Economy: last 8 years

what is the driver behind Howard's economic performance?

  • Conveniently it was the previous ALP Govt

    Votes: 10 58.8%
  • What strong economy? The economy has been crap.

    Votes: 3 17.6%
  • The Govt has no influence on the economy or IR

    Votes: 4 23.5%

  • Total voters
    17

bunsen burner

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 12, 2001
Posts
32,664
Likes
1,427
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
West Coast
Thread starter #1
For all you delusional ALP supporters and anti Howards crusaders, what is your theory as to the driver behind Howard and Costello's strong and stable economic management?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

- PC -

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Posts
30,268
Likes
23
Location
Where No Birds Fly
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide/Sturt/Wingfield
#3
bunsen burner said:
Sorry, forgot to add the fourth option:

d) Shut up you muppets.
Ill lock in D thanks Eddie

How about the shyteloads from the GST?

How about a cycle of ups and downs which the Howard regime were fortunate to ride on the downward spiral.

How about pressure on the Reserve Bank NOT to raise interest rates 6 months before the election?
 

MightyFighting

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Posts
10,300
Likes
57
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Port Melbourne
#4
It's a combination of good weather (metaphorically), Hawke-Keating reforms and not ****ing up.

If you think John Howard is some sort of managerial genius, then you're some sort of fool.

But having said that; the economy is over-rated. It is a myth that everyone is better off if the economy measures well.
For example, unemployment: The unemployment rate is very low, but the proportion of people employed part time (which usually means employed very little) is significantly higher. Hence, rather than creating more work, it has just been shared around and sold to the lowest bidder in a Dutch auction.
 

Seb

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 4, 2003
Posts
3,715
Likes
64
Location
Searching.
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Fulham + NJN
#5
Rising external debt has been the major downfall, in my opinion

Overall, the economic management has been most admirable, but there hasn't been much to contend.
 

pazza

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Posts
31,476
Likes
5,414
Location
Hoppers Crossing
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Liverpool
#6
You can't deny there wasn't a contribution BB, given 1993-1996..it's a shame that such factors have been denied officially...I often ask this question about the economy..had the measures in 1993 were not brought into place, just how much harder would it have been for Howard and Costello?
 

bunsen burner

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 12, 2001
Posts
32,664
Likes
1,427
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
West Coast
Thread starter #7
PerthCrow said:
Ill lock in D thanks Eddie

How about the shyteloads from the GST?
The actual GST alone wouldn't make much difference, but tax across the board would have made it easier. Revenue from sale of Telstra was good for them as well.


How about a cycle of ups and downs which the Howard regime were fortunate to ride on the downward spiral.
He's been strong and stable for 8 years including a time when the Asian economies were very shaky. Has also been able to ease the housing market slowly (with help from the RB) rather than quickly.

How about pressure on the Reserve Bank NOT to raise interest rates 6 months before the election?
Either way, they got it right.
 

bunsen burner

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 12, 2001
Posts
32,664
Likes
1,427
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
West Coast
Thread starter #8
MightyFighting said:
But having said that; the economy is over-rated.
No it's not on two accounts:

1) The economy is the most important election issue for nearly all of those people who are geared. People's security (i.e. their house) is much more imprtant than a war, an FTA, or the populism of Latham.

2) When the economy is good there are jobs and there is low inflation. This is the base to any good social policy. No point in having a great social policy if people aren't in a good economic situation.

It is a myth that everyone is better off if the economy measures well.
It's a myth that you think people actually think that. As a whole people are better off when the economy is good. Of course there are exceptions, but it can't be denied low inflation and low unemployment is a good situation.

For example, unemployment: The unemployment rate is very low, but the proportion of people employed part time (which usually means employed very little) is significantly higher. Hence, rather than creating more work, it has just been shared around and sold to the lowest bidder in a Dutch auction.
I've been in the work force for 16 or 17 years. Forgetting figures and methods of measuring, its never been as good. People surely know that it doesn't get better than this but still insist on twisting figures around to suit their argument.

Can anyone say with a straight face that the general feeling about the unemployment rate has ever been better in recent years?
 

ramjet

Team Captain
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
526
Likes
0
AFL Club
Collingwood
#9
PerthCrow said:
Ill lock in D thanks Eddie

How about the shyteloads from the GST?

QUOTE]

every cent of which goes to the states - for all their carping over the gst, i dont see any of them giving their millions back in protest
 

MightyFighting

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Posts
10,300
Likes
57
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Port Melbourne
#10
ramjet said:
PerthCrow said:
Ill lock in D thanks Eddie

How about the shyteloads from the GST?

QUOTE]

every cent of which goes to the states - for all their carping over the gst, i dont see any of them giving their millions back in protest
The commonwealth always gave money to the states, it's just that now they've earmarked the GST money for that purpose.
 

ramjet

Team Captain
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
526
Likes
0
AFL Club
Collingwood
#11
MightyFighting said:
The commonwealth always gave money to the states, it's just that now they've earmarked the GST money for that purpose.
er, no. your comment suggests the gst is the full extent of commonwealth funding to states and you know this is clearly incorrect. additionally, the original statement that gst revenue has somehow fueled the economy was the reason for my response.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Pessimistic

TheBrownDog
Joined
Sep 13, 2000
Posts
66,388
Likes
26,090
Location
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
#12
Hawke/Keating did bring about many reforms which did transform the economy, mostly good but some bad. However the legacy in voters minds is the 17% interest rates.

Howard/Costello have done very few reforms but have freed up access to mineral wealth which was hard for the ALP being dependent on green votes.
Just as it was 'right' for the ALP to bring about reforms, in the main it was right for the Libs to follow 'steady as she goes' policies.

The asian crisis is mentioned a lot but before that a lot of investment went to asia. While there was a crisis the investemt went to 'safer' economies with lower returns - australia was one.

I personally don't think Howard and Costello have really handled a 'crisis' and you couldn't say if they would be good or not. Even eight years on you can't really rate them in this aspect.

To their credit they haven't caused on either - see note on not many reforms.

Just a point on interest rates and house prices. Although it seemd bad when rates were 18%, house prices are 2-3 times higher now than then - which means people are much more exposed now.
 

Rodion

Club Legend
Joined
Sep 1, 2003
Posts
1,423
Likes
0
Location
Behind you...
Other Teams
Catters
#13
Howard and friends have managed not to screw up. That's all.

Hypothetically speaking, if low unemployment is the sign of a strong economy the wouldn't faking low unemployment by sharing the same job among two or three people be a sign of a shaky economy painted and dressed up to look healthy?
 

MightyFighting

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Posts
10,300
Likes
57
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Port Melbourne
#14
ramjet said:
er, no. your comment suggests the gst is the full extent of commonwealth funding to states and you know this is clearly incorrect. additionally, the original statement that gst revenue has somehow fueled the economy was the reason for my response.
No, my point is that the GST money may be offically going to the states, but because the commonweath would have to give that amount of money to the states regardless, it is in effect going to the federal government.
 

Goldenblue

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 2, 2001
Posts
8,729
Likes
3,176
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Swan Districts
#15
Rodion said:
Howard and friends have managed not to screw up. That's all.

Hypothetically speaking, if low unemployment is the sign of a strong economy the wouldn't faking low unemployment by sharing the same job among two or three people be a sign of a shaky economy painted and dressed up to look healthy?
Always has been the case with either Govt.

Both parties have dressed up the figures to make it look good for them. For example, there are many in the 45-55 year old bracket that have given up looking for work as there is not the jobs for those in that age group.

Also as there is a work for the dole scheme dreamt up by this Govt, these people are not officially listed on the unemployment figures when they are released. The economic figures sprouted by Costello are nowhere true as they like to believe you to think. It's all bull**** that the Govt sprouts.
 

Bomaz_Magic

Club Legend
Joined
Jun 1, 2004
Posts
1,031
Likes
0
Location
the lodge
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Essendon Bombers
#16
bunsen burner said:
For all you delusional ALP supporters and anti Howards crusaders, what is your theory as to the driver behind Howard and Costello's strong and stable economic management?
I don't like to get into political arguments with people because I doubt they fully understand and comprehend the Australian political and economic situation - however, I am hoping that you Bunsen Burner can understand.
So here goes nothing, a major, and possibly the only reason the government have such good economic growth figures, low unemployment, price sability, etc... is due to the reformist Hawke and Keating govts. The implemented economic reforms known as microeconomic reform - with things such as labour market deregulation (reducing the role of unions in the workplace, thus increasing productivity and efficiency) decreased tariffs, privatised GBE's (ie CBA) and other numerous measures, however, as you know (well I hope you do), micreconomic reforms do not immediately have an impact, taking 7-10 years, thats right 7-10 years (the howard govt have only been in 8!!). Further, theses reforms initially resulted in increased unemployment,a s firms tried to become more efficient and productive by removing inefficient work practices - the easiest way to do so is to sack your worst workers, however, if you look at the u/employment figures, once theses reforms began to kick in (that is growth rose) u/employment fell as the reforms had their intended impact. ence, Bunsen Burner, Hawke and Keating are the mai instigators for this good period of growth, whilst Howard has just continued on and taken credit from the ALP, further, if the ALP are such bad economic managers how come under Beazley and Crean this was never an issue, but under Latham it is, I'll tell you why because Latham is incpompetent and any other leader would have swallowed Howard up over his I/R Bull***t. Also Bunsen Burner their is a well known saying in AUstralian politics, when you need the job done and someone is required to turn around things,the ALP are voted in, whilst when everything is going along spiffingly the Liberals are voted in, evidenced in the 1930's when Bruce was voted out and in 1941 when the greatest PM of all time, John Curtin was voted into office to lad the country during its most difficult hours. Bunsuen Burner i hope that you were able to comprehend this and also were able to look at this unbiased and objective view which if you still do not believe has also been expressed in many great political texts.
 

bunsen burner

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 12, 2001
Posts
32,664
Likes
1,427
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
West Coast
Thread starter #17
Bomaz_Magic said:
when you need the job done and someone is required to turn around things,the ALP are voted in, whilst when everything is going along spiffingly the Liberals are voted in,
I see. So the ALP always sacrifice their performance to put the country back on it's rails and then the Libs come in, take the credit, and finally derail it for the ALP to come back in and perform heroic and unheralded sacrifices. Riiiiight.
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,963
Likes
6,233
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#18
Bomaz_Magic said:
I don't like to get into political arguments with people because I doubt they fully understand and comprehend the Australian political and economic situation - however, I am hoping that you Bunsen Burner can understand.
So here goes nothing, a major, and possibly the only reason the government have such good economic growth figures, low unemployment, price sability, etc... is due to the reformist Hawke and Keating govts. The implemented economic reforms known as microeconomic reform - with things such as labour market deregulation (reducing the role of unions in the workplace, thus increasing productivity and efficiency) decreased tariffs, privatised GBE's (ie CBA) and other numerous measures, however, as you know (well I hope you do), micreconomic reforms do not immediately have an impact, taking 7-10 years, thats right 7-10 years (the howard govt have only been in 8!!). Further, theses reforms initially resulted in increased unemployment,a s firms tried to become more efficient and productive by removing inefficient work practices - the easiest way to do so is to sack your worst workers, however, if you look at the u/employment figures, once theses reforms began to kick in (that is growth rose) u/employment fell as the reforms had their intended impact. ence, Bunsen Burner, Hawke and Keating are the mai instigators for this good period of growth, whilst Howard has just continued on and taken credit from the ALP, further, if the ALP are such bad economic managers how come under Beazley and Crean this was never an issue, but under Latham it is, I'll tell you why because Latham is incpompetent and any other leader would have swallowed Howard up over his I/R Bull***t. Also Bunsen Burner their is a well known saying in AUstralian politics, when you need the job done and someone is required to turn around things,the ALP are voted in, whilst when everything is going along spiffingly the Liberals are voted in, evidenced in the 1930's when Bruce was voted out and in 1941 when the greatest PM of all time, John Curtin was voted into office to lad the country during its most difficult hours. Bunsuen Burner i hope that you were able to comprehend this and also were able to look at this unbiased and objective view which if you still do not believe has also been expressed in many great political texts.
use some paragraphs FFS!

re your points.
A) Hawke initial burts of deregulation was in the main following the recommendations of the Campbell report which was iniated by Howard!
B) Keating was forced into floating the dollar by market pressure
C) IR reform was minimal - remember all those accords??
D) re privatisation, I take it its OK for the ALP to privatise something but not Howard or Kennett
E) Cant remember the ALP carrying out alot of microeconomic reform re transport and the docks for example
F) how many FTA's did Hawke and Keating achieve?
G) Keating left a $10b budget deficit.
H) Keating forced the economy into an avoidable recession
I) Only ALP voters would say that Curtin was the greatest ever PM. He turned to the Yanks - so what. He was forced to. Big Deal. He created the welfare state which has cost Australia massively ever since.
J) Economic policy was always an issue under Crean, he is clueless in the area.
K) where do the 7-10 years figures come from? Thatcher, Reagan and Kennett all achieved results more quickly than that.

Your views unbiased and objective? Really?

At least Bombers 2003 is mildly amusing on occasions.

I can fully understand why you dont like to get into political arguments with people, the humiliation must be difficult.
 

Seb

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 4, 2003
Posts
3,715
Likes
64
Location
Searching.
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Fulham + NJN
#19
Bomaz_Magic said:
I don't like to get into political arguments with people because I doubt they fully understand and comprehend the Australian political and economic situation - however, I am hoping that you Bunsen Burner can understand.
So here goes nothing, a major, and possibly the only reason the government have such good economic growth figures, low unemployment, price sability, etc... is due to the reformist Hawke and Keating govts. The implemented economic reforms known as microeconomic reform - with things such as labour market deregulation (reducing the role of unions in the workplace, thus increasing productivity and efficiency) decreased tariffs, privatised GBE's (ie CBA) and other numerous measures, however, as you know (well I hope you do), micreconomic reforms do not immediately have an impact, taking 7-10 years, thats right 7-10 years (the howard govt have only been in 8!!). Further, theses reforms initially resulted in increased unemployment,a s firms tried to become more efficient and productive by removing inefficient work practices - the easiest way to do so is to sack your worst workers, however, if you look at the u/employment figures, once theses reforms began to kick in (that is growth rose) u/employment fell as the reforms had their intended impact. ence, Bunsen Burner, Hawke and Keating are the mai instigators for this good period of growth, whilst Howard has just continued on and taken credit from the ALP, further, if the ALP are such bad economic managers how come under Beazley and Crean this was never an issue, but under Latham it is, I'll tell you why because Latham is incpompetent and any other leader would have swallowed Howard up over his I/R Bull***t. Also Bunsen Burner their is a well known saying in AUstralian politics, when you need the job done and someone is required to turn around things,the ALP are voted in, whilst when everything is going along spiffingly the Liberals are voted in, evidenced in the 1930's when Bruce was voted out and in 1941 when the greatest PM of all time, John Curtin was voted into office to lad the country during its most difficult hours. Bunsuen Burner i hope that you were able to comprehend this and also were able to look at this unbiased and objective view which if you still do not believe has also been expressed in many great political texts.
Copyright Indigo Publishing - Political Studies & Economics 2004.

Oh, and [/Mr Teese][/Ms Simpson]
 
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Posts
25
Likes
0
Other Teams
Collingwood
#20
the Libs may have been able to manage the economy well, allowing for it to be strong, but its the Hawke-Keating Goveernment which created the strong economy thorough reforms-deregulation, privatisation etc. its basically a case of the libs taking credit for the outcome of Labor's actions.
 

kirky

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Dec 29, 2000
Posts
9,718
Likes
6,438
AFL Club
Adelaide
#21
medusala said:
re your points.
A) Hawke initial burts of deregulation was in the main following the recommendations of the Campbell report which was iniated by Howard!
B) Keating was forced into floating the dollar by market pressure
C) IR reform was minimal - remember all those accords??
D) re privatisation, I take it its OK for the ALP to privatise something but not Howard or Kennett
E) Cant remember the ALP carrying out alot of microeconomic reform re transport and the docks for example
F) how many FTA's did Hawke and Keating achieve?
G) Keating left a $10b budget deficit.
H) Keating forced the economy into an avoidable recession
I) Only ALP voters would say that Curtin was the greatest ever PM. He turned to the Yanks - so what. He was forced to. Big Deal. He created the welfare state which has cost Australia massively ever since.
J) Economic policy was always an issue under Crean, he is clueless in the area.
K) where do the 7-10 years figures come from? Thatcher, Reagan and Kennett all achieved results more quickly than that.

Your views unbiased and objective? Really?

At least Bombers 2003 is mildly amusing on occasions.

I can fully understand why you dont like to get into political arguments with people, the humiliation must be difficult.
A) Yes, but at least Hawke had the balls to do something that Fraser/Howard couldn't.

B) Trying to rewrite history? As soon as the ALP came to power in 1983 it immediately devalued the dollar by 10% and in December 1983 it floated the dollar - a commencement of financial reforms that Fraser/Howard lacked the will and balls to do (something that those to the right are known for - no, we didn't invade because of WMDs we wanted to liberate them)

D) There is a big difference between privatising a Bank (CBA - given other private players in the market - ANZ/Westpac/NAB) against privatising essential services.

G) Yes, Keating left $10b but I seem to recall that a former Liberal Treasurer left a deficit of the similar magnitude in 1983. The facts - budget deficit as a % of GDP in 1982/1983 was 2.6% and in 1995/1996 was 1.0%.

H) How was it an avoidable recession given the rest of the world was also in recession at the same time - which initially commenced from the stock market crash in Oct 1987. Think about it.

I) Some will say Curtin was the greatest PM likewise some may say Howard is. Each to his own.

By all means be selective but be careful what you say.

Your views unbaised and objective? What is that, ah the kettle and the pot!!!

A few things worth noting - 1) we now have the highest personal debt to income ever (we won't need interest rates to go to 17%, we will only need them to go to 9.0% and there will be blood everywhere) , and 2) the current account deficit now sits at 6.5% of GDP. The day of reckoning will come because you can't just keep on spending more than you earn (and thats what people are doing)....
 

Bomaz_Magic

Club Legend
Joined
Jun 1, 2004
Posts
1,031
Likes
0
Location
the lodge
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Essendon Bombers
#22
medusala said:
use some paragraphs FFS!

re your points.
A) Hawke initial burts of deregulation was in the main following the recommendations of the Campbell report which was iniated by Howard!
B) Keating was forced into floating the dollar by market pressure
C) IR reform was minimal - remember all those accords??
D) re privatisation, I take it its OK for the ALP to privatise something but not Howard or Kennett
E) Cant remember the ALP carrying out alot of microeconomic reform re transport and the docks for example
F) how many FTA's did Hawke and Keating achieve?
G) Keating left a $10b budget deficit.
H) Keating forced the economy into an avoidable recession
I) Only ALP voters would say that Curtin was the greatest ever PM. He turned to the Yanks - so what. He was forced to. Big Deal. He created the welfare state which has cost Australia massively ever since.
J) Economic policy was always an issue under Crean, he is clueless in the area.
K) where do the 7-10 years figures come from? Thatcher, Reagan and Kennett all achieved results more quickly than that.

Your views unbiased and objective? Really?

At least Bombers 2003 is mildly amusing on occasions.

I can fully understand why you dont like to get into political arguments with people, the humiliation must be difficult.
Use your brain FFS.
If Howard is such a good economic manager and far superior to the ALP than tell me this - why is household debt at its highest level and why have net exports fallen from 43.5% under keating to -1.5% under Hawke, which must be really good as Australia are an export nation. Also do you always answer questions by asking questions Mr Unbiased and IQ of 552?
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,963
Likes
6,233
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#23
Bomaz_Magic said:
Use your brain FFS.
If Howard is such a good economic manager and far superior to the ALP than tell me this - why is household debt at its highest level and why have net exports fallen from 43.5% under keating to -1.5% under Hawke, which must be really good as Australia are an export nation. Also do you always answer questions by asking questions Mr Unbiased and IQ of 552?
Very simple, its because interest rates are so low. Similar is happening in the USA and UK. Prior to deregulation by Hawke banks couldnt lend to the same extent even though interest rates were so low. BTW debt as a % of what? Household income or household assets? Have not households seen one of the largest increases in net wealth in Australias history under Howard?

If it was good enough for JC to answer a question with a question then its good enough for me.
 

kirky

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Dec 29, 2000
Posts
9,718
Likes
6,438
AFL Club
Adelaide
#24
medusala said:
Very simple, its because interest rates are so low. Similar is happening in the USA and UK. Prior to deregulation by Hawke banks couldnt lend to the same extent even though interest rates were so low. BTW debt as a % of what? Household income or household assets? Have not households seen one of the largest increases in net wealth in Australias history under Howard?
As a % of income, which is the most important thing - you must be able to service the debt!!! By the way, when Hawke gained power the home loan interest rate was 12.5% whilst overdraft rates were 16.00% - now if you call that low I would hate to see high!!!!

Not all households have seen large increases in net wealth - don't generalize.
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,963
Likes
6,233
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#25
kirky said:
A) Yes, but at least Hawke had the balls to do something that Fraser/Howard couldn't.

B) Trying to rewrite history? As soon as the ALP came to power in 1983 it immediately devalued the dollar by 10% and in December 1983 it floated the dollar - a commencement of financial reforms that Fraser/Howard lacked the will and balls to do (something that those to the right are known for - no, we didn't invade because of WMDs we wanted to liberate them)

D) There is a big difference between privatising a Bank (CBA - given other private players in the market - ANZ/Westpac/NAB) against privatising essential services.

G) Yes, Keating left $10b but I seem to recall that a former Liberal Treasurer left a deficit of the similar magnitude in 1983. The facts - budget deficit as a % of GDP in 1982/1983 was 2.6% and in 1995/1996 was 1.0%.

H) How was it an avoidable recession given the rest of the world was also in recession at the same time - which initially commenced from the stock market crash in Oct 1987. Think about it.

I) Some will say Curtin was the greatest PM likewise some may say Howard is. Each to his own.

By all means be selective but be careful what you say.

Your views unbaised and objective? What is that, ah the kettle and the pot!!!

A few things worth noting - 1) we now have the highest personal debt to income ever (we won't need interest rates to go to 17%, we will only need them to go to 9.0% and there will be blood everywhere) , and 2) the current account deficit now sits at 6.5% of GDP. The day of reckoning will come because you can't just keep on spending more than you earn (and thats what people are doing)....
A) agree, Fraser was Australia's 2nd worst ever pm. Shocking performer.
b) Hawke was forced to float the dollar You can google heaps of stories on this. Without looking it up I am pretty certain the Campbell report was only delivered just before the election so there wasnt time to implement it.
c) Telstra doesnt have competition? What do Orange, Vodafone,AAPT etc do then? The US seems to survive without a state owned telecoms co.
g) would have to go to RBA site but pretty sure deficit was alot more than 1% of gdp.
h) I seem to remember the NZ economy doing alot better than ours at the time. Some countries did better than others. Given the extent of our exports to Asia we could have done far better.
i) I would say neither which is why I started a thread on it.

Where did I say my views were objective? I was merely questioning someone else's statement.

Re Keating, his deficit and the recession we didnt have to have, read the following link. Its quite interesting and from someone who most would say is quite respected.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/30/1093852180757.html?from=storylhs
 
Top Bottom