Roast Australian Politics Stuffing Up Australia - Treasurer Joe Hockey Pg26

[forwardflanker]

Tony will only be a one-term PM, which is fantastic. I think people only voted the coalition in because they were sick of Gillard/Rudd. Shorten is a fresh face although he has a bit of dirt on his hands. The coalition spent the past six years bitching and moaning and being negative, but they didn't actually develop any policies. They have absolutely no new ideas. All they want to do is harp back to the John Howard years (ie - 1950s Australia).

+1, Shorten has a bit of a problem with his association with the unions. Also the whole faceless man thing but I don't think that's that big of a deal tbh. I doubt anyone was thinking about winning the next election when they were deciding to make Shorten leader tbh.

 

[forwardflanker]

I don't get why Labor have such a bad rep with the economy. Keating basically built our modern economy and the great achievement of the last Labor government was being about the only Western nation to not hit a recession in the GFC.

Right now Turnbull is the cleverest guy in parliament and it's not close. The hard right and nationals are terrified of him and will never let him lead which is a pity because he could do great things as a leader who is pretty much dead center (pretty much the only circumstances I could ever see myself voting liberal, he should really be in the labor party tbh.

I reckon Abbott's chance of reelection will largely be determined by what happens over the next 6 months. If he stops the boats then he got a good chance. If he can't then he's going to have to explain to the public why he has broken international law, screwed our international reputation, our reputation with the Indonesians, shut down government accountability and tried to sell one of the most absurd fear campaigns in political history

 

[76woodenspooners]

If public infrastructure is sold to private industry, it passes out of the public domain and into the private domain. If government fails to replace it - and lets face it no private company is going to buy public infrastructure if the government are simply going to replace it because the prime reason for buying up public infrastructure is unchallenged markets.

There are a couple of points there ...

(1) If a government sells a port, they're not going to use the proceeds to build another port next door to it in competition. They're going to use it to build an airport or a train line or something else like that. The new owners of the port aren't going to care about that.

(2) A big point I'm making is that I don't see that we should sell public assets into unchallenged markets. Yes, that's what private companies want, and yes, monopolies attract a higher price - but until someone can convince me how privatizing a monopoly essential asset can be a good thing then I'm against dead it.

Granted they don't disappear but their value as capital raising surety for the government does, so my question remains if a government sells off all its big assetts what surety can it provide when raising funds?

The RBA holds gold and bonds. Actually, there's a fun task for a financial journalist - go back and revisit Costello's decision to sell much of our gold stocks in exchange for US treasury bonds and see if we were better off for the decision. I strongly, strongly doubt it.

An asset can only have value (capital raising ability) if it can be liquidated.

That's the problem with many aboriginal communities - they've got a lot of land, but they can't borrow against it because by law it cannot be sold. So they can't raise money to do something with the land.

So the government cannot use a power station to borrow against if legislation prevents the power station from being sold. So by corporatizing assets (giving them an independent board, etc) they can become an asset to borrow against (eg: Australia Post amongst your examples). That's my basic understanding - others will know more about that stuff.

In my childhood we had courses in social studies that actually touched more than fleetingly upon the government system we have here, its origins, aims, obligations and operations -something that is sadly neglected in todays education system apparently.

Nowhere in all those lessons or in any text since that I have read has been aspoused the practice of putting cost saving before essential services. This has been slowly and stealthily but surely filtered in to almost every essential service you can imagine. Everywhere from fire services to nursing homes, hospitals, ambulance services, police, communications - the list is almost unending - everywhere, a thousand tiny cuts and a thousand more, slowly and almost unnoticed our services have been stripped to the bone and further yet the cuts continue with no sign of abatement.

Everything has to be paid for somehow - that's always been the case and has never changed. The salaries that get transferred into the bank accounts of soldiers and nurses and policemen and firefighters and welfare recipients have to come from somewhere? No government should supply services without considering how it is going to be paid for. If money were no object, every country in the world would have the best army and build hospitals and have a welfare system.

The only choices I see are:

(1) Pay for government services out of tax revenue. This means keeping a balanced budget. This means accounting for how much is being earnt and how much is being spent and making sure the latter doesn't exceed the former (I'm in favour of this)

(2) Pay for government services out of government infrastructure sales. (I think this is a really bad idea because it ultimately leads to the degeneration of society. It's OK to pay for infrastructure out of infrastructure sales, but not services)

(3) Pay for government services through government loans - issuing of government bonds. (I think this is a really bad idea - Whilst I'd entertain the idea of my kids and grandkids paying for building a school or university, I'm dead against them paying for services for my generation.

(4) Paying for government services by printing more money. Inflation, false-economy, doesn't work (I'm against this)

(5) Cutting back services. (Option (1) is clearly the best option, but if that's not possible then to me this is the lesser of the evils)

(6) Are there any other options?

What would you do?

 

[76woodenspooners]

+1, Shorten has a bit of a problem with his association with the unions.

It didn't hurt Hawke. Sure, that was a long time ago, but I don't think Australia's attitude to the unions have changed much since then. When was the last time we had Union strife in Australia? (wildcat strikes, pickets, etc)

Also the whole faceless man thing but I don't think that's that big of a deal tbh.

Me neither. I don't think the Libs have had any success at all with turning the electorate against the ALP on at issue.

I doubt anyone was thinking about winning the next election when they were deciding to make Shorten leader tbh.

I think if they wanted somebody who was purely a caretaker leader they would have voted for Albanese to head the caucus.

 

[76woodenspooners]

I don't get why Labor have such a bad rep with the economy. Keating basically built our modern economy and the great achievement of the last Labor government was being about the only Western nation to not hit a recession in the GFC.

I think the reputation mainly comes from the states. Costello built up surpluses while the state Labor governments racked up debt.

Right now Turnbull is the cleverest guy in parliament and it's not close. The hard right and nationals are terrified of him and will never let him lead which is a pity because he could do great things as a leader who is pretty much dead center (pretty much the only circumstances I could ever see myself voting liberal, ...

His ship has sailed.

His party showed that they would rather remain in opposition than have him running the show. Hard to see that situation changing anytime soon. Hard to see the Libs making the same mistake as ALP and changing a sitting Prime Minister. Hard to imagine Abbott giving up the Prime Ministership voluntarily.

So the only way I can see Turnbull leading the Libs again is if Abbott loses the next election, Abbott resigning as leader. A bunch of right wing people in the party losing their seats or retiring, and then Turnbull being installed again - that scenario is pretty unlikely.

... he should really be in the labor party tbh.

Yeah, I think it's generally acknowledged he's in the wrong party. Too late to change now.

I reckon Abbott's chance of reelection will largely be determined by what happens over the next 6 months. If he stops the boats then he got a good chance. If he can't then he's going to have to explain to the public why he has broken international law, screwed our international reputation, our reputation with the Indonesians, shut down government accountability and tried to sell one of the most absurd fear campaigns in political history

I think it's a sad indictment that it's such a blanket issue. I don't mean any disrespect to the asylum seekers, their plight is very important to them. But surely there are other issues this country should be thinking about?

 

[76woodenspooners]

Really? My impression was that he was clever in working out early on that there the public were enthusiastic for change just rode that wave by matching a lot of Howard's promises.

There were issues he stuck his neck out on ... "Sorry", "Kyoto" and broadband are examples that come to mind. He could have kept his mouth shut and kept a small target like Abbott, or the NSW State Liberal party did.

 

[Captivating]

If we want the Government to be fiscally effective, we should look to Norway and Singapore who are the gold standard at managing natural resources and infrastructure.

 

[Magpie Girl]

If we want the Government to be fiscally effective, we should look to Norway and Singapore who are the gold standard at managing natural resources and infrastructure.

And Finland

 

[jonbe54]

There were issues he stuck his neck out on ... "Sorry", "Kyoto" and broadband are examples that come to mind. He could have kept his mouth shut and kept a small target like Abbott, or the NSW State Liberal party did.

Yes low profile Abbott until he got his taste of power, very much like Howard. Sly decietful and utterly poisonous.

 

[forwardflanker]

I think it's a sad indictment that it's such a blanket issue. I don't mean any disrespect to the asylum seekers, their plight is very important to them. But surely there are other issues this country should be thinking about?

+1,000

It's a disgrace that this issue seems to have hijacked Australian politics imo

 

[jonbe54]

+1,000

It's a disgrace that this issue seems to have hijacked Australian politics imo

Like Howard before him Abbott appeals to the lowest common denominator. Remember Howard's manipulation of their plight to win the vote of the rednecks?? I do, it's become a standard tactic of the Liberal party and one that usually works.

Disgrace??

It's criminal negligence of good governance.

 

[Captivating]

If politicians were held more accountable, we might have a decent political system. Where's the accountability for the mistakes….home insulation, the white elephants……NBN, the corruption….MP entitlements.

No wonder most people simply don't care and find the whole election thing one massive yawn and burden. If it wasn't for sausage sizzles, we'd have a greater incidence of non voting.

 

[Quicky]

The only choices I see are:

(1) Pay for government services out of tax revenue. This means keeping a balanced budget. This means accounting for how much is being earnt and how much is being spent and making sure the latter doesn't exceed the former (I'm in favour of this)

(2) Pay for government services out of government infrastructure sales. (I think this is a really bad idea because it ultimately leads to the degeneration of society. It's OK to pay for infrastructure out of infrastructure sales, but not services)

(3) Pay for government services through government loans - issuing of government bonds. (I think this is a really bad idea - Whilst I'd entertain the idea of my kids and grandkids paying for building a school or university, I'm dead against them paying for services for my generation.

(4) Paying for government services by printing more money. Inflation, false-economy, doesn't work (I'm against this)

(5) Cutting back services. (Option (1) is clearly the best option, but if that's not possible then to me this is the lesser of the evils)

(6) Are there any other options?

What would you do?

Perhaps the answer lies somewhere here:

If we want the Government to be fiscally effective, we should look to Norway and Singapore who are the gold standard at managing natural resources and infrastructure.

 

[jonbe54]

Perhaps the answer lies somewhere here:

No good options

option 5 (cutting back services) has been and continues to be in full swing, they are already a fraction of what they were when I started working and the hacking continues.

Once you start down that track its the easy fix all governements seem addicted to it but where does it end? It's been going on in this country for as long as I've been voting and I dare say longer in the US.

I'll repeat again - what happens when there are no more services to cut?

I certainly don't have an answer to the conundrum and despite their doublespeak neither do any financal experts.

 

[76woodenspooners]

If we want the Government to be fiscally effective, we should look to Norway ...

Think of Norway as being the Saudia Arabia of Europe. They get more revenues from oil than they can ever dream of spending so it's hard for them to stuff up. But yeah, they place a higher value on infrastructure than we do in Australia, so that's good for them.

...and Singapore who are the gold standard at managing natural resources and infrastructure.

Singapore are for all intents and purposes a one party state. They've had the same party running the show since 1959. And Lee Kwan Yew was a once in a generation nation builder who ran the show for 31 years.

Could you imagine any prime minister of Australia who you would be happy to run this country for 31 years? Or a party (ALP, Libs, Greens ... Pick one) who you would be happy to rule practically unchallenged for 55 years?

One of the problems we have in Australia is our 3 year election cycles. Governments can only think three years ahead, how can they get anything done? The last government introduced the carbon tax - and it only lasts a year or two before this successive government repeals it. The last government introduced the National Broadband Network - the current government are knobbling it. Democracy is wonderful and all, but it's sometimes hard to get anything done.

Yes, I don't mind swinging governments because it keeps them accountable but the 3 year election cycles are far too short.

And Finland

It's been a while since I've looked at Finland but I remember them relying on the accounting reports from Nokia before the government could do its own budget. If that's still the case I can't imagine things being too good in Finland at the moment

 

[76woodenspooners]

I'll repeat again - what happens when there are no more services to cut?

Government revenue for this fiscal year is projected to be $387 billion.

Where is the money going if we're not spending it on services or infrastructure?

 

[jonbe54]

Think of Norway as being the Saudia Arabia of Europe. They get more revenues from oil than they can ever dream of spending so it's hard for them to stuff up. But yeah, they place a higher value on infrastructure than we do in Australia, so that's good for them.



Singapore are for all intents and purposes a one party state. They've had the same party running the show since 1959. And Lee Kwan Yew was a once in a generation nation builder who ran the show for 31 years.

Could you imagine any prime minister of Australia who you would be happy to run this country for 31 years? Or a party (ALP, Libs, Greens ... Pick one) who you would be happy to rule practically unchallenged for 55 years?

One of the problems we have in Australia is our 3 year election cycles. Governments can only think three years ahead, how can they get anything done? The last government introduced the carbon tax - and it only lasts a year or two before this successive government repeals it. The last government introduced the National Broadband Network - the current government are knobbling it. Democracy is wonderful and all, but it's sometimes hard to get anything done.

Yes, I don't mind swinging governments because it keeps them accountable but the 3 year election cycles are far too short.



It's been a while since I've looked at Finland but I remember them relying on the accounting reports from Nokia before the government could do its own budget. If that's still the case I can't imagine things being too good in Finland at the moment

I understand your frustration in terms of one party tearing down anothers work 76 but imagine the damage extra years could do with the wrong party in power.

For that matter as you are so annoyed by parties not being able to get things done what about the power of a hostile senate to completely frustrate the intentions of the voters - those of us who lived through it will never forget the farce of a Liberal dominated Senate denying supply to Gough Whitlam and then convincing that utter ponce Kerr to dissolve the government on the excuse of no money to govern.

Many say the power of the senate keeps the incumbent government from excesses but nothing curbs the excesses of the senate.

 

[jonbe54]

Government revenue for this fiscal year is projected to be $387 billion.

Where is the money going if we're not spending it on services or infrastructure?

I'm not talking about revenue, that's the other side of the coin 76 I'm talking about constant ongoing cuts - which comes in part from - you guessed it infrastructure and services cuts.

It's a vicious and destructive cycle which has been going on for decades and guess what?

We aren't getting ahead in the game.

 

[Quicky]

No good options

option 5 (cutting back services) has been and continues to be in full swing, they are already a fraction of what they were when I started working and the hacking continues.

Once you start down that track its the easy fix all governements seem addicted to it but where does it end? It's been going on in this country for as long as I've been voting and I dare say longer in the US.

I'll repeat again - what happens when there are no more services to cut?

I certainly don't have an answer to the conundrum and despite their doublespeak neither do any financal experts.

Apologies John, I don't think I was clear with my post. I was referring to Captivated's post being in part the answer to generating revenue. I think we could get far more value than we are currently getting for our natural resources. In a similar vein to Norway who manage their resources far better than we do. Perhaps if we were better at getting more value from our resources, at a more sustainable rate, that could go a long way towards solving any revenue issues that we have. Hell it does insulate us somewhat anyway. But I just feel we let far too much of that profit, which is in essence our resources as citizens of this country, go to fill the coffers of private interests (both domestically and internationally).

 

[jonbe54]

Government revenue for this fiscal year is projected to be $387 billion.

Where is the money going if we're not spending it on services or infrastructure?

So you advocate tearing down infrastructure and services to replace with infrastructure and services?

Interesting, if we are unlucky after a couple more decades of chasing our tail the entire country will disappear up its own @rsehole.

 

[76woodenspooners]

I understand your frustration in terms of one party tearing down anothers work 76 but imagine the damage extra years could do with the wrong party in power.

It's not the government who is running Australia - it's industry and commerce and the hard work of its citizens. The government are mere facilitators in this process - they make the policies, provide the infrastructure, the security and the rule of law.

The government just need to make decisions, any decisions, and stick to it them let the country get on with it.

I grant you, there are good decisions and there are bad decisions. But usually any decision is better than indecision.

When governments change too frequently or the repeal laws ... then how can business and citizens be expected to make reasonable plans for their future?

 

[76woodenspooners]

So you advocate tearing down infrastructure and services to replace with infrastructure and services?

Interesting, if we are unlucky after a couple more decades of chasing our tail the entire country will disappear up its own @rsehole.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion?

My point is that if our government get $387 billion in tax receipts ...

... And they are are selling off all our infrastructure to the point where we have no more infrastructure to sell (as you say)

...And they are cutting services to the point where there are no more services left to cut (as you say)

Then where is all that money getting spent?

 

[jonbe54]

Apologies John, I don't think I was clear with my post. I was referring to Captivated's post being in part the answer to generating revenue. I think we could get far more value than we are currently getting for our natural resources. In a similar vein to Norway who manage their resources far better than we do. Perhaps if we were better at getting more value from our resources, at a more sustainable rate, that could go a long way towards solving any revenue issues that we have. Hell it does insulate us somewhat anyway. But I just feel we let far too much of that profit, which is in essence our resources as citizens of this country, go to fill the coffers of private interests (both domestically and internationally).

Understood Quicky I have blocked captivated for reasons which you probably can guess so was unaware of your source.

I'm certainly no economic theorist but as a layman I have been told for some time now that the greatest revenue comes from end products (value added) and that primary producers are low man on the totem pole. If this is the case then the reckless baiting of GMH as the second last standing heavy manufacturer is the most reprehensible act of acting against the public interest that the Libs have yet to manage.

Toyota has already flagged that they are likely to retire from local manufacture that leaves us where???

No local manufacturer - what happens to the auto industry suppliers then? They will go to the wall of course. Who supplies them? Hundreds and hundreds of little independent component and accessory suppliers will go to the wall as well. Over a period of a few years we are talking about the loss of perhaps a couple of thousand jobs which of course is terrible.

But what is truly hideous is the loss of training and industry opportunity - already we have lost our textile industry, as well as home electronics, whitegoods - the list goes on. This country used to MAKE things - not any more, by bowing to the god of corporate self intrest we are left without any sort of a manufacturing base. Our children and their children face a future with the bulk of our GNP sent out of the country to foreign manufacturers.

The market for our sheep has all but dwindled from existance, the ore won't last forever what on earth will our grandchildren have to trade for that which we no longer make?

 

[jonbe54]

Not sure how you came to that conclusion?

My point is that if our government get $387 billion in tax receipts ...

... And they are are selling off all our infrastructure to the point where we have no more infrastructure to sell (as you say)

...And they are cutting services to the point where there are no more services left to cut (as you say)

Then where is all that money getting spent?

76 not as I say old son. Take a look around you - all the big service providers are now privatised, all the state railways, new roads are often privatised, the freight rail network that used to span the country and provide cheap and reliable transportation of goods has been wound back in favour of road transport by . . . wait for it private companies.

And every year there are new cuts, new exigencies.

I would love to know where the money is going 76 it certainly isn't to maintain government services.

 

[Captivating]

76 - spot on. The three year cycle breeds a culture of doing only what is needed to be re-elected. Why risk investing in longer term projects for another Government to take the credit.

As for sources of revenue, wages and consumption are the key. If you think we can compete in manufacturing, then you sadly have your head in the sand. The only way manufacturing works here is if, 1. the Government apples tariffs or 2. Australian become ultra patriotic and only buy Australian.

Irrespective of what the solution is, some on this board will continue to blame the Liberals for everything that's wrong with the world. Maybe the Libs were the mastermind of Windows 8!!!