Joe Hockey, asset or liability?

Remove this Banner Ad

DeanoT said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...
Those revisions I listed in post #141 take into account Super. The point about positions at the highest level being replaced is because even though I think management in Australia is pretty lacking, any sort of structure will still demand senior positions, and so those senior positions will demand high wages. You might remove 2 or 3 managers and replace them with 1, but to get anywhere near to $4.8 billion must mean removing a lot more than just the environmental departments. They either have other large department cuts in mind, or they are inflating their figures.
 
Martin and Fray are not the sorts of idiots who would undermine their own article about incorrect costings by using other incorrect costings as evidence.

These sorts of exercises are not edifying. They undermine your own credibility when you have something legitimate to argue.
 
Caesar said:
Martin and Fray are not the sorts of idiots who would undermine their own article about incorrect costings by using other incorrect costings as evidence.

These sorts of exercises are not edifying. They undermine your own credibility when you have something legitimate to argue.
Click to expand...
At least I have credibility to lose, and people can read the exchange and make up their own mind.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Ratts of Tobruk said:
Those revisions I listed in post #141 take into account Super. The point about positions at the highest level being replaced is because even though I think management in Australia is pretty lacking, any sort of structure will still demand senior positions, and so those senior positions will demand high wages. You might remove 2 or 3 managers and replace them with 1, but to get anywhere near to $4.8 billion must mean removing a lot more than just the environmental departments. They either have other large department cuts in mind, or they are inflating their figures.
Click to expand...

Per the remuneration report you linked to, median total remuneration of $100K is around the APS6 level, which is not all that senior, and typical of your average desk officer role in the PS.

FYI, the ALP have announced substantial cutbacks recently at the EL level.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/nat...et-senior-public-servants-20130512-2jfsw.html

The federal government will crack down on the rising number of middle managers in the bureaucracy.

The spending cuts will focus on executive-level 1 and 2 staff and the senior executive service, as well as reducing the physical size of government offices.
Click to expand...

If the ALP focus on EL1, EL2 and SES, then per the remuneration report you linked to, the average total saving per person will be well in excess of $100K, before even taking into account workcover, LSL, etc.
 
Kynge of Begrem said:
You and I would probably agree on a lot of things, BUT, you are coming across as a full tilt nutter.
Click to expand...
That's a huge call to make without any justification, so I don't think we would agree on many things. Do you think sacking 12000 is so complicated we wouldn't understand the savings?
DeanoT said:
Per the remuneration report you linked to, median total remuneration of $100K is around the APS6 level, which is not all that senior, and typical of your average desk officer role in the PS.

FYI, the ALP have announced substantial cutbacks recently at the EL level.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/nat...et-senior-public-servants-20130512-2jfsw.html

If the ALP focus on EL1, EL2 and SES, then per the remuneration report you linked to, the average total saving per person will be well in excess of $100K, before even taking into account workcover, LSL, etc.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link, Deano. I don't agree with you on many things, but you do attempt to justify them reasonably often! The article says "middle managers" so that is close to what you were saying and I stand corrected. This is the problem when every Tom, Dick and Harriet has 'manager' in their job title - I assume "junior managers" manage maybe 5-10 people and middle managers manage them. To think that so many people are on $100K plus... I doubt they're justifying it. But I still doubt the Coalition's figures. That Canberra Times article suggests $580 million saved by the ALP's crackdown, after they already removed 4200 full-time staff in 2012/13. I suspect it's both inflated and even then the only way they're getting to $4.8 billion is by double-counting. So they might say having a one-stop shop for environmental approvals will save $X billion, and because it will probably mean a reduction in environmental dept staff, they have then also included that figure in the amount saved by removing 12000 people from the public service. But I'll let you know if Politifact get back to me on what they can reveal of the PBO assessment.
 
Ratts of Tobruk said:
That's a huge call to make without any justification, so I don't think we would agree on many things. Do you think sacking 12000 is so complicated we wouldn't understand the savings?

Thanks for the link, Deano. I don't agree with you on many things, but you do attempt to justify them reasonably often! The article says "middle managers" so that is close to what you were saying and I stand corrected. This is the problem when every Tom, Dick and Harriet has 'manager' in their job title - I assume "junior managers" manage maybe 5-10 people and middle managers manage them. To think that so many people are on $100K plus... I doubt they're justifying it. But I still doubt the Coalition's figures. That Canberra Times article suggests $580 million saved by the ALP's crackdown, after they already removed 4200 full-time staff in 2012/13. I suspect it's both inflated and even then the only way they're getting to $4.8 billion is by double-counting. So they might say having a one-stop shop for environmental approvals will save $X billion, and because it will probably mean a reduction in environmental dept staff, they have then also included that figure in the amount saved by removing 12000 people from the public service. But I'll let you know if Politifact get back to me on what they can reveal of the PBO assessment.
Click to expand...
I really can't see where they will be able to cut 12,000 public service jobs. Whilst it was easily possible when Howard came to power there is no longer the levels of fat in the PS that there once was. Hockey seems more and more like he is pulling numbers out of a hat to try and calculate how to balance the books. The corporate tax cut is just another example, a 1.5% cut to corporate tax rates costing $5b, but claims it will be largely offset by the 1.5% levy for the paid parental leave scheme. But then how is the paid parental scheme going to be paid for? :rolleyes:

The Colation have absolutely no economic fiscal creditals and their promises and proposed savings just don't add up. They much as much sense as the candidate for Greenway
 
Kynge of Begrem said:
Okay I will bite. My justification for my statement that you are coming across as a full tilt nutter is your over aggressive, antagonistic approach to debating and your signature.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the justification. If you click on the links in the signature you will see that the posts are not nutter posts, but rather pose questions about Google search results and about Mod behaviour. The topic titles were designed to draw people in, but have been a bit self-defeating as most people thought it was an attack on Big Footy posters (and as it turns out there aren't so many posts in Aus Politics to require provocative titles).

Being overly aggressive and antagonistic is because these are not the first conversations we've had on here and I generally react quite strongly against what I perceive to be misinformation or mischaracterisation because of how the media narrative has taken over from reality in the last parliament (one example being that the Senate often has a balance of power to independents or Greens, yet apparently having that in the House of Reps leads to 'chaos!'). Also, Caesar has shown a desire to one-up me after I beat him in a few arguments and complained about his Modding :) so I don't think he minds a bit of robust back-and-forth. I'm sure you'd agree he has hardly been non-antagonistic.
 
An oldie, but Joe really needs to remember what he said before calling others out on lying:

ozsm.jpg
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Caesar said:
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.
Click to expand...
Peter Martin says he was shown the report's conclusion - not the report - but will try to get hold of it.
 
I was reading this Fact Check article about Hockey lieing about the debt left by the coalition as compared to that owed by Labor now, and noted based on his standards, Labor ran a surplus in 07/08:
We left the country with net assets of $70 billion, where if we are elected on the 7th of September we inherit debt going to $400 billion," Mr Hockey said on Radio National Breakfast on August 14.
ABC Fact Check consulted the budget papers for the year to June 2007, five months before the Howard government left office.
The final budget of 2006-07 showed net assets of $31 billion.
ABC Fact Check contacted Mr Hockey's office to ask for the source for his claim of "net assets of $70 billion".
His office said the figure was net worth, not net assets. And it was for the year 2007-08, not for the year 2006-07.
ABC Fact Check considers Mr Hockey should be judged on the words he used - net assets - and on the period before the Coalition left office.
The net worth figure for 2006-07 was $3 billion.
Click to expand...
The article also explains why Hockey's $400billion is wrong by over 100%, but if we use Hockey's 'net worth' as a measure of good economic management, then at the end of 2006/07 net worth was $3 billion. At the end of 07/08, when Labor were in charge for over 8mths of the financial year, the net worth ended at $70 billion. The subprime crisis started that financial year, with Bear Stearns having their fire-sale in March 2008 (Lehmann Brothers' collapse in Sep 2008 was the next financial year).

So based on Hockey's spin Labor ran a $67 billion surplus in the year the sub-prime crisis started. It was only when it developed into the GFC that stimulus sent them into deficit. Great work Labor!
 
blackcat said:
ambiguity exists tho. hockey may have been affirming his original declaration of PS cut. He did not have to be confirming Uhlmann's detail
Click to expand...
Yep - it could go either way. He didn't deny it. He did nod when Uhlmann said it, but he would probably claim he was nodding to suggest he was actively listening, and then continued his sentence before the interruption. A bit contradictory but that explanation is plausible.

The probable truth is they don't know how much they will cut. Which is where the Campbell Newman comparisons are valid. They will do an audit post-election and cut away. That's the best reason why they aren't getting publicly-released costings done from the PBO (the worst being that they know their numbers don't add up).

I don't know why more people don't use that search bar on the browser to check facts like this. It seems to me that means people aren't really interested in the truth, but would rather barrack for their team's side (Labor, Lib, Green or everyone-is-wrong-but-me). Watching the video, the audio on Joe Hockey was a bit dodgy or he is very nervous being face-to-face with Uhlmann. His voice wavers often. I think Uhlmann is pro-Liberal if anything, but tries for balance like the rest of the ABC, so I'd be nervous too.
 
Ratts of Tobruk said:
Yep - it could go either way. He didn't deny it. He did nod when Uhlmann said it, but he would probably claim he was nodding to suggest he was actively listening, and then continued his sentence before the interruption. A bit contradictory but that explanation is plausible.
Click to expand...

So either it's true or Hockey is an idiot or both.
 
Ratts of Tobruk said:
Yep - it could go either way. He didn't deny it. He did nod when Uhlmann said it, but he would probably claim he was nodding to suggest he was actively listening, and then continued his sentence before the interruption. A bit contradictory but that explanation is plausible.

The probable truth is they don't know how much they will cut. Which is where the Campbell Newman comparisons are valid. They will do an audit post-election and cut away. That's the best reason why they aren't getting publicly-released costings done from the PBO (the worst being that they know their numbers don't add up).

I don't know why more people don't use that search bar on the browser to check facts like this. It seems to me that means people aren't really interested in the truth, but would rather barrack for their team's side (Labor, Lib, Green or everyone-is-wrong-but-me). Watching the video, the audio on Joe Hockey was a bit dodgy or he is very nervous being face-to-face with Uhlmann. His voice wavers often. I think Uhlmann is pro-Liberal if anything, but tries for balance like the rest of the ABC, so I'd be nervous too.
Click to expand...

was Uhlmann flirting with the seminary as a 20yo? i thought his "conservative" ties, were restricted to this part of his persona. I think most of the ABC folk, managed to camouflage their leanings to left, quite well, and in much the same way, and compensate by going harder on ALP, like the Dems overcompensate in the US domestic for being pusillanimous and lacking Hawk
 
I suspect he is an idiot-so a liability but he has a fair bit more personal charm than Tone, Pyne, Bisho, Morrison, Joyce etc etc and I actually quite like him.
 
blackcat said:
was Uhlmann flirting with the seminary as a 20yo? i thought his "conservative" ties, were restricted to this part of his persona. I think most of the ABC folk, managed to camouflage their leanings to left, quite well, and in much the same way, and compensate by going harder on ALP, like the Dems overcompensate in the US domestic for being pusillanimous and lacking Hawk
Click to expand...

Tosh :)

When ABC folk attack Labor they attack from the Left - ie the Green whore position - all power no responsibility.

Surveys have shown that biggest % of ABC journos identify with Greens, the next biggest with Labor.
 
romeoh said:
I suspect he is an idiot-so a liability but he has a fair bit more personal charm than Tone, Pyne, Bisho, Morrison, Joyce etc etc and I actually quite like him.
Click to expand...

I always liked him & still do but he sure gets his figures & percentages ballsed up at times, credit to the guy for losing so much weight this year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Chief
Joe Hildebrand
Replies
7
Views
522
Saint
Saint
HurleyHepsHird
Allegations that Hillsong engaged in large scale money laundering, tax fraud and misuse of Jobkeeper to buy assets.
Replies
18
Views
1K
Ice-Wolf
Ice-Wolf

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top