The Abbott Government

Tisme said:

I think if you use the negotiations as a yardstick of soul selling, the Liberals were way ahead in that endeavour. I do have a good memory of Tony almost selling the Menzies silver to get into power.

Click to expand...

I doubt there's any silver there and besides, that was only a comment from a disgruntled former National whose own political career has now ended.

TA wasn't prepared to sell the nation into the carbon tax that Tony Windsor, Rob Oakeshott and the Greens wanted nor was he prepared to sell the nation into the open borders that operated under Labor to pacify their Green partners in government.

noco said:

Andrew Robb three Free trade agreements in 12 months.

What did the the lazy Labor Party do during their 6 years?

They sat on their hands and did nothing.


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...|heading|homepage|homepage&itmt=1415841884295

Click to expand...

Lets revisit the wonderful benefits of the AUS-US FTA

$200M a year extra cost to the PBS

$2B+ lost in the generics manufacturing sector

All due to the extension of patents.

Our trade deficit blew out with the USA since the FTA was signed.

Most of the benefits for Australia are still up to a decade away from occurring.

it's easy to sign FTAs when they're dud deals for Team Australia.

SirRumpole said:

The FTA that Howard started with the US has resulted in a doubling of our trade deficit with the US.

Thanks Johnny.

No wonder Labor decided to proceed carefully with other FTA's.

Click to expand...

Do you a back up link to justify your claim?

noco said:

Do you a back up link to justify your claim?

Click to expand...

Do your own research noco, it's in the ABS stats somewhere.

noco said:

Yes they were started prior to 2007 by the LNP and then put in the too hard basket by those lazy Labor people.

The Labor party did not have the courage or the expertise to tackle FTA.

Click to expand...

The FTAs Labor did sign tended to gain access for agricultural products faster than what the LNP has done in 2 Governments. So most of the benefits of the Labor FTAs are being received faster.

Also, Labor was against IDS clauses. We're seeing them introduced in the current FTAs so it's quite possible foreign companies will have more rights to public policy than citizens. I'm not particularly comforted by the Govts claims that they have protected us from action like Phillip Morris is taking via the HK FTA against plain packaging for cigarettes.

noco said:

Do you a back up link to justify your claim?

Click to expand...

For the U.S., the FTA improved the overall trade deficit situation, creating a trade surplus with Australia which rose 31.7% in the first quarter of 2005, compared to the same timeframe in 2004. U.S. exports to Australia increased 11.7% in the first quarter of 2005 to nearly $3.7 billion for the quarter. Agriculture exports to Australia increased 20%.

According to Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade figures the imbalance in trade between the U.S. and Australia increased substantially during 2007. The United States became Australia's largest import source, with goods and services imported to a value of over A$31 billion. Australia's exports to the U.S., however, amounted to only $15.8 billion AU. It remains unclear what, if any, real benefits the agreement has produced.

drsmith said:

This government never suggested it would deliver a surplus in this term of government.

Wayne Swan delivered a surplus if I recall his words correctly.

Click to expand...

Weasel words Hockey said they would deliver a surplus every year

IFocus said:

Weasel words Hockey said they would deliver a surplus every year

Click to expand...

Mr Hockey told the National Press Club last year: ‘‘Based on the numbers presented last Tuesday night we will achieve a surplus in our first year in office and we will achieve a surplus for every year of our first term.’’
Advertisement

On Monday, Mr Hockey said he had not retreated from the pledge.

‘‘Our commitment is emphatic,’’ Mr Hockey told ABC Radio’s AM program.

‘‘Based on the numbers published today, we will deliver a surplus in our first year and every year after that.’’

Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...s-guarantee-20130128-2dfn9.html#ixzz3IwG4uEf7

overhang said:

That's a fair point, would it be fairer if the royalties were tied to a % of the commodity price rather than a set figure? I disagree with other companies though, the argument for a mining tax is that these company's are mining something that is owned by Australians and is a finite resource, their business would not exist without these resources. The same cannot be said for banks and Telstra, they will operate long after the minerals run out (hopefully).
.

Click to expand...

There seems to be a one size fits all mentality with tax, I personally don't agree with it.

IMO Syd is on the right track, when he talks about thinking outside the box, with new taxes.

Our whole tax and welfare system, is built around an Australia of 30 years ago, it isn't going to work in the globalised system.

The internet, t.v, electronics, mass transport and mobile workforces have changed everything.

It is all changing and we have to chage with it, or we won't be able to provide for our lifestyle.

We have to reduce the cost of doing business, to attract investment and create jobs.
We have to reduce personal taxes, so wages don't have to increase, to provide the same lifestyle and incentive.
We have to have a welfare system that isn't a lifestyle choice, but doesn't mean you live in poverty.
We have to have an education system, that ensures those with academic ability reach their potential.
We have to have first world health service.

We also need to raise the money to pay for it all, without having it all implode. That is why I am looking forward to the tax 'white paper', hopefully it will be given more attention than the Henry report.

Time will tell.

IFocus said:

Weasel words Hockey said they would deliver a surplus every year

Click to expand...

Based of the published figures which were those under a Labor government.

overhang said:

I disagree with other companies though, the argument for a mining tax is that these company's are mining something that is owned by Australians and is a finite resource, their business would not exist without these resources. .

Click to expand...

That is why the tax should in some way be a function of tonnage/price/recovery cost, not a tax on profit.IMO

overhang said:

The same cannot be said for banks and Telstra, they will operate long after the minerals run out (hopefully).
.

Click to expand...

Banks are using depositors money, to re lend it and make money on it, a bit simplistic but generally.
They make a margin on it, if they are making the same profits as a mining company, why shouldn't they pay the same tax?

The miners are taking on huge risk, with shareholder funds, to make a profit.

The Banks are taking on huge risk, with shareholder funds, to make a profit.

The only difference is the miner is making profit from selling the raw material, the bank is making a profit from lending them the money to dig it up.

sydboy007 said:

For the U.S., the FTA improved the overall trade deficit situation, creating a trade surplus with Australia which rose 31.7% in the first quarter of 2005, compared to the same timeframe in 2004. U.S. exports to Australia increased 11.7% in the first quarter of 2005 to nearly $3.7 billion for the quarter. Agriculture exports to Australia increased 20%.

According to Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade figures the imbalance in trade between the U.S. and Australia increased substantially during 2007. The United States became Australia's largest import source, with goods and services imported to a value of over A$31 billion. Australia's exports to the U.S., however, amounted to only $15.8 billion AU. It remains unclear what, if any, real benefits the agreement has produced.

Click to expand...

Maybe the free trade agreements, are primarily designed to align ourselves with select countries.
Somewhat like the EU, if we continue to try and compete as a stand alone country, we will find it increasingly difficult.

Spain, Italy and Greece, would be finding it much more difficult, without the tie to Germany.

It would be nice, to go into economic ties with major economies and be able to tell them how it will be.

The reality is, we can't, but if we don't get agreement who knows where we will end up.

We in reality are a small economy, on a remote island, that enjoys a first world lifestyle.

We support it with a third world economy, our economy is more aligned to a South American model than a European or U.S model.IMO

sptrawler said:

That is why the tax should in some way be a function of tonnage/price/recovery cost, not a tax on profit.IMO

Click to expand...

The whole point of it being a tax on profit was to temper mining booms (so the rest of the economy doesn't get hollowed out by mining booms).

banco said:

The whole point of it being a tax on profit was to temper mining booms (so the rest of the economy doesn't get hollowed out by mining booms).

Click to expand...

Well that again supports the arguement for a more hollistic approach, rather than a band aid solution to a symptom.

From Rumpole's quote:

"Based on the numbers presented last Tuesday night we will achieve a surplus in our first year in office and we will achieve a surplus for every year of our first term."

1. They would have been Labor's numbers which were shown time after time to be dodgy.
2. Since then the iron ore price has fallen about 30%.
3. A more hostile senate than that provided by the Labor/Greens alliance which is preventing some of the budget measures from happening.

None of which should go to any suggestion from me that the government is doing a decent job of negotiating some of these budget measures. Just pointing out that the quote contained the fundamentally important phrase 'based on the numbers presented last Tuesday night'.

I so long for a little bit of objectivity to replace the endless partisan attempts at point scoring.

Most people I know (and no, of course that is not statistically relevant) voted for the Liberal National coalition on the basis that it was the least worst option. That is very, very different from voting for the 'best' option.
The result has been mixed, with an impressive resolution to the border control problems (despite the bleating of the Left), the abolition of the carbon tax which disadvantaged our business community internationally, and some other promised measures.

Despite this, Mr Abbott remains personally unpopular. I don't think anyone voted for him on the basis of his charisma, a difficult to define characteristic that seems to be either there or not. Even after a full year, I find myself vaguely surprised when a media presenter says "The Prime Minister, Tony Abbott.......".
This is probably quite unfair, but it is what it is.

He sets a good example with his physical fitness, volunteer work etc, but even this is sneered at. Why?
We seem to have become so partisan that one side will mock and deride even universally agreed good characteristics?

Malcolm Turnbull is repeatedly favoured over his colleagues as leader, despite having stuffed up woefully when he had his chance. Is it because he is personable, fluent, more in charge of himself than Tony Abbott seems to be? Or does he just have that same indefinable charisma that so characterises, for example, Bill Clinton?

I'm really curious to know what constitutes the characteristics of a popular leader. For me it was John Howard, probably largely because I perceived him as calm, steady, with a clear and logical agenda, and only very, very rare occasions where he spoke inadvisedly, in contrast to the sort of foot in mouth problem exhibited by 'shirtfronting' comments. Howard seemed to have the capacity to read the electorate, something which escapes both Abbott and Hockey.

Julia said:

I'm really curious to know what constitutes the characteristics of a popular leader.

Click to expand...

FWIW I thought John Howard was a decent person who did a good job as leader. I didn't always agree with his policies but he managed to present them in direct and coherent way and maintained the respect of his colleagues, Peter Costello and a few others excepted, later in his career.

He was justifiably criticised as being populist and imho did not do a great deal to advance the country, (yes he got a surplus but it was due mainly to asset sales), but he gave the voters a warm and comfortable feeling that there was a steady hand on the tiller, and I suppose that was good enough for most people until they got sick of conservatism and wanted a change.

Contrast that to Mr Abbott who stumbles and bumbles his way around. He can only come up with the three word slogans because he doesn't really understand economics as Peter Costello pointed out, and Joe Hockey who blusters and blathers whenever he gets a hard question.

Howard and Costello are miles ahead of these two twerps, and no wonder business confidence is declining because it doesn't look like they know what they are doing.

Julia said:

Malcolm Turnbull is repeatedly favoured over his colleagues as leader, despite having stuffed up woefully when he had his chance. Is it because he is personable, fluent, more in charge of himself than Tony Abbott seems to be? Or does he just have that same indefinable charisma that so characterises, for example, Bill Clinton?.

Click to expand...

Turnbull has become yesterdays man.

Julia said:

I'm really curious to know what constitutes the characteristics of a popular leader. For me it was John Howard, probably largely because I perceived him as calm, steady, with a clear and logical agenda, and only very, very rare occasions where he spoke inadvisedly, in contrast to the sort of foot in mouth problem exhibited by 'shirtfronting' comments. Howard seemed to have the capacity to read the electorate, something which escapes both Abbott and Hockey.

Click to expand...

Abbott blinked, if he had come in with a package of welfare cuts and tax changes, that would change our economic trajectory, he wouldn't be in the situation he is.IMO

He chose to take the easy call, and leave the hard call untill a committee could be blamed, one wonders if the advisors aren't to blame.

But he wears it.

It is a bit unfortunate, obviously the electorate wanted the economy sorted, they voted for Abbott despite his unpopularity.

He blinked and didn't call a double dissolution, now he is having to bend a squirm to get anything through.

Really it is ending up like the Labor/Green debacle.IMO

The only difference being IMO, Labor were worried about their own situation.

Whereas I do believe the coalition is worried about Australia's situation. If they can do something about recovering lost support, remains to be seen.

sptrawler said:

Maybe the free trade agreements, are primarily designed to align ourselves with select countries.
Somewhat like the EU, if we continue to try and compete as a stand alone country, we will find it increasingly difficult.

Spain, Italy and Greece, would be finding it much more difficult, without the tie to Germany.

It would be nice, to go into economic ties with major economies and be able to tell them how it will be.

The reality is, we can't, but if we don't get agreement who knows where we will end up.

We in reality are a small economy, on a remote island, that enjoys a first world lifestyle.

We support it with a third world economy, our economy is more aligned to a South American model than a European or U.S model.IMO

Click to expand...

Then sell the facts, not some BS about how it will magically provide, what $18B from the China FTA, when pretty much every past FTA has not lived up to the hype.

The costs from the dogs breakfast of ROOs for each FTA makes them beneficial for large companies, not so great for the SMEs who in theory could be the biggest beneficiaries. The massive amounts of paper work to show your product complies with the ROOS of each FTA you want to benefit from are generally too onerous for SMEs.

The majority of the economic benefits for consumers come from unilateral tariff reductions any ways, though as we see with the car industry and farmers, trying to compete based on some pure economic ideology doesn't always cut it when you go out onto the playing field and find yourself facing a 45 degree uphill battle.

Just ask the poor Japanese what a benefit they could receive if the Govt stopped protecting local agriculture so much and they paid world prices for food. Japan has some of the world’s highest food prices. The average Japanese household spends 13.7 percent of its income on food, compared to 9.3 percent in the United Kingdom, and 6.3 percent in the United States. As with pork, Japan’s trade barriers contribute substantially to high consumer prices for other foods. Significant trade restrictions—including high duties (38.5 percent on beef and 40 percent on processed cheese), government-purchasing requirements for wheat and rice, highly restrictive quotas, and a variety of other border measures—substantially increase the prices that Japanese shoppers pay.

To harp on about Japan a bit more, to show how ludicrous the whole trade arena can be, Domestic farmers meet only 44% of total consumption, despite receiving 2.2 trillion yen in subsidies and benefiting from 51.6% tariff protection. The domestic value added would be only 3.0 trillion yen (4.6 trillion yen / 1.516), moreover, if calculated using international prices. Subtracting the 2.2 trillion yen in subsidies from this amount would then leave only 0.8 trillion yen in real value added by domestic producers—equivalent to just 0.17% of Japan’s 470 trillion yen GDP, and that benefit spread across just 2.53M people out of 127M.

According to the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, the farming population in Japan is 2.53 million, and there are 1.50 million farms, but their agricultural sales are only 500,000 yen (approximately 5,000 dollars) on average. Among the 1.50 million farms, 878,000 claim sales of less than 1 million yen per year; the average household income in Japan, incidentally, is 5.48 million yen.

Sometimes forcing your domestic producers to go with with minimal assistance may be the best way forward - tough love so to speak. Australian farmers have had to build economies of scale and become very efficient to survive against the massive farm subsidies of Europe and the USA. Australian rice growers use 50% less water to grow one kilo of rice than the world average.

I'd love for a parliamentary committee to examine our current FTAs and provide some cold hard facts on how much extra trade was developed, and how much trade diversion occurred. Did the increase in economic activity produce more tax revenue than lost to the tariff reductions? What was the economic benefit to locals? Did we get a real price reduction, or did we lose out because the price reduction was less than the tariff originally received ie trade diverted to a higher cost country.

Some may argue that effort at the WTO is wasted, but it's equally valid to argue that FTAs are in general a waste of effort too. They're managed trade deals at best, and just add increasing layers of complexity to an already difficult area.

sptrawler said:

Abbott blinked, if he had come in with a package of welfare cuts and tax changes, that would change our economic trajectory, he wouldn't be in the situation he is.IMO

He chose to take the easy call, and leave the hard call untill a committee could be blamed, one wonders if the advisors aren't to blame.

But he wears it.


.

Click to expand...

Abbott in opposition promised the world to all and sundry (massive spending) while calling Gillard a liar such is Abbott politics.

Then in government presented one of the most unnecessary idealogical unfair budgets seen for a very long time that doesn't address the issue of the structural black hole created by Howard / Costello and the issue of falling revenue which the opposition and all here denied existed.

The shirt front bravado was sheer stupidity.

Barrie Cassidy sums it all up very nicely

The opportunity to rub shoulders with global leaders usually gives the prime minister of the day a boost. Not this time, writes Barrie Cassidy.

Only now are the political negatives from Tony Abbott's threat to Vladimir Putin blindingly obvious, and "shirking the shirtfront" as one television newsreader put it, is only part of the problem

Click to expand...

At home, there is a growing realisation that the country does indeed have both a spending and a revenue problem, no matter what Coalition frontbenchers said in opposition.

Click to expand...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-14/cassidy-how-a-shirtfront-became-an-own-goal/5889054

drsmith said:

Based of the published figures which were those under a Labor government.

Click to expand...

Yep as the rate of falling revenue was continually misjudged............................just like the current Coalition government is doing right now.