Campaign countdown: Yeah but, no but, Swan explains

Stephanie says:

01:53pm | 15/07/10

I think you underestimate the incredulous yet opportunist nature of two types of Labor voters… they never believe Labor does anything wrong although they always leave the country in a huge amount of debt! And they like the perks of sitting on their behinds and claim the dole or pensions…

Against the Man says:

03:47pm | 15/07/10

Maybe. But Labor was frozen out for 12 years. This time round Rudd/Gillard/Swan/Garrett/Roxon and the rest of the inglorious clowns have shown the country how immature and inexperienced they are at running this country. People are currently saving more and spending less and know that bad times are coming, even Labor supporters have lost faith after the party rat f**ked Rudd. Gillard is leaving a bad after taste even among hard core Labor supporters. Why do you think she still hasn’t called an election?

Robert Smissen Rural SA says:

06:38pm | 15/07/10

Swan & Rudd went to school together Dudd was the Dux & Swan was a dumb-ass footballer so why would you put him in charge of the $ $ $

Macon Paine says:

10:23am | 15/07/10

LOL Swoose! Nice one! I used to always refer to him as Wayne “the wood duck” Swan but Swoose takes the cake.

ABC says:

12:48pm | 15/07/10

Much better than my “Mr Bean”. or occassional “Rowan”  I do quite like shouting at him on the 7.30 Report, it’s very therapeutic!

Press says:

08:50am | 15/07/10

The answer is, not a lot.

The gross numbers of deficit and govt debt look large, in plain $ terms because we have a large economy. 

In real dollars as proportion to GDP,  deficit (at 3% of GDP now) and govt debt (at 6% of GDP in 2012) are both modest, compared to our GDP, compared to recent decades here, and compared with other similar countries.

The overall impact of where we are now, including gov’t debt,  is easily seen, in robust employment,  falling unemployment, modestly rising GDP… and RBA interest rates, which are now steady, after slowly being brought back to the long-run average.  “Neutral” impact, they’d call it - the setting appropriate to steady growth.

There’s more here
http://www.budget.gov.au/2010-11/content/economic_statement/html/economic_statement-04.htm

Rosie says:

10:09am | 15/07/10

Press - You would have to be fooling yourself to believe that Swann the goose has managed the economy in a responsible way. The word “dodgy” comes to mind everytime he opens his mouth.

Tails says:

10:23am | 15/07/10

Press - if another country put its head in the fire, does that mean we should too? You, sir, are a numpty of such gravitas, you would aspire to being simply moronic.

Richard says:

10:27am | 15/07/10

So what you’re saying, Press, is that the fact that we’ve only recently (in the last 2 years or so) set ourselves down the path to ruin, and the problem isn’t that bad yet, means that we should make the decision to continue down this path after the next election? Just ask anyone from England what a long-term Labour government does to a country’s finances…

Our nation’s prosperity and ecomonic strength is too important to intrust to ideologically challenged amatuers like Wayne Swan and the Labor party. We know that the coalition can do a better job because their frontbench already has so much ministerial experience in conducting a successful economy.

Roja says:

06:36pm | 15/07/10

Gee, I could have sworn MarK was 100% confident it was labor supporters that ‘attacked the man’ without using any facts to back up their case.

Rosie & Tails - if you all you can contribute is vitriol, take your liberal party pom poms and don’t let the door hit you on the way out. 

Richard - it’s entrust, not intrust.  When you say “their frontbench already has so much ministerial experience in conducting a successful economy ” I assume you are deliberately omitting when Abbott briefly selected Barnaby Joyce as shadow finance minister which makes a complete mockery of that statement - he doesn’t know the difference between million and billion.  The honorable Costello is long gone and with him much of the quality experience.  Turnbull would have been the next best bet for treasurer, however he is hanging out back waiting to lead the liberal party to a 2013 election win.  That leaves ‘average’ Joe Hockey who has great charisma, but simply no ability for handling the job of treasurer - in fact he makes Swann look awesome in comparison.

Andrew says:

09:44am | 16/07/10

If Swan is the most incompetent and dishonest Treasurer, it’s because he’s found an enabler in Henry. Every time Henry speaks he should add “written, spoken and authorised for the Labor Party by K Henry, Canberra.” I don’t know which one of them is driving this rubbish - whether Henry is being led around by Swan to basically commit fraud on the people, or whether Henry is coming up with ideas to help Swan and the ALP spin. Either way, gotta go.

Dash says:

09:57am | 15/07/10

Yeah Dan this government says they are going to do a lot and then doesn’t deliver. Why would you prefer a hollow promise that sounds great. Look at the growing list:
Grocery choice - election promise not delivered
200+ childcare facilities - election promise not delivered
More affordable housing - election promise not delivered
“I’ll turn the boats around” - election mantra - not delivered
Public ownership of hospitals by July 2009 if no improvement - election promise not delivered
ETS, carbon trading scheme - backflip
Profit tax - watered down and $7.5b (we think) hole in the federal budget
Insulatin scheme - fiasco
School building scheme - parliamentary inquiry into rorting and waste
We wont touch the private health tax rebate - election promise - lie
No compulsory university union fees - lie voted down
Economic conservative - don’t think so - biggest spending government in history, surplus blown, over $40b of defecit and record foreign debt.
These guys need to go, even in a safe Labor seat ,at least you can be happy knowing you didn’t vote for the morons.

Dan says:

11:29am | 15/07/10

I don’t disagree with you Dash, it’s just that there is no viable alternative. If the Libs can bring out some decent policies I’ll go with them no worries. As it stands however, they plan on getting rid of the mining tax altogether, how does that help anyone except the billionaires who own the mining companies? And the libs don’t really interested in the environment and I wouldn’t vote Green in a pink fit.

BTW can we please get rid of the picture of the child molester, I won’t read a story about him and I just can’t stand having that monster stareing at me from my screen when I open a webpage. If ever there was a case for simple deletion of a person, he is it.

Dash says:

12:40pm | 15/07/10

Hi Dan, I agree with you on the greens I think people often vote for them in protest without understanding their policies. Their tax and border protection policies are very very scary! And I agree that the Libs need to offer a viable alternative. I think they will need to present something on climate at election time and they are probably playing their cards close to their chest at the moment. Lets wait and see. In terms of the mining tax, the corporate tax rate is a flat 30%, so the more profit you make the more tax you pay. And it’s a consistent system applying to all of corporate Australia including say the banks who have also made large profits. One point to note is that there is a system of royalties currently in place where state governments are paid royalties by mining companies for the right to take the “wealth” out of the ground. So effectively they already pay additional taxes. This is one point which seems to have been lost in much of the debate. We also need to consider the impact this tax would have on investment in Australia and to our international competitiveness. We have already seen the impact it had on mining stocks and the impact that had on investments and mum and dad investors. I agree with the Libs that the tax should go for all of these reasons. I would prefer the government and the opposition to talk about the GST and reducing the PAYG tax scales to have better equity between individuals and corporates. But mainly I have an issue with the performance of this current government and the waste and cost to us as a nation. I just can’t justify another term for them. And I suddenly find myself passionate about getting rid of them whereas once I would have just sat and thought they were all the same. This lot are sending us to a place I don’t think we need to go and they have done enough damage already. Another three years????

TimB says:

03:46pm | 15/07/10

Hi Dash, a very good point about the royalty system. It’s something that the morons who constantly shout “We should get our fair shaaaare!” either ignore or are completely unaware of, blindly following Labor class warfare propaganda.
If the royalty system needs updating due to market conditions (and I believe there are some arguments that state this is the case), then great, go ahead and update it. Get Australias “fair share” by fine tuning the system we already have in place.

The problem with this approach of course is that all the funds go straight to the states. Labor only brought in the mining tax to ensure the money is funnelled to FEDERAL coffers thus filling the gaping hole in their budget.

It amazes me that people on the other side of the debate cannot see this obvious truth.

Roja says:

07:07pm | 15/07/10

@TimB - The ‘morons’ are probably aware that state royalty payments are fully deducted from the tax paid - so they are a complete non-issue.  Best you not cast the moron stone like that without the most basic of fact checking.

@Dash - Can I ask what is your response to the fact that we used to get a 55% return on our minerals, yet this has now dropped to around 25%.  Putting the proposed labor tax regime aside, is it not good business sense to get an improved return now that the value of these commodities have increased?  I have long lamented that Australia has been walked over by big business in such matters.

TimB says:

11:19pm | 15/07/10

@Roja,

That doesn’t make any sense. If the morons know the royalties are already occurring then why are they bleating about “getting a fair share” as if they aren’t getting anything?
Royalties aren’t a “non-issue” untill AFTER the tax is in place (and yes I did know about royalties being refunded, I didn’t mention it because it’s not relevant to my argument) .

On the refund though, don’t you think it’s silly for the miners to pay the States royalties only to just get it refunded right back to them by way of deductions? What a waste of time. Might as well just get the Federal goverment to deliver a wad of cash to the State governments ala the GST and be done with it.

If the country isnt getting aproper return on its resources then the simple solution is to overhaul the royalties system.
The only reason Labor wants the National tax in is to make its books look good.Too bad. Shouldn’t have gone on a spending spree with the credit card.

Dash says:

09:12am | 16/07/10

Hi Roja, that’s a difficult question to answer without knowing how the calculation has been done. However, as an accountant, I know that looking at percentage movements will not always give you a clear or precise picture. Lies, damn lies and statistics comes to mind. I would suggest that if you look in dollar terms you might see a significant increase in the tax take from this sector over the same period. 25% of a $20bill profit for example will be much more than 55% of $5bill. I don’t disagree with you in terms of making sure we all pay our fair share of tax and I have firm views on the GST and the difference between the corporate rate and the top marginal tax rate. But I do not agree that we should target one sector of the economy over another just because they are successful. What would happen if we had a BP type scenario and some mines started to make significant losses. Would we be happy for them to be able to claim a bigger deduction than the 30% corporate rate? I don’t think so. As I said before, the corporate tax rate is a flat rate so the more taxable profit you make, the more tax you pay and that’s what’s been happening over recent years. As the economy grows, resource prices rise and business profits increase, it’s been a bonanza for the government. What we don’t want to do is have policy which reduces investment, stiffles growth and reduces profits in this sector. What I’m more concerned about is how this large tax take is being spent and I am disgusted at the way this government has wasted it or allowed taxpayers money to be rorted. I’ve provided many example of this. The ideology and the message sound good which is what the government were hoping for in terms of their sales pitch. Reality is more complex and the indirect costs/impact didn’t seem to have been thought through very well. Also, the lie about the backdown only costing $1.5bill is not a good look!

Roja says:

04:33pm | 16/07/10

@TimB - It appeared your argument was that the royalties were an additional encumbrance to the tax, but that was my misinterpretation.  I do believe the miners themselves were happier with this model over the existing royalties system, in it’s early form (what cannot be reasonably argued was that it’s delivery was anything other than shambolic desperation by Rudd).  To me, long term, getting rid of a state by state system means business has one consistent system to adhere to - eg all collections SHOULD be handled by a national organisation, not the states as this would surely reduce overheads for the companies and leave responsibility for the admin to one government agency. Importantly this also prevents big companies pitting state against state (or divide and conquer).  That said I have no idea if this is the actual plan, the details are still ‘fuzzy’.

@Dash - No argument on lies & statistics.  We do already specifically target the mining industry, since no other company pays royalties.  The change is the method and rate of the tax, is this an adjustment or an out and out grab?  We don’t know.  There must be some truth since the mining companies have not disgreed with having to pay a larger share.

With the BP scenario, that is definitely a consideration - if the company goes bankrupt as a result and makes no profit that would seem to me that they simply pay nothing (compay or mining tax).  In saying that I see your point that if that was BHP, the costs of one disaster can spead across every mine which could be a potential disaster in lost taxes. 

As for the “it’s only a $1.5 billion reduction”, their omission of the fact that their original model was going to recoup way more money due to increased commodity prices did show an inability to be honest.  I’m just not of the belief that any other politician would act any differently. 

How the money is being spent though, is the one thing I do like.  We have a two speed economy, this helps adjust that balance to a degree.  Also the money goes towards superannuation (to address an ageing population problem) and infrastructure (to ensure that these resources can be shipped out).  Although on labors spending record I do understand why you are hesitant…

Mayday says:

10:30am | 15/07/10

Me too Rosie, it was squirming worming stuff from Swan, like a rabbit frozen in front of the car headlights - doesn’t give me much confidence in this government.

Paul says:

02:21pm | 15/07/10

Rosie - Agree completely.

However, the average rusted-on ALP voter doesnt watch press conferences…..

Gregg says:

02:35pm | 15/07/10

Too true Richard, it has seemed for so long that something is scewed and we’re screwed.
There was the old saying of if the US sneezes, rest of the world gets a cold and now it’s a little different in that the US and Europe are having pneumonia calls and nowhere near enough oxygen for China and so you know where that’ll have us at the end of the domino train wreck.
I am not so amazed that neither party is willing to address the possibility of not just a double dip recession but a world depression for who wants to be a pessimist when saying she’ll be alright mate and here’s a hand out is seen as being optimistic,
At least we can still have a laugh over the Bob, Paul and Blanche show, the makings of a good folk trio not!
But looking at
I would more often than not make a defensive comment in terms of “us” or “Bob and I”, because I believed the unity of our purpose reflected more strongly on what we achieved and on Labor’s record. That is, we looked stronger together than as two personalities separated as to objectives and outcomes. And this was the way I was happy to leave it. “
I wonder how Kev feels!
And then they do say getting old is like getting young again and sure to be some entertainment ahead with
But you are not happy to leave it…...............Which brings me to the point, what do I do from here? ...... I will bet, London to a brick on, being better than a fair shake of the sauce bottle at least…....... through to your lacklustre performance through the 1987 election, to the point when in 1988, four years later, (John) Dawkins had to front you, asking you to leave…....... The fact is, Bob, I was exceedingly kind to you for a very long time. I knew the state you were in in 1984 and notwithstanding a lot of unhelpful advice from Garnaut and other obsequious members of your staff, I carried you through the whole 1984-1987 parliament, insisting you look like the prime minister, even if your staff, the Manchu Court I called them,......and I suppose a gang is a gang whatever you call it but Kev’s wasn’t too loyal!......... were otherwise prepared to leave you in your emotional hole. No other prime minister would have survived going missing for that long. ......... Kevin Rudd had two months of bad polls and you were the first to say he should be replaced. And you have since repeated it. .........and fully with your long years of depression and executive incapacity….........yours and Blanche’s rewriting of history is not only unreasonable and unfair, more than that, it is grasping. It is as if, Narcissus-like, you cannot find enough praise to heap upon yourself. In hindsight, it is obvious yours and Blanche’s expressions of friendship towards me over the last few years have been completely insincere….........ouchies and I can only promise you this: if I get around to writing a book, and I might, I will be telling the truth; the whole truth. ............without favour, how lucky you were to have me drive the government during your down years, leaving you with the credit for much of the success.

But what a fiasco we have for it’s more now a Hawkard junior without too much support from a Swoosie, a Floosie with a swoosie!

I cannot wait and sales ought to at least be good for the economy!
Maybe we should all support Paul to get that book out real quick!

Richard says:

11:17am | 15/07/10

Peter, when you say “we should be grateful that we can pocket $10.5b of other peoples money without doing a thing for it”, by “we” you really mean the incompetent bungling government run by shadowy faceless hacks, and by “other people” you mean average mum and dad investors n main street, everyone who has a job/superannuation account, and anyone from overseas who invested in our economy in good faith.

Ben says:

11:25am | 15/07/10

The whole point of the tax is to ‘give Australians a fair share’, so I don’t know what you’re on about saying the money was never ours?

Also, picking the Government up on its failures is not being greedy or insufferable. It’s our responsibility as thegeneral public

This one may my day - “Pat on the back for getting the thing sorted” - The Government trying to fix it’s own stuff up is not worthy of a pat on the back, regardless of faction. Please get out of Labor’s backpocket and open your eyes

TimB says:

11:47am | 15/07/10

I don’t think that’s really the problem here. Not for me anyway. The problem is the fudging of figures in order to show a surplus thus gaining the credit for “sound economic management”. If the figures are fudged then Labor deserves no accolades.
I don’t care that non-existent, underserved money is gone. I take offence to Labor using said play money to talk up their economic credentials.

Peter says:

12:45pm | 15/07/10

Ben and Richard,
I suppose I’m just a tad frustrated about how much we go on and on about this issue when most of us were not even aware of it about 3 months ago.  And look at how completely contradictory your arguments are!  The government seems to be damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
Tim, perhaps there is some merit in your criticism that they should not be allowed to ‘fudge’ the figures and take undue credit, but I still think they deserve some for getting the darn thing through, don’t you?  It all seems like a lot of glass-half-empty commentary to me. 
Consider this: irrespective of concerns of a ‘double dip’ recession, around the World, Australia’s economy is seen as a marvel.  That’s why Obama was shocked that Rudd got the boot.  He couldn’t see why a country would be so down on a leader who brought them through the GFC in such good shape.  My point is that perhaps we need to get some perspective on all of this and stop bagging our leadership so much for every little thing.  We’ve actually got it pretty bloody good.

Brad of Bentleigh says:

01:01pm | 15/07/10

ahh, Peter… you beleive the $10.5b figure. I think you might have missed what is being said here, that figure is probably unrealistic. If it is realistic, then the initial $12b was looking closer to $20b. Closer to realitiy would be though, that the actual figure that is acheived will be closer to $5b over 2 years, assuming strong commodoty prices are maintained.

The treasury (and Swan) have lost all credability, and the one thing you can take away as certainty, is that none of them have any idea how much revenue will be generated by this tax.

You also forget, Peter, that the ALP traditionally has been a “tax & spend” type of government. We want to encourage business in Australia, and allow companies to make good profits, that will encourage further investment, and therefore greater tax revenues, higher employment, higher standard of living… akuna-matada… and the circle of life

Peter says:

02:19pm | 15/07/10

Brad of Bentleigh, ‘tax and spend’ - the revenue from the Mining Tax is actually going to go to a reduction in corporate tax and an increase in savings via superannuation.  That doesn’t sound like “tax and spend” to me.  You see, you show your hand there: you’re not really interested in whether Swann got his figures right - you just don’t like Labor and anything they do.  Your criticisms are really ideological but you pretend they are about ‘the facts’.

dovif says:

02:32pm | 15/07/10

Peter

The problem with the government is not damn if they do and damn if they don’t

The problem with this government is the Groose incompetency that it is showing. You can almost hear them thinking ... umm we have a billions dollar blackhole in the budget because of our excessive spending and wastage, what should we do before the election to show we can be competant at managing the economy ..... ummm lets have a new tax, and make it raise a lot of money to cover the hole and then use it as re-election bribes.

It was a poorly through out tax, that included no consutation with the industry and which does not work in practice, which Labor had now admitted.

And it is not a one off incident, you can say the same thing about the ETS, the insulation, Boarder Protection the BER, the Green Loans, Grocery watch, Alcopop etc

For example just last week Gillard decided to have a detention center in East Timor, which was also the first time, the East Timor government known about it .... it is as incompetant as the RSPT.

It is not a damn if you do, damn if you don’t incident…. it is about proper planning, proper consultation, proper implementation .... which is everything that had been wrong with the NSW ALP and the Federal ALP for the last 15 years

TimB says:

02:35pm | 15/07/10

@ Peter

With regards to Labor getting us through the GFC you have two main points to consider.

1. Did Rudd’s rivers of cash actually have the claimed effect? Honestly, I can’t answer this personally, I’m not an economist.
There people like yourself who will claim that without the action that was taken, we would have been screwed. (I do believe though if this is the case that we could have gotten similar effects for less money considering some of the waste).
Other people will point to the fact that other nations had similar stimulus packages and still ended up in recession as evidence that other factors, (ones out of the governments control) were to thank for shielding Australia from the worst effects of the GFC.
In the end, I figure it doesn’t matter either way, because of the second point:

2. Rudd was ONLY able to do what he did thanks to the extra money in the coffers set aside by the Liberal Party. I’ve seen many comments on the Punch and elsewhere decrying the Liberals for “sitting” on the surplus instead of spending it, whilst at the same time congratulating Rudd for his stimulus policies. Without the surplus though there couldn’t have been stimulus policies! This is where the hypocricy lies.  You can’t praise Rudd for doing something he was only able to do thanks to actions taken by the previous government and then turn around and condemn the Liberals for what they did.

End result: No matter which way you look at it, Rudd & Labor deserve no credit.

john says:

02:48pm | 15/07/10

Peter, In reference to your second comment, you know that it was the labour party that chucked out rudd, not the country

Steve_of_Cornubia says:

01:13pm | 15/07/10

Ah, but this is Labor, the Masters of Deceit, so if/when commodity prices fail to reach forecast highs, Swan and Gillard will just say, “It’s not our fault. World demand is out of our hands.”

And then go on to blame Tony Abbott for China’s slowdown.

mags says:

09:02am | 17/07/10

Just like when Paul Keating was dubbed the ” world’s greatest treasurer” by MEXICO.

As an addition, if I was Tony Abbott I would retain the deal worked out by this bunch - after all the big three accepted it. They deserve to get screwed.

Phil says:

01:26pm | 15/07/10

Steve Perhaps that is the labor way. After all they are the party of Orkopoulos, Campbell, Carr, Egan et al.

Randal says:

04:12pm | 15/07/10

Under the Coalition Holly small business will be much better off as they will not have to pay an additional 3% in superannuation to the their employees, and considering 75% of small businesses are not incorporated and donot pay company tax, the government’s greedy mining grab will do nothing for them.

So, I think it is fair to say that small business, as is always the case, will be the big winners under a Coalition government.

Now what may concern them and all businesses is a treasurer who is loose with the truth and uses rubbery and manipulated forecasts to claim credit for surpluses that do not exist and that should be a concern shred by all.

Press says:

06:01am | 16/07/10

Persephone hasn’t posted for over 3 weeks.

I hope she’s OK.

Whenever she could post, her points were always well made, interesting and pretty well on the money -  she did her homework.  The Punch was a better conversation every day that she posted.