Liberals haven't costed any policies with the PBO since caretaker mode began

[yibbida]

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/19721045/500m-vow-for-wa-highways/

The Abbott Government is promising to find $500 million extra for WA roads after committing yesterday to upgrades to the North West Coastal Highway and the Great Northern Highway.

Both projects were under threat from the coalition's election promise to abolish Labor's regional infrastructure fund.
But Assistant Infrastructure Minister Jamie Briggs said the Abbott Government was committed to the projects even though the coalition was axing their funding source.
"They weren't in our costings, because they were in the forward estimates," Mr Briggs told 6PR.
His comments were inconsistent with those of deputy Liberal leader Julie Bishop the day before the election.
"We don't have any hole in our costings because these (projects) are not in the forward estimates," Ms Bishop said on September 6.

 

[Refried Noodle]

The PBO costing says of the natural attrition of the 12,000 public servants that:


So they didn't take into account the efficiency dividends despite the fact it is a mathematical impost so should be relatively easily modelled you'd think. Of course that dividend could theoretically reduce the savings the Coalition wants to budget.

ASIS, ASIO, Defence (incl Reserves), the Feds and Customs/Border Protection are exempt. They have assumed a cost per public servant of $134,716 with a wage increase of 5.9% p.a. calculated monthly and 6000 Public Servants removed from this month through to the end of this FY. As pointed out in the CT article Yibbida linked to, the Coalition haven't even started the employment freeze, so I don't know how this is ever going to work out. I've tried fiddling around to get the numbers to work, but there are obviously still a bunch of assumptions they aren't telling us.

For those who can't be bothered, I think we can just wait until the economic update to see just how they pull this rabbit out of their arse/hat (is that the origin of that insult?).

Ahh I see all the politically important public servants are exempt.

Natural attrition was never going to occur. With reduced alternative job opportunities, servants are likely to hold onto their current positions. This will go down the track of expensive voluntary redundancies.

I see Abetz also mentioned hiring for vacancies can continue internally. To me, this shifting around of staff internally is like using your hands to try to plug 11 leaks in a barrel.

Hello 1996-1997 all over again!

 

[yibbida]

Business confidence relies on stability. When you have a party that jumps from one policy to the next, one leader to the next, it's not stable and people don't want to take risks with their money and invest. Every half-arsed idea that Rudd thinks of becomes a public announcement the next day. It might be great for the 24 hour news cycle and propping up opinion polls, but it's terrible for business confidence... and that is what hurts the economy.

http://www.watoday.com.au/business/...business-confidence-fades-20131112-2xdfn.html

Business confidence has fallen back towards its pre-election levels as optimism fades and conditions remain weak, a monthly private survey has found.
Firms were less positive in October after a surge of sentiment in September, as soft forward indicators pointed to a tepid outlook for domestic demand, the National Australia Bank's business survey on confidence and conditions found.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Surprise, surprise:

The Federal Government is reviewing how it can deliver its promise to axe 12,000 federal public service jobs... [Cormann] says the Government is still committed to its policy but will ask the Commission of Audit to consider the timing and approach of the plans. "Nobody knew before the election that Labor's cuts were based on an expectation that 14,500 jobs would go through redundancy," he said. "The Parliamentary Budget Office, which did our costings, didn't know. We didn't know. The Australian people didn't know."... Before the election, the Coalition promised its recruitment freeze would not apply to the Australian Federal Police, Customs, Australian Defence Force, ASIO and other intelligence agencies. "We're currently reconsidering our approach to this policy and we will consider in particular the advice from the Commission of Audit," said Mr Cormann. ...But shadow assistant treasurer and Member for Fraser Andrew Leigh says Labor never set a target for job losses. "We imposed an efficiency dividend it's true but we certainly encouraged agencies to find savings in areas like travel and procurement rather than through making redundancies," he said.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-19/government-puts-public-service-cuts-on-hold/5101178

They didn't know? We on Big Footy knew about the efficiency dividend but the Liberals, the PBO and the media didn't know? Pull the other one.

This isn't completely a 'told you so' post (although, of course, I did, repeatedly say these savings were completely unrealistic). This is pointing out the blatant lie in Mattias Cormann's statement.

The PBO costing says of the natural attrition of the 12,000 public servants that:

"This costing is considered to be of low to medium reliability as the PBO faces data limitations as staffing forecasts are only provided for the 2013-14 financial year and agency estimates for employee expenses are yet to reflect key public service efficiency saving measures from the 2013-14 Budget and the 2013 Economic Statement."

So they didn't take into account the efficiency dividends despite the fact it is a mathematical impost so should be relatively easily modelled you'd think. Of course that dividend could theoretically reduce the savings the Coalition wants to budget.

ASIS, ASIO, Defence (incl Reserves), the Feds and Customs/Border Protection are exempt. They have assumed a cost per public servant of $134,716 with a wage increase of 5.9% p.a. calculated monthly and 6000 Public Servants removed from this month through to the end of this FY. As pointed out in the CT article Yibbida linked to, the Coalition haven't even started the employment freeze, so I don't know how this is ever going to work out. I've tried fiddling around to get the numbers to work, but there are obviously still a bunch of assumptions they aren't telling us.

For those who can't be bothered, I think we can just wait until the economic update to see just how they pull this rabbit out of their arse/hat (is that the origin of that insult?).

 

[GuruJane]

Perhaps you should read your own link:

shadow assistant treasurer and Member for Fraser Andrew Leigh says Labor never set a target for job losses. "We imposed an efficiency dividend it's true but we certainly encouraged agencies to find savings in areas like travel and procurement rather than through making redundancies," he said.

So if the Labor govt itself did not know its efficiency dividend would result in 14,500 redundancies, how did you know Ratts? Perhaps you should have told them at the time?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Perhaps you should read your own link:

So if the Labor govt itself did not know its efficiency dividend would result in 14,500 redundancies, how did you know Ratts? Perhaps you should have told them at the time?

I did read the link. Obviously. Unlike others on here I value actual information above opinion.

As I'm sure you well know, the exact number of redundancies isn't relevant. Everyone knew the efficency dividend was in place. Everyone knew Labor had already cut into the public service. The Liberals just pretended these facts didn't exist in order to suggest they had an easy answer to getting the budget on track to a surplus (that didn't involve tax rises). Hence why I was immediately skeptical of their costings. Hence why I picked a key part of their costings (originally costed at $4.8 billion and then increased to $5.2 billion - no reasons given for this $400 million change and $400 million isn't chump change) to analyse how realistic it was. I said it wasn't realistic. I advised BigFooty users it wasn't. I advised media commentators it wasn't. Nonetheless there was nowhere near enough focus pre-election on the fact the Liberals were again being wildly inaccurate in their proposed budgets. They were lying to the public.

Now as per your statement above you seem to agree that either the PBO (as directed by the Liberals) couldn't accurately predict the savings because:
(a) they didn't take into account the efficiency dividend that everyone knew was in place;
(b) they weren't skillful enough to calculate the impact of the efficiency dividend; or
(c) provide another option

Given the PBO's own report said "This costing is considered to be of low to medium reliability as the PBO faces data limitations as staffing forecasts are only provided for the 2013-14 financial year and agency estimates for employee expenses are yet to reflect key public service efficiency saving measures from the 2013-14 Budget and the 2013 Economic Statement." it is fair to say that it is entirely the responsibility of the Coalition for including this inaccurate forecast in their pre-election budget.

No matter which way you split it, the Liberals were either incompetent or they lied.

 

[GuruJane]

Ratts, please assist with the link to where anyone in the media revealed before the election that Labor's efficiency dividend was going to lead to more than 14,500 public service redundancies.

Can you also please relink to where you posted this during campaign? At the time KRudd Bowen were out on the stump screaming about public service cuts, but they never mentioned they were their own? Or did they?

Cut, cut, cut to the bone

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

I just stated the exact number of redundacies the efficiency dividend brought about wasn't relevant, yet you repeat your same non-point again. Do you think we're dumb?

At least the fact you are trying so hard to spin this in favour of the Liberals, proves how bad it looks for them.