Showing posts with label rare documents. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rare documents. Show all posts

Thursday, July 13, 2017

Benefits from a Wollongong-to-Sydney rail upgrade would exceed costs, Cabinet told

Work needed for an upgrade to the Wollongong to Sydney rail link that would deliver passengers to Central in 66 minutes produces benefits at up to twice the cost according to a previously unreleased Cabinet in Confidence report.

The proposed schedule, also seen by Fairfax Media, has express passenger trains taking 20 minutes to get from Wollongong to Helensburgh, 35 minutes to get from from Wollongong to Hurstville, 54 minutes to Wolli Creek, and 66 minutes to Central.

The main expenses would be a $2.9 billion tunnel from Thirroul to near Waterfall on Sydney's southern tip and completion of the long-stalled freight link from Dombarton near Dapto to the commuter line.

Costed at between $700 million and $800 million in the Cabinet in Confidence document seen by Fairfax Media, the freight link has a benefit-cost ratio of between 1.5 and 2.4 depending on the scenario chosen.

A benefit-cost ratio above 1 means the project is worth doing. A benefit-cost ratio above 2 is exceptional.

Among the benefits quantified are time savings, transport cost savings, avoided environmental externalities, avoided crash costs, road congestion, and avoided road damage.

The biggest benefit, transport cost savings, is estimated at $2.4 billion over 50 years, or $560 million in present day dollars. Time savings are worth around $1 billion, or $200 million in today's dollars.

To convert future benefits to present-day dollars the 2013 study used a discount rate of 4.4 per cent "in accordance with the federal department of infrastructure and transport's nation building appraisal guidelines".

A more recent Transport for NSW assessment, evaluated this year by Infrastructure Australia, used a higher discount rate of 7 per cent, even though interest rates had fallen during the intervening years. It awarded the project a benefit-cost ratio of only 0.9 meaning the project "would not generate sufficient benefits to justify its costs".

Projects with high upfront costs and benefits years out into the future look better when low discount rates are used and worse when high discount rates are used.

Answering a question in parliament, on behalf of roads minister Melinda Pavey in June, primary industries minister Niall Blair quoted only the Infrastructure Australia conclusion and not the conclusion of the minister's department.

On the same day primary industries minister Don Harwin, replying on behalf of transport minister Andrew Constance, misled parliament when answering a question about the rail tunnel under Thirroul saying it had not been the subject of a strategic assessment or strategic paper.

Fairfax Media has seen the assessment, contained in a Cabinet in Confidence document entitled Rail Corridor Strategy: Sydney to Wollongong produced in 2014, when current premier Gladys Berejiklian was transport minister.

On Wednesday a spokesman for Ms Pavey distanced the minister from the Maldon to Dombarton benefit-cost study conducted when Ms Berejiklian was transport minister, saying the 2013 study "relied upon assumptions about growth in the iron ore market that did not eventuate".

The less favourable 2017 Infrastructure Australia assessment was "in line with an earlier report from 2011 by the then-Labor government which found the project had a benefit cost ratio of 0.56."

Asked whether Ms Pavey would release the study that found a much higher benefit-cost ratio, the spokesman did not reply.

Three-quarters of the 35 kilometre link was completed by 1988 when the NSW government suspended the project in the midst of an economic downturn and lower than expected coal traffic. The line stops in mid-air on either side of the Nepean River.

The unpublished benefit cost study finds costs at around $780 million in present-day dollar terms more than offset by benefits at $1100 million. The total cost of upgrading the Sydney to Wollongong commuter line would be around $5 billion.

An F6 Extension motorway, under active consideration by the government as an alternative to the rail project, has a price tag of around $18 billion.

 

In The Age and Sydney Morning Herald
Read more >>

Saturday, October 19, 2013

For Hockey's ears only. Treasury shuts the door on FOI

So far, for now

So worried is the Treasury about its ability to establish “an effective working relationship” with its new Treasurer Joe Hockey that it is attempting to block access to its incoming government brief under freedom of information laws.

It’s a turnaround from Treasury’s position in 2007 when it released a redacted version the incoming government brief prepared for Labor’s Wayne Swan.

“Release of the incoming government briefs would interfere with the establishment of an effective working relationship between the Treasury and Treasurer,” the department says in a letter to news organisations refusing FOI requests released late Friday.

“The need to develop a trusting relationship is particularly important in the early days of a new government, to set the tone for the future working relationship of the whole department,” the letter says.

Disclosure “would not be conducive to establishing a productive, trusting and effective relationship with the Treasurer and would adversely affect Treasury’s effectiveness as a central policy agency.”

The letter advises media organisations of their rights of appeal.

Peter Timmins, a lawyer specialising in freedom of information litigation, said he wasn’t surprised...


“That’s the way the bureaucracy has been moving for some years,’ he said. “They are increasingly speaking about the need to offer frank and candid advice. Former Attorney General Nicola Roxon used the phrase herself in setting up an inquiry into the laws earlier this year. The inquiry found that the existing laws did protect frank and candid advice, but the attitude of the bureaucrats has been hardening.”

Mr Timmins said he doubted whether Treasury would win an appeal. Some of the information in the brief, such as that dealing with economic conditions, would be uncontentious and could easily be released without compromising Treasury’s ability to talk to its minister.

In The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age






Related Reading

. Peter Timmins: Will 'Blue books' inform public discussion and debate?

. Peter Timmins: Blue book 2010 decision likely to be compulsory reading

. Peter Timmins: Incoming government briefs: what's changed since 2010?



Related Posts

. 2010. It's not just the Red Book. Now the Coalition's got hold of the Blue Book

. 2010. What Treasury told Gillard - the Red Books are out

. 2010. Oh to be a fly on the wall Sunday morning...


Read more >>

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

For the fridge door. Abbott's new Ministry







A TEAM TO BUILD A STRONGER AUSTRALIA

The incoming Coalition Government will restore strong, stable and accountable government to build a more prosperous Australia.

This is the team that will scrap the carbon tax, end the waste, stop the boats, build the roads of the twenty first century and deliver the strong and dynamic economy that we need.

First term governments are best served by Cabinets with extensive ministerial experience.  Fifteen members of the incoming Cabinet have previous ministerial experience.   The four members of Cabinet without ministerial experience have made significant contributions to the Shadow Ministry. 

The simplification of ministerial and departmental titles reflects my determination to run a “back to basics” government.

The Australian people expect a government that is upfront, speaks plainly and does the essentials well.

The Cabinet will be assisted by a strong team of ministers with proven capacity to implement the Government’s policies.

Parliamentary secretaries will assist senior ministers and be under their direction. 

Good government requires a strong Coalition.  As Deputy Prime Minister and as Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, the Hon Warren Truss MP will be responsible for ensuring the Government delivers on its major infrastructure commitments across Australia.  Mr Jamie Briggs MP will be the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development with specific responsibility for roads and delivery of our election commitments across metropolitan and regional Australia.

The Hon Julie Bishop MP will serve as Minister for Foreign Affairs and will be a strong voice for Australia during a time when Australia is a member of the United Nations Security Council.  Australia in addition will assume the Chair of the G20 on 1 December for a year.  Senator the Hon Brett Mason will be Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. 

With the unemployment rate at its highest level in four years and with Treasury forecasting that the number of unemployed will rise to around 800,000 by the middle of next year, helping Australian businesses generate more jobs underpins our agenda to build a stronger economy.

Senator the Hon Eric Abetz as Minister for Employment, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Public Service and Leader of the Government in the Senate will be responsible for reducing impediments to employment growth.  In keeping with our pre-election commitments, the Coalition Government will restore the Australian Building and Construction Commission, return the industrial relations pendulum to the sensible centre and re-invigorate Work for the Dole.  Mr Luke Hartsuyker MP will be Assistant Minister for Employment and Deputy Leader of the House. 

Senator the Hon George Brandis QC will be Attorney-General, Minister for the Arts and Vice President of the Executive Council and will be responsible for establishing a bipartisan process that will lead to a referendum and recognition of indigenous Australians in the Constitution.  Mr Michael Keenan MP will be Minister for Justice.

Strengthening the economy, lifting productivity and turning around Australia’s competitive decline will be at the heart of the new Government.  By strengthening the economy we can create more jobs and better afford the services that we all want. 

As Treasurer, the Hon Joe Hockey MP will lead the Government’s work to restore the Budget position and grow a stronger economy.  Senator Mathias Cormann, as Minister for Finance, will be responsible for delivering better value for taxpayers.  Senator Arthur Sinodinos AO will be Assistant Treasurer.  His lifetime of experience in the public sector will provide further strength to our economic team.  Mr Steven Ciobo MP will be Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer and Mr Michael McCormack MP will be Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.

Mr Barnaby Joyce MP will be the Minister for Agriculture and will be working to fulfil Australia’s potential as the food-bowl of Asia. The agricultural opportunities for Northern Australia in particular are immense.  Senator the Hon Richard Colbeck will be Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture.

Labor’s decision to split education across multiple portfolios hindered the capacity of different parts of the system to work together to improve educational standards.

The Hon Christopher Pyne MP will be Minister for Education and Leader of the House and will work with the states and territories to deliver real improvements across all aspects of education.  The Hon Sussan Ley MP as Assistant Minister for Education will continue her work with child care and early childhood education.  Senator Scott Ryan will be Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education.

The Hon Ian Macfarlane MP returns as Minister for Industry having held this role during the last two terms of the Howard Government.  Mr Macfarlane’s experience and record of success will be invaluable as we seek to build more competitive industries across Australia.  The new Industry portfolio will include responsibility for energy and resources. The Hon Bob Baldwin MP will be Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry.

I regret the absence of Sophie Mirabella who was a champion for Australian industry, particularly manufacturers.

The Hon Kevin Andrews MP will be Minister for Social Services and be responsible for the largest area of expenditure and payments in the Budget.  The new department will also be responsible for settlement services, multicultural affairs and the administration of aged care.  Senator Mitch Fifield will be Assistant Minister for Social Services responsible for the development of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and aged care.  Senator Marise Payne will be Minister for Human Services.  Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells will be Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Services with special responsibility for multicultural affairs and settlement services.

The Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP as Minister for Communications will deliver a new business plan for the NBN so that we can deliver fast broadband sooner and at less cost.  Mr Paul Fletcher MP will be Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications.

The Hon Peter Dutton MP will be Minister for Health and Minister for Sport.  Senator Fiona Nash will be Assistant Minister for Health.  Responsibility for mental health will rest with Peter Dutton ensuring responsibility for this issue remains in Cabinet.

Small business employs almost one in two Australians and its stand-alone presence in Cabinet acknowledges its role in job creation. The Hon Bruce Billson MP is an evangelist for small business and will drive the Government’s small business agenda.

The Hon Andrew Robb AO MP, serving as Minister for Trade and Investment, will be Australia’s ambassador for jobs by expanding Australia’s participation in free trade agreements.

Senator the Hon David Johnston will be Minister for Defence and will drive the development of the Defence White Paper as well as overseeing the Coalition’s defence procurement programme.  Senator the Hon Michael Ronaldson will be the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC.   The Centenary of ANZAC will be a significant marker in our country’s history. Mr Stuart Robert MP will be Assistant Minister for Defence with responsibility for personnel matters.  Mr Darren Chester MP will be Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence.

The Hon Greg Hunt MP as Minister for the Environment will have responsibility for the abolition of the carbon tax, implementation of the Coalition’s Direct Action plan, the establishment of the Green Army and the creation of a one-stop-shop for environmental approvals.  Senator Simon Birmingham will be Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and have responsibility for water.

Mr Scott Morrison MP will be Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.  Senator Michaelia Cash will be Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.  This is a strong team to stop the boats. 

Recognising its key role in border protection, Customs will be in this portfolio.

Senator Cash will also be appointed as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women. 

As promised, the administration of indigenous affairs will move into the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.  Senator the Hon Nigel Scullion will be Minister for Indigenous Affairs.

Recognising the value of deregulation to improving Australia’s productivity, responsibility for driving the Government’s deregulation agenda will shift to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. 

Mr Josh Frydenberg MP and Mr Alan Tudge MP will be my Parliamentary Secretaries.

The Hon Bronwyn Bishop MP, with my support, is nominating for the role of Speaker.

The Hon Warren Entsch MP has agreed to chair a new Joint Parliamentary Committee on Northern Australia. Carefully developing our long-term plan for Northern Australia will be a priority of the new Coalition government.

The Hon Philip Ruddock MP has agreed to be Chief Government Whip.  I can think of no better person in the House to guide the 30 or so new Coalition members in their duties.  Ms Nola Marino MP and Mr Scott Buchholz MP have also agreed to be Whips. Mark Coulton is the Nationals’ Chief Whip.

The Senate Whips are elected by the Liberal and Nationals Senate Party Rooms.  The current Senate Whips are Senator Helen Kroger (Chief Government Whip), Senator David Bushby (Deputy Government Whip), Senator Chris Back (Deputy Government Whip) and Senator John Williams (Nationals Whip).

This is an experienced and talented team.  It will deliver results for the Australian people from day one. 

16 September 2013








DEPARTMENTAL SECRETARIES

As part of the Machinery of Government Changes agreed by the Governor-General the Honourable Quentin Bryce AC CVO this morning, Her Excellency has made a number of appointments of Secretaries.

Ms Lisa Paul PSM AO has been appointed as the Secretary of the Department of Education.  Ms Paul has been Secretary of the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and the Department of Education, Science and Training and brings a wealth of experience and knowledge to this new Department. 

Dr Paul Grimes PSM has been appointed as the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture.  Dr Grimes was formerly Secretary of the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities and has had a distinguished career at the State and Commonwealth levels in a number of Departments.

Ms Glenys Beauchamp PSM has been appointed as the Secretary of the Department of Industry.  Ms Beauchamp has been Secretary of the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sports.  She has had an extensive career in the Australian Public Service at senior levels with responsibility for a number of significant government programmes.

Two new Secretaries have been appointed.  Dr Gordon de Brouwer PSM has been appointed as the Secretary of the Department of the Environment and Ms RenĂ©e Leon PSM has been appointed as the Secretary of the Department of Employment.

Dr de Brouwer has most recently been an Associate Secretary in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet where he has had primary responsibility for advising on Australia’s participation in the G20 process.

Ms Leon has been a Deputy Secretary in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet where she headed the governance group.  She was previously Chief Executive of the ACT Department of Justice and Community Safety and has held a number of senior positions in the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department.

I take this opportunity to acknowledge three former Secretaries, Dr Don Russell, Mr Blair Comley PSM and Mr Andrew Metcalfe AO.   Each of these Secretaries has made a substantial contribution to public life in Australia and I wish them well for the future.

Dr Martin Parkinson PSM has advised the Treasurer that he will be standing down next year.  He has agreed to stay on to the middle of 2014.  The Government will be discussing a further appointment with him next year.

I look forward to working again with Australian Public Service.

18 September 2013




ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS




TAKE TWO





And a memory of simpler times

Made by The National Film Board 1957. Directed by Shan Benson. Enjoy:






Related Posts

. The truth about women. Why Abbott's Cabinet won't last

. Switching sides. Suddenly Coalition supporters feel good (fun graph)

. 2010. Who would be in my unity cabinet?


Read more >>

Monday, September 09, 2013

Stand by for the truth. It'll be the PBO document dump


Policy details the Coalition kept hidden during the campaign are set to become public in a document dump scheduled for October.

The Parliamentary Budget Office sent letters of request to all three major political groups during the campaign asking for a comprehensive list election commitments by 5 pm Friday.

The Office revealed Sunday that all three complied, Labor furnishing the names of 132 commitments, the Coalition 169, and the Greens 107.

The Office is now required to make its own assessment of whether the lists are accurate, and to release its account of what it believes was promised within 30 days of Saturday’s poll. The deadline falls on Monday October 7, just after the first week of parliamentary sittings.

It will also release its estimate the total effect of each set of commitments on the budget bottom line. The assessment will be the first not mediated by the parties themselves. The Coalition employed three analysts it said were independent who limited their comments to a one-page piece of paper saying they agreed with the Coalition's totals.

Parliamentary Budget Officer Phil Bowen confirmed to Fairfax Media on Sunday he would also release the detailed figuring and assumptions the Coalition had not...


Many have already been prepared for the Coalition by the Office but kept secret, the Coalition deciding to release only totals rather than the means by which they were arrived at.

As a result details such as the starting date of policies and the way they would be applied were kept secret from Labor during the campaign, encouraging it to make errors such as claiming the Coalition’s policy was to cut 20,000 public service positions rather than 12,000.

The document dump will for the first time allow the public and Labor to see the details of the policies the Abbott government went to the people on.

The requirement for a post-election review was inserted into the Parliamentary Budget Office Act by Treasurer Wayne Swan in order to ensure “political parties are straight with the Australian people before the election”.

“They will be caught out afterwards if they are not,” he said in March.

In The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age













Related Posts

. Costings. Why the Coalition has gotten away with it, so far

. Dodgy costings. It'll be hunt and destroy

. Costings. Swan chucks Hockey a time bomb

Read more >>

Monday, July 01, 2013

They want to see your phone and internet records. Here's what they do


Did you know that the Australian government accesses someone's phone or internet records on average once every two minutes, every day,  every hour of the year?

The Global Mail reports:

"It happens all the time – roughly 800 times a day, on last year’s records.

Somewhere in Australia, a government bureaucrat – no-one especially senior; say, a Centrelink agent – fills in a form, gets a signature from someone else in the department, and becomes authorised to check out a member of the public’s phone records (which numbers that person has called, how long they spoke, and where they were when they placed the call), and then their email history (who they’ve emailed, and when, and the IP addresses used).

No warrant required, no notice given. It’s all legal – and has been happening since 2007.

In fact it happened more than 300,000 times in 2011-12. It may have happened to you – and in most cases, you wouldn’t know."



But what does one of the requests look like?

The NewYorker provides a clue.

The US dolcument is so extraordinary that I have published it as a pdf below.

I find it chilling. Especially the bit about the phone company admitting to no-one it has betrayed its customers:









Related Posts

. How to rob a bank. Ask nicely

. You use Facebook?

. How on earth did the Medicare card nearly morph into a universal national ID card?

Read more >>

Friday, May 17, 2013

Abbott's shame. Long may this letter be remembered






Read more >>

Sunday, January 27, 2013

It's gone. No Coalition commitment to deliver a surplus within 12 months

Halleluiah.

Instead the Coalition will "get the budget back under control, cut waste and start reducing debt"

Much better.


Read all about it:





Related Posts

. What? No surplus? The morning after

. Lib costings debacle - "auditors" fined

. Hockey has done it, so he says - savings found


Read more >>

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Revealed - the truth about Newstart they don't want you to hear:



Shocking previously-unpublished research commissioned for the government’s review of pensions finds one in ten Australians on the dole are unable get a substantial meal each day, one in eight are unable to buy prescribed medicines, and one in twenty cannot heat their homes.

Commissioned by the department of families, housing, community services and indigenous affairs for the 2008 Harmer Review of Pensions conducted by the then head of the department Jeff Harmer it finds that aged pensioners are much better off than unemployed Australians on Newstart.

Whereas 1.4 per cent of aged pensioners surveyed were unable to get medical treatment if needed, among Australians on Newstart the proportion was 22 per cent. Whereas only 0.7 per cent of aged pensioners were unable to get a substantial meal at least once a day among Australians on Newstart the proportion was 10.3 per cent.

Only 2.1 per cent of pensioners were unable to buy the medicines prescribed for them by doctors. Among unemployed Australians on Newstart the proportion was 16.7 per cent.

Although listed as a reference in Dr Harmer’s report the research itself has never been published, either by the department that commissioned it or by the researchers themselves, Peter Saunders and Melissa Wong from the Social Policy Research Centre at the University of NSW...

Asked by the department to examine the adequacy of the payments “to different groups, including aged pensioners” the research compares what it calls deprivation rates among seven groups, including low-wage workers, self-funded retirees, age pensioners and Australians on Newstart. It finds that on almost every criteria self-funded retirees are the best off and Australians on Newstart the worst off.

So well-off does the research find self-funded retirees that on most of the criteria they have no deprivation at all. An exception is dental care where 2.1 per cent say they can’t get access to treatment if needed. By contrast 13.7 per cent of age pensioners can’t get access to dental treatment if needed and 44.7 per cent of Australians on Newstart.

The research finds that “although the results do not necessarily imply anything about whether or not the age pension is adequate at current levels, it does appear to be the case that the age pension is more adequate than the existing payments made to people with a disability, parenting payments, and those whose eligibility for income support is a consequence of unemployment”.

Assisted by the previously unseen report the Harmer Review found pension rates should continue to be adjusted by average male earnings or the cost of living, whichever was the larger. It made no finding about Newstart - found to be far less adequate - because Newstart was outside of its terms of reference.

The $35 per day Newstart allowance continues to be adjusted by the much lower consumer price index. The most recent increases in March gave an extra $3.35 per week to pensioners but just $1.45 per week to NewStart recipients.

In today's Sydney Morning Herald and Age



Have fun, play with this Sydney Morning Herald interactive graphic:






Deprivation Draft Report Prepared for FaCSIA November 2008



Related Posts

. Newstart is so low we don't think we could live on it

. Newstart won't even pay the rent

. How bad are Australia's unemployment benefits? Bad and getting worse.


Read more >>

Thursday, August 09, 2012

Buzzword Beach Ball: How they're brainstorming the NBN


WORKSHOPPING THE NBN

. Each session 3½ hours per department

. Warm-up energiser games including “Buzzword Beach Ball” and “Human Knot”

. “Provocative questions” including “What would we do if this organisation was run by Cate Blanchett?” and “What would Kerry Packer do in our situation?”

. Case studies “to get the juices flowing”

. An “ideas generation tree” to structure thinking

. An “ideas prioritisation matrix” in which post-it notes are stuck on different parts of a white board

. Subsequent assessment using McKinsey's “nine-box framework”

Using the NBN to improve government service delivery, a practical guide for government agencies. Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy



“What would Kerry Packer do?”

That’s one of a series of “provocative” questions being asked of public servants nationwide at a series of workshops aimed at “harvesting ideas” about how to get the best out of the national broadband network. Others ask what Apple would do, what Cate Blanchett would do and the approach they would adopt if they were part of the AFL.

The glossy 144-page “practical guide for government agencies” prepared by the department of broadband, communications and the digital economy includes an “ideas generation tree” and “idea prioritisation matrix” for helping public servants work out which parts of their jobs could be better done using the NBN.

The first step is a three-and a-half-hour workshop for each department beginning with an “energiser game” to get participants “excited and involved”. Among the games are “Buzzword Beach Ball” in which public servants stand in a circle and throw around an inflatable beach ball shouting out a pieces of jargon. The aim is to “bond over a shared hatred of corporate jargon”. Another game is is “Human Knot” in which public servants stand in a circle and join hands randomly before attempting to untie the knot without letting go of hands. “Believe it or not, this can be done,” the NBN guide says. It warns facilitators the games sometimes fail when they are introduced apologetically. “If we open up a game with sufficient confidence, participants will usually trust that there is a point to be made,” it says.

Organisers are asked to provide one flip-chart or white board per six participants and half a post-it note pad per person along with pens and “ample” supplies of food, coffee and water... Ideas developed in the sessions will be tested by a four-box matrix that will ask who they will help, how they will help, what they will cost, and what risks they will run. They will later be assessed using a “nine-box framework” developed by McKinsey and Co.

The guide says each workshop should take about one month to prepare and should be run annually.

In today's Canberra Times







Using the NBN to Improve Government Service Delivery




Related Posts

. 2007: Revealed, Labor's $30 billion broadband furphy

. Loony tunes. The quickly-assembled carbon price guide

. The circular bike track. Our hastily-assembled stimulus program


Read more >>

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Hold on to your hats. Hockey takes us through the budget fiddles

It's not pretty.

From Wednesday's National Press Club address:

"The Treasurer is projecting an extraordinary drop in spending in just one year, which happens to be the year he promises a surplus:





"A large chunk of this spending pause is achieved by artificially bringing forward spending into the current financial year which finishes on June 30. Of course the taxpayer money will still be spent…it is just an accounting trick to cook the books.

We already know that the Government is taking a novel approach to compensation for injury by paying $1.5 billion to people this year before the carbon tax actually starts on 1 July.Although if you believe their ads it has nothing to do with the carbon tax….they just want to believe their ads it has nothing to do with the carbon tax….they just want to give you money.






"We also know that the Coal Sector Jobs Package seems to save jobs this year, give up on jobs next year but then it has a change of heart and starts saving jobs the year after and in
subsequent years.






It seems as though nation building also takes a holiday in 2013 as the Government brings forward $1.3 billion of spending a few months so it does not appear in next year’s accounts.





"And of course there seems to be just one year, the first surplus year, when we don’t have to spend money on clean energy, but every other year we need to spend over $1 billion.





"But wait there is more. By paying Local Councils $1.1 billion in grants just a few weeks earlier, the Government is able to further artificially reduce expenditure next financial year.

Other money shuffles such as the panicked changes to the Schoolkids cash splash have increased expenditure this year and artificially reduced expenditure next year.

Additionally the Government is relying on a surge in revenue in its surplus year. They expect to collect an extra $39 billion in revenue in the next twelve months and this magic carpet will take them from a $44 billion deficit to a $1.5 billion surplus.






"As you can see revenue next year is also artificially inflated with special one off dividends such as those from EFIC and the Reinsurance Pool Corporation.

In addition to these fiddles the Government is pushing expenditure out into future years. It is a burden we will have to deal with.

The “delay” in the Joint Strike Fighter program along with other adjustments to the Defence
capital equipment program delivers savings over the four years of $5.5 billion. But it still
must eventually be paid.

Then there is the pipeline of big new spending commitments but with only nominal funding
provided.
"


Related Posts

. What to look for in Budget 2012. Pain, deception...

. Budget 2012-13: The surplus is just the start

. Parkinson's Paradox: The tight budget that's not economically tight


Read more >>

Tuesday, May 01, 2012

An early Clive Palmer election campaign

As a student he stood for the University of Queensland Senate in 1974.

Here's his pitch:





From Stan Correy who prepared this year's forensic ABC Background Briefing program on Clive's backstory.


Read more >>

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Want $8 billion in savings? Attack welfare for the well-off

Abolishing the Education Tax Rebate, the Medial Expenses Tax Offset and and tax rebates for private health insurance “extras” are among $8 billion of budget savings to be offered to the Treasurer today to help him make his budget surplus.

The Australian Council of Social Service says the list should also appeal to the Coalition, whose Treasury spokesman Joe Hockey has spoken out against tax concessions for trusts and the culture of entitlement.

“We do not think the budget surplus is a desirable goal in itself, but the push for a surplus does provide the opportunity to focus on measures that improve fairness,” said ACOSS chief executive Cassandra Goldie.

The $8 billion list, in a document entitled Waste not, want not: Making room in the Budget for essential servicesattacks a culture of entitlement that has grown up around health services.

ACOSS would remove from the private health insurance rebate cover for dental, optometry , physiotherapy and chiropractic services, saving $1.1 billion per year. It says high income owners are far more likely to insure for these treatments and claim the rebate. It would abolish the Extended Medicare Safety Net, most of which it says go to the top 20 per cent of families living in Australia’s wealthiest areas, saving $500,000 million...

It would save another $1 billion per year scrapping the Education Tax Rebate promised in the election that swept Kevin Rudd to power in 2007 and extended by Julia Gillard during the 2010 election campaign. Around $300 million would be saved ending concessional taatment for so-called golden handshake redundancy payments. Another $1.3 billion would be saved restricting the senior Australians tax offsets to pensioners. Tighter tax treatment of family trusts would save a further $1 billion.

“It’s a bipartisan list. Both sides have introduced measures on it and both sides say they oppose a culture of entitlement. It won’t make everyone happy but if it is explained well it can get support and help fund new spending on things we do need, such as national disability insurance,” said Dr Goldie.


Waste Not Want Not_ACOSS



THE END OF THE AGE OF ENTITLEMENT

JOE HOCKEY ADDRESS TO THE INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

17 APRlL 2012, LONDON

Introduction

I wish to thank my friends at the Institute of Economic Affairs for the opportunity to discuss an issue that has been the source of much debate in this forum for sometime….that is, the end of an era of popular universal entitlement.

There is nothing much new in the debate other than the fact that action has now been forced on governments as a result of the recent financial crisis. Years of warnings have been ignored but the reality can no longer be avoided.

Despite an ageing population and a higher standard of living than that enjoyed by our children, western democracies in particular have been reluctant to wind back universal access to payments and entitlements from the state.

As we have already witnessed, it is not popular to take entitlements away from millions of voters in countries with frequent elections.

It is ironic that the entitlement system seems to be most obvious and prevalent in some of the most democratic societies. Most undemocratic nations are simply unable to afford the largesse of universal entitlement systems.

So, ultimately the fiscal impact of popular programs must be brought to account no matter what the political values of the government are or how popular a spending program may be.

Let me put it to you this way: The Age of Entitlement is over.

We should not take this as cause for despair. It is our market based economies which have forced this change on unwilling participants.

What we have seen is that the market is mandating policy changes that common sense and years of lectures from small government advocates have failed to achieve.

And we have subsequently witnessed over the last twelve months a raging battle. This has been a battle between the fiscal reality of paying for what you spend, set against the expectation of majority public opinion that each generation will receive the same or increased support from the state than their forebears.

The entitlements bestowed on tens of millions of people by successive governments, fuelled by short-term electoral cycles and the politics of outbidding your opponents is, in essence, undermining our ability to ensure democracy, fair representation and economic sustainability for future generations.

Perhaps we could re-apply noted British philosopher, AC Grayling’s words on liberty to our debate by declaring that we may record that the age of entitlement might have passed its best point, “after so brief a period of flourishing…”

And flourish it did.

Government spending on a range of social programs including education, health, housing, subsidised transport, social safety nets and retirement benefits has reached extraordinary levels as a percentage of GDP.

However an inadequate level of revenue has forced nations into levels of indebtedness that, in an age of slowing growth and ageing population, are simply unsustainable.

The social contract between government and its citizens needs to be urgently and significantly redefined. The reality is that we cannot have greater government services and more government involvement in our lives coupled with significantly lower taxation.

As a community we need to redefine the responsibility of government and its citizens to provide for themselves, both during their working lives and into retirement.

As part of this process, we must emphasise that government spending should be funded from revenue rather than by borrowing from future generations in whatever form that may take.

The Problem

Entitlement is a concept that corrodes the very heart of the process of free enterprise that drives our economies.

All of us would agree that there are some basic community entitlements. For generations we have all sought to define those basic rights.

For example, in the United States constitution the founding fathers determined that citizens are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

You will remember it was Margaret Thatcher who interpreted community entitlements as the right for our children to “grow tall and some taller than others if they have the ability in them to do so”.1

This broader and timeless conservative definition of our end game lays down some foundations for the role of government.

Equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome is my preferred model for contemporary society.

Thankfully the modern capitalist economy is centred around the satisfaction of personal wants and needs. Commercial transactions are at the core of the system. And it is a simple and proven formula for willing buyers to engage with willing sellers. If we want a product or service we go and buy it with the dividend from the fruits of our own labour. The producer is happy and the customer is satisfied.

The problem arises however when there is a belief that one person has a right to a good or service that someone else will pay for. It is this sense of entitlement that afflicts not only individuals but also entire societies. And governments are to blame for portraying taxpayer’s money as something removed from the labour of another person.

In our collective effort to win votes, political leaders deliberately portray a new spending commitment as if it is coming out of their own personal bank account. Political leaders rarely thank taxpayers for their funding of the policy.

To pay for all these good policy initiatives, governments have taken the easy option and borrowed money from that mysterious and amorphous group defined as “bondholders”.

We all know this is simply a case of borrowing money from the taxpayers of tomorrow for spending initiatives of today. Of course I say with irony, it gets even better when some governments borrow more money to pay the interest on current debt so existing taxpayers and voters will never notice the pain. This is the public sector equivalent of those much maligned ponzi schemes.

The sovereign debt problems we are seeing in Europe and the US today are the outcome of countries wanting a lifestyle they cannot afford but are quite happy to borrow from others to pay for.

Of course in recent months in some countries in Europe the “borrowings” have turned into permanent transfers of wealth as those countries have become unable – or unwilling – to repay the loans.

Richer countries are either writing off the debt of poorer countries or they are subsidising the debt repayments with sophisticated transfer payments.

As a parent I want to give my children everything they wish for.

As a democratically elected legislator I want to give my constituents everything they wish for.

The hardest task in life is to say NO to someone you care about.

So perhaps what we are witnessing is a chronic failure of the democratic process.

A weak government tends to give its citizens everything they wish for. A strong government has the will to say NO!

Being profligate is easy and politically popular in the short term, particularly when the political cost of raising sufficient revenue is avoided by resorting to debt.

But painless revenue makes for reckless spending.

Whether it is defence, law and order, income support, social programs and so on, the outcome is the same. Eventually the piper has to be paid.

Since World War 2 western communities have enjoyed prosperity that has exceeded all expectations. This has been fuelled by innovation, materialism, globalisation, free trade and debt.

Of course these are not malevolent developments. Rather they are the lauded natural outcomes of a free and successful society.

Moreover these initiatives, which have fuelled a massive improvement in global economic productivity, have driven the age of prosperity. Arguably this has delivered the most dramatic improvement in the material quality of life since the beginning of humanity.

In effect the rapid rise in private prosperity has been matched with demands for an equal improvement in state provided prosperity.

This is understandable. We all want the best available health care, the best education, the best pharmaceuticals and so on.

The difference is that the handbrake on private demand is income.

Unless a consumer can borrow money, it is their income and wealth which determines whether they can buy a new television or renovate the family home.

But for governments with seemingly unlimited capacity to borrow money, that handbrake on expenditure is not real.

While the Keynesian model of Government-led stimulus during the inevitable downturns in the economic cycle is well documented, governments who have turned on the fiscal tap seem completely incapable of turning it off when the cycle turns upwards.

So we have witnessed a continual over-commitment in many countries, funded by the lure of cheap and easily obtainable debt.

It is a problem which is not new. We might think by now we would have learnt the lessons. But clearly that is not the case.

A Tale of Two Systems

In September last year I travelled to Hong Kong – a city of 7 million2 - which sits at the edge of the Pearl River Delta - home to over 100 million additional residents. As a Special Administrative Region, Hong Kong is now serving as a conduit between China and its global trading partners, particularly those with business directly to the north.

So even though its destiny has changed, Hong Kong continues to maintain its own currency, laws and Parliament but is now totally wed at the hip to Beijing.

Without a social safety net, Hong Kong offers its citizens a top personal income tax rate of 17% and corporate tax rates of 16.5%. Unemployment is a low 3.4%3, inflation 4.7%4 and the growth rate still respectable at over 4%5. Government debt is moderate6 and although there is still poverty, the family unit is very much intact and social welfare is largely unknown.

The system there is that you work hard, your parents look after the kids, you look after your grandkids and you save as you work for 40 years to fund your retirement. The society is focused on making sure people can look after themselves well into old age.

The concept of filial piety, from the Confucian classic Xiao Jing, is thriving today right across Asia. It is also the very best and most enduring guide for community and social infrastructure.

The Hong Kong experience is not unusual in Asia. Characteristics such as low inflation, low unemployment, modest government debt, minimal unfunded benefits and entitlements, and significant growth are powering a whole range of emerging markets and developing an Asian middle class that will grow to some two and a half billion people by 20307.

The sense of government entitlement in these countries is low. You get what you work for. Your tax payments are not excessive and there is an enormous incentive to work harder and earn more if you want to.

By western standards this highly constrained public safety net may, at times, seem brutal. But it works and it is financially sustainable.

Contrast this with what we find in Europe, the UK and the USA.

All of them have enormous entitlement systems spanning education, health, income support, retirement benefits, unemployment benefits and so on. Some countries are more generous than others and in many instances the recipients of the largest amount of unfunded entitlements are former employees of the Government.

In all these areas people are enjoying benefits which are not paid for by them, but paid for by someone else – either the taxes of those who are working and producing income, or future generations who are going to be left to pay the debt used to pay for these services.

Despite tax rates much higher than in Hong Kong, government revenue in these economies still falls well short of meeting current government spending initiatives.

The difference is made up by the public sector borrowing money. And more often than not we are borrowing money from people such as the citizens of Hong Kong.

You would have to say that this is a flawed formula. For western democracies the party is over.

Our most deeply exposed western economies can no longer continue to accumulate debt without constraint. The ongoing credit crisis in Europe seems a very long way from resolution. Ultimately, spending on entitlements becomes a structural problem for fiscal policy.

In the United States for example, the excess of government expenditure over receipts is enormous. The Government has $15 trillion of Federal gross debt and it’s going up by $1.5 trillion a year because expenditure is $6.2 trillion a year and receipts $4.8 trillion8. Obviously with interest rates at near zero levels the cost of debt is limited but sooner or later it must end in tears.

So why is it that western nations are so deeply indebted and so tragically unfunded when it comes to meeting their future obligations in the face of an ageing demographic and longer life expectancies?

Both sides of the western political spectrum are to blame.

As the electoral pendulum has swung between socialist and conservative sides of politics, the socialist governments, often winning electoral success thanks to the funding from unions, have created a huge array of entitlements for selected classes of individuals, particularly and ironically employees of government and members of unions.

These entitlements have now begun to hang like a millstone around the neck of governments, mortgaging the economic future of many Western nations and their enterprises for generations to come.

I will give you a classic example. In Boston USA, there’s a certain former police captain who retired aged 55 some 20 years ago after a 32 year career on the force. During that period he managed to contribute some $73,000 to his defined benefit pension plan, a plan which gives you a percentage of your salary for life when you retire. On retirement he started receiving 100% of his retirement salary, namely $55,000.

He is now 75, which means he has collected some $1.1 million in benefits. And it looks like he’ll live until he’s at least 90 or even older, so that’s almost another $1.0 million over 15 years. It’s more than he earned in 32 years and he contributed just $73,000 to help pay for it. Either taxpayers pay the bill or the government has to borrow to pay for the entitlement.

When the electoral pendulum swings, conservative governments have come in promising to fix the problem but in most instances have just trimmed around the edges without addressing the real problem of the growing entitlement burden.

And the greatest Catch 22 of modern democratic politics is that socialist governments are blindly wedded to increases in expenditure while conservative governments are blindly wedded to not increasing taxes. So once the cycle of economic growth comes to its inevitable end, the problem is exacerbated.

Perhaps the real problem is the exuberant excesses of politicians who do not seem to understand or care about the fact that like a household, a nation needs to balance its budget over time and needs to make sure it can cover its future commitments.

This has already reached dangerous levels with some OECD countries like France spending close to 30% of their GDP on public social expenditure.

Other countries get by with much less. Korea only spends 10% of GDP on public social expenditure with Australia at 16% of GDP, the USA at 20% and the United Kingdom at 23%.9

The bottom line is that our communities need to make a tough decision. We cannot choose both higher entitlements and lower taxes. We must make a decision one way or the other. We can take more and more of our citizen’s money and spend it for them, or we can take less of it and rationalise government services.

But it is a decision that must be made …and soon.

This challenge is compounding in scale as an ageing population in many industrialised countries is making even further demands on the entitlement system.

Europe for example, has the highest proportion of over 60s of any region in the world. And while 22% of the population in Europe is currently over 60, this number is forecast to rise to 35% by 2050.

Plans for the future of Europe have assumed strong economic growth, but it is highly uncertain how growth will be achieved as the fiscal burden associated with rising health and aged care costs, as well as a generous pension scheme, continues to grow.

According to a study commissioned by the European Central Bank10, 19 EU countries had almost 30 trillion Euros of unfunded entitlement obligations for their existing populations. Of this 30 trillion Euros, France has liabilities of 6.7 trillion and Germany 7.6 trillion.

These liabilities will continue to grow without significant reform. And, by the way, I don’t see how a debate in France about lowering the retirement age from 62 to 60 will help address these challenges.

A lower level of entitlement means countries are free to allow business and individuals to be successful. It reduces taxation, meaning individuals spend less of their time working for the state, and more of their time working for themselves and their family.

An economy that impedes individual ambition - whether through higher taxation, the lack of opportunity in employment, or restricted social mobility - is one that enforces the barriers of class, rather than reduces them.

Governments should ensure that the actions they take will leave their citizens better off because, naturally, that will reduce the desire for ‘entitlements’. The role of government must be to help people to the starting line, while accepting that some will then run faster than others.

Everyone should know that they grow up in a country where it is possible, through hard work and diligence, to achieve their dreams.

Naturally the Americans call this the American Dream, but it is similarly played out across the globe, including in emerging economies in Asia.

The Australian Experience

As the child of a father who came to Australia in 1948 as a refugee from Palestine and built himself into a successful businessman, I know that being successful in Australia is not the product of belonging to rich and prosperous families, but rather is the result of hard work and diligence.

In fact those stories are most often repeated in countries without extreme interventionist governments. For example, over 80 per cent of the millionaires in the United States are the first generation in their family to be millionaires.

But Australia has had its fair share of irresponsible governments. In 1996 the incoming conservative government inherited a budget in a weakened state. The previous Labor administration had racked up a succession of budget deficits and $96bn of net debt, about 17% of GDP. (I know that figure is not large by the current experience of most countries in Europe, but trust me, the repayment task was a challenge.)

It took nine years of budget surpluses and asset sales to repay the debt. That is three election cycles in Australia.

It took another two years of hard fiscal rectitude to build up a stock of net assets equivalent to 4% of GDP. In total that is a long period of sustained fiscal austerity.

Australia has not completely avoided the problems of other western democracies because it still has a lot of spending by government which many voters see as their entitlement.

However, over the years there have been a number of key decisions to reduce spending to manageable levels.

Australia has sought to reduce the burden on government of providing aged pensions through a compulsory system of savings for retirement. Retirees must rely first on the benefits they have accumulated rather than on government income support. And retirement benefits to government employees and politicians are no longer provided on a defined benefit basis but on a contributions basis so they only get back the principal and earnings on what they have put in.

The government is also gradually raising the age at which government benefits can be accessed, from 60 to 67 for women and from 65 to 67 for men from 1 July 2023.

Most importantly, the net government assets of $45 billion arduously built up by the previous conservative government were set aside into a Future Fund. The funds cannot be touched by the government for everyday expenditure. Rather, the fund can only be accessed to pay for the previously unfunded entitlements of federal public servants so as to reduce the burden on taxpayers.

That was an initiative of great foresight. It is, if you like, Australia’s sovereign wealth fund with the explicit purpose of boosting the sustainability of the budget through time.

The Road Back

So where do we go from here?

There is really only one solution in the long term, and that is for countries to live within their means.

We must rebuild fiscal discipline. Budget surpluses must be restored, ideally until the debt is repaid.

This can only be achieved by cutting spending or by raising taxes. And given the general acceptance that the increased drag from higher taxes would compromise economic growth, the clear mandate is to lower expenditure.

This is lovely rhetoric but to actually do it needs some very harsh political and social decisions.

To be bold, I have some suggestions.

The first is that people need to work longer before they access retirement benefits. When the age pension was introduced in Australia at age 65, life expectancy was 55. Today life expectancy is in the 80’s.

So you can understand how I was shocked to hear that one of the policy promises of one of the main French Presidential Election candidates, François Hollande, is to bring the official retirement age back down to 60 from 62.

Second, there have to be universal compulsory retirement schemes into which employees and employers must contribute so that after a man or woman has worked for 40 or more years they have set aside an amount that can provide them with a reasonable income for a further 15-20 years at least.

Defined benefit schemes need to be phased out worldwide, including in Australia, whether they are for public servants or private sector employees. In addition, all government funded pensions and other such payments must be means tested so that people who do not need them do not get them.

Third, there needs to be clear thinking about which services should be provided by governments and whether government funded services should be entirely free or have some affordable co payment. Many will argue that certain government services should be free and universal but the problem with any free good is that it will be overconsumed and underappreciated.

For example, in Australia, health services are partly funded through compulsory levies, paid either to the government or to private health insurers.

Across the Western world we have saddled our nations and our children with a debt burden that is simply unsustainable. It is time for strong political and economic leadership to clean up this mess properly, not with a series of band aids and political spin but with genuine economic and social reform.

The age of unlimited and unfunded entitlement to government services and income support is over. It’s as over in Greece as it is in Italy, in Spain, and in the USA.

There also needs to be a rethinking of government borrowing. Some might argue that some low level of debt is not a bad thing. I believe that is a dangerous proposition. Once some level of debt is accepted it becomes too tempting to opt for just a little more. Pretty soon a little debt becomes a big problem.

Also, there is a significant cost to servicing debt. Even in Australia, where net debt as a percentage of GDP is lower than in Europe, interest costs on net debt are approaching $7 billion a year. That is enough to build 7 new teaching hospitals every year.

The message is that every dollar of debt has an opportunity cost.

Another aspect of the problem is that credit is no longer easily accessible for the private sector or the public sector.

And the credit market no longer automatically favours the public sector. Ironically more and more sovereigns are seen as a greater credit risk than many international companies. I would think the experience of the past few years has been something of a reality check. Lenders now know that even today advanced western economies can default on their debts.

In today’s global financial system it is the financial markets, both domestic and international, which impose fiscal discipline on countries. A country which is viewed as approaching its safe limit for debt will find it increasingly difficult to borrow additional funds at an affordable rate. Eventually the capital markets will close.

We are now in an era where lenders are much more wary about credit risk. I view this as a healthy development.

Lenders have a more active role to play in policing public policy and ensuring that countries do not exceed their capacity to service and repay debt.

This is playing out most dramatically in Europe where the European Commission and the European Central Bank are either directly or indirectly heavily influencing public policy in Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal to name a few.

It is also worth noting that the system of regulation of banks and other deposit taking institutions is artificially boosting demand for sovereign credits with mandated liquidity requirements generally emphasising a prominent role for government securities.

Governments have been too prepared to exploit the resultant lower borrowing costs.

And whilst securities issued by sovereigns have traditionally been viewed as the safest and most liquid assets, I am not sure that it is still the view of investors in Europe today.

Concluding Comments

The road back to fiscal sustainability will not be easy.

It will involve reducing the provision of so called “free” government services to those who feel they are entitled to receive them.

It will involve reducing government spending to be lower than government revenue for a long time.

It is likely to result in a lowering of the standard of living for whole societies as they learn to live within their means.

The political challenge will be to convince the electorate of the need for fiscal pain and to ensure that the burden is equally shared.

Already in the UK and parts of Europe we have seen the social unrest that can result when fiscal austerity bites.

But the alternative is unthinkable.

The Western world cannot continue on its current path of borrowing to fund its excessive lifestyle. The problem of fiscal sustainability will only get worse.

Eventually lenders will cry enough is enough and turn off the credit tap. And when that happens the economic, financial, social and political dislocations are likely to be catastrophic.

The Western world is at the most important economic cross road in its history - Governments must accept their responsibilities to fiscal discipline and the prudent use of their citizens hard earned monies, or they need to accept that the demise of western economies will be forced upon them in a dramatic, unpredictable and possibly violent way.

Adam Smith’s free hand is perfectly capable of forming a fist to punish nations who ignore the fundamental rules. Unfortunately I think Adam’s down at the gym right now and in training for one almighty whack.

Restoring fiscal credibility will be hard. But it is essential we learn to live within our means.

The Age of Entitlement should never have been allowed to become a fiscal nightmare. But now that it has, Governments around the world must reign in their excesses and learn to live within their means. All of our futures depend on it.


[1] Speech to the Institute of Socio Economic Studies “Let Our Children Grow Tall” September 15, 1975

[2] World Bank

[3] February 2012

[4] ibid

[5] GDP year to Q3 2011

[6]Gross debt of 33.8% GDP in 2011, IMF World Economic Outlook Database, September 2011

[7] Can the Asian Middle Class Come of Age?, Homi Kharas, The Brookings Institution, 12 June 2011

[8] IMF, World Economic Outlook, September 2011

[9] OECD Social Expenditure Database, estimates for 2012

[10] Pension obligations of government employer pension schemes and social security pension schemes established in EU countries, Final Report, European Central Bank, January 2009




Related Posts

. What to look for in Budget 2012. Pain, deception...

. National Disability Insurance. Labor is poised for greatness

. Newstart is so low we don't think we could live on it



Read more >>

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

The Coalition's cheat sheet. What to say about carbon tax

Leonore Taylor has the background.

34 pages. Here's what they have to say:

Coalition Carbon Tax Talking Points


Related Posts

. The Coalition plans to install 273 solar panels per day. Really.

. Malcolm's speech: "If Margaret Thatcher took climate change seriously..."

. What to say about Craig Thomson. Here's the cheat sheet:


Read more >>