The Abbott Government

[Julia]

The last time I'm going to respond to this disingenous stuff:

I would think the senate can only be obstructionist if the policy has been proposed and presented. I don't believe this has really happened.

There is absolutely no indication that either the Opposition or the Senate cross bench will act any differently in the immediate future than they have thus far.

Their behaviour is political, especially Labor blocking legislation they actually put up themselves, so as long as their determination is to be obstructive rather than constructive, the government can go whistle in the wind with any measures they want to apply in order to alter the forward fiscal trajectory.

 

[Smurf1976]

Smurf from what I have been reading Tas is slowly turning around in some areas through exports? Any areas you see growing down there?

A bit off topic since it's a state matter not federal, but I think the current situation in Tas does actually answer a lot of questions of broader relevance.

Lowest per capita debt of any state. Also the only state which still has most of it's major infrastructure in public ownership. Roads, power, water, ports, railways, public transport buses, the Spirit ferries - all publicly owned (railways were bought back from private owners a few years ago). And I repeat my point about lowest debt whereas if you look at the state with the highest debt, Victoria, well they were the poster boy for privatisation and pretty much sold the lot. Didn't work too well by the looks of it.

As for what's growing and what's not, there's a big message there I think.

Tourism is doing well, greatly benefiting from a private development (MONA) in which government had absolutely zero involvement. MONA has in itself been somewhat transformational, especially so when the various public events are thrown in. Credit too to Hobart City Council for the unrelated Taste festival - the place is absolutely buzzing at this time of year.

Forestry is stuffed and will remain so. Every tree cut loses money and creates essentially no employment beyond the actual cutting and transport since it's just chipped for export rather than being processed locally. Labor gave up on forestry some time ago and came up with what amounts to a deal for an orderly exit apart from those aspects of the industry which are actually profitable (timber that ends up in saw mills or the paper mill is still a very viable business - it's a minority of the wood but 100% of the profit). Then the Liberals got elected, ripped up the deal, and have just thrown another $30 million of taxpayer's funds at this loss-making "business". That alone goes quite some way to explaining my lack of faith in the party - they clearly are no longer in favour of free markets determining the outcome. Labor is a better choice if you think that governments shouldn't prop up loss making businesses.

The state's largest single exporter is still the zinc works. Has been that way for most if it's 98 year history and still is. It's roughly one sixth of the state's overseas exports coming out of that factory (third largest producer in the world by the way). TEMCO (ferro alloys), Bell Bay Aluminium (aluminium) and Norske Skog (paper) are also still individually huge exporters (though Norske Skog is really only "exporting" to other Australian states but the others are overseas focused).

Agriculture is growing, largely on the back of government-built irrigation schemes (themselves an adaptation of existing public hydro-electric or water supply assets in many cases). The basic concept seems to be about high value production rather than high volume, and aiming at the export market. I'm not sure how well it's working as such, but they've put a lot of pipes in place and have sold a lot of water to farmers so presumably someone's using it to grow something of value. Contrary to what seems to be the common belief interstate, eastern parts of Tas are actually quite dry, Hobart only gets half the rainfall that Sydney does each year, and there are parts of the state that are even drier. On the other hand, we've got 3000+mm falling on parts of the west coast every 12 months. Hence the irrigation schemes to shift the water.

Overall, I think there's a message here of broader relevance. A private development with no government support transformed tourism whilst the perpetually propped up forestry industry is still burning cash and shedding jobs like it's done for years. Keeping assets in public hands hasn't lead to a debt problem, indeed the reverse is true. There's still a role for heavy manufacturing industries even in a place like Tas and no, they don't interfere with tourism since the average tourist doesn't even know they exist. And the agriculture stuff represents a very obvious opportunity, albeit one requiring a degree of public financial backing, to target export markets. There's a broader message there about getting on with what works, forgetting about silly ideologies and cutting ongoing losses.

Then there's the things that just hum along in the background. Incat still builds ships. The boom years have passed but they still build them. The mining industry is still ticking along to some extent. Some troubles yes, but they're still mining at Rosebery and Savage River, still making iron pellets at Port Latta. Etc. New bauxite mine about to open apparently.

In much the same way as it is being argued that federal politics has wasted too much time with issues like gay marriage (and I'd add the republic debate in the same context), so too has Tasmania wasted far too much time with pie in the sky ideas involving the cutting down of trees. Meanwhile MONA was built, Incat built countless ships, the Hydro (government owned) made $ hundreds of millions trading energy markets, the smelters and mines are still running, agriculture is expanding and so on. If only we didn't have the dead duck Forestry chewing up a fortune of money and probably 50% of all political discussion over the past 30 years then we'd be much better off.

 

[banco]

The last time I'm going to respond to this disingenous stuff:

There is absolutely no indication that either the Opposition or the Senate cross bench will act any differently in the immediate future than they have thus far.

Their behaviour is political, especially Labor blocking legislation they actually put up themselves, so as long as their determination is to be obstructive rather than constructive, the government can go whistle in the wind with any measures they want to apply in order to alter the forward fiscal trajectory.

I've no doubt there's a big element of politics in it but why would they vote for measures that the Labor party in any of its iterations over the past 20 years or so would oppose (ie higher education reforms, changes to the pension etc.)?

 

[SirRumpole]

I've no doubt there's a big element of politics in it but why would they vote for measures that the Labor party in any of its iterations over the past 20 years or so would oppose (ie higher education reforms, changes to the pension etc.)?

+1.

Obviously, Labor opposing measures they supported when in government is hypocritical.

For the rest, consider whether the current government has an electoral mandate for a lot of the measures it's introducing. They never said they would introduce a Medicare co-payment before the election, or change pension indexing, or increase the cost of tertiary education etc etc.

Given this, there is no reason why the Opposition, Greens or Palmer should support any of these measures if they feel they are not in the interests of the country. As Tony Abbott himself once said, it's up to the Government to get it's legislation through Parliament, if they can't then it's no one else's fault but theirs if they can't convince the Senate that they are on the right course.

 

[noco]

+1.

Obviously, Labor opposing measures they supported when in government is hypocritical.

For the rest, consider whether the current government has an electoral mandate for a lot of the measures it's introducing. They never said they would introduce a Medicare co-payment before the election, or change pension indexing, or increase the cost of tertiary education etc etc.

Given this, there is no reason why the Opposition, Greens or Palmer should support any of these measures if they feel they are not in the interests of the country. As Tony Abbott himself once said, it's up to the Government to get it's legislation through Parliament, if they can't then it's no one else's fault but theirs if they can't convince the Senate that they are on the right course.

As Julia stated, it is all political and I say, it is not in the interest of the welfare of the nation.

The Government found themselves in a far worse financial situation than they expected....Swan and Wong gave a lot false financial statements which misled the current Government.

Julia Gillard said before the election " THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER THE GOVERNMENT I LEAD"...She had no electoral mandate either but the biased Senate allowed it to go through.

The Labor Party are just bloody minded.

It is the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[SirRumpole]

Julia Gillard said before the election " THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER THE GOVERNMENT I LEAD"...She had no electoral mandate either but the biased Senate allowed it to go through.

And where is she now ?

Maybe when we get a government that doesn't lie to the people or change their minds after an election then we may have a chance of getting some real change through a Senate because then there would at least be a mandate for what the government wants to do.

Face it noco, your side is going the same way as the Gillard government, into oblivion because they cynically tried to fool the electorate with sham promises just to get power.

No matter which party does this, they have to learn that the electorate won't accept it.

 

[sydboy007]

Could the big Australia drive be over?

https://www.immi.gov.au/about/speeches-pres/_pdf/sovereignty-age-interdependency-04122014.pdf

“When we transition from our current state to the new department next year, and commence on the path of the next phase of our journey, we should take a moment to reflect on what has been achieved since 1945. I contend that we will be able to declare the original mission of 1945 – to build the population base – to have been accomplished.”

 

[SirRumpole]

Could the big Australia drive be over?

https://www.immi.gov.au/about/speeches-pres/_pdf/sovereignty-age-interdependency-04122014.pdf

Let's hope so.

 

[drsmith]

Possibly in the same way those who voted for Abbott would like to forget 2014?

I'll go out on a limb and say Abbott's performance in 2015 will be no better.

2014 hasn't been that bad in my view.

Labor's carbon tax is gone and their useless mining tax is gone. Labor's boats are also stopped and the government is at least trying to fix the deficit trajectory left by Labor despite the obstructionist nature of Labor itself in the senate including blocking their own savings.

Many of the feathers on the floor around here are a by-product of this government stopping the boats.

 

[Smurf1976]

into oblivion because they cynically tried to fool the electorate with sham promises just to get power.

No matter which party does this, they have to learn that the electorate won't accept it.

+1

The current government has lost credibility due to a series of major lies. The only way forward from that point is either a change of government (to any alternative, Labor or someone else) or a decent sweeping out at the top within the Coalition (at the very least a new leader).

So long as the current government remains in power "as is", then they are tainted by a lack of credibility.

My comment would be exactly the same if we had a Labor, Green, PUP or any other government. Tell enough lies and credibility is destroyed, the only way to regain it involving a change of leadership at the very least.

 

[drsmith]

The current government has lost credibility due to a series of major lies.

Nothing this government has done comes even remotely close to Julia Gillard's carbon tax.

An unfortunate reality of our political environment is that all governments break promises after coming to power. Some are so big that they terminal to a government in themselves such as the carbon tax above. The question then becomes the extent and the ability of a government to present such changes as part of a broader strategy. This is where the current government has failed badly and where it will obviously need to substantially lift its game if it is to successfully present a broader reform agenda in the lead up to the next election.

 

[noco]

If only if Bill Shorten could take notice of economist Craig James and previous Prime Ministers , Howard, Hawke and Keating, a lot of solutions could be found to fix an ailing economy.

But Shorten is blind, deaf and dumb to reality...Shorten is so narrow minded, he can see though a key hole with both eyes...no interest in the welfare of the nation...only self interest in point scoring.


http://www.couriermail.com.au/busin...e-budget-in-2015/story-fnihpj8r-1227172955212

This week three former Prime Ministers, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating and John Howard, added their voices to the debate, all stressing the need make the hard calls.

Commsec Chief Economist Craig James believes there needs to be “proper discussions and give and take” between all the political players this year to achieve reform.

“The big problem here in Australia is getting an agreement,” he said, adding it’s not just about compromise between political parties, but also the states.

“What we’re seeing at the moment is constant bickering.

“Politics is the real enemy at present.”

With this year’s forecast deficit tipped to exceed $40 billion, former Prime Minister Bob Hawke thinks the answer lies in making Australia home to the disposal of nuclear waste.

Could you imagine the Green/Labor coalition agreeing with Bob Hawke......ROTFL.

 

[Julia]

I've no doubt there's a big element of politics in it but why would they vote for measures that the Labor party in any of its iterations over the past 20 years or so would oppose (ie higher education reforms, changes to the pension etc.)?

+1.

Obviously, Labor opposing measures they supported when in government is hypocritical.

For the rest, consider whether the current government has an electoral mandate for a lot of the measures it's introducing. They never said they would introduce a Medicare co-payment before the election, or change pension indexing, or increase the cost of tertiary education etc etc.

If the objection is due to clearly outlined, long held philosophical conviction, then yes, fair enough, but with proposals like the fuel indexation and the medicare co-payment, it seems like sheer bloody mindedness to me.

The fuel indexation proposal was for just a few cents and the co-payment was capped at just $70 per year.
Yet Shorten et al hysterically claimed that the government was attacking poor people, that no one would go to see the doctor, that the result would be a massive blow-out in public hospital attendance, yada, yada.

That's the sort of nonsense that I find just stupid. Most sensible people would also, but as Shorten knows, there are enough gullible people in the electorate who will not consider the reality of the proposal and instead imagine that - even before the legislation gets into the parliament - they're about to be slugged endless payments of $7 .

Certainly the government failed - as it did with the rest of the budget - to properly present the ideas, and to say on the one hand that the payment was needed to make Medicare sustainable, yet at the same time that the payment would go to a research fund, just made people confused and cross.

Then instead of listening to objections, both Abbott and Hockey appeared hurt that people didn't wholeheartedly support their proposals. That was when they instead should have begun genuine consultation and negotiation.
Christopher Pyne was the only one who actually did this.

However, they are facing a very difficult opposition and cross bench environment. Labor seem to feel their own interests can best be served by the government failing and of course that's true. So by refusing to negotiate, and to even pass their own budgetary measures, they're going to ensure the government will fail.

Then we have irresponsible behaviour by grandstanding in the Senate, eg Senator Lambie making a blanket statement that she so loathes Mr Abbott, and unless he raises Defence pay, she will automatically vote against all government legislation. So even if Mr Abbott were to suggest he would give $100K to every Tasmanian, she would vote against that. So utterly immature and ignorant.

PUP looks like collapsing this year which will be no loss imo.

I do agree with the suggestion that it's pretty much political suicide to claim before an election that 'we will be a government that keeps our promises', and then to introduce - without due preamble or explanation - new taxes and charges. Especially when you've spent three years castigating the previous bunch about breaking the "There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead" promise.

All up, it just has to go to an electorate more and more filled with cynicism and disappointment.

Many of the feathers on the floor around here are a by-product of this government stopping the boats.

That's an interesting observation, drsmith. Can you expand on it a bit?
Are you saying that the government's clear success in border policy has so stung the Opposition that it has spurred them to be more obstructive with other policies?

 

[banco]

Nothing this government has done comes even remotely close to Julia Gillard's carbon tax.

An unfortunate reality of our political environment is that all governments break promises after coming to power. Some are so big that they terminal to a government in themselves such as the carbon tax above. The question then becomes the extent and the ability of a government to present such changes as part of a broader strategy. This is where the current government has failed badly and where it will obviously need to substantially lift its game if it is to successfully present a broader reform agenda in the lead up to the next election.

Your forgiveness and understanding for the liberal's broken promises is highly amusing.

 

[SirRumpole]

The fuel indexation proposal was for just a few cents

That's another bit of trickery because the fuel indexation feeds on itself. It contributes to inflation then adjusts itself upwards by the inflation that it itself has caused.

I've only heard the government say what it will cost consumers in the first year. The reality is that consumers will pay more and more every year because of this tax.

 

[pixel]

But Shorten is blind, deaf and dumb to reality...Shorten is so narrow minded, he can see though a key hole with both eyes...no interest in the welfare of the nation...only self interest in point scoring.

Replace "Shorten" by "Abbott", and your sentence will lose nothing of its veracity.

And there lies the problem: Up until 2007, Governments managed to come to workable compromises with the opposition. But then, the Lib/Nat Opposition embarked on a new strategy, refusing even the tiniest constructive criticism and alternative, thereby forcing the newly-elected Government to accept some hare-brained policy adjustments from the rainbow fringe in order to implement some of the promised changes. Whether one agrees with their agenda or not: Labor was legitimately elected on the basis of those promised reforms. If the Coalition refused to accept the voters' mandate in 2007 and 2010, they can hardly cry foul if today's Opposition questions the mandate for radical new policies that weren't even discussed before September 2013.

 

[Smurf1976]

The fuel indexation proposal was for just a few cents and the co-payment was capped at just $70 per year.

Medicare co-payment seems like a good idea to stop waste and a sensible idea regardless of the budget situation. But then I'd argue that the practice of visiting doctors for the sole purpose of obtaining a medical certificate also needs a major overhaul as it's a significant unnecessary drain on the system - quite likely a bigger drain than any visits that would be stopped with the $7 payment.

As for the fuel excise, ultimately it wasn't just a few cents but a series of ongoing increases with no end date. I'd rather they just imposed a one-off increase then review that in due course. Automatic increases tend to avoid scrutiny.

I also question why just fuel? Why don't we also have, say, an internet excise and a furniture excise? Why just on fuel? Or (serious question since I don't know the answer) were they going to legislate that every last cent of fuel excise actually went into roads or at least transport-related things (rail, public transport etc)?

I don't see the rationale unless it's either tied to funding of roads etc or is intended as being a means of reducing urban air pollution, encouraging a shift to electric cars etc which hasn't been the stated intent. If the aim is simply raising revenue, then income taxes or GST are more logical things to increase I'd have thought given the huge variations in petrol consumption between individuals these days. There's people at both ends of the income spectrum with either very low or very high fuel use, so fuel excise seems an inequitable means of raising revenue for general government spending.

 

[sydboy007]

2014 hasn't been that bad in my view.

Labor's carbon tax is gone and their useless mining tax is gone. Labor's boats are also stopped and the government is at least trying to fix the deficit trajectory left by Labor despite the obstructionist nature of Labor itself in the senate including blocking their own savings.

Many of the feathers on the floor around here are a by-product of this government stopping the boats.

So the refugees are no longer leaving their home countries? The turn back the boats policy has somehow managed to stop the persecution of minorities causing them to flee as refugees?

Isn't part of the budget blowout due to the loss of revenue from the taxes given up by Abbott and the lack of thought in how they were going to either cut spending enough or increase other taxation to make up for the revenue shortfall?

I don't feel Abbott has achieved anything that has made me feel better economically or more secure that the economy is headed in the right direction. My gas bill has gone up since the carbon tax was removed, yet I'm still using the same amount of gas, my electricity bill barely reduced.

So what specific examples can you provide that the Govt is actually "trying to fix the deficit trajectory."

I don't believe the GP and Uni taxes do this, the rise in fuel indexation is a very minor improvement.

I don't believe spending $250M on school chaplains helps improve the budget, nor a $5.5B PPL scheme.

I don't believe cutting spending on science and innovation to the lowest levels since the data was first published will in the long term help with the structural balance of the budget - it dimishes the future potential of the economy.

I don't believe abolishing the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority which was established to encourage organ donation will be in the long term interests of the budget nor the community.

I don't believe cutting funding by a further $111.4 million over four years out of the operating budget of the CSIRO will be to the long term benefit of the budget.

I don't believe the $368 million in cuts to preventative health measures will be to the long term benefit to the budget - prevention is cheaper than allowing health to deteriorate

Cutting the ‘Tools for the Trade’ program which helped apprentices buy their tools, and replacing it with a loan scheme apprentices will have to repay will make it less likely poorer students will go to TAFE and study a trade, thereby limiting the economy's future potential - not good for the budget in the long term.

i can see lots of short sighted cuts, but they don't actually help with the long term structural balance of the budget.

 

[noco]

Medicare co-payment seems like a good idea to stop waste and a sensible idea regardless of the budget situation. But then I'd argue that the practice of visiting doctors for the sole purpose of obtaining a medical certificate also needs a major overhaul as it's a significant unnecessary drain on the system - quite likely a bigger drain than any visits that would be stopped with the $7 payment.

As for the fuel excise, ultimately it wasn't just a few cents but a series of ongoing increases with no end date. I'd rather they just imposed a one-off increase then review that in due course. Automatic increases tend to avoid scrutiny.

I also question why just fuel? Why don't we also have, say, an internet excise and a furniture excise? Why just on fuel? Or (serious question since I don't know the answer) were they going to legislate that every last cent of fuel excise actually went into roads or at least transport-related things (rail, public transport etc)?

I don't see the rationale unless it's either tied to funding of roads etc or is intended as being a means of reducing urban air pollution, encouraging a shift to electric cars etc which hasn't been the stated intent. If the aim is simply raising revenue, then income taxes or GST are more logical things to increase I'd have thought given the huge variations in petrol consumption between individuals these days. There's people at both ends of the income spectrum with either very low or very high fuel use, so fuel excise seems an inequitable means of raising revenue for general government spending.

Hawkie says we are sitting on a gold mine and don't know it........Bury other nations nuclear waste in the out back and charge to Earth to do it...It will be as good as gold....What a brilliant idea.....The economy is saved and we could be back in the black in half the time.

No need for fuel excise.
No need for medical co payments.
No need to raise the GST.
We might even have some left over for the NDIS, Gonsky and free university education.

Bring back Hawkie...he is da only one with da brains.

 

[Smurf1976]

My gas bill has gone up since the carbon tax was removed, yet I'm still using the same amount of gas

To be fair, the only major party that has a history of raising concerns about gas resource utilisation is the Greens. No real difference between Labor or the Coalition on that one, both have effectively outsourced their energy policy to the private sector (that is, for practical purposes they don't have a policy of any significance beyond Labor's carbon tax, but that's a tax not a national energy policy).