Howard Appreciation Thread

[Dixie Flatline]

The gun buyback scheme was good. Had to happen though, any govt would have done the same thing.

The GST has been a success. It had its critics and hiccups in the early days, and the then opposition were set on 'rolling it back', but a decade on and it's barely even discussed.

Mungo MacCallum writes:

Howard’s second legacy was the never-ever GST, a particularly nasty piece of regressive taxation whose only virtue is its universality; if a GST is absolutely comprehensive it is impossible to avoid. By compromising with Democrats to exempt some so-called essential items, Howard destroyed even this advantage. The GST remains an unfair and lazy way of collecting revenue, and has led to an immensely complicated series of benefits and hand outs to compensate for its ill effects. It is now entrenched as monument to Howard’s political dishonesty and economic incompetence.

Income tax reform. In 1996, a marginal tax rate of 47% kicked in at just $50,000. I don't have the average wage figures for now and then, but someone earning $52k a year (an even $1000 per week) is $6090 a year better off under the current (07/08) tax system, paying 19% tax instead of 31%. The marginal tax rate is now 45%, and kicks in at $150,000, and 40% at $75,000, which gives rewards to those who earn more. If you are earning the minimum wage, you would be better off under the 1996 system, though. You could argue the real value of increased disposable income given interest rates, petrol prices, housing affordability etc., but the changes were made, and you could also argue that house and petrol prices would have risen just as much etc. regardless.

How much did the Coalition Government claw back through income bracket creep? They were the highest taxing government in Australian history.

Economic management. The recent growth has been driven predominantly by World resource markets. China and India wanting steel and gas is something no government can claim credit for. The economy has still been managed well through this period though, so credit where credit is due. I would have liked to have seen more money coming back to WA, though, or maybe a hospital.

How was it managed well?

Industrial Relations reform. The reforms made by the Howard government actually go beyond the introduction of WorkChoices. Change is necessary, even if not always popular. The less levels of bureaucracy the better. Individual contracts have actually been good for many businesses and employees. The removal of unfair dismissal laws for small businesses has actually helped to create jobs.
The removal of the no disadvantage test and the ability for employers to force employees that were already hired onto AWA's was a mistake though, and the the nation made that pretty obviously known at the ballot box. What will happen to the legislation from here on in remains to be seen.

Mungo MacCallum writes:

The third innovation was, of course, WorkChoices. Unheralded and badly thought out, this grab-bag of ideological thuggery was thrust upon a startled electorate when an unexpected opportunity arose, and the results are now clear. Some of its worst features have already been quietly disposed of, and most of the rest will go as soon as the senate allows. What is left will indeed constitute reform of the industrial relations system; but it will not be the “reform” of which Howard boasted.

There is my Howard Government 'appreciation'. Those are the things that IMO the government has done that in whole or in part have been good initiatives for the country.

The link to Mungo's article: http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20071127-Mungo-The-dubious-legacy-of-John-Winston-Howard.html

 

[sen entertainment bloke]

Thanks, John; hello, Kevin


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]A change of guard in a country almost anywhere in the world would be widely welcomed. This is precisely the mood in most of Asia after this weekend's elections in Australia.

Underpinning the message was not so much that people had become tired of John Howard and his sometimes controversial policies; but rather that it was time for a change of leader, through a democratic process, after more than 11 years. Bottom line, they are saying, it's about time Australia had a new leader.
It could have been Kevin Rudd, the head of the victorious Labor Party, or it could have been Peter Costello, who would have succeeded Howard in the Liberal Party leadership had the latter stepped down before elections. Asia would have settled for either man. Even had Australians returned Howard to Canberra, we would have lived with it.
It's easy to condemn a dead man, but we don't think it's fair or ethical. Some of the commentaries and editorials on the Australian election over the last two days have been unkind to Howard, especially his Asian policies.
Inadvertently, they are placing too great of expectations on Rudd. They are working on the presumption that Australia's foreign policy, especially toward Asian, will drastically change under the new leadership. That remains to be seen.
One thing we have to remember is Australia's foreign policy in the last 11 years has progressively brought it closer to Asia. There was not that drastic a change in direction from the time of the Labor Party's Paul Keating, who Howard succeeded in 1996.
Their differences, especially when it comes to Indonesia, were more style than substance. Howard was just too abrasive for Asian culture, but he was just being a good-natured Australian. Among Australians, as affable as Keating was to Asians, he was the exception to the rule.
For much of the past 11 years or so, Indonesia and Australia have gone through many good and bad times together.
The removal of East Timor from the equation, after its violent separation from Indonesia in 1999, was in retrospect a boon to the relationship. Since then, no single issue has dominated bilateral dealings, and each problem that has come up has been addressed individually without dragging down the entire relationship.
Howard, who survived four Indonesian presidents (B.J. Habibie, Abdurrahman Wahid, Megawati Soekarnoputri and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono), had the unenviable task of healing the wounds inflicted on Indonesian leaders after the loss of East Timor. (As a side note, it was Habibie not Howard who hastily decided to hold the referendum in East Timor that eventually led to the violent separation. Blame Habibie, not Howard.)
During Howard's tenure, Indonesia and Australia went through many tragedies together, from the deadly Bali bombings in 2002 that killed many Australian tourists and other, smaller, terrorist attacks, to the devastating 2004 tsunami in Aceh that saw a massive global outpouring of sympathy, and the death of nine Australian soldiers while on a humanitarian relief operation on Nias Island.
Howard established a good rapport, especially with Yudhoyono, Indonesia's first directly elected president, so much so they are now on a first name basis. They brought their relationship to a level playing field, in which no one patronized the other, unlike the relationships between previous leaders.
This is a model of the kind of relationship we should have, one in which each feels comfortable and at ease with the other, and one that is built more on our shared values and shared interests, while respecting our differences (which are many).
Rudd's track record, and particularly his knowledge of Asia, may have impressed many in Asia, which adds to the welcoming tone of the commentaries of the past three days. But like the Australians who voted him in, we have to wait and see what kind of prime minister he is. The signs are positive, and let's hope that he lives up to our expectations.
On that note, it is only appropriate that we acknowledge the services of the outgoing prime minister, especially since he has been with us for the last 11 years, through good and bad, and greet his successor and wish him the best of luck. Thank you, John; welcome, Kevin.[/FONT]

 

[CoggaRules]

BS, this election was all about someone the people of australia were crying out for, for a long time, in order to get rid of the cancer that was eating away at the aussie fabric. All they needed was someone they deemed fair and true and level headed and voile, landslide. i.e. get the **** out and stay out.
Now all the nuff nuffs can listen to the accolades that are being bestowed on the dynamic duo of Howard and Costello, but never and I mean never has their been such a divisive, sneaky, mistrusting govt in ruling this nation as the previous. Exacerbated by having control of both houses of parliament.
This ended up in a plethora of underhanded biased handouts, complete and utter mismanagement of portfolios and a country that once was going along nicely, having riots between races on sydney beaches. We stood back and watched a PM who steadfastily refused to accept that global warming was indeed a problem, then overnight suggest that nuke power was the answer to global warming. Anyone who can suggest that someone like that, can have an ounce of any credibilty is completely deluded. I for one take my hat off to the nation, i was beginning to believe we all had lost our minds and were sitting there with our hands out, waiting for the morsels that were being handed out by Costello, forgetting about what has this nation the envy of the world, we give a ****, we dont like ass holes that are not ****ing fair.

The glaring pointer to the ineptitude of Howard as a leader was that the govt fought the election using one line. Economic management. Johnny dude, how about the rest? Were you expecting the public to elect our leader because of his great accountancy skills fool?

 

[Bubba Ray]

Without doubt our greatest PM since Menzies! Not everyone fell for Krudd's pr spin. Keep your head high Johnny!

 

[Juddism]

The glaring pointer to the ineptitude of Howard as a leader was that the govt fought the election using one line. Economic management. Johnny dude, how about the rest? Were you expecting the public to elect our leader because of his great accountancy skills fool?

who was it that said "we do not live in an economy, we live in a society" because whoever it was is dead right..

 

[understudy]

Thats because you don't have much of an idea Richo.No biggy,probably only 1/2 a dozen posters (at best) who frequent this board ,do.

Anyway,lets see how irrelevant economic managment is after 6 or so years of Swan running the show.

Lets hear your take, it bit rough question someone then not outliling how much control you think politicans have over the economy.

These questions are never black and white (always throwing up numerous shades of gray) so Im qualified, willing and ready to discuss any of it with you.

 

[Scotland]

We always hear that x jobs have been created, is there any stats on how many have been lost?

If more jobs were lost than were created, the unemployment rate would have increased.

Are jobs being created at a faster rate now than before Workchoices? Because really, jobs are always being created, pre Workchoices and all.

Good question. I'd be interested to see the figures for the number of jobs created over say 2004 to present to see if any significant trends specifically since the legislation was introduced.

You can't really put job creation down to one factor, can you?

No, you can't. As I said, IMO the legislation affecting small business has helped to create new jobs.

 

[CoggaRules]

No, you can't. As I said, IMO the legislation affecting small business has helped to create new jobs.

of course it has. Now maybe you can give us your opinion on how and why it has.
Lets see, my take is that small business owners just thought wow, we are going to employ more people now, since we really need to keep the costs down. How about that?

 

[Scotland]

of course it has. Now maybe you can give us your opinion on how and why it has.
Lets see, my take is that small business owners just thought wow, we are going to employ more people now, since we really need to keep the costs down. How about that?

The ability to employ new staff on individual contracts that are specific to the business and tasks required of the job, and the assurance that if their employment doesn't work out you aren't stuck with them, is likely to increase the confidence of small businesses to take on new employees.

Anyone who has worked in a small business with an employee who won't do a certain task because it isn't specifically part of their agreement, or slacks off an cannot be removed because of the lack of specific provisions in their agreement etc. will understand why the laws will have promoted confidence in many small businesses.

Those who post crap and over use the wink face, probably won't.

 

[Qsaint]

Mungo MacCallum writes:





The link to Mungo's article: http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20071127-Mungo-The-dubious-legacy-of-John-Winston-Howard.html

Mungo on economics, the GST is Good policy

 

[CoggaRules]

The ability to employ new staff on individual contracts that are specific to the business and tasks required of the job, and the assurance that if their employment doesn't work out you aren't stuck with them, is likely to increase the confidence of small businesses to take on new employees.

Anyone who has worked in a small business with an employee who won't do a certain task because it isn't specifically part of their agreement, or slacks off an cannot be removed because of the lack of specific provisions in their agreement etc. will understand why the laws will have promoted confidence in many small businesses.

Those who post crap and over use the wink face, probably won't.

Interesting stuff dude. The thing is that not once did you mention anything about how much it costs to employ the new staff. Funny how those who suggest they understand small business, only talk about employing new staff, because they are not scared, and not what it costs them to employ new staff.

Here is a tip from those that you suggest post crap and use a wink. Small business follows one rule, the bottom line. do you know what that is fool?

So for the braniacs like yourself that understand how small business operates, it goes like this. Employee who is there gets a contract shoved in their face, sign it or go, with cut in pay. Employee has mortgage, cant afford not to take it up the ass, signs contract. Employer now has extra funds to employ new staff. New staff most likely havent got mortgage, since they were once a stat in the umemployment column, so they make some money that to them means they can spend on stuff. wow, lookie here, reserve bank says, inflation is going up because people are spending. But hang on, intererest rates are going up because people are spending. Now me thinks that first employee who copped the dick, who had the mortgage aint the one spending. Now who do you think is?
Number of unemployed is now less, Howard and Costello can pump out their chests and sell that as their greatest achievment. Then say sorry about the interest rates. So if these clowns actually were the greatest economic managers, then why did we hear sorry? .
But i guess stupid nuff nuffs like yourself really understand small business, unlike others.

 

[Scotland]

Interesting stuff dude. The thing is that not once did you mention anything about how much it costs to employ the new staff. Funny how those who suggest they understand small business, only talk about employing new staff, because they are not scared, and not what it costs them to employ new staff.

Nope, I didn't. If 'hey, we can pay people less' applies for increasing confidence, then 'hey, lets not risk it, we can't afford to pay that much and risk an unproductive worker we can't fire' applies the other way. If you read (& comprehended) my posts you'd notice I'm actually not a supporter of the removal of the no disadvantage test, and the abililty to shift already employed workers onto AWA's.

Here is a tip from those that you suggest post crap and use a wink. Small business follows one rule, the bottom line. do you know what that is fool?

Profit = Revenue - Costs isn't it?

So for the braniacs like yourself that understand how small business operates, it goes like this. Employee who is there gets a contract shoved in their face, sign it or go, with cut in pay. Employee has mortgage, cant afford not to take it up the ass, signs contract. Employer now has extra funds to employ new staff. Number of unemployed is now less, Howard and Costello can pump out their chests and sell that as their greatest achievment. Woopie ****ing doo.

Whereas the conduct of those under well-paying collective agreements has always been exemplary?

That's politics in Australia. The Unions had their time at the top, and got too big for their boots. The Liberals had theirs, and likewise took their agenda too far. Moderacy will always reign. Hopefully.

 

[crowie]

This post is directed at AndSmithMustScore.

Firstly, what is your problem with the union movement?

You claim that Australia is the best country in the world and then knock one of the foundations that this great country is built on.
Being a member of the AMWU I have taken great offense to the campaign against unions and their members by the Howard Government, sure there are some bad elements in unions but to paint everyone involved in them with the same brush is unfair. At the end of the day we're just ordinary people trying to earn a living to provide a decent lifestyle for ourselves and our families, we join the union so that we are protected from being taken advantage of. What's wrong with that?

If you think that we'll drop tools and go on strike just for the sake of it then you are sadly mistaken, normal people can't afford to just walk off the job and lose pay unless there is something that we feel strongly about and is going to greatly affect our lives.

I've worked at the GM Holden factory in Adelaide for seven years and I can tell you that the workers sacrifice much more for the company than what the company does for the workers. We get four weeks annual leave every year, just like most other places. We haven't been able to allocate any of that ourselves for three years now, we all have to take the time when it is given to us, usually three weeks over xmas and another week mid year. We give up two hours pay every week to accumulate twelve days off per year as well (RDO/PDO's), we don't get to allocate that ourselves anymore either, the company does it for us. The PDO's are usually spread out over the year, it's meant to be one per month but never is, but if Holden decides that because of slow sales they want to shut down the plant then all our PDO's are brought forward and we're left with nothing for the rest of the year. If we want a decent holiday overseas or something the choice is take it over xmas, wait ten years for Long Service Leave or quit. Unpaid leave isn't an option.

We make sacrifice's so that the company has the best possible chance of surviving.

I'll give an example of the appreciation that is given to us. One guy I know has cancer and had to take alot of time off (7-8 months) for chemotherapy, obviously he had to use all of his sick days. Before this he had a good attendance record, he's been back at work for a while now but last week had two days off for an ear infection, he has to be careful because his immune system is down. When he came back to work he was straight in the office and was given a written warning for attendance. It doesn't seem like much but I think that it says to him and the rest of us, 'we don't give a s**t about you, just turn up for work'.

You say that unions cause less productivity, I disagree. It's employers who treat their workers like dogs and try to take advantage of them at every turn.

 

[afc9798]

Without doubt our greatest PM since Menzies! Not everyone fell for Krudd's pr spin. Keep your head high Johnny!

Keep trying you sad git. Firstly, Menzies was not this country's greatest ever PM, just the longest serving. Menzies was a British sycophant whose whole career was about looking for Royal acknowlegement and titles. Curtin was the most courageous leader and showed true grit when it counted, unlike Menzies.

Secondly, Howard will be remembered as a US sycophant, obsessed with his own importance, all the time having his strings pulled by his devious wife. He drove this country backwards in social terms, all because of thinking that Australia is an economy, not a society. He is only the 2nd ever PM to lose his seat in an election, a fitting end to a time of leadership that deserves to be forgotten in a hurry. And it will be.

 

[medusala]

You claim that Australia is the best country in the world and then knock one of the foundations that this great country is built on.

Foundations? Australia is built on agriculture and mining. The unions havent been much of a help in either industry.

At the end of the day we're just ordinary people trying to earn a living to provide a decent lifestyle for ourselves and our families, we join the union so that we are protected from being taken advantage of.

And employers simply try and do their best to create wealth. You anti wealth creation? As for being taken advantage of your industry is funded for a huge amount by taxpayers. Without it you wouldnt have a job.

You say that unions cause less productivity, I disagree.

Robe River, Dollar Sweets, Mudginberri, wide combs, docks, Trans Tasman shipping, the accord, SPC, Aust Post, the PS etc, etc => its a damn long list of unions stopping productivity.

 

[medusala]

Curtin was the most courageous leader and showed true grit when it counted, unlike Menzies.

Curtins war record is the one of the biggest historical fictions the left have tried to burden the population with.

Good new book out by reknowned militory historian Max Hastings re the war in the Pacific. Absolutes pastes Australia for its war effort under Curtin (not to mention failure re the war effort back home thanks to the unions).

Australian troops were held in exceptional regard in places like Crete and Tobruk, by the time of the fighting in the Pacific a large % were sitting in Australia and those that were in theatre were in some cases on the edge of mutiny and refusing to fight. Allied command didnt trust the Australian leadership at all.

He didnt show true grit. He bottled it.

 

[crowie]

Foundations? Australia is built on agriculture and mining. The unions havent been much of a help in either industry.

And employers simply try and do their best to create wealth. You anti wealth creation? As for being taken advantage of your industry is funded for a huge amount by taxpayers. Without it you wouldnt have a job.

Robe River, Dollar Sweets, Mudginberri, wide combs, docks, Trans Tasman shipping, the accord, SPC, Aust Post, the PS etc, etc => its a damn long list of unions stopping productivity.

Annual leave, sick leave, long service leave, penalty rates, equal pay. Just some of the entitlements enjoyed by many working Australians because of the Unions.

But by the sounds of it you'd be happy if most workers received $8.00 per hour with no safety guards. A working underclass that helps the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, much like what is happening in the US.

As for the Automotive industry being funded by taxpayers, it is true that some manufacturers have received govt. handouts. But my experience is with Holden, who have just spent over 1 billion dollars on development and tools for the VE Commodore, and are moving toward at 50/50 domestic/import ratio. So don't tell me I wouldn't have a job without the handouts chief. A lot of what Holden has been trying to do wouldn't be possible without the flexibility of it's workforce.

Unions stopping productivity, I think it's more like fighting for their rights against greedy employers who only care about increasing their profit margins.

 

[Mick Hunter]

Annual leave, sick leave, long service leave, penalty rates, equal pay. Just some of the entitlements enjoyed by many working Australians because of the Unions.

But by the sounds of it you'd be happy if most workers received $8.00 per hour with no safety guards. A working underclass that helps the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, much like what is happening in the US.

As for the Automotive industry being funded by taxpayers, it is true that some manufacturers have received govt. handouts. But my experience is with Holden, who have just spent over 1 billion dollars on development and tools for the VE Commodore, and are moving toward at 50/50 domestic/import ratio. So don't tell me I wouldn't have a job without the handouts chief. A lot of what Holden has been trying to do wouldn't be possible without the flexibility of it's workforce.

Unions stopping productivity, I think it's more like fighting for their rights against greedy employers who only care about increasing their profit margins.

medusala will not doubt argue that he doesn't get any of those working conditions.
Therefore is his world, no one should get them.
Sad isn't it?

 

[afc9798]

Curtins war record is the one of the biggest historical fictions the left have tried to burden the population with.

Good new book out by reknowned militory historian Max Hastings re the war in the Pacific. Absolutes pastes Australia for its war effort under Curtin (not to mention failure re the war effort back home thanks to the unions).

Australian troops were held in exceptional regard in places like Crete and Tobruk, by the time of the fighting in the Pacific a large % were sitting in Australia and those that were in theatre were in some cases on the edge of mutiny and refusing to fight. Allied command didnt trust the Australian leadership at all.

He didnt show true grit. He bottled it.

There are many, many credible historians who entirely disagree with that assertion and agree that Curtin was one of the only leaders to look after Australia's interests, rather than the British. Tell me what Menzies did when the heat was on in WW2?

A starting point for you would be to read the warts and all biography of Curtin by David Day.

 

[Schism]

Like in anything in life, follow the correct procedures and rules and you won't end up in these situations.

Obviously you support breaking any laws one wishes as long as the end justifys the means.

Or do you jsut apply rules willy nilly to whatever suits your needs?

Dangerous ground, ASMS. I suppose you believe speed cameras save lives too, right?

Yep, in a leaky, 50 year old wooden barge that's about to sink in 2 mile deep water, the refugees (usually including children) who are crammed in like sardines and seeking a better life in Oz for whatever reason are really going to worry about correct procedures,rules and laws. Assuming they even know what those laws are yet.

Do you know who you sound like?

 

[Mick Hunter]

Dangerous ground, ASMS. I suppose you believe speed cameras save lives too, right?

Yep, in a leaky, 50 year old wooden barge that's about to sink in 2 mile deep water, the refugees (usually including children) who are crammed in like sardines and seeking a better life in Oz for whatever reason are really going to worry about correct procedures,rules and laws. Assuming they even know what those laws are yet.

Do you know who you sound like?

Pauline Hansen?

 

[medusala]

There are many, many credible historians who entirely disagree with that assertion and agree that Curtin was one of the only leaders to look after Australia's interests, rather than the British. Tell me what Menzies did when the heat was on in WW2?

He botched Singapore and then kept troops in Australia where they did nothing.

Bit rich to demand help from the Yanks and then keep a large part of your army at home.

Menzies sent troops to the Middle East where they gained a reputation as the best soldiers in the war.

 

[CoggaRules]

Foundations? Australia is built on agriculture and mining. The unions havent been much of a help in either industry.

what a load of cods wallop. Without the industrial revolution coupled with the intake of migrants back in the 40s and 50s to drive it, Australia would have had jack shit. We would have been just another hole that was being dug up, like the Congo etc are in Africa.

 

[skipper kelly]

what a load of cods wallop. Without the industrial revolution coupled with the intake of migrants back in the 40s and 50s to drive it, Australia would have had jack shit. We would have been just another hole that was being dug up, like the Congo etc are in Africa.

Isnt codswallop one word? Unless you're talking about a fighting fish.

 

[Mr Q]

Anyone who has worked in a small business with an employee who won't do a certain task because it isn't specifically part of their agreement, or slacks off an cannot be removed because of the lack of specific provisions in their agreement etc. will understand why the laws will have promoted confidence in many small businesses.

Surely though, if someone takes on a job with specific requirements and then is asked to do something outside those requirements, they have every right to refuse. That's asking someone to do something they're not being paid to do.

That refusal surely doesn't give the employer the right to just tell them to get lost if they're still performing the task for which they were actually employed.