Joe Hockey, asset or liability?

[Ratts of Tobruk]

I think Caesar is 100% correct in this thread.

The mistake political staffers, to a lesser extent political journalists and earnest well meaning people who think they care about politics make is believing that 'good policies' win elections.

...John Howard and Bob Hawke repeatedly won elections not because they had good policies, but because over time, they built up a persona of generally being safe, reliable, trustworthy people who wouldn't rock the boat. In most cases, their big 'policies' were not at all electoral winners or particularly well researched, they were just stuff they felt strongly about doing, and some of them turned out well in retrospect.

What utter BS. I guess this is what happens when the Libs spend 3 years saying 'she's a lying witch and the debt is going to destroy us all!', but your analysis is plain wrong. The public DO care about policy. A lot. Those that aren't directly interested in politics will also have people in their life they look to for direction, and those people can care about policy or can be party hacks, but generalising that "the public" don't care about politics is complete rubbish. What you have seen during Abbott's onslaught and the Obeid/Slipper/Thompson crap is that they don't LIKE politics, but they care about it.

What's more, Howard won elections because he gave out cash handouts and introduced welfare for middle and upper classes. That's why Rudd's "this reckless spending has to stop" line worked. If people trusted Howard they would have stuck with him in 2007. Certainly he had his broken promises (remember his "non-core promises" line?) and lies (children overboard and AWB, for example). Hawke had big policies and succesfully negotiatied deregulation with worker's accords so that despite Keating's "recession we had to have" there was never the big uproar that occured in Thatcher's UK. Yet, you claim without any humility that these sorts of big policies are "low-hanging fruit". You are speaking with hindsight, and speaking so confidently that I think we can dismiss your analysis of what's happening now, the future, or this parliament. There is a lifetime of reforms left to happen. You just can't see it, because you're busy trying to justify the lack of balls & lack of intelligence in the current Liberal line-up.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...at-from-treasury/story-fnihsr9v-1226687498334
There's that 11 billion dollar black hole that the coalition cheer squad seem to not be able to notice, being mentioned again. The black hole that swung the independents minds into siding with the ALP.

Don't forget to mention that ommission resulted in a reprimand and fines. This was EXACTLY the sort of "accounting tricks" that Hockey mentioned when revealing his one page "audit".

 

[Total_Juddshanks]

What utter BS. I guess this is what happens when the Libs spend 3 years saying 'she's a lying witch and the debt is going to destroy us all!', but your analysis is plain wrong. The public DO care about policy. A lot. Those that aren't directly interested in politics will also have people in their life they look to for direction, and those people can care about policy or can be party hacks, but generalising that "the public" don't care about politics is complete rubbish. What you have seen during Abbott's onslaught and the Obeid/Slipper/Thompson crap is that they don't LIKE politics, but they care about it.

What's more, Howard won elections because he gave out cash handouts and introduced welfare for middle and upper classes. That's why Rudd's "this reckless spending has to stop" line worked. If people trusted Howard they would have stuck with him in 2007. Certainly he had his broken promises (remember his "non-core promises" line?) and lies (children overboard and AWB, for example). Hawke had big policies and succesfully negotiatied deregulation with worker's accords so that despite Keating's "recession we had to have" there was never the big uproar that occured in Thatcher's UK. Yet, you claim without any humility that these sorts of big policies are "low-hanging fruit". You are speaking with hindsight, and speaking so confidently that I think we can dismiss your analysis of what's happening now, the future, or this parliament. There is a lifetime of reforms left to happen. You just can't see it, because you're busy trying to justify the lack of balls & lack of intelligence in the current Liberal line-up.

That is a mixture of incoherent, irrelevant, stupidly partisan nonsense which I'm not going to try to argue with.

By the by, I never said Hawke's reforms were low hanging fruit, and I never said that the public doesn't care about politics.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

That is a mixture of incoherent, irrelevant, stupidly partisan nonsense which I'm not going to try to argue with.

By the by, I never said Hawke's reforms were low hanging fruit, and I never said that the public doesn't care about politics.

Nah, you just can't handle being called out for your poor analysis. As for "I never said that the public doesn't care about politics":

the public do not have the time or the interest to focus on politics

 

[Docker Clint]

http://www.smh.com.au/business/joe-hockeys-please-explain-moment-20130805-2r8fh.html

The man who would be federal treasurer had a dangerous moment on Friday. As “I'm excited” became synonymous with Big Kev and “please explain” became Pauline Hanson, “I don't believe these numbers” could settle on Joe Hockey – not a good look for the would-be chief bean counter who himself is yet to produce any numbers that add up.

Hockey has a week, maybe two at most, to come up with some credible figures of his own or his Friday phrase could be reduced to “I don't believe it” and hung around his neck.

Given the innate contradictions of Hockeynomics as we know them, it's understandable that he would like as little scrutiny as possible of whatever it is that an Abbott government might promise – in writing – to actually do. As they stand, Hockeynomics are the generalisations of opposition and work well in that context, decrying the government's shortcomings, offering comfort to any and all vested interests, promising without detail a better and easier life for all. With Hockeynomics, you are promised that you can indeed have your cake and eat it too.

 

[JRoo]

http://www.smh.com.au/business/joe-hockeys-please-explain-moment-20130805-2r8fh.html

I'd always thought we couldn't get a worse Treasurer than Swan but I believe Hockey will wrestle that trophy from Swan's cold dead hands!

 

[Lester Burnham]

http://www.smh.com.au/business/joe-hockeys-please-explain-moment-20130805-2r8fh.html

I find it staggering that in the week the government has had to revise its estimate of the current deficit to $30 billion less then 3 months after its estimate was $18 billion, that someone thinks the story is about Joe Hockey. Pascoe has proven himself to be a complete hack once again.

The real story is that once again under this Labor government the budget estimates are totally unreliable, why should we trust the latest figures?

 

[Slax]

Biggest issue for me at the moment is has Hockey actually read the treasury papers? It's almost like he has an advisor giving him quotes, but because he doesn't know the context of the quote he is getting it wrong.

Whether it be under Labor or under Liberal it is almost impossible for either government to return the budget to surplus without raising taxes or slashing services to a level that will guarantee that they lose the next election. As Henry said 'Old people cost more than young people'. Australia must find a way with an ageing population to either increase revnue to pay for the old people or a way to much it cheaper to keep them, ie legalise euthanesia, hey it might not be popular with the Fred Nile gang but when those in pallative care decide enough is enough the government saves a heap and hospital beds free up.

Neither party wants to admit that taxes must raise, but both know it.

 

[Northalives]

On our local channel 10 news broadcast just now, Hugh Riminton said that Hockey would release budget details but someone else would have to do the maths, calculations!

What a f*****g joke!

 

[Juddism]

just watched John Howard talking about the bad economy whilst standing in front of a BMW sponsored event sign...hmm, ironic? Joe on ABC now telling us how bad the economy is.

 

[Northalives]

just watched John Howard talking about the bad economy whilst standing in front of a BMW sponsored event sign...hmm, ironic? Joe on ABC now telling us how bad the economy is.

Rudd, being a smart cookie, has wedged this decidedly doltish opposition.

As this election campaign starts to get serious and the PEFO numbers are produced in a week or so, Abbott, Hockey and co. are going to be scrutinised like never before on the economics of their "policies" and if Hockey's utterances of today are anything to go by, they're in trouble and will become mired in the mud trying to defend themselves.

 

[Pessimistic]

It really shits me getting a lecture about cutting public spending from some fat cat merchant banker who got bailed out five years ago and hardship was keeping the beamer for two years not one

On topic. The new thin Hockey is much grumpier than the jovial fat one. Hell implode before the election is over

 

[finders]

Hockey seems to have improved a bit but his real test is about to come when he tries to explain the LNP non policies.

 

[Pessimistic]

Policies became irrelevant the day rudd returned and got a poll boost

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

I mentioned this in another thread, but one of the arguments over the Liberals' costings was on how much money the Coalition would save by sacking 12,000 public servants. Labor said $2.8 billion; Liberals said $4.8 billion.

These estimates are over the forward estimates - 4 years. Therefore divide those numbers by 4 and then by 12000 and you see the average wage they are assuming each sacked public servant is on. Labor $58,333; Liberals $100,000.

Pay varies across the federal public service, but if we look at the Australian Public Service Commission as representative we can see Labor's number falls between the second and third tiers of a Level 4 APS Public Servant (i.e. there are 9 pay levels beneath it and 7 above it before you reach the 14 levels of executive pay). The Liberals' number falls the first and second level of Executive Level payment (there are 7 levels of executive pay above it and 7 below). AKA Liberals are assuming that - on average - they will be removing 12000 executive level public servants. This is absolutely crazy, and in the current political climate surely counts as a 'lie'?

 

[DeanoT]

Ratts, those pay structures are for staff who are covered by an EBA.

Above them in the seniority ranks are the Senior Executive Services, who are on much higher pay.

The APS bands in your link represent the doers, and junior managers only. Middle managers and Senior Managers are not part of the APS scale and are paid well above the numbers in your link.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Ratts, those pay structures are for staff who are covered by an EBA.

Above them in the seniority ranks are the Senior Executive Services, who are on much higher pay.

The APS bands in your link represent the doers, and junior managers only. Middle managers and Senior Managers are not part of the APS scale and are paid well above the numbers in your link.

How many of those would there be? It's hard to believe a "junior manager" is on $120000? These would have to also be "middle managers", if not "senior managers". And of course if you remove a senior executive, don't they get replaced from below? They could try and negotiate down pay levels (and potentially attract worse people), but to reach $100,000 average downgrade in wages over 12,000 public servants you would have to sack and not replace an awful lot of senior execs.

There would be other savings, of course. Utilities, physical items, technology, etc savings and office rents. But the Liberals have also said the jobs will go through 'natural attrition' and these numbers assume a 12000 drop in employees immediately, so we are definitely giving the Liberals a big amount of slack there. Wikipedia says there were 14000 contract staff in the APS so maybe they'd be the quickest ones to bump. I did check for bonuses and super that public servants are paid and that does alter the Liberals number to being below the first Executive Level of pay but above all the non-executive levels (where presumably the vast majority of job losses would be). Labor's pay level assumption equivalent then drops to APS 2 (still assuming all 12000 are removed immediately). This is from the 2012 renumeration report.

 

[Caesar]

I mentioned this in another thread, but one of the arguments over the Liberals' costings was on how much money the Coalition would save by sacking 12,000 public servants. Labor said $2.8 billion; Liberals said $4.8 billion.

These estimates are over the forward estimates - 4 years. Therefore divide those numbers by 4 and then by 12000 and you see the average wage they are assuming each sacked public servant is on. Labor $58,333; Liberals $100,000.

Pay varies across the federal public service, but if we look at the Australian Public Service Commission as representative we can see Labor's number falls between the second and third tiers of a Level 4 APS Public Servant (i.e. there are 9 pay levels beneath it and 7 above it before you reach the 14 levels of executive pay). The Liberals' number falls the first and second level of Executive Level payment (there are 7 levels of executive pay above it and 7 below). AKA Liberals are assuming that - on average - they will be removing 12000 executive level public servants. This is absolutely crazy, and in the current political climate surely counts as a 'lie'?

This is nothing but speculation based on a back-of-an-envelope calc.

The Liberal's number was determined by the PBO. Without seeing their rationale, it's not possible to comment on how correct it is. However I feel confident in saying that I suspect their analysis would have been more detailed, and performed with access to more information, than the above. Particularly given that the Coalition's detailed policy hasn't actually been released yet.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

This is nothing but speculation based on a back-of-an-envelope calc.

The Liberal's number were determined by the PBO. Without seeing their rationale, it's not possible to comment on how correct it is. However I feel confident in saying that I suspect their analysis was almost certainly more detailed, and performed with access to more information, than the above.

Of course it was, but as with your criticisms of Labor 'guessing' at the Liberals' policy details, how do we know what the Liberals provided the PBO with? You have to have your head in the sand if you think that my back-of-the-envelope calculation is that far off. Even allowing for inflation and pay rises over 4 years, it would need to equate to a $1 billion saving per year as soon as Hockey gets in. But you'll keep running from point to pointless point in order to avoid the fact the Liberals are gutless on this.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

I'm not sure what the exact quote you have in regards to the $4.8 billion being done by the PBO, but the only thing on the PBO's website relating to Coalition costings so far is this:

8 May 2013 - Media release

PBO DECLINES TO CONFIRM COSTING ATTRIBUTED TO COALITION POLICY


The Parliamentary Budget Officer, Mr Phil Bowen, today said that the costing attributed to the Coalition’s paid parental leave scheme as reported in the Australian Financial Review (AFR) this morning was not from any costing prepared by the PBO for the Coalition.
"The Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) has prepared a number of costings in this policy area for different parliamentarians. The source of the figures attributed to the Coalition has not been revealed by the AFR.
"The PBO will only confirm costings that have been publicly released by the political party or parliamentarian for whom the costing was prepared," Mr Bowen emphasised.

 

[Caesar]

Of course it was, but as with your criticisms of Labor 'guessing' at the Liberals' policy details, how do we know what the Liberals provided the PBO with? You have to have your head in the sand if you think that my back-of-the-envelope calculation is that far off. Even allowing for inflation and pay rises over 4 years, it would need to equate to a $1 billion saving per year as soon as Hockey gets in. But you'll keep running from point to pointless point in order to avoid the fact the Liberals are gutless on this.

I'm not sure what the exact quote you have in regards to the $4.8 billion being done by the PBO, but the only thing on the PBO's website relating to Coalition costings so far is this:

http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-...ion-return-federal-budget-good-position-gove/

Labor has costed Tony Abbott’s promise to lose 12,000 public servants through natural attrition over the next two years. It says it’ll only save $2.8 billion.

That’s a total that implies an implausibly low cost per public servant. Joe Hockey’s office has shared with PolitiFact a costing from the independent Parliamentary Budget Office that finds the saving more like $4.8 billion than $2.8 billion.

If senior Fairfax journos like Peter Fray and Peter Martin have actually seen the report from the PBO, and they are prepared to accept that $4.8b is a better figure than $2.8b, I'm prepared to accept that. At least until the report is actually released. As would most rational people.

Pick your battles.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-...ion-return-federal-budget-good-position-gove/

If senior Fairfax journos like Peter Fray and Peter Martin have actually seen the report from the PBO, and they are prepared to accept that $4.8b is a better figure than $2.8b, I'm prepared to accept that. At least until the report is actually released. As would most rational people.

I've already said Wong's assumptions are wrong. It would be remarkable if she got them right on individual items, since she has had to guess, and as Politifact's report suggests the line item that moves the black hole from $50 billion to $70 billion isn't particularly fair. It was clearly done to try and line the figure up with Robb saying they'd have to cut $70 billion and Hockey saying $50-70 billion. Politifact's ruling is that the $70 billion is unfair, and that Wong's assumptions are guesses - not that they are wrong.

The fact the language of the journos is "more like $4.8 billion" rather than actually saying it is worth close to $4.8 billion is a big clue. I imagine the PBO wasn't given information on who would be removed, but just how much would removing 12,000 public servants save. The figure would top out at $4.8 billion if all were removed immediately and had high wages. After all, why won't the Liberals share this document with the Australians they expect to vote for them if it is costed?

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

Back on topic - yes he is a liability, which is a shame because I think he is probably a decent bloke and the #1 Liberal front bencher I would choose to have a beer with.

 

[Caesar]

I imagine the PBO wasn't given information on who would be removed, but just how much would removing 12,000 public servants save. The figure would top out at $4.8 billion if all were removed immediately and had high wages.

You imagine? It would? Speculation.

Senior journos have actually seen the costings. They are not stupid. If the figures were as shaky as you make out, why have they not raised it?

After all, why won't the Liberals share this document with the Australians they expect to vote for them if it is costed?

Parties hold off releasing costings for a bunch of reasons, good and bad. For example, releasing a particularly good costing (like, I don't know, $4.8b worth of savings) close to polling day arguably gives it more impact because it remains front of mind.

There is enough to criticise about the Coalition that you do not have to indulge in this foolishness.

 

[DeanoT]

How many of those would there be? It's hard to believe a "junior manager" is on $120000?

EL2's (junior managers) in the APS are pretty well paid for their roles. Plus you have to remember that the super schemes of the APS are very generous, and are on top of the salaries you saw. Some of the defined benefit schemes provided for about 25% of salary, so when you add workcover, etc, you would easily get to $100K per person.

These would have to also be "middle managers", if not "senior managers". And of course if you remove a senior executive, don't they get replaced from below? They could try and negotiate down pay levels (and potentially attract worse people), but to reach $100,000 average downgrade in wages over 12,000 public servants you would have to sack and not replace an awful lot of senior execs.

Positions removed, at any level, would not be replaced by more junior people. Govt departments will simply shed staff through attrition and some voluntary redundancies for people close to retirement. This happened under Howard in the late-90s.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

You're in Lala land, Caesar. They've already announced the supposed $4.8billion of savings, and as with all political parties they are never shy to re-announce policy and mention it constantly. Your political tactics excuse is weaker than a paper kebab bag at 4am.

Putting aside Fairfax has been giving Abbott an easy run for a while now, the purpose of the article was pointing out where Wong's assertions weren't accurate. I'll write to them now to see if they can reveal whether the Liberal's $4.8 billion is accurate. But basic maths shows you it's wildly optimistic.