That’s not a tough budget - this is a tough budget

persephone says:

06:53am | 12/05/11

Sigh.

How often does it have to be said?

The NBN (as such) is not in the Budget; it is an off budget program.

There’s about $36 million in the budget for NBN related stuff - it’s scarcely big bikkies.

George says:

07:58am | 12/05/11

@ perspexphoney

Sigh!

When are you going to get it through your thick ALP skull that the NBN, whether it is off budget or on budget or however else you like to dress it up, it is still an expenditure and it is all Australian’s hard earned tax, our money.

Cost of living in Australia is getting harder for families with children and this foolish ALP government has done nothing to support us, you sound like you don’t have any children let alone responsibilities very much like your aetheistic and childless idols Juliar and Brown (eye).

That $36 B will go a long way to support perhaps a cheaper Childcare scheme here in Australia instead of a faster ability to download ‘porno’ over the internet.

ZSRenn says:

08:09am | 12/05/11

@ Pers This it’s only just a few million $‘s which gives us all the wasted spending.

A few million here, a few million there, a few million everywhere

It all adds up to a few billion in wasted spending but that is what the story says so I guess you won’t read my comment either.

persephone says:

08:44am | 12/05/11

George

In a thread on budget cuts, it’s legitimate to point out that something which isn’t in the budget can’t be counted as a budget cut.

This budget has very little impact on families with children - unless, of course, you’re earning $150k a year, about twice the take home pay of most families.

And the average Australian household is better off by about $23 a day then they were five years ago:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/average-australian-household-23-a-day-better-off/story-e6frf7jo-1226050770225

‘The richest homes are $31 a day better off and the poorest ahead by an average of just under $11 a day.’

‘The typical ‘low-income couple with kids’ group actually had larger gains than the high-income group in percentage terms, growing by 18 per cent compared with 15 per cent.”

And you’re doing a Barnaby - my figure was million, not billion.

And I have two kids living at home.

ZSRenn

lock 21 milion Australians in a room with a pen and piece of paper and ask them to draw up a budget and they’ll all come up with different ideas as to which programs are ‘waste’ and which are essential.

Which means anyone can find millions of savings without any trouble at all.

I’d cut subsidies to Opera, myself!

MarK says:

08:51am | 12/05/11

The commercial nature of the NBN must be called into question in any case since they cannot build the bloody thing for anything close to what they dreamed they could.

Desperation is rank on this crew.

Tantric says:

09:21am | 12/05/11

Yes MarK
I agree,
The Institute of Public Affairs and Conservatives in general stink of desperation in their attempts to find fault with the NBN and this budget.

Looks like Abbott is resigned to settling in for the full term of this Labor government and Australia will have to endure the ever increasing stench of a foul opposition.

MarK says:

10:06am | 12/05/11

Oh Tantric icwahtudidthar.

But like all schemes this government has run we have the headlines that say"x” then the reality which is so far from “x” it is a joke - and that is if the schemes get off the ground. Look at the “health reforms” (sic) that have been announced at least 3 times and as at this time nothing is signed, sealed or happening. Dare we mention East Timor? Dare we mention Rudds Asian Forum and Nuclear Disarmament pipe dreams

I repeat I will be the first in my street to sign up for it but that does not mean I agree with the package as is.

Tell me Tantric if they can’t build it for what they said how will they justify a commercial return on the investment and thus be able off the budget? I really would love to hear from you dear. What is a commercial return? 1%? 2%? Tell us please.

I mean really. I hope you something in reserve there. The opening salvo was like being hit with a feather off a lingerie model. Amusing, slightly interesting and hopefully not a tease.

Tantric says:

11:46am | 12/05/11

Perhaps MarK, your crystal ball is looking into a different reality to the rest of us.
Personally I can’t tell the future, so unlike yourself I don’t see a future of “can’t build it for what they said”.
To my way of thinking, I see is an investment in Australian infrastructure that is imperative for the competitiveness of our nation for many decades into the future. An initiative that levels the playing field for all Australians whether they live in the bush or in the cities.  It is an enabler that will see great things come of it.
Let’s talk again in 20 years.

PS what are you doing wearing lingerie at 10 O’clock in the morning? Must say, I’ve never met a lingerie model named MarK.

George says:

11:57am | 12/05/11

Pers

You wrote “‘The typical ‘low-income couple with kids’ group actually had larger gains than the high-income group in percentage terms, growing by 18 per cent compared with 15 per cent.”

You can dress it up as much as you want, you can quote those figures as much as you want, if it turns you on be my guest.

You can not deny the fact that despite your blinkered belief that families with kids like mine (I have three school age kids in Catholic fee paying schools) might be better off now (I suppose you are referring to the ALP renaissance of 2007), the facts and reality don’t indicate otherwise.

In the last 3 years our living costs have overtaken whatever magic pudding algebraic gains you are insisting.  Everyone can see that including blind Freddy.

Why don’t you stop resisting that and come out of your gated existence and dip your self into the living conditions of average Australians and find out for yourself how much it is to juts live and exist despite us being being better off according to you!

My wife and I work hard to earn a crust for our children and despite that we can’t even afford to upgrade to a larger house because we can’t afford the increased mortgage, and no moving out of where we are right now is not an option.

And your ALP have not done anything concrete to alleviate that.

By the way I recognise your prowess at twisting arguments!  Aren’t you dizzy from all that spinning?

persephone says:

12:26pm | 12/05/11

George

they are not my words, they’re the ‘Herald-Sun’‘s, based on research done by Natsem.

You’re going by subjective experience, which is always flawed, because we confuse wants and needs, falsely compare our situations to those of others, and tend to be nostalgic about what our lives were like a few years ago compared to now.

Yes, you’ve got growing children, and that puts a strain on the budget. But because you’re spending more doesn’t mean you’re not better off - it just means you’re making different choices today than you did a few years ago.

Your children, for example, are probably involved in more extra curricular activities then they were a few years ago. They’re probably consuming more electricity (using the computer more, watching more TV). It all adds up.

But all of those are a result of your family’s choices. Many of them are totally controllable - you can say ‘no’, you can (as I do) insist they make some contributions in exchange for extra priviledges or put other limits on their spending (my youngest goes through shoes like you wouldn’t believe, so I’ve put him on a shoe allowance. If he runs out of shoe money, he has to either buy shoes from the op shop or wear normal school shoes).

Before we even considered having children, my husband and I made sure we could afford a house big enough for a family. It still easily meets our needs.

The empirical evidence is that you’re better off. If you don’t think you are, that’s because of choices you’ve made over the past few years. Some of these are entirely within your control.

Stop expecting the government to give you handouts because you lack the discipline necessary to manage your finances.

BTW, by the sound of it, my family is living on considerably less income than you are. Yes, that involves sacrifices, but hey, I’m not even going to start to pretend that I’m badly done by.

I made my choices, I accept the consequences.

simon says:

01:34pm | 12/05/11

Hey persephone, where is the $11 billion going to come from to buy Telstra’s copper network so they can eliminate any competition to the NBN. Is it the carbon tax, or some new tax. It seems they forgot to tell Australians that a new tax is needed to pay for the NBN. I am sure if you ask people if they approve of additional taxation to pay for the NBN, most would say NO!!!

simon says:

01:41pm | 12/05/11

Persephone, these statements you made are flat out wrong.

“And the average Australian household is better off by about $23 a day then they were five years ago:” and “‘The richest homes are $31 a day better off and the poorest ahead by an average of just under $11 a day.’”

Well that is complete rubbish, how can you increase taxation and claim people are better off. There is only a certain amount of money in the economy, and if the government takes more then there is less for everybody else. All this does is hurt people more and reduces retail spending putting pressure on jobs and interest rates.

I will repeat it again, more taxation does not make people more wealthy, simple economics mate. I think the pressure of defending the indefensible is making you crack!!!

persephone says:

02:53pm | 12/05/11

Simon

these are figures from Natsem. I didn’t make them up. If you have others, backed by a reputable source, please feel free to post them.

It is a fact that you are now paying less tax - even with the flood levy - than you were in 2007.

Again, if you believe this is incorrect, please back this up with evidence.

Ryan says:

03:03pm | 12/05/11

@persephone: you seem to have glanced over the $2 Billion in bribes whoops I mean funding to keep Rudd happy? This government knows no limits in how it will waste taxpayer money for personal gain.

TimB says:

08:34am | 12/05/11

ATM, I really hope you’re right, that it IS simply about her pension.

Because if it’s not, if it’s about her desire for power or her desire to implement her moronic, nation-destroying ideals, or anything else that requires her to continue on in the job, we are all in huge trouble.

I’d gladly pay her 600K a year if she were to step down and let the Coalition back in to fix up Labor’s mess. It’s a small price to pay to avoid the far greater waste & damage that would be perpetrated if she &  her government were to stay in power.

Steve Woy Woy says:

09:29am | 12/05/11

ATM.. how you for get so easy!! here is some reading from your wonderful “The Australian” it may help you with some perspective on matters but I guess it may not if you graduated with full honours from the Dumbing Down Of The Nation Programme over those wasted years from mountebank Johhny… but here we go!!

Coalition faces a ruinous record
George Megalogenis
From: The Australian
May 16, 2009 12:00AM
KEN Henry must have realised by now that his Treasury Department let the nation down at the last federal election.
The charter of budget honesty was meant to take the guesswork out of fiscal policy for voters because it gave Treasury the opportunity to update the numbers in the middle of thecampaign.
We were told there would be surpluses into the next decade. In fact, the budget was shot at the time of the election because too much of the revenue windfall from the resources boom had been handed back as tax cuts and increased spending.
“The structural budget balance deteriorated from 2002-03, moving into structural deficit in 2006-07,” Treasury said in budget paper No1 on Tuesday night.
The Coalition will resist this reading of recent history. It will want to argue that a larger surplus on paper in the good times would have been untenable because the electorate wanted its money back.
It should give up now. Peter Costello left a trail of clues in the extensive interviews he gave to authors before and after the election that John Howard’s mania for spending was damaging the integrity of the budget.
Also, as Malcolm Turnbull would know, the party that offered the more spending at the last election lost. For all its supposed greed, the Australian electorate did have the sense to sack a government trying to buy a fifth term.
The more the Coalition pretends that it left the budget battle-ready for the global recession, the more it plays into Labor’s hands. Every new government craves the narrative of the black hole, and Wayne Swan has a credible story to tell on the structure of the budget - up to a point.
The Treasurer is correct when he says the dramatic plunge into deficit wasn’t his doing. It remains primarily the fault of the global recession and the former government.
This can be seen with a simple calculation. Let’s assume Labor didn’t spend a dollar since the world economy turned turtle. That is, it did what the Opposition seems to have been demanding, by keeping fiscal policy tighter in recession than it had been under the Coalition in the boom.
Take out the stimulus, in fact all new spending since last May’s budget, and you get a run of whopping deficits that linger well after the economy is supposed to be growing again. This is where common sense must kick in for the Coalition and the structural deficit moves from the realms of theory to a statement of the obvious.

A stimulus-free budget would have faced deficits of $25.6 billion in 2009-10, $38.4billion in 2010-11 and $31.3 billion in 2011-12. That was, in effect, the Costello trajectory. It would have been worse, of course, because no spending would have made the recession deeper and crunched revenues by even more.

How exactly did the Howard-Costello government prepare the nation for what came next when it left behind a budget that could not afford to spend in bad times without breaking all previous deficit records?
The Coalition must cut the cord with its past if it wants to argue with credibility on fiscal prudence. The Opposition Leader could do worse than give Howard and Costello a public dressing-down for leaving the budget vulnerable to shocks such as the one we are going through at the moment.
It would make his case against Labor more credible because it would resonate with members of the public who happen to believe that the previous government did waste the proceeds of the boom.

Still with it ATM or has the salivating started from the triggers of the Pavlov’s dog experiment from those times of the failed treasurer who governed the yes man treasurer kicked in!!

Here is some more for you!!
The tax and handout system is carrying too many employed dependents. Middle-class welfare is a curse that pre-dated the Howard-Costello government.
As long ago as 1992, when Keating was belatedly trying to spend the nation out of recession, 14 per cent of the nation’s disposable income came from the government in the form of handouts. To put that figure into context, in Gough Whitlam’s day the taxpayer contribution to the kitchen table was less than 9 per cent.
Howard and Costello took middle-class welfare to absurd heights to win the 2004 election. In that year, they drove the handout line past 16 per cent for the first time on record. If Swan wishes to be remembered as a reformist treasurer and Rudd wants his Government to be seen as the one that got the balance right between public and private, then the next time either man reaches for the public purse, they should explain who will pay.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koY6kXhQDQo

Tator says:

12:18pm | 12/05/11

Steve Woy Woy,
George Megalogenis has changed that opinion and states that in this article yesterday in the Oz:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/the-tax-devil-is-on-the-indirect-side/story-fn8gf1nz-1226053585425

persephone says:

08:52am | 12/05/11

What? Raising the foreign aid budget is a bipartisan policy, so if Abbott was in power they’d still be spending the same amount.

Nothing to do with any ambitions Rudd might have.

MarK says:

09:41am | 12/05/11

“Raising the foreign aid budget is a bipartisan policy”

Yes true

“so if Abbott was in power they’d still be spending the same amount.”

Self serving lie. No basis for making it other than deflection.

persephone says:

10:32am | 12/05/11

MarK

so you’re saying that Abbott would break his promise on this? Despite Julie Bishop repeatedly stating, in the party room and in public, that the Opposition’s commitment to meeting the foreign aid target should not be touched?

You may remember that she raised a hell of a stink when Abbott proposed to cut foreign aid in response to the Queensland floods.

So it’s a fairly safe assumption that the Coalition, if they were in government, would be honouring this commitment and thus (logically) spending the same amount of money as the government currently is.

To say otherwise is to suggest that Abbott is lying.

MarK says:

12:17pm | 12/05/11

Interesting pers.

Apart from all the spin let us focus on what you are saying

“So it’s a fairly safe assumption that the Coalition, if they were in government, would be honouring this commitment and thus (logically) spending the same amount of money as the government currently is.”

focus dear

” fairly safe assumption that the Coalition”

I see. As a member of the Labor party you are qualified and wish to use your own assumptions about Coalition policy going forward as a basis for an argument.

I don’t know about anyone else but I find that disingenuous, illogical, self serving (again) and totally ridiculous.

You are playing the typical blame game and justifying by what the opposition would do. You are not arguing your position because it is fallacious, weak, error riddled and plain old dumb. ALl this talk about what happened in the Howard years and a fantasy about a surplus iun the future is a distraction about the main figure.

Another deficit. $50billion of it.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/special-reports/federal-budget-2011-labor-mps-scared-of-kevin-rudd/story-fn8melax-1226054259299

If you are going to argue a particular policy point it would be best to keep up with current events. You know….the NOW.

Defend Labor pers. Don’t make shit up if you want to be taken seriously.

Oh and read the papers. They contain all sorts of gems. I don’t think the coalition would be spending an extra $2billion to keep Rudds dreams alive.

And just to keep you in the coalition loop so you don’t make a complete idiot of yourself

“Opposition overseas aid spokeswoman Teresa Gambaro said Australia was chasing votes in Africa at the expense of sending more aid closer to home and to places such as Papua New Guinea, where there had even been recent cholera outbreaks.

She said increased aid was supported by the Coalition but should have been deferred when families were being hit and then redirected closer to home in the Pacific.

“The large amount of funding going to the Middle East and Africa has us concerned about waste and supporting votes for the UN Security Council,” Ms Gambaro said yesterday.”

From the report above since you hate (conveniently so) clicking my links.

I like this part to

“TAXPAYERS will foot an extra $2 billion foreign aid bill because the Government feared the consequences of upsetting Foreign Affairs Minister Kevin Rudd. “

Another courageous decision by the governement.

You must be so proud.

Sorry to refute your arguments so easily. You have?

persephone says:

12:49pm | 12/05/11

MarK

the increase in the foreign aid budget is $500k.

It is supported by Julie Bishop, the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs.

(There are reams of links I could provide for this, but I’m sure you’re aware of them).

http://www.smh.com.au/business/federal-budget/coalition-backs-away-from-hockeys-dig-at-aid-funding-20110511-1ej1b.html

this one, however, outlines the Coalition’s support for the present spending on foreign aid-

‘
Labor and the Coalition have a bipartisan commitment to increase Australia’s aid budget to 0.5 per cent of gross national income by 2015.’

‘
‘‘The Coalition is committed to increasing Australia’s overseas development assistance to 0.5 per cent of gross national income by 2015; and to ensure that our aid budget is targeted to our region in the most effective and efficient ways.

You can argue that the Coalition might be allocating the money in different ways, but you can’t argue that they wouldn’t be spending it.

MarK says:

01:21pm | 12/05/11

Yawn pers.

You were caught out again.

Stop making stuff up to support your “opinion”.

persephone says:

08:50am | 12/05/11

It cost Australia $2 million a month to keep Nauru open, as well as other costs involved, such as more foreign aid to the country, so that won’t save money.

MarK says:

09:44am | 12/05/11

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA pers

The BLOW OUT in the budget for refugees was $1billion or thereabouts this last year alone.

Gawd you lie through your teeth woman

Ryan says:

09:48am | 12/05/11

@persephone: then you will have to agree that this is mere chump change in comparison to the billions that the current incompetent Labor government policies are costing us hey pers.

Bev says:

10:35am | 12/05/11

persephone says:08:50am | 12/05/11

It cost Australia $2 million a month to keep Nauru open, as well as other costs involved, such as more foreign aid to the country, so that won’t save money.

Since the Labour Government came to power there has been a 10 times (1000%) blowout in the costs associated with refugees.  That is over one billion dollars. This money would have gone a long way towards paying for the mental health bill this year or paying for a dental scheme which has been shelved. I know were most of us would like our taxes spent.

Tator says:

12:28pm | 12/05/11

Persphone,
$2 million a month or $24 million a year, compared to $74 million over three years in just land lease costs for the new Darwin centre for the land only, let alone operating costs
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/08/3158576.htm
wonder which ALP mate is the beneficiary of this deal

Richard Cummings says:

09:29am | 12/05/11

You are correct Sheldon when you say pensioners are having problems coming to grips with this changing technology.
These young whippersnappers have no idea how difficult technology is for the elderly.
But I guess their mantra is, It’s all about me. I imagine they feel that the elderly should just shut up and go away.

PaulC says:

11:30am | 12/05/11

Hi Pers. Wyatt Roy MP said it all yesterday in question time.
When did the Labor Party bring down a surplus budget?
Not in his lifetime.

persephone says:

12:29pm | 12/05/11

And, PaulC, he was wrong.

Labor delivered a surplus the year he was born.

simon says:

01:51pm | 12/05/11

I admire you tenacity persephone, despite copping it from all directions you stand firm. You are on the wrong team though!!

Matt says:

09:20am | 13/05/11

I am sorry Richard but Government is there to provide ESSENTIAL services. I do not believe any government should be giving handouts to people for such ridiculous things as set top boxes that can be bought currently for around $50. The member for Mayo even said it yesterday that Gerry Harvey could do it for less then the $350 the government has estimated it will cost. This is just another massive waste of money from another useless ALP government that will never deliver a surplus. and if pensioners want a set top box I am sure 1. the price will come down even more as we get closer to the switch over and 2 get your children, grandchildren to buy you one for christmas or if you want one so bad go out and buy one yourself. Stop expecting the government to give you handouts that’s not what they are there for.

Richard Cummings says:

10:18am | 13/05/11

But Matt,
I’m 82 years old, never married and live on my own.
My mind wanders and I have problems remembering things.
I have no one to help me.
I didn’t ask the government to switch to digital. I am very happy with my analogue TV, but I realise that things change over time. My understanding is that the government will make money selling off the frequencies where analogue now sits.
I don’t expect the government to give me handouts, but I also don’t expect the government to break something I own that works just fine and can’t afford to fix out of my pension.

matt says:

11:05am | 13/05/11

I understand the problem that some pensioners will have with the switch over from analogue to digital T.V but to spend $300 Million + on a scheme to buy and install set top boxes for pensioners it’s a bit ridiculous. Everyone knows the bureaucracy is the least efficient system we have and to create another block or bureaucracy to oversee the role out of this scheme is another waste of money that could be better spent somewhere else. If they wanted to give set top boxes to pensioners they could have done something like a rebate. The fact is if the Labor party wasn’t so interested in giving handouts they could be spending the money elsewhere by giving pensioners more money as I understand they are not given very much or putting the money into aged care. There are so many more important things the government can be spending this money on.

Mahhrat says:

10:29am | 12/05/11

@John, I remember that movie, it was a good one.  The stupid bit is, great business people (the kinds you’d WANT running the country) can make millions and millions more just going about their private enterprises.  Why would they bother being in government?

I’ve got no basis for this one of course, but I feel Turnbull could whup ass any day he chooses, he just doesn’t need to because he’s making enough through his family businesses.

Jerri says:

03:33am | 21/08/11

I forgot all about that movie. I really enjoyed it, and I’m sure it would resonate with a lot of people who are disgruntled with the politicians in their respective countries.

One thing that a commenter(nathan) mentions in regards to the increased public workforce is that it is simply growing inline with the increased population in the country. It is a very baseline thought that I honestly had never considered. I’m interested in seeing more analysis about this correlation. Are cutting/curtailing public jobs viable payroll solutions with positive budgetary impact? Or does the increased population deem them necessary?

Economic hardships, whether an inability to increase revenue, create jobs, or control spending and inflation are difficult on just about everyone(yes, even the politicians). Hopefully sound compromise, common sense, and future thinking rule the day when monetary policies are decided.

Jim says:

09:04am | 12/05/11

Since when did the federal government employ aged-care nurses?

Nathan says:

09:49am | 12/05/11

Apologies Jim for choosing a poor example.

Sam says:

12:23pm | 12/05/11

Nathan, you are spot on.  And I note that each of his savings examples are spread over 4 years.  So if you remoke his silly example what are you left with?  About $1.4 billion in savings spread over 4 years.  Why is that so “tough”?

MarK says:

08:58am | 12/05/11

Hasn’t 2 Labor ministers resigned in the last few weks down there?

Sounds a bit like NSW Labor. Rats, ships, sinking. All those things.

Joel B1 says:

09:52am | 12/05/11

Ex-Premier Bartlett has resigned from Cabinet and from Parliament.

Lin Thorpe who didn’t do the right thing as Child Services Minister when an in-care 13yo girl was sold for sex more than a 100 times just lost her seat to an independent Liberal. And deservedly, the pimp got locked up but not a single one of the 100+ under-age sex male clients has been charged (or even interviewed I suspect).

Plans to cut $200Million from the budget are going to cost 5000 jobs.

And the forestry industry is in death spasms with the Greens unable to even define what a “high conservation forest” actually is.
High quality furniture manufactures are saying they’ll have to leave or close if they can’t get good quality wood. And we’re talking very much value added stuff here like $28,000 dining tables, not bloody wood pulp.

We’re going to hell in a handcart under this minority ALP/Green government, just like last time.

PS The Greens are nuts, some forest logging contractors were paid out to end their contracts. When they left the state and started legally logging in other mainland states the Greens had a hissy fit “but, but, we thought they’d NEVER be allowed in any forest again anywhere”. Words fail me.

MarK says:

10:39am | 12/05/11

Well all you need is a few pedo’s, a couple of wild drunken parties where ministers simulate tittyf&^king mums in front of their daughters, a bit of gambling and porn in office hours, some gay club exposés and you are fighting it out for Sth Australia to be runners up to the joke we had in NSW.

Ahhh Labor. The gift that keeps giving.

I love the Greens story on logging too. All you need do is insert “steel industry” or “aluminium industry” or hell lets not be coy “any business reliant on power” into the story, sub another state for another country and you have what the carbon tax will do to Australia.

Very apt.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

11:01am | 12/05/11

MarK
 
keep up, son. That was Tassie where Bartlett jumped off the burning deck. 
 
Down here in SA, we have Cabinet Ministers getting smacked up for pawing other blokes’ girls, Premiers getting hit with rolled up magazines for porking married parliamentary staff, millions of dollars given to the province in Italy where Rann is retiring and local councils full of Labor staffers who are flat-chat selling off all the prime public land to their developer mates before they get turfed at the next election.

MarK says:

11:42am | 12/05/11

Inorite Tony.

I am really impressed that the Crow Eaters and the good people of Tassie are actually giving NSW a run for its money with the most disgusting Labor parliamentarians.

I mean WOW!!! I never thought we had a challenger but there you go. And in Qld today isn’t Nuttall about to give some evidence before parliament that could be deemed “interesting”?

Ahh the Labor party. Lovely bunch of folk.

Who eas it again that keeps getting belted in the head down there…the name truly escapes me.

Tator says:

12:37pm | 12/05/11

Tony,
you forgot the ALP MP who has just been pinched for having child porn.  This is on top of the billion dollar blowout in the cost of the new hospital being built when the ALP said it will cost $1.7 billion but didn’t tell us that was just building construction costs and need another billion to fit it out properly.  Plus you have NRMB trying to tax businesses when they use rainwater and telling farmers what and how many animals they can run on their property.  The lunatics sure are running the asylum now.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

12:51pm | 12/05/11

Tator

yes, who could forget a Labor Minister being pinged by his own Department for collecting child porn? 
 
Must have been all those years in the Shop Distributive etc Union that did it. I’ve noticed that spending your entire life in a union poisition then being parachuted into Parliament tends to addle the brain, the personality and the sense of right vs wrong.
 
I don’t think ANYONE is surprised about the hospital blowout. The big question is how many brown paper bags they’ll need when they sell off the old RAH site to one of their mates so they can put up another insta-slum.

And MarK, that was our esteemed Treasurer, Kevin Foley, although he has now bailed from that role to give him more time to look for a job, since they are all aware they’ll need one next election. It is going to be a bloodbath and no amount of pork-barreling the marginals or issuing fake how-to-vote cards will help them.

Tubesteak says:

08:56am | 12/05/11

The only thing created by protectionism is higher domestic prices. Compare prices for the same models of cars in the US or UK. I’m sure you saw the article on the SMH recently.

The problem with distorting the market through protectionism is that it never really provides the outcome that it was designed to achieve. Not only do other countries respond with their own protectionist policies but it fosters inefficiencies within the industry. It means our local manufacturers churn out poor quality vehicles and we pay more for it.

Government should stick to the basics and provide things that the market won’t provide, such as public transport, health and education for all (the market will never provide these thigns for everyone because not everyone could afford it - also the market will want to protect against free riders which sometimes it can’t so it won’t step in at all in those cases). Government should set regulations and minimum standards for everything else but stay out of the game itself.

Dave-o says:

10:41am | 12/05/11

Comparing domestic car prices with the EU and the US is farcical beyond all imagination. Firstly the EU is its own little protectionist cartel. Secondly, every car sold in Australia must be modified to meet ADR’s including having the steering wheel on the right side of the car, otherwise we probably would have cheap as chips yank tanks out here.

No doubt the government shouldn’t have a hand in the industry . But all you need to do is look at Wikileaks regarding the aviation industry to realize there is a classic mexican stand-off between all governments. The government who embraces free trade and non-intervention watches its industry die because all other competitors know once its gone, its gone for good.

Tubesteak says:

12:51pm | 12/05/11

The UK also have to have their cars modified and it usually only costs a few thousand dollars per vehicle. With many cars they are double the price in Australia when compared to the US and UK and I’m not talking about domestically built US or UK vehicles but cars imported into those countries.

Yes, Europe (or more specifically, Germany and Italy) protect their car market but if they did so then cars would be similarly priced.

All countries should just concentrate on areas where they have a comparative advantage and not bother spending millions, or billions, propping up inefficient industries and making the consumers pay more (once in lost tax revenue that could have been diverted and second when they go to the dealer).

marley says:

01:06pm | 12/05/11

@Dave - first of all, Australia certainly does impose tariffs on imported cars. It was 10% up to last year, down to 5% this year.  I believe the EU still has a 10% import tariff on non-EU cars, while the US has an import tariff of (I think) 2.5%.  I know for a fact that when I bought a Japanese import a few years ago, the price here was AUD 42,000 while the same car in the US was priced at USD 23,000.  (And bear in mind the Japanese have right-hand drive just like we do, so the car didn’t need to be modified).

Then, check out what a Mercedes C350costs here (around $110,000) and compare that with the US (around $40,000) and the UK (around £35,000).

It’s not tariffs that are the issue for Australian manufacturers, it’s the very small market here.  North America and the EU both have enormous markets, with no internal tariffs.  They can sell to several hundred million consumers.  Australia has a small domestic market and its cars are not in fact competitive internationally with other larger enterprises.

Shifter says:

03:00pm | 12/05/11

@marley - how much of the price difference is due to cost of transporting the vehicles from place of manufacture?

Dave-o says:

03:16pm | 12/05/11

LCT and GST folks.

Why don’t you compare apples with apples and compare the price of a Toyota Corolla, from the EU to the US to Aus. Or compare the average wage required to buy a car.

marley says:

04:09pm | 12/05/11

@Shifter - I don’t think the price differential for shipping from Japan to Australia vs the US could possibly account for $17,000 (by way of example, I once shipped a container from central Canada to southern NSW and the cost was about $6000.  Obviously, putting a car on a dedicated car transport vessel is going to be cheaper than that.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

12:33pm | 12/05/11

There was a small reference on a news site this morning that Gillard has had to introduce legislation allowing the Govt to up the amount they can borrow from $200 Billion to $250 Billion ... can’t say I recall Costello having to do anything like that. Why is it that Labor ALWAYS overspend?

Dash says:

09:15am | 12/05/11

$2billion gouged from Australian families and allocated to illegal migration to shore up the ALPs failed policies. Yeah nossy, that will be well received.

$13.7m for an advertising propaganda campaign for the carbon tax - yeah that will be well received nossy.

Extra $2billion allocated to win Rudd a seat on the UN, means testing of the private health tax rebate despite a promise not too, $200m to resettle 4,000 immigrants that Malaysia choose to send to Australia!

You still don’t get it fella!

persephone says:

09:59am | 12/05/11

Dash

‘On the Treasury’s figures, there are 40,000 households earning $150,000 a year or more. There are 8.5 million households in Australia so we are talking less than half a per cent of all households who are on that money.’

‘We are talking about people who are relatively well-off and a tiny, tiny proportion of households overall and the benefits that they will lose, we are talking of less than $30 a year for a child with the winding back of the supplement to the various family tax benefit arrangements. Small money for people who are relatively well to do.’

So very few Australian families and very small cuts.

$13.7 million to advertise carbon tax - governments are supposed to inform the public what’s going on. The GST campaign, for example, cost half a billion, so this is cheap.

Foreign aid rises by $500 million. That’s a bipartisan policy position, nothing to do with any ambitions of Rudd’s, and supported by Julie Bishop.

Rosie says:

10:24am | 12/05/11

Good morning Nosthow,

I don’t think you need to worry about Tony Abbott. He is fit and energetic enough to fight off Mr & Mrs Swan Wong Tough Budget. It was sad to watch Mrs Swan Wong on TV this morning pre-empting Tony Abbott’s reply to the budget this evening. Has she developed, according to you, the so called Tony Abbott umm umm? Is there something wrong with her head because she doesn’t look up when talking?

Then we have Mr Swan Wong, who without a doubt has shown us that the budget has become too tough for him and the pressure is mounting every second. It is very sad Nosthow and you guys should start doing something instead of still trying to prop up this Govt.

Talking on AM this morning Mr Swan Wong couldn’t give an answer to the question; “when was the last time Labor delivered a budget with a surplus? The question was related to Wyatt Roy’s question in Parliament yesterday. When the jurno mentioned Tony Abbott, Mr Swan Wong picked up his glass of water, took a sip and before placing the glass back it broke in his hand and the water soiled all his notes.

The poor man is worn out Nosthow, the pressure is getting to him and you are not helping!

Damocles says:

10:45am | 12/05/11

Another pointless Labor stooge rant from the noss! You’ll be eating your words when the Coalition gets voted in matey! But keep up the useless bleating Labor sheep…....baaaaaaa baaaaaa….....Gillard, good…..Abbott, bad! Country in debt, good….......country debt free, bad! Bad government, good! Good government, bad!

The Badger says:

12:22pm | 12/05/11

“Notice how quiet lately Malcolm Turnbull is viewers”
Remember when Turnbull was given the poison chalice of opposing the NBN by Abbott in an attempt to diminsh him?
Turnbull has done diddly squat in opposing the NBN because he knows that it is the right piece of infrastructure for Australia.

Abbott and his NoPosition party are desperate to bring about an early election because they know the longer this Labor government is in power, the easier their re-election will become.
The sooner Abbott and his fringe dwelling Howard era misfit shadow cabinet ride off into the sunset of retirement the better for Australia.

nossy says:

12:27pm | 12/05/11

@Rosie - and a very good morning to you too Rosie - call me “nossy” we are now good cyber friends ! -  the week I had my 60th birthday and still as sharp as a tack ! hahah Yes Tones is superfit I will give him that and being afit person myself do applaud his dedication and example he sets in keeping fit. Brabo Tones Abbott !

nossy says:

12:32pm | 12/05/11

@Damocles - damn you Damocles you stole my thiunder - i was going to do a sheep bleating blog and you did it 1st - curses !
@Dash - top stuff there fella !
@persephone - brilliant as usual !

nossy says:

01:09pm | 12/05/11

@The Badger - spot on Badge - a few more Newspolls where Abbott again fails to best Gillard in the Preffered PM poll and hes toast !

MarK says:

01:19pm | 12/05/11

” The Badger says:

  12:22pm | 12/05/11

  “Notice how quiet lately Malcolm Turnbull is viewers”
  Remember when Turnbull was given the poison chalice of opposing the NBN by Abbott in an attempt to diminsh him?
  Turnbull has done diddly squat in opposing the NBN because he knows that it is the right piece of infrastructure for Australia.”

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

They can’t build it for what they said. They haven’t employed anyone yet to do it. The sums are all wrong. There is nothing to oppose at his stage.

  “Abbott and his NoPosition party are desperate to bring about an early election because they know the longer this Labor government is in power, the easier their re-election will become.”

I see. Well actually I don’t apart from a chance for using No again.

  “The sooner Abbott and his fringe dwelling Howard era misfit shadow cabinet ride off into the sunset of retirement the better for Australia.”

Wow. You guys are really scared of the Tony monster aren’t you.

I find this hilarious.

Rosie says:

01:37pm | 12/05/11

Hi again Nosthow,

I like calling you by your real name because it differentiates me from your other cyber friends. If you don’t mind Nosthow it makes me feel special that I have befriended you, a Labor staunch supporter on cyber space.

I think you should encourage the Labor party to sell the budget on the good things that it has going for it. eg the apprenticeship scheme only one I can think of because the other great one is mental health, but can’t give the Labor govt any credit for it because it was Coalition policy. If they just concentrated on selling the budget without worrying about Tony Abbott and the Opposition it will take the pressure off them and the Treasurer may save himself from suffering a heart attack! He squeezed that glass so tightly and it broke when he heard Tony Abbott’s name mentioned. Dear Nosthow it is not a good sign.

Badger the Harass,

Haven’t spoken to you for ages! I think Malcolm Turnbull is staying very quiet and out of the picture because he is contemplating; “it should have been me.” Life has become difficult for Sad Sack since he lost to Tony Abbott for the leadership role. Turnbull can now see victory for Tony Abbott getting easier and easier each day. His woes are worsened because Tony Abbott doesn’t have to do anything, the Labor Party is doing it for him.

Persetelephone,

I admire your tenacity to keep on going declaring what you believe to be the goodness of the Labor Party.

The Badger says:

02:10pm | 12/05/11

Rosie
You do know that harass and badger have the same meaning.
Your continued use of the tautology Badger the Harass is disturbing.
BTW you have been “speaking” with me far more than you realise.

Rosie says:

03:12pm | 12/05/11

Badger the Harass

Oh how cheeky of me for my tautology? Wonderful thing about the English language is how one word could mean many things.

Badger an omnivorous grey-coated nocturnal mammal of the family Mustelidae with a white stripe flanked by black on its head, which lives in sets.

Harass - trouble and annoy continually or repeatedly.

I shall leave it to you and others to make the connection.

You say; “BTW you have been “speaking” with me far more than you realise.” Sorry I don’t recall, not unless you have mistaken me for someone else or you have replied to my comments using another name. Oh, by the way, my niece wanted to show me how I could use a different name and different email address on my computer but I said; “what for?” Perhaps you could tell me why I should be shown.

You really should be taking more care of the Treasurer, his hands are definitely becoming unsteady - I put it down to the pressure of trying to sell Gillard’s first budget.

Salamander says:

05:46pm | 12/05/11

Haahaaaaaha Badger being harassed by Rosie.

‘The sooner Abbott and his fringe dwelling Howard era misfit shadow cabinet ride off into the sunset of retirement the better for Australia.’

I feel sorry for you, you must find it so hard to get Abbott our of your mind. You should stop using alias names and stay out of trouble.

Sheldon says:

09:19am | 12/05/11

Im sorry but if you earn $150,000 you are not poor. You just dont know how to budget properly

persephone says:

10:08am | 12/05/11

Actually, Swan didn’t. He agreed that they weren’t.

However, the evidence suggests he was just being nice.

The cuts will affect 40,000 families. There are 8 million families in Australia. So it’s a very very small number affected - about 0.5%, and to the tune of about $30 per year per child.

If you’re on an income of over $150k and can’t afford an extra $3 a week (I’m assuming 2 children), you really do have money management problems.

They’re not spending an extra $2 billion in foreign aid, and what they are spending is in line with commitments made by both sides of politics going back some years - in other words, Abbott (assuming he kept his promises) would be spending the same amount.

Governments have a responsibility to inform their constituents what they’re doing, and that’s cheap for an ad campaign - Howard spent half a billion advertising the GST.

Although we’re moving towards a time of great prosperity, we aren’t quite there yet. At present, government revenue is down and is expected to stay down for a couple more years. It would be simply irresponsible is the government was spending money now on the basis that they think they’ll be getting extra money in five years time.

Shane from Melbourne says:

10:55am | 12/05/11

I’m curious- how do you call stripping away welfare socialist? I would say that the Howard government must be the most socialist government ever for introducing the middle class welfare state. And surely subsidizing a private industry such as private health insurance is socialist. In a true free market, the private health insurance industry should be able to compete on its own merits. What a curious definition of socialism you have…..

stevem says:

11:24am | 12/05/11

Pers, its not $3 per week. Its a death by a thousand cuts. There’s the stupid rises in electricity costs, the past and future interest rate rises, the $3, the flood levy, private health rebate and the expectation of a carbon tax. People on > $150k have not been getting pay rises recently so costs are rising more rapidly than any other sector of the community but their income is rising slower than any other sector. Is it any wonder they are calling foul.

These people funded the cash splashes during the GFC, yet got no money themselves. They felt a little hard done by during the GFC, but took it on the chin. This year the federal government have hit them hard in many ways and left them feeling taken advantage of.

Now they’re expected to pay not one, but two years flood tax. Original plans had them paying one year of flood tax then paying carbon tax with no rebate. Now they hear they’ll pay flood AND carbon tax at the same time.

Disclaimer: I do earn > $150k, but have no kids and no mortgage.

Aitch B says:

12:26pm | 12/05/11

@Persephone

Whatever amount the Howard government spent on ‘advertising’ the GST was post-legislation - i.e. it was already law.

Whatever Gillard spends on ‘advertising’ the carbon tax is pre-legislation - i.e. government propoganda.

Note the difference?

persephone says:

12:41pm | 12/05/11

SteveM

in the context of the budget, it’s $3 a week.

In the context of your own personal circumstances, according to the NATSEM data, your disposable income has risen by about $110 a week since 2005 (an increase of 15%) - that’s taking into account increases in the costs of living.

I can’t find any references anywhere to the flood levy being extended to two years. You’d think someone would have commented on it. I suggest that this is a misunderstanding on your part.

persephone says:

12:53pm | 12/05/11

Aitch

And do you know that that won’t be the same with the carbon price advertising? The legislation is due to go through Parliament in this financial year.

I do remember Howard spending money on advertising for policies before they became law (when he had control of the Senate), so there’s a precedent for that, too.

stevem says:

01:14pm | 12/05/11

I’ve seen seen a couple of references to the levy being extended. I discounted the first and, possibly foolishly, believed the second. In any event The rest of my argument holds. People in every income bracket set up their lifestyles to match their income. When costs go up or income drops rapidly people struggle to adapt.
With the current cost of living increases people are already struggling. With a loss of effective income due to budget items people are naturally afraid of how they will cope with the squeeze. Some of the recent cost rises have been due to supply problems caused by the floods and will abate before the tax rises come into effect. Others like electricity will continue to rise.

I have no doubt the vast majority will adapt but can understand their fears. The intent of my comment was to point out that many of those who are complaining are doing so out a perfectly natural fear of the squeeze they are experiencing. I was hoping that those complaining that $150k was plenty to live on and carping at the “rich” might allow those feeling some fear the benefit of the doubt and stop pillorying them.

p.s. Those NATSEM figures seem wildly wrong for me!

Dash says:

01:39pm | 12/05/11

@Sheldon, it’s total household income of 150,000. You clearly do not live with a family home in Sydney! Talk to me about the ALPs ability to budget! They haven’t produced a balanced or surplus budget in over 21 years!

@Persephone - it’s total household income of 150,000. So Rudd’s seat on the UN, the cost of the Malaysian nonsense, and illegal immigrants are all more important than 40,000 Australian Families (nice round number btw. Got that from the ALP treasury?). And you’re comfortable with that? And they are not informing us, it’s taxpayer money for propaganda!

Typical ALP fools reading from the party script! It’s not about individuals earning 150,000, it’s about total family income!

Facts are:

$2billion taken from Australian families
$1.7billion given to look after illegal migrants
$2billion given in overseas aid to help Rudd buy a seat at the UN
At least $13million to “educate” the masses on the Carbon tax
$200m to move Malaysian illegals to Australia
Means testing of private health tax rebate - another ALP broken promise!
Carbon tax, flood tax ,profits tax
descrimination of families on the basis of income not pollution under the carbon tax compensation scheme!
A $50billion defecit during the biggest mining boom this nation has seen!

Undisputable facts. I couldn’t give a rats about your excuses for crap government. That is what the ALP has delivered to middle Australia and to Australian families. They should be ashamed of themselves!

Taking from those creating the nations wealth and giving to those destroying it is socialism gone made! The ALP is moving further and further to the left margin. No wonder their primary is down to a mere 30% (if that).

Greg says:

01:52pm | 12/05/11

I think the point that’s being made is that the ALP have been taking money from the people who are the wealth creators and handing it to people who are on the take in this country. I agree with Dash 100% on this point. They are stripping away peoples incentive to work hard and to get on. Also, they seem to be targetting middle to high income Australian families. The flood levy, the carbon tax, the means testing of benefits, the super contribution changes etc are all example of wealth redistribution. It’s stealing people hard earned cash and redirecting it to ALP sympathetic sections of the community. That is socialism! The tax burden needs to be spread but the ALP are expecting those that already pay the most to pay even more.

The ALP punish the people paying them the majority of the PAYG tax revenue and reward those that are draining the nations finances.

You can only bite the hand that feeds you for so long. And then they will revolt. Dash very much sounds like he is in revolt. Perhaps the recent primary figures for the ALP reflect that it’s a broader issue. This budget follows the previous exercise in hitting LNP demographics.

Greg says:

02:04pm | 12/05/11

Look at Shane of Melbourne’s twisting of words to come up with the question “how you call stripping away welfare socialist”. People who can read English would know that was never the assertion in the post. But then Shane you do like to make inaccurate accusations like it was the Howard Government who introduced middle class welfare state. Well Howard Government had not been formed when say the Social Security Act 1991 was passed.

mb says:

11:25am | 12/05/11

Watcher….spot on. It really is about time everyone took responsibility for their own actions or inactions. No-one gave us a handout to raise our children and yet this current generation seems to think it’s their god given right. I have no problem with them wanting to breed my only problem is that I and many others have to pay them to breed.

Joel B1 says:

10:11am | 12/05/11

Yep, Gillard’s failed again.

“Master Electricians Australia chief executive Malcolm Richards says operators will cut corners. “There’s always a concern when there’s Federal Government grants in a program that some people hop from one program to the next to try and take advantage of these rebates,” he said.

“people cutting corners, and often [when] cutting corners they cut the safety corner of both for the workers themselves in the outcome.”

Pete says:

10:28am | 12/05/11

what could go wrong plug it in the wall, plug in tghe aerial, plug yhe box into the areial socket on the TV and tune it, oh I forgot, the box is worth about $30.00 tops(probably standard definition) so a lot of unscrupulous small business men( statistically mostly liberal voters) charge $ 370 per instance to do the above.

Bev says:

11:24am | 12/05/11

Pete says:10:28am | 12/05/11

what could go wrong plug it in the wall, plug in tghe aerial, plug yhe box into the areial socket on the TV and tune it,

The approach you suggest is the worst possible option why? First you demodulate/decode the signal (set top box) then remodulate it in analog form, Then the Tv set demodulates it again. The DB (signal strength) losses are large and the end quality of the picture is poor. 
The AV or S-Video output from the STB should be used for best results. What about the fact that many older installations have a TV, video/dvd box combo and only one AV input to the TV. Then you wind up with another analog demodulate/demodulate in the signal chain or you have a choice STB or Video/dvd box not both. It just ain’t that simple.  Trying to tie in new technology with old is fraught with traps. That’s why if the governments going down this path (I don’t believe they should) they should opt for a new TV/DVD set available at the same cost as their option. Just proves they haven’t done their homework yet again. Why am I not surprised at another disaster in the pipeline from this mob.

Markus says:

11:52am | 12/05/11

I’ve already done it for my grandparents when they got their VCR, then their DVD player, not to mention their computer (though my Grandpa did go to a specialist PC training course for the elderly, thank God).

I’d be more than happy to buy and install them for half the price the govt is budgeting at the moment.

Tator says:

12:55pm | 12/05/11

Huey,
Harvey Norman are advertising a HD settop box FULLY INSTALLED for $198, so I guess the extra $200 is to pay the tech support that no one else gets anyway and should be provided by the manufacturer as part of the warranty process.

BobM says:

10:22am | 12/05/11

Wrong, PaulC - the Tasmanians ARE stupid. They voted for the Greens and that Dhead, Wilkie…
Even their ex premier is jumping ship.

Tim says:

10:47am | 12/05/11

Yes but why is $150K the cutoff point?
If welfare is meant to be a safety net or government assistance for those in need, then why do people on $50K need assistance?
As many pensioners will tell you it’s easy to get by on far less than that, yet the government still feels fit to keep giving them more and more benefits. Why?
The government hasn’t attacked middle class welfare they’ve simply engaged in a wealth re-distribution scheme.

Kika says:

11:50am | 12/05/11

Abolutely agree with you Thirsty. $150K per year is not exactly doing it tough. According to the official figures, I am on a below average income as well as my husband. However we can both afford to make good savings, pay our rent, live comfortably and buy a new car. And we’re not even making money close to a combined income of $150K! Anyone who complains that this cut off point is too harsh should take a reality check and go live off the old age pension for a few weeks and then see what it’s like to doing it tough!

Thirsty says:

12:20pm | 12/05/11

@Tim and @Kika
I agree whole heartily
I am on $80K, plus a car, wife stays at home…yet I am given $11,000 a year on FTB. I take it gladly, goes into the kids savings account, but be real, do I really need it? I owe $250K on a home loan, have a fantastic standard of living, but I am considered in need of government assistance….its bullshit
If I went out and bought a house for $500 to $600K, yeh, I would be doing it tough, but that is my choice, governments shouldnt have to give me handouts to survive, i made my own bed, I have to sleep in it
Reporting of this budget just makes me sick, both organisations are as guilty as the other…just whip up some fear among those who shouldnt be getting welfare to start with
@Tim, in my humble opinion, the cutoff should be at the average family income, $75,000 (either one earner, or a combination of 2). Let the reduction start at $35,000, then slowly reduce so that if you go $1 over the cutoff, you only miss out on a few cents. Problem with the system is that if you go over the limit by $1, you lose $2,903 per child under 18, thats where the injustice really lies

Tim says:

12:40pm | 12/05/11

Kika,
exactly what I was saying, it’s not that tough to live on far less than $150K.
So maybe you can explain to me why you think that you deserve these welfare payments or why you should be excluded from paying for things like the flood levy, carbon tax etc etc?

Tim says:

12:43pm | 12/05/11

Thirsty,
I would agree with your proposal and I think it sounds like a good idea. There are far too many people who rely on the government to give them money when they don’t need it.
The welfare bill in this country is far too big and growing.

simon says:

02:36pm | 12/05/11

150k is not big money in Sydney at all, NSW is a very large part of Australia’s economy. This will hurt big time, the main thing is there is no incentive to earn more than 150k if you have a family. Wayne Goose and Juliar Dillard really got that one wrong!!!

Thirsty says:

04:03pm | 12/05/11

@Simon
By the sounds of it mate, you are probably in the crowd that doesnt want to do overtime because they lose half in tax…its bullshit, along with the line that you dont want to earn more becuase you miss out on welfare
Earn an extra $10K, pay $3,000 in tax, lose $2,000 in welfare, but guess what, you are still $5,000 in front. I would sooner do a bit more for the extra $5,000….

MarK says:

04:40pm | 12/05/11

Dang are they really? Can you link that Tim so I can look see please.

That is harsh if they are doing that

Tim Welshe says:

12:58pm | 13/05/11

Hi MarkK

Here is a quick article I found:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/budgets/depressing-cuts-for-new-mums/story-fn8gf1nz-1226054974472

Before you could have 12 session plus another 6 if required = 18 not it will be 6 session plus another 4 if required = 10. I really feel bad for people with mental health, depression and anxiety is a growing concern yet the government don’t seem to care.

RGG says:

11:36am | 12/05/11

You make this comment on every video article which is posted on the Punch.

1. No one cares.
2. ‘Flash’ is manufactured by Adobe, and as a product is akin to MS Word in terms of safety and utility.

MarK says:

04:36pm | 12/05/11

firefox and add block plus is your friend

nossy says:

12:50pm | 12/05/11

@Joel BI - I saw that Joely but he was as calm as a cucumber ! Honestly fella its time you rang your optometrist - those coke bottle lenses need updating !  hahhahah

Joel B1 says:

12:57pm | 12/05/11

Nice one nossy,

Sociopaths usually are.

PS good to see your medication’s working, just remember tri-cyclics don’t mix with booze.

majority says:

05:24pm | 12/05/11

I can’t decide if Swanny is dumb or lazy. He still didn’t know the answer to the question he was asked in parliament yesterday. it wasn’t just any old question, but one that was highlighted on the television news I saw last night. The same question that he fumbled today and dropped the glass while not answering. Both I think, dumb and lazy.

Wombat says:

10:20am | 13/05/11

“I am an age pensioner with an analogue TV”
and I’m a hairy nosed wombat who taught himself to type.