Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Abbott Government

Jump to new
If Abbott has the cajones, he'll get my support

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...il&utm_content=919843&utm_campaign=pm&modapt=

Current restrictions on the location of pharmacies and a rule that only pharmacists can own a pharmacy do not ensure the quality of advice provided to a consumer and should be scrapped, the competition policy review found.

The draft report, put together by a competition review panel chaired by economist Ian Harper, recommended that restrictions on ownership and location of pharmacies be removed "in the long-term interests of consumers".

That marks a show of solidarity with the recent National Commission of Audit's recommendation that the pharmacy sector be opened up to competition, "including through the deregulation of ownership and location rules."

"Such restrictions limit the ability of consumers to choose where to obtain pharmacy services and limit the ability of suppliers to meet consumers' demands," the draft review, released today, said.
Deregulation of the pharmacy sector would likely to spur a wave of acquisitions. The $16 billion pharmaceutical industry has been protected from supermarket competition, but already retail giant Woolworths has shown signs of wanting to leverage its market power to move into the pharmacy game were protections lifted.

In keeping with its deregulation focus, the draft report also recommended states and territories remove competition restrictions in the tax industry.

Taxi and hire care regulation should be focused on ensuring minimum standards for consumers rather than supporting a particular business model. This would be best delivered through an independent regulator, the report suggested.

The report made particular mention of the app Uber as a clear example of how digital technology was disrupting traditional markets and recommended such developments be factored into future policy.

The panel also said current price signalling prohibitions did not strike the right balance in distinguishing between anti-competitive and pro-competitive conduct.

Laws prohibiting anti-competitive price signalling and information disclosures were introduced in June 2012, and only apply to the banking sector in relation to taking deposits and making loans.

"Being confined in their operation to a single industry (banking), the current provisions are also inconsistent with the principle that the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 should apply to all businesses generally," the report said.

Public price disclosure was useful for consumers and was unlikely to raise significant competition concerns. As a result, the review said there was "no sound basis" for prohibiting public price disclosure.
Click to expand...
 
sydboy007 said:
If Abbott has the cajones, he'll get my support

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...il&utm_content=919843&utm_campaign=pm&modapt=
Click to expand...

I thought you get you medical advice from the GP that wrote the prescriptions. If you need advice for over the counter medicine, read the instructions. And why can't WOW or WES pharmacies provide the same level of service from their registered pharmacists if they're allowed to operate?

But the $16 billion industry tells you there's more to it than that.
 
Obviously Abbott Govt ministers have very different ideas as to what the ending of the age of entitlement should be like

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-wife-to-london-and-rome-20140922-10k6zr.html

The Abbott government is facing more scrutiny over travel entitlements, with fresh documents revealing Education Minister Christopher Pyne and his wife had a taxpayer-funded $30,000 trip to London and Rome in April.

The trip included taxpayers being billed $1352 for Mr Pyne to "day let" a room at a swish London hotel before he and his wife, Carolyn, flew back to Australia later that day, and more than $2000 for VIP services at Heathrow Airport.
Click to expand...

Just have to say wow about the day let. I've got 6 nights in london for $860 at the mercure this week. I also don't understand why I've had to pay for his wife to go on the jaunt with him.

One has to wonder if he'd been handing over his personal credit card if he'd have been as extravagant. Maybe he's attended the Don Randall school of entitlements :D
 
sydboy007 said:
I'd prefer to see less PPPs with 20% IRR and restrictive clauses eg 1 public bus route to Sydney Airport or compensation if more public transport options are delivered than compete with a toll road.
Click to expand...
The argument used to be that we needed "reforms" so as to lower costs and make the overall economy more competitive. That sounds reasonable.

But having seen what actually happens, it's very clear that neither the Coalition nor Labor has even the slightest intention of genuinely lowering business costs to improve competitiveness. Rather, it's simply about transferring wealth to selected private owners in the main, and either bashing (Coalition) or boosting (Labor) unions. Nothing about lowering costs in there.

I've understood politics a lot better ever since I realised that the "need to be competitive" line isn't what either of the major parties actually pursue. A bit of lip service perhaps, but not a lot of substance.

No way would we have the likes of Macquarie owning airports (a natural monopoly) and making a fortune if the real aim was to keep costs down. But that's not the aim....:2twocents
 
Interesting that the PM said in Parliament today that we should "live normally", but prepare for restrictions on our freedom.

I wonder if he realises how contradictory those ideas are.
 
Smurf1976 said:
The argument used to be that we needed "reforms" so as to lower costs and make the overall economy more competitive. That sounds reasonable.

But having seen what actually happens, it's very clear that neither the Coalition nor Labor has even the slightest intention of genuinely lowering business costs to improve competitiveness. Rather, it's simply about transferring wealth to selected private owners in the main, and either bashing (Coalition) or boosting (Labor) unions. Nothing about lowering costs in there.

I've understood politics a lot better ever since I realised that the "need to be competitive" line isn't what either of the major parties actually pursue. A bit of lip service perhaps, but not a lot of substance.

No way would we have the likes of Macquarie owning airports (a natural monopoly) and making a fortune if the real aim was to keep costs down. But that's not the aim....:2twocents
Click to expand...

Very true. Short term sugar hit to sell of an income producing asset to pay off cheap debt, then shaft the economy with an airport charging some of the highest fees in the world, run by a company that isn't even spending enough on the airport to keep up with depreciation.

Howard was able to brag about what a good economic manager he was, while the most important airport in Australia acts as an economic drag on the tourism sector for decades to come.
 
sydboy007 said:
Very true. Short term sugar hit to sell of an income producing asset to pay off cheap debt, then shaft the economy with an airport charging some of the highest fees in the world, run by a company that isn't even spending enough on the airport to keep up with depreciation.

Howard was able to brag about what a good economic manager he was, while the most important airport in Australia acts as an economic drag on the tourism sector for decades to come.
Click to expand...
The Hawke/Keating government sold a couple of bits and pieces IIRC.

And what was the previous Labor government planning to sell after completion ?

Originally, NBN Co was to be automatically sold - provided the finance minister of the day felt the price would be right - five years after the network was built.
Click to expand...

http://www.theage.com.au/national/greens-force-labors-hand-on-nbn-sale-20101121-182ks.html
 
SirRumpole said:
Interesting that the PM said in Parliament today that we should "live normally", but prepare for restrictions on our freedom.

I wonder if he realises how contradictory those ideas are.
Click to expand...

Certainly getting an uneasy feeling where now every headline is Abbott and terrorism, now its freedoms bit like when in opposition all you saw was Abbott and Hi Vis with the workers.....we all know how that turned out.

You know its all poll driven when Shorten joins in lock step.
 
IFocus said:
Certainly getting an uneasy feeling where now every headline is Abbott and terrorism, now its freedoms bit like when in opposition all you saw was Abbott and Hi Vis with the workers.....we all know how that turned out.

You know its all poll driven when Shorten joins in lock step.
Click to expand...

Yes spot on IFocus.

ISIS/ISIL/IS making threats to Australians (urging locals to kill Australians) just to bloody improve Abbotts polls!
 
These terror threats are being made online or on social media.

Why aren't these sites being blocked instead of considering monitoring everyone's internet use ?
 
Could I implore the Abbott Govt to take on board this IMF Growth-Friendly Fiscal Policy

Reforms in taxes and government spending can have an important impact on long-run growth. Their design should reflect the conditions of a given country. For example, countries with fiscal space can scale up productive spending in support of long-term growth, such as higher public investment or health and education spending. Where fiscal space is lacking, growth-promoting tax and spending reforms would need to be designed in a budget neutral manner. All fiscal reform packages should be designed to balance growth-equity trade-offs.
Click to expand...

Tax reforms must be considered as a package”” in light of complex trade-offs between the different goals that tax systems try to achieve””and also take into account the administrative dimension. For example, a shift in the tax structure from personal income to consumption taxes, justified to reduce distortions and promote growth, could raise equity concerns due to lower progressivity of consumption relative to personal income taxes. In addition, the assessment of each revenue measure should take into account its impact on tax avoidance and evasion, as well as tax compliance and enforcement costs. Therefore, while recognizing the limits and potential of each tax instrument, an effective reform should avoid a “tax-by-tax” policy approach.
Click to expand...

Considering the lack of ability to sell policy so far, I'm not hopeful.
 

Attachments

  • fiscpolnote.pdf
    155.9 KB · Views: 217
SirRumpole said:
These terror threats are being made online or on social media.

Why aren't these sites being blocked instead of considering monitoring everyone's internet use ?
Click to expand...

The media are doing their jobs as they always have but it makes me wonder how many of the target audience for these extremest would have even seen this fatwa if the media hadn't given it coverage? I think from what we know in Australia this isn't a well organised following.
 
drsmith said:
The Hawke/Keating government sold a couple of bits and pieces IIRC.

And what was the previous Labor government planning to sell after completion ?



http://www.theage.com.au/national/greens-force-labors-hand-on-nbn-sale-20101121-182ks.html
Click to expand...

I'd argue the sale of CBA and Qantas more fit with the Abbott ideology of privatised competition.

The Howard era of selling a vertically integrate Telstra monopoly, and monopoly airports was not quite as "pure".

There is no competition for the majority of Australian Airports - BNE and OOL are probably the only ones that truly compete with each other. Telstra had a monopoly network and have spent every day since listing on the ASX making telecommunications as expensive as possible for the rest of us. I'd love to know how much the legal wranglings and ACCC monitoring has cost since the T1 sale. Plenty of dead loss money.

But even Labors sale of CBA, which you could argue was helping with moral hazard, hasn't really done much for us because CBA is TBTF and we tax payers will ride in to rescue it should they stuff up too badly. Same with QF. The international arm may be let go, but the Govt would definitely step in to keep the domestic airline running should QF stumble badly, though it's return on capital is woeful so we taxpayers who didn't buy into it are better off than the punters who did.

Is it smart to sell an asset that generates a greater return than the cost of debt? Why are highly geared PPPs seen to be superior to conservatively geared Govt investments?

As for Labor selling the NBN, at least it was a wholesale only monopoly providing legislated open access to everyone. If Telstra had been sold as separate wholesale and retail companies, well we'd probably have had an FTTN network a decade ago.
 
overhang said:
The media are doing their jobs as they always have but it makes me wonder how many of the target audience for these extremest would have even seen this fatwa if the media hadn't given it coverage?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Why give these people any oxygen to light the fires with ?
 
sydboy007 said:
Why are highly geared PPPs seen to be superior to conservatively geared Govt investments?

.
Click to expand...

You ever seen the PPP agreements the govt signs? Does the old saying "all care no responsibility" resonate? The grab for cash is much stronger than the moral dilemma of mortgaging the next generation with a worthless asset at the end of term.
 
sydboy007 said:
As for Labor selling the NBN, at least it was a wholesale only monopoly providing legislated open access to everyone. If Telstra had been sold as separate wholesale and retail companies, well we'd probably have had an FTTN network a decade ago.
Click to expand...
They had to build it first and we now all know how well that that was going when Labor was booted from office last year.

Then there's the question of the price being right as per the quoted article above. What if it could only be sold at a loss ?

Who would want to buy it (or anything else for that matter) at a price that generated a lesser return than the cost of debt ?
 
On matters budget,

Back of the envelope calculations indicate the lower iron ore price and terms-of-trade could cut as much as $12 billion from government tax revenues. That would blow the underlying cash deficit out by a further 0.8 percentage points for the 2014-15 financial year, though that doesn’t include the higher spending from the failure to get key budget measures through the senate.
Click to expand...

For WA, the situation is even worse with the iron ore price now about $US43 below budget estimates for a shortfall of over $2bn this financial year. The $AUD though has turned in the WA budget's favour though, currently to the tune of about $150m.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/9/23/commodities/theres-more-iron-ore-carnage-come
 
Someone's been a naughty boy.

I wonder if switching from business to economy is a way to get two tickets for the price of one, then get bumped anyway because airline people know the importance of keeping the domestic political bosses happy?

At least he managed to get the latest papal instructions for our mostly catholic parliament, first hand.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-wife-to-london-and-rome-20140922-10k6zr.html
 
dutchie said:
Yes spot on IFocus.

ISIS/ISIL/IS making threats to Australians (urging locals to kill Australians) just to bloody improve Abbotts polls!
Click to expand...

Yep, probably Tony Abbott is behind the entire disaster that is the ME, just so he can play war games and get a lift in the polls.:rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Top