Hockey is pucking around with dollars and sense

Bertrand says:

06:34am | 11/02/12

Exactly what I am talking about in my post a couple spots down.

Cherry-picking figures to suit your preconceived ideas about a party. This goes for both sides of the political spectrum.

If you want to look at a country’s well-being you don’t look at growth rates, you look at GDP per capita, or things like the Human Development Index, which assesses how well all people are able to access essential services and the overall quality of life for people within a country.

Growth rate is a ridiculous stat to focus on. Would you rather live in some African hell-hole with a GDP per capita of $800 but a growth rate of 9% or here? The RBA is very clear that we don’t want a growth rate that high because of its inflationary pressures and capacity constraints within our economy.

If you look at the things that matter - GDP per capita and overall quality of life, both these are areas where Australia ranks incredibly well. We are incredibly wealthy, and for the most, all Australians get a decent share of that wealth. This was the case under Howard, and its the case under Gillard.

Stop with the ‘woe is Australia and its all Labor’s fault’ crap.

Nathan says:

06:51am | 11/02/12

@ZSRenn

The trade balance is in surplus so that is not a concern and rankings are irrelevant. Emerging countries are always going to import less and export allot more. It was negative for most of the Howard era anyway.

When you make comparisons you need to compare with other OECD nations, comparing to emerging economies is not a fair comparison and miss leading. High GDP is not always a great thing either you don’t want the economy to overheat which has and does happen so ranking is irrelevant here and you don’t want to be world beaters.

You quote unemployment figures again out of context and go on about underemployment which is a real issue but to say ranked 130th without taking into account other countries have unemployment issues as well is wrong. Countries with lower unemployment have the industries that are labour intensive i.e. Manufacturing in China and Vietnam. Basically your logic is flawed to say the least

What you have provided is a list of irrelevant figures that have no context at all.

Joan says:

07:25am | 11/02/12

Yeah the D grade Swan, Gillard, Wong economic team saved by the resources and original LNP surplus on track to take Australia to dead end economy as Gillard chucks billions of dollars at jobs on track to be wrecked by her $23 Carbon tax. The brainless CO2 tax born of the brain dead , lacking real life oxygen . The Gillard Carbon Tax fiasco about to be set on Austrlaia and commentators think LNP policy a problem!!!! The only new jobs will be tax collector and payout clerk jobs. Does anyone know how much the D grade economic team have set aside to patch up the disaster they predict will come with their looney C02 tax. ???  Here`s Gillard`s vision for 21st century Australia a country heading for an economic disaster brought on by a purposeless CO2 tax, a future Australia held together by Gillard bandaid handouts,

Nathan says:

08:02am | 11/02/12

@Joan
“economic team saved by the resources and original LNP surplus” You do know that the LNP had the same mining boom without any of the global financial problems. Surpluses are meant to be there for a rainy day and guess what it rained. Also the LNP where able to gain Surpluses after the Labor party made significant work place reforms and spent allot on infrastructure that Howard and co saw the results of. Labor benefited from the LNP and allot of the growth under the LNP was a result of what Labor did earlier. Look at Economic cycles and there is no way Labor can take all the credit much the same as the LNP can’t for all there success. But then again people will just ignore that if it doesn’t fit “their reality”

Balderdash says:

08:12am | 11/02/12

Dear oh dear.

The labour market numbers from the ABS have been consistent year in and year out, regardless of what Party happens to be in government.

Every country worth a cracker looks at unemployment, as agreed standard economic data, in the same way.  And they’ve done so for many years. As an Economic measure - not as a Social measure.

The basic unemployment rate is an internationally comparable figure for the labour market. It’s whole basis is the idea of “without work”. No work at all. So no dollars in- or out- of economic production.

So that it matches employment - some paid work -  (and the cost and value of economic output).

So the two together make the labour force - leaving only those not working or looking for work as “not in the labour force” - not active at all.

So we can get a labour force participation rate, consistent with both employment and unempoyment.

Three matching pieces of the labour market picture, that fit straight inot the bigger picture of national economic output and costs overall.

No sensible economic commentator or analyst has ever claimed the basic unemployment rate is the be all and end all of labour data.

That’d be why the ABS puts out, year after year, its consistent data on employment, under-employment,  and the marginally attached. All comparable with other national economic measures around the world.

As the ABS said very recently:
“ABS responds to ‘Official figures masking massive job woes’, (News.com.au, 16 January 2012) 

In response to Sarah O’Carroll’s article on 16 January 2012 ‘Official figures masking massive job woes’ that suggests the ABS official unemployment figures do not reflect the full story of how the economy performs, it is important to note that the ABS publishes more than just the unemployment rate to inform about the performance of the labour market.

The ABS publishes a range of labour market data from the monthly Labour Force Survey. In particular, the ABS does measure underemployment, and has done so every quarter since February 1978. The most recent estimate of the seasonally adjusted underemployment rate was 7.3 per cent in last month’s November 2011 issue. Combined with November’s unemployment rate of 5.3 per cent, the latest estimate of total seasonally adjusted labour force underutilisation was 12.6 per cent. More information on underemployment and underutilisation, can be found in the article ‘Understanding Labour Force’ which is published every month in Labour Force, Australia (cat. no. 6202.0).

Differences in methodology, sample size and definitions can lead to different statistics being produced from seemingly similar concepts. The ABS advises all users to consider these issues when interpreting statistics.

Peter Harper
Deputy Australian Statistician
Australian Bureau of Statistics”
http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/Home/ABS+in+the+Media

Too much trouble for ZSRenn to try and get his facts right, but there they are, for anyone to look for themselves

ZSRenn says:

09:15am | 11/02/12

Ok Bertrand lets look at GDP/ capita which in 2008 was $48,000 and in 2011 $40,000 or it has fallen by 16% since Labor took power taking us from 5th spot to 11th.

I also find it interesting in the HDI figures that Greece and Italy share the top 50 with Australia. This list probably is not a good indicator of the strength of an economy and may point to those with developing economic problems putting Australia as 2nd in the firing line.
QUOTE “Growth rate is a ridiculous stat to focus on. Would you rather live in some African hell-hole.”

Do you mean those with higher growth rates than ours like Germany, Canada, Israel, United states, those kinds of African hell holes?

I know who is doing the cherry picking and it isn’t me!

ZSRenn says:

09:29am | 11/02/12

@Nathan

@ Nathan QUOTE “The trade balance is in surplus so that is not a concern and rankings are irrelevant.”

So you are telling us that with the mineral wealth that Australia possesses you are happy with our miniscule trade balance. We should be number 1 however so much manufacturing has gone off shore with more leaving everyday we are down to 183rd. Are you looking for employees because I would love a job with you if I don’t have to make a profit to keep it. 
QUOTE: Emerging countries are always going to import less and export a lot more.

We are 183rd!

Nathan

183rd!

It isn’t just emerging nations ahead of us!

The point I am making is Swann Gillard and a cast of thousands are telling us we are a super nation with super profits and it all because of their great work.

I am saying we are not and they have made little or no change except to place us worse off.

I would not be saying this but am forced to as I cant stand their bullshit anymore!

ZSRenn says:

09:39am | 11/02/12

@ Balderdash Nice cut and paste but it changes nothing and only attacks my argument on unemployment. What about my other points.

Re the unemployment figures

Again i say to you that nothing in them proves the argument by Swann Gillard and others to support their call of the great economic job they are doing.

Even with all you cut and pasted it doesn’t change the fact that we have the 43rd lowest unemployment rate. it is not ground breaking it is nothing to squawk about and I believe it is dodgy despite what the ABS who put the figures together has to say!

Bruce says:

10:23am | 11/02/12

I do not care about the ratio of tax to GDP. I care about the ratio of tax to my disposable income, which has now decreased, along with massive increases in electricity and other energy costs. Thanks ALP, the caring party…not !

Economist says:

10:25am | 11/02/12

I find it ironic that ZSRenn that you are doing exactly what Gillard and Swan did to Hockey of distorting the situation. You got taken to task yesterday spouting the exact figures above without providing any context and you persist doing the same here. Indeed you are playing politics and spinning the situation yourself. .

Betrand’s nailed it and Greg Jericho has also highlighted that political games have overtaken good policy.

Bertrand says:

10:41am | 11/02/12

@ZSRenn - not sure where you are getting your figures? Can you provide a link? I find it difficult to believe that GDP per capita has dropped 16% since 2008, considering our economy hasn’t experienced a recession in this time (ie. we have not experienced economic growth and our economy has continued to grow since 2008 despite a major international recession.)

re: my African comment. The fact is, many (but not all) countries with high rates of growth are coming from a very poor position, so clearly this figure isn’t the best to be looking at.

Also, our GDP growth has been pretty much the same over Labor and Liberal governments (it has slowed a little under Labor in response to the biggest global economic downturn since the 1930s), so if you are going to criticise labor for not having high rates of economic growth you going to make the same criticisms of the Liberal Party.

My original statement was that too many people come on here as one-eyed hacks who focus on narrow figures to serve preconceived ideas. Both parties and the independent RBA agree on target growth rates, and we have generally met them. We haven’t had a recession in something like 16 or 17 years. Clearly both parties have been reasonable economic stewards and the criticisms you have raised would need to be applied to both parties, not simply the one you have a grudge against.

Likewise, if we were going to push for a substantial increase in growth rates, we would need to be happy to wear associated problems such as high inflation and high interest rates.

ZSRenn says:

11:28am | 11/02/12

At Berty it is easy you Google GDP/ capita by country and choose one of the 54,000,000 links but to help you out try this link from the world bank
http://www.google.com.au/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&idim=country:AUS&dl=en&hl=en&q=gdp+per+capita

Farken says:

11:32am | 11/02/12

you forgot to tell us that “Even if you use the dodgy figure of 5% which includes those who work 1 hour /week”  was used by your mate john howard to cut the figures so that is LNP spin which the Labor party is using . i am so sick of people if they be a LNP supporter or Labor or one of the other miner parts not getting there facts right

ZSRenn says:

11:35am | 11/02/12

@ Economist you mean in this article

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/wrap-of-the-week-its-the-economy-stupid/

I hardly believe i was taken to task and was able to prove each claim. Two commentators who called my claims false were proven not to be able to read a graph.

I call victory and your comment belittling me rather than arguing the facts in this discussion prove it!

Bertrand says:

11:53am | 11/02/12

Sorry found a typo - it should read “we have not experienced negative economic growth.”

Also, with regards to these figures you are spouting…. according to you we are coming 183rd with regards to balance of trade. In a world with something like 210 countries, I don’t see how it is possible that a nation with a positive balance is coming 183rd.

What is your source? It seems to me to be quite unreliable.

Also, since you are using the balance of trade to attack Labor, why not also use it attack Howard who carried a negative Balance of Trade throughout his Prime Ministership?

Farken says:

11:58am | 11/02/12

it was the “work 1 hour /week”  that your mate john howard was the first to use to fudge the figures

Bertrand says:

12:16pm | 11/02/12

Thanks for the link. It would seem GDP per capita is currently $8000 more than it was under the last full year of the Howard government, despite the global economic slowdown.

ZSRenn says:

01:09pm | 11/02/12

@ Farken When did two wrongs start making a right?

Hard graft says:

01:15pm | 11/02/12

Rubbery figures, again, eh ZSRenn. You’re going to have to give ‘em away to have any hope of being taken seriously.

Take your bitching about “43rd” country in unemployment (rate, I guess, eh).  This you want to paint as failure. Uh Huh. 

43rd out of how many countries would that be, then?  Well, you didn’t bother to say. Why would that be?

And you didn’t bother to say where you got it, either. Still, there’s several easy found lists on line. Check ‘em out. They give pretty much the same result.

So lets see - turns out we’re 40-something out of about 200 countries, all up.  Hmm. So we’re actually somewhere in the best 25% (lowest unemployment rate) of countries. Actually a good result. My, my. What a surprise .

Got it? No? Well, mate, it means that about 75% of countries have *worse* (higher) unemployment rates than us. A good result - for us.  My, my. What a surprise!.

And we got there and stayed there despite a global finance crunch, and a near-global recession, all without inflation, without wage cuts, and without mass job losses. With modest public debt. A result in anyone’s language but yours.

Well. Now we can see that you do like to keep your figures nice and rubbery. And pretending not to undertand basic labor stats or basic comparisons. Naughty, naughty, naughty.

You can’t take our place in an unemployment rate table and then massage only *our* place by adding in underemployed - that’s what you’ve tried on here.

Though of course, again you’ve not bothered to explain.  But we see what you’ve done there. It’s just a trick.  The only way to keep the rank comparison fair is to do the same with underemployment for all the others, too. So your “130th” number is just so much rubbish.

Rubbery figures, mate. They just don’t stand up to checking. Where are you getting this stuff? From the Hockey-Joyce Correspondence School for Dud Economic Spokesmen?

Seriously, mate, you’re not going to get away with spouting rubbery figures around here. It’s just too silly.

ZSRenn says:

01:37pm | 11/02/12

@ Berty This is just the twisting of truth that I am talking about from the worst government in Australian history. The graph clearly shows an increase in GDP/Capita up until the Labor government took power, then a sharper decline despite the bail out package and then you make the claim you just did.

No wonder this country is in so much trouble!

Tom says:

01:44pm | 11/02/12

Bertrand, on cherry picking, I was wondering whether Laurie Oakes had included the effect of Gillard’s carbon tax in the analysis ... “The truth is that taxation as a proportion of the economy is lower now than it was under John Howard’s Government. The tax-to-GDP ratio, 23.7 per cent when Labor came to office, is now 21.2 per cent.”

“is now” vs “when Labor came to office”, short term GDP increases and decreases often lie lie outside government control.  I smell Labor propaganda?

@Economist, it is also ironic you failed to take Laurie to task on his figures when you took ZSRenn to task.

P. Oliver says:

01:48pm | 11/02/12

Concentrate on Joe Hockey’s lie, that the Treasurer leaked the Coalition budget costing assumptions to the press.
That lie has been left lying, [no pun intended], in the public space for one and a half years.
This is what really happened:-
“A news report claimed that documents from the so-called “razor gang” revealed a warning by Hockey that $70 billion needed to be found.

In fact, well-placed sources say, the documents did not contain an overall savings target at all. Hockey provided it to shadow ministers when he spoke to them in person.

And - here’s the devious bit - he gave each of his colleagues a different figure.

The reason?  So that if there was a leak he would know where it came from.

The $70 billion leak immediately pinged the leaker. But it also left Hockey with the problem that now plagues him.”

Economist says:

02:02pm | 11/02/12

ZSRenn you got taken to task because you proved the figures correct but completely used them in the wrong context. compare like with like.

Bertrand says:

02:14pm | 11/02/12

@Tom - Why would you include the Carbon Tax for current figures? It hasn’t come into effect yet. When it does, by all means include it.

Of course, we would also need to consider the increase in company tax that Abbott is planning on introducing to finance his paid parental leave scheme.

As I keep saying, neither side is all good or all bad when it comes to these things. I’m not trying to mount a pro-Labor argument here, simply criticising some of the false, exaggerated or misrepresented claims made by rusted on Libs, in the same way I do it when rusted on Labor people such as acotrel get on here.

Bertrand says:

02:26pm | 11/02/12

@ZSRenn - “The graph clearly shows an increase in GDP/Capita up until the Labor government took power, then a sharper decline despite the bail out package and then you make the claim you just did.”

Rechecked the graph. I did make one mistake and assume that it goes up until now, when it infact stops in 2009, so I don’t really know how you are drawing any conclusions from it regarding current GDP per capita.

However, lets look at what it says:
GDP per capita in 2006 (last full year of the Howard government) - $36202

GDP per capita in 2007 (last partial year of Howard government) - $40660

GDP per capita in 2008 (GFC hit at end of year) - $48348

GDP per capita in 2009 (first full year of GFC) - $42130

So, at the end of the first full year of the GFC Australia’s GDP per capita was higher than it was at the end of the last year in which Howard was PM and substantially higher than his last full year.

This isn’t an attack on Howard. He presided over a period of uninterrupted growth and deserves most of his reputation as a good economic manager.

However, you are either lying about a 16% drop in GDP per capita since Labor came into power, or simply unable to read a basic graph.

ZSRenn says:

02:43pm | 11/02/12

Bertrand says: 12:53pm | 11/02/12( Reply)

@ Berty I agree that under Howard we had negative trade figure but with coal exports increasing by 50% over the last 10 years and Gold by 31% and it’s cost from $300 to $1900 over the last five years would it not be safe to assume that Balance of trade should have made substantial gains over the last 5 but No they have gained by only 2 billion

http://www.australiancoal.com.au/exports.html

http://www.kitco.com/scripts/hist_charts/yearly_graphs.plx

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/balance-of-trade

As for my balance of trade figures there are 58,000,000 links to get them but i will use the CIA factbook figures

Here for 2010 (Position 176)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_sovereign_states_by_current_account_balance&oldid=379549308

Here for 2011 (Position 183)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_current_account_balance

ZSRenn says:

02:51pm | 11/02/12

@ hard graft. That’s a lot of words to say what I just said in a few sentences. You did miss one point though.

ACTU leader Ged Kearney in a recent punch article placed our unemployment closer to 12% as we include people who work just 1 hour as employed in our unemployment figures.

Farken says:

03:20pm | 11/02/12

ZSRenn says: 02:09pm | 11/02/12
@ Farken When did two wrongs start making a right?

when your in politics right!

Douglas says:

04:35pm | 11/02/12

It’s just typical of the Liberal to avoid hard work. Costello made an art form of it for 11 years. Ever since losing office they’ve whined and spun, spun and whined - anything to avoid hard work.

All Spin, No Substance - The Liberals.

Bertrand says:

04:44pm | 11/02/12

@ZSRenn - cool. Thanks for positing an out of date wiki link.

According to the wiki article Australia is running a trade deficit. This is because the figures in that list are based on a short-term dip in what has otherwise been a trade surplus since mid 2008.

A site with up to date figures places our trade surplus as well over $1billion a month in 2011.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/balance-of-trade

If we want to look at where a surplus of $12 billion would place us on your list it would be somewhere around 20th spot. In reality the surplus was much higher as most months were posting surpluses in the $1.5billion range in 2011. This would push our country rating into the high teens using your wikipedia list.

As I said, cherry picking data is an easy way to prove one’s position.

DOB says:

04:56pm | 11/02/12

ZSRenn, you still havent established where you get the 119th from. The graph you pointed to showed no such thing. So youre just making that up. On top of that you still havent established why that is actually important - apart from the fact that Australian gdp growth is sound and the economy’s fundamentals are sound. But lets look at it - China’s gdp growtth is top. Would you like to be an average person in China? Or live here? Live here, no question. India’s is second. Would you like to be an average person in India or live here? Live here, no question. See how idiotic you are sounding?

Personnally Im wondering if you are an employee of the liberal party, a member of the young liberal party (I strongly suspect that),  an Abbott-Youth type, or just plain ignorant. Or - likely - all 4. The Australian economy is one of the strongest in the world. That is a fact. That you have to grab at misleading and wrong nonsense and make ridiculous and strident claims - which are easy to bulldoze - just shows you how desparate you people are to run down your own country just for the sake of your ludicrous beliefs and political self-interest. UnAustralian, mate. But you people dont give a monkeys about Australia anyway so whats new?

Hard graft says:

05:04pm | 11/02/12

Uh, no. I didn’t say that at all. Nup.

What I did was to show up your comparison as plain wrong.

You don’t understand the stats you’re trying to abuse, mate.

And you’re comparisons don’t hold water. You fiddled one figure on its own to suit yourself. Nup. No way, Jose.

And you’re not too hot on basic numbers work, either. Top quartile - or quintile -  is a good result.

Especially when all the other indicators are benign.  And streets ahead of other developed countries. Interest rate, unemployment rate, inflation rate, GDP growth rate, net federal debt: compared with like economies (US, UK etc) we are doing very well.

You simply can’t spin that away with your rubbery figures. You can’t spin what I said into agreement with your crap either. You’re wrong. Simple as that.

Mate, you simply have no idea what you are talking about, and that’s a fact.

ZSRenn says:

06:57pm | 11/02/12

Huh All this effort and lies to discredit my posting and not one iota of evidence given in retort to show why Gillard and co are doing such a good job with the economy!

Labor Spin Doctors at work!

mr g says:

10:46pm | 11/02/12

ZSRenn. I’m typing late because I work till late. I have read every posting of yours and I have counted 109 errors, misrepresentations, or lies and that’s just for today.
The first was that Hockey, who can lie with the best of them, made a “mistake”. Nobody makes a $70bn “mistake”. He lied. If he had said truthfully that he couldn’t trust his Shadow Cabinet colleagues, so he set them a trap, then we may have said, “Well, he’s entitled to know how many of them are untrustworthy” and left it. But he lied.
Abbott’s response was again to do nothing. Not to Hockey for lying, or to the “rat in residence” for his betrayal. We know he clings to the leadership by one solitary vote, but hey, the weakness of the man is frightening.
If ever a Party was particularly designed for a special group, like you, ZSRenn, ATM, Tim B, Anna C, and the rest of the Brethren then it was the Libs. With the half of the Opposition who want Abbott, and the other half who certainly don’t, you all make an interesting menage. All great with numbers and statistics, except that none of you, including a Leader who can’t lead, a Shadow Treasurer who can’t be honest, and you blokes who think a graph is an African animal, can’t count or read.
And ZS, if we don’t hear from you for a day or two we will know it’s because you’ve taken so many hits today.
Get better soon, won’t you.
And as I asked you all yesterday, “Where is the Plan?”

Jason Todd says:

02:05am | 12/02/12

ZSRenn - I don’t think anyone was making a claim that Gillard and Co are doing a particulary good job. What is up for discussion is that you are massaging data and cherry picking facts to make it look like they are doing a worse job than they actually are…

Hard graft says:

06:48am | 12/02/12

That’ll be quite enough of that, mate, thanks.

You used stats you didn’t understand.  You then dodgy numbers games with them.  And tried to fib your way out of it.

So your posts got rubbished, by a bunch pf posters. As they should have.  It didn’t take that much to sort out all your dodgy twists and turns.

No good chucking a tanty now you’ve been caught out.

KimL says:

06:54am | 11/02/12

The Libs sold off most of our assets the last time they were in power, there is not much left to sell if they get in again..if anything at all!!

nihonin says:

08:09am | 11/02/12

Same as state Labor governments selling of assets as well.  All parties do it, when they need to balance the books, after spending and wasting taxpayers money, eh KimL

JT says:

09:45am | 11/02/12

@Mark the situation the Coalition will find themselves in when they win the next election is a situation created by Labor. I do not understand why you relish that unless you find some sick glee from knowing that the scale of Labor waste means the Coalition can not undo the damage.

ZSRenn says:

09:53am | 11/02/12

@ Mark (I am no t a big fan of Gillard and Co) Rollins

How can the LNP promise anything regarding the budget Swann could not even get his budget right last year and was out by $30 billion.

To be able to promise something you need a starting point and with Swann’s figures there is no starting point unless you can guess how big the actual final blow out figure he creates is.

Denny Crane says:

10:34am | 11/02/12

KimL - ever stopped to think why the Coalition had to sell some assets? You dont think it had something to the $92Billion debt that labor left last time they were in power? How is anyone ever going to pay off this debt? Labor’s plan is to tax the middle class out of aspiration. It will work for a while but overtime the working poor will multiply and the middle class will shrink. A socialist eutopia.

Mark Rollins says:

10:42am | 11/02/12

@JT and ZSRenn:
I think you guys have missed some of the comments listed earlier about people being blinded by their partisan beliefs. Perhaps I shouldn’t have said “relish”. What I meant was that despite all the gloating by the opposition, when it comes down to it they really are no better. Labor have been far from ideal economic managers (although given the GLOBAL nature of the GFC I have to give them credit for saving us to some extent), but the Coalition certainly won’t be any better.  All I’ve heard in the last year is “surplus, surplus, surplus” from Abbott, and when pushed for details, the shadow treasurer can’t guarantee one himself.

ZSRenn says:

11:52am | 11/02/12

@ Mark (I am no t a big fan of Gillard and Co) Rollins

Pot calling Kettle black much.

That aside the government is not doing the great job they are sprouting about and that is why I am making these comments. Our world standings have fallen not risen. Sure I can understand a drop in /capita figures due to the GFC but that does not excuse a 16% drop and a slip of 6 places in the ranking.

This is the worst government in Australian history. The facts and figures show it and it pisses me off that they are acting like snake oil salesmen telling the Australian people they are the best economic managers.

Worse still they blame everyone else for their woes and point out the oppositions faults rather than get on with the job at hand. Which in their case seems to be wasting as much tax payers money as possible!

$30 billion dollar shortfall in last years budget in 6 months is not the work of good economic managers.

Don says:

02:54pm | 11/02/12

Seriously - go and check the budget figures for yourself - it makes for some really interesting reading. Look at the income/expenditure during the last years of the Liberals and then check out the spendathon under Labor. It is all there in the federal budget website - do yourself a favour and have a google at it.

My pick is that we will finally get rid of Labor when the federal debt is around the half a trillion mark and they are starting to eye off superannuation as a stopgap. Remember that super money aint yours, you are just keeping it warm.

Tracker says:

06:05pm | 11/02/12

I am not a big fan of Gillard & Co either but I will certainly cheer for them at their execution (2013 election)

Jason says:

02:12am | 12/02/12

“KimL says:

The Libs sold off most of our assets the last time they were in power, there is not much left to sell if they get in again..if anything at all!! “

Always have a chuckle at this sort of vitriol when it was Hawke/Keating who starting the firesale of government owned assets well before Howard.  Qantas/Commonwealth Bank anyone?

Labor is Toxic says:

07:16am | 12/02/12

The Labor Fans are in there swinging and missing again.

@ KimL ...... when are ignorant ecconomic historians going to remember that Labor (Hawke/Keating) sold off the CBA and QANTAS ..... and many more government assets while building a $96B Debt.

To aid in a timely paying off of Labor’s Debt the Howard Government sold off assets ....... if this wasn’t done Australia’s debt would have been significantly higher than what it is today!!!!

Labor is white anting the economy ..... it is that simple!!! In the 2011-12 MYEFO the ALP ramped up debt, increasing the National Debt by $30B, so that they could post a wafer thin surplus ($1.5B) in 2012-13 ..... that is budgeted to increase debt by $700M to $133.3B. Six months before the MYEFO ...... THE ORGINAL BUDGET ...... Australian Debt was supported to be $104.6B.

Labor increased spending over the next 4-years by $11B ..... despite ripping almost $7.0B out of the Nation Disaster Relief Budget.

Now Gillard promises $1.9B for flood relief in Queensland ..... because thanks to Labor, Queensland is broke ($87B Debt) and can’t afford to fix the problem!!!! Unfortunately the entire budget for Nation Disaster Relief Budget is only $700M for the next 4-years. So where is the money going to come from.

Maybe we can dip into the contingency reserve??

Sorry, but Wayne Swan did a dodgy on this too ...... $7B has been slashed from this also!!! In fact over the next 2-years, the Budget Continency Reserve that is expected to buffer unexpected increases in expenditure, is budgeted to make money!!!

So there is no Nation Disaster Relief and no Contingency Reserve ..... anyone know where the $1.9B is going to come from to rebuild Queensland?? And when you find that money maybe you can find the money to rebuild Northern NSW!!!

C1 says:

07:10am | 11/02/12

Good lord Bertrand,

This is no place for your inflammatory and balanced point of view in these posts.

Begone sir and take your common sense with you.

Rose says:

07:46am | 11/02/12

I actually get really annoyed that I am becoming more and more rusted on. Apart from a brief flirtation while Turnbull was in charge, I have been unable to find any reasons to vote Liberal, and I could never have brought myself to vote for Howard. I do not so much vote for Labor currently as I vote against Abbott and the hard right influences controlling the LNP. I would dearly love the option of voting for a third party (and no, the Greens are not even close to being a viable option) as much of the Labor brand is on the nose too.
At the same time I look around me though and find that Australia is in pretty good shape and our biggest problem seems to be the incessant whingeing of people who just want everything handed to them. Middle class welfare is Howard’s shameful legacy (I know Labor is perpetuating it, but buying votes was a Howard artform) and it’s time people took a good hard look at themselves and realize that they are actually doing OK.

NigelC says:

07:53am | 11/02/12

Bertrand, I absolutely agree with your concern about people keeping an open mind - however, your comment about the two parties being closely aligned shows that you don’t actually have any knowlege of the fundamental philosophical basis that supports decisions the parties make.
They are not aligned, not even close. While there is some overlap on some social and environmental issues, they are utterly different economically and seek totally different outcomes delivered through totally different policy settings.
If people base their voting on social and environmental issues then they could flip-flop from party to party but if they focus on economic issues, industrial relations, defence, taxation or foreign affairsthere is no way that they could be confused. Apples and oranges - the differences are that stark.

Nathan says:

08:05am | 11/02/12

@Rose
I am with you on that one, even down to the Turnbull comment.

Joan says:

08:26am | 11/02/12

Rose: `Apart from a brief flirtation while Turnbull was in charge, I have been unable to find any reasons to vote Liberal` Was it Turnbulls looks and charm or his handling of Godwin Grech affair or the fact that he hung onto Rudd coat tails for dear life that you found Turnbull so appealing?

nihonin says:

08:35am | 11/02/12

Rose says: I actually get really annoyed that I am becoming more and more rusted on.

Comedy gold.

thatmosis says:

08:35am | 11/02/12

Sorry Bertrand but you are talking about the Labor voters arent you and we have all seen and read their remarks that paint Gillard and Swann as the saviours of the world with a great carbon tax that is going to be the saviour of the planet except it will do absolutely nothing except make life more difficult for the Australian people. 
  I think most thinking people realise that when the Lib/Nats get in they will be left with an economic black hole that will take decades to fix and require thinking people to do it unlike the Swanns of this world who survive on hyperbole and spin with as much substance as the amount of CO2 that their great tax will take out of the system.
The Labor stance on everything from Co2 to Illegal immigrants and fiscal policy can be summed up in one word, negligible and their ability to waste Tax payers money also in one word, phenominal.

Bertrand says:

08:39am | 11/02/12

@NigelC - I have a very firm understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of the two parties. As you said, there are differences, but to claim that these difference between them is vast is nonsense.

When you consider the entire political and economic spectrum, both parties occupy a small band close to the centre. They believe in a controlled market economy and have similar goals about what they want this economy to achieve. The differences between them are blown out of all proportion because that is what happens in a two party system.

Bertrand says:

08:42am | 11/02/12

@thatmosis - I’m talking about both sets. People like acotrel on the Labor side couldn’t critically analyse Labor Party policy in a fit. But have a look at the comments coming from the Liberal side as well. The doom and gloom being spouted by some people on here has little to no grounding in reality.

JL says:

10:24am | 11/02/12

Only the Labor Party has given us something to think about. Liberal Party policy is very poor though not election time yet. Perhaps that is why, they do not feel they need to be ready yet. 

The economy has been well managed, the stimulus applauded by global and domestic experts, carbon tax is cheaper for the taxpayer than Liberal Policy and so appear better all round so far. Both parties need to address the high dollar and productivity going forward and it is yet to be proven if Labor do achieve the surplus promise, a silly promise but they chose to make it.

So with the most open of minds Labor are miles ahead right now. That can only change if LIberals actually start addressing the problems we have and stop trying to promise to replicate the past when we have a whole different set of circumstances.

We will not be able to go on debt fuelled spending spree, we will not be realising massive capital gains from property speculation, they will not have new taxes like GST or be able to sell off the nations gold.

There is no partisan crap, it is accurate article right now. An open mind will change if Liberal policy evolves to address todays requirements. It may , but at the moment it fails.

ZSRenn says:

10:39am | 11/02/12

I am sorry if you see me as spouting Doom and Gloom Berty. I am not.

I am just using facts to show the claims by Gillard and co, that they are doing a great job managing the economy, are false!

Denny Crane says:

10:49am | 11/02/12

Roes says that there are hard right influences controlling the LNP. What a crock. One second you idiots are saying Abbott is influenced by Bob Santamaria and the DLP next you are saying he is hard right. He cant be both but I suppose you will try and find anything at all to slur him. The lies told by labor are bordering on absurd.

I noticed the old middleclass welfare garbage. I dont know what is wrong with you people but in case you havent noticed, the middle class is the backbone of the country. We pay for everything and under the politics of envy employed by labor we will pay even more.

Labor are piddlers upon merit, beggars at the door of accomplishment, thieves of livelihood, envy coddling tax lice applauding themselves for giving away other people’s money. They are unfit and unworthy to govern.

They take care of themselves first and foremost, afterall none of them could make it in the real world, the only way to make money is by acting ac lice in the union movement and then as a politician. They take care of big business. Labor and their fabian ideals will always pander to the big end of town. Their next master is the greens and intellectual left who perfectly fit the description above, and finally if they have any time left they look after the workers.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice and its obvious I vote labor.

thatmosis says:

11:16am | 11/02/12

Le3ts see, before Labor Surplus after Labor deficit of some bilions of dollars and getting bigger every week by at least $200m. Thats a difference. Promises, “there will be no Carbon Tax under a Government I lead”, broken, I will introduce a pokies policy as promised to Wilkie, broken, I will stop the illegal immigrants from coming, broken, I wil put a laptop in the hands of every student,broken, (this may have been a Krudd promise but still),  I will cut red tape, 12, 853 new regulatiuons, 12 repealed,broken, we will build 260 child care centers, 38 delivered and then scheme abandoned, broken and the list goes on. I think that any thinking person can see the trend and if people think that this is par for both parties then what hope has Australia got.
As for rusted on, well maybe, but having lived through sucessive Labor governments in my 60 odd ears the trend of all is the same, promises broken, money wasted and huge deficits left to be cleaned up by the Lib/Nats.

Chris L says:

11:57am | 11/02/12

Thatmosis comes across as a member of a mob who hears the accusatory words “you are all wrong” and thinks to himself “yes, they are all wrong!”.

JL says:

12:03pm | 11/02/12

Denny crane, It is nanny state socilaism to tax people then give it back on what the government demands how you spend. Middle class backbone, rubbish! Middle class crybabies more like.

Why not pay less tax and spend it as we see fit.? How much does it cost to take the tax, create a department, just to give it back? It was a pork barrelling con. Middle class welfare is insane and created a pasthetic welfare state mentality / sense of entitlement in mainstream Australia.

Bertrand says:

12:10pm | 11/02/12

@JL - agree to an extent. The flack they are copping doesn’t resemble reality, and criticisms regarding debt, taxation and economic management could equally be applied to any real assessment of the Liberal’s current economic policies.

For example, why do we not hear about the impact of the coalition’s proposed company tax increase to fund their paid parental leave scheme, or the fact that their carbon policy will cost more per tonne of abatement and be fully paid by taxpayers and not polluters? Why do we not hear that the first round of stimulus was entirely supported by the coalition and the second round partly supported by them, and that therefore the deficit we currently have is also something they supported? Why do critics of Labor’s deficit problem not ask how the coalition is planning to fund their promises and maintain a surplus?

Nonetheless, I have some serious problems with Labor’s policy delivery. It is all good and well to have policies that stand up to more scrutiny than the other side, but if those policies are poorly enacted, or lead to too much waste then there are serious concerns about that party’s ability to lead.

Likewise, the internal political manoeuvring of the Labor Party leads one to question their ability to maintain the focus needed to govern a country, as well as the motivations of their leaders.

I’ve said it before, but the best shot voters had was a Liberal Party under Turnbull. He is socially progressive, economically literate and tends to avoid cheap populism. The fact that he lost his leadership because he refused to give way on his principles in the face of hysterical populism says volumes for the integrity of the man.

Unfortunately, integrity is something both sides of politics are missing at the moment.

JT says:

03:32pm | 11/02/12

@Bertrand says: JL - agree to an extent. The flack they are copping doesn’t resemble reality, and criticisms regarding debt, taxation and economic management could equally be applied to any real assessment of the Liberal’s current economic policies ‘’

Except they can’t because under Labor we’re talking real figures. They are not estimated costings of policies, Labor really has incurred $200B in debt, Labor really has brought in huge new taxes, Labor really has shown poor economic management. Real life vs theoretical costings of Coalition policies is not the same thing at all.

‘‘For example, why do we not hear about the impact of the coalition’s proposed company tax increase to fund their paid parental leave scheme’‘

We have, and it is minor. It is also a policy that the base does not support. A brain fart of Abbotts but one hardly comparative to the incompetence shown so far by Labor and one easily dropped in a real election campaign. It also costs Australia absolutely nothing so far, Labors incompetence on the other hand is costing us billions right now.

‘‘or the fact that their carbon policy will cost more per tonne of abatement and be fully paid by taxpayers and not polluters?’‘

Copy and paste that one direct form the Labor party website I see. Who do you think pays the carbon tax? taxpayers. Every tax is paid by the taxpayer, hence the word ‘‘taxpayer’‘. As for the real cost of direct action, I do not know, figures are all over the place. What I do know is come July it is the Carbon tax that I will be paying out of my pocket, not direct action therefore criticism is rightfully directed at Labor.

‘‘Why do critics of Labor’s deficit problem not ask how the coalition is planning to fund their promises and maintain a surplus?’‘

Because it is an academic question. Labor is running a deficit and has burdened us with $200B worth of debt and is continuing to do so. Just removing them from power would be a first good step then we could look to the waste they generated to bring the budget back into line and start generating small surpluses to pay off the enormous debt.

You may have some people fooled with your ‘reasonable’ posts but the more you write the more you sound exactly like every other Labor zealot here. Criticism of theoretical Coalition policies should never and will never to common sense people outweigh the waste and incompetence occurring right now under Labor. The equivalence argument holds no water.

‘‘I’ve said it before, but the best shot voters had was a Liberal Party under Turnbull. He is socially progressive, economically literate and tends to avoid cheap populism. The fact that he lost his leadership because he refused to give way on his principles in the face of hysterical populism says volumes for the integrity of the man.’‘

That pretty much seals the deal on your zealot. Turnbull was a failed leader, is a failure as a minister and continually undermines his own party. That says more about his integrity of the man than any rose coloured version you believe.  It is also the no1 talking point of Labor supporters; make Turnbull leader and I’d vote for him. It’s all bullshit but you guys keep spinning it.

thatmosis says:

04:18pm | 11/02/12

Sorry to dissapoint you Chris L but Im one of those people who can make up their own mind about things, not rely on lies and spin as the Labor voters do. I weight up the arguements, look at the track records and then make up my mind.
  Now if you were a betting man would you put your money on a horse that promised much but failed at every hurdle, if you are then Im sure there is a place for you as a Labor politician or better yet a Union Rep. Most people would look at the above and put their money elsewhere, thinking people that is, its just common sense, nothing more but then again in short supply nowdays.

Bertrand says:

05:28pm | 11/02/12

@JL - not a Labor Party zealot by any means. I aim to discuss each issue on its merits. When it comes to the economic debate on this thread, I sit closer to the side of those who see the Labor government as being a competent set of hands in difficult circumstances. They haven’t been anywhere near perfect, but deserve some credit for maintaining a growing economy, low unemployment, low inflation and low interest rates. For this reason I don’t think they are deserving of the venom directed at them by rusted on Liberal supporters.

On other issues on other threads I am more than critical of them. The Malaysia ‘solution’ was a disgrace on a number of levels, the wastage on ridiculous things like set-top boxes and fuel watch, grocery watch, etc is well deserving of all the criticism it gets. Likewise, I have massive issues with their ability to effectively deliver policy. Good policy is of no use if it is not implemented efficiently and effectively.

Being non-partisan isn’t about not having an opinion of policy debates, it’s about not blindly choosing a side based on prior allegiances, but actually arriving at a conclusion based on the specifics of the issue. My disagreeing with the view that this government has been economically incompetent doesn’t automatically make me a Labor hack, just as my low opinion of Gillard’s leadership style and ability, as well as of her personal integrity doesn’t make me a Liberal Party hack.

My comments on Turnbull were not bullshit as you claimed. He failed as a leader because he didn’t give up a principle in order to satisfy populist scaremongering. As I said, I want a leader who is socially progressive, economically competent and with some level of personal integrity.

As an aside I voted for Howard at least once, so can’t be all that rusted on to Labor, seeing how much he was loathed by the Labor chorus-group.

Usually I vote for an independent who meets my criteria as described a couple of sentences back and then direct my preference to whichever major party holds my confidence at the time. The fact that at this time I am arguing against certain criticisms directed at the Labor government obviously upsets you, but it doesn’t make me the one-eyed hack you think I am.

Sambo says:

06:57pm | 11/02/12

@ZS Ren and @Betrand. In regards to that link ZS Ren posted Do you think that sharp decline in GDP in 2009 maybe coincides with a drop in the Australian Dollar against the US Dollar rather than a drop in GDP? Just asking. Enlighten me if you know differently.

Bertrand says:

08:07pm | 11/02/12

@Sambo - if my reading of the link ZSRen provided is correct, GDP figures are calculated in current US dollars, so previous years stats are adjusted to meet current exchange rates. I may be wrong on this, but it seems to be how the data in the specific link is working.

Mytheory is that GDP per capita in 2009 dropped because GDP growth slowed to a rate below population growth. Overall GDP still grew… we haven’t had an economic downturn in close to two decades, so the only thing I can think of is GDP growth compared to population growth.

Don’t quote me on that though, just my guess.

Chris L says:

11:26pm | 12/02/12

A fair response, Thatmosis, but I feel I believe I can clarify. My point was in relation to Bertrand’s lament that people are so invested in their own side they cannot see the middle gound clearly, let alone the other side. I tend to agree with him.

Your first response (the one I was responding to) seemed to exemplify his point, by saying it was true of your opponents, but not of your side.

This demonstrates the frustration perpetrated upon reasoned debate. The inability to concede praise to one side, or criticism of the other.

Denny Crane says:

08:59am | 11/02/12

Swans budget has blown out by that amount over just 6 months rather than the three years that the Coalition were talking. Wayne Swan can barely manage the finances of his own office let alone the country. I would say how sweet it is to watch labor fall apart but they are taking the country down.

The politics of envy that labor is employing is disgusting but I suppose when you have a PM who condones her staff organising a race riot or is happy to cover up one of her MP’s stealing from union members, then it is not all that suprising.

Tell you when I will be laughing nossy, when labor are relegated to the opposition benches for the next 10 years. It might not happen as soon as i like but it will happen. Nobody could trust labor again. That is until fools like the Canberra peanut gallery tell us its time for a change.

John the Zombie says:

09:00am | 11/02/12

nossy you do know that in the 2010 election all of labor costings were not costed. Actually only half of them were and at the same time the PM was going around making new uncosted commitments. Should I point out the massive MRRT stuff up by labor. It was over 8 billion dollars. Also note a warning has been sounded to the govt that its MRRT figures are incorrect and need revising as the price of metals has lowered and sales reduced due to the high dollar.

Angry God of Townsville says:

09:40am | 11/02/12

nossy, that you parrot that line only highlights the clear fact that you did not understand it. If the department of finance was so good, why are they so wrong and require mid year reviews in which they are billions of dollars off the mark. In 2013 we will still be in debt because this government spends to much without return.

Laurie quotes the numbers labor wants him to promote ignoring that if spending and revenue were maintained on the trajectory of the last Howard budget and you included the impacts of the GFC we would still be in surplus. It was the spending (and it is now running at 100 Million a week in borrowings not to mention interest) that has led to the deficit and it will be the cuts to this spending that will return the budget to a surplus not the bringing forward of projected dividends to create the illusion of a surplus. Also when Wayne talks of surplus, it means that the budget will finally be getting to pay off the loans from China.

The reality is that it will barely touch the interest that this government has left as a time bomb for my children to have to pay off. That you revel in Australia’s decline shows that it is power and politics and not Australia that you care about. A sad indictment on your character.

Gregg says:

10:00am | 11/02/12

All a manipulation on interpretation too Nossy

Nathan says:

06:54am | 11/02/12

You are really going to sit there and point the finger when Hockey can’t balance the books and has been caught out time and time again.

Nathan says:

08:08am | 11/02/12

Is this your ideal treasurer? Or it doesn’t matter cause he is in the opposition and doesn’t actually have to be credible?
http://www.news.com.au/money/interest-rates/hours-to-sort-out-the-banks-hockey/story-e6frfmn0-1225941502379

John the Zombie says:

09:27am | 11/02/12

When Swan is caught out he uses the excuse, ow we budgeted for that or that was taken into consideration. What a load of bull, seriously some of the stuff was like last minute and magically it was factored into the calculation even though at the time it was not even been considered by anyone. I would love to see the crystal ball swan is suing.

Super D says:

09:52am | 11/02/12

If Wayne Swan has demonstrated anything with regard to “economic management” it’s that you can have any idiot in the role of treasurer. The noise this week is of no consequence whatsoever.

Space Ghost says:

02:17pm | 11/02/12

Funny how conservatives scream the free market will always sort it out. But then as soon as the free market does what it always does and screws the vulnerable the same conservatives beat the government over the head with it.

It’s a rigged game.

Pilby says:

07:22pm | 11/02/12

Mr Hockey has said he has given the Treasurer 24 hours to pressure the banks to limit rate increases in the wake of the RBA minutes being released, but he had done nothing.  “He’s failing to do his job properly,” he said.
So it begs the question, what is Mr Hockey going to do?? And if he fails to do anything is he failing to do his job properly??

Shane From Melbourne says:

09:15am | 11/02/12

7.5 billion wasted in a useless war…oh wait, that was John Howard….

Andrew says:

11:24am | 11/02/12

So we pulled out of iraq and afganistan in 2007 straight after the election did we Shane must have missed that.

nihonin says:

01:20pm | 11/02/12

Andrew says:

  12:24pm | 11/02/12

  So we pulled out of iraq and afganistan in 2007 straight after the election did we Shane must have missed that.

Andrew, shhhhhhh, you can’t mention that, it’s not the Gillard governments fault, we’re still there.  It’s Tony Abbott’s fault, isn’t it Shane.

Marilyn Shepherd says:

02:40pm | 11/02/12

Actually the BER was $1.5 billion under budget and it was not wasted at all.

You have a very strange idea of what the GDP of this country is as you reel off silly little numbers - the GDP or wealth of this country is $1.5 trillion per annum but you whinge about 1 million here or there.

Sometimes the economically illliterate need to be quiet.

Against the Man says:

05:14pm | 11/02/12

And Shane you have proof Labor wouldn’t have gone to war?

Shane From Melbourne says:

10:54pm | 11/02/12

John Howard started the war and Rudd / Gillard continued it. It would have been better to have spent the 7.5 Billion on off the shelf submarines. But hey, both the ALP and LNP are crap on Defence and can’t even control their own Department of Defence. The Department of Defence has been screwing up for decades and wasting / rorting billions of dollars and no one really cares.

Chris o says:

08:05am | 11/02/12

Middle Australia is union Australia or are they the wealthy under this reign.

Nathan says:

07:37am | 11/02/12

The NBN is not listed in the Federal Budget as an expense because it is technically a government investment and will consequently not divert money away from other projects as they will see a return on investment.

cheap white trash says:

08:04am | 11/02/12

ok so its not listed,in the Budget,so technically its and investment,with whos money,its got to come from somewhere?the government doesnt have money,so who is paying???please.
I told u im dumb…...

I hate pies says:

08:44am | 11/02/12

They should release a capital budget, as well as cashflow projections as part of the budget package…then again, they probably do but everyone goes off halfcocked without researching anything so how would we know?
Does the budget deficit include capital spend?

John the Zombie says:

09:41am | 11/02/12

I hate pies the govt will not release this type of budget. Lets examine the NBN right now. It was estimated that it would cost 40 billion but this was based on the fact that the first installations will be done capital cities and allowing a larger take up. With the agreement ithe independence this change and the installation of this service in capital cities been pushed further down the track. This changing the actual modelling of the project.

The second part is that fact NBN expected 30,000 users by July last year but even now only has 3,000 users. Based on a standard business model this would see the actual project costs blow out as the income that was expected will not be coming in and that the amount of debt and interest payments will not be reduced.

Also another factor that no one wants to talk about is the fact that when labor released the figure of 40 billion for the NBN the calculation did not take into account the factor of getting peoples homes ready for it. The idea at first was for the customers to pay for it and all of a sudden when people found this out and opposed it the govt turned around and said it would be free. Now I am pretty sure if you did not factor this cost in then you will increase the projects cost.

Another thing is and this is fr you Nathan have you read any material in regards to the NBN. The govt is charging a tax on downloads and that is why when you see the packages it is expensive. This was pointed out by a few ISP providers. Also the govt has been cagey on the filter system.

JL says:

09:48am | 11/02/12

Only should include related expense, like interest, unless they expect to recoup everything. It is like if you buy a house and sell it ten years later for more, there is no overall expense.

Angry God of Townsville says:

09:51am | 11/02/12

Nathan, the truth is that the Australian government has invested in this project. If a private company invested in a project, by law, that expenditure is required in the financial documentation supplied to ASIC. In addition the take up rates are currently not providing a return on investment to render the project revenue neutral and until they do this project will be running at a significant loss. 

These two factors alone should see the figures included in the budget as they are clearly and currently an expenses to government and should be included in the cost of government (i.e. the Budget).

As they failed to do a cost benefit analysis of the project, your statement of it being a government investment is moot. You and they have no actual proof of return because it has not been done. It is pure trickery by this “open” government that has allowed for the deception to occur.

That it is allowed to go unchecked is ridiculous by anyone’s standards and as such I agree with CWT that it needs to be in the budget until it has at least passed through the checks and balances that this government and it’s agencies demand off private industries..

Aed says:

05:34pm | 11/02/12

So Nathan where does the money come from? ALP loonies like you make us all look bad!

John the Zombie says:

09:52am | 11/02/12

ATM talking about the Health Insurance.

I had a look at the two example the PM gave and this was the result.

Apprentice - 30,000 - 35,000
Business man - 300,000

The apprentice will not even pay a medicare levy or at least only contribute $525 to the medicare system.

The business man will pay a medicare levy of 4,500.

Now already we see that the business man pays 8.5 times the amount the apprentice will pay. The rebate for pvt health is 30%. So lets say the business man pays a 2,000 a year in pvt health. The amount of rebate he gets is 600. So lets take this away from his actual medicare contribution and we get an amount that he contributes to medicare of 3900. This is still 7.4 x more then the apprentice will pay.

Basic logic but people like nathan and TChong dont think logicaly and most likely are working from the ALP office.

nossy says:

11:44am | 11/02/12

@Against the Man   bugger TM another day and no Tony! Geez - who won “yesterdays” election ATM?  hahahahahha down to the bottle shop for more Scotch for you old fella!

Doc Watson says:

12:10pm | 11/02/12

@ John the Zombie - “This is still 7.4 x more then the apprentice will pay”

Don’t worry about the fact that the businessman earns 10 times more than the apprentice John.

You talk about logic…your name suits you.

Most reasonable people would be more than happy to pay 7.4 times as much as the apprentice if they were earning more than 10 times as much…get back in your greedy little box John.

Andrew says:

01:44pm | 11/02/12

@Doc Watson, are you serious? Is the apprentice subsidising the businessman because he pays the same $9 fare for a train ticket? Should the businessman pay $90 for the train because he can? $20 for a can of Coke, so this socialist govt and their communist red-Green cheerleaders don’t feel like anyone is being “subsidised”?

You say that in your happy-happy socialist world most “reasonable” people would be “happy” paying 7.4x as much FOR EXACTLY THE SAME SERVICE. Do you even KNOW any high income earners? Has it occurred to you that the businessman only earns 6x the income of the apprentice after tax? So you’re actually proposing that people on $300,000 should be taxed / levied / transferred until they have a LOWER living standard than someone starting out in the workforce.

Against the Man says:

02:15pm | 11/02/12

All I can say is that Gillard was screwing things up big time and doesn’t matter Laurie or Swany or TChong says the majority have made up their mind and are waiting to throw them out. Remember ALP = Greens the connection has been made (thanks Gillard) and the end game confirmed

Oh and don’t forget CT hahahahaha…........the ALP are so without a paddle!

Marilyn Shepherd says:

02:38pm | 11/02/12

Do you read anything ever or just jerk your ignorant knee?

The tax rebate for the rich on private health care is one of the biggest rorts in history all invented by Howard.  If people want private health care and can afford it with their measly income of $166,000 per annum why should people earning the basic wage supplement them?

Honestly this liberal party notion that the rich should pay less tax than the poor drives me nuts.

Can’t make the miners pay even when they make massive profits off stuff we all own, can’t make the big polluters pay because the multinational corporate thieves might whine, can’t make the rich pay for their own nannies.

Just make the poor suffer more.

Really and truly nauseating that you fools fall for this sort of nonsense.

AS for Hockey, the man is a buffoon without a clue like Abbott is.

Against the Man says:

05:18pm | 11/02/12

Knee jerk response? That would be Labor replacing Rudd with the Gillard, and methinks this is to cover yo Labor waste in their knee jerk cuts to get the budget in surplus. Labor screwed the lower income via the carbon tax - job losses, increase cost of living etc.

Labor can’t win and only sad minority twits would defend them and their leader Bob Brown aka the Puppet master!

Doc Watson says:

07:11pm | 11/02/12

@ Andrew - “So you’re actually proposing that people on $300,000 should be taxed / levied / transferred until they have a LOWER living standard than someone starting out in the workforce”

Where did I say that?  What I’m saying is that people who earn 300K a year can afford their own private health insurance without being subsidised by someone earning 30K.

Your greed has no bounds, but of course, this is a typical selfish conservative attitude. In the case of the LNP It’s not about “give it to the needy” but “give it to the greedy”

TChong says:

07:50am | 11/02/12

Your evidence that Labor cant “run a country”, is based on the fact that Hockey is caught out lieing about 70 billion ?
But, as you say Chris O, you are a Lib, so a partisan stance is justification in itself !?!

John the Zombie says:

09:43am | 11/02/12

TChong the guy who wants to reduce the ADF to a DF with no understanding of the world and defence posture.

Hey should I point out to you the billions wasted by labor defence purchases. They make the issue with the F35 look like Chump change.

Against the Man says:

05:13pm | 11/02/12

TChong back and doing a great job for that ALP funded paycheck, but that really gives your comment a tainted point of view no?

The desperation from your team is most amusing

Hard graft says:

08:11am | 12/02/12

“$70 billion, it is pocket change”

Goodness me. Now that’s a relief. Goody goody.

So all the Abbott, Hockey, Joyce, Robb etc blather about the fed deficit (way,way less) and net fed debt then (a tad more) is just total Bulldust, then.  Who’d a thunk.

Mind if I rephrase? Here ya go, Champ.
Chris O says: “What’s a billion again, Joe?”

Wayne says:

03:18pm | 11/02/12

Swann was always bank bashing and harping on when Howard was in power how they were not doing enough regarding the interest rates charged by the big bad greedy banks. This gave the false impression Swann could do something about it, and therefore win a few extra votes. Well he is now in power and has been for a while, and he has done nothing.  We know there are market forces that are the major determining factor for rates but didn’t stop Swanns story. He has been caught out by his own words.

Chris I says:

08:09am | 11/02/12

Can’t sit there forever we need the labor party in ever 10 years or so to screw all the work up, spend trillions on nothing, take a few holidays, buy a few more thing then for them to leave thinking all is good

Chris L says:

08:11pm | 11/02/12

Interesting point, Chris I. Given that the Coalition have a pitiful track record when it comes to investing in infrastructure we do, indeed, need Labor to take charge now and then.

Nathan says:

08:19am | 11/02/12

Prove any of that, hind-site is a nice thing. The reality is we are in a strong position and even stronger comparatively…...How much did the war in Iraq cost and we all know that was wasted money but we let that one go

Janet says:

08:16am | 11/02/12

Yes, yes, Joan. Everything’s an absolute disaster, your cat just died and it’s all JU LIARS fault!!
Please, spare us the constant “woe is me” rhetoric and wake up to the fact that in reality the country is doing extremely well. Low unemployment, low interest rates, low inflation, huge investment pipeline, jobs galore….yep, an absolute economic wreck for sure.

nossy says:

09:04am | 11/02/12

@Janet - forgive poor old Joan - her glass is always half empty - she just doesnt like the fact Australia has a “AAA” rating!

Joan says:

09:32am | 11/02/12

Janet: Gillard $23Carbon Tax is the mother of all economy wrecking balls. EX Socialist Forum groupie Gillard, the woman who has never owned a business, but knows everything about the art of backstabbing , lying, using manipulative language to excuse and justify her and Labor base actions . Latest Gillard big fib that apprentices subsidise hard working high earners health care. Gillard totally out of touch - apprentices pay very little tax on earnings , if any ,so hardly taking care of others. and hardly taking care of themselves. Working Australians pay a Medicare Levy even if they contribute to a private fund- perhaps Gillard ignorant or just being her plain manipulative self. In the real world small business Australia doesn’t find Australia to be the economic nirvana as Gillard propoganda would have it. - and job losses in big business indicate that Australia not made of milk and honey.

nihonin says:

09:39am | 11/02/12

Janet says: ‘Yes, yes, Joan. Everything’s an absolute disaster, your cat just died and it’s all JU LIARS fault!!’

Wrong as is always pointed out by Julia Giilard, Wayne Swan, any of the Labor ministers, MP’s, paid up members and sycophants of the Labor party.

It’s Tony Abbott’s fault.

Joan says:

10:50am | 11/02/12

Nossy : Gillard $23 Carbon Tax and her bandaid handouts will drain any economy AAA rating - you bet

Gregg says:

10:53am | 11/02/12

@Janet
That’s exactly dead right Janet about Joan’s cat.
Have you seen what prime beef costs these days!, and when a pussy has been getting the best treatment, you’d not be surprised for a reaction when something inferior was offered would you?

Our two dogs have even taken a fancy to Hot Cross Buns and that’s all because of all the double crossing going on isn’t it.
I have to now try and have one later at night when pooches are asleep or it becomes one bite for me and a bite each for them.

Gloria says:

09:14pm | 11/02/12

Joan the albatross around Australia’s neck is not only Gillard’s $23 Carbon tax but the bad karma Gillard bestowed on the nation the day she stabbed our PM in the back, became our PM, moved into the Lodge with her boyfriend and declared she didn’t believe in God. I am a Liberal voter but would like to see decency brought back into the Lodge with the Rudd family once again as our representative here and abroad like the Obama family. Gillard is a joke and Gillard has also turned our parliament into a circus by replacing Harry Jenkins for Peter Sleeper.

Chris L says:

11:35pm | 12/02/12

Gregg has won some points with his witicism (I got a chuckle out of it). Also, as a sobering point, I don’t think it wise to make personal cracks against Joan, or any unknown person, as we cannot know how deeply personal these can go. (If you own cats, Joan, I hope they are well.)

On the other hand, Gloria seems to judge a potential PM’s ability based on their religious affiliation. Feel free to dispute me, but I don’t see this as a wise, nor informed, criteria for choosing a leader for our country.

AdamC says:

11:32am | 11/02/12

JF, Gallery journos seem to prefer politicians to make iron-clad committments and subsequently dismiss them as impossible (or simply inconvenient) than be up-front about the realities of a situation.

Aside from the infamous carbon tax deception, Gillard’s betrayal of Andrew Wilkie is an example of this in action. Gallery journos seemed quite satisfied that Gillard went back on a committment because it was not possible for her to meet it in the circumstances. People like me, however, would have thought that, if there was doubt that she would be able to deliver on a promise, the PM should not have made that promise so unequivocally.

In other areas of life, it is called ‘misleading or deceptive conduct’, but in politics it is simply accepted behaviour - at least when Labor is in office.

JL says:

11:55am | 11/02/12

Well who cares, cheaper than Abbotts carbon reduction policy. We satisfy our nations pledge. Blah blah bah

neil says:

12:57pm | 11/02/12

Compared to Labor they are geniuses.

jf says:

02:22pm | 11/02/12

My favourite youtube of Barnaby.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soaPhHKX2Oo&feature=related

Tim says:

09:06pm | 11/02/12

@jf

This one’s better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRxAWxF3LOc

Gloria says:

09:29pm | 11/02/12

nossy one question for you. ‘When will the Labor party boot either Gillard or Rudd out for the good of the party and the country. We all know that the two of them working together is not only detrimental for the Labor brand but for the nation. If you can’t answer it, the great Laurie Oakes may be able to.

If the people were given a say I am certain we would all say bring Rudd back and boot Gillard out for the bad karma she has bestowed on the nation the day she stabbed Rudd in the back and became our PM.

Steve Putnam says:

04:34pm | 12/02/12

@ jf Was this before or after Barnaby air raided Tony Windsor and thereby put an end to any chance the Coalition may have had in reaching agreement with the Independents?

Black Hole Joe says:

12:34pm | 11/02/12

@ Space Ghost - It adds up if you’re living in cloud cuckoo-land. According to Joe Hockey…1 plus 1 does not necessarily equal 2, it could be eleven, who knows?

If Abbott, Hockey and Robb are the best economic management team that the LNP can come up with then the LNP are in serious trouble, let alone Australia.

If those three stooges ever gain power….then god help Australia.

Trev says:

02:45pm | 11/02/12

@Blackholejoe

The Noalition should reinstate Barnaby Joyce as Shadow Finance Minister. What a hoot that was while it lasted.

TC says:

08:23pm | 11/02/12

What services have they promised to increase?
Remember the Liberals believe in smaller government which means less tax needed and budget surpluses easier to implement.

Space Ghost says:

08:48pm | 11/02/12

‘My vision for Australia is to restore hope, reward and opportunity by delivering lower taxes, better services, more opportunities for work and stronger borders.’

Tony Abbott - 1/2/2012

http://www.skynews.com.au/politics/article.aspx?id=713372&vId;=

And this is just his latest round of promise anything to get elected.

And if the Liberals believe in small government why are the Liberals attacking Swan for not being able to stop the banks raising rates independently of the reserve bank?

George C. Parker says:

09:14pm | 11/02/12

@TC

If you believe that I have a bridge in Brooklyn with your name on it.

Stephen T says:

06:59am | 17/02/12

Its not a bad vision actually, considering what we have at present.  Now let me see Abbot’s academic qualifications are: B.Ec and LL.B from Sydney Uni. then a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford for his M.A.  He is not the dill you you make him out to be, yours qualification are? Nuff said I think.  Joe Hockey worries me though, his obsession with selling Medibank ,  never forgiven Keating for the privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank I believe when he did that he removed the only effective control the government had on the banking sector.  Its the best argument against privatising MediBank.

Sniper says:

01:09pm | 11/02/12

@ Gregg - “Look at what is happening in Greece now, the result of that country living beyond its means for decades and that is where Australia is headed if we do not live within our means”

What a load of absolute rubbish.  The economy of Australia is not comparable to Greece, never was and never will be.

Conservative economic commentators continually carry on about Australia being one of the most over taxed countries in the world, and now, all of a sudden we’re on par with Greece - who lost control of their taxation revenue base decades ago. You can’t have it both ways…we’re either over-taxed or we’re not…which is it?

Taxation (lack of revenue) is just one issue currently crippling Greece, along with early retirement age, lack of exports, slack productivity, the Euro, loss of the Drachma, joining the EU…why go on, as it would be a waste of time detailing the differences between our countries, especially to people with little understanding of basic economics.

Australia is currently enjoying record foreign investment, low un-employment, low inflation, low interest rates (not that we hear about that from the LNP any-more, funny that) and a standard of living that is the envy of most other countries.

Continue on with the doom and gloom rhetoric that the LNP are renowned for Gregg, keep talking down our economy if it makes you feel better, life must be so miserable being a conservative jack-in-the-box.

Gregg says:

03:24pm | 11/02/12

@ The Sniper
Keep on sniping away and it might as well be snipping away.
” What a load of absolute rubbish.  The economy of Australia is not comparable to Greece, never was and never will be.

Conservative economic commentators continually carry on about Australia being one of the most over taxed countries in the world, and now, all of a sudden we’re on par with Greece “

I’ve said nothing about being on a par with Greece and so you cannot even read correctly before you start sniping with your snippets.
Australia is currently recording record high investment and have a look at how low our interest rates are compared to other countries.
And then also see how the investments program is going in five, ten, fifteen years time as super profits and carbon taxes make our industries less competitive internationally.

If you know a lot on economics, you might want to check what tax levels resource companies pay elsewhere and so if a better nett return is possible in another country, where do you think investment will go.

Now go and crawl back into your hole.

nossy says:

03:17pm | 11/02/12

@Wayne 2.43pm Wayne I dont even vote Labor - Bob Katters “Katters Australia Party” is the one for me. Abbott is trying to pull the wool over everyones eyes when in fact he has the equivilent of a pair of twos at poker - better the devil we know fella than the one we dont!
http://www.ausparty.org.au/

nihonin says:

07:16am | 12/02/12

nossy states: Wayne I dont even vote Labor - Bob Katters “Katters Australia Party” is the one for me.’ Then why aren’t you giving Julia Gillard and Labor the same treatment, as you bestow on Tony Abbott and the Liberals.  I think you Bob Katter support is a throw away line nossy or maybe you too believe, Labor are gone at the next election, but just can’t admit it, as you’ve have to eat some crow.  Ohhhhhhhhh I need some chilli!

Popp suckett says:

08:22pm | 11/02/12

Fuck no!

stephen says:

07:36pm | 11/02/12

Hey mate, I went half shares in a racehorse 15 years a go called Rockin’ Rodney.
You’re not related, are you ?

Reggieman says:

10:26pm | 11/02/12

To you or the horse?

Wayne says:

07:07pm | 11/02/12

Gordon, based on your comment you obviously have no exposure to overseas factories and businesses. There are people within the businesses I have worked for that have, and while there are some that are below par, there are others that are state of the art, as good or better than we could ever have here. And what is more, there are many that are advancing so quickly your comment will quickly become irrelevant. As for wages being low overseas, you need to see what they can buy for what they get. In many cases they are living very comfortably as the prices of things are so much lower there, and as more money comes into their economy it will be even better. This means we are totally uncompetitive trying to compete on the world market, and many of our jobs will disappear. You can get on your high horse and try to give the impression we are the only ones able to do anything right, but you are incorrect.

Terry2 says:

09:21pm | 11/02/12

Dave, Turnbull will lead the Liberal Party back to office or he’ll get out of politics; I hope it is the former for Australia’s sake. Abbott has shown us what he’s got and it’s pretty ordinary, the liberal hierarchy need to recognize that, bite the bullet. and send him on his way: now would be a good time.

Wayne says:

10:10am | 12/02/12

There are good employers and some not so good. The good are the majority. However, you need to consider who pays your wages. It is not your employer, it is the sales of products or services. If there is a demand from customers, then a business needs to provide the service otherwise sales will go elsewhere and the business and jobs will go. If you are not happy with your employer look for a job somewhere else difficult as that sometimes may be. It is to the detriment of a business if employee turnover is high as training takes considerable time and cost.

Mark says:

04:12pm | 12/02/12

@Tony

Andrew Robb, for sure. He’s been after Hockey’s job for ages.