-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
K3 said:
Over two decades ago John Howard changed the Australian National Audit Office reporting directly to the Governor General to reporting to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. This in effect enabled the Prime Minister and his Cabinet Ministers to "doctor" the ANAO reports prior to them being released to the public.
What should happen in my opinion is -
- The ANAO report directly to the Governor General and thus become an independent reporting body
- The ANAO could track all election promises by all candidates in all electorates, political parties and Prime Ministerial Candidates - then complete a document stating exactly what the candidate, political party has promised and get that candidate, Prime Ministerial Candidate to sign it one week before the poll day - this can be published for all to see
- One year into a governments term the promises document could be reconciled against what the candidate/government has done and a gap report produced. If those gaps are not addressed in the next 12 months the result should be published. Comments and "excuses" should be allowed as circumstances change which can make a promise redundant.
Only in this way we can keep the "bastards on all sides of politics, honest"!
It is so sad that election promises are made by certain Candidates, Political Parties and Prime Ministerial Candidates that were never ever going to be implemented. This is misleading the people of Australia which is the same as misleading parliament. (Remember Gillard and the Carbon Tax - Abbott and his core promises and non core promises)
Further, many decades ago Gough Whitlam removed the issue of Ministerial Responsibility by having his minister's aides know what was happening but only choosing the relevant topics for the Minister to know - in this way the Minister could stand up in Parliament and say he was not aware of the situation. All Governments since Whitlam have used this method to dodge Ministerial responsibility.
As Malcolm Frazer said - Ministerial Responsibility is the corner stone of the Westminster Parliamentary System - remove Ministerial Responsibility and the Westminster System fails - which is what has been happening over the last 40 years. And arguably why we have less and less trust in our politicians.
Ministers MUST become responsible for everything in their portfolio again - not knowing a topic is worse than knowing and doing nothing IMO.
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
lol, that's hilarious. how is Andrews a liar? he said he would stop the EW Link and he did. how is he a thief? it was napthine who signed the dodgy, dirty side deal that resigned Victoria to paying compo. if anyone is a thief it is napthine and O'Brien for signing off on a dud project a month before the election. the biggest mistake Andrews made is that he failed to launch an inquiry into the disgraceful conduct of the former govt. how O'Brien is still shadow treasurer is an absolute disgrace and lacks accountability (typical of politics in the modern era though).
so infrastructure Victoria still thinks the EW link needs to be built? so what? personally I disagree it needs to be built (the missing link of the Ring Road is a much more sensible option), but if it does need to be built, its at the bottom of the priorities list. and it will never be built while Andrews is premier and I expect he will be premier for a long time.
Anyone see 4 corners on the political donation system in Australia? Bloody hell, what a horrorshow. How long have these shonks and spivs, and both parties, been saying 'oh we just gave them/ they just gave us a shipload of money because we're/ they're good blokes, we don't/ they don't want anything in return'.
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
has this report actually been released yet?
blurb i read somewhere was that east link was needed but it was not high on the priority list, and did not offer value for money. which i think is the LABOR line.
anyway i expect all will be proud of Andrews' apology to the gay and lesbian community.
It is quite scary looking through the following numbers, thankfully we aren't in this stratosphere yet!
$1 billion spent in 2016 presidential race — and other numbers to know 1-billion-spent-2016-presidential-race-and-other-numbers-know
$1 billion spent in 2016 presidential race — and other numbers to know 1-billion-spent-2016-presidential-race-and-other-numbers-know
tigertim said:
Need a bit of context. What was she referring to/what are people judging her on?
EDIT: or is it her recent decision to leave politics?
tigertim said:
Yep. Only Aboriginals can judge her over flying in a gigolo with taxpayers' money.
Replacing Jason Mifsud at the AFL. Brings back memories of out Gieschen, in Frawley.
I saw ittigersnake said:
Pork barrelling is alive and well in Aussie politics and it doesn't belong to any one party.
I also saw an interview with xenaphon about a large donation he received, about $200k I believe. I guess the difference there is he declared it and did so well before he had to.
I really hate the way the ALP is in the hands of the trade union movement from a funding perspective because it really compromises them. The only difference is we all know about it whereas what the Libs have done is systematic hiding of donations through this organisation in NSW , the Free enterprise think tank or whatever it is.
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
i assume you are ignoring the question re eastwest link and the infrastructure report?
from other reports, not the crap the Hun, infrastructure victoria have rated the eastwest link down the list of needs so the Andrews Government have done the right thing in canning it at this stage.
it also appears that anyone who voted for them on this basis did the right thing for Victoria.
MB78 said:
Why does East West need to be built? You have CityLink which solves all of the problems of the Westgate and Monash by providing an uninterrupted thoroughfare across Melbourne, except that it did bugger all and the Westgate and Monash are still congested everyday. Wonder why that is? Have you never considered that these 'freeways' are congested because of motorists heading in and out of the city? How's East West link going to solve that? They keep publishing photos at the end of the Eastern Fwy of the Hoddle St off ramp full of vehicles. Except East West would have done absolutely NOTHING to fix that. And I loved to artist's impressions of the completed East West link, except that about 99% of the vehicles were missing! I guess a realistic drawing of the traffic snarl wouldn't have made for very good publicity.
You want rural folk to have easier ways to cross Melbourne?, complete the Western Ring Road to connect to the Eastern Fwy / Eastlink and invest in public transport to get motorists off the roads, especially those who drive in an out of the CBD everyday.
1eyedtiger said:
Well said 1i!
IMO it is many government's abandonment of public transport growth, and improvement, that has lead to the mass congestion seen most days now. As someone who used to drive to Elsternwick, from Wonthaggi, I can remember that it would take from 1 hour 50ish to 3 hours, depending, and that was me leaving at 5.15am each day. I once caught the Vline bus to Spencer St and it took 4 hours.
Once Kennett, one of my most despised politicians ever, ripped up the train line down to the Prom, Sth Gippy just died...
And a good article about what looms ahead for us economically.
Election 2016: Who would want to inherit this budget mess?
OPINION
By Ian Verrender
This election isn't one that anyone would want to win. The global economy is uncertain, our debt is rising, and it seems we'll be relying on luck rather than management to avoid a recession, writes Ian Verrender.
It was hardly the kind of message an incoming Prime Minister would wish to hear.
Not long after he seized power late last year, Malcolm Turnbull met with senior econocrats to get a handle on the economy.
His meeting with Reserve Bank governor Glenn Stevens did little to inspire confidence. Business confidence had been shattered during the Abbott/Hockey era, he was told, business investment was abysmal, wages were all but stagnant and the terms of trade were collapsing.
This shouldn't have come as a surprise, for Stevens was traversing familiar ground.
For months he'd been issuing warnings to anyone who'd listen about the limits of monetary policy; that it was time for government to pull its weight. But the idea that the nation was on the cusp of a potential recession, particularly with a looming election, was confronting.
Turnbull quickly flicked the optimism switch to overdrive. There never was a more exciting time to be an Australian. We would transform from mining to something else via the magic of innovation. The economy was already well into the process of transition.
The rhetoric was fine. But that was as far as it went. While boosting confidence is important, it is no match for solid fiscal management. And so, in the process, the new Prime Minister missed a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to seize the moment.
Australia's economy is at an inflexion point. The boom days are gone but the tax rorts and the spending remains. Clamping down, right when the global economy was slowing, would have been tough, painful even.
At that point, however, Australians were prepared to follow what appeared to be a dynamic leader, certainly an intelligent one.
For that brief period, had the brutal truth been outlined along with a plan - where the pain would be borne fairly - to fix the nation's finances, we may have been able to steer a course back to economic strength over the medium term.
The one acronym missing from any political discourse, however, is the AAA, as in triple A credit rating.
Just as Paul Keating's "banana republic" call galvanised the nation, the electorate would have worn spending cuts and perhaps even a higher GST, had it all been balanced by closing the tax loopholes for the wealthy.
Strong leadership was required. What no-one realised was that Turnbull had signed away his freedom, that he was a captive of the factions that had installed him, that wanted no change, just a popular leader who could win an election and maintain their jobs.
At first, it appeared negative gearing, the capital gains discount and the exorbitant tax breaks for the wealthy via superannuation were all under investigation. But almost every policy, apart from superannuation, was jettisoned.
Incredibly, the Prime Minister now has become the great advocate of negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount, just to have a point of difference with the Opposition.
Rather than a grand vision for the nation and the economy, he has switched to an Abbott style three world slogan election campaign. Except that in place of the DDD (Debt and Deficit Disaster), we've reverted to the time-honoured BBH (Budget Black Hole) and now JAG (Jobs and Growth).
That's entirely understandable given the DDdebt has nearly DDdoubled since the Government came to power. No point reminding anyone of that. And Labor really doesn't want to go there either.
The one acronym missing from any political discourse, however, is the AAA, as in triple A credit rating. Each of the three major credit ratings - Fitch, Moody's and Standard & Poor's - has issued thinly veiled warnings that gold star rating is under threat unless action is taken to halt the deterioration in our fiscal position.
As Fitch's director of sovereign ratings, Mervyn Tang, said in an interview with Elysse Morgan on PM, Australia's triple A rating is safe, so long as all the expectations about growth released in the recent budget are met and there are no unforeseen domestic or international shocks.
That's a couple of mighty big ifs. For starters, the budget, now barely a month old, carries a series of assumptions that at this stage are looking hopelessly optimistic.
Iron ore last week was trading about $US10 a tonne below the estimate. Wages growth has slipped to its lowest since the last recession in 1992, to just 2.1 per cent in the March quarter, well below the 2.5 per cent budget forecast for the new financial year.
If that persists - and there is every indication it will - tax revenue will fall well short of forecasts and we will see yet another deficit blowout in the December half year update, as has become tradition.
Then there is the plunge in business investment. The March quarter figures, released last week, showed a whopping 5.2 per cent decline, far worse than expected.
If this campaign has achieved anything, it has demonstrated the impotence of our political masters and just how beholden they are to the vested interests that deliver them to power.
The problem is that we don't have a balance sheet strong enough to cope with this kind of downturn. Australia historically has run large current account deficits, importing more than we export and financing the difference with debt and imported capital. That's a problem in this environment.
Government debt, meanwhile, continues to climb. It's now at $435 billion, not far off the $500 billion ceiling, which will soon require lifting, or perhaps even a second storey addition.
While our government debt is low by international standards, that's not the full story. Our total international debt clicked over the $1 trillion mark late last year and has continued to rise.
That's because our banks have been borrowing like drunken sailors offshore to help pump up the dangerously inflated Australian property market. Given the federal government now guarantees Australian offshore bank debt, that bank debt is a taxpayer problem.
Last week, the Reserve Bank calculated the guarantee effectively subsidised our big banks to the tune of about $4 billion a year because it allows our banks can borrow at cheaper rate.
That has a two-fold effect. First, it places even greater strain on the AAA rating. And second, if the credit rating is cut, mortgage rates would rise immediately.
Oddly, there has been nary a peep of this during the campaign. Instead, the Prime Minister is adamant that the best way to ease the deficit is to cut taxes to corporations and the wealthy; a counter-intuitive concept if ever there was one.
If this campaign has achieved anything, it has demonstrated the impotence of our political masters and just how beholden they are to the vested interests that deliver them to power.
Take the ludicrous debate over the proposed superannuation changes, announced in the budget. Rather than a retirement savings plan, superannuation has morphed into a tax effective wealth accumulation vehicle for the rich.
The changes, bold as they are for a Coalition Government and long overdue, will affect a miniscule proportion of the population. From now on, rich superannuants will only receive tax free earnings on balances of up to $1.6 million. Earnings on anything above $1.6 million will attract just 15 per cent tax.
The howls of outrage have been deafening. The usual lobby groups kicked into action, decrying the shift as retrospective. Except, no-one complained about the retrospective nature of Peter Costello's decision in 2007 to make it open slather for the rich, when he eliminated all income tax from retirement earnings.
And what about younger Australians, many with degrees and trades but no job security and no chance to buy a house, earning $60,000 a year? They pay tax. And it is their taxes that will pay for wealthy superannuants to live tax free in the palatial style to which they have become accustomed.
This election is not one that anyone would want to win. The next three years will be hard going. The global economy is uncertain and the chances of recession are rising. We will be relying on luck rather than management to avoid a recession.
Ian Verrender is the ABC's business editor and writes a weekly column for The Drum.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-30/verrender-election-2016-who'd-want-to-inherit-this-budget-mess/7457808
Election 2016: Who would want to inherit this budget mess?
OPINION
By Ian Verrender
This election isn't one that anyone would want to win. The global economy is uncertain, our debt is rising, and it seems we'll be relying on luck rather than management to avoid a recession, writes Ian Verrender.
It was hardly the kind of message an incoming Prime Minister would wish to hear.
Not long after he seized power late last year, Malcolm Turnbull met with senior econocrats to get a handle on the economy.
His meeting with Reserve Bank governor Glenn Stevens did little to inspire confidence. Business confidence had been shattered during the Abbott/Hockey era, he was told, business investment was abysmal, wages were all but stagnant and the terms of trade were collapsing.
This shouldn't have come as a surprise, for Stevens was traversing familiar ground.
For months he'd been issuing warnings to anyone who'd listen about the limits of monetary policy; that it was time for government to pull its weight. But the idea that the nation was on the cusp of a potential recession, particularly with a looming election, was confronting.
Turnbull quickly flicked the optimism switch to overdrive. There never was a more exciting time to be an Australian. We would transform from mining to something else via the magic of innovation. The economy was already well into the process of transition.
The rhetoric was fine. But that was as far as it went. While boosting confidence is important, it is no match for solid fiscal management. And so, in the process, the new Prime Minister missed a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to seize the moment.
Australia's economy is at an inflexion point. The boom days are gone but the tax rorts and the spending remains. Clamping down, right when the global economy was slowing, would have been tough, painful even.
At that point, however, Australians were prepared to follow what appeared to be a dynamic leader, certainly an intelligent one.
For that brief period, had the brutal truth been outlined along with a plan - where the pain would be borne fairly - to fix the nation's finances, we may have been able to steer a course back to economic strength over the medium term.
The one acronym missing from any political discourse, however, is the AAA, as in triple A credit rating.
Just as Paul Keating's "banana republic" call galvanised the nation, the electorate would have worn spending cuts and perhaps even a higher GST, had it all been balanced by closing the tax loopholes for the wealthy.
Strong leadership was required. What no-one realised was that Turnbull had signed away his freedom, that he was a captive of the factions that had installed him, that wanted no change, just a popular leader who could win an election and maintain their jobs.
At first, it appeared negative gearing, the capital gains discount and the exorbitant tax breaks for the wealthy via superannuation were all under investigation. But almost every policy, apart from superannuation, was jettisoned.
Incredibly, the Prime Minister now has become the great advocate of negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount, just to have a point of difference with the Opposition.
Rather than a grand vision for the nation and the economy, he has switched to an Abbott style three world slogan election campaign. Except that in place of the DDD (Debt and Deficit Disaster), we've reverted to the time-honoured BBH (Budget Black Hole) and now JAG (Jobs and Growth).
That's entirely understandable given the DDdebt has nearly DDdoubled since the Government came to power. No point reminding anyone of that. And Labor really doesn't want to go there either.
The one acronym missing from any political discourse, however, is the AAA, as in triple A credit rating. Each of the three major credit ratings - Fitch, Moody's and Standard & Poor's - has issued thinly veiled warnings that gold star rating is under threat unless action is taken to halt the deterioration in our fiscal position.
As Fitch's director of sovereign ratings, Mervyn Tang, said in an interview with Elysse Morgan on PM, Australia's triple A rating is safe, so long as all the expectations about growth released in the recent budget are met and there are no unforeseen domestic or international shocks.
That's a couple of mighty big ifs. For starters, the budget, now barely a month old, carries a series of assumptions that at this stage are looking hopelessly optimistic.
Iron ore last week was trading about $US10 a tonne below the estimate. Wages growth has slipped to its lowest since the last recession in 1992, to just 2.1 per cent in the March quarter, well below the 2.5 per cent budget forecast for the new financial year.
If that persists - and there is every indication it will - tax revenue will fall well short of forecasts and we will see yet another deficit blowout in the December half year update, as has become tradition.
Then there is the plunge in business investment. The March quarter figures, released last week, showed a whopping 5.2 per cent decline, far worse than expected.
If this campaign has achieved anything, it has demonstrated the impotence of our political masters and just how beholden they are to the vested interests that deliver them to power.
The problem is that we don't have a balance sheet strong enough to cope with this kind of downturn. Australia historically has run large current account deficits, importing more than we export and financing the difference with debt and imported capital. That's a problem in this environment.
Government debt, meanwhile, continues to climb. It's now at $435 billion, not far off the $500 billion ceiling, which will soon require lifting, or perhaps even a second storey addition.
While our government debt is low by international standards, that's not the full story. Our total international debt clicked over the $1 trillion mark late last year and has continued to rise.
That's because our banks have been borrowing like drunken sailors offshore to help pump up the dangerously inflated Australian property market. Given the federal government now guarantees Australian offshore bank debt, that bank debt is a taxpayer problem.
Last week, the Reserve Bank calculated the guarantee effectively subsidised our big banks to the tune of about $4 billion a year because it allows our banks can borrow at cheaper rate.
That has a two-fold effect. First, it places even greater strain on the AAA rating. And second, if the credit rating is cut, mortgage rates would rise immediately.
Oddly, there has been nary a peep of this during the campaign. Instead, the Prime Minister is adamant that the best way to ease the deficit is to cut taxes to corporations and the wealthy; a counter-intuitive concept if ever there was one.
If this campaign has achieved anything, it has demonstrated the impotence of our political masters and just how beholden they are to the vested interests that deliver them to power.
Take the ludicrous debate over the proposed superannuation changes, announced in the budget. Rather than a retirement savings plan, superannuation has morphed into a tax effective wealth accumulation vehicle for the rich.
The changes, bold as they are for a Coalition Government and long overdue, will affect a miniscule proportion of the population. From now on, rich superannuants will only receive tax free earnings on balances of up to $1.6 million. Earnings on anything above $1.6 million will attract just 15 per cent tax.
The howls of outrage have been deafening. The usual lobby groups kicked into action, decrying the shift as retrospective. Except, no-one complained about the retrospective nature of Peter Costello's decision in 2007 to make it open slather for the rich, when he eliminated all income tax from retirement earnings.
And what about younger Australians, many with degrees and trades but no job security and no chance to buy a house, earning $60,000 a year? They pay tax. And it is their taxes that will pay for wealthy superannuants to live tax free in the palatial style to which they have become accustomed.
This election is not one that anyone would want to win. The next three years will be hard going. The global economy is uncertain and the chances of recession are rising. We will be relying on luck rather than management to avoid a recession.
Ian Verrender is the ABC's business editor and writes a weekly column for The Drum.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-30/verrender-election-2016-who'd-want-to-inherit-this-budget-mess/7457808