world’s most profitable banks. The decision is demonstrably bizarre…
Click to expand...



We seems to live in bizarro world when a slightly left of centre Labor Govts accept using the free market to get things done ie carbon tax and deposit tax, while the right of centre Abbott Govt goes the way of Direct Action subsidies along with free public insurance to the banks.

If you provided someone overseas with the above policies and asked them if they thought it was a centre right or left Govt proposing them, I can guarantee you few would think that a centre right Govt would be proposing what Abbott is.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> If you provided someone overseas with the above policies and asked them if they thought it was a centre right or left Govt proposing them, I can guarantee you few would think that a centre right Govt would be proposing what Abbott is.




What happened to the Statutory Reserve Deposit that banks were required to make years ago ? 

Funny how it now seems to be called a "tax".


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> What happened to the Statutory Reserve Deposit that banks were required to make years ago ?
> 
> Funny how it now seems to be called a "tax".




I think the LUG Party stole it some where between 2007 and 2013.

It is probably hidden in the LUG Party's offshore deposit on the Camen Islands.


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> What happened to the Statutory Reserve Deposit that banks were required to make years ago ?
> 
> Funny how it now seems to be called a "tax".




The USA is one of the few countries that still does. Australia Canada new Zealand UK all got rid of it years ago.

The theory is capital requirements are a better way to ensure adequate casual to protect against losses, though Australian banks are thinly capitalised.

I believe the SDR was removed during deregulation in the 80s. The prime asset radio dropped like a rock since from 12.4% in 88 to just 3.3% by 2000.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> The USA is one of the few countries that still does.




Interesting then, that the US government had to bail out more banks than we did.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> I think the LUG Party stole it some where between 2007 and 2013.
> 
> It is probably hidden in the LUG Party's offshore deposit on the Camen Islands.




You're showing your lack of understanding of what the SRD was.  It was held by the banks, just like the various tiers of bank capital is as well.

While it was a Labor Govt that removed the requirement for banks to hold this capital, many of our peers within the OECD also got rid of the requirement during the 80s when bank deregulation was the in thing to do.  

Strange how it took a Labor Govt to bring market forces into the financial sector.  Not sure if was a good thing with the way the FIRE sector has metastasised into a cancer sucking capital from productive use and funnelling it into the most expensive housing in the world.  Supposedly the market always knows best, but I have my doubts.


----------



## IFocus

drsmith said:


> That's not what you quoted. Go back and check for yourself. You quoted what I indicated above.
> 
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...27364&page=375&p=881514&viewfull=1#post881514





Fair go DR, Syd is the only one here who really crunches the facts and dishes up really good info and opinion.

 I don't think he is a real fan of Labor either but you are going to have to accept the current mob (Liberals) are in government and are really making a complete mess of it due to utter complete incompetence. 


BTW great summery from Lenore



> Tony Abbott's first two years: broken promises and confected 'wars' leave voters deeply unimpressed
> 
> Two years in and the Abbott government remains a clamor of battle slogans in search of a policy purpose. The prime minister keeps shaping up for confected daily fights without comprehending that is exactly why he is losing the political “war”.
> 
> This is the point in the three-year cycle when a functional government would be finishing the hard grind of doing what it promised at the last election and beginning the task of selling those achievements, and a few new ambitions, at the next one.



http://www.theguardian.com/australi...-despite-the-daily-battles-hes-losing-the-war


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> Fair go DR, Syd is the only one here who really crunches the facts and dishes up really good info and opinion.
> 
> I don't think he is a real fan of Labor either but you are going to have to accept the current mob (Liberals) are in government and are really making a complete mess of it due to utter complete incompetence.
> 
> 
> BTW great summery from Lenore
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/australi...-despite-the-daily-battles-hes-losing-the-war




How about we look at how the LUG party have control of the senate ....obstructing progress as often as possible, in the national interest of course and pigs might fly.

Shorten has no interest in creating more jobs, just delay projects to make sure the unemployment rises to help denigrate the Liberal Government.....

Ah yes good old Ms Lenore Taylor from the Guardian....What else would you expect from a Fabian.

Wake up Ifocus, you know the LUG party are all about politics and could not care less about creating jobs.


----------



## Tisme

IFocus said:


> Fair go DR, Syd is the only one here who really crunches the facts and dishes up really good info and opinion.




not the only one, but I agree he is an enjoyable constructive poster, not a white anter.



			
				IFocus said:
			
		

> I don't think he is a real fan of Labor either but you are going to have to accept the current mob (Liberals) are in government and are really making a complete mess of it due to utter complete incompetence.




There's a corporate understanding that the boss gets the trophy when things get good and he/she should accept the smack in the head when things go wrong under his/her watch. Politics seems to bring out the worst blind loyalty in people.




			
				IFocus said:
			
		

> BTW great summery from Lenore
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Tony Abbott's first two years: broken promises and confected 'wars' leave voters deeply unimpressed
> 
> Two years in and the Abbott government remains a clamor of battle slogans in search of a policy purpose. The prime minister keeps shaping up for confected daily fights without comprehending that is exactly why he is losing the political “war”.
> 
> This is the point in the three-year cycle when a functional government would be finishing the hard grind of doing what it promised at the last election and beginning the task of selling those achievements, and a few new ambitions, at the next one_.
Click to expand...



Confected should be replace with "contrived" . The Prime Minister has always been a bull54it artist; an hollow man who fills vacuums due to lack of more capable contenders.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> How about we look at how the LUG party have control of the senate ....obstructing progress as often as possible, in the national interest of course and pigs might fly.
> 
> Shorten has no interest in creating more jobs, just delay projects to make sure the unemployment rises to help denigrate the Liberal Government.....
> 
> Ah yes good old Ms Lenore Taylor from the Guardian....What else would you expect from a Fabian.
> 
> Wake up Ifocus, you know the LUG party are all about politics and could not care less about creating jobs.




Hmmm

Labor has control of the senate.  that's news to me.  Lets do some fact checking on that.

The senate has 76 senators.  6 from each state and 2 from each mainland territory.

Labor has 25 seats.  Coalition 33.  Greens 10 and the rest to micro parties and independents.  labor lost 6 seats while the coalition lost 1, so the senate moved more towards favouring the Coalition after the 2013 election.

So the coalition has 8 more seats than Labor, but you say Labor control the senate.  Just exactly how does that work?  If Abott worked with the Greens and or micro parties and independents Labor would never be able to block anything in the senate.  I seem to remember the Rudd and Gillard Govts faced an even more hostile senate but were able to generally get policy through.

Labor has not blocked much in the senate at all.  The odd time they really should have, like with the internet tax meta data retention laws they waved things through.  When they voted against indexing fuel excise to CPI again, the greens voted with Abbott to achieve this.

The senate is not a rubber stamp.  the Australian public has very rarely given either major party a majority in both houses, and the disaster of work choices shows they've been wise to ensure the senate is there to keep the Govt of the day from becoming too extreme.  It's as much a protection for the public as it is for the political parties themselves.

lets examine your claim that Abbott has been out madly creating jobs for workers.  I always thought it was the private sector that did the job creation, but seems I was wrong.

In July this year we had  11,810,700 people employed.  800,700 wee unemployed.  1,633.2 million hours worked in the month.

How does this compare with Abbott coming into office

In Oct 2013 there were 11,636,600 workers.  710,000 unemployed.  1,648.5 million hours worked.

So over the Abbott Govt we see an increase of 90,000 extra unemployed, offset by 184,000 people with jobs.  

But wait, the average hours worked by each person for a month fell from 141.6 hours to  138.3 hours.  This indicates to me that there has been flexibility within the labour market as rather than forcing more people to be unemployed, hours worked is being shared amongst the larger pool of workers.

Exactly what projects has Shorten delayed that would have lead to large increase in jobs?


----------



## IFocus

noco said:


> How about we look at how the LUG party have control of the senate ...




Actually they don't, Liberals have greater numbers and the cross bench are mainly right of center which make the current government look stupid that they cannot negotiate their polices through.


As I said this mob are really incompetent (leadership and front bench) other than a few standouts.


Plenty of talent on the backbench but none of it is religious or extreme right wing.


----------



## IFocus

Tisme said:


> not the only one, but I agree he is an enjoyable constructive poster, not a white anter.




Yes sorry Tisme you have put what I wanted to say with a greater degree of accuracy.


----------



## noco

IFocus said:


> Actually they don't, Liberals have greater numbers and the cross bench are mainly right of center which make the current government look stupid that they cannot negotiate their polices through.
> 
> 
> As I said this mob are really incompetent (leadership and front bench) other than a few standouts.
> 
> 
> Plenty of talent on the backbench but none of it is religious or extreme right wing.




So you honestly believe the LUG party have a history of good economic management......I would hate to have seen what the economy would be like now had the LUG party had had the reigns of our finances for the past two years.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> So you honestly believe the LUG party have a history of good economic management......I would hate to have seen what the economy would be like now had the LUG party had had the reigns of our finances for the past two years.




Yes, I would hate to see what the Australian economy would be like now if Labor hadn't stimulated it through the GFC.

And btw, it's only because of government spending on defence that we didn't have zero or negative growth in the last quarter.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/comm...as-living-standards-slip-20150902-gjdi0t.html


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> So you honestly believe the LUG party have a history of good economic management......I would hate to have seen what the economy would be like now had the LUG party had had the reigns of our finances for the past two years.




So the deficit increasing by $111B is what you consider a good outcome?

Abbott, like Rudd, was squandered all his political capital on poorly implemented ideas and not listening to both his ministers and the voters.

The things Rudd could have done with his 2007 victory.  The things Abbott possibly could have done.  He may have got the respect he so desired if only he'd been less ideological and more pragmatic.

Alas we're stuck with captain pick after captain pick debacle.  Taking part in a war near the opposite side of the world just so the PM can act macho.  JoHo the treasurer telling us it's all good when we're facing around 100,000 high paying jobs disappearing by mid 2017, and it doesn't really matter how many new baristas and wait staff the tourism redeploys, the loss of income will wash through the entire economy.  The Govt has set itself up to fail by budget time next year.  The slight increase in the savings rate shows voterland is sensing the coming drought.  To say Australia is not headed to recession, when real per capital NDI has been declining pretty much since 2011 means the majority of us already feel like we've been living in a recession for years.

I want the Liberals to win the next election.  I want their full economic capabilities on display as Australia goes through the first recession in over a generation.  i think a Labor Govt would handle the conditions of recession better than the Liberals, but sometimes you need a bit of pain for long term gain, and having voters realise that there's just as much economic and political ineptitude within the Coalition as their is in Labor would be a good thing.  Then hopefully 3 word slogans wont cut it any more.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, I would hate to see what the Australian economy would be like now if Labor hadn't stimulated it through the GFC.
> 
> And btw, it's only because of government spending on defence that we didn't have zero or negative growth in the last quarter.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/business/comm...as-living-standards-slip-20150902-gjdi0t.html




Are you saying the LUG Party did not waste $ billions during the GFC......I am sure a conservative government would have done twice as much with half the money wasted by the LUG Party.......Over priced Julia Gillard's memorial school schools, Kevin Rudds shambolic roof insulation with 4 deaths and a couple of hundred house fires with millions paid out in compensation and of course, lest we forget, the wasted  $11 billion and still counting on Rudd and Gillard's open border policy with over 1200 men, women and children losing their lives at sea.

Oh yes the LUG party did a real good job 2007/2013 and aren't we still paying for it today?

Labor cut Defense spending to 1.8% of GDP...the lowest since 1938.......They did not place any orders on our own ship building industry in fact they bought some frigates from overseas.

I don't think you have anything to gloat about with Labors record....If I were you I would be ashamed to talk about it.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> lets get the full flow of how I see the conversation progressed
> 
> 
> 
> to which you replied
> 
> 
> 
> to which I replied
> 
> 
> 
> to which you replied
> 
> 
> 
> So how is it double standards when I blame Howard / labor / Abbott for the fiscal mess we're in?
> 
> You're the one who claimed that it's solely Labor Govts that tax and spend.  I've shown that the Abbot Govt has continued to tax and spend.  Howard was the biggest tax and spender of them all.  The stats agree.  the IMF agrees.



Where in that so-called "full flow" that you presented did I day that it's solely Labor Govts that tax and spend?

You're going to have to look very hard because you won't find it.

You've also raised the question of letting the former Labor Government off the hook while remaining critical of the prior Howard Government.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> I want the Liberals to win the next election.  I want their full economic capabilities on display as Australia goes through the first recession in over a generation.  i think a Labor Govt would handle the conditions of recession better than the Liberals, but sometimes you need a bit of pain for long term gain, and having voters realise that there's just as much economic and political ineptitude within the Coalition as their is in Labor would be a good thing.  Then hopefully 3 word slogans wont cut it any more.




How long have you been a sado-masochist ?


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> So the deficit increasing by $111B is what you consider a good outcome?
> 
> Abbott, like Rudd, was squandered all his political capital on poorly implemented ideas and not listening to both his ministers and the voters.
> 
> The things Rudd could have done with his 2007 victory.  The things Abbott possibly could have done.  He may have got the respect he so desired if only he'd been less ideological and more pragmatic.
> 
> Alas we're stuck with captain pick after captain pick debacle.  Taking part in a war near the opposite side of the world just so the PM can act macho.  JoHo the treasurer telling us it's all good when we're facing around 100,000 high paying jobs disappearing by mid 2017, and it doesn't really matter how many new baristas and wait staff the tourism redeploys, the loss of income will wash through the entire economy.  The Govt has set itself up to fail by budget time next year.  The slight increase in the savings rate shows voterland is sensing the coming drought.  To say Australia is not headed to recession, when real per capital NDI has been declining pretty much since 2011 means the majority of us already feel like we've been living in a recession for years.
> 
> I want the Liberals to win the next election.  I want their full economic capabilities on display as Australia goes through the first recession in over a generation.  i think a Labor Govt would handle the conditions of recession better than the Liberals, but sometimes you need a bit of pain for long term gain, and having voters realise that there's just as much economic and political ineptitude within the Coalition as their is in Labor would be a good thing.  Then hopefully 3 word slogans wont cut it any more.




I think you are being a little bit one sided here.

Firstly, you rave on about the increased deficit but  you don't take into consideration the legacy carried over from the Labor Party and had the Liberals stopped spending, the economy would have come to a grinding halt just as what is happening in Queensland with the Labor government at the present time...unemployment rising...business confidence at an all time low....building and construction down....A Labor government taking daily instructions from the CFMEU...A premier who has no plan or any ideas as to how to pay back the debt left by the previous Beattie/ Bligh goverment.

Secondly you do not give any credit to the stimulus given to small business and the return which will be gained from the FTA with Japan, South Korea and China, something the Labor Party talked about but took no action because it was all too hard for them.....These things take time to take full affect so i think you should be reasonable and give it a fair chance without pulling things to pieces typical of the Labor Party who only want to play down the economy....No doubt if Labor are returned to office in 2016, they will receive the benefit and will ultimately claim it as their success.  

BTW...what poorly implemented Abbott ideas are you talking about?


----------



## SirRumpole

> and had the Liberals stopped spending, the economy would have come to a grinding halt




OK, it's fine when the Liberals spend, but a waste of money when Labor spend ?


----------



## Smurf1976

Economically we seem to have pretty much dropped the ball when it comes to reform.

Hawke and Keating (Labor) were big on it and much was done. Hewson (Liberal) never became PM but he certainly had some big ideas for change, some of which were ultimately implemented by Howard (Liberal).

Since that time the wheels seem to have fallen off. It happened under Howard but Rudd, Gillard and Abbott have failed to put them back on.

Politically, both major parties have dropped the ball here. Both have gone from a focus on the future to a focus on the present.

I blame the mining and housing booms. We've become drunk on the flow of money from that source and have failed to do what's necessary for the long term when the boom inevitably fades. Now we've got falling prices for minerals, a few mines here and there closing, and house prices looking somewhat iffy. Trouble is, we forgot about the need for a plan B and that goes for politicians of all persuasions.

I do not wish to see a recession given the misery it will inevitably cause for a great many ordinary people. But I feel that it has become an unfortunate but inevitable outcome necessary in order to refocus the nation's attention. 

As for which party can best deal with the situation, there are no quick fixes and as such the duration and depth of recession won't likely change much with Labor or Liberal. Any difference is more likely to be in how they deal with the social effects of mass unemployment. 

On that point Labor should do better at least in theory although with the current "leadership" I'm far from convinced. That said, ideological Abbott and "get a better job" Hockey are the last people you want in charge if you're unemployed and there's 2000 people lined up out the door, down the street and around the block all hoping to get the one job as a night shift cleaner.


----------



## SirRumpole

Smurf1976 said:


> Since that time the wheels seem to have fallen off. It happened under Howard but Rudd, Gillard and Abbott have failed to put them back on.




True, but one good thing that Rudd did was to establish Infrastructure Australia as an independent body to recommend and finance necessary infrastructure.

Abbott undid all that good work when he repoliticised IA and decided he knew better than the experts where to spend our money. Like that road in Victoria that people then decided maybe they didn't need after all.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> I think you are being a little bit one sided here.
> 
> Firstly, you rave on about the increased deficit but  you don't take into consideration the legacy carried over from the Labor Party and had the Liberals stopped spending, the economy would have come to a grinding halt just as what is happening in Queensland with the Labor government at the present time...unemployment rising...business confidence at an all time low....building and construction down....A Labor government taking daily instructions from the CFMEU...A premier who has no plan or any ideas as to how to pay back the debt left by the previous Beattie/ Bligh goverment.
> 
> Secondly you do not give any credit to the stimulus given to small business and the return which will be gained from the FTA with Japan, South Korea and China, something the Labor Party talked about but took no action because it was all too hard for them.....These things take time to take full affect so i think you should be reasonable and give it a fair chance without pulling things to pieces typical of the Labor Party who only want to play down the economy....No doubt if Labor are returned to office in 2016, they will receive the benefit and will ultimately claim it as their success.
> 
> BTW...what poorly implemented Abbott ideas are you talking about?




* Labor we in office during the largest fall in global economic growth since pretty much the great depression.  There was no way to not produce a deficit during that period.  i am not arguing they did a perfect job.  i am arguing that to blame them for the total deficit is not rational nor fair.  It's also not particularly fair or rational to blame the Liberals for the increase of $111B in debt since they came to office, but if it's good to blame Labor then it's euqally good to blame the Liberals.

* There has never been any rigorous study as to the benefit of FTAs to Australia.  over 10 years since the US FTA was signed and we have no idea if we're better off from it or not.  we do know that the PBS is paying out over $200M a year in extra costs due tot eh extension of patents.  I believe Labor were unwilling to sign some of the FTAs due to various clauses they felt were not in the national interest.  I don't believe allowing the possibility of thousands of Chinese workers with no proof as to their qualifications onto projects in Australia should be an option of any agreement.  The complexity of the rules of origin of each FTA is a nightmare for small businesses.  Each FTA can potentially have hundresds of clauses in determining if a good will be classified as Australian or not.  Most SMEs find the cost too great so don't bother using the FTAs.  Multinationals love them.

We also have the issues around the very LLOOONG times it takes for aussie farmers to get much access from the FTA.  The US FTA has provided little yet on that score and wont till past 2020.  The Japan FTA is similar with many of the agricultural sectors totally off limits.  An area we have a decent competitive advantage in but it always seems to be the one area of the economy that is jettisoned to get the photo opp of signing a new trade agreement.

The other issue I have with FTAs is the trade diversion and loss of income.  Because you remove a tarrif from country A the imported price is now lower than country B that does not have an FTA with Australia.  So now we buy the more expensive product from country A and lose the tax revenue so we suffer an economic loss.

* As for Abbott's poorly thought out ideas.  We had the medicare doctor levy to create that wonderful $20B medical slush fund.  we had the stupidly expensive PPL.  We had major changes to University funding.  we had waiting for 6 months for unemployment benefits for the under 30s.  We have Abbott blocking any reform on CGT, NG and super.  

So in your own mind, what are Abbott's achievements?  He hasn't slowed the increase in the deficit.  He's killed off most renewable energy investment at a time when the mining boom construction is falling over.  He's sat on the tax white paper for how many months with an increase in the GST as his only idea, excepting for saying no to a few of the suggestions.  I feel less secure about my job than I did in 2013, and I don't think I'm alone in that.  There's an extra 90,000 people looking for work, so if you lose your job you're going to be fighting with plenty of people for the ones on offer.

Do I think Shorten will be much better?  Nothing makes me think so.  He's not provided much in the way of policy alternatives, has tried to block some sensible revenue options like the indexation of fuel excise and is in denial about the affordability of the pension.  But then Abbott is denial about the affordability of super tax expenditures, and totally out of touch with what's going on in the rest of the world in terms of coal becoming the tobacco of the energy industry.


----------



## orr

noco said:


> I think you are being a little bit one sided here.
> 
> 
> 
> BTW...what poorly implemented Abbott ideas are you talking about?




I've pulled my head out of Satyajit Das's 'A Banquet of Consequences' after a laugh at the end of the first paragraph on pg59, to have a cup of tea and run an eye down the latest day or so of comments here.... Then this; with absolutely no sense of irony... incredulous!

With regard free trade... younger people of this country might want to think more seriously about a home veggie patch.


----------



## IFocus

Why is Abbott going to start bombing Syria? 

Government taking Syria air strike request 'very seriously', Tony Abbott says as Defence Minister Kevin Andrews backs move




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-...australia-extends-air-strikes-reports/6752046


When this bloke says its bad

Bombing raids in Syria would be illegal and disastrous, former ADF General Peter Gration warns


Retired General Gration, who was the Commander of the ADF from 1987 to 1993, told The World Today the move would be "inviting disaster".



> "I believe this would be a strategically bad decision; in fact I would call this strategically dumb," he said.
> 
> "To commit us to what is complex and confused war with a centuries old religious conflict between the Sunnis and the [Shiites], the underlying issue, I think is really inviting disaster."
> 
> Retired General Gration said the US air strikes in Syria had not stopped IS and Australia's contribution would be "at best a marginal increase".





http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-...-invite-disaster-former-adf-head-says/6750638


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> OK, it's fine when the Liberals spend, but a waste of money when Labor spend ?





It is not a matter of talking just about spending but how it is spent, whether it would be wasted by the Labor Party or spent wisely by the Liberals Party.

There is a major contrast between the two parties and I know who has the better record.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> It is not a matter of talking just about spending but how it is spent, whether it would be wasted by the Labor Party or spent wisely by the Liberals Party.
> 
> There is a major contrast between the two parties and I know who has the better record.




So the $111B in deficit spending the Liberals have provided the economy, how was it spent wisely?

I don't believe the infrastructure PM has gave us much.  Certainly the NBN is crawling along.  Renewable energy infrastructure has stalled.  Definitely no rail projects funded.

To say the Liberals would always spend wisely seems to forget the allowance scandals, forgets the infrastructure projects Abbott said he'd do a CBA on before investing in, broker that promise before the election, and never had the guts to let IA actually do an audit and confirm we were getting value for money.  You continually complain of Labor not backing the economically irresponsible $1M per meter tunnel in Melbourne, a tunnel that was forecast to generate a net negative return on the investment.  If I said to you Noco _I have an investment opportunity.  For every $1 you invest I'll return to you 55c_ what would you say?  But when Abbott says he'll fund a tunnel with that kind of return you consider it to be spent wisely.

We're slowly going broke.  The last thing we can afford is to "invest" in infrastructure that doesn't generate a positive return to the economy.  IA has quite a few projects on it's books that would provide a decent return, but so far Abbott has shown no interest in investing in them.  Why do you think that is?


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> So the $111B in deficit spending the Liberals have provided the economy, how was it spent wisely?
> 
> I don't believe the infrastructure PM has gave us much.  Certainly the NBN is crawling along.  Renewable energy infrastructure has stalled.  Definitely no rail projects funded.
> 
> To say the Liberals would always spend wisely seems to forget the allowance scandals, forgets the infrastructure projects Abbott said he'd do a CBA on before investing in, broker that promise before the election, and never had the guts to let IA actually do an audit and confirm we were getting value for money.  You continually complain of Labor not backing the economically irresponsible $1M per meter tunnel in Melbourne, a tunnel that was forecast to generate a net negative return on the investment.  If I said to you Noco _I have an investment opportunity.  For every $1 you invest I'll return to you 55c_ what would you say?  But when Abbott says he'll fund a tunnel with that kind of return you consider it to be spent wisely.
> 
> We're slowly going broke.  The last thing we can afford is to "invest" in infrastructure that doesn't generate a positive return to the economy.  IA has quite a few projects on it's books that would provide a decent return, but so far Abbott has shown no interest in investing in them.  Why do you think that is?




Syd, instead of listening to your LUG party comrades and then coming up with your rhetoric condemning Abbott and the Liberal/National party government on infrastructure, perhaps it might be wise of you to do some research  of your own first to avoid further embarrassing yourself.

You talk about an investment of $1 to return 55 cents is not a private investment and is a long term project to benefit motorist for decades to come as more vehicles go on the roads.... Liberals normally think further ahead than Labor who generally make policies   on the run....The NBN is a typical Labor Party policy on the run which was done on the bcak of a serviette


I don't know of any public transport whether it be rail, road or bus that runs at a profit.....They are all highly subsidized.



http://australianpolitics.com/2014/04/30/warren-truss-npc-infrastructure-address.html

*Our investment will leverage similar levels of funding from other tiers of government and the private sector.

By now, I hope you know our headline city investments well:

    $3 billion for Melbourne’s East-West Link—stages 1 and 2,
    $1.5 billion to get Sydney’s WestConnex underway and another $405 million for the NorthConnex project,
    $3.5 billion for the roads of Western Sydney,
    $1 billion to upgrade the Gateway Motorway North in Brisbane,
    $686 million to finish the Gateway WA Project in Perth and $615 million for the Swan Valley Bypass, and
    $500 million for the upgrade of South Road in Adelaide.

But our transport package also includes record amounts for regional roads, recognising that connecting our regional towns and cities to their capitals and getting our farm and mining exports to markets in the most efficient way possible, especially in this the Asian Century, must be a priority.

This investment includes:

    $6.7 billion to upgrade the Bruce Highway to make it safer and better protect it against regular and costly flooding;
    $5.6 billion to finally finish the duplication of the Pacific Highway within this decade;
    Up to $1.3 billion to build the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing as the first major road PPP project in regional Australia;
    $400 million to continue the Midland Highway upgrade in Tasmania; and
    Almost $500 million for the Great North Highway and North West Coastal Highway in WA.

And there’s more to come.

We have committed $300 million to finalise plans, engineering design and environmental assessments, as well as start construction on the iconic Melbourne-to-Brisbane Inland Rail project.

I remind you that it was the previous Coalition Government that had the vision to champion and begin work on the Inland Rail and not much as happened over the past six years.

It’s part of our holistic infrastructure effort combining all transport modes. It recognises the reality that, nationally, our freight task will double over the next 20 years, but that it will treble along the eastern seaboard.

The Inland Rail will join Brisbane through Toowoomba, southern Queensland, regional NSW and Victoria, and on into Melbourne.

That means less congestion on our highways, but also the local roads that service our metropolitan and regional ports.

Speaking of local roads, we have a renewed commitment to the Roads to Recovery Programme, locking in its future for a further five years with $1.75 billion of funding.

As most of you will be aware, Labor and the Greens are now playing games with this funding. They opposed the legislation to deliver it in the House and are poised to do the same in the Senate.

If this legislation does not pass the Senate by 30 June this year, that $1.75 billion, which Australia’s 565 local councils depend on for their roads and streets will be road kill.

It’s something that regional Australians understand only too well. Of the 17 seats that changed to deliver the Coalition government last September, 11 were regional.

Now they look to the Coalition to help the regions build a better future.

The Government has also committed $300 million to the Black Spot Programme addressing road sites that are high risk areas for serious crashes, in addition to our new $300 million Bridges Renewal programme to restore dilapidated local bridges.

Rail

In addition to the Inland Rail project, we continue to upgrade our nation’s rail system.

$50 million is being injected into the Australian Rail Track Corporation to deploy its Advanced Train Management System (or ATMS) from Port Augusta to Tarcoola in northern South Australia.

Once operational, this system can be extended to other parts of the ARTC network, bringing interstate rail into the modern era by replacing physical train control and signalling systems with an advanced digital system using global positioning, 3G broadband communications and satellite technology.

We are also investing in our rail freight links to our ports.

We are delivering a $75 million investment in the next stage of the Port Botany Rail Line Upgrade in Sydney and we are working with the private sector to deliver the much-needed Moorebank Intermodal Terminal.

In Melbourne we are committing $38 million to the Melbourne Metropolitan Intermodal Terminal system.

And, in Brisbane, we are partnering with the Queensland Government to plan a new 24/7 rail freight link to the Port of Brisbane—the country’s fastest growing container port.

This line would not only feed the Port but also link to the Inland Railway connecting the mines and agricultural regions of South East Queensland and Northern NSW to international markets.

I might add that, in Perth, we will shortly complete the North Terminal Rail Quay at Freemantle, which will significantly improve the rail connections between the Port and the key freight hub of Kewdale.*


----------



## Tisme

These appear to be back to the future proposals Noco. Have you investigated to see if any or all have actually begun since April 2014?

Things like the Melbourne to Brisbane inland rail are pretty much just nonsense rhetoric that are wheeled out as election "non core" promises aren't they?

I find myself uninclined to check out anything this secretive govt says it's gunna do, because finding the facts and unravelling the truth is so tortuous. Of course come a few weeks and my activities searching the govt dept sites will be tracked by the LNP police and my identity red flagged as a busy body....especially when they do a retrospective "metadata" dump.





noco said:


> http://australianpolitics.com/2014/04/30/warren-truss-npc-infrastructure-address.html
> 
> *Our investment will leverage similar levels of funding from other tiers of government and the private sector.
> 
> By now, I hope you know our headline city investments well:
> 
> $3 billion for Melbourne’s East-West Link””stages 1 and 2,
> $1.5 billion to get Sydney’s WestConnex underway and another $405 million for the NorthConnex project,
> $3.5 billion for the roads of Western Sydney,
> $1 billion to upgrade the Gateway Motorway North in Brisbane,
> $686 million to finish the Gateway WA Project in Perth and $615 million for the Swan Valley Bypass, and
> $500 million for the upgrade of South Road in Adelaide.
> 
> But our transport package also includes record amounts for regional roads, recognising that connecting our regional towns and cities to their capitals and getting our farm and mining exports to markets in the most efficient way possible, especially in this the Asian Century, must be a priority.
> 
> This investment includes:
> 
> $6.7 billion to upgrade the Bruce Highway to make it safer and better protect it against regular and costly flooding;
> $5.6 billion to finally finish the duplication of the Pacific Highway within this decade;
> Up to $1.3 billion to build the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing as the first major road PPP project in regional Australia;
> $400 million to continue the Midland Highway upgrade in Tasmania; and
> Almost $500 million for the Great North Highway and North West Coastal Highway in WA.
> 
> And there’s more to come.
> 
> We have committed $300 million to finalise plans, engineering design and environmental assessments, as well as start construction on the iconic Melbourne-to-Brisbane Inland Rail project.
> 
> I remind you that it was the previous Coalition Government that had the vision to champion and begin work on the Inland Rail and not much as happened over the past six years.
> 
> It’s part of our holistic infrastructure effort combining all transport modes. It recognises the reality that, nationally, our freight task will double over the next 20 years, but that it will treble along the eastern seaboard.
> 
> The Inland Rail will join Brisbane through Toowoomba, southern Queensland, regional NSW and Victoria, and on into Melbourne.
> 
> That means less congestion on our highways, but also the local roads that service our metropolitan and regional ports.
> 
> Speaking of local roads, we have a renewed commitment to the Roads to Recovery Programme, locking in its future for a further five years with $1.75 billion of funding.
> 
> As most of you will be aware, Labor and the Greens are now playing games with this funding. They opposed the legislation to deliver it in the House and are poised to do the same in the Senate.
> 
> If this legislation does not pass the Senate by 30 June this year, that $1.75 billion, which Australia’s 565 local councils depend on for their roads and streets will be road kill.
> 
> It’s something that regional Australians understand only too well. Of the 17 seats that changed to deliver the Coalition government last September, 11 were regional.
> 
> Now they look to the Coalition to help the regions build a better future.
> 
> The Government has also committed $300 million to the Black Spot Programme addressing road sites that are high risk areas for serious crashes, in addition to our new $300 million Bridges Renewal programme to restore dilapidated local bridges.
> 
> Rail
> 
> In addition to the Inland Rail project, we continue to upgrade our nation’s rail system.
> 
> $50 million is being injected into the Australian Rail Track Corporation to deploy its Advanced Train Management System (or ATMS) from Port Augusta to Tarcoola in northern South Australia.
> 
> Once operational, this system can be extended to other parts of the ARTC network, bringing interstate rail into the modern era by replacing physical train control and signalling systems with an advanced digital system using global positioning, 3G broadband communications and satellite technology.
> 
> We are also investing in our rail freight links to our ports.
> 
> We are delivering a $75 million investment in the next stage of the Port Botany Rail Line Upgrade in Sydney and we are working with the private sector to deliver the much-needed Moorebank Intermodal Terminal.
> 
> In Melbourne we are committing $38 million to the Melbourne Metropolitan Intermodal Terminal system.
> 
> And, in Brisbane, we are partnering with the Queensland Government to plan a new 24/7 rail freight link to the Port of Brisbane””the country’s fastest growing container port.
> 
> This line would not only feed the Port but also link to the Inland Railway connecting the mines and agricultural regions of South East Queensland and Northern NSW to international markets.
> 
> I might add that, in Perth, we will shortly complete the North Terminal Rail Quay at Freemantle, which will significantly improve the rail connections between the Port and the key freight hub of Kewdale.*


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Syd, instead of listening to your LUG party comrades and then coming up with your rhetoric condemning Abbott and the Liberal/National party government on infrastructure, perhaps it might be wise of you to do some research  of your own first to avoid further embarrassing yourself.
> 
> You talk about an investment of $1 to return 55 cents is not a private investment and is a long term project to benefit motorist for decades to come as more vehicles go on the roads.... Liberals normally think further ahead than Labor who generally make policies   on the run....The NBN is a typical Labor Party policy on the run which was done on the bcak of a serviette
> 
> 
> I don't know of any public transport whether it be rail, road or bus that runs at a profit.....They are all highly subsidized.




But you provide a "list" of infrastructure "investments" but then don't know how many are actually currently funded and currently being worked on.

If infrastructure isn't self liquidating ie provides a net economic return above the cost of capital, how do we continue to fund infrastructure in the future.  Since the Govt is currently running a budget deficit, any funding for investment has to increase the deficit.  So if the debt to fund the infrastructure is not self liquidating, how do we pay it off?  Wouldn't long term thinking consider the issue of whether the infrastructure will eventually pay for itself?

If you don't know of toll roads then I'm quite surprised.  Possibly do some research on Transurban to see roads that pay for themselves.  It's the expensive option IMHO.  I'd prefer Govt to borrow cheaply and use low tolls to pay off the road over it's economic life, but then the financial industry and rent seekers wouldn't be able to tax citizens just like the Govt if we went for that option.  For what is a toll if not just another word for a tax / tariff / levy.

Does it matter how long an investment is around for if it never provides an economic return?

So I'll go back to the east west link that you are so highly supportive of.  It's always good to deal with a specific real world example.

Using the most basic methodology preferred by Infrastructure Australia, the project was assessed as having a benefit-cost ratio of just 0.45 in March 2013.  Note, the Liberal Govt was too scared to have IA actually vet the project.

In other words, it was a dog: according to the government's own numbers, the project involved a loss-making return of just 45 cents for every $1 spent.  Why do you compliment Abbott for supporting such a poor investment.  Would you let him manage your super with those kinds of returns?

Now, the Vic Liberals tried to include all those long term benefits you use to justify the Liberal investment philosophy.  

To boost the numbers, the government added in three so-called wider economic benefits, resorting to a controversial branch of analysis known as "agglomeration economics".

In doing so, it assumed that the project would cause businesses to "cluster", leading to efficiencies associated with a higher density of activity.

It also - somewhat dubiously - claimed the road would increase the number of hours worked because of reduced travel times, resulting in higher tax revenue, before adding in an extra productivity gain for good measure stemming from higher labour productivity.

*But even after adding in those three "wider economic benefits", according to the government's own numbers the project did not stack up, producing a benefit-cost ratio of 0.84, suggesting a loss-making return of 84 cents for every $1 spent.*

I'll give it to the Vic Liberals, when they set themselves on a path, nothing, not even the facts, will dissuade them from their pre-planned course.

Three months after producing a first business case, the former government released a second, revised version, in which it dramatically increased the claimed benefit estimates.

It achieved this by including a range of "complementary" projects in the analysis, including widening the Tullamarine Freeway, widening the Eastern Freeway and a range of "north-south" public transport improvements.

Despite these projects arguably being completely separate measures for Melbourne's transport network, the Coalition was finally able to product a positive benefit-cost ratio of 1.4, which it selectively spruiked in a glossy "short-form" business case.

*In an extraordinary admission, cabinet documents reveal the former government decided not to release the full business case to Infrastructure Australia – the independent umpire – because it was worried the low benefit-cost ratio "may be used as a justification for not supporting the project".*

Instead, the Vic Liberals decided to dodge scrutiny by providing "updated strategic material". "The Victorian Government can then state that it has submitted updated project information to IA for assessment," the cabinet assessment says, also suggesting this would allow it to lobby the Commonwealth for cash to build the road.

Now if it had been a Labor Govt going to those kinds of lengths to hide the truth, and it had been a Labor PM throwing billions of dollars in support to the project, what would your attitude be?  I'm pretty confident you would not be defending it like you are.

Take a look at the list that IA has produced, and regularly updates, on proposed infrasctructure investments.

https://www.nics.gov.au/Home/PriorityProjects

I would suggest that projects that have progressed to the real potential and threshold stages are where we should prioritising funding.  To do otherwise means we are setting future generations with high debt levels for the sugar hit of some growth during the construction phase.  That is short term thinking at it's worst!


----------



## SirRumpole

Yet another example of the Abbott government's commitment to the "truth" and to the Australian workforce.

Apologise and withdraw, Opposition tells Federal Government over proposed new shipping laws



> Government officials have admitted they suggested an Australian cruise operator could replace local staff with foreigners to survive under proposed Federal Government laws.
> 
> The Coalition has a bill before Parliament to deregulate the industry, paving the way for foreign-flagged ships to spend more time in Australian waters.
> 
> Bill Milby from North Star Cruises, which runs a luxury passenger ship along the Kimberley Coast, has previously claimed Government officials told him to consider hiring foreign crew to survive under the new laws.
> 
> "That suggested advice was that we re-flag ... take [the ship] away to a flag of convenience ... lay off our senior crew... put on a foreign crew and bring it back," he told a parliamentary hearing.
> 
> "That was how we could compete with the foreign ships that would come down and operate on our coastline."
> 
> *Prime Minister Tony Abbott said Mr Milby's account was "just not true" and Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss told Parliament it was "inaccurate."*
> 
> "I have spoken to the secretary of my department who has assured me that the comments ... are inaccurate and do not reflect accurately the words of the conversation entered into by the staff member concerned," Mr Truss said in Question Time.
> 
> But the government officials, Judi Zilkie and Michael Sutton from the Department of Infrastructure, have admitted the issue was raised with Mr Milby.
> 
> Asked in the same parliamentary hearing if she "discussed with him [Mr Milby] the option of going offshore", Ms Zilkie replied: "Yes."
> 
> But she said while they "did talk about the various options" she denies she "provided advice that he should take that action."
> Proposed changes will threaten local shipping companies: Milby
> 
> Mr Milby made it clear he was angry with Mr Abbott and Mr Truss, not the departmental officials.
> 
> "I'm not trying to pick a fight with the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister, but I don't like being told I'm lying," he said.
> 
> "I take offence of that ... I take very strong offence of that."
> 
> Labor's infrastructure and transport spokesman Anthony Albanese is demanding a retraction.
> 
> "The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister both owe Mr Milby an apology. Warren Truss clearly has misled Parliament," he said.
> 
> Mr Albanese said the legislation, which is currently being considered by the Senate, should be withdrawn.
> 
> "When the Government introduced this legislation, they said it was about Australia's national interest," he said.
> 
> "Quite clearly it's not. Australian-based ships won't be able to compete with foreign-based ships if they're allowed to pay foreign wages."
> 
> Mr Milby said the changes would threaten local shipping companies and the tourism industry.
> 
> "We don't want to hire foreign crews for an Australian operation that takes tourists to iconic locations in Australia," he said.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-08/opposition-demands-apology-over-proposed-shipping-laws/6756760


----------



## sydboy007

Well, seems what the Govt says and reality don't line up too well

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ing-for-nurses-engineers-20150907-gjgv1q.html



> Department of Immigration and Border Protection first assistant secretary David Wilden said that if the free trade agreement came into effect, there would no longer be labour market testing for Chinese nurses, engineers, and other Skills Category 3 occupations…
> 
> Labor MP Kelvin Thomson said the admission showed the Abbott government was “guilty of seriously misleading” Australians about the impact of the agreement.
> 
> “The Prime Minister and others are misleading the Australian people in general and engineers and nurses in particular,” he said.
> 
> “The labour market provisions of this deal go far beyond business executives and martial arts practitioners. We are permanently giving away our capacity to require labour market testing in a whole range of trades and occupations.”




But it gets worse.  Way worse

http://www.theguardian.com/australi...es-it-hard-to-protect-local-jobs-in-china-fta



> The problem with the legislation approach is that these 457s are very complicated.* In fact, about 84% of all of the 457s coming in are excluded from market testing” [Robb said]*…
> 
> Government statistics show 38,130 visas were granted under the 457 program in the nine months to March 2015, of which 27,450 (72%) were in the exempted skill levels one and two. About 8,930 (23%) were in skill group three, described as technicians and trades workers.
> 
> Robb said the provisions for skilled foreign workers were “designed by Labor to be governed by regulation under overarching legislation”.




Just wow.  How is it possible Labor designed such a system.  Mind boggling.  Bit hypocritical to just start complaining about it now, but just as despicable the Govt is being so untruthful about the rorting of 457 visas.

The differences between the various skills classifications are defined below:

Skill Level 1: Managers and Professionals – bachelor degree or 5 years of relevant work experience
Skill Level 2: Associate Professionals – diploma (2 year qualification) or 3 years of relevant work experience
Skill Level 3: Trades and Technicians – Certificate IV (1.5 year qualification) or 3 years of relevant work experience or Certificate III including 2 years of on-the-job training
So we have roughly 800,000 Aussies unemployed at present.  The Govt wants to force the under 30s to wait longer, while providing $$$ for employing the over 50s unemployed more than 6 months.  Wonder which vote the Govt is courting.

And now we can see that there's roughly 39,000 457 visas a year issued to any employer that says they can't get a local to fill the position, and they don't have to prove it.

Even the Department of Employment also revealed on Tuesday that skills shortages have all but vanished, with



> “more than enough applicants with relevant qualifications, or appropriate skills and experience, for vacancies in almost every occupation”. It also noted that “in 2014-15, there was an average of 13.6 applicants for each skilled vacancy (15.8 for professions and 12.1 for technicians and trades), of whom an average of 2.2 were considered by employers to be suitable”.




Seriously, what other country would allow companies to actively import workers when there's plenty of locals that could do the job.  Gina may yet get her Roy Hill wish of $2 a day African workers.


----------



## Tisme

Scorecard:

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2015/sep/09/jason-clare-labor-mp-tirade-against-abbott-government-goes-viral-video

and 

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2015/sep/10/tony-abbott-leigh-sales-interview-economy-730-abc-video


----------



## SirRumpole

Today in Parliament Warren Truss said that we do $150 billion of trade with China per year.

They pay $100 billion for our goods and we pay $50 billion for theirs.

That's a profit of $50 billion pa to us.

If it aint broke, don't try and fix it I reckon.


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> Today in Parliament Warren Truss said that we do $150 billion of trade with China per year.
> 
> They pay $100 billion for our goods and we pay $50 billion for theirs.
> 
> That's a profit of $50 billion pa to us.
> 
> If it aint broke, don't try and fix it I reckon.




meh

that's a very backward looking figure.  Give it another year or two and the "surplus" will be mr creosote wafer thin.

rebalancing within china means more consumption and less resource intensive growth.

good for china, good for the world in general, very bad for Australia and Brazil.


----------



## SirRumpole

> that's a very backward looking figure. Give it another year or two and the "surplus" will be mr creosote wafer thin.




Is that with or without CHAFTA ?


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> Is that with or without CHAFTA ?




Considering the promises of the AUSUS FTA and the reality, I doubt Australia will get much benefit from it

The fact is that our economy has been hollowed out.  Much of the manufacturing that could have taken advantage of the lower AUD is gone.  Only so much tourism we can handle, those jobs don't pay too well, and it seems a lot of those jobs are available for 457 visa holders with little labour market testing, so we might see a bunch of Chinese funded resorts filled with Chinese staff, so the money comes in then goes back to china.

I'd say any lifting of access restrictions by the Chinese would be worth the paper they're written on, maybe less.  State champions will stll be pampered and any Aussie company that gets too successful would be trgeted pretty quickly.  Definitely wouldn't want to be working in China if the company is going great.  Probably end up in jail.


----------



## IFocus

This why you don't see Abbott take any real questions




> Tony Abbott says stopping boats has helped economy towards 'sustainable surplus', calls on ABC to talk up economy
> 
> Prime Minister Tony Abbott has called on the ABC to talk up the economy, and sidestepped questions on key economic indicators by citing the Government's record on stopping the boats.
> 
> *In an interview with the ABC's 7.30 program, Mr Abbott was questioned on why the language key ministers use to describe the economy had shifted.
> 
> "When Labor left office, unemployment was at 5.8 per cent, it's now 6.3 per cent," presenter Leigh Sales said.
> 
> "Growth was 2.5 per cent, it's now 2 per cent, the Australian dollar was 92 cents, its now around 70 cents, the budget deficit was $30 billion when you took office, and now it's $48 billion.*
> 
> "How do you explain to the Australian people that you were *elected promising, in your words, to fix the budget emergency, yet in fact Australia's economic position has worsened under your leadership?"*
> 
> Mr Abbott responded: "I don't accept that.
> 
> "The boats have stopped, the carbon tax has gone, the mining tax has gone, we're now on a path to sustainable surplus, and we've got three free trade agreements finalised.


----------



## drsmith

IFocus said:


> This why you don't see Abbott take any real questions



If the above is an accurate representation of the flow of conversation, Leigh may have been better to give TA an opportunity to respond to the specific questions before following up with the more generalised question.


----------



## galumay

Its pretty straightforward, question was, 

"How do you explain to the Australian people that you were elected promising, in your words, to fix the budget emergency, yet in fact Australia's economic position has worsened under your leadership?"

His reply was, 

"I don't accept that.
The boats have stopped, the carbon tax has gone, the mining tax has gone, we're now on a path to sustainable surplus, and we've got three free trade agreements finalised."

What doesnt he accept, its unarguable that the economic position is worse. Then he flies off at a tangent raising 3 points entirely irrelevant to the question. (all of which arguably made the economy worse.)

Its just a desperate man, totally out of his depth, bereft of leadership, flailing about madly.

He looks like a dead man walking.


----------



## sydboy007

galumay said:


> Its pretty straightforward, question was,
> 
> "How do you explain to the Australian people that you were elected promising, in your words, to fix the budget emergency, yet in fact Australia's economic position has worsened under your leadership?"
> 
> His reply was,
> 
> "I don't accept that.
> The boats have stopped, the carbon tax has gone, the mining tax has gone, we're now on a path to sustainable surplus, and we've got three free trade agreements finalised."
> 
> What doesnt he accept, its unarguable that the economic position is worse. Then he flies off at a tangent raising 3 points entirely irrelevant to the question. (all of which arguably made the economy worse.)
> 
> Its just a desperate man, totally out of his depth, bereft of leadership, flailing about madly.
> 
> He looks like a dead man walking.




I was surprised he didn't list the Grocery Code of Conduct as another achievement that was helping toshield us from the travails in China.  Possibly Peta forgot to add that to his tape.


----------



## Tisme

IFocus said:


> This why you don't see Abbott take any real questions




Look back a couple of posts and you will see the link


----------



## SirRumpole

Abbott, Truss, Hockey, Dutton - dumb, dumber, even dumber and even more dumb that that.

What a hopeless lot.

Stand up Turnbull , Bishop(J), Ley and Morrison before it's too late for the country.

I don't really care about the Libs or their moronic offsiders the Nats, but the country can't take much more of this rubbish.


----------



## qldfrog

SirRumpole said:


> Abbott, Truss, Hockey, Dutton - dumb, dumber, even dumber and even more dumb that that.
> 
> What a hopeless lot.
> 
> Stand up Turnbull , Bishop(J), Ley and Morrison before it's too late for the country.
> 
> I don't really care about the Libs or their moronic offsiders the Nats, but the country can't take much more of this rubbish.



I would join you heartily where and when can we sign..and no Labour has no answer either
This country needs some leadership with brain: bring me a keating or a costello anytime


----------



## sydboy007

qldfrog said:


> I would join you heartily where and when can we sign..and no Labour has no answer either
> This country needs some leadership with brain: bring me a keating or a costello anytime




I'd argue for a Keating.  Much of the changes that Costello implemented are now being wound back.  One could argue they were more Howard's mistakes, but as treasurer if you can't get the PM to understand the long term consequences of changes to various forms of taxes and spending initiatives, you shouldn't be in the job.  Hope hockey heard that.  

Did Costello actually implement any long term beneficial reform for the economy?  I've racked my brain and can't really think of anything.  No idea how much his support of the GST got Howard to push for that reform.  He certainly helped to juice the boom, and helped give us the highest mortgage rates in a generation though.  Funny how the tens of billions in extra interest costs is forgotten by the public.  Tax cut in one hand, higher mortgages costs out the other.

Abbott has so far had to roll back the fuel indexation freeze and the reduced tapering of the pension assets test.  He also needs to fix up the CGT concession and do a decent job of looking at the super tax expenditures, pensions, pension incomes to try and reduce the growing impact of tax free super and escalating super tax expenditures.  All these have been captain's picked off the table.

Sadly Labor hasn't been doing much in the ideas department, even though this was supposedly the year we'd start seeing some serious policy being released.

It's a strange world we live in when the centre left party has more market based policies than the moving from the centre right party, and even stranger still when it's the Greens that has gotten much of the sensible reforms through the senate ie removing the freeze on fuel excise indexation and pension asset test tapering rates.  My hope is they release some more economically rational and socially equitable policies to force the hands of the laberals.


----------



## sydboy007

made me laugh.  then despondent about how true it all was.

[video=youtube_share;_eAx9YWTwLU]http://youtu.be/_eAx9YWTwLU[/video]

"Someone's building a coal mine on the nature strip and Tony approves"

"Tony wants to go and bomb some place"

"I just need one more second chance"

"Tony you have degraded the very very senior position that you were given"

"I'll get a photo taken with the army"

"Getting your photo taken with the army isn't going to help.  It didn't before and it wont now"

"I'll get Joe to give you some of his lunch"

"Joe can't even get home without hurting himself.  You know that"

"Shorten isn't in your class"  "Well what's that supposed to mean"


----------



## drsmith

Whatever TA does regarding his own future, he's now a dead PM walking.

With a story today about a major cabinet reshuffle in the News Limited press, it's likely my view that this has been leaked by a person or persons within his own party and is about trying to facilitate a bad result in the upcoming Canning by-election.

Today in particular has had all the hallmarks of the final days of Julia Gillard. He's tried his best but it's time for TA to walk the political plank and not leave it to the party to suffer the indignities that Labor inflicted on itself during its time in office.


----------



## SirRumpole

What a trio of Wallies.

I bet this went down well with Pacific Nations (no pun intended)


Peter Dutton overheard joking about rising sea levels in Pacific Island nations

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-...g-about-sea-levels-in-pacific-islands/6768324


----------



## Logique

If the cap fits dear Tanya. How you wish it had been one of the blokes that said it!  You could really have hammed it up. 

Truth is, along with Mark Dreyfus, you are a serial interjector, and Julie Bishop called you on it.



> *Labor accuses Julie Bishop of calling Tanya Plibersek a 'bitch' in Parliament* - September 11, 2015
> The Age: http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...parliament-20150911-gjk9nu.html#ixzz3lP02MWAX
> 
> ...While Prime Minister Tony Abbott is giving his response, the Hansard shows Ms Plibersek repeatedly interjecting and being asked to stop.  It is at this point that video shows Ms Bishop making her remarks...


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> What a trio of Wallies.
> 
> I bet this went down well with Pacific Nations (no pun intended)
> 
> Peter Dutton overheard joking about rising sea levels in Pacific Island nations




These little gaffes usually give us a far more honest appraisal of what politicians really think.

At least Morrison has shown he has a reasonable degree of situational awareness.

Now the conspiracy theorist in me wonders if the Liberal right set this up to give Morrison a leg up in the pending spill motion


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> Now the conspiracy theorist in me wonders if the Liberal right set this up to give Morrison a leg up in the pending spill motion




I don't think anyone could forsee something so stupid as that comment.

And you're right. If politicians could be caught of guard more often we would know more how they really think, if you can describe that remark as "thinking".


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> These little gaffes usually give us a far more honest appraisal of what politicians really think.
> 
> At least Morrison has shown he has a reasonable degree of situational awareness.
> 
> Now the conspiracy theorist in me wonders if the Liberal right set this up to give Morrison a leg up in the pending spill motion




So Syd, do you really believe the seas are rising?


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> So Syd, do you really believe the seas are rising?




Evidence shows sea levels have risen somewhere between 10 and 20 cm over the last century.

But I'm sure you BoltCorp news approved information sources are claiming the impending ice age is seeing sea levels fall.

Abbotts laugh pretty much shows his comments regarding the science on global is crap still hold true for him.

If he doesn't believe in it, why tell the electorate he does, why have direct action, why bother doing anything to lower the carbon intensity of the economy?


----------



## sydboy007

Is it OK for the Govt to go beyond stretching the truth or gilding the lilly, to outright fabrication?

Abbott / Dutton / Robb all claiming "ON a per capita basis we actually take more refugee and humanitarian entrants than any other country"

The truth is we are 27th, on a per capita basis, on the number of refugees we resettle.

Then Abbott is out claiming that "the great thing about what the Govt has been doing for small business right around Australia...is that confidence is high" Sept 6 2015

The truth is business confidence has been trending down since the Abbott Govt took office.  If you focus in on small businesses, they've been gloomy for over a year, with a net negative confidence figure for the last 3 quarters.

Then Abbott makes a bold claim "Since the Election we have had 335,000 more jobs created in our economy" Sept 6.  Hockey went on to perpetuate the lie.

The truth is that by July 2015 there were only a net 165,000 new jobs.  ABS figures in September 2013, there were 11,645,800 employed people, and in July 2015, there were 11,810,700 employed people.

What about Abbott's claim "We have got, right now, car sales at new record levels."

Ah no, the record level of care sales was set in the 12 months to June 2013 ie before the Abbott Govt.

Oh wait, surely Abbotts claim that "Housing approvals [are] at new record levels" has some truth to it?

Well, it's a half truth.  In absolute terms he's telling the truth.  We shouldn't forget that our population grows every year, and therefore so does our need for housing. Once you factor in our current population, and you look at the number of new dwellings approved on a per capita basis, then the record over the last 35 years was set in the 12 month period to June 1989, when 11.13 new dwellings were approved for each 1,000 people living in Australia at the time. This compares to only 9.23 new dwellings approved for each 1,000 people living in Australia for the year ending 30 June 2015 (which ranks only 9th in the 35 year period).

It's a shame the MSM lets the Govt get away with telling so many porkies


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Evidence shows sea levels have risen somewhere between 10 and 20 cm over the last century.
> 
> But I'm sure you BoltCorp news approved information sources are claiming the impending ice age is seeing sea levels fall.
> 
> Abbotts laugh pretty much shows his comments regarding the science on global is crap still hold true for him.
> 
> If he doesn't believe in it, why tell the electorate he does, why have direct action, why bother doing anything to lower the carbon intensity of the economy?
> 
> View attachment 64264




Syd, stop listening to that idiot Flannery.

Flannery said we would never get enough rains to fill our dams on the Ease Coast....Wrong.

Flannery said the seas would rise to the height of 10 storied buildings and yet he buys a block of land on the Hawksberry River just 2 metres above high water mark.

Some Pacific island give the appearance that seas are rising when in actual fact they are sinking because they are built on coral atolls. 

I have traveled to many Western Pacific Island and PNG on business...I know what is happening because I have been on the ground to see it for myself.

So don't believe in that malarkey.


----------



## SirRumpole

sydboy007 said:


> Is it OK for the Govt to go beyond stretching the truth or gilding the lilly, to outright fabrication?
> 
> Abbott / Dutton / Robb all claiming "ON a per capita basis we actually take more refugee and humanitarian entrants than any other country"
> 
> The truth is we are 27th, on a per capita basis, on the number of refugees we resettle.
> 
> Then Abbott is out claiming that "the great thing about what the Govt has been doing for small business right around Australia...is that confidence is high" Sept 6 2015
> 
> The truth is business confidence has been trending down since the Abbott Govt took office.  If you focus in on small businesses, they've been gloomy for over a year, with a net negative confidence figure for the last 3 quarters.
> 
> Then Abbott makes a bold claim "Since the Election we have had 335,000 more jobs created in our economy" Sept 6.  Hockey went on to perpetuate the lie.
> 
> The truth is that by July 2015 there were only a net 165,000 new jobs.  ABS figures in September 2013, there were 11,645,800 employed people, and in July 2015, there were 11,810,700 employed people.
> 
> What about Abbott's claim "We have got, right now, car sales at new record levels."
> 
> Ah no, the record level of care sales was set in the 12 months to June 2013 ie before the Abbott Govt.
> 
> Oh wait, surely Abbotts claim that "Housing approvals [are] at new record levels" has some truth to it?
> 
> Well, it's a half truth.  In absolute terms he's telling the truth.  We shouldn't forget that our population grows every year, and therefore so does our need for housing. Once you factor in our current population, and you look at the number of new dwellings approved on a per capita basis, then the record over the last 35 years was set in the 12 month period to June 1989, when 11.13 new dwellings were approved for each 1,000 people living in Australia at the time. This compares to only 9.23 new dwellings approved for each 1,000 people living in Australia for the year ending 30 June 2015 (which ranks only 9th in the 35 year period).
> 
> It's a shame the MSM lets the Govt get away with telling so many porkies




Syd, ABC Fact Check needs you !


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Syd, stop listening to that idiot Flannery.




I suppose the difference between us is I may live through things if you're wrong.  Odds on chance I'll be kicking on through the 2050s into the 2060s.

2014 was another record hot year for the globe.  We've not set a record cold year since 1911.  I wonder why


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> I suppose the difference between us is I may live through things if you're wrong.  Odds on chance I'll be kicking on through the 2050s into the 2060s.
> 
> 2014 was another record hot year for the globe.  We've not set a record cold year since 1911.  I wonder why




ROFL.
In townsville last night we still had to use a blanket because it was cold...never known this in mid September in the 44 years I have lived here......normally by this time of the year we have to turn on the air conditioners.

Canberra got down to 2 c this morning.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> ROFL.
> In townsville last night we still had to use a blanket because it was cold...never known this in mid September in the 44 years I have lived here......normally by this time of the year we have to turn on the air conditioners.
> 
> Canberra got down to 2 c this morning.




So localised weather is your refute of global warming.

So the fact California is going through heat waves and wild fires means....


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> So localised weather is your refute of global warming.
> 
> So the fact California is going through heat waves and wild fires means....




Global Warming??????What Global Warming?

There has been no Global warming for 18 years.

They now call it Climate Change.......Ah yes the climate changes every year and has done for centuries.

Syd, you are not keeping up with the modern times.


----------



## explod

noco said:


> Global Warming??????What Global Warming?
> 
> There has been no Global warming for 18 years.
> 
> They now call it Climate Change.......Ah yes the climate changes every year and has done for centuries.
> 
> Syd, you are not keeping up with the modern times.




Noco,  you are living in the clouds.  Being pushed from the north and south due to the increased heat getting under the polar caps. 

The weather as a result is becoming more volatile.   Bit like the stock market in fact. 

The earth was a fireball 5 billion years back,  it should be cooling and calming,  but due to oil and coal burning its gojng banana's,  like yourself. 

Off topic anyway,  the rabbitt government do not refer to the subject at all. 

Go back to sleep champ and let us Greens get on with the real job at hand.   Looks like we are going to take a Lib seat here in Victoria soon.   Farmers and the enlightened young are waking up and switching directly from your blasting bombs mob to the dismay of Labor too.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Global Warming??????What Global Warming?
> 
> There has been no Global warming for 18 years.
> 
> They now call it Climate Change.......Ah yes the climate changes every year and has done for centuries.
> 
> Syd, you are not keeping up with the modern times.




Would you like to comment on all the porkies that Abbott was telling on the weekend ?


----------



## SirRumpole

Pacific Island nations react to Dutton's insensitive remark.


Kiribati president lashes Peter Dutton for 'vulgar' joke about rising sea levels in Pacific, urges action on climate change


I suppose some may say "who cares about a few little Pacific Islands", but it gives the impression that we are a bully that only cares about itself. Our trading and regional rivals will jump on this and our influence in the area will diminish, possibly leading to diplomatic and military repercussions later on.



> The president of Kiribati has lashed out at Immigration Minister Peter Dutton, labelling him morally irresponsible for making a "vulgar" joke about rising sea levels in the Pacific.
> 
> Responding more in "sadness" than anger, Anote Tong said Mr Dutton has "got to search his own soul".
> 
> "What kind of a person is he? As long as there is this kind of attitude, this kind of arrogance in any position of leadership, we will continue to have a lot of tension," he said.
> 
> Yesterday, Mr Dutton was making small talk with Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who had just returned from talks with Pacific Island leaders in Papua New Guinea.
> 
> Noting that a meeting was running late, Mr Dutton remarked it was running to "Cape York time", to which Mr Abbott replied: "We had a bit of that up in Port Moresby."
> 
> Mr Dutton then quipped: "Time doesn't mean anything when you're about to have water lapping at your door."
> Six pollies caught out by a mic
> 
> Immigration Minister Peter Dutton might have described his banter about rising sea levels as a "private conversation", but as politicians should know, it's never private if there's a recording device.
> 
> Both men laughed before Social Services Minister Scott Morrison pointed out there was a microphone above their heads recording the conversation.
> 
> "It shows a sense of moral irresponsibility quite unbecoming of leadership in any capacity," Mr Tong said when asked about the joke.
> 
> "This is the issue we were arguing about yesterday."
> 
> At the meeting the Kiribati president, who has long been an outspoken advocate for global action on climate change, campaigned hard for Australia to promise to reduce emissions, support a tighter cap on global temperature rises and consider stopping building new coal mines.
> 
> "I find that extremely sad, extremely disappointing that we are making jokes about a very serious issue," he said.
> 
> Mr Tong also warned Mr Dutton that a future Australian immigration minister will have to deal with a wave of Pacific refugees from low-lying countries like Kiribati, if sea levels continue to rise.
> 
> "I don't think so, I know so, because the science is quite categorical," he said.
> 
> "I hope this just doesn't reflect the deeper feelings ... about this issue because it's a serious issue for many people on this planet."
> 
> The foreign affairs minister of the Marshall Islands, Tony de Brum, also expressed his dismay over Mr Dutton's remarks.
> 
> "Dismayed Aust ministers joking about sea level rise in Pacific. Seems insensitivity knows no bounds in the big polluting island down sth," he wrote on Twitter.
> 
> Gary Juffa, the governor of Oro province in PNG, also tweeted, saying Mr Abbott "must apologise for insensitivity towards all for laughing at climate change".
> 
> The Immigration Minister has refused to answer questions about his remark, simply stating: "I had a private conversation with the Prime Minister."
> 
> He and the Prime Minister have been criticised by Opposition Leader Bill Shorten, who said "it was a bad joke by a minister who is a bad joke".
> 
> "But the fact that the Prime Minister is laughing along with it reminds me of what Barack Obama said: any leader who doesn't take climate change seriously is not fit to lead," he said




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-...shes-peter-dutton-for-sea-levels-joke/6770034


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> ROFL.
> In townsville last night we still had to use a blanket because it was cold...never known this in mid September in the 44 years I have lived here......normally by this time of the year we have to turn on the air conditioners.
> 
> Canberra got down to 2 c this morning.




These fires in Darwin are very early in the season.

I hope the situation doesn't get worse.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-...rwin-threaten-structures-cars-animals/6769438


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> ROFL.
> In townsville last night we still had to use a blanket because it was cold...never known this in mid September in the 44 years I have lived here......normally by this time of the year we have to turn on the air conditioners.
> 
> Canberra got down to 2 c this morning.




my perception had been we had a particularly cold winter in Sydney.  certainly I didn't enjoy heading to the train station at 5am

But that stats tell a very different story to my perception.  the rainfall anomalies is worrying too.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/mwr/aus/mwr-aus-201507.pdf




june was even more extreem

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/mwr/aus/mwr-aus-201506.pdf


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> Is it OK for the Govt to go beyond stretching the truth or gilding the lilly, to outright fabrication?
> 
> Abbott / Dutton / Robb all claiming "ON a per capita basis we actually take more refugee and humanitarian entrants than any other country"
> 
> The truth is we are 27th, on a per capita basis, on the number of refugees we resettle.
> 
> Then Abbott is out claiming that "the great thing about what the Govt has been doing for small business right around Australia...is that confidence is high" Sept 6 2015
> 
> The truth is business confidence has been trending down since the Abbott Govt took office.  If you focus in on small businesses, they've been gloomy for over a year, with a net negative confidence figure for the last 3 quarters.
> 
> *Then Abbott makes a bold claim "Since the Election we have had 335,000 more jobs created in our economy" Sept 6.  Hockey went on to perpetuate the lie.
> 
> The truth is that by July 2015 there were only a net 165,000 new jobs.  ABS figures in September 2013, there were 11,645,800 employed people, and in July 2015, there were 11,810,700 employed people.*
> 
> What about Abbott's claim "We have got, right now, car sales at new record levels."
> 
> Ah no, the record level of care sales was set in the 12 months to June 2013 ie before the Abbott Govt.
> 
> Oh wait, surely Abbotts claim that "Housing approvals [are] at new record levels" has some truth to it?
> 
> Well, it's a half truth.  In absolute terms he's telling the truth.  We shouldn't forget that our population grows every year, and therefore so does our need for housing. Once you factor in our current population, and you look at the number of new dwellings approved on a per capita basis, then the record over the last 35 years was set in the 12 month period to June 1989, when 11.13 new dwellings were approved for each 1,000 people living in Australia at the time. This compares to only 9.23 new dwellings approved for each 1,000 people living in Australia for the year ending 30 June 2015 (which ranks only 9th in the 35 year period).
> 
> It's a shame the MSM lets the Govt get away with telling so many porkies




Sydney! :nono:

You might want to review what you've said about employment. To assist, a link to the ABS monthly stats is below.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@...sues&prodno=6202.0&issue=Aug 2015&num=&view=&

You're a smart boy Syd and you should be able to figure it out but to help, I'll give you a hint.

Note in particular the large correction to the number of employed persons between Dec 2013 and Jan 2014.

My bolds.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> Sydney! :nono:
> 
> You might want to review what you've said about employment. To assist, a link to the ABS monthly stats is below.
> 
> http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@...sues&prodno=6202.0&issue=Aug 2015&num=&view=&
> 
> You're a smart boy Syd and you should be able to figure it out but to help, I'll give you a hint.
> 
> Note in particular the large correction to the number of employed persons between Dec 2013 and Jan 2014.
> 
> My bolds.




meh

if you have to be so obtuse why would I bother


----------



## SirRumpole

Seems  I may have misjudged Barnaby, he may have some commonsense after all

Barnaby Joyce says business case for big new coalmines 'no longer stacks up' 



> Barnaby Joyce says the business case for big new coalmines “no longer stacks up” given the low price and slowing global demand for the fuel.
> 
> The agriculture minister’s comments were directed at the $1.2bn Shenhua Watermark coalmine planned for the fertile Liverpool Plains in his New South Wales electorate, but he conceded the financial argument applied in principle to all new coalmines.
> Newcastle grasps what Tony Abbott cannot – coal's time has passed
> Bill McKibben
> 
> Asked whether Shenhua made sense commercially, Joyce replied: “No. Why would you build it. The price of coal is $60 a tonne. It just doesn’t make sense ... The inherent business plan these coalmines used to be stacked up by is no longer there.
> 
> “... If that thing [Shenhua] goes ahead it is going to cost them $200m just to say they want to do it, to buy the [state government] licence, $800m to build it, $300m probably to put aside for rehabilitation works – that’s a $1.3bn punt on $60 a tonne spot price. They could go down to the Hunter Valley and buy [a coalmine] for $350m to do exactly the same job.”
> 
> “I think if you were making a logical decision, you’d make the logical decision not to go forward with it,” Joyce said in an interview with Guardian Australia.
> 
> Asked whether the same financial logic applied to the $16bn Carmichael mine proposed by the Indian company Adani in Queensland, Joyce said “in theory yes ... you would have to look into Adani’s business plan. I haven’t delved deeply into Adani’s business plan, they have to deal with the issue of why they are investing here when you can do it somewhere else.
> 
> “But I do look at Shenhua’s books and they have a 42% reduction in profits, China Coal for the first time made a loss and the reason they gave was an over-availability of coal. Well if you have an over-availability of coal it doesn’t make a lot of sense to then go back and say we’re going to invest more than a billion of our own money in building a coalmine.”
> 
> China’s coal sector has been hit by chronic overcapacity and lower demand as the country battles pollution and its industrial growth slows. Shenhua’s market-listed arm, China Shenhua Energy, reported a 45% fall in profits for the first six months of this year. Its July monthly production statistics showed it had imported no coal in the first seven months of the year, and reports in China suggest it is actually preparing to export coal. China’s overall coal imports fell 31%. China Coal Energy, a separate state-owned coalmining company, warned in June that it expected losses of around 1bn yuan ($A220m) in the first half of the year.
> 
> But Joyce said he believed there were key differences between the Shenhua and Adani projects, including the fierce opposition from local farmers to Shenhua and the fact that it was located in a fertile farming region. He said he had not complained about other mines in his electorate, such as Whitehaven’s Maules Creek mine, although he says he was misled about the problems that would be caused by Whitehaven Werris Creek coalmine, which was creating dust and noise issues for locals and enormous problems with loss of water – the same problems he anticipated would be caused by Shenhua.
> 
> The prime minister Tony Abbott has said he understands “people being absolutely passionate to protect the Liverpool Plains” but insisted the Shenhua mine should go ahead because it would create hundreds of jobs.
> For Tony Abbott, it's full steam ahead on coal, 'the foundation of prosperity'
> 
> “Mining and agriculture have coexisted for 100-odd years in this country, they can and should continue to coexist in the future. As all the science tells us, it’s not going to have an impact on the water table. And frankly, if it’s not going to damage the farming areas, if it is going to bring billions of dollars worth of economic activity and hundreds of ongoing jobs, I think we should say ‘let’s go with it’,” he said in July.
> 
> Joyce said the $300m figure for Shenhua’s rehabilitation bond was “a rough approximation”. Companies are not always required to pay the money as a bond and can usually offer a financial assurety.
> 
> Joyce appeared to suggest the NSW government should demand it as an upfront bond.
> 
> Asked whether it should be held as a bond, he said “that’s a very good question for the state government. I think you should have to prove you have the capacity to rehabilitate the site and if you can prove it you should prove you have the money to do it.”
> 
> Joyce has strongly backed the government’s proposed changes to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation to stop so-called “lawfare” – environment groups using legal challenges to stall developments – but they appear unlikely to pass the senate.
> 
> When federal environment minister Greg Hunt conditionally approved the Shenhua mine Joyce said the “world has gone mad”, but accepts Hunt was acting as he had to under the law.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ase-for-big-new-coalmines-no-longer-stacks-up


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Seems  I may have misjudged Barnaby, he may have some commonsense after all
> 
> Barnaby Joyce says business case for big new coalmines 'no longer stacks up'




Ah yes the good old Fabian indoctrinated communist paper the Guardian and the good old leftie Lenore Taylor....Just to listen to her whining on the Insiders on Sunday morning prompts me throw up my weeties....I never hear her criticizing Bill Shorten for putting obstacles in the way of the CHAFTA when you have the likes of all the Labor state premiers, Bob Hawke, Simon Crean, Bob Carr and Martin Ferguson all telling barnacle BILL to get out of the way let it all pass through to create more jobs and with so much  benefits in the national interest of our economy.....Bill is bowing to the CFMEU ...he is their puppet and is politicizing the whole deal.    

And YES Barnaby is Barnaby who is looking to the next years election....He had no alternative but to make a stand because he is in a rural area.....If he went along with the mine he would be a goner at the next election.

Lenore is a typical LUG supporter and most likely swaying towards the Greens.......She, like most of the socialists these days do not care about jobs or the economy of Australia.....What ever it takes to gain votes for the LUG party....What ever it takes to introduce socialism and central control....Every thing run by the state...A Good example of how they run things....PINK BATS, OVER PRICED SCHOOL HALLS, BRING BACK THE CARBON TAX AND OPEN THE BORDER GATES TO THE PEOPLE SMUGGLERS....The LUG party would not know how to run a chook raffle.

As I have pointed out before the price of coal and iron ore is at it's lowest price and will eventually rise....So it is business like to think ahead...Mines take months and months to get approved and then constructed ready for production......Non business people do not think ahead...they only think of today but are happy to scream blue murder like IFocus complaining about "WHERE ARE THE JOBS COMING FROM?"

Unemployment was 4% in 2007 and rose to 6% in 2013 under Labor with a prediction by Chris Bowen that unemployment would rise to 6.25% in 2014.......If the LUG party keep hampering development in Australia like  they have in recent times like the CHAFTA, unemployment will go even higher and they will not hesitate to blame the Liberal Party....Alan Jones summed up the LUG party on Richo and Jones on Tuesday night.

With the mining industry in the doldrums, the manufacturing done like a dinner thanks to the unions, we must develop and exploit  our agriculture in Northern Australia which will require more infrastructure like roads and water storage, but then again I guess the building of dams will be prevented by those Green extremist because they will  find a rare lizard or a rare red nosed hairy wombat in the area....I wonder how these animals get on when there are floods...I guess their instinct  guides them  to go to higher grounds.

Gawd help the country if ever the GREENS were to get into power let alone the LUG party.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Ah yes the good old Fabian indoctrinated communist paper the Guardian and the good old leftie Lenore Taylor....Just to listen to her whining on the Insiders on Sunday morning prompts me throw up my weeties.....




Did you actually read the article ? 

Virtually all of it was quotes from Barnaby Joyce.

How do you interpret that as being biased ?


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Ah yes the good old Fabian indoctrinated communist paper the Guardian and the good old leftie Lenore Taylor....Just to listen to her whining on the Insiders on Sunday morning prompts me throw up my weeties....I never hear her criticizing Bill Shorten for putting obstacles in the way of the CHAFTA when you have the likes of all the Labor state premiers, Bob Hawke, Simon Crean, Bob Carr and Martin Ferguson all telling barnacle BILL to get out of the way let it all pass through to create more jobs and with so much  benefits in the national interest of our economy.....Bill is bowing to the CFMEU ...he is their puppet and is politicizing the whole deal.




What is your forecast for a ton of coal in 2016, 2017, 2018

Currently around 43 USD

My prediction is prices will have to get down to sub 30 USD, possibly lower as demand growth continues to slow and eventually turns negative.  China and India are both looking towards alternative fuel sources.

So as barnaby says, why would you build a new coal mine when you could buy an existing one for a fraction of the cost?


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Did you actually read the article ?
> 
> Virtually all of it was quotes from Barnaby Joyce.
> 
> How do you interpret that as being biased ?




Yes of course I read it and yes I commented on Barnaby Joyce.

Where did I say she was biased?

My quote : -

*And YES Barnaby is Barnaby who is looking to the next years election....He had no alternative but to make a stand because he is in a rural area.....If he went along with the mine he would be a goner at the next election.*


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> What is your forecast for a ton of coal in 2016, 2017, 2018
> 
> Currently around 43 USD
> 
> My prediction is prices will have to get down to sub 30 USD, possibly lower as demand growth continues to slow and eventually turns negative.  China and India are both looking towards alternative fuel sources.
> 
> So as barnaby says, why would you build a new coal mine when you could buy an existing one for a fraction of the cost?




How long is a piece of string?.......Your prediction of US $30 is wishful thinking if you are a GREENIE....I am sure you would love to see the end of the coal industry.

India is starving for coal and in their minds is the cheapest fuel....some 100,000,000 people are still without power in India.

India, unlike the stupidity in Australia, cannot afford to subsidize solar and wind power, so coal is what they need and will use for a long time to come.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> India, unlike the stupidity in Australia, cannot afford to subsidize solar and wind power, so coal is what they need and will use for a long time to come.




Maybe, but the Indian energy Minister says he wants to phase out coal imports and use Indian coal, so where does that leave us ?


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> How long is a piece of string?.......Your prediction of US $30 is wishful thinking if you are a GREENIE....I am sure you would love to see the end of the coal industry.
> 
> India is starving for coal and in their minds is the cheapest fuel....some 100,000,000 people are still without power in India.
> 
> India, unlike the stupidity in Australia, cannot afford to subsidize solar and wind power, so coal is what they need and will use for a long time to come.




Currently there's a roughly 10% thermal coal supply surplus.  China and India – accounts for 90% of imported coal in the world (China alone 50%).

Chinese thermal coal imports are collapsing.  In July the country imported 9.7 million tonnes of thermal coal, a slight increase on June but down a massive 24.6% on levels of a year earlier. Revealing the broader trend, imports between January to July were down an even greater 39.1% on the same period of 2014.

So let's see what would happen if Noco reality prevailed. 2 massive new coal mines get build. They start to produce coal, into a market where coal demand is falling, where supply in tens of millions of tons in surplus. Would they have a cost structure below the marginal cost of equilibrium supply? Would they cause other mines to close?

Wouldn't we be better off investing in something with a long term future?

India has an airport that runs on solar power. They have a goal of 100 GW installed solar capacity by 2022. It's cheaper to install than centralised power generation. It's quicker to install too.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> Currently there's a roughly 10% thermal coal supply surplus.  China and India – accounts for 90% of imported coal in the world (China alone 50%).
> 
> Chinese thermal coal imports are collapsing.  In July the country imported 9.7 million tonnes of thermal coal, a slight increase on June but down a massive 24.6% on levels of a year earlier. Revealing the broader trend, imports between January to July were down an even greater 39.1% on the same period of 2014.
> 
> So let's see what would happen if Noco reality prevailed. 2 massive new coal mines get build. They start to produce coal, into a market where coal demand is falling, where supply in tens of millions of tons in surplus. Would they have a cost structure below the marginal cost of equilibrium supply? Would they cause other mines to close?
> 
> Wouldn't we be better off investing in something with a long term future?
> 
> India has an airport that runs on solar power. They have a goal of 100 GW installed solar capacity by 2022. It's cheaper to install than centralised power generation. It's quicker to install too.




Hmmmm...lets say there are lot more smarter people around the world than you Sydboy....Leave it to the experts and stop siding with the watermelon people to destroy our coal industry and our economy......The national interest should be our priority...not the tree huggers...I have a very good solution for them.

BTW. where did you pluck those figures from?....out of thin air and of course solar power runs when the Sun sets and pigs might fly and solar power is great for base loading!!!!!!!!!!  B*ll $h*t.


----------



## galumay

sydboy007 said:


> Wouldn't we be better off investing in something with a long term future?




Of course it would, but that wouldnt suit the vested interests of the Abbott LNP government. 

Travelling for a few months in europe is a real eye opener seeing the incredible scale of renewable energy here.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Yes of course I read it and yes I commented on Barnaby Joyce.
> 
> Where did I say she was biased?






			
				noco said:
			
		

> Lenore is a typical LUG supporter and most likely swaying towards the Greens.......She, like most of the socialists these days do not care about jobs or the economy of Australia.




One of your typical ad hominem rants...


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> One of your typical ad hominem rants...




Yeah...and many with a full brain on this forum would agree with me and many of the naive will agree with you ole' mate.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Yeah...and many with a full brain on this forum would agree with me and many of the naive will agree with you ole' mate.




Interesting, because I haven't seen a great deal of support for your views on this forum.

When you can't even look at the facts about coal prices, over supply, the fact that India is going to reduce coal imports, and then make a logical judgement on the basis of those facts I really can't see many people with a "full brain" agreeing with you.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Interesting, because I haven't seen a great deal of support for your views on this forum.
> 
> When you can't even look at the facts about coal prices, over supply, the fact that India is going to reduce coal imports, and then make a logical judgement on the basis of those facts I really can't see many people with a "full brain" agreeing with you.




They are the silent majority...I am one of the few who ignores character assassination you lefties continue to use in your endeavors to silence anyone who speaks out against you...Typical Fabian modus operandi....I will continue to speak my mind and trust there are plenty who will take notice.

I can count the number of your supporters on ASF on one hand.

Coal prices will rise just like other commodities...Your statement is wishful thinking and only time will prove it one way or another.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Hmmmm...lets say there are lot more smarter people around the world than you Sydboy....Leave it to the experts and stop siding with the watermelon people to destroy our coal industry and our economy......The national interest should be our priority...not the tree huggers...I have a very good solution for them.
> 
> BTW. where did you pluck those figures from?....out of thin air and of course solar power runs when the Sun sets and pigs might fly and solar power is great for base loading!!!!!!!!!!  B*ll $h*t.




5 mins of Google research would show you those figures are true.

If you dispute them then provided what you think are the true figures and let's make the debate one based on facts.

China and the USA are quite likely going to use carbon emissions as a trade weapon once they gain a competitive advantage.  The solar sector alone employs twice the workers of the coal industry in the USA and that's with relatively little Govt support.

Have a read of the report in the SMH today where monitoring stations around Newcastle show air quality is not meeting the standards, especially of the 2.5 micron particles that can travel deep into lung tissue.

I find it a shame anyone can look at an open cut coal mine and think that's a better option than wind or solar power.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Coal prices will rise just like other commodities...Your statement is wishful thinking and only time will prove it one way or another.




Excess supply meet reducing demand.  Without China demand growth, and India not looking to rely too heavily on coal, where will the demand come from to soak up the increasing excess supply? How long is that likely to take?

You obviously have answers to these questions, because you've claimed coal price will rise, and the only way that's possible is for demand to be greater than supply.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> 5 mins of Google research would show you those figures are true.
> 
> If you dispute them then provided what you think are the true figures and let's make the debate one based on facts.
> 
> China and the USA are quite likely going to use carbon emissions as a trade weapon once they gain a competitive advantage.  The solar sector alone employs twice the workers of the coal industry in the USA and that's with relatively little Govt support.
> 
> Have a read of the report in the SMH today where monitoring stations around Newcastle show air quality is not meeting the standards, especially of the 2.5 micron particles that can travel deep into lung tissue.
> 
> I find it a shame anyone can look at an open cut coal mine and think that's a better option than wind or solar power.




Coal power generation is 35% efficient where as Solar and wind are only 15%......Take away the government subsidies that are generously given to  to the Solar and wind industry and they may well collapse.....We are subsidizing the Chinese in the Solar industry.....Coal is not subsidized by the government......Solar and wind are not base load power and therefore unreliable.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> meh
> 
> if you have to be so obtuse why would I bother



I would have thought that being a keen contributor of economic commentary that you'd care about the accuracy of what you post in that field.

As to whether you do or not is up to you.


----------



## noco

Just how the modern media operate to control what you think do and say is in full swing and in particular the Abbott haters...They are determined to destabilize and bring down the Abbott government in favor of the alternative socialist left wing LUG party controlled by the CFMEU.



http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...a_is_trying_to_destroy_the_abbott_government/

*The ABC is twisted with hatred of the Abbott Government and is using its massive state power to try to destroy it, consciously or not. Many other journalists, overwhelmingly of the Left, have joined this astonishing witch-hunt.

Gerard Henderson:

    The Abbott haters are in full voice again following the drowning of three-year-old Aylan Kurdi, a Syrian Kurd from the town of Kobane near the Syria-Turkey border.

    The case against the Prime Minister was packaged by cartoonist David Pope in last Saturday’s Canberra Times. He drew a picture of the Turkish soldier carrying Aylan’s body from the sea and being told by Tony Abbott, dressed in lifesaving cap and swimmers with an Australian flag as a cape: “If only you’d kept them safe by towing them back to Syria.” In other words, it’s all Abbott’s fault…

    One problem with the cartoon is that the ...  Coalition’s “stop the boats” policy has worked in stopping drownings. ... The other problem with Pope’s cartoon turns on an inconvenient truth. Aylan’s mother and brother (who also drowned) and his father (who survived) did not set out from Syria. Rather [they set out from] Turkey, where the family had resided for three years ... oreover, Abdullah Kurdi took the bodies of his wife, Rehan, and children back to Kobane for burial. This suggests Aylan’s father did not have a genuine fear of persecution in Syria since refugees are not in a habit of returning to the place from which they have recently fled, even if to bury relatives. 

Some of the hatred seems pathological and beyond all reason. Reader John: *

Read more.


----------



## dutchie

In a fact made (up) by the Left,  Prime Minister Tony Abbott has announced a shuffle in the Ministers of the Coalition. They are:-

Abbott will go to Prime Minister

Truss will be Deputy Prime Minister 
Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development 
(Leader of the Nationals)

Bishop will go to Minister for Foreign Affairs 
(Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) 

Abetz will go to Minister for Employment 
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service 
(Leader of the Government in the Senate) 

Brandis will go to Attorney-General 
Minister for the Arts 
(Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) 
(Vice-President of the Executive Council) 

Hockey will go to Treasurer 

Joyce will go to Minister for Agriculture 
(Deputy Leader of the Nationals) 

Pyne will go to Minister for Education and Training
(Leader of the House) 

Yadda Yadda Yadda


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> I would have thought that being a keen contributor of economic commentary that you'd care about the accuracy of what you post in that field.
> 
> As to whether you do or not is up to you.




http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/6202.0Main+Features1Sep 2013?OpenDocument





http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6202.0




Trend    11765.4 - 11646.8 = 118.6

Seasonally Adjusted    11775.8 - 11645.8 = 130

So if I'm wrong, how about you put up direct information to prove your point.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> So if I'm wrong, how about you put up direct information to prove your point.




I refer to what I posted before on the information for review,



drsmith said:


> You might want to review what you've said about employment. To assist, a link to the ABS monthly stats is below.
> 
> http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@...sues&prodno=6202.0&issue=Aug 2015&num=&view=&
> 
> Note in particular the large correction to the number of employed persons between Dec 2013 and Jan 2014.




I'll try and paint this as an exercise.

1) Review the statement from December 2013 and in particular the headline seasonally adjusted employed persons and also the graph. The graph extends to September 2013. You'll note that the position of the lines in the graph for September correspond to the numbers provided above in the September 2013 statement.

2) Do the same for January 2014 and note the difference. Note how that difference impacts historically via the graph which in that statement also extends back to September 2013. 

From that it should be obvious as to how you conclusion on the change in employed persons between Sept 2013 and July 2015 should be revised.


----------



## SirRumpole

It will be interesting to see if the proposed Melbourne/Brisbane inland freight rail system gets a guernsey among all the road construction projects touted by the Libs.

The Nats want inland rail, but some in the Liberal party think that freight rail is a communist plot to put road haulage companies out of business and replace them by a government enterprise.

Sure a few trucking companies may go out of business, but if rail is a more efficient freight carrier, why should we worry ?

Inland Rail report finds freight train between Brisbane and Melbourne would cost $10b and boost economy



> A long-mooted freight train line connecting Brisbane and Melbourne would cost about $10 billion to build but would be good for the Australian economy, according to a new report.
> 
> The Inland Rail delivery plan recommends finishing the 1,700 kilometre track over the next decade and providing more money in the federal budget from next year.
> 
> The project, which the Nationals have long dreamed would revitalise country towns, would run through Moree, Narromine, Parkes, Wagga Wagga and Albury, ensuring freight trains do not have to travel through the congested Sydney rail network.
> 
> The report was written by former deputy prime minister John Anderson and warns if construction does not start soon, eastern Australia will become far more reliant on "heavy" multi-carriage trucks.
> 
> It estimates one 3.6km interstate train could carry the equivalent of 110 B-double trucks and claims the line could eventually "result in 15 fewer serious road crashes each year".
> 
> While the economic analysis indicates the track could provide a $16 billion boost to NSW, Queensland and Victoria over the next 60 years it cautions "the expected operating revenue over 50 years will not cover the initial capital investment", meaning governments will have build it.
> 
> Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss, who has already promised to fast track the project said it "will create up to 16,000 direct jobs during a 10-year construction period and a regular 600 jobs once operating".
> 
> Labor's Transport spokesman Anthony Albanese said he "couldn't understand" why the Government had not already started construction or put more money in the budget.
> 
> "Seriously, what are they waiting for? They've been in Government for two years. Just get on and build it," he said.
> 
> The project's business case has now been referred to Infrastructure Australia.
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-10/inland-rail-report-finds-line-would-cost-10b/6766824


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> I refer to what I posted before on the information for review,




Paste some figures that back up Abbott's claim, or don't.

I've shown you the information I've based my claim on, as provided by the ABS.


----------



## sydboy007

noco said:


> Coal power generation is 35% efficient where as Solar and wind are only 15%......Take away the government subsidies that are generously given to  to the Solar and wind industry and they may well collapse.....We are subsidizing the Chinese in the Solar industry.....Coal is not subsidized by the government......Solar and wind are not base load power and therefore unreliable.




http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energysubsidies/



> The IEA’s latest estimates indicate that fossil-fuel consumption subsidies worldwide amounted to $548 billion in 2013,




I don't know how the fossil fuel industry is able to compete with piddly subsidies like that.



> Those subsidies were over four-times the value of subsidies to renewable energy and more than four times the amount invested globally in improving energy efficiency.




Gosh, only 4 times as much fossil fuel subsidies as for renewable energy.  Just terrible the injustice done towards coal and oil companies.

We don't have to go 100% renewable at present, so the argument that the sun don't always shine, or the wind ain't always blowing isn't really relevant.  

Grid scale battery tech is slowly being implemented in other countries.  It'll eventually find it's way to Australia.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> Paste some figures that back up Abbott's claim, or don't.
> 
> I've shown you the information I've based my claim on, as provided by the ABS.



Your original claim,



sydboy007 said:


> Then Abbott makes a bold claim "Since the Election we have had 335,000 more jobs created in our economy" Sept 6.  Hockey went on to perpetuate the lie.
> 
> The truth is that by July 2015 there were only a net 165,000 new jobs.  ABS figures in September 2013, there were 11,645,800 employed people, and in July 2015, there were 11,810,700 employed people.




Consider the graphic from the December 2013 labour force statement,




http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@...45F237B510BFEA91CA257C7D000C2158?opendocument

From the graph, the September 2013 figure is around 11,630,000 employed people or slightly less than the figure you noted from the original September 2013 statement.

Now, consider the graphic from the January 2014 labour force statement,




http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@...F5AD11B7D72484EACA257C99000CF825?opendocument

Note that employed people has been revised down significantly including for September 2013. From the graph, the revised figure is around 11,470,000 employed people which is a significant downward revision from both the figure you presented and the December figure.

In short, subtracting the original September 2013 labour force number from the latest labour force number isn't necessarily an accurate reflection of the number of jobs created over that period due to later revision of the data.


----------



## sydboy007

drsmith said:


> In short, subtracting the original September 2013 labour force number from the latest labour force number isn't necessarily an accurate reflection of the number of jobs created over that period due to later revision of the data.




So basically the cut backs at the ABS are making the stats open for major revisions.

By Feb 2014 you're seeing 47.3K jobs added from Jan 2014

Bit of a worry that the labour force stats can be so unreliable.

I'll put that in the back of my head to see how the revisions go in future.  Starting to think no one really knows how many jobs have been added.


----------



## drsmith

sydboy007 said:


> So basically the cut backs at the ABS are making the stats open for major revisions.
> 
> By Feb 2014 you're seeing 47.3K jobs added from Jan 2014
> 
> Bit of a worry that the labour force stats can be so unreliable.
> 
> I'll put that in the back of my head to see how the revisions go in future.  Starting to think no one really knows how many jobs have been added.



When you look at the sampling error information at the bottom of the monthly statements you'll note they're estimates. You'll also note contact details if you wish to seek more information.

A more reliable guide to overall job growth over a longer period such as a 2 years may be the graph trend over that period or a sum of the individual monthly changes.


----------



## drsmith

drsmith said:


> Whatever TA does regarding his own future, he's now a dead PM walking.
> 
> With a story today about a major cabinet reshuffle in the News Limited press, it's likely my view that this has been leaked by a person or persons within his own party and is about trying to facilitate a bad result in the upcoming Canning by-election.
> 
> Today in particular has had all the hallmarks of the final days of Julia Gillard. He's tried his best but it's time for TA to walk the political plank and not leave it to the party to suffer the indignities that Labor inflicted on itself during its time in office.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-...e-leadership-spill-before-end-of-year/6772098

In my view, the best that can be hoped for now is that heads overall within are sensible enough not to allow it to become a Labor style blood letting.


----------



## drsmith

Is something afoot ?



> Nine Network political editor Laurie Oakes says Mr Turnbull has refused requests from Abbott supporters to publicly rule out a challenge.
> 
> Oakes says government whip Andrew Nikolic sent a message to Mr Turnbull, reportedly at the request of Mr Abbott, and there was a request from another senior Abbott backer.
> 
> Mr Turnbull reportedly refused to respond publicly, saying that any leadership chatter only fuelled more speculation.
> 
> Mr Turnbull's office has been contacted for comment.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...rning-not-gossip/story-fn3dxiwe-1227525264088


----------



## galumay

noco said:


> They are the silent majority...I am one of the few who ignores character assassination you lefties continue to use in your endeavors to silence anyone who speaks out against you...Typical Fabian modus operandi....I will continue to speak my mind and trust there are plenty who will take notice.
> 
> I can count the number of your supporters on ASF on one hand.
> 
> Coal prices will rise just like other commodities...Your statement is wishful thinking and only time will prove it one way or another.




The silent majority, eh!? How do you know they agree with you if they are silent? Given the polling its likely that many will have changed their support in recent months.

Its laughable how you accuse us of character assassination - something your side of politics with the help of your propoganda minister murdoch, have perfected - then in the next breath call us 'lefties and fabians'.

I think its just the last desparate whinges of a man who is his heart knows this has been one of the worst governments in our history, i think you too know abbott is a dead man walking and thats where a lot of your pent up anger and ad hominem attacks come from. 

Its a bit like listening to someone whose cricket team is getting a flogging!

Still the greatest risk for the ALP is that the LNP ditch abbott before the next election, their failure to show any leadership of things like the abuse of refugees and data retention means they need abbott. 

Maybe now is a great opportunity for a new party, with the principles and values of the old liberal party, the social concience and protection of workers rights of the old labour and some genuine policies for the environment from the new greens!


----------



## banco

You only have to look at Mike Baird to see an example of a guy whose policies aren't that different to Abbott but who is a better politician on every level.  He's like the rebuilt version of Abbott. Smarter, more personable, fitter, better looking and a better salesman.


----------



## dutchie

Julie Bishop owns Tanya Plibersek.

Plibersek needs a man to do her fighting 

https://youtu.be/TnjYvsFvRlg


----------



## Tisme

Being a fence sitter has its advantages. I get the Liberal Party news, the Labor Party News, the Nationals News and Getup's news:




> UPDATE: We just received word that Channel 9 has banned our new TV ad from airing during the evening news — and they refuse to say why. The ad simply shows, in irreverent fashion, what the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement will mean for Australian families. The Abbott government is trying to keep this deal secret from Australians, and now Channel 9 is joining in.
> 
> But we won't give up. We're scrambling right now for ad spots during the news on other networks, before next Saturday's critical Canning by-election (Channel 10 says they'll air it!). Click here to check out the ad and donate to get it on the air in time.
> 
> 
> This is the decisive moment for the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP). Upcoming elections in Canada and the US mean if the TPP isn't signed soon, negotiations could push back another year, or fall over altogether.
> 
> You see, Trade Minister Andrew Robb is in a real bind. It turns out Australians hate the prospect of letting multinational corporations sue our government in secret corporate courts over laws that protect our children, our health and our environment — a clause being demanded by US interests.
> 
> If Mr Robb has no political room to give in to this demand, the whole deal could fall over. Before the last-ditch round of TPP negotiations (predicted to take place within weeks), voters in Canning WA will go to the polls in a critical by-election that's become a referendum on the Abbott agenda.
> 
> This is our chance to prove once and for all how unpopular this deal is with Australian voters and leave Mr Robb no room to negotiate our sovereignty away.
> 
> We have an attention-grabbing TV ad ready to run in Canning starting this Sunday with a message proven to cut through. Then we'll expand to a national TV buy in the lead up to the next (and likely final) TPP negotiations. But with airtime scarce for the by-election, we need to lock in this advertising now.
> 
> A recent GetUp poll of Canning voters showed two things:
> 
> More than half of Canning voters don't know much about the TPP.
> However, those who know about it are much more likely to vote against the government, which is why we need to get this ad out there fast.
> 
> Message testing shows the most effective way of reaching voters is explaining what the TPP means for their family. But it's not always easy to cut through on a complex issue like the TPP. That's why our new ad takes a cheeky approach to draw in voters.
> 
> And because the next few weeks are so critical, we won't stop with TV ads — we'll saturate Canning through targeted Facebook and YouTube advertising to ensure we get as many eyes on the ad as possible, right up until polling day. Then we'll do the same for marginal seat voters, who the Government fears most, in the lead up to critical TPP negotiations.
> 
> Can you help air the ad during prime-time TV spots and online? https://www.getup.org.au/tpp-family
> 
> TPP negotiations are at a precarious stage. The key to blocking the deal is making it impossible for Minister Robb to cave in to demands from the US about Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clauses. US politicians are demanding them, so US corporations can sue Australian governments over laws that affect their profits, even if they protect us from harm.
> 
> Tobacco has become a big sticking point, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell — who represents Kentucky, one of America's biggest producers of tobacco — lobbying on behalf of Big Tobacco.1 He wants to make sure they have the power to sue our government over plain packaging laws, which help prevent our kids from taking up smoking, but hurt corporate profits. If Australia doesn't agree to these demands, it could be a deal breaker.
> 
> Together, we can make sure Trade Minister Robb doesn't cave in to US demands for Big Tobacco and other special corporate interests, and that could help kill off the whole TPP deal.


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> Being a fence sitter has its advantages. I get the Liberal Party news, the Labor Party News, the Nationals News and Getup's news:




Interesting that Labor hasn't made a big deal about the ISDS aspect of the TPP. I hope this isn't another fait accompli like CHAFTA seems to be. The secrecy surrounding the TPP is a good reason why we shouldn't sign it.

No democratic government in its right mind would allow itself to be sued by corporations for passing policy of benefit to its citizens.

If ISDS is in the TPP, then we should be out.


----------



## ghotib

Tisme said:


> Being a fence sitter has its advantages. I get the Liberal Party news, the Labor Party News, the Nationals News and Getup's news:



As do I. So what do you make of this weekend's National Party news? After a messy nominations process they elected a new president who has an impeccable party pedigree and most recently worked as a lobbyist for Shenhua, among other coal miners. 

In general news it's being overshadowed by Liberal leadership boilover, but seems likely to be a boost to good community independents in rural seats. I wonder how many are ready to run now.


----------



## Tisme

ghotib said:


> As do I. So what do you make of this weekend's National Party news? After a messy nominations process they elected a new president who has an impeccable party pedigree and most recently worked as a lobbyist for Shenhua, among other coal miners.
> 
> In general news it's being overshadowed by Liberal leadership boilover, but seems likely to be a boost to good community independents in rural seats. I wonder how many are ready to run now.




LOL Larry ...wonder how Barnaby is feeling.


----------



## Tisme

If Andrew Hastie gets in that will be what..... two protestants, one jew and one muslim versus the catholic team?


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> ROFL.
> In townsville last night we still had to use a blanket because it was cold...never known this in mid September in the 44 years I have lived here......normally by this time of the year we have to turn on the air conditioners.
> 
> Canberra got down to 2 c this morning.




Today was the first day this Spring that I haven't needed to wear an undershirt or jumper during the day.

I can't remember this happening this early in the season, I'm sure it's a clear  case of global warming. 

Just thought noco should know this.


----------



## wayneL

galumay said:


> The silent majority, eh!? How do you know they agree with you if they are silent? Given the polling its likely that many will have changed their support in recent months.
> 
> Its laughable how you accuse us of character assassination - something your side of politics with the help of your propoganda minister murdoch, have perfected - then in the next breath call us 'lefties and fabians'.
> 
> I think its just the last desparate whinges of a man who is his heart knows this has been one of the worst governments in our history, i think you too know abbott is a dead man walking and thats where a lot of your pent up anger and ad hominem attacks come from.
> 
> Its a bit like listening to someone whose cricket team is getting a flogging!
> 
> Still the greatest risk for the ALP is that the LNP ditch abbott before the next election, their failure to show any leadership of things like the abuse of refugees and data retention means they need abbott.
> 
> Maybe now is a great opportunity for a new party, with the principles and values of the old liberal party, the social concience and protection of workers rights of the old labour and some genuine policies for the environment from the new greens!




So you want yet another left wing party..... Gettin' crowded over there boyo.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energysubsidies/
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how the fossil fuel industry is able to compete with piddly subsidies like that.
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, only 4 times as much fossil fuel subsidies as for renewable energy.  Just terrible the injustice done towards coal and oil companies.
> 
> We don't have to go 100% renewable at present, so the argument that the sun don't always shine, or the wind ain't always blowing isn't really relevant.
> 
> Grid scale battery tech is slowly being implemented in other countries.  It'll eventually find it's way to Australia.




Sydboy, I think you may be confused between subsidies for exploration and actual construction of wind,solar and fossil fuel....To the best of my knowledge, their is no subsidies given for the development and construction of the coal, oil and gas industry.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-...-receive-4-billion-dollar-in-subsidie/5881814

*'Subsidising dangerous climate change'

One of the report's authors, Shelagh Whitley from the Overseas Development Institute in London, said G20 governments are funding high carbon energy sources at the expense of renewable energy projects.

She said the exploration subsidies were just a fraction of the subsidies received by the fossil fuel industry every year in G20 countries.

"The fossil fuel industry writ large receives around $775 billion in subsidies," Ms Whitley argued.

"So that's much higher than what we are looking at here which is fossil fuel exploration."

Ms Whitley said the report was calling on G20 countries to immediately end subsidies for fossil fuel exploration.

"The reason we are looking at fossil fuel exploration is that we've been told in this past week by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) ... that we have to actually keep two-thirds of fossil fuel reserves in the ground if we are to avoid dangerous climate change," she said.

"These subsidies are the equivalent of subsidising dangerous climate change."

The report also called for more transparency in budget reporting and for the elimination of public finance for fossil fuel exploration.

The authors looked at publicly available government data on exploration subsidies and used Bloomberg and Rystad Energy databases for company and commodity information.

They noted that limited transparency and wide variations in data availability "posed major obstacles to the identification and estimation of fossil fuel subsidies."

The Minerals Council of Australia says Australian government funding and tax breaks for exploration are not subsidies but legitimate tax deductions for business.*


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> Being a fence sitter has its advantages. I get the Liberal Party news, the Labor Party News, the Nationals News and Getup's news:




I do hope you know GETUP is an offshoot of the LUG party.

Bill Shorten is a foundation member and an ex board member of GETUP.

You could gainfully expect a biased poll from GETUP.....Hardly a reliable source IMHO.


----------



## McLovin

Spill is on, apparently. Turnbull speaking at 4pm.

Bishop has apparently told PM it's on. She has always stayed quiet.


----------



## noco

Chris Kenny sums up the ABC bias and its love for that hypocrite Tony Windsor.

Windsor talks up big about Climate change but sells his farm to the coal mining industry which has been accused of supplying too much C02 into the atmosphere.

Windsor did not have the guts to stand in his old electorate in 2013. 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...egional-services/story-fn8qlm5e-1227525419146

*There’s been a lot of Windsor love at their ABC lately. No, not theQueen — they’ve been polite but restrained about her record-breaking reign. The national broadcaster has been particularly amorous towards the former independent MP Tony Windsor.

Windsor seems to have something or other on his liver, to be sure. He strikes me as one of the angriest blokes in a pretty feral polity. Even on the ABC or on Twitter, where myriad Abbott-haters jockey for daily prominence, this bitter former pollie is in a league of his own.

He is the ex-conservative independent who installed Julia Gillard and Labor, then barracked for their carbon tax while selling his farm to coal interests and leasing it back. But no, the ABC hasn’t harangued him over that.

Windsor defended the indefensible mistakes and incompetence of the Gillard government and promised to put his record on the line by running in the 2013 election — then didn’t. But no, Aunty’s people haven’t pressured him over that either. He is grabbing extra publicity now by threatening to run again (don’t hold your breath) but the ABC hasn’t pinned him down on that either.*


----------



## skc

McLovin said:


> Spill is on, apparently. Turnbull speaking at 4pm.
> 
> Bishop has apparently told PM it's on. She has always stayed quiet.




I think we should exile all ex-PM's to Nauru detention centres... but then it'd get even more overcrowded quickly.


----------



## SirRumpole

McLovin said:


> Spill is on, apparently. Turnbull speaking at 4pm.
> 
> Bishop has apparently told PM it's on. She has always stayed quiet.




"We are not the Labor Party"

Yeah, right.


----------



## explod

SirRumpole said:


> "We are not the Labor Party"
> 
> Yeah, right.




MrRabbitIsGone. 

In my humble opinion.   Turnbull makes sense as he speaks.


----------



## SirRumpole

explod said:


> MrRabbitIsGone.
> 
> In my humble opinion.   Turnbull makes sense as he speaks.




Just shows the difference between a good Opposition leader and a good Prime Minister.

The attack dog needed to turn into a St Bernard.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Today was the first day this Spring that I haven't needed to wear an undershirt or jumper during the day.
> 
> I can't remember this happening this early in the season, I'm sure it's a clear  case of global warming.
> 
> Just thought noco should know this.




And in Townsville last night in the middle of September we were sleeping under a blanket...Thought you might like to know this has  not happened in the 44 years living here.

We are entering the mini ice age.


----------



## ghotib

SirRumpole said:


> Just shows the difference between a good Opposition leader and a good Prime Minister.
> 
> The attack dog needed to turn into a St Bernard.



 Or a German Shepherd  _pace_ Julia. I wonder what she'd make of the last 6 months. She was no fan of Abbot OR Turnbull.


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energysubsidies/
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how the fossil fuel industry is able to compete with piddly subsidies like that.
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, only 4 times as much fossil fuel subsidies as for renewable energy.  Just terrible the injustice done towards coal and oil companies.
> 
> We don't have to go 100% renewable at present, so the argument that the sun don't always shine, or the wind ain't always blowing isn't really relevant.
> 
> Grid scale battery tech is slowly being implemented in other countries.  It'll eventually find it's way to Australia.




Man oh man, you will need some mighty big batteries to run an aluminum plant ....What do you say?


----------



## noco

sydboy007 said:


> http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energysubsidies/
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how the fossil fuel industry is able to compete with piddly subsidies like that.
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, only 4 times as much fossil fuel subsidies as for renewable energy.  Just terrible the injustice done towards coal and oil companies.
> 
> We don't have to go 100% renewable at present, so the argument that the sun don't always shine, or the wind ain't always blowing isn't really relevant.
> 
> Grid scale battery tech is slowly being implemented in other countries.  It'll eventually find it's way to Australia.




Whist some countries are promoting the drop of fossil fuel subsidies, some of those same countries are also saying they will be using coal for a long to to come.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...for-coal-projects-report-20150601-ghe807.html

*"Nations of the world, and particularly of the G20 and G7, have made repeated clear commitments to both fight climate change and end fossil fuel subsidies," the report states. "And yet, billions of dollars' worth of government support continues to flow towards fossil fuels and, incredibly, towards coal."

The report argues that claims by governments that continued public spending on coal is necessary to end energy poverty in poor nations is "baseless" because "zero export finance for coal has gone to low-income countries, where the need for access to energy is greatest".

It continues that the $73 billion is probably an underestimate because of a lack of transparent data for many of the institutions.

"Governments of the world are literally hiding their ongoing support for fossil fuels, and for coal in particular," it says.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...cts-report-20150601-ghe807.html#ixzz3lh4vpfEA
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook
*


----------



## noco

galumay said:


> The silent majority, eh!? How do you know they agree with you if they are silent? Given the polling its likely that many will have changed their support in recent months.
> 
> Its laughable how you accuse us of character assassination - something your side of politics with the help of your propoganda minister murdoch, have perfected - then in the next breath call us 'lefties and fabians'.
> 
> I think its just the last desparate whinges of a man who is his heart knows this has been one of the worst governments in our history, i think you too know abbott is a dead man walking and thats where a lot of your pent up anger and ad hominem attacks come from.
> 
> Its a bit like listening to someone whose cricket team is getting a flogging!
> 
> Still the greatest risk for the ALP is that the LNP ditch abbott before the next election, their failure to show any leadership of things like the abuse of refugees and data retention means they need abbott.
> 
> Maybe now is a great opportunity for a new party, with the principles and values of the old liberal party, the social concience and protection of workers rights of the old labour and some genuine policies for the environment from the new greens!




I can assure you there are members of the ASF (and I have had PMs from them) who support my thinking and who would also like to respond but their dislike  for the intimidation and bullying by some lefties on this forum deters them from doing so.

You have just remonstrated your ability to intimidate and belittle anyone who does not agree with you and your comrades from the left...Do you think you are some kind of demigod who has the divine right over others?.....I can assure you, I will continue to express my views and neither you or anyone else will deter me.


----------



## Logique

SirRumpole said:


> "We are not the Labor Party"
> 
> Yeah, right.



Indeed.  So destructive and selfish by the Cabinet leakers.

Not good political news for Joe Hockey either.


----------



## drsmith

drsmith said:


> Is something afoot ?
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...rning-not-gossip/story-fn3dxiwe-1227525264088



It obviously was.

In the absence of Tony Abbott stepping aside, the best that can be hoped for is that the coup leaders have done their homework.

TA due to speak shortly.


----------



## SirRumpole

Liberal leadership: Jeff Kennett slams Malcolm Turnbull as 'the Kevin Rudd of the Liberal Party'



> Former Victorian Liberal premier Jeff Kennett has slammed Malcolm Turnbull for "gross disloyalty" and "extreme egotism" after he announced he would challenge Tony Abbott for the Liberal Party leadership.
> 
> Mr Kennett said he was "profoundly disappointed" and was not hearing that Mr Turnbull had the numbers to change the Liberal Party leadership.
> 
> "I'm not hearing anything at all, nor am I seeking to find out. I am profoundly disappointed," he told ABC News 24.
> 
> "This act by Malcolm Turnbull is one of gross disloyalty, extreme egotism and he is, without a doubt, the Kevin Rudd of the Liberal Party."
> 
> Mr Kennett said Mr Turnbull was not a team player.
> 
> "He might be smart, he might be wealthy but the one thing he never has been and never will be, he's never been a team man and teams win, individuals don't," Mr Kennett said.
> 
> Mr Kennett said the Australia public was tired of "personal self-interest overriding national interest".
> 
> "The opportunity was there for the party to come together as a team, to march into Canning as a team," he said.
> 
> "We would have been absolutely undefeatable.
> 
> "The public want leadership, the public are sick and tired of this personal self-interest overriding the national interest all the time."
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-14/jeff-kennett-slams-malcolm-turnball/6775228





Yes Jeff, the public do want leadership, the problem is that we are not getting it.

This situation has come about because Tony Abbott is not up to the job of being Prime Minister, and that has been obvious for some time. With him gone at least there will be a chance that we won't be talked down to with three word slogans and we may be able to participate in the debate and not be treated like dumbos.


----------



## galumay

noco said:


> I can assure you there are members of the ASF (and I have had PMs from them) who support my thinking and who would also like to respond but their dislike  for the intimidation and bullying by some lefties on this forum deters them from doing so.
> 
> You have just remonstrated your ability to intimidate and belittle anyone who does not agree with you and your comrades from the left...Do you think you are some kind of demigod who has the divine right over others?.....I can assure you, I will continue to express my views and neither you or anyone else will deter me.




You paste the irony on thicker than my son puts vegemite on his toast! 

"..who would also like to respond but their dislike  for the intimidation and bullying by some lefties on this forum deters them from doing so."

Seriously?! Have a look back through your own posts for paragraphs laden with intimidation, bullying and name calling . I also think its rather insulting to other members of the forum to suggest they are so precious as to avoid a discussion just because those who hold a different opinion post there too.

"You have just remonstrated your ability to intimidate and belittle anyone who does not agree with you and your comrades from the left.."

There you go again, an unsubstantiated ad hominem attack followed with what you perceive as an insult. Pointing out your style in posting hardly constitutes intimidation and belittlement.

"..Do you think you are some kind of demigod who has the divine right over others?.....I can assure you, I will continue to express my views and neither you or anyone else will deter me."

What on earth would lead you to post that strawman? I am sure you will continue to post your opinions, and so you should - but with that comes the responsibility to accept that many dont share your world views and will continue to challenge your extreme and polarising opinions about politics.

Perhaps its time for some internal reflection about why Abbott has been such a disaster as PM and consider whether your blinkered support for him is actually deserved? After all it seems a majority of the LNP has come to the same conclusion.


----------



## drsmith

At least it's going to be quick. Party room ballot later this evening.

TA stands defiant and has tried his best.

The Abbott Government will shortly be resting in peace.


----------



## banco

It will be funny if that old crone bronwyn bishop votes against Abbott after he damaged himself by not forcing her out earlier. Hell she only got the spearkership in the first place because of some misguided sense of loyalty abbott felt towards her.


----------



## Tisme

galumay said:


> "..Do you think you are some kind of demigod who has the divine right over others?.....I can assure you, I will continue to express my views and neither you or anyone else will deter me."
> 
> .




You can join our divinity group, ours is made up of sensible people who disagree on many things, but agree on the things that matter....'we are not the Liberal Party'


----------



## SirRumpole

Bill Shorten will be able to say he got rid of 3 Prime Ministers ! 

Is this a record ?


----------



## drsmith

SirRumpole said:


> Bill Shorten will be able to say he got rid of 3 Prime Ministers !
> 
> Is this a record ?



No. TA got rid of 3 and none were friendly fire unlike 2 of Bill's.


----------



## Tisme

banco said:


> It will be funny if that old crone bronwyn bishop votes against Abbott after he damaged himself by not forcing her out earlier. *Hell she only got the spearkership in the first place because of some misguided sense of loyalty abbott felt towards her*.




Not quite, she's Liberal royalty and one time leader in waiting. Tony would have been unwise not to put her in the chair once Opus Dei has spoken.


----------



## explod

Abbot fighting to the end and if he IS kicked out he will be part of the kick in and destruction of the Liberal Goverment. 

As soon as he started bombing the other week it was clear in my mind that something like this would be on soon. 

Anyhow,  pass the popcorn


----------



## IFocus

Nightmare for Shorten if Turnbull gets up


Maybe now we can get some reasonable policy discussion


----------



## Tisme

IFocus said:


> Nightmare for Shorten if Turnbull gets up
> 
> 
> Maybe now we can get some reasonable policy discussion




There might even be a notion of dialogue between MT and BS and an outside chance they might work together to advance Australia fair.


----------



## orr

in the words of Paul Keating... ' If Tony Abbott becomes PM, god help us'

In the words of Gough Whitlam... ' well may we say Malcolm Turnbull saved the LNP. But nothing will save Sofie Mirrabella....'


----------



## drsmith

The Abbott government has been a much better government than the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd governments that preceded it but it hasn't been good enough.


----------



## CanOz

SirRumpole said:


> Bill Shorten will be able to say he got rid of 3 Prime Ministers !
> 
> Is this a record ?




WTF did Shorten ever do to get rid of Abbot???

Abbot is responsible for this, he's an idiot and should never have got the leadership in the first place. It shows you how desperate the country was to get rid of the complete and utter incompetent union thug party....:frown:


----------



## banco

drsmith said:


> The Abbott government has been a much better government than the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd governments that preceded it but it hasn't been good enough.




Looks like the rest of Australia didn't agree


----------



## So_Cynical

banco said:


> Looks like the rest of Australia didn't agree




Certainly the rest of the Noalition parliamentary membership....quite stunned at the news, good thing that they chose a realistic chance of an election win over a no hoper, i mite even vote for Malcombe.


----------



## galumay

Oh the joy! Tones lasted less time than Julia. How she must enjoy this moment after all the sexist vitriol splattered over her. Tones surely takes the mantle as our worst PM from Billy McMahon. Now we just have to get rid of Little Bill and maybe good government can become a thing!


----------



## luutzu

Tisme said:


> There might even be a notion of dialogue between MT and BS and an outside chance they might work together to advance Australia fair.




Too much optimism there me think.


----------



## So_Cynical

Ha ha, ABC news reporting that Julia actually held the PM job longer than Tony...wow bet Tony is pissed.  hope he tears up at the news conference.


----------



## Tisme

Maybe now we can look forward to something that doesn't resemble a bunch of boys re enacting Ten Town and building a country out of packing crates.


----------



## explod

Tisme said:


> Maybe now we can look forward to something that doesn't resemble a bunch of boys re enacting Ten Town and building a country out of packing crates.




Your joking of course,  but can tell you some people have been making such shelters of late. 

Lets hope we have more empathy.


----------



## Bill M

I have never posted in this thread until today. The Abbott government is the worst government I have ever had to live through in my entire life. When I heard that there would be a leadership spill I thought you beauty, anybody but Abbott and then when I heard it was Turnbull to challenge I thought all my Christmas's have come at once.

This thread along with that awful Prime Minister Abbott will now fade into oblivion. Thank You, thank you, thank you...............time to move on to somebody who is actually smart enough to run this country, well done Liberal Party.


----------



## wayneL

Bill M said:


> I have never posted in this thread until today. The Abbott government is the worst government I have ever had to live through in my entire life. When I heard that there would be a leadership spill I thought you beauty, anybody but Abbott and then when I heard it was Turnbull to challenge I thought all my Christmas's have come at once.
> 
> This thread along with that awful Prime Minister Abbott will now fade into oblivion. Thank You, thank you, thank you...............time to move on to somebody who is actually smart enough to run this country, well done Liberal Party.




The most unpopular prime minister, or the worst government? On what basis was it the worst government *policy wise?*


----------



## Knobby22

He was up there as one of the worst ever.
Amazingly poorly designed first budget.
Broken promises everywhere.
Ignoring of David Murray report.
Destruction of business confidence.
Inability to argue the case for change except in slogans. 
Inability to treat electorate intelligently. 
Continous gaffes and stupid decisions. Prince Phillip getting a knighthood really?
Tin ear.
Fighting the ABC. 
Inability to put together a cohesive policy. The business council were practically begging him to make some changes.
Dumb ship deal which will cost us billions to try to gain a few votes in SA.
No industry policy.
Request to ask Usa to bomb Syria.
Loss of Victoria.

MT will turn around the polls and will in contrast be a great PM.


----------



## SirRumpole

Knobby22 said:


> He was up there as one of the worst ever.
> Amazingly poorly designed first budget.
> Broken promises everywhere.
> Ignoring of David Murray report.
> Destruction of business confidence.
> Inability to argue the case for change except in slogans.
> Inability to treat electorate intelligently.
> Continous gaffes and stupid decisions. Prince Phillip getting a knighthood really?
> Tin ear.
> Fighting the ABC.
> Inability to put together a cohesive policy.
> Dumb ship deal which will cost us billions.
> Request to ask Usa to bomb Syria.
> Loss of Victoria.
> 
> MT will turn around the polls and will in contrast be a great PM.




what Knobby said plus

- maintain tax perks for the wealthy (negative gearing and super), while hitting pensioners and the sick
- reducing taxes on big polluters and mining companies earning super profits
- supporting dying archaic industries like coal while ignoring high tech renewable energy


----------



## wayneL

Knobby22 said:


> He was up there as one of the worst ever.
> Amazingly poorly designed first budget.
> Broken promises everywhere.
> Ignoring of David Murray report.
> Destruction of business confidence.
> Inability to argue the case for change except in slogans.
> Inability to treat electorate intelligently.
> Continous gaffes and stupid decisions. Prince Phillip getting a knighthood really?
> Tin ear.
> Fighting the ABC.
> Inability to put together a cohesive policy. The business council were practically begging him to make some changes.
> Dumb ship deal which will cost us billions to try to gain a few votes in SA.
> No industry policy.
> Request to ask Usa to bomb Syria.
> Loss of Victoria.
> 
> MT will turn around the polls and will in contrast be a great PM.




I hope so Knobby, as per usual I will just watch for a while.

Most of the above certainly served to make Abbott unpopular, but only a few points are policy based. Rudd/Gillard/Rudd have a list of policy faux pas as long as your arm (which I can't be bothered collating right now)


----------



## dutchie

dutchie said:


> In a fact made (up) by the Left,  Prime Minister Tony Abbott has announced a shuffle in the Ministers of the Coalition. They are:-
> 
> Abbott will go to Prime Minister
> 
> Truss will be Deputy Prime Minister
> Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development
> (Leader of the Nationals)
> 
> Bishop will go to Minister for Foreign Affairs
> (Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party)
> ........
> 
> 
> Yadda Yadda Yadda





I was terribly wrong.

I feel sorry for Abbott. His intentions were good.


----------



## IFocus

dutchie said:


> I was terribly wrong.
> 
> I feel sorry for Abbott. His intentions were good.




Afraid I don't think Abbotts intentions were good at all, good example bombing Syria and the security laws being used to raise polling thats criminal.

Has to be one of the most self indulgent governments ever particularly early on. 

The right wing have squandered their political opportunity.


----------



## SirRumpole

dutchie said:


> I was terribly wrong.
> 
> I feel sorry for Abbott. His intentions were good.




I don't think Abbott had any idea what to do once he became PM. All his energy was put in to getting the office, after that he was walking dead.


----------



## noco

Well, it had to happen sooner or later...Better now than later but I would have preferred Scott Morrison.....I am sure he will be the next Prime Minister in waiting and by that time he will have had a lot more experience....It will be interesting to see if Morrison will be the "Captains pick" for the treasurers job.....If he does become treasurer, it will be the icing on the cake for him.

At least now we will not have to put up with barnacle Bill melodious voice repeating Mr Abbott 15 times in a 2 minute interview.

What now for barnacle Bill?......Will the polls now go up for the Liberals and Turnbull as preferred Prime Minister?.....If they do and the TURC goes against BS he may well be the next to get knifed by Tanya.


----------



## Tink

dutchie said:


> I feel sorry for Abbott. His intentions were good.




+1

I don't think a lot of Liberals are happy with this decision, but as others have said, we will wait and see.

I would have preferred Morrison.

In my view, the media has pushed this all along.


----------



## Tisme

IFocus said:


> Has to be one of the most self indulgent governments ever particularly early on.
> 
> The right wing have squandered their political opportunity.




Didn't learn one thing from Campbell Newman's blighted reign......right down to "we are open for business" (which was a lie, like all the rest of the promises).


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> I don't think Abbott had any idea what to do once he became PM. All his energy was put in to getting the office, after that he was walking dead.




He's a weasel, the kid that snipes, whispers and tells lies on the weak kids to the school bully, for kicks. The classic nice to your face and all the time trying to take your place. It's always been Tony for tony's sake, not the country, not the people and certainly not those evil Godless people who vote Labor....all IMO of course.


----------



## overhang

He will go down as if not the worst PM then definitely a candidate for it.  I heard on the radio that as he failed to serve 2 years he will miss out on the PM perks which would have required him to hold the job until Friday, in some ways I feel sorry for him as all though he did an awful job his intentions were to better Australia.


----------



## Tisme

Tink said:


> +1
> 
> I don't think a lot of Liberals are happy with this decision, but as others have said, we will wait and see.
> 
> I would have preferred Morrison.
> 
> In my view, the media has pushed this all along.




Well think of it this way:

In the last election:

the Liberals rec'd  4,134,865 primary votes
the Labor rec'd 4,311,365 primary votes

based on *three * party preferred:

Labour 6,006,217 = 46.51%
LNP 6,908,710 =  53.49% (*~54*)

Latest polls *54*/46 to Labour = reversal of fortune.

Latest cabinet vote* 54*/44 = numbers reflect will of the people and 54 is Tony's number... 

......I wonder if he watched "Car 54, Where Are You?" as a kid.


----------



## dutchie

Julie Bishop is a backstabber and underminer.

No loyalty whatsoever.

Use to like her but she has shown her true colours.


----------



## Tisme

dutchie said:


> Julie Bishop is a backstabber and underminer.
> 
> No loyalty whatsoever.
> 
> Use to like her but she has shown her true colours.




She's stands apart from the boys clubs ... rather well respected for being tiresomely anti Labor and pro the (real) Liberal Party. She has a tough road because of her wrong religious colours that do not meld well with the majority of politicians these days....... she's a Menzies Liberal not a Papal one.


----------



## SirRumpole

dutchie said:


> Julie Bishop is a backstabber and underminer.
> 
> No loyalty whatsoever.
> 
> Use to like her but she has shown her true colours.




So who should people be more loyal to, an individual or the Party ?


----------



## noco

Tink said:


> +1
> 
> I don't think a lot of Liberals are happy with this decision, but as others have said, we will wait and see.
> 
> I would have preferred Morrison.
> 
> In my view, the media has pushed this all along.




Now we know only too well where the cabinet leaks came from and combined with the Abbott haters in the ABC, Abbott did not have a chance of survival.....The polls did not help Abbott so he was well and truly domed as Prime Minister......What Abbott will do today will be interesting....Will he leave parliament or will he stay to seek revenge....I doubt revenge will be in his mind so he may take the alternative and quit parliament.


----------



## dutchie

SirRumpole said:


> So who should people be more loyal to, an individual or the Party ?





Good question. To both ideally (but that does not work in the real world).

I am disappointed by her disloyalty to Abbott. 

So I guess it's a personal decision as to which is more important.


----------



## Tisme

Interesting following the various players on Twitter:




> Congratulations to Malcolm Turnbull on becoming Prime Minister - a great honour and responsibility.  JG




to which one of her fans posted:



> We've been sharing your schadenfreude all day.


----------



## Knobby22

dutchie said:


> Good question. To both ideally (but that does not work in the real world).
> 
> I am disappointed by her disloyalty to Abbott.
> 
> So I guess it's a personal decision as to which is more important.




Abbot was a 50's DLP person masquerading as a Liberal. Bishop is a Menzian Liberal. True Blue.

Interesting seeing Peter Reith put his boots into Abbott today. Most of the party thought it. He was hopeless.
The Liberals have got their party back. 

They will have to have an election and get rid of Cory Bernardi, Bronwyn and Kevin Andrews now and get the party back on track. 
With Turnbull running the party they can enjoy the popularity of John Keys and get the reforms he achieved through as well.


----------



## SirRumpole

Knobby22 said:


> With Turnbull running the party they can enjoy the popularity of John Keys and get the reforms he achieved through as well.




As long as Mal doesn't start pulling women's hair.


----------



## pixel

SirRumpole said:


> So who should people be more loyal to, an individual or the Party ?




*The Country!*
Neither an individual nor any partying group of individuals should be considered more important than the people of the country they all pretend to represent. I find it quite telling that the noun *party* has the particular two meanings: 

*party*
ˈpɑːti/

noun: party; plural noun: parties

a social gathering of invited guests, typically involving eating, drinking, and entertainment.
a formally constituted political group that contests elections and attempts to form or take part in a government.

Add to #1: ... all paid for by a person or group of persons who may be unrelated, yet unwillingly conned into footing the bill and cleaning up the aftermath...


----------



## Logique

I doubt that many of the more punitive policy positions will change much, just a different coat of spin.

Gay marriage advocates, open border advocates, green energy boosters, all will be thrilled. Joe Hockey and Peter Dutton will be cleaning out their desks.   

I admire Julie Bishop as a pollie, but this was not a good look for her, the first duty of a deputy is loyalty.

People forget, we've seen Turnbull in the leadership before. The caucus margin was not convincing 54-44, and this will not end well.


----------



## McLovin

Knobby22 said:


> Abbot was a 50's DLP person masquerading as a Liberal. Bishop is a Menzian Liberal. True Blue.




Exactly. Abbott and guys like Joe de Bruyn are more alike than they are not. He wasn't a Liberal, or even a liberal, he was a tightly wound Christian conservative who didn't know how to approach the challenges of the world we live in so framed everything around Australia under threat. There was a total lack of vision under Abbott. Turnbull offers the best chance for genuine reform, because, amongst other things, he can reach across the aisle. It will also force Labor to put up a genuine contender, not that suckhole Shorten.


----------



## SirRumpole

McLovin said:


> It will also force Labor to put up a genuine contender, not that suckhole Shorten.




I'm not sure there is the intellectual gravitas in Labor to equal Turnbull in smarts. Chris Bowen may get the closest, the rest of the ranks are pretty bare.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I'm not sure there is the intellectual gravitas in Labor to equal Turnbull in smarts. Chris Bowen may get the closest, the rest of the ranks are pretty bare.




There is far less talent in the LUG party including Bowen the Fabian.


----------



## McLovin

SirRumpole said:


> I'm not sure there is the intellectual gravitas in Labor to equal Turnbull in smarts. Chris Bowen may get the closest, the rest of the ranks are pretty bare.




I had lunch with someone last week who is pretty well connected on the Labor side and he reckons there's a few who could. They need to blood them first though. Jason Clare is top of the list. I always thought it was a shame the ALP lost Lindsay Tanner.


----------



## sinner

noco said:


> There is far less talent in the LUG party including Bowen the Fabian.




Hard to tell if noco is a low intelligence Liberal party loyalist or merely a small computer program which repeats trite rubbish all the time.

Before the nocobot accuses me of being a LUG member or Fabian, I also think the so called "left" in this country consist mostly of the same scummy career politicians as those on the perfect "right".


----------



## Knobby22

McLovin said:


> I had lunch with someone last week who is pretty well connected on the Labor side and he reckons there's a few who could. They need to blood them first though. Jason Clare is top of the list. I always thought it was a shame the ALP lost Lindsay Tanner.




They desperately need an alternative.


----------



## Tisme

> Thank you for the privilege of being Prime Minister. My love for this country is as strong as ever.




It's just the dammed people in it that are a pain, especially those Liberal b45t4rds !!!!


----------



## noco

sinner said:


> Hard to tell if noco is a low intelligence Liberal party loyalist or merely a small computer program which repeats trite rubbish all the time.
> 
> Before the nocobot accuses me of being a LUG member or Fabian, I also think the so called "left" in this country consist mostly of the same scummy career politicians as those on the perfect "right".




ROFL.

I do love a good circus joke.


----------



## Macquack

pixel said:


> *The Country!*
> Neither an individual nor any partying group of individuals should be considered more important than the people of the country they all pretend to represent. I find it quite telling that the noun *party* has the particular two meanings:
> 
> *party*
> ˈpɑːti/
> 
> noun: party; plural noun: parties
> 
> a social gathering of invited guests, typically involving eating, drinking, and entertainment.
> a formally constituted political group that contests elections and attempts to form or take part in a government.
> 
> Add to #1: ... *all paid for by a person or group of persons who may be unrelated, yet unwillingly conned into footing the bill and cleaning up the aftermath...*




Post of the year.

I do wonder what the opinion of *Julia* would have been. She was "*the balanced view*" that I read with true interest (even if I disagreed).


----------



## Smurf1976

McLovin said:


> Turnbull offers the best chance for genuine reform, because, amongst other things, he can reach across the aisle.




A critical quality of a leader that Abbott clearly didn't have.

Anyway, it's over now. His own party dumped Abbott before the Australian people had a chance to do the same.


----------



## Tisme

> he sacking of Tony Abbott by his own colleagues was not just about self-preservation, it was about internal dysfunction.
> 
> The coup was thus a double decapitation: the Prime Minister and his too-powerful, micromanaging, forceful, feud-enmeshed chief of staff, Peta Credlin. Both were terminated with prejudice.
> 
> The catalyst for the coup, Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop, had developed a loathing of Credlin. Like many in the parliamentary party, she came to believe that Credlin had to go, even if it meant getting rid of Abbott.
> 
> So great was the animus towards Credlin among many people within the government that roughly half the backbench and half the ministry wanted to see her removed.
> 
> It was Julie Bishop who delivered the blow.
> 
> This is not a question of blaming a female staffer for a male boss's failures. Abbott was the agent of his own demise. As much as I personally like the man, his performance on ABC's 7.30 last week was abysmal, the latest of many leaden efforts.




http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/com...-removal-of-peta-credlin-20150915-gjmv0r.html


----------



## SirRumpole

Smurf1976 said:


> A critical quality of a leader that Abbott clearly didn't have.




I would suggest that Turnbull has the same problem


Right now in Question Time he is looking very much like a man whose ambition has triumphed over his principles.


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> I would suggest that Turnbull has the same problem
> 
> 
> Right now in Question Time he is looking very much like a man whose ambition has triumphed over his principles.




Why?


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> Why?




He once thought an ETS was the best way of reducing emissions, now he thinks Direct Action (which he once described as bull****) is the best.

He once thought a Parliamentary vote was the best way to address the Gay Marriage issue, now he thinks a plebiscite is the best.

He sold water policy to the Nats who will now drain the rivers so the Nats can please the farmers.

More to come I'm sure.


----------



## wayneL

SirRumpole said:


> He once thought an ETS was the best way of reducing emissions, now he thinks Direct Action (which he once described as bull****) is the best.
> 
> He once thought a Parliamentary vote was the best way to address the Gay Marriage issue, now he thinks a plebiscite is the best.
> 
> He sold water policy to the Nats who will now drain the rivers so the Nats can please the farmers.
> 
> More to come I'm sure.



I find it curious  that  folks view as a negative that pollies can change their opinion ??????


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> I find it curious  that  folks view as a negative that pollies can change their opinion ??????




I think it's more relevant WHY they change their opinion.

MT has given no reason why he changed his mind on an ETS apart from that his party told him to. So he either looks like a hypocrite or a figurehead politician instead of a real leader.


----------



## pixel

wayneL said:


> I find it curious  that  folks view as a negative that pollies can change their opinion ??????




+1
... especially when - at this time - it appears to be the party members' majority opinion.

"Politics is the Art of the Possible."
_Otto von Bismarck_

Rumpy: Give MT some time to establish some leadership. He may well change his opinion back to where it was - if he can influence a sufficient number of party members.


----------



## McLovin

wayneL said:


> I find it curious  that  folks view as a negative that pollies can change their opinion ??????




Or that we want to go back to "captain's calls"


----------



## SirRumpole

pixel said:


> +1
> ... especially when - at this time - it appears to be the party members' majority opinion.
> 
> "Politics is the Art of the Possible."
> _Otto von Bismarck_
> 
> Rumpy: Give MT some time to establish some leadership. He may well change his opinion back to where it was - if he can influence a sufficient number of party members.




Yes, you are probably right. MT is smart enough to get what he wants without the dumbos realising it !


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> I think it's more relevant WHY they change their opinion.
> 
> MT has given no reason why he changed his mind on an ETS apart from that his party told him to. So he either looks like a hypocrite or a figurehead politician instead of a real leader.




Kim Beasley and the Labor Party were steed fast in winding back the GST....How come he changed his mind?

Julia Gillard said, "there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead"........Why did she change her mind?

Bill Shorten said Julia Gillard had his support 100% then a week later he was backing Kevin Rudd. ...Why did Bill change his mind?

Now, who are the hypocrites?


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Kim Beasley and the Labor Party were steed fast in winding back the GST....How come he changed his mind?
> 
> Julia Gillard said, "there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead"........Why did she change her mind?
> 
> Bill Shorten said Julia Gillard had his support 100% then a week later he was backing Kevin Rudd. ...Why did Bill change his mind?
> 
> Now, who are the hypocrites?




Where are Rudd and Gillard now ?


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Where are Rudd and Gillard now ?




Where will barnacle Bill be very soon?


----------



## sydboy007

SirRumpole said:


> I think it's more relevant WHY they change their opinion.
> 
> MT has given no reason why he changed his mind on an ETS apart from that his party told him to. So he either looks like a hypocrite or a figurehead politician instead of a real leader.




I think if the public decide Turnbull is in effect Abbott lite then his sky high popularity will wane rather quickly.

lets hope bernadi and his ilk of the loon pond decide to leave the Liberals and form their own tea party.  Then there's be a decent chance for Tunrbull to actually bring in some decent centrist policy.

Just look at how Abbott forced the Govt to vote against changes that benefited small business.  Amazingly it was the greens that came up with a decent policy compromise and the Govt has voted it down.

Will be interesting to see what Turnbull does, as Labor and the Greens could wedge the Govt on this with a constituency that is supposedly the natural voting block for the Liberals.


----------



## Tisme

sydboy007 said:


> lets hope bernadi and his ilk of the loon pond decide to leave the Liberals and form their own tea party.  .




You talk like Malcolm has rested the Party away from the Castle Catholics.... it is still run by them, albeit less Santamarian (perhaps; we'll see if the pursuit of the communism through unions ceases).

London to a brick, Abbott will be thinking about splitting the party...it's just how far the church wants to over stretch its influence.


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> You talk like Malcolm has rested the Party away from the Castle Catholics.... it is still run by them, albeit less Santamarian (perhaps; we'll see if the pursuit of the communism through unions ceases).
> 
> London to a brick, Abbott will be thinking about splitting the party...it's just how far the church wants to over stretch its influence.




I thought Malcolm was a Catholic too ?

I hope Bernadi et al leave the Libs too.

They will then have to go public with their extremism, and not hide behind Party Room doors.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> I thought Malcolm was a Catholic too ?
> 
> .




Correct

Julie is Anglican and Josh is Uniting, not sure if any of the others are immune from the Papal superstition 

Bob Menzies is to blame, he was the one who decided to fund Catholic Schools back in the early sixties, implicitly giving them the nod to mix constitutionally mandated secular politics, men in dresses and archaic ritual mumbo jumbo.....see what happens when you give minority groups and fringe dwellers special treatment ... they become a crony union of self serving untouchables.  

I much prefer having a Queen who prefers to leave us alone, instead of some President who takes orders from the Vatican and if there has to be a religion, Anglicanism because it tends to leave us alone. Joe Hockey can go fly a green mick kite instead of his republican push afaic.


----------



## sydboy007

2014-15 budget deficit now officially to be $8B higher than forecast at $38B

Pyne better ask for a paternity test as there's no surplus in the DNA


----------



## bellenuit

I normally avoid political issues, but reading and listening to all the post-mortems in the media on the Turnbull coup and the issue of disloyalty, I have yet to see one piece that points to the person who showed real disloyalty, that is Abbott himself.

If Abbott showed real loyalty to the both the Liberal Party and the Australian people, then he should have resigned and allowed a smooth transition to a new leader. A coup should not have been needed. Abbott know beyond doubt, after 18 or so bad polls, that he would lose to Shorten in the next election whenever it might take place. Yet, for pride or whatever other reason, he stuck it out and was willing to deliver a Shorten government to the Australian people and cause his own party to be chucked out of office.

This to me is the real disloyalty. By reading the writing on the wall, he could have arranged a smooth transition to a new leader, that would have allowed the new leader a fresh start without the new leader being tainted by the smear of disloyalty and "blood on his hands". Loyalty should be to your party and above all to the Australian People, not to yourself and your own pride.


----------



## drsmith

bellenuit said:


> This to me is the real disloyalty. By reading the writing on the wall, he could have arranged a smooth transition to a new leader, that would have allowed the new leader a fresh start without the new leader being tainted by the smear of disloyalty and "blood on his hands". Loyalty should be to your party and above all to the Australian People, not to yourself and your own pride.



Perhaps one has to be so driven to get there that it largely disguises that writing on the wall.

The same could be said of Julia Gillard and John Howard in his last term. The latter is perhaps an example where there should be a limit on how long any individual PM can serve regardless of how long their party is in office much as the US does with their president. In saying that though, I don't like their public campaign model for choosing the next leader. For 3-year terms, 3 terms is probably enough for any individual PM to realise their particular vision for the country with the transition to a new leader an internal party issue as it is now. 

Bill Hayden knew when to step aside but that was from opposition.


----------



## dutchie

bellenuit said:


> I normally avoid political issues, but reading and listening to all the post-mortems in the media on the Turnbull coup and the issue of disloyalty, I have yet to see one piece that points to the person who showed real disloyalty, that is Abbott himself.
> 
> If Abbott showed real loyalty to the both the Liberal Party and the Australian people, then he should have resigned and allowed a smooth transition to a new leader. A coup should not have been needed. Abbott know beyond doubt, after 18 or so bad polls, that he would lose to Shorten in the next election whenever it might take place. Yet, for pride or whatever other reason, he stuck it out and was willing to deliver a Shorten government to the Australian people and cause his own party to be chucked out of office.
> 
> This to me is the real disloyalty. By reading the writing on the wall, he could have arranged a smooth transition to a new leader, that would have allowed the new leader a fresh start without the new leader being tainted by the smear of disloyalty and "blood on his hands". Loyalty should be to your party and above all to the Australian People, not to yourself and your own pride.




Although I think Abbott had the potential to be a good PM, with some good guidance, in general I agree with your post. 

More political ignorance than disloyalty.


----------



## Tink

In my view, they are no different to Labor with their knives, and Turnbull would have been the last of my choices.
Is there any difference between Labor and Liberal in policies after the next election...

Turnbull on Rudd: “It was one of the cruelest moments I have ever witnessed”
Not only treachery, also a hypocrite

Jeff Kennett summed up my view on the night --
*Liberal leadership: Jeff Kennett slams Malcolm Turnbull as 'the Kevin Rudd of the Liberal Party'*
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-14/jeff-kennett-slams-malcolm-turnbull/6775228

*Media class expels a Prime Minister who dissented*
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/..._class_expels_a_prime_minister_who_dissented/

_A coup has two parts: the hidden skulduggery and the public justifications for such skulduggery. It’s only by considering both that ... something very interesting - and worrying - starts to emerge: a feeling that Abbott was dumped not because he was an ineffective leader but because his world view failed to conform with what political and media insiders consider to be proper and progressive…

Whatever the internal Liberal machinations that led to the ousting of Abbott, the public mythologisation of his removal is revealing and terrifying. It speaks to the new intolerance, where anyone who refuses to buy into chattering-class orthodoxies can expect ridicule, and maybe even the termination of their careers._


----------



## Tisme

Did anyone ask Ticker Costello what he would have done?


----------



## wayneL

Tink said:


> Whatever the internal Liberal machinations that led to the ousting of Abbott, the public mythologisation of his removal is revealing and terrifying. It speaks to the new intolerance, where anyone who refuses to buy into chattering-class orthodoxies can expect ridicule, and maybe even the termination of their careers.[/I]




This is so true. It is the media who've fomented the absolute hatred of the man. While some may disagree with his ideology, the collective character assassination was/is unreasonable imo.


----------



## Tisme

Tink said:


> ...... chattering-class orthodoxies ......[/I]





The author of that tongue twister deserves and award for best use of retrograde 80's speak! I'm not sure it's correct context though because I recall it was a derogatory term for the educated lefties ... unless Bill Shorten dumped Abbott I don't see the linker?


----------



## Tink

Well this is where we disagree, Tisme, as I have pointed out throughout my posts.
Once upon a time we lived in a democracy, where freedom of speech was allowed.

The media, their ABC, has taken on form, to push their agenda on what they want. 

He didn't agree, and should have been entitled to express it, but of course, the chattering classes have silenced all views, except the ones that they want.

They are happy now they have Malcolm that toes THEIR party line.

This is not a democracy, in my view.


----------



## SirRumpole

wayneL said:


> This is so true. It is the media who've fomented the absolute hatred of the man. While some may disagree with his ideology, the collective character assassination was/is unreasonable imo.




It was fine when the media was on the other side. Abbott's "character assassination" was nothing compared to what Gillard went through.


----------



## Tisme

Tink said:


> Well this is where we disagree, Tisme, as I have pointed out throughout my posts.
> Once upon a time we lived in a democracy, where freedom of speech was allowed.
> 
> The media, their ABC, has taken on form, to push their agenda on what they want.
> 
> He didn't agree, and should have been entitled to express it, but of course, the chattering classes have silenced all views, except the ones that they want.
> 
> They are happy now they have Malcolm that toes THEIR party line.
> 
> This is not a democracy, in my view.





Why not use simple speak then ad just blame the media? I remember the old days and the newspaper barons pushing their their spit and vitriol against the Labor and labour unions..... there is still an extant dinosaur living in News Corp's Brisbane office masquerading as a professional unbiased journalism; the editor rides it like a jockey and it's name is the Courier Mail.

I take exception to protected species like the Bolts, Dores, etc having the temerity to insult intelligent people and me D) with their puerile logic and twisting of facts ... no matter who their target is. It has got to a point that many in my blue ribbon electorate are vocal about the absence of fairness. So I can understand your displeasure of the ABC if it doesn't meet with your approval Tink, but the LNP couldn't sustain the comradery 12 months after the election and recently they couldn't stomach the loss in faith of the public and their own back benchers ... so the Et tu, Brute moment for the Libs.


----------



## Tink

As mentioned, Tisme, I disagree.

If you cannot open the Australian.

http://brendanoneill.co.uk/post/129350897299/lesson-for-tony-abbott-think-like-an-elite-or


----------



## Knobby22

Yea, blame the media.
Let's ignore Abbott's obvious incompetence, complete lack of vision and history of making poor decisions.
His was a political animal, skilled at number crunching and back stabbing and nothing more. Almost as much a hollow man as Julia Gillard.


----------



## overhang

I didn't see those complaining of Fairfax or ABC bias complaining when News Corp ran a full death by media campaign on Labor.


----------



## sptrawler

overhang said:


> I didn't see those complaining of Fairfax or ABC bias complaining when News Corp ran a full death by media campaign on Labor.
> View attachment 64375




Nice poster, for the dunny door.

I wonder what Fairfax will fill their pages with, know that Abbott is gone?


----------



## noco

overhang said:


> I didn't see those complaining of Fairfax or ABC bias complaining when News Corp ran a full death by media campaign on Labor.
> View attachment 64375




Would you call it biased or the truth?...The Labor Party were a disgrace under Gillard and just about brought the country to its knees.

You state the 2013 election was run by Murdoch to rid the Labor Party control of Australia but I am trying to work out where Fairfax and the ABC fit into the picture of your post.

You show a lot of paper headlines without identifying the dates.

From 2010 Gillard loaded the ABC with Green and Labor staff who became the dominate factor in control of the ABC in order to promote their propaganda of criticism of the Liberal Government and to discredit Abbott when ever possible....No matter whether it was a wink or the eating of a raw onion, the ABC would exploit, exaggerate and plug it day and night for a week....This all a tactic of Fabian brain washing.


----------



## overhang

noco said:


> Would you call it biased or the truth?...The Labor Party were a disgrace under Gillard and just about brought the country to its knees.
> 
> You state the 2013 election was run by Murdoch to rid the Labor Party control of Australia but I am trying to work out where Fairfax and the ABC fit into the picture of your post.
> 
> You show a lot of paper headlines without identifying the dates.
> 
> From 2010 Gillard loaded the ABC with Green and Labor staff who became the dominate factor in control of the ABC in order to promote their propaganda of criticism of the Liberal Government and to discredit Abbott when ever possible....No matter whether it was a wink or the eating of a raw onion, the ABC would exploit, exaggerate and plug it day and night for a week....This all a tactic of Fabian brain washing.




I would call it editoriliazed and my personal opinion is that news is for the front page and editorials should be further in the paper but maybe I'm just old fashioned there.

Time and time again we go over this and the ABC is cleared time and time again of any bias that breech there charter, there is probably a bit there but not enough that they have breached the charter.


----------



## overhang

sptrawler said:


> Nice poster, for the dunny door.
> 
> I wonder what Fairfax will fill their pages with, know that Abbott is gone?




It sits beside my Courier Mail toilet paper


----------



## noco

overhang said:


> I would call it editoriliazed and my personal opinion is that news is for the front page and editorials should be further in the paper but maybe I'm just old fashioned there.
> 
> Time and time again we go over this and the ABC is cleared time and time again of any bias that breech there charter, there is probably a bit there but not enough that they have breached the charter.




I do not agree that you say the ABC is not biased and that they do not breach their charter....You only have to follow their associated programs like QandA, Media Watch, LATE LINE , THE 7.30 report, Virginia Tripoli on the ABC breakfast show and the Insiders with Barry Cassidy who always stacks his panel with a majority of lefties as does Tony Jones......They have breached their charter on numerous occasions.


----------



## overhang

noco said:


> I do not agree that you say the ABC is not biased and that they do not breach their charter....You only have to follow their associated programs like QandA, Media Watch, LATE LINE , THE 7.30 report, Virginia Tripoli on the ABC breakfast show and the Insiders with Barry Cassidy who always stacks his panel with a majority of lefties as does Tony Jones......They have breached their charter on numerous occasions.




You're welcome to disagree with me but I'm just pointing out fact, they have been investigated numerous times and and every time the verdict is that they didn't breach their charter.  Imo if someone reads only news corp tabloids then the ABC would certainly appear very biased.  

Imo it takes the humanitarian side more so than the Labor side, they side with asylum seekers, they side with clean energy and they side with gays.


----------



## noco

overhang said:


> You're welcome to disagree with me but I'm just pointing out fact, they have been investigated numerous times and and every time the verdict is that they didn't breach their charter.  Imo if someone reads only news corp tabloids then the ABC would certainly appear very biased.
> 
> Imo it takes the humanitarian side more so than the Labor side, they side with asylum seekers, they side with clean energy and they side with gays.




Yes..investigated by two lefties....Ray Martin and some other leftie from SBS.

It is like putting the fox in the coup to look after the chickens....What a joke...


----------



## Tisme

Where were all you right wingers when tony needed you ...busy sending emails to your local party rep?

Sad .............


----------



## Tisme

The new cabinet is still very sad about Tony's situation .... you just can't buy that sort of loyalty:


----------



## overhang

noco said:


> Yes..investigated by two lefties....Ray Martin and some other leftie from SBS.
> 
> It is like putting the fox in the coup to look after the chickens....What a joke...




I was actually referring to the completed investigations like on Leigh Sales who was cleared of bias against Hockey and Abbott.

Excuse my ignorance but why is Ray Martin a leftie?  I don't know that much about the guy to know either way.


----------



## Tisme

overhang said:


> Excuse my ignorance but why is Ray Martin a leftie?




He's not, but he worse than that he's a patriot Ozzie, who much rather likes to paint others as the "
 good aussie bloke".

If anyone would hate the ABC it would be him after being the hounded on that ABC show John Safron fronted and he lost the plot.


----------



## SirRumpole

The ABC was also investigated by the Packer stalwart Gerald Stone who cleared them of systemic  bias.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...overage-of-asylum-seekers-20140312-34lk8.html


----------



## Logique

overhang said:


> ..Excuse my ignorance but why is Ray Martin a leftie?  I don't know that much about the guy to know either way.



Ray would find many a fellow traveller at any Sydney eastern suburbs dance party.  

Gay marriage, asylum seekers, the republic, climate change, all good with Ray.  

He thinks we don't see this, as with a few ABC presenters we know...who may or may not, be called Virginia.


----------



## Logique

SirRumpole said:


> The ABC was also investigated by the Packer stalwart Gerald Stone who cleared them of systemic  bias.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...overage-of-asylum-seekers-20140312-34lk8.html



Gerald Stone says nothing to see here? Hilarious.


----------



## SirRumpole

Logique said:


> Gerald Stone says nothing to see here? Hilarious.




I'm not laughing , why are you ?


----------



## Logique

SirRumpole said:


> I'm not laughing , why are you ?



Ray Martin's old boss, yeah right.


----------



## SirRumpole

Logique said:


> Ray would find many a fellow traveller at any Sydney eastern suburbs dance party.
> 
> Gay marriage, asylum seekers, the republic, climate change, all good with Ray.
> 
> He thinks we don't see this, as with a few ABC presenters we know...who may or may not, be called Virginia.




Anything else on Ray apart from a few unsubstantiated innuendos ?

Nope thought not.


----------



## Tisme

SirRumpole said:


> Anything else on Ray apart from a few unsubstantiated innuendos ?
> 
> .




2mins 24seconds


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> 2mins 24seconds





Well done Ray, kick those lazy bludging ABC ratbags !

If anyone had a reason to be biased AGAINST the ABC it's Ray.


----------



## sptrawler

Well Abbott and Hockey are gone, so let's look for the next victim.

Someone else has to fill up the Fairfax papers and the ABC content. 
Q & A, Lateline and Fairfax reporters will be having sleepless nights, trying to write up material.


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> Well Abbott and Hockey are gone, so let's look for the next victim.
> 
> Someone else has to fill up the Fairfax papers and the ABC content.
> Q & A, Lateline and Fairfax reporters will be having sleepless nights, trying to write up material.




Ray Martin?


----------



## Logique

SirRumpole said:


> Anything else on Ray apart from a few unsubstantiated innuendos ?
> Nope thought not.



I was simply outlining Ray's policy manifesto. Left of centre, a former long term ABC presenter and present day sympathizer.  Having been appointed to head the enquiry, he had exonerated the ABC, before it had even gotten underway.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...er-calling-boycott-silly-20150707-gi75x0.html

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/talkingheads/txt/s2977692.htm



> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/..._resigned_yet_from_this_farcical_abc_inquiry/
> jeni replied to vic of gero
> 
> Wed 08 Jul 15
> Ray Martin - lefty as they come - used to work for him -...


----------



## SirRumpole

Logique said:


> I was simply outlining Ray's policy manifesto. Left of centre, a former long term ABC presenter and present day sympathizer.  Having been appointed to head the enquiry, he had exonerated the ABC, before it had even gotten underway.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...er-calling-boycott-silly-20150707-gi75x0.html
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/tv/talkingheads/txt/s2977692.htm




Maybe there are a few sour grapes in the bowl


----------



## Logique

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe there are a few sour grapes in the bowl



We move on I guess, Mad Monday is over, normal service being resumed.


----------



## Tisme

Huw Parkinson at it again:


----------



## sptrawler

Abbott's mistake, was to not call another election, when he didn't get a majority.

He said he wouldn't operate, in the compromised minority Government, then he did.

His call, his stuff up.

He ended up, just as compromised as Gillard, more fool him.


----------



## SirRumpole

sptrawler said:


> Abbott's mistake, was to not call another election, when he didn't get a majority.
> 
> He said he wouldn't operate, in the compromised minority Government, then he did.
> 
> His call, his stuff up.
> 
> He ended up, just as compromised as Gillard, more fool him.




His mistake was to treat the Senate as a rubber stamp and not negotiate. He simply did not have those skills. Like Rudd he was sadly lacking in the people management department and you just can't be PM without those skills.


----------



## sptrawler

SirRumpole said:


> His mistake was to treat the Senate as a rubber stamp and not negotiate. He simply did not have those skills. Like Rudd he was sadly lacking in the people management department and you just can't be PM without those skills.




What I was refering to, was the statement he made, that he wouldn't put himself in that position.

Then he did, just as dumb as Gillard.

I'm still not convinced Turnbull is the answer, but he has cut out a lot of dead wood in the cabinet.

Time to pass the baton on, and Turnbull seems to be doing it, which is a good thing.

There is nothing the older Liberal and Labor pollies can offer, the world has moved on, Turnbull may have realised it.


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> There is nothing the older Liberal and Labor pollies can offer, the world has moved on, Turnbull may have realised it.





Yeah I think some of them are emulating their grandparent's generation and role playing what sexagenarians did back in the mid sixties:


----------



## Tisme

http://www.2gb.com/audioplayer/130456


----------



## IFocus

Tisme said:


> View attachment 64508
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.2gb.com/audioplayer/130456




What a joke "I wont be sniping".............lying Abbott just hasn't got it the tribe has voted already (his own mob) he would not have won the election and his policy's will change.


----------



## Tisme

IFocus said:


> What a joke "I wont be sniping".............lying Abbott just hasn't got it the tribe has voted already (his own mob) he would not have won the election and his policy's will change.




I think Tony is mature enough not to snipe, sneer, dismiss, sabotage and white ant. He hasn't demonstrated those traits in the past so I see no reason why he would start now .... it goes to the essence of a man....


----------



## sptrawler

Take a look at the SMH and the AGE websites, what a mess, the whole front page is a mish mash of garbage.

Now having removed Abbott, they have removed 80% of their chook feed.

What a hoot, be carefull what you wish for, now they have to find something to write.

They obviously need to find, another person who is equally distasteful, check out Bill Shorten.lol

Just a heads up, for lazy reporters.lol


----------



## sptrawler

Tisme said:


> I think Tony is mature enough not to snipe, sneer, dismiss, sabotage and white ant. He hasn't demonstrated those traits in the past so I see no reason why he would start now .... it goes to the essence of a man....




Actually I know nothing of him, but anecdotal evidence would say he is a nice guy.


----------



## Tisme

sptrawler said:


> Actually I know nothing of him, but anecdotal evidence would say he is a nice guy.





He knows his table manners when he's amongst strangers.


----------



## Tisme

The more I think about the Hadley interview:


----------



## SirRumpole

No sniping eh ?

Yeah right


----------



## IFocus

Barry Cassidy points out the obvious


Tony Abbott's self-indulgent and damaging farewell radio tour


> Though he insisted from the start there would be *no wrecking or undermining, ex-prime minister Tony Abbott has twice now crossed the line *from legacy protection to vindictiveness, writes Barrie Cassidy.
> 
> Have you noticed what's gone missing? Seemingly dead, buried and cremated?
> 
> Those interminable doorstops at a factory within easy driving distance from Parliament House that usually involved the prime minister putting on a hard hat and mouthing vacuous slogans.
> 
> *They happened almost every day and rarely did they advance the national interest one inch*. Instead, they simply served as fodder to the meaningless, mindless political argument du jour.
> 
> Kevin Rudd started the habit, Julia Gillard copied him, Tony Abbott turned it into an art form, and Bill Shorten felt the need to keep up, or lose.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-...gent-and-damaging-farewell-radio-tour/6820304


----------



## Knobby22

IFocus said:


> Barry Cassidy points out the obvious
> 
> 
> Tony Abbott's self-indulgent and damaging farewell radio tour
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-...gent-and-damaging-farewell-radio-tour/6820304




Is he going to do a Rudd or a Mark Latham?
He strikes me as bitter as both of them, but more delusional.


----------



## SirRumpole

Knobby22 said:


> Is he going to do a Rudd or a Mark Latham?
> He strikes me as bitter as both of them, but more delusional.




The fact that it would only take 6 people to change their minds and he's back in might encourage him to stick around.

Unfortunately.


----------



## IFocus

Knobby22 said:


> Is he going to do a Rudd or a Mark Latham?
> He strikes me as bitter as both of them, but more delusional.




I would imagine that he is confirming that the  Liberals did the right thing dumping him as he continues to say stuff thats directly contradicts any available evidence like winning the next election and Turnbul not changing any of his failed polices.

I think people would be far kinder to his so called legacy if he went silently and remember he did stop the boats and dumped a couple of tax's where as now he is likely to be considered as you say delusional.


Still it must be burning him and his supporters up that Turnbul is building momentum at advancing policy conversations and debate in a statesman manner at a far higher level of intellect I got the feeling he could well become a wrecker.


----------



## Knobby22

Yes. Let's hope not.
Bolt, who seems to have lost it lately, will hopefully not encourage him.

His latest blog asks Is Turnbull Lib's Kevin Rudd?


----------



## SirRumpole

Knobby22 said:


> Yes. Let's hope not.
> Bolt, who seems to have lost it lately, will hopefully not encourage him.
> 
> His latest blog asks Is Turnbull Lib's Kevin Rudd?




Bolt has lost it.

Rudd is more comparable to Abbott, sitting on the backbench, waiting, plotting...while Turnbull is setting himself up to be knocked off, but unlike Gillard, *after* the election when the born to rule Right take back  what they see to be  rightfully theirs.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Bolt has lost it.
> 
> Rudd is more comparable to Abbott, sitting on the backbench, waiting, plotting...while Turnbull is setting himself up to be knocked off, but unlike Gillard, *after* the election when the born to rule Right take back  what they see to be  rightfully theirs.




Errr, I don't think so...Abbott is goin".


https://au.news.yahoo.com/video/watch/29530637/tony-abbott-announces-resignation/#page1


----------



## Knobby22

noco said:


> Errr, I don't think so...Abbott is goin".
> 
> 
> https://au.news.yahoo.com/video/watch/29530637/tony-abbott-announces-resignation/#page1




No he isn't. 

Mr Abbott says, at 57, he's too young to retire and he hasn't made a decision on staying or quitting Parliament - and won't before Christmas. 
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2015/s4322060.htm


----------



## SirRumpole

Knobby22 said:


> No he isn't.
> 
> Mr Abbott says, at 57, he's too young to retire and he hasn't made a decision on staying or quitting Parliament - and won't before Christmas.
> http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2015/s4322060.htm




Besides, the longer he stays the more of OUR money he gets in his super.


----------



## Logique

noco said:


> Errr, I don't think so...Abbott is goin".
> 
> https://au.news.yahoo.com/video/watch/29530637/tony-abbott-announces-resignation/#page1



He's staying in the Parliament, as he should. 

He'll be back after the next election, to replace 'Neville' Turnbull.


----------



## noco

Logique said:


> He's staying in the Parliament, as he should.
> 
> He'll be back after the next election, to replace 'Neville' Turnbull.




I took it from the headline that he had resigned for parliament..


----------



## boofhead

check the date of article - it is from last month after the partyroom vote


----------



## McLovin

SirRumpole said:


> Bolt has lost it.




Bolt never had it. One of Abbott's many failings was believing that anyone except a few grumpy old timers (get off my lawn types) take Bolt/Jones/Hadley seriously. Bolt/Jones/Hadley are more annoyed that their opinion isn't held in the esteem  which they think it deserves than by the removal of Abbott.

Alan Jones' audience declines every year, because his listeners are dying off. All but the most tin-eared of politicians would realise the futility of targeting this group as your core constituency. Then again, if Abbott thinks he's going to make a comeback he's more deluded than I ever imagined.


----------



## Knobby22

Bronwyn again.... from the Herald Sun


ABOUT 60 pieces of crockery were missing from former Speaker Bronwyn Bishop’s office in an August stocktake, a Senate hearing has heard.

Officials from the Department of Parliamentary Services confirmed that about a quarter of the 248-piece Queen’s dining setting was missing when Department staff went to check her office earlier this year.

Ms Bishop resigned as Speaker on August 2 after the Herald Sun revealed she had taken a taxpayer-funded helicopter flight to a Liberal fundraiser during the Victorian state election.

The stocktake was conducted on August 6 before new Speaker Tony Smith took over the office.

It is understood the missing pieces were returned to storage after the Department count identified the crockery was missing.

The Herald Sun understands that a similar stocktake in 2001 also found a number of items missing from Ms Bishop’s parliamentary office after she was dropped as aged care minister over revelations that elderly people in a Melbourne nursing had been bathed in kerosene.


----------



## Tisme

Entitled her self


----------



## Knobby22

*Now* - that he has no power -  *Hockey wants to make some great changes to negative gearing, superannuation etc. *! Changes most of us wanted and that were recommended in the Murray report. Now he says we should do it and fix our tax systems. Too damn late.

Completely wasted opportunity. I blame Abbott and the hard right.

Originally it was going to be Hockey challenging Turnbull on his own but Abbott backstabbed him.
I feel Hockey could have been a good Prime Minister but its history now.

BTW Anyone read Bolt today? Two attacks on Turnbull! Get over it mate!


----------



## orr

Knobby22 said:


> *Now* -
> 
> Completely wasted opportunity. I blame Abbott and the hard right.




They're the puppets of their backers... watch the board seats that these traitors to the nations progress shimmy their shinny ar$es on to.
Negative gearing distortions enrich Banks and a plethora of real estate parasites... gross super tax concessions will be a 'nod and a wink'  from mates at the turf & golf  club.  

_Completely wasted opportunity._ .... sums up abbotts tenure


----------



## Tisme

orr said:


> They're the puppets of their backers... watch the board seats that these traitors to the nations progress shimmy their shinny ar$es on to.
> Negative gearing distortions enrich Banks and a plethora of real estate parasites... gross super tax concessions will be a 'nod and a wink'  from mates at the turf & golf  club.
> 
> _Completely wasted opportunity._ .... sums up abbotts tenure




It turns out he was too shy to have talks with the xbenchers, seemly preferring to antagonise his political opponents rather than consult and communicate.


----------



## dutchie

Abbott, brilliant speech, gives reality check to Europe.

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work...thatcher-lecture/story-fn5tas5k-1227584885894

No longer shackled with the office of PM, Tony Abbott tells it as it is - no kumbaya bullsh*t.

No doubt Europe will ignore him to their own peril. 

RIP Europe


----------



## orr

dutchie said:


> Abbott, brilliant speech, gives reality check to Europe.
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/finance/work...thatcher-lecture/story-fn5tas5k-1227584885894
> 
> No longer shackled with the office of PM, Tony Abbott tells it as it is - no kumbaya bullsh*t.
> 
> No doubt Europe will ignore him to their own peril.
> 
> RIP Europe




The Thatcher Lecture; Oh the irony....
And to quote Tonies own words... 'if Thatcher was still with us'
Well...That's where we might get a bit of reality check, because dear olde Mage' would be able to tell us where Saddam Hussien got a good heft of those much talked about Chemical WMD's, because her government was happy to oversee British companies selling the stuff to him, at a nice profit ...

https://www.rt.com/uk/271492-saddam-chemical-weapons-uk/

and many other sources, for those that want to know the uncomfortable truth. Or put your fingers in your ears and hum kumbaya.


So ducchie, seeing WMD's(supplied by the 'West', i.e. us) were a big part in way of getting all these refo's on the move, Why don't you suggest to Capt'n International Clown Shoes to start using some mustard and CS to get them to stop. Should keep out the peril.

abbott and brilliant in the same sentence. There's someone who can spot talent


----------



## Tisme

Following is the speech as one John Grace of The Guardian heard it:




> G’devening everyone.
> 
> It’s a great honour to have been asked to give the second annual Margaret Thatcher lecture here in London, England. As most of you will know, Mrs T was a sheila but she managed to rise above that disability to bomb the **** out of the Argies and take back the Falklands for Great Britain and to piss off most of the rest of Europe. She was the kind of leader every country needs. As far in sight as she was to the right.
> 
> Some people here – those of you who have any idea who I am – may regret that I only got to be prime minister for two years. Well, let me tell you that I am proud of what I achieved for Australia in those two years. Bibles and onions for all school kids and a knighthood for Prince Philip. What country could ask for more?
> Tony Abbott urges Europe to adopt Australian policies in refugee crisis
> Read more
> 
> Now let me say this. When I was prime minister I didn’t choose to lecture other countries on how to run their international relations. But, to be honest, I’m now at a bit of a loose end and who wouldn’t pass up the opportunity of a free flight to watch the Wallabies give the Kiwis a pasting in the rugby World Cup final? So here goes.
> 
> You want to know why Australia is so good at rugby? Well let me tell you. It’s because we closed our borders on every damn illegal immigrant who came within 100 metres of our shore. That’s right. Every foreign scrounger who turned up pleading persecution in their own country was sent back to somewhere else. And if you Brits want to get good at rugby again you’re going to have to learn to do the same thing.
> 
> Here’s the problem with you Europeans. You’re just a bunch of hand-wringing pussies. You’re too nice to foreigners. Every time some loser turns up at your borders whinging about how hard their lives are, you fall for their sob stories. So let me tell you straight. Man up, before it’s too late. As Jesus himself once told me in person, if you don’t look after number one then everyone else will just take advantage of you. Sometimes you’ve got to be cruel to be kind. Only when hundreds of thousands of them have died will they realise they were better off dying wherever it was they came from. Doing this may take some getting used to and gnaw at your conscience but, take it from me, you’ll soon get over it.
> 
> I'm not stupid. Well, not very
> 
> Now I’m not stupid. Well, not very. I know there’s some bad stuff going on in Syria, but that doesn’t mean we’ve got to be nice to every Syrian who wants to get the hell out of their country. Their problems are nothing to do with us and the compassionate thing to do is stack them up in camps in Turkey and Lebanon. You see, there’s a reason Syria and the rest of the Middle East is a total mess. Some pinkos will try and tell you it’s partly because the west interfered too much in their affairs. Wrong. Very wrong. The problem wasn’t that the west created too many wars, but that it didn’t create enough. We should have taken out every country in that part of the world while we still could. Bomb, bomb, bombety, bomb.
> 
> So I leave you with this thought. The only way forwards is backwards. That’s what Margaret would have said in one of her more rabid moments. What are you doing with me? Where are you taking me? Help, help …
> 
> _The Margaret Thatcher Institute deeply regrets that Mr Abbott has become indisposed before he was able to finish his extremely interesting speech and we hope you enjoy the rest of your dinner._


----------



## McLovin

I actually don't think Tony has any other feathers in his bow than "stop the boats". What a p!ss poor performance. Was this guy really PM, or was it just a bad dream? The speech was something straight outta the seminary. Dogmatic world view from yesteryear dressed up as some sort of good v evil battle. I'm no Thatcher fan, but she ran rings around Abbott in every which way. Hopefully his farewell tour doesn't become like a John Farnham one. 

God knows what the Tories were thinking. Maybe it was some wit's idea of satirical humour?


----------



## Tisme

I guess we've all heard that Tony is actively spruiking the "next Abbott Govt"   ???!!!!!!


----------



## Tisme

McLovin said:


> I actually don't think Tony has any other feathers in his bow than "stop the boats". What a p!ss poor performance. Was this guy really PM, or was it just a bad dream? The speech was something straight outta the seminary. Dogmatic world view from yesteryear dressed up as some sort of good v evil battle. I'm no Thatcher fan, but she ran rings around Abbott in every which way. Hopefully his farewell tour doesn't become like a John Farnham one.
> 
> God knows what the Tories were thinking. Maybe it was some wit's idea of satirical humour?




Have the Brits pulled their finger out and implemented Tony's directives ......


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> Have the Brits pulled their finger out and implemented Tony's directives ......




Abbott's speech was total cr@p, the dynamics of the two regions are totally different. We are an island at the bottom of the world, a small target compared to Europe and Britain and therefore much harder to reach. Britain is connected to Europe by a tunnel and with a much smaller distance to travel from the trouble spots.

It's an act of pure fantasy to believe turn the boats back could work in Europe.


----------



## Logique

If you've ever encountered a Peta Credlin in the workplace, you'd understand.  Hartcher says Credlin opposed Ministerships for Sussan Ley and Marise Payne, neither of whom have put a foot wrong.

So I think we can be a little more forgiving of the Turnbull/Bishop insurrection.

Credlin afterwards showed her form by running straight into the arms of her Feminista sisters.



> *Shirtfronted - The story of the Abbott government* - by Peter Hartcher
> Command and control: Critics of Abbott's chief of staff say that co-dependency blinded him to the change that might have saved him.
> 
> SMH: http://www.smh.com.au/interactive/2015/Shirtfronted/PartTwoPeta.html
> 
> ...Some days after the February spill, Fierravanti-Wells, a conservative ally of Abbott's, is reputed to have spoken to Credlin about the downfall of his government and prophesied: "One day Tony will be sitting on a park bench in Manly feeding the pigeons and he will blame you."...


----------



## dutchie

SirRumpole said:


> Abbott's speech was total cr@p, the dynamics of the two regions are totally different. We are an island at the bottom of the world, a small target compared to Europe and Britain and therefore much harder to reach. Britain is connected to Europe by a tunnel and with a much smaller distance to travel from the trouble spots.
> 
> It's an act of pure fantasy to believe turn the boats back could work in Europe.




All good points. However, the critics/experts also said that it would not work in Australia.


----------



## Tisme

Logique said:


> If you've ever encountered a Peta Credlin in the workplace, you'd understand.  Hartcher says Credlin opposed Ministerships for Sussan Ley and Marise Payne, neither of whom have put a foot wrong.
> 
> So I think we can be a little more forgiving of the Turnbull/Bishop insurrection.
> 
> Credlin afterwards showed her form by running straight into the arms of her Feminista sisters.




Manchurian....... and Abbott the candidate


----------



## Logique

Let Ms Credlin move on, says Julie Bishop today. Yeah right.

So noble, so correct.


----------



## Tisme

I don't think Credlin nor Abbott have finished yet. There are divisive games still being played out......


----------



## SirRumpole

Tisme said:


> I don't think Credlin nor Abbott have finished yet. There are divisive games still being played out......




"We are not the Labor Party",

Yeah right, Rudd/Gillard all over again.

http://www.theguardian.com/australi...-malcolm-turnbulls-leadership-challenge-video


----------



## Tisme

No wonder they gave him the flick:

https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sou...n=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=tony+abbott+sings+elvis


----------



## noco

Tisme said:


> No wonder they gave him the flick:
> 
> https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sou...n=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=tony+abbott+sings+elvis





Give Abbott credit where it is due......A lot of his work in the past tow years is starting to come fruition and Turbull is going to take the credit for it.

The problem with Abbott is he did not have the charisma of a Pierce Brosnan  or a Clarke Gabal......Women love charisma ...if the bloke like Turnbull turns up with a good looking smile, the women melt....It does not matter what he stands for so long as he good looking.


----------



## drsmith

Mr Knights and Dames will not come back.

The public and party appetite there would be about the same as the Queen's,

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...en-on-his-trip-to-london-20151203-gler56.html


----------



## dutchie

Two Australian Prime Ministers willingness to act on two issues stands out. These issues are proving to be seen worldwide as necessary and desirable objectives.

The outstanding and successful implementation by these two PM's is a legacy to their determination in “making it happen”.

1.	John Howard and his gun control

2.	Tony Abbott and his securing Australia’s borders against illegal immigrants.


----------



## Tisme

dutchie said:


> Two Australian Prime Ministers willingness to act on two issues stands out. These issues are proving to be seen worldwide as necessary and desirable objectives.
> 
> The outstanding and successful implementation by these two PM's is a legacy to their determination in “making it happen”.
> 
> 1.	John Howard and his gun control
> 
> 2.	Tony Abbott and his securing Australia’s borders against illegal immigrants.




John had a knack of surprising everyone with out of character socialist things like the gun legislation, and good on him and Tim Fischer for pushing it through their reticent collegues.

Tony Abbott worked off Kevin Rudd's legislation...didn't he?


----------



## drsmith

Tones is going to recontest his seat at the next election.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-...er-tony-abbott-to-recontest-warringah/7110786

He's had his day in politics in my view and would be better stepping aside.


----------



## Logique

drsmith said:


> Tones is going to recontest his seat at the next election.
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-...er-tony-abbott-to-recontest-warringah/7110786
> He's had his day in politics in my view and would be better stepping aside.



Recontesting? Good. He'll be the better for the experience, and he'll be back.  

It's the Abbott government's policies, that are providing the magic carpet for Lord Wentworth to coast upon. But his day will come, at the ballot box.

With high melodrama I say - I pay GST, and I vote


----------



## drsmith

Logique said:


> Recontesting? Good. He'll be the better for the experience, and he'll be back.



He won't be PM again.


----------



## SirRumpole

Abbott is a deluded fool. Just because a few of his Tory mates in the LP want him he thinks the electorate does.

He's unelectable as PM and should realise that.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Abbott is a deluded fool. Just because a few of his Tory mates in the LP want him he thinks the electorate does.
> 
> He's unelectable as PM and should realise that.




Ha Rumpy, now and then,I have to agree with you.:iagree:

Off topic.....:topic......I think Barnacle Bill is less likely to be elected.


----------



## SirRumpole

noco said:


> Ha Rumpy, now and then,I have to agree with you.:iagree:
> 
> Off topic.....:topic......I think Barnacle Bill is less likely to be elected.




Thanks for the nod noco, but Bill is LESS Likely to be elected PM than Abbott ?

Why do you think Abbott was thrown out by his own party ?


----------



## drsmith

Having rejected the usual post political career diplomatic post (High Commissioner to London), it'll be OK if he's content representing the interests of his local electorate. 

When it comes to past political leaders, that goes against the grain somewhat.


----------



## Logique

drsmith said:


> He won't be PM again.



You wish Doc.  I can tell you who won't be PM...your darling from WA, Julie B., who thinks she has eliminated the conservatives from the Coalition. 

We'll see Julie and Malcolm at the ballot box.

Sometimes predictions aren't right:


> Malcolm Turnbull is told he will NEVER be Prime Minister... by a psychic - 8 May 2015
> Link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...VER-Prime-Minister-psychic.html#ixzz3yDovVMmX


----------



## So_Cynical

Logique said:


> It's the Abbott government's policies, that are providing the magic carpet for Lord Wentworth to coast upon. But his day will come, at the ballot box.




Poison Chalice/Magic Carpet, The election will be the end of the Noalition right...his day will come.


----------



## drsmith

Tony Abbott will not be PM again and Bill Shorten will never be PM.

One doesn't need psychic powers to see that.


----------



## Tisme

Incase you've been living under a rock:

http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw...p/news-story/0e5f0030b5dcc5d807f4ce2ed6656451

Meanwhile Hamlet procrastinates (this would hurt his republican feelings):





https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/31032457/from-tax-feast-to-tax-famine/


----------



## Logique

drsmith said:


> Tony Abbott will not be PM again and Bill Shorten will never be PM.
> 
> One doesn't need psychic powers to see that.



Abbott didn't listen, he was warned by the party. His chances are slim at this point. 

Turnbull wants to skate in under the radar, then wheel out the tough policies.  A GST 15% is neither dead, buried nor cremated. Just shelved temporarily. 

Shorten looks better, and leaner, by the day. 

I think Labor's negative gearing policy is saleable. The Millenials need to be able to get into the housing market, which looks more impossible by the year.


----------



## drsmith

Logique said:


> Abbott didn't listen, he was warned by the party. His chances are slim at this point.
> 
> Turnbull wants to skate in under the radar, then wheel out the tough policies.  A GST 15% is neither dead, buried nor cremated. Just shelved temporarily.
> 
> Shorten looks better, and leaner, by the day.
> 
> I think Labor's negative gearing policy is saleable. The Millenials need to be able to get into the housing market, which looks more impossible by the year.



The government has had a shocking parliamentary fortnight and Labor, relatively speaking, presently appear politically well organised but despite that I note,



> When it comes to preferred PM, 55 per cent of voters were in favour of Mr Turnbull with only 21 per cent in favour of Mr Shorten.




http://www.afr.com/news/politics/polls-split-has-malcolm-turnbull-lost-his-mojo-20160307-gnd0b8

I've already commented on Labor's NG gearing and CGT polices extensively on this forum to which you can add to any specific point if you wish. That being said, the political response by the government to the NG policy in particular has been poor to date.

The electorate is looking for leadership and direction from MT and the government in general and at a public political level has been justifiably disappointed thus far. As can be seen from the above preferred PM numbers however, there's not much of a warming towards Bill Shorten. 

The test for the government ultimately will be the budget and ultimately it will be a comparison between what's on offer. If you think Bill Shorten, Labor and a new carbon tax will get up on election day, a Labor victory at the next election is still paying $5.50 on Sportsbet. Gamble responsibly.


----------



## Tisme

Logique said:


> Shorten looks better, and leaner, by the day.
> 
> .




I think you are correct and that worries me insofar as their need to have oversight on everything we do, the cost to the population in freedoms and monies to right the hurt feelings and unfairness of the fringe dwellers, the big spends with deep snouts in between Finance dept and the end user, the coddling up to white anting big business, etc. And the Tanya/Penny sisterhood makes me anxious for the survival of the male race. 

Having said that the LNP aren't much better, but we don't expect too much from them as low tier academics and meagre knowledge buffs.


----------



## moXJO

Tisme said:


> I think you are correct and that worries me insofar as their need to have oversight on everything we do, the cost to the population in freedoms and monies to right the hurt feelings and unfairness of the fringe dwellers, the big spends with deep snouts in between Finance dept and the end user, the coddling up to white anting big business, etc. And the Tanya/Penny sisterhood makes me anxious for the survival of the male race.
> 
> Having said that the LNP aren't much better, but we don't expect too much from them as low tier academics and meagre knowledge buffs.




Dear God I agree with this.
If labor was a little more interested in the blue collars I might be tempted. But right now I'd be in fear of unionized rainbow shirts and free hugs.

Liberals really need to get their siht together.  It's disgusting the left vs right factions are so deeply entrenched in both parties to the point that they can't govern.


----------



## SirRumpole

moXJO said:


> Dear God I agree with this.
> If labor was a little more interested in the blue collars I might be tempted. But right now I'd be in fear of unionized rainbow shirts and free hugs.
> 
> Liberals really need to get their siht together.  It's disgusting the left vs right factions are so deeply entrenched in both parties to the point that they can't govern.




Both parties have their factions that's for sure, but Labor seems to be hiding theirs better at the moment.


----------



## noco

SirRumpole said:


> Both parties have their factions that's for sure, but Labor seems to be hiding theirs better at the moment.





Yes, it is about fear in the Labor Party and not unity......Step out of line and you are out...Classical example was the " resignation" of Ron Pyne from the Queensland Labor party.......He was not prepared to follow his daily instructions from the hierarchy of the Labor Party......Pyne was gentally pushed.....This is also the case in the Federal Labor Party where their MP's  are all given their daily lines to preach like parrots....They leave their brains at home.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...n-completely-by-surprise-20160307-gncygp.html


----------



## moXJO

SirRumpole said:


> Both parties have their factions that's for sure, but Labor seems to be hiding theirs better at the moment.




No one is taking any notice. One member resigned over their stance on gay marriage. 

Shorten isn't considered a realistic shot at being PM, but they have kept Albo clean enough to have a shot. Problem is he is on the wrong side of the faction.


----------



## SirRumpole

moXJO said:


> No one is taking any notice. One member resigned over their stance on gay marriage.
> 
> Shorten isn't considered a realistic shot at being PM, but they have kept Albo clean enough to have a shot. Problem is he is on the wrong side of the faction.




John Howard wasn't considered a realistic shot of becoming PM until he got there.

Bill doesn't come across as a Chifley, Hawke, Keating or a Whitlam, but "preferred PM" polls don't matter much, the voting intentions do.


----------



## moXJO

SirRumpole said:


> John Howard wasn't considered a realistic shot of becoming PM until he got there.
> 
> Bill doesn't come across as a Chifley, Hawke, Keating or a Whitlam, but "preferred PM" polls don't matter much, the voting intentions do.




Bill doesn't come across as being able to conjure his own thoughts, let alone rub two brain cells together. Perhaps a dumb PM for dumb times ahead. Social media already seems to be retarding the country. Perhaps he is a good fit.

Libs are just a mess at the moment. Malcom needs to grow a pair and take charge and lead. Waffle time is over.
Abbott you lost get over it.


----------

