Compromise or capitulation? Gillard’s mining backdown

Jane says:

10:30am | 02/07/10

“Anything it takes”
ALP mantra alive and well under the Red Dalek

Scot says:

11:11am | 02/07/10

Daryl we can add this to the list of failures to the Gang of Four. And the sad thing is Swan thinks he is a genius, if Gillard keeps him around after this then we know that she was also a part of it in the first place. We all know this is Labor thuggery of the worst kind and the public servants should be ashamed of themselves, and the damage caused to Australia image overseas in the medium to long term has been seriously damaged.  These fools must go, Swan is still spending money he did not have and still does not have. And what about the loss of revenue to the States as well even more poor outcomes.

Matt says:

11:35am | 02/07/10

Daryl,

The miners still have to pay corporate tax as well as the MRRT.

If anyone’s backed down it’s the miners. They’ve now got to pay a profits-based tax which they didn’t have to before. If it was only the corporate tax rate then the Government wouldn’t be getting another $10.5 billion from them.

Julia has well and truly pulled the miners’ pants down and given them what for.

And for the Labor haters out there - regardless of the colour of the government, did you really want policy to be decided by the person (or company) with the biggest pockets? Actuallly, don’t answer that. If you voted for the ones accepting the miners’ cash and the tobacco companies’ cash, then we know the answer to that.

Greg says:

02:07pm | 02/07/10

Ha ha ha Matty re
” The miners still have to pay corporate tax as well as the MRRT.
If anyone’s backed down it’s the miners. They’ve now got to pay a profits-based tax which they didn’t have to before. If it was only the corporate tax rate then the Government wouldn’t be getting another $10.5 billion from them. “
It’s all smoke and mirrors and I wouldn’t be so presumptious of anything until you read what fine print gets into legislation.
They were already paying company tax just like any company and it could well be that now instead of having that upped to 40% on any profit over 6% , it’ll be 30% on over13% .
What we have here is not just backflips but cartwheels and ironically a PM of more right views deposed because he wanted to do the right thing by smaller business and workers to be replaced by someone from the left who has gone easy on the big boys whether it was all right or should have been left well alone in the first place.

We also have a treasurer putting out a budget on unknown data and whereas in Toronto it was ” no effect on bottom line ” , now it’s isn’t Julia great and we’ll have to work out the impact.
Nothing but an almighty schemozzle and all the wasteful spending now not covered up.

It’s not a case of Labor hating but just wanting sound prudent governance and that ain’t something that’ll ever be achieved by endless spending with no thought of where the money is to come from and all that results is we all suffer.

Dash says:

02:19pm | 02/07/10

Matt, I don’t think we want policy decided by the person with the longest knife either! Just as we don’t want policy decided by unelected union bosses who represent less than a quarter of the working population.

Ben Colby says:

05:03pm | 02/07/10

What are you talking about? How on earth is this a backdown? I wonder do people really undertstand how this tax works. Its very simple. They are paying a new tax MRRT plus corporate tax. The actual rate of tax has been lowered form 40% to 30%.  Its the mining giants who have partially backed down and the government has reduced the tax amount howver we now have a situation that is winable for both sides and the Australian public. Rudd did not want to compromise or negiate so this is a win for Gillard.

Arn says:

10:22pm | 02/07/10

Only 1.5 billion short, and they have fixed the retrospectively thing. This simply doesn’t add up. No longer retrospective means no new tax on operational mines. This simply means no extra tax. No extra tax, where is the extra 10.5 billion coming from then.

Andrew says:

09:57am | 02/07/10

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.

You make me laugh.

Rudd got rolled because he was going to lose them the election and the unions and the NSW right turned on him.

If by compromise you mean complete backdown then you’re absolutely right, geat compromise wink wink.

Good governments don’t need to compromise in this manner because they make sure they get policies right in the first place.

It must be so difficult for you working out what you need to say while your maiting for the party propaganda line for the day to come out of Sussex St.

No points for backing down on a problem you caused.

Won’t help labor in QLD either.

Dash says:

10:10am | 02/07/10

But why do they need to look for a compromise to a problem they created? Good government wouldn’t have created the mess in the first place. Good government doesnt deliver the insulation fiasco, stand by whilst taxpayers money is rorted under the schools schemes. Good government doesn’t promise and backflip as in the ETS and Grocery choices, more affordable housing etc. Good government doesn’t find themselves in a position to have to stab their leader to save themselves at election time. Good government doesn’t rack up record foreign debt and then continue to waste billions on incompetent schemes and dodgy deals. By any measure this is not a “good government”!

MarK says:

10:27am | 02/07/10

Bruhahahahahahahaha.

$38 million in advertising says NO.

I really like you seano. A cup half full kind of guy when it is a Labor cup anyway.

Remember the kitchen cabinet of long ago, well 8 days or so, you know Rudd, Tanner, Swan and this red hair lady. Ummmm can’t recall her name.

Apparently they were unanimous in fighting these foreign billionaires that rip up our resources pay no tax and disappear in the night with our cash.

Oh yes now it comes back.

Gillard that was her name.

The RSPT is dead seano. You cannot claim a compromise when the tax rate is going from 30% to 30%.

There is no such thing left as the RSPT. It was defeated by pressure from the(evil) miners and the one leader of a major party that has political convictions Abbott.

Gillard lost and is damaged goods.

Actually I see know why you keep your posts short on this. Bit hard to explain the inexplicable eh?

PaulB says:

11:20am | 02/07/10

Oh Seano, you really are classic rusted-on Labor aren’t you.

Keith hammersmith says:

11:43am | 02/07/10

Win/Win?? 
hardly

months have gone by where growth in the mining sector has been stifled in anticipation of super profits tax, shares lost value….  how much did that cost our economy??

Labor needs to understand the damage they have done as they clearly do not understand at this point.

Joan says:

12:24pm | 02/07/10

Gillard backpeddlling the Labor policy bike   as fast as she can , somersaults and all.- a new redheaded clown, same show , same dud act.

Alex says:

01:02pm | 02/07/10

MarK….

You have to be serious, Abbott has political convictions?  His only conviction is getting elected.  He has done so many backflips it isn’t funny.  But everyone ignores them because he hasn’t be voted in…

Should I mention climate change?  What is his current stance on that?

What about maternity leave?  Who is paying for his scheme?  Us or the corporations or health or education or infrastructure?

I disagree with GIllard backing down like this, and then being hailed as doing something good for the country.  But I disagree with even more people claiming Abbott as the bastion for the future of the country.  He will destroy us, and put us 30 years back, at a time when great investments need to be made into infrastructure in this country or we shall return to the dark ages.

MarK says:

01:52pm | 02/07/10

@ Alex

Yes I am serious.

Yes mention climate change. His view = its bullshit hence his opposition to the ETS. It is a very common view.

You haven’t read the announcement of you ask that question.

You really tell that spooky story to scare the kids about the meanies in the coalition?

Roja says:

02:24pm | 02/07/10

MarK your post is completely unreadable in parts.

“You cannot claim a compromise when the tax rate is going from 30% to 30%”. 

Either you are talking about the tax on profits as compared to the corporate tax rate (which will be 29% and is entirely unrelated as they pay both) or you meant 40% to 30% which unless I am mistaken is a compromise.

“Actually I see know why you keep your posts short on this”

I wish you would sometimes, you tend to go on an on with barely any relevance, facts or the vaguest ability to be concise.

“You haven’t read the announcement of you ask that question.”

Case in point.  Proof reading, it’s not just for Abbott’s policy advisors.

Seano says:

03:07pm | 02/07/10

Rant on boys and girls but until you get some sensible argument behind the rhetoric you’re on a hiding to nothing.

@Andrew - re: compromise, can you say GST?

@Dash - We the people of Australia own those resources and were not getting fair return on those assets. The fact that miners didn’t just dig in and say no but were willing to compromise show that even they knew this.

@MarK - lack of a grip on the facts again, the rate has gone from 40 - 30%.

@PaulB - Actually no, I’m looking forward to voting out the incompetent NSW government and have said so for years. But I’m sure it makes you feel better about this huge blow to the federal coalitions chances, to claim that the people who see the benefit of this winfall for Australia are only rusted on Labor supporters.

@Keith - where is the evidence of this supposed stiffled growth?

@Joan - Bitterness and silly rhetoric aren’t going to win votes at the next election.

Christian Real says:

03:46pm | 02/07/10

Seano,
I agree with you it is a compromise, and for the media and the Liberal radicals to claim that it is a backdown or capitulation is false and misleading

Mark says:

05:00pm | 02/07/10

Hi Roja and Seano.

Lets see.

The corporate tax rate is 30%. The tax on super profits or whatever it is you guys have changed it to too for miners is now….....drum roll….30%.

It hasn’t moved. Sure call it a compromise. To me it a political backflip and embarrassment for Gillard.

Oh Roja I see you don’t like long posts. Here is a tip. Don’t read them then. You see seano has the aversion to reading other points of view or stuff like “information”. You and him will get on great.

Ohhhh Roja another typo. Whatever shall I do?

Tell ya what champ. You have an issue with me I can see that.

You sound like a OK guy. And reasonable.

Here is the deal.

You harp on to your hearts content about my grammar and I will ignore it from now on. There ya go.

Appeasement and compromise.

I think if you are looking for perfect English the net will disappoint you Roja. Just saying.

Anyway thanks for reading my post. I am glad it gave you pause and a reason to express your love of the language. Sorry I confused you. Sorry you had nothing to add apart from the grammar police bit and a whine about lengths of posts.

Awesome stuff mate. Glad you dropped in. Do hurry back.

Until next time.

Parting is such sweet sorrow Roja.

Bye.

Cya.

Ciao

Later

Big hug and kiss

Front up says:

05:33pm | 02/07/10

Seano,
Sorry friend, but the “resources” you say the people of Australia “own” are in fact “owned” by the individual states.
All this new system will achieve (if the Feds still insist on refunding the royalty payments made to states) is a licence for those like WA and QLD - and potentially SA - to jack up their royalties and so pass the bill to the taxpayers of Australia.
This will all end up in the High Court, Julia will win the next election, the resource states will wind up subsidising the failed states of NSW and Victoria… and we’ll be looking at a sovereign default in 2019.
Neither side can get us out of this one, there is no way the resources sector is going to grow endlessly.
The only way out is for a Royal Commission into duplication of State and Federal services, and governments working together to decide, once and for all, exactly who does what at all three tiers of government.
Seriously, the longer we get caught up in the political “wars” and do not insist that our politicians work together, the more certain our financial doom.

TimB says:

06:04pm | 02/07/10

@ Seano:SSo you’re saying Rudd got rolled because he didn’t look for a compramise? And if Good governments look for compromise are you saying that Labor, under Rudd was a bad government?

I want you to be absolutely clear. Admit it here. “The Labor government under Rudd was a bad government”

@ Christian Real

It might be a compromise, but it was a forced compromise and you know it. Right up untill last week Wayne Swan, kept claiming that the tax as it was would not change. Now it hasbeen forced to abansdon that position, because of the pressure on the Labor government. Tere’ no way they woul have dne swillingly
It IS capitulation. it IS a backdown. The only thing misleading here is people like you trying to give Labor brownie points for cleaning up a mess of their own creation.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

06:05pm | 02/07/10

Christian Real :  Just one more backflip to add to the list . What a win for the miners !
The BER school buildings rip-off is the next to be addressed . On its own , the BER scandal is enough justification for voters to remove Labor from office.

Brad Coward says:

06:07pm | 02/07/10

Just saw the DPM on the news.  Footage from one month back with Goosey insisting that it was going to be nothing less than 40% !

Compromise, my sweet Aunt Fanny !  Backflip !  Gold medal winning performance !

Increase in GST to cover the massive shortfall created by the backflip, anyone ?

Keith hammersmith says:

06:38pm | 02/07/10

@ seano, how many mining companies put on hold projects that they were due to start? - i can think if 3 major projects just in QLD put on hold due to just the proposition of the super profits tax,

Putting projects on hold = stifled growth
New investment scared away because you can’t invest in a country when the taxation is in a state of limbo, so investors wait to see what happens
= stifled growth.

its pretty obvious
every single project that was canned or put on hold just because the new tax was being propositioned, costs this economy millions.  jobs were lost - costing the economy
and all this just because labor proposed an ill conceived tax with out thinking about the consequences. 
Imagine if it had of gone through.

What Labor needs to understand that everything they do has consequences, even talking about the super profits tax hurt this country.

Robert S McCormick says:

06:49pm | 02/07/10

Garbage, seano, Garbage! When you have thought out your policies, had them examined by those who know about such things and who can tell instantly whether or not they will work as proposed or should be altered. You then take them to the people who will be most involved, in this case the mining industry, which has never shied away from a Resources Rent Tax, Then you all get together and work out the final policy. This Gillard & the rest of the Gang of 4 refused to do over their stupid, now abandoned, RSPT. This was a back-down/back-flip, call it what you will, of monstrous proportions. The name on the PM’s door may have changed but that is all. We still have an ALP Federal Government which is hell-bent on destroying this great country. Just a Keating did and Whitlam before him. Andrew, you are spot on!

Mike says:

07:16pm | 02/07/10

I feel sorry for people like Seano who have nothing better to do than sit “all day” and “all night” and “everyday” in front of their computer having arguements with people in cyber space. sad sad sad…...............

Christian Real says:

08:28am | 03/07/10

Joan
Do you and other Liberal supporters rehearse your lines in what to say and write in your comments, it appears so.
It also appears that being a member or supporter of the Liberal/National; party coalition, that what ever Tony Abbott says or does, you all echoe and repeat his diatribe.

Freeman says:

10:09am | 03/07/10

Alex,
Credit for at least recognizing that it was a backdown unlike other labor lovers here. It’s not a backdown because they compromised. it’s a backdown because labor initially refused to compromise and then did. It’s their own fault for selling it as a robin hood tax. I guess Labor didn’t give the public enough credit on this from the start.

Seano says:

08:37pm | 03/07/10

@MarK - They are two different things, not one thing with two names. Your grip on the facts is as good as your grip on reality.

@TimB - I’m happy to say that I thought that Rudd lost his way. He certainly lost his ability to communicate and compromise. And as Gillard has demonstrated a negotiated solution was possible.  Personally I think he burnt himself out and had become autocratic and therefore the party were right to roll him. That’s my opinion, not the one you’ve made up for me which is silly and irrelevant.

@Keith - of course companies put projects on hold and it was a good tactic for forcing the government to come to the table and negotiate. Note that the didn’t pull out because everyone knew they were going no where,  profit is still a profit. And what we end up with is short term, very minor pain for long term, major benefit.

@Front up - I’m not particularly interested in conspiracy theories and paranoia, at the end of the day the money goes back to the tax payers.

@Robert - can you say GST. I remember Howard and the boys having to make a few compromises on that one.

@Mike - I think that people who are challenged by people who have opinions that they disagree with are sadder.

Seano says:

08:58pm | 03/07/10

@Freeman - your logic fails. If compromise is not a backflip then how does the fact that they initially dug their heels in make it a backflip. By that logic the miners who also dug in and also compromised also did a backflip. Silly semantics that are not going to win you any votes in the coming election. Abbott is stil a lame duck.

Kieth hammersmith says:

12:35pm | 04/07/10

so somehow now,  putting major porjects on hold,  stifling growth and cutting jobs is now good for the country????

yeah right,  sounds like labor logic to me….
the same kind of logic that has us headed towards 100 billion dollars in debt,  guess seano, you will be trying to explain how that is a good thing next.

Freeman says:

02:12pm | 04/07/10

Oh dear, Seano. another “own goal” to you.
care to explain how refusing to budge from a 40% RSPT and then conceeding their position to save face, is not a “backdown”? the only thing the minors refused was to pay the 40% RSPT so they have not backed down from their position. and you’re always so quick to lecture people on comprehension too.

Seano says:

08:18pm | 04/07/10

@Keith, that’s not what I said. Please go back and re-read what I said rather than making up my arguments, that is if you want to have a debate.

@Freeman - gibberish, life is too short.

Northern Steve says:

07:22pm | 02/07/10

Adam, yes the 30% MRRT is in addition to company tax.  The miners pay company tax on their entire profit, and now pay another 30% on the profit part that is over 13% return on investment - effectively two tax brackets.

duch says:

11:15pm | 02/07/10

YES,, it is in addition to the company tax which will be reduced to 29%

Tim says:

10:19am | 02/07/10

Haha,
so you got what you were asking for Wayne and it’s still not enough?
And not only that, “it’s a major backflip”.
Geez you one-eyed people are hard to please.

Christian Real says:

04:15pm | 02/07/10

Wayne Fehlhaber
It seems like you have done a backflip and landed on your head, by your comments.
It is a Compromise Wayne, not a backflip.
A backflip Wayne would have been if Julia gillard had withdrawn the RSPT policy altogether, and discarded that policy.
Julia Gillard negotiated a deal with the miners and came to a compromise with them(that is an agreement with them), that Wayne is not a backflip.
Does the Liberal party send all you Liberal supporters material Wayne, so that you all can rehearse what to say and write?.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

05:54pm | 02/07/10

Tim :  No tim , it’s still not enough , now i want to see Gillard tossed from office . The BER school buildings rip-off scandal is more than enough justification for the electorate to tip her out.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

11:13am | 03/07/10

Christian Real :  Well then Christian , by your own admission it was the mother of all backflips because the R.S.P.T.  *was * withdrawn . It is no longer in existance . The * Minneral Resourses Rent Tax * has taken its place .  Seems you are way out of contact with current affairs old chum.
Maybe you are correct to assess head injuries resulting from backflips,
but failed to identify the right person.
The E.T.S. wil be the Grand daddy of all backflips because the electorate is aware that the costs will flow on to everything we use everyday. Power bills , already sky high will spiral upwards again .
food * fuel * rent * rates * clothing * insurance * freight * transport *  etc etc etc It goes on and on and on.  People are not happy Christian. !

Brad Coward says:

05:32pm | 03/07/10

Christian….it’s a backflip.  It’s been renamed, but it amounts to a backflip !

MarK says:

10:30am | 02/07/10

But only the second is true ian. You see there is no argument for the first. Labor had the RSPT. Now they have nothing that resembles it.

Their own treasurer Henry (oh damn there I go again getting that guy confused with the spokesman Swan) said that you cannot alter one piece of it or it is void. It was very “elegant” don’t you know. Hence RSPT dead. No compromise just another backflip.

Rob r Charteris says:

10:49am | 02/07/10

MarK says:10:30am; you really are a giggle

MarK says:

11:24am | 02/07/10

Fantastic insight Rob. I can see your point. Devastatingly on topic as usual.

Rob r Charteris says:

12:12pm | 02/07/10

MarK says:11:24am; now now compliments wont get you browny points you still have some learning to do

MarK says:

12:39pm | 02/07/10

Absolutely Rob I see where you are coming from. You are definitely starting to persuade me.

Roja says:

02:07pm | 02/07/10

Ah MarK, I think the giggle was the “Now they have nothing that resembles it” line.  That was gold.

Thats like saying a 29% corporate tax rate bears no resemblance to a 30% corporate tax rate. 

You might have some good points on the debate,but that certainly wasn’t one of them.

MarK says:

03:11pm | 02/07/10

Oh really Roja.

So they were going to have a tax that encapsulated the whole mining industry and about 2,500 companies.

Now they have one that targets segments of the industry and about 300 companies.

Yes it is is still a tax but different wouldn’t you say?

Lets also see - previous rate 40% at the headline vs 30% now. A reduction of 25% from the first headline figure?

Yes it is is still a tax but different wouldn’t you say?

Umm what else. oh yes used to apply retrospectively vs now it doesn’t.

Yes it is is still a tax but different wouldn’t you say?

Retrospective tax vs not now.

Yes it is is still a tax but different wouldn’t you say?

The profit level from where it kicked in was 6% vs 12% (close enough as at today)

Yes it is is still a tax but different wouldn’t you say?

Was called the RSPT vs MRRT
Yes it is is still a tax but different wouldn’t you say?

I fail to see how you can say it is in any way the same proposal at all.

Yes it is still a tax. A Cessna is a plane as is an Lear. They are hardly comparable other than that they both fly.

The tax that was “elegant” and not negotiable is now something far different.

Labor spent too big. Now it taxes big. /shrug happened before will happen again

Roja says:

03:45pm | 02/07/10

MarK you originally stated it had “nothing that resembles it” to which I took exception, so thanks for proving my point so eloquently if a little on the verbose side.  No doubt the tax is definitely different from its original form, but it still certainly resembles the original tax in many aspects (not ‘nothing’ like you originally asserted). 

“A Cessna is a plane as is an Lear”

Apart from the poor grammar, a Cessna resembles a Lear jet in that they are both shaped like an aeroplane.  One has propellors, the other has jet engines - they are differences yes, but they still resemble each other.

I would ask that if you plan to wield the English language like a weapon, you become proficient in it’s use first.

MarK says:

04:43pm | 02/07/10

No problem Roja.

Tell you what. In 2010 an individuals tax rate from $6,001 to $35k is 15%.

Since you seem to think that 30% is similar to 40% lets have you pay oh I don’t know something like 22%.

There you go. Lets see if you are willing to do that. You see it still resembles the rate that was proposed but it is just a bit different, no real change old bean.

Go for it. Please ensure you let us know that you are willing to do it.

Same for your groceries. When it rings up as $100 just toss $90 down.
In your mind there is no difference, a payment is still a payment like plane is still a plane. It is all in the vibe and “resemblance” factor. Lets see if that one gets past the goal keeper.

Split hairs as much as you want. The RSPT is gutted beyond recognition and what was envisaged.

Remember Henry said you could not chnage ONE thing. He was very specific.

Seriously Roja I can do this all day, I really don’t care.

And sure go for it. Pick on my grammar and spelling. I type it out fast and try to do what I can to make it readable. I see my mistakes when I skim back over the thread and cringe on occasion.

What I don’t do is what you do and attempt to make it the point of my rebuttal (except with Chong sometimes because it can get really confusing with him).

Still if you like strawman arguments go for it dude.

It is your dime. So to answer you bluntly you asked if I would learn to use English I reply. Nah. Can’t be stuffed.

Toodles.

hot tub political machine says:

05:35pm | 02/07/10

Agreed Iansand. What a poor showing from the readers. Sit in your camps and lob grenades-hack versus hack, tired old partisan argument versus tired old partisan argument.

Articles have been good this week but I think Punchers need to lift their game

Jason says:

11:09am | 02/07/10

Any reason the government and business sector couldn’t have negotiated before announcing the flawed policy, Des??
You must run a very strange business. 
As for me - $20 billion surplus, no asylum seeker issues, houses with proper insulation, leaders that don’t sob, no backflips and spin, a competent treasurer… More of that please.

Joan says:

12:58pm | 02/07/10

Boing, boing, boing - like a rusty spring another major Labor policy backflip a lemon policy one day a sugared lemon policy the next day… can`t Labor get anything right the first time. One Labor leader today another tomorrow - , boing boing boing - like a rusty spring all over the place. Not fit to govern this country

Shane From Melbourne says:

02:54pm | 02/07/10

@Joan- Neither are the Liberal Party fit to govern this country, so what’s your point?

Lee says:

06:27pm | 02/07/10

$20 billion surplus, hooray. What’s the point if it isn’t going to be invested? What is attractive about a budget surplus, if it does nothing. Please, don’t mention Greece, we have the lowest percentage of debt to GDP in the OECD.
Assylum seekers, good point. The pacific solution was a way of making the figures seem more attractive. Asylum seekers were processed offshore and eventually ended up in Australia.
You claim that the sub standard installation of batts was somehow the governments fault. Surely, this was due to the inferior skills in the private sector, the government gave them an opportunity and they screwed it up big time. The private sector isn’t as magical as what most people claim.

Stephanie says:

02:28pm | 02/07/10

Andrew, they get their money from the same place they always do… us & borrow more so they create a deficit! and if you read some of these comments you’ll see they’ll be voted in again because now that there’s a new leader puppet and deputy puppet, the same morons will vote for labor again… and give them another 4 years to stuff up the country even more!

Evan Findlay says:

04:54pm | 02/07/10

Stephanie, Federal terms of governance are three years sweetheart, not four.

Ben Gia says:

10:23am | 02/07/10

Companies will have a 1% tax reduction, but still have to pay an extra 3% in superannuation. It doesn’t really add up for them at all.

Greg says:

10:26am | 02/07/10

Holly, this was a mess created by the Labor party, hence the need to negotiate. Swan said it was “not negotiable” therefore it definately is a backdown! They also spent millions of our money advertising the merits of what they have now watered down. They also promised much in their budget and have just ripped at least 1.5billion out of it. This is not about Tony Abbott, it’s about an incompetent government who has failed to deliver yet again. A government who says one thing, creates a mess and changes the outcome to try to save face. This is about Rudd, Swan and Gillards incompetence. Will the Australian voting public buy yet another backdown and yet another failure? Time will tell I guess.

Gregg says:

02:14pm | 02/07/10

Crikey, we’ve got too Gregs saying this or that, fortunately similar views it would seem!
I’ll change to Gregg

And Holly, the miners were never totally opposed but said some consultation would have been fine.

Freeman says:

11:11am | 05/07/10

Holly,
the government initially refused to move from a 40% RSPT, and then
conceeded that position when pressured. they have backed down.
The only thing the miners refused was to the pay the 40% RSPT and now they won’t have to. it is not they who have not backed down.

Mavis says:

11:00am | 02/07/10

No doubt, you were one of the turkeys who carried on that John Howard had it lucky because the mining boom delivered so many benefits to Australia. Now you are saying miners are parasites! Typical Labor double talk, Greg. If your lot put as much energy into working for the benefit of Australians as you do into back stabbing them and lying to them, we would all be better off.

PaulB says:

11:23am | 02/07/10

I think you have it back to front Mavis.

Greg says:

11:28am | 02/07/10

Mavis, the miners are the producers, the government are the parasites.

But the miners shouldn’t have negotiated with them in the first place, regardless of the govt backfip.

Shane From Melbourne says:

12:33pm | 02/07/10

@ Greg- Miners don’t “produce” anything. They extract minerals, not refine them (Chinese steel mills and refineries do that) or transform them into industrial products (Chinese factories do that). The miners are closer to the definition of parasite than the government which actually owns the minerals….

Ben says:

02:02pm | 02/07/10

@ Shane - Don’t the Australia people own the minerals? Isn’t that the central ideal surronding this whole tax?

Gregg says:

02:22pm | 02/07/10

Melbourne Shane
“@ Greg- Miners don’t “produce” anything. They extract minerals, not refine them (Chinese steel mills and refineries do that) or transform them into industrial products (Chinese factories do that). The miners are closer to the definition of parasite than the government which actually owns the minerals…. “
You’re digging a bit of a hole there ol son for many mining companies also run concentration and refining plants.
BHP even had a pelletising plant in NW WA but that did have a few problems.
As to who owns minerals anywhere, you could in general terms say they belong to a country more so than the government and even state governments have been getting their fair share of royalties, it being government revenue that provides for wastage and expenditure on some good projects for the people.

gil4d says:

06:32pm | 02/07/10

the states own the minerals not the commonwealth

Daryl says:

10:04am | 02/07/10

Yeah right, they achieved a $1.5billion hole in their budget. Didn’t deliver what they promised AGAIN! And now can’t deliver what they promised in their budget! And to make matters worse, they spent millions of taxpayers dollars justifying what they have now backed down from. And they are congratulating themselves for “solving” an issue of their own creation. Seems the simpletons are those leading the country and those voting for this rubbish! Swan said it was “not negotiable”, his budget is shot and they expect us to believe it’s all Kev’s fault.

Andrew says:

10:05am | 02/07/10

Um no, there is no super profits tax and wayne swans 1.5b reduction is completely false, the government will not make money out of this tax for at least 5 years and will likely only make money from coal producers in the short term which will cost them seats in Qld.

Any way you spin it, this is pretty bad for the government. Particularly Wayne Swan.

i love the fact all the Labor supporters are out claiming a massive victory. This is a failure. An embarassing backdown, neccessetated by a spending addicted government trying to rush through what they thought would be a popular tax in order to repay the debts they have got us into.

Just explain to me again how it’s a super profits tax? ha ha ha.

How embarassing for Labor supporters to try spinning another epic failure into a victory. I suppose you still think the BER and Pink Batts schemes were well executed.

No soup for you!

MarK says:

10:32am | 02/07/10

Wrong.

Biased simplistic trash.

There is no RSPT even in name. They can’t even try to spin the name so bastardised is the scheme.

I love it how you say the government achieved something. What? Created a deficit. Now they tax to attempt to fill it. Spin that anyway you want.

Labor spends then taxes.

That is all.

The Redman says:

10:48am | 02/07/10

I completely understand why conservative supporters are completely ignorant of the word compromise.

MarK says:

11:26am | 02/07/10

I completely understand with leftist supporters are completely ignorant of the word backflip.

(cwatididthar?)

Matt says:

11:39am | 02/07/10

Daryl (10.04am) you really do have no idea.

There is no $1.5 billion hole. There’s $10.5 billion in revenue that the government wouldn’t have got if there was a backdown.

Can’t wait to see what vitriol and spin you invent in September when Labor wins another three years.

The Redman says:

11:55am | 02/07/10

Hey, MarkK, I’ve got a good one. “Never, ever GST”. Now that’s a backflip. This was a negotiated agreement. Gillard and Swan have said that the mining companies, despite their rhetoric, conceded that the industry does not pay enough tax for the resources it mines, and this proves that they were correct. If you are accusing the Government of a backflip, then the same could be said of the miners. After all, they started out publically saying they would not support any further tax under any circumstances and if it occured, they’d take their bat and ball and go elsewhere. This agreement proves that their claims were scaremongering. This is called compromise, and it should be noted that an Abbott Government, just like the Howard Government, will refuse to compromise on anything.

MarK says:

12:37pm | 02/07/10

Cheers Redman. Wow you really got me there. I am understanbly withdrawing all of my comments you great debater of the masses you.

1995 wants its headline back by the way.

Daryl says:

01:39pm | 02/07/10

Hey Matt, looks like your maths is about as good as Swans! There is 1.5billion dollars (at least) less than Labor planned in it’s budget. Therefore they have opened up a 1.5billion dollar hole in the revenue base they have planned. As a result, they will need to cut something out or find revenue elsewhere. Or put another way, they budgetted for this tax to deliver 1.5billion dollars more than what they will now end up with after the backdown. I’m sorry but I don’t know how to spell it out any simpler. Yes they have implemented a new tax. As a Labor man you should understand the art of spin. “Greatest moral challenge of our time” “yes it is, no it’s not” = spin. Grocery choices = spin, “more affordable housing” = spin, “no child shall live in poverty” = spin, “no child shall live without a laptop” = spin, “It’s all Kev’s fault” = spin, “read my lips L.A.W” = spin, “Fuelwatch” = spin, “The profit tax is not negotiable” = spin. And in some instances spin = lies

Dash says:

01:47pm | 02/07/10

Hey Redman - so what ever happened to “rollback” then?

Roja says:

03:07pm | 02/07/10

@Daryl - it was announced already, corporate tax rate is dropping to 29% not 30%. 

@MarK “Biased simplistic trash.” Why is that conservatives constantly go the man and don’t want to debate the topic with fact?  Isn’t that what you say all the time? 

As for “living in 1995”.  Howard caved in to the Democrats in 2000 as well, well after he “back flipped” on the “never ever GST” comment.  The Work Choices cave in was only a year before he was outsted, like 2006 All relevant to debunking the “back flipping” liberal party line.

Northern Steve says:

07:31pm | 02/07/10

Uh Redman, Howard may have said never, never about the GST, but when he did want it, he took it to an election, which he consequently won.

And if you want to see an excellent example of negotiations and compromise by a government, go back to the implementation of the GST, where the government of the day spoke frequently and meaningfully to the Democrats, ACOSS, the opposition and so on, over an extended period of time, before finally settling on a piece of legislation that has actually worked quite well.  It delivered lower income taxes, a broader tax base, and more income stability for state governments (which Rudd tore up BTW without a mandate in his ‘health’ scheme).

If you’re going to try and pin poor governance on the Liberals, you’d better pick something better than the GST mate.

MarK says:

10:39am | 02/07/10

Isn’t Henry the treasurer abd Swan some guys that talks a lot about stuff that never happens?

Northern Steve says:

07:34pm | 02/07/10

Except for all the small business owners in the country who will still have to fund an extra 3% superannuation out of their own pocket, with only a 1% reduction in company tax.  I guess they could always sack some employees to make up the shortfall.

Arnold says:

11:05am | 02/07/10

I really don’t understand where this 1.5b less figure comes from.  The rate of the tax has reduced by 25%, the point at which it kicks in has been increased by more than 100%, and existing mines are now allowed to revalue their assets to current market values when working out liability for the new tax. 

So my question is, how does the projected revenue takings for the government only drop by 17%?

Gregg says:

02:30pm | 02/07/10

I’m thinking much the same myself Arnold and you do have to realise these are off the back of a coaster figures in a Tax Payer funded Champagne bubbled light headed moment and Swanny did get in there somewhere something like the true budget impact is yet to be determined.
Throw in that there’s only going to be a couple of hundred companis taxed now and 2500 off the hook and companies not affected if they earn less than 50M.
Just 1M each on average from 2500 companies is 2.5B so we could yet see a throwing of a noose off the hill flagpole yet!, maybe even a few!

Northern Steve says:

07:37pm | 02/07/10

The only possible way you could get this calc to work is if you take into account the change in company tax from 28% to 29%.  What it means is that small business is actually going to pull the government out of deficit, while simultaneously increasing workers savings for them.

Until a bunch of them go belly up, but that will happen past election day.

Rob r Charteris says:

10:47am | 02/07/10

T.Chong says:10:02am; careful you’ll have them all running for a dictionary

Mavis says:

11:08am | 02/07/10

“... victory” for Labor perhaps, however incalculable catastrophe for Australians.

Margaret Gray says:

12:26pm | 02/07/10

Maybe Rob and Chongy should reach for the “Idiots Guide to Grammar”.

Ben81 says:

12:35pm | 02/07/10

Oh wow, Rob of all people suggesting others may have to consult a dictionary.  Perhaps T.Chong should do that to learn the correct spelling of ‘unprincipled’, and maybe pick up some grammar tips?
By the way, which word got you all flustered Rob, pragmatism or monocle?  :p

T.Chong says:

01:31pm | 02/07/10

Dear old Margey Grey, my spelling, like yur political insights, aint the best.
I noticed though, you dont try to refute my argument about the re-election .

Margaret Gray says:

02:03pm | 02/07/10

Was there an “argument” amidst all that incoherent babble?

Maybe you should learn to anunciate more clearly and leave the big words to the adults.

Gregg says:

02:33pm | 02/07/10

You’re not related to Wong and Wrong are you Chongy?
Could be a losers party for three at least!

T.Chong says:

02:56pm | 02/07/10

Gregg are you related to dreggs and ..,?  no,,wont bother to try to match yur astute comment. have a good weekend Gregg, and get stuck into more of that red cordial awaits you in the kitchen cupboard.

Gregg says:

02:38pm | 02/07/10

You would be so suspicious of a politician Jill?
How dare you!
I do think someone called Kevin tho is busily painting faces on anything he can kick, thump, beat and he may even have taken to craftwork for making a bastard doll called Wayne and maybe even a bitch one as well to go with all the Voodoo Pins he has bought.

MarK says:

10:43am | 02/07/10

Backflip

julia has done what the back room boys said.

“RSPT or MRRT same thing just a different name. ” says Rob

you have a ID-10T error there mate. Get your PC checked.

Rob r Charteris says:

11:37am | 02/07/10

MarK says:10:43am; Poor didums, oh the hurt! the hurt! about time you booked another session with the therapist buddy

Jason says:

12:05pm | 02/07/10

Just read an interesting article written by Craig Emerson (or is it Graig?) from here on June 17.  He was telling everyone why the mining tax was sensible and had to proceed in its current form.  Here was one of the replies -

Rob r Charteris says:01:54pm | 17/06/10

Right behind you 110% Graig, go get what is rightly the Australian peoples

110% you say Rob?  With your backflip above, I think you’d make an excellent candidate for your beloved Labor.  I was going to say that your grammar would need to improve, but then I hear Joolya speak and you’d fit right in.

Rob r Charteris says:

12:26pm | 02/07/10

Jason says:12:05pm; gee you had to go alllllll the way back to the 17/6 to find my last typo, even I could do better than that lol, water off a ducks back jasmine I mean jason

Sherlock says:

01:58pm | 02/07/10

Last Typo Rob? Oh come on.

I originally considered you to simply be a one-eyed Labor supporter that’s just ducking any discussion because you’re embarrassed at the governments weak performance.

However your comments shows that your totally incapable of comprehending the point that Jason so clearly made which means that your not just a one-eyed Labor supporter but in fact your situation is far worse.

MarK says:

02:02pm | 02/07/10

Ahh Rob doing the look at the puppy argument.

Owned by Jason. Well played sir.

Rob r Charteris says:

03:16pm | 02/07/10

Sherlock says:01:58pm; Yeah and I dont believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden either ; ) The look on Abbott face this afternoon was priceless.

Rob r Charteris says:

10:43am | 02/07/10

MarK says:10:15am; you can sugar coat it anyway you like, but it is still just uneducated dribble coming from you. Abbott is a loser and it is about time you woke up to the fact that is all he will ever be. But rant away at will wont you, you certain have a weird perspective on things, but I guess it is hard to hide the hurt.

Sick of the hypocracy & double standards says:

10:44am | 02/07/10

Well said Mark.

The only result from this spin-fest is a deeper political graveyard for the imbecile’s.

You can con some people some of the time but you cannot con all people all of the time.

Spin cycles worked in the UK for 13 years & the carnage caused there is a telling sight on where this country is heading if this mob continue.

Is the electorate that dumb?

I hope not

Sherlock says:

11:23am | 02/07/10

Rob r Charteris says: Abbott is a loser and it is about time you woke up to the fact that is all he will ever be.

Seriously Rob I wonder just how you got to be so deluded. This is the second great big new tax that Abbott has forced Labor to throw out. First the ETS and now the RSPT. Abbott appears to on a winner to me.

Here’s a question. As predicted Labor are desperate to raise money to fund their typical spending sprees. They’ve tried to tax carbon and failed, they tried to tax resources and failed. What do you think they will try to tax next?

MarK says:

11:23am | 02/07/10

Cheers Rob.

Another thoughtful incisive and intellectually devastating post. You really enunciated your objections and developed a thoughtful argument against mine.

I salute you as a worthy adversary on the field of political battle. Please do continue to enlighten us with your valuable insights and thought provoking prose.

Rob r Charteris says:

12:18pm | 02/07/10

Sherlock says:11:23am; I guess the meaning of “thrown out” has a totally different meaning to snevilling liberals than it does to the rest of the world eh’ example on the back burner = equals thrown out, a negotiated tax reform = thrown out… you live in a wierd world, but at least you have “faith” you might need it.

MarK says:11:23am; Like I said before compliments wont got you browny points.

Ben says:

02:21pm | 02/07/10

They’ve got a ‘Gen Y-word’ for your type of attitude Rob, it’s called burn.

Daryl says:

11:39am | 02/07/10

As opposed to say stabbing your leader in desperation to try to save an election Redman? Or change a silly tax policy in desperation to save face? Or backflip on the ETS in desperation to save votes? Or perhaps bribe schools in NSW in desperation to avoid waste and rorting coming to the attention of the public? As for your comment about a failed state - grocery choices - failed, fuelwatch - failed, “more affordable housing” - failed, Laptops in schools - failed, “who do you trust on interest rates” - failed, Super profits tax - failed, ETS - failed, “economic conservative” - failed, insulation scheme - failed, 200+ childcare centres - failed, “I’ll turn the boats around” - failed, the “not negotiable” super profits tax - failed! How long are we meant to wait quietly for this “successful Labor government” of yours Redman?

The Redman says:

12:04pm | 02/07/10

I’ve addressed your opinion on Labor policies before, so I won’t bother repeating them. Suffice to say that I disagree with your conclusions absolutely. I and millions of others see the Labor Government as travelling very well, whether you like it or not. As for your comments on a failed state, if you really think that a failed state is measured by the number of laptops in the community or setting up websites to compare grocery prices between retail companies, then you really don’t know what a failed state is at all. I’ll pretend that you do and ask you outright. Would you prefer Australia as a country to collapse, for millions to be unemployed and homeless, for basic infrastrucure and law and order to collapse as opposed to a successful Labor Government. Does you allegiance to the Liberal Party supercede your allegiance to the country? Time to come clean.

Ben in Canberra says:

12:14pm | 02/07/10

“A failed state”, “Hysterical rants”....... Question answered. Thanks champ.

Ryan says:

01:07pm | 02/07/10

@The Redman: strangely I never saw any of those things coming to fruition under the previous Liberal government, in fact quite the opposite. We had budget surpluses, our electricity, gas, water, green slips, groceries, health “insurance”, rego’s, council taxes, mortgage repayments, tool roads etc.. etc.. were actually all MUCH MUCH lower than under this failure of a government. I know how it affects me, I feel incredibly sorry for those who can’t afford this government, those that are now going broke because of the policies and lack of actual governance of this current government. In case you missed it, there is a massive cash grab going on out there and this government and its toothless wonder the ACCC are doing sweet nothing to save the “battlers”.
Then again, mothers sleeping in their cars in freezing winter conditions with their children are so much less important to this Labor government than putting illegal economic migrants up in four star hotels.
This is a government with Zero morals (would stab their best mate in the back for advantage - oh wait they did that already) and zero competence.

Daryl says:

01:25pm | 02/07/10

Ha ha Redman you are hilarious! Failed policy waste and rorting is completely OK. At least we don’t have a failed state! What nonsense! I have no allegience to any party. But I do consider this the worst government Australia has ever had. And I do believe they are no good for our country. They are even worse than Whitlam and that’s saying something! I can not think of one thing they have done successfuly or without compromise. Maybe saying Sorry (although that did nothing for living standards)? Double digit unemployment and 1million unemployed under Keating. Unemployment, Hyperinflation and unconstitutional dealings under Whitlam (read Khemlani affair). Interest rates in double digits under Hawke. Record foreign debt under Rudd and before that under Keating. History suggests there’s more chance of Labor ruining the place mate! How many more failures will it take for you to wake up Redman? Why are you still aligned to such a shambolic government and their growing list of failures? Something to do with union membership perhaps? Oh and btw the list of Labor policy failure is not opinion, it’s fact!

Tim says:

01:42pm | 02/07/10

Ryan,
you are a peanut.

“our electricity, gas, water, green slips, groceries, health “insurance”, rego’s, council taxes, mortgage repayments, tool roads etc.. etc.. were actually all MUCH MUCH lower than under this failure of a government”.

Firstly, i don’t know how your mortgage payments could be higher seeing as interest rates are significantly lower than when JH left office.
But anyway, do you honestly think the Federal Labor government is responsible for higher electricity, water and gas prices? Council taxes? Rego’s? Seriously?

WAAAAAAAA!!!!!1111!!!! It’s all the gubmint’s fault.

kc says:

04:38pm | 02/07/10

@redman says “I and millions of others see the Labor Government as travelling very well”

I think the events of last week made it absolutely clear that the party themselves did not think that. Personally I felt they were going ok, but they completely lost the plot by flippantly invoking (read severely abusing) their allowance to completely disregard democracy.

Ryan says:

04:49pm | 02/07/10

@Tim: firstly to set the record straight, offensive personal attacks do nothing but show your class or lack thereof.
Have you asked why utilities might be going up? The utilities are blaming it on “renewable energy certificates” introduced by whom?
You can pick and choose on interest rates, if you take the average of the interest rates charged by banks over the term of the current Labor government versus the average of interest rates charged by the banks during the term of the previous government you will find that you are very wrong, mainly due to the banks merrily gouging away with impunity since they know this toothless government will do nothing.
John Howard was right, “we never had it so good”.

Northern Steve says:

07:48pm | 02/07/10

Tim,
Mortgage repayments are higher now than under previous eras because house prices, as a multiple of incomes, is at an all time high.  For this reason, we don’t need high rates for mortgages to be expensive.

There are a lot of factors contributing to current high house prices, but as you don’t seem to be able to consider two factors at the one time (rates and house prices), I won’t mention them here, unless you ask nice.

MarK says:

11:46am | 02/07/10

Well the “root and branch” reform happened just not in that order and not to the tax system.

Let me explain.

The branches of the unions got together with some factional branches of the Labor party. They had a chin wag. Things in poll land (not to be confused with Poland) were a bit touchy feely. Seems Kevvie was on the nose.

Solution?

Root him. That’s right a good old fashion root the PM to improve our grab for power.

See?

Root and branch reform alive and well.

Jason says:

12:27pm | 02/07/10

Developing or agreeing to a policy is one thing Brian….just wait until they try and implement it.
China is showing signs of slowing down which affects the tax straight away.  If the Government receive the billions they claim, I’ll fly to Mars.  Then again, it’s already polluted…..

Margaret Gray says:

12:28pm | 02/07/10

I’m glad you’re not an accountant.

Or maybe you are.

Joe says:

12:40pm | 02/07/10

Yes Margaret Brian must be an accountant ... in Swan’s office.

Arnold says:

04:19pm | 02/07/10

This is why some people shouldn’t be allowed to vote.  “Australia 75 Mining Giants 25”.  I bet Brian62 has absolutely no idea how this tax will be implemented, and I bet he also has no idea how creative accountants are when they are being paid an absolute fortune to be so.

I wonder how many of these companies will now generate returns of just under 12% (or whatever rate is applicable at the time, remember it will move with the long term bond rate) to avoid having to pay this “rent” (tax) to the federal government, yet still get their state royalties refunded…

Brian62 says:

04:26pm | 05/07/10

Arnold, who exactly appointed you to decide who has the right to vote or comment.Creative accounting is a two way street,what is the purpose of your objection,Liberal sour grapes or Labor lack of humor?

Northern Steve says:

07:52pm | 02/07/10

It will be small businesses and their (former) employees.  Business will still have to stump up an extra 3% super, with only half the reduction on company tax that was planned.  The drop from 30% to 28% was never going to cover the extra super anyway, how will businesses deal with this now?  Only solutions are raise prices or reduce salary costs.

Ben81 says:

12:48pm | 02/07/10

But Holly, I thought the big bad mining companies were in collusion with the Liberal party and it was all about party politics!  This was all nothing but a Liberal election campaign!

Sarcasm aside, as Tory said, at this stage the tax is in reality little more than an election promise, so I’m sure it will all go ahead smoothly and we can all just assume that everything will fall into place without a hitch, and Labor will even meet all of their budget commitments.

oops, that was more sarcasm.

MarK says:

01:53pm | 02/07/10

Rubbish.

Everyone knows that Ford is better. To say otherwise is sheer lunacy.

Phillip says:

01:45pm | 02/07/10

@Democrat - It is a complete backdown by Labour. But I only have a PhD in Finance from Wharton. What would I know?

Margaret Gray says:

02:08pm | 02/07/10

“...A victory for the Australian people….”

An unsurprisingly simplistic analysis.

I am struggling to find even a sliver of reasoned logic amidst all the rusted Party pablum.  I’m amazed you didn’t mention WorkChoices?

I know it’s in the talking points.

stephen says:

02:15pm | 02/07/10

Yer don’t do PHD’s from Wharton mate.
Next !

Rowdy says:

04:40pm | 02/07/10

http://www.wharton.upenn.edu/doctoral/

Is this not the educational institution mentioned by Phillip??

Thanks stephen….but that took 20 seconds on the ‘net…..it appears they do have doctoral programs at Wharton…..and in Finance…

Next!!!

Charles says:

04:52pm | 02/07/10

Democrat, when you look at all the things that have changed in respect of the RSPT, you will realise that $1.5 billion is not all they have lost.

So, dust off your calculator, look at all the changes, have a think about it (do something you don’t normally do), and you will see that the government has either disguised how much they have lost, (or more likely), they have added it up wrong because they are so dumb.

If you think they have only lost $1.5 billion in this exercise then you need to hitch a ride back to planet Earth very soon.

Jimmy says:

08:01am | 03/07/10

Dear Stephen - your ignorance is quite startling! I checked that - all I did was google and guess what? They have an extensive list of doctoral programmes. Which didn’t surprise me as I spent time at Penn.Try it some time. You owe Phillip an apology.

Gregg says:

02:55pm | 02/07/10

Politically

Tim says:

03:23pm | 02/07/10

Fuddy,
The company tax rate is only being reduced to 29% instead of 28%.
Therein lies the difference.

Arnold says:

04:33pm | 02/07/10

Tim, the company tax rate has nothing to do with the extra $12 billion.  That was supposed to be the amount in excess of the income tax paid by those companies. 

There is absolutely no way for the numbers to add up.

Gregg says:

06:03pm | 02/07/10

Great joke that Sean, even with a punch line for a party!
Just don’t give up that day job just yet though but keep practising for more of the policies actually being comented on might just put you out of a job anyway.

Freeman says:

02:00pm | 04/07/10

don’t take it too seriously, Sean,
but you’re right, it’s not the swinging voter type who comes here to comment. and it illistrates just how people blindly accept the rhetoric dictated to them by their preffered party

MarK says:

04:46pm | 02/07/10

Which of course is so different from Gillard making an absolute idiot out of Swan with her appeasement and backflip after the mining bosses said no.

Yes yes. I really see the difference.

On one hand you have factual evidence of Labor acquiescing to the miners demands.

The other is the fantasy in your head about the Libs.

I clearly see the difference.

Thanks.

Robert S McCormick says:

06:59pm | 02/07/10

Wong stuffed-up over water (she has done nothing but talk the talk but is incapable of walking the walk, maybe she should see Bill Shorten about her inability to walk. Garrett did so over the Home Insulation & Green Loans. Put these two in charge of anything and we really will default on those massive loans Gillard & Swan, ably assisted by Kevin Rudd, have created for us. Advance Australia Fair? Definitely an impossibility under the ALP Federal Government and it matters not one iota who is leading it the result is always the same.

Gregg says:

11:21am | 04/07/10

The big difference fehowarth is the promises, spending and wastage.
Labor will promise so much just to hoodwink voters like yourself and go into massive debt without considering the consequences and as with the programs we’ve seen rushed into a lot of that massive debt is just frittered away because of inadequate controls.
You go back to every Labor government in recent history and look at their financial management outcomes and there’ll be a massive deficit they pass on to an incoming government.
The Hawke/Keating era saw the budget deficit get to $96B and you might say so what?
Living on deficit budgetting is just like you or I living beyon our own personal means by continual borrowing and whilst those buying houses do that with house loans, the plan is for it to be over a finite period at the end of which you have an assett.
The deficit budgetting is more akin to turning over to a new credit card to keep partying and the interest component just gets larger and larger rather than diminishing as with a housing loan.
It is no small wonder then that the Howard years meant running a tighter ship to get us back from the brink of capsizing and in 12 years there was a healthy surplus to the budget.
How long did it take for the Krudd crew to put us back near the brink of oblivion?
The claims of keeping us from recession were just a temporary spending spree at what cost you can ask?
And so then on top of the massive financial mismanagement we’ve had for 2.5 years, we’ve now got this fiasco of them not even having a settled budget!
Even Paul Keating will again be thinking bananas!

Worker from down the street says:

01:06pm | 04/07/10

Because they spend so much time making grand promises.

When attempting to apply them the mistakes, rorting & blatant corruption is so obvious even die hard supporters are questioning their abilities.

Why should the questioning & derision not be forthcoming?

The $ bill is large, & growing, & the abilities of the economy to pay these bills in not bottomless.

Much as the Fraud Squad, Dullard & Diver & Co, have woken up to with the introduction of the RSPT tax grab to cover other spendathons.